It's the Fans' Fault, Especially Patriots' Fans

[riboflav]

Bruce Allen linked to this article on his blog today. It has quite a few revealing quotes from Boston sports media on why the media culture in Boston sucks. The thesis seems to be the fans suck, especially Patriots' fans, and this turns into a cyclical effect whereby the fans suck, so the media sucks, and then that makes the fans suck more. It's up to Bert Breer to educate us (no, seriously).
 
http://clnsradio.com/magazine/sports-news/item/11504-the-boston-sports-media-in-the-information-age-and-tamin.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

 
he Arbella Early Edition, like many other early-primetime sports telecasts on major networks throughout the country, is a show which is almost entirely opinion-oriented.
Why? Because that’s what drives people to their remote controls and couches.  Tanguay points to the sky-high ratings for the show as proof.

Sky high?
 
I haven't seen local sports ratings since the Globe stopped publishing them a few years ago, but I'd be very surprised if this show gets much in the way of ratings

 

[Reverend]

I kinda wonder if we should really even be entertaining this double meta bullshit.
 
My first inclination when I saw the thread title was to lock it without reading it. I didn't, but I think it's worth mentioning--this bs just feeds the beast and the beast sets up new and more meta iterations to consume more and more.
 
Just don't look.

 

[The Talented Allen Ripley]

Tanguay is the article's prime source.
 
Let that sink in for a moment before proceeding.

 

[NickEsasky]

Just don't look.

 
Don't wwwwwattttchhhhh the monsterrrrrs. 

 

[mandro ramtinez]

I am dumber for having read even half that column and I award the writer no points.  Bruce Allen should have eviscerated that column once he decided to link to it.  He's usually the voice of reason and giving the link without debunking the utter nonsense inside seems like an abdication of his role.
 
My favorite line was:
 
"However, this isn’t just an issue of ethics and principles, but one of national security.
Ask yourself this: What if this occurred in other far more important aspects of our daily lives."

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

The media has this backwards, as usual.
 
The media hates BB, has hated him from day 1, because of his refusal to give them anything good when they ask squishy questions. The doubly hate him because Borges, Cafardo and friends savagely ripped him for making numerous personnel decisions (staying with Brady when Bledsoe was healthy, trading Bledsoe to Buffalo, cutting Milloy, trading Seymour, etc) they disagreed with that turned out to be 100% the right moves, making the media look bad.
 
And since the columnists have been ripping on BB from day 1 due to personal animosity, and have consistently been wrong about his decisions, Pats fans (who might have noticed that the team is pretty good) naturally are going to call the writers a bunch of shitheads for trashing BB all the time. And thus begins the circle of life.
 
The claim "Pats fans don't tolerate criticism!" is complete bullshit when you realize that that attitude stems from both the insane success of the club AND years of Borges and his ilk being wrong about everything.
 
BTW, the beat guys usually do OK with BB. Curran, Volin and pals don't go down this road. It's the columnists who get their knickers in a twist.

 

[TheoShmeo]

I agree with SJH fully on this.
 
I posted this a long time ago but I think it bears repeating here that Borges' animosity toward BB goes even deeper than what is described above.
 
Years ago I engaged in a long back and forth with Borges about BB by e-mail.  Among the topics we discussed was the basis for his obvious and deep seated animosity.  In short, he claimed that Bill is a bad person and that, specifically, Bill lobbied for the Patriots HC position while Carroll still had the job.  That was his Exhibit A beef with Belichick, though he claimed there were plenty other examples of bad behavior (without specifying them).
 
I have no idea if Borges is right about that.  I suspect he is not.  My point is not so much the substance of the allegation but rather that Ronny essentially admitted that he was writing with an edge about the HC for reasons that went well beyond coaching and personnel decisions.
 
And no, I do not mean "Ronny" as a term of endearment.  In addition to his obviously agenda laden columns, he was unnecessarily aggressive though often candid in our e-mail exchanges, which have pretty much ceased in recent years.

 

[mandro ramtinez]

I have no idea if Borges is right about that.  I suspect he is not.  

If Borges is right, it's only because he copied the information from somebody else.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Borges also admitted later on the radio that he considered himself close to Bledsoe (and said Bledsoe asked him for advice multiple times in the 2001 season) and was very, very angry that Brady remained the starter in 2001 when Bledsoe had recovered from his injury. His column about this decision, published on Nov. 22, 2001, should be bronzed for all eternity.
 
Borges is a pretty horrid person himself (plagiarist, liar, got into a physical confrontation with a disabled writer at a boxing presser), so he's hardly one to cast stones.

