DAYUMN

Are you kidding me? I understand that it has always been your natural inclination to protect the media, perhaps in part because you know the guys and want to be part of the gang, but moreso because you feel it's actually preserving your own status as someone meaningful instead of being a glorified weatherman. That said, you can't possibly win this argument because you're so obviously wrong that it makes you look bad to even argue otherwise. Gantt was way out of line with regards to Moose on the personal stuff, not only because it's not his place to make those comments in his capacity as a writer about football players playing football," but because it's widely known that Moose was a clubhouse leader and a good teammate.

And as for sports journalism as a whole going down the shitter? Well, who of the local figures would you honestly say knows more than me about football? Who of the local figures would you honestly say knows much at all about football period? Now move to the national figures. Go ahead and tell me that people get jobs at ESPN and SI and even the New York Times because they actually know something about the sport they're covering and can write proficiently about it, rather than because they have some act or angle or schtick that editors think will bring in more readers. Go ahead and tell me that there is any analysis left in sports journalism whatsoever, that it isn't all fluff, criticism, or hype. It's all empty. What passes for sports journalism these days is nothing more than used car sales. Everything is over-dramatized and exaggerated like we're all still in middle school.


Seriously, the reason I'm not particularly proud of my own job is that I know what other people in the same and similar jobs are doing. There is no honor in being a sports journalist anymore. A trained monkey with the right connections or the right act could do it; and in fact, many have.

 

first of all, knock off the crap about weather--you dont know me well enough to use the joke.

second of all, I am NOT protecting Gantt...just saying that saying it was "pussy assed" or whatever is out of line. You can disagree with him all you want. Just as I disagree with you about things, I wouldn't go so far as to say you were "pussy assed" or whatever about your opinions. That is all I was saying.

Now take a zoloft or something, sheesh.

 

The Collin

 

If I took shots about a guy behind his back, that would be pussy-assed (and for the record, I Emailed Gantt essentially the same thing I said here and did tell him it was a bush-league, pussy-assed move). If I ignored the facts to satisfy some old grudge that has nothing to do with the issue, that would be pussy-assed. If I said something simply because I thought it's what the audience would like to hear, that would be pussy-assed. You may not like the term, but in the case of Gantt's article, it's definitely appropriate.

 

I got that feeling too.

Which, I guess there are worse things, and I know it's hard being a reporter who has opinions, but that has to go out on a limb, credibly, to state that opinion. But that doesn't make it less of a bizarre thing for Gantt to do. There's a great way of him saying what he said, especially as he stated it in response to Rich's weekly column...err, I mean Gantt's Q&A space-filler, but the thing is, he didn't. He didn't stick to "we're better off with Wahle and Lucas", he was all about how Moose was gonna be selfish and how that was a terrible thing.

He spun it. He spun it a way that didn't seem the rational Gantt that some of us had taken up as a better than average (compared to other local options) writer. I expect pissy musings on a Friday from Sorensen. I don't expect them from Gantt on Wednesday.

 

fair enough, but putting something out there in print, that Moose could read if he chose to, isn't exactly behind his back....sure Moose couldn't respond to the piece because he is in Chicago, but if he wanted to respond he could.

Agreeing with Gantt or disagreeing with him is EVERYONE's perogative. I agreed with everything except the insecurity thing, and thats because I never saw it first hand. I can't back that up, but if Gantt did, then he made the call to put it in print.

 

accurate representation of the article, though possibly incorrectly assumed on his part.

I gotta hope that's what this is, that he thought there was gonna be Moose angst and hey, let's tap into that.

 

no arguments from me with that edited response (only cuz I saw you edited it).

 

As a freelance trained monkey, I can tell you that there are some scary folks in the business. Jeez...I am one of 'em.

It was a very unusual piece by Gantt. You're right Mags--you just don't expect that kind of rhetoric from DG. Sorensen? Yea, ok. I could see that. But Gantt? Nah.

I don't think the sports journalism industry is a total mess. Nor do I think that it is a particularly noble cause. It is what it is.

 

Did he write similar things last year when Moose was having his best season ever or did he wait until Moose was out of town?



Addendum:
Apparently Gantt is getting worn down by all the blasting, because he was decidedly testy in his Email response. :supergrin