Meanwhile, jackals are ripping at a bag of garbage.

[Marvelo]

On the 25th anniversary of writing for TBN, Jerry Sullivan wrote a special column. Little did he know about all the haters just lurking for an opportunity to take a shot at him. The level of invective and abuse he takes in the comments section today is a bit shocking.

 

http://www.buffalone...ts-old-20140418

Edited April 19, 2014 by 716

[Eleven]

It's been years since I've read him. I find that generally, I'm a happier person. EDIT: That goes for Esmonde and Watson, too.

Edited April 19, 2014 by Eleven

[Hoss]

Buffalo sports media as a whole is pretty suspect. With some exceptions, but not many.

 

Sullivan visited Bonas last semester and sounded like an ###### the whole time. The discussion was about paying college athletes.

Edited April 19, 2014 by Tankalicious

[Robviously]

On the 25th anniversary of writing for TBN, Jerry Sullivan wrote a special column. Little did he know about all the haters just lurking for an opportunity to take a shot at him. The level of invective and abuse he takes in the comments section today is a bit shocking.

 

http://www.buffalone...ts-old-20140418

Wow, I actually really enjoyed that column.

[SwampD]

I thought this thread had to do with Elmira.

 

I have never understood the hate directed at any of the Buffalo sports media. If you can't listen to the radio or read an article without taking it as a personal attack on your soul, you need to realign your chakras.

[Tondas]

I thought this thread had to do with Elmira.

 

I have never understood the hate directed at any of the Buffalo sports media. If you can't listen to the radio or read an article without taking it as a personal attack on your soul, you need to realign your chakras.

I agree even though I'm not sure what a chakras is. Sullivan is a columnist and therefore in the entertainment business. I think he does a good job of being objective and provocative. What he says sometimes hurts but doesn't mean it's not reality. I like reading what he has to say.

[Marvelo]

Year after year negativity gets tiresome. To say his top favorite memories did not involve Buffalo teams says something to me. I can't believe he's been there a quarter of a century. Time for some new blood!

Edited April 23, 2014 by 716

[Eleven]

I thought this thread had to do with Elmira.

 

I have never understood the hate directed at any of the Buffalo sports media. If you can't listen to the radio or read an article without taking it as a personal attack on your soul, you need to realign your chakras.

 

I don't take it as a personal attack on my soul, but the pessimism of Esmonde, Watson, and Sullivan--especially Esmonde--makes their columns not worth my time.

[SwampD]

I don't take it as a personal attack on my soul, but the pessimism of Esmonde, Watson, and Sullivan--especially Esmonde--makes their columns not worth my time.

Buffalo sports for the last decade hasn't been worth my time.

[darksabre]

Buffalo sports for the last decade hasn't been worth my time.

 

And yet...

[TrueBlueGED]

I agree even though I'm not sure what a chakras is. Sullivan is a columnist and therefore in the entertainment business. I think he does a good job of being objective and provocative. What he says sometimes hurts but doesn't mean it's not reality. I like reading what he has to say.

 

Sullivan does a good job being provocative. But objective? He's about as objective as Kevin Sylvester, only in the opposite direction.

Edited April 23, 2014 by TrueBluePhD

[SwampD]

Sullivan does a good job being provocative. But objective? He's about as objective as Kevin Sylvester, only in the opposite direction.

Wouldn't that mean that he's been right?

[Jsixspd]

The negativity in the sports media here shouldn't be that surprising. There hasn't been a whole heckuva lot to be optimistic about in the last decade in terms of Buffalo teams, IMHO. The Bills haven't even appeared in a playoff game in this CENTURY, for pity's sake. And the Sabres have been in a downward spiral for a number of years - and the Sabres this year posted one of the worst records, and worst stats, in the modern hockey era.

 

Not exactly "jump for joy and click your heels together" stuff. Buffalo is a perfect environment for Eeyore types.

[TrueBlueGED]

Wouldn't that mean that he's been right?

 

He's been right sometimes, sure. Doesn't make him objective. He's also had his share of being hilariously wrong. See: he once wrote a column where he said Tedy Bruschi should be in the HoF.

[SwampD]

The negativity in the sports media here shouldn't be that surprising. There hasn't been a whole heckuva lot to be optimistic about in the last decade in terms of Buffalo teams, IMHO. The Bills haven't even appeared in a playoff game in this CENTURY MILLENNIUM, for pity's sake. And the Sabres have been in a downward spiral for a number of years - and the Sabres this year posted one of the worst records, and worst stats, in the modern hockey era.

 

Not exactly "jump for joy and click your heels together" stuff. Buffalo is a perfect environment for Eeyore types.

fixed

He's been right sometimes, sure. Doesn't make him objective. He's also had his share of being hilariously wrong. See: he once wrote a column where he said Tedy Bruschi should be in the HoF.

Yeah. I'm just sour cuz I'm tired of watching other teams in the playoffs. I'm left trying to figure out what to do with myself to have a life of my own instead of living vicariously through people I don't even know every April. It sucks.

[LTS]

Isn't he originally from Boston? Perhaps he's sour that he can't get a job there?