 

[ifmanis5]

That was an excellent post from SJH.
Columnists do it all the time, projecting their own grudges and frustrations on to the fans. Stop throwing us under your bus of hurt feelings and sour grapes.
 
Reminded me of how the music press used to write about Lou Reed. He was a total dick to them so they'd always take a cheap shot at him when they could or say how the fans didn't like his act. But I never met him, so why drag me into your grudges?

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I vaguely know a guy who went to the Pats' SB in Houston. On the way back from the game this guy happened to get the seat on the plane next to Cafardo, who was covering the Pats beat at the time. Cafardo apparently spent the whole plane ride back bitching that Belichick ordered a squib kickoff after scoring at the end of the first half instead of kicking it deep, which allowed the Panthers to kick a FG as the half expired, making it 14-10. I mean, apparently he bitched about that the whole flight to Boston. Never mind that the Pats had just won the fucking Super Bowl, it was more important to Cafardo that Belichick had maybe made a mistake, even if the team wound up champions.
 
That's the mentality we're dealing with here.

 

[TheoShmeo]

Dan Shaughnessy has been suggesting for the last few weeks that Larry Lucchino's power has been diminished and that Mike Gordon's role has increased.  When he first made the allegation, he included no back up.
 
Henry, LL and Werner all disputed the CHB's claim and said there was nothing to see here.  Larry still runs the Red Sox.
 
And what did Danny Boy bring as his proof?  That Larry's name was below Gordon's name in the media guide or masthead, and that Gordon was heading up the Fenway parent company.  That seems like an awfully slender reed on which to rest such a contention.  But no, the CHB, while not offering any additional proof, isn't backing down.
 
That's also the kind of mentality we're dealing with here. 

 

[Leather]

Borges has admitted to prepping Bledsoe for that meeting with Bill Belichick (where BB may or may not have guaranteed him "a chance to compete for the starting role", which, even if true, doesn't mean anything.  It's entirely possible Drew came back, was his same old interception and sack machine in practice, and that was enough to tap Brady as starter for the rest of the season.    Which was, you know, the right fucking move (all respect to Bledsoe)).
 
Borges is still buddies with Bledsoe, too.
 
In the light of Borges being Bledsoe's BFF, a lot of stuff makes sense.  Even his famous rant against drafting Seymour instead of David fucking Terrell makes sense.
 
"OH MY GOD, DREW!  If only they drafted you another great WR!  You'd GO places!  What is this guy DOING?!"  
 
Basically, Borges hitched his wagon to Bledsoe, and well...that was a poor choice.  As a reporter, you really shouldn't let your personal feelings get in the way, and he not only made that mistake, but bore a personal grudge after he embarrassed himself as a result.

 

[DJnVa]

Borges also admitted later on the radio that he considered himself close to Bledsoe (and said Bledsoe asked him for advice multiple times in the 2001 season) and was very, very angry that Brady remained the starter in 2001 when Bledsoe had recovered from his injury. His column about this decision, published on Nov. 22, 2001, should be bronzed for all eternity.
 
Borges is a pretty horrid person himself (plagiarist, liar, got into a physical confrontation with a disabled writer at a boxing presser), so he's hardly one to cast stones.

 
It's always been funny to me that Bledsoe has apparently gotten over it, while Borges hasn't. That says something.

 

[Blacken]

The claim "Pats fans don't tolerate criticism!" is complete bullshit when you realize that that attitude stems from both the insane success of the club AND years of Borges and his ilk being wrong about everything.

So it exists, but it's bullshit, but it exists?

You're better than that, man.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

So it exists, but it's bullshit, but it exists?

You're better than that, man.

 
It exists because for years the team has been criticized for shit they don't deserve to be criticized for. Thus, after years of hearing this crap, Pats fans aren't going to listen to it now. Make sense?

 

[NortheasternPJ]

Borges has admitted to prepping Bledsoe for that meeting with Bill Belichick (where BB may or may not have guaranteed him "a chance to compete for the starting role", which, even if true, doesn't mean anything.  It's entirely possible Drew came back, was his same old interception and sack machine in practice, and that was enough to tap Brady as starter for the rest of the season.    Which was, you know, the right fucking move (all respect to Bledsoe)).
 
Borges is still buddies with Bledsoe, too.
 
In the light of Borges being Bledsoe's BFF, a lot of stuff makes sense.  Even his famous rant against drafting Seymour instead of David fucking Terrell makes sense.
 
"OH MY GOD, DREW!  If only they drafted you another great WR!  You'd GO places!  What is this guy DOING?!"  
 
Basically, Borges hitched his wagon to Bledsoe, and well...that was a poor choice.  As a reporter, you really shouldn't let your personal feelings get in the way, and he not only made that mistake, but bore a personal grudge after he embarrassed himself as a result.

 
Can you imagine walking into a meeting with BB and you have been prepped by Ron Borges? Isn't that like the Devil coaching you on how to get past St. Peter?

 

[Youkilis vs Wild]

The media has this backwards, as usual.
 
The media hates BB, has hated him from day 1, because of his refusal to give them anything good when they ask squishy questions. The doubly hate him because Borges, Cafardo and friends savagely ripped him for making numerous personnel decisions (staying with Brady when Bledsoe was healthy, trading Bledsoe to Buffalo, cutting Milloy, trading Seymour, etc) they disagreed with that turned out to be 100% the right moves, making the media look bad.
 
And since the columnists have been ripping on BB from day 1 due to personal animosity, and have consistently been wrong about his decisions, Pats fans (who might have noticed that the team is pretty good) naturally are going to call the writers a bunch of shitheads for trashing BB all the time. And thus begins the circle of life.
 
The claim "Pats fans don't tolerate criticism!" is complete bullshit when you realize that that attitude stems from both the insane success of the club AND years of Borges and his ilk being wrong about everything.
 
BTW, the beat guys usually do OK with BB. Curran, Volin and pals don't go down this road. It's the columnists who get their knickers in a twist.

 
The irony with the idea that some members of the media hate Belichick due to a lack of soundbites -- and I don't doubt that it's true -- is that he has waaaaay more virality/clickability value as a result of his stonewalling them. It is always entertaining.

 

[TheoShmeo]

I love it when certain members of the media try to get fans upset based on the logic that his stonewalling of them deprives  fans of information and insight into the team.  As if we have some kind of entitlement to the same.
 
New flash: I want Bill to tell them only what he wants to tell them.  I assume that he's thought through his presentation fully and will never reveal anything that he thinks would be useful to an opposing coaching staff.  Since my only real concern is that the Pats be in the best position to win, why would I want Bill to share ideas that might make winning more difficult?  And I seriously doubt that my perspective on this is unique.

 

[pappymojo]

Thank god for SOSH and the internet.  Boston sports radio is awful.  I don't listen to Sports radio.  The Globe and the Herald are mostly awful.  I don't read either for sports coverage. 

It is as if because they are losing customers they are being forced into more extreme positions in an attempt to get attention when that is the exact opposite of what I as a potential customer would want.  If they could drop the hysteria and the over-the-top reactions to every sports story and instead offered some candid and thoughtful analysis I might come back. 
 
I assume that the media is reacting in a similar way to what happens when my three year old wants cake for breakfast.  He asks for cake.  I tell him no.  He gets mad and asks for cake.  I tell him no.  He cries and pushes me.  I tell him no.  He cries louder.  I hug him and tell him why we can't have cake for breakfast.  He tries to punch me and tells me I'm a bad daddy.  I hug him and tell him 'shhh.'  He cries and I hug him and ignore the crying until he has stopped.  Then I blow his nose, turn on Blue's Clues and get him waffles and apple slices. 

 

[Buffalo Head]

When I covered the Red Sox, as I headed over to Fenway, I used to routinely tie kittens to the T tracks and laugh as they got run over.

 

[Buffalo Head]

Once I filled in for Alan Greenberg for a week on the Pats beat, and I robbed elderly women of their pocketbooks for a month to get ready for the assignment.

 

[Buffalo Head]

I dreamed up the 9/11 attacks while covering Knicks games in New York. The jumpers were my favorite part. I'd cheer, "Turnover!" every time one of them hit the ground.

 

[j-man]

i like belichick    because of the football life thing     he did in 2009  the only thing the media can whine about is if he did not pick brady      
 
i think the boston  media   likes the underdog label  which they are not the underdog anymore  since 05 or so   

 

[jacklamabe65]

If Borges is right, it's only because he copied the information from somebody else.

Borges was looking for someone to high-five when Jermaine Kearse caught the a Tyree in this month's Super Bowl. He was all ready to celebrate.

 

[Van Everyman]

Borges also admitted later on the radio that he considered himself close to Bledsoe (and said Bledsoe asked him for advice multiple times in the 2001 season) and was very, very angry that Brady remained the starter in 2001 when Bledsoe had recovered from his injury. His column about this decision, published on Nov. 22, 2001, should be bronzed for all eternity.
 