[Campy]

I agree even though I'm not sure what a chakras is. Sullivan is a columnist and therefore in the entertainment business. I think he does a good job of being objective and provocative. What he says sometimes hurts but doesn't mean it's not reality. I like reading what he has to say.

 

:blink: A columnist, by definition, is anything but objective.

 

Isn't he originally from Boston? Perhaps he's sour that he can't get a job there?

 

In paragraph 6 of the article he says he's from NYC.

[dudacek]

 

:blink: A columnist, by definition, is anything but objective.

.

 

Not true.

 

Sorry Campy, but this is a pet peeve of mine.

A columnist is paid to provoke thought.

All the best columnists should have a degree of objectivity regardless of where they stand, or tend to stand.

Otherwise they simply pander, and have immediately lost the interest of any reader who is objective, or at least wants objectivity in his or her reading material.

[Weave]

Not true.

 

Sorry Campy, but this is a pet peeve of mine.

A columnist is paid to provoke thought.

All the best columnists should have a degree of objectivity regardless of where they stand, or tend to stand.

Otherwise they simply pander, and have immediately lost the interest of any reader who is objective, or at least wants objectivity in his or her reading material.

 

A columnist is also paid to provide opinion, which is usually anything but objective.

[Andrew Amerk]

 

In paragraph 6 of the article he says he's from NYC.

 

http://www.buffalospree.com/Buffalo-Spree/January-2013/Media-Watch-News-columnist-Jerry-Sullivan-is-one-tough-marshmallow/

 

Buffalo News sports columnist Jerry Sullivan has been called some colorful names of the PG-13 and even R-rated variety. But what readers of his column probably don’t realize is that this hard-hitting columnist and WGR sports talk personality is also a self-doubting softy who cries more often than House Speaker John Boehner. Indeed, fifty-seven-year-old Joseph Jeremiah Sullivan, Jr. (Sully, to some) is a contradiction, a tough-talking native of Newport, Rhode Island

[dudacek]

 

 

A columnist is also paid to provide opinion, which is usually anything but objective.

 

Again, the objectivity part doesn't have to be true.

 

Ultimately, the job is to provide your publisher with readers, but that doesn't have to happen through rants or brainless pandering that can be easily dismissed. That is the flaw in the two-party, my side/your side, left-right ideology-driven system of political debate and media coverage thereof.

 

Being a columnist is not an excuse for lack of objectivity. A good column should be an evolution of good journalism - "after a thorough examination of the facts, going in with few preconceived notions, this is the conclusion I've drawn."

The best columnists make you rethink your position, or at least challenge you to do so.

 

A column should be, can be, and sometimes is, a higher calling.

Opinions should be informed by objectivity, not excused for the lack thereof.

Edited April 23, 2014 by dudacek

[Campy]

Not true.

 

Sorry Campy, but this is a pet peeve of mine.

A columnist is paid to provoke thought.

All the best columnists should have a degree of objectivity regardless of where they stand, or tend to stand.

Otherwise they simply pander, and have immediately lost the interest of any reader who is objective, or at least wants objectivity in his or her reading material.

 

I'll admit I didn't choose my words carefully enough. A columnist writing "The Bills lost four consecutive Super Bowls" is an objective declaration and it is unfair to state columnists do not have some objectivity.

 

And I'm sorry for hitting one of your pet peeves; we can agree to disagree on the larger point that columnists are not, as a whole, objective.

 

I would argue that sports reporting, by its very nature, is not objective. In fact, I'm not sure I see much of a difference between a sports reporter's write up and that of a sports columnist, aside from page position and having the author's picture near the byline. That is, I would if I felt like arguing about such things...

Edited April 23, 2014 by Campy

[Weave]

Again, the objectivity part doesn't have to be true.

 

Ultimately, the job is to provide your publisher with readers, but that doesn't have to happen through rants or brainless pandering that can be easily dismissed. That is the flaw in the two-party, my side/your side, left-right ideology-driven system of political debate and media coverage thereof.

 

Being a columnist is not an excuse for lack of objectivity. A good column should be an evolution of good journalism - "after a thorough examination of the facts, going in with few preconceived notions, this is the conclusion I've drawn."

The best columnists make you rethink your position, or at least challenge you to do so.

 

A column should be, can be, and sometimes is, a higher calling.

Opinions should be informed by objectivity, not excused for the lack thereof.

 

Jerry's columns are not expansion of factual study. They are emotionally presented opinions.

[Darryl Shannon's +/-]

I appreciate Sullivan for the quality of his writing, and more so for the interaction on radio and his chat. Bucky and Harrington are nowhere close to him in talent or humility.

[dudacek]

Jerry's columns are not expansion of factual study. They are emotionally presented opinions.

 

Exactly. That is why I don't think he is a particularly good columnist, despite the fact he is a good writer whose opinions I sometimes share.

 

But I wasn't trying to dump on Jerry; even though I find he rarely expands my mind, others clearly appreciate his style.

I just wanted to make it clear I don't buy the idea columnists are locked into his pandering-to-the-negative approach because it is their nature of the job.

Edited April 24, 2014 by dudacek