Borges is a pretty horrid person himself (plagiarist, liar, got into a physical confrontation with a disabled writer at a boxing presser), so he's hardly one to cast stones.

I just re-read that Borges piece on Bledsoe not getting a fair shake at getting his job back. There's definitely a bitter, slow burn agenda at work there but in 2015, in an era of Greg Doyels, it feels pretty tame by comparison.

 

[Carmen Fanzone]

Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a second. Let's say that there was someone at your job who - every day - went out of their way to make your job harder. He didn't have to, but he did anyway. And he wasn't the least bit apologetic about it, but did it with a fuck-you attitude. You're just a guy trying to earn a living, you've got to interact with this person, year after year, in order to get your paycheck.

Would you be annoyed?

Now, there's no excuse for letting that annoyance come through if you're a reporter. But if you're a columnist, you're being paid to express your opinion. Your job is to take a side, have strong views, convey those views in a way that entertains or challenges or engages (good or bad) the readers.

I just never quite get the hatred for columnists. They're doing their jobs well if they've hooked you to the point where you'll talk to your friends or fellow SoSHers about their opinion pieces. How hard is that to understand?

 

[sime]

They don't work for the same company, though.

 

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a second. Let's say that there was someone at your job who - every day - went out of their way to make your job harder. He didn't have to, but he did anyway. And he wasn't the least bit apologetic about it, but did it with a fuck-you attitude. You're just a guy trying to earn a living, you've got to interact with this person, year after year, in order to get your paycheck.

Would you be annoyed?

Now, there's no excuse for letting that annoyance come through if you're a reporter. But if you're a columnist, you're being paid to express your opinion. Your job is to take a side, have strong views, convey those views in a way that entertains or challenges or engages (good or bad) the readers.

I just never quite get the hatred for columnists. They're doing their jobs well if they've hooked you to the point where you'll talk to your friends or fellow SoSHers about their opinion pieces. How hard is that to understand?

 
This analogy only holds if you are atrocious at your job, though. BB has shown time and again that he is one of the most thoughtful, eloquent, and educated football people on the planet. You ask him a good question, he answers thoughtfully and considerately. He has had long discourse on the history of the game in answer to a question, on the finer points of corner back positioning and the increasing importance of that position, etc. 
 
Further, the ground rules have long been established. He's not going to talk about injuries, he's not going to talk about game-planning for the current opponent, and he's not going to speculate on someone's feelings or internal locker room stuff. It's been 15 years. One would think the columnists and beat writers would figure it out. 
 
So, to extend your analogy, imagine that every day your coworker, who runs a different department, told you to please file your requests through the online portal and instead you swung by his desk every day and asked, "hey, can you get me the bossy-foss code by 10 a.m.," and then he replied, "dude, use the online portal so we can track the requests and allocate resources appropriately," and then you went back to your desk and were like, "what a fucking dick that guy is!"
 
And then you did that for 15 years. Sure, that coworker could accommodate your lazy, annoying, and tiresome request. But, you know what, fuck you for sucking at your job and not taking the least effort to act like a professional.  

 

[NickEsasky]

I dreamed up the 9/11 attacks while covering Knicks games in New York. The jumpers were my favorite part. I'd cheer, "Turnover!" every time one of them hit the ground.

Dude I have hung out with you multiple times. I enjoy your company. Your wife is great. But damn dude you can be insufferable when it comes to topics of the media on here. 

 

[Hendu for Kutch]

Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a second. Let's say that there was someone at your job who - every day - went out of their way to make your job harder. He didn't have to, but he did anyway. And he wasn't the least bit apologetic about it, but did it with a fuck-you attitude. You're just a guy trying to earn a living, you've got to interact with this person, year after year, in order to get your paycheck.

Would you be annoyed?

 
I thought you were talking about Belichick having to deal with certain members of the media up to this point.
 

Now, there's no excuse for letting that annoyance come through if you're a reporter. But if you're a columnist, you're being paid to express your opinion. Your job is to take a side, have strong views, convey those views in a way that entertains or challenges or engages (good or bad) the readers.

I just never quite get the hatred for columnists. They're doing their jobs well if they've hooked you to the point where you'll talk to your friends or fellow SoSHers about their opinion pieces. How hard is that to understand?

 
Most people here don't read Borges or Shaughnessy any more, even if they do talk about them.  I know I haven't read any of their articles in years.  So there's at the very least some collateral damage to what they're doing.

 

[David Laurila]

I have quibbles with several things in the article, but his take on the overall media-priorities issue is pretty much unassailable. A non-sports article (with a few sports references) in today's Globe touches on much the same.
 
https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2015/02/26/bill-reilly-and-growth-partisan-media/SiTny61lsaOFav0QV7szwK/story.html 

 

[Van Everyman]

 
This analogy only holds if you are atrocious at your job, though. BB has shown time and again that he is one of the most thoughtful, eloquent, and educated football people on the planet. You ask him a good question, he answers thoughtfully and considerately. He has had long discourse on the history of the game in answer to a question, on the finer points of corner back positioning and the increasing importance of that position, etc. 
 
Further, the ground rules have long been established. He's not going to talk about injuries, he's not going to talk about game-planning for the current opponent, and he's not going to speculate on someone's feelings or internal locker room stuff. It's been 15 years. One would think the columnists and beat writers would figure it out. 
 
So, to extend your analogy, imagine that every day your coworker, who runs a different department, told you to please file your requests through the online portal and instead you swung by his desk every day and asked, "hey, can you get me the bossy-foss code by 10 a.m.," and then he replied, "dude, use the online portal so we can track the requests and allocate resources appropriately," and then you went back to your desk and were like, "what a fucking dick that guy is!"
 
And then you did that for 15 years. Sure, that coworker could accommodate your lazy, annoying, and tiresome request. But, you know what, fuck you for sucking at your job and not taking the least effort to act like a professional.  

This is a pretty fantastic analogy.

 

[BannedbyNYYFans.com]

 
I thought you were talking about Belichick having to deal with certain members of the media up to this point.
 

Haha, me too. Thanks for posting that, I thought I was crazy.

 

[Vandalman]

If Borges is right, it's only because he copied the information from somebody else.

 
Maybe from one of the other dicks:
 

 

[Alcohol&Overcalls]

Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a second. Let's say that there was someone at your job who - every day - went out of their way to make your job harder. He didn't have to, but he did anyway. And he wasn't the least bit apologetic about it, but did it with a fuck-you attitude. You're just a guy trying to earn a living, you've got to interact with this person, year after year, in order to get your paycheck.

Would you be annoyed?
 

 
Which one of Belichick/[reporter or columnist] is which in this example? Because I'm beyond certain Belichick thinks the media goes out of their way to make his life harder, too. 
 
Paparazzi have to make a living, too. Should celebrities just say "cheese"?

 

[pappymojo]

Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a second. Let's say that there was someone at your job who - every day - went out of their way to make your job harder. He didn't have to, but he did anyway. And he wasn't the least bit apologetic about it, but did it with a fuck-you attitude. You're just a guy trying to earn a living, you've got to interact with this person, year after year, in order to get your paycheck.

Would you be annoyed?

 
When I read this I thought it was us, the fans, who were the coworker who went out their way to make the person's life difficult. 

 

[LogansDad]

 
This analogy only holds if you are atrocious at your job, though. BB has shown time and again that he is one of the most thoughtful, eloquent, and educated football people on the planet. You ask him a good question, he answers thoughtfully and considerately. He has had long discourse on the history of the game in answer to a question, on the finer points of corner back positioning and the increasing importance of that position, etc. 
 
Further, the ground rules have long been established. He's not going to talk about injuries, he's not going to talk about game-planning for the current opponent, and he's not going to speculate on someone's feelings or internal locker room stuff. It's been 15 years. One would think the columnists and beat writers would figure it out. 
 
So, to extend your analogy, imagine that every day your coworker, who runs a different department, told you to please file your requests through the online portal and instead you swung by his desk every day and asked, "hey, can you get me the bossy-foss code by 10 a.m.," and then he replied, "dude, use the online portal so we can track the requests and allocate resources appropriately," and then you went back to your desk and were like, "what a fucking dick that guy is!"
 
And then you did that for 15 years. Sure, that coworker could accommodate your lazy, annoying, and tiresome request. But, you know what, fuck you for sucking at your job and not taking the least effort to act like a professional.  

This post is the reason SoSH needs a "Like" button.

 

[JimD]

Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a second. Let's say that there was someone at your job who - every day - went out of their way to make your job harder. He didn't have to, but he did anyway. And he wasn't the least bit apologetic about it, but did it with a fuck-you attitude. You're just a guy trying to earn a living, you've got to interact with this person, year after year, in order to get your paycheck.

Would you be annoyed?

Now, there's no excuse for letting that annoyance come through if you're a reporter. But if you're a columnist, you're being paid to express your opinion. Your job is to take a side, have strong views, convey those views in a way that entertains or challenges or engages (good or bad) the readers.

I just never quite get the hatred for columnists. They're doing their jobs well if they've hooked you to the point where you'll talk to your friends or fellow SoSHers about their opinion pieces. How hard is that to understand?

 
Here's where the analogy breaks down for me - Patriots coverage has thrived in the Bill Belichick era.  Guys like Tom E. Curran and Mike Reiss not only don't seem to have a problem with Belichick in performing their game coverage job duties on the Patriots beat, they manage to put out some really interesting analysis and side pieces about the coach, the players and the team.  In today's media world, these writers have also blurred the line between beat writer and columnist. 

 

[Leather]

Because when the tone belies a belief that the team exist for the purpose of providing you with easy stories, it's revealing that the writer doesn't have the proper perspective.

The employment analogy doesn't work because it would be like a mid level Marketing manger refusing to work with the company's large, but troublesome, clients instead of realizing those clients are the only reason his company can afford to pay his salary.

And all analogies are flawed and that's no exception. Because in the end, the columnists get more clicks by being inflammatory than by being complementary. So...I question how sincere a lot of it is.

 

[Dirty Sanchez Forever]

I would love to have Breer issued a license.  It would make retweets like "Epic Bro" carry so much more weight.  
 
So much wrong with that column, from the author conflating a desire to maintain a level of professionalism in sportswriting with the sportswriters' own desire to regain tighter control of the flow of information like the good ol' days. Trying to bring esteem to Jackie MacMullan. Fussy old man Bob Ryan, who exists to complain about losing his courtside seat for the press box and hasn't had a new thought in 40 years. Tanguay calling Ben Volin an expert. CHB has been doing the mom's basement routine since sportswriting started publishing directly to the web and he began losing eyeballs to people younger, smarter, and with better work ethic than his, who were being blocked by a bunch of dinosaurs from making contributions in newsprint.
 
Just an abomination all the way around.  

 

[Rasputin]

Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a second. Let's say that there was someone at your job who - every day - went out of their way to make your job harder. He didn't have to, but he did anyway. And he wasn't the least bit apologetic about it, but did it with a fuck-you attitude. You're just a guy trying to earn a living, you've got to interact with this person, year after year, in order to get your paycheck.

Would you be annoyed?

Now, there's no excuse for letting that annoyance come through if you're a reporter. But if you're a columnist, you're being paid to express your opinion. Your job is to take a side, have strong views, convey those views in a way that entertains or challenges or engages (good or bad) the readers.

I just never quite get the hatred for columnists. They're doing their jobs well if they've hooked you to the point where you'll talk to your friends or fellow SoSHers about their opinion pieces. How hard is that to understand?

 
That exact same argument could be turned around. The columnists just make Belichick's job harder. They ask the dumbest questions in the press conferences. They say stupid shit about things they know fuck all about, and he's got to stand there at the press conference and answer them without calling them fucking morons to their faces.
 
That's hard.

 

[riboflav]

I've always thought that BB makes a sportswriter's job easier. Beat guys, who care, know exactly what questions to ask and the types of stories they can pursue. And columnists can hate him and rail about him in their articles. I mean, that's what they've been doing for 15 years. It hasn't slowed any of them down and they continue to profit from BB's press-conference personality. 

 

[joe dokes]

Now, there's no excuse for letting that annoyance come through if you're a reporter. But if you're a columnist, you're being paid to express your opinion. Your job is to take a side, have strong views, convey those views in a way that entertains or challenges or engages (good or bad) the readers.

I just never quite get the hatred for columnists. They're doing their jobs well if they've hooked you to the point where you'll talk to your friends or fellow SoSHers about their opinion pieces. How hard is that to understand?

 
Yes, columnists are being paid to express opinions.  But there are (at least) two caveats.  One, an opinion has no value if the facts upon which it is based are non-existent.  Two, a columnist should point out what those facts are.  Most of the time, those "facts" are, "I hate Bill Belichick."  To be sure, a columnist is entitled to hate whomever he wants for whatever reason. But if that personal animosity is the basis for a column, then the columnists should say so. 
 
I do not agree that they are "doing their jobs well" if they simply get me to talk about them.  If we are talking about grammar atrocities, missstatements of facts, opinions unmoored from logic, etc., then they are not "doing their jobs well."   "Look how many people talk about me" is the equivalent of a person pointing to his paycheck as a sign of how great he is.