1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mariotti strikes back

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Jersey_Guy, Jun 20, 2008.

  1. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    I want your opinion here, and no I'm not making comparisons...how many people, by, oh, 1982, liked Howard Cosell.?
     
  2. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

    Both are charactures; but I also think Cosell earned a bit more respect from his peers because he could work a story, he did know people and they were willing to give him information. He talked with the people he covered; might have been fawning at times, but he did it.
    Find me a coach, athlete or peer who will publicly stick up for Mariotti with 1/100th the enthusiasm that Ali and others did for Cosell.
     
  3. Same rationale, but at least there are a lot of people who *like* Albom. Maybe for reasons his peers find nauseating, but there's some sort of attachment between Mitch and his readers there.

    I know far more people who refuse to give Mariottti any page views than ones who read him, and the ones who do never actually like what he writes. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the concept that his presence in the Sun-Times pays for itself, instead of costing the paper dearly.
     
  4. suburbia

    suburbia Active Member

    I think that's exactly what he's saying. Controversy captivates readers, especially with the way tabloids can play it up. And every time their dirty laundry gets aired out in the Tribune or any other outlet, it's free advertising for the Sun Times.
     
  5. Notepad

    Notepad Member

    Just seems too contrived for me. I thought a column was about what you truly felt -- not a predisposed feeling of anger just for the sake of creating a buzz.
     
  6. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

    Sometimes you have to do that, but it's an art. If you're always devil's advocate -- you end up like Drew Sharp. If you're always negative and venomous, you become Mariotti.
     
  7. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    I think if he starts from the premise that what sports columnists do can reverse a paper's fortunes, every conclusion he draws thereafter is going to be completely wrong. The Sun-Times could hire the 50 pissiest sports columnists in the country and they could challenge each other to pistols at 20 paces at high noon every day until they run out of bodies and it still won't "win this battle." The Sun-Times trailed the Trib when John Schulian was writing a sports column, and Schulian was amazing. For that matter, the Sun-Times trailed the Trib before Mike Royko, Jerome Holtzman and Ann Fucking Landers jumped ship to the Trib, and it continued to trail after they left. And even if Sam Zell abuses the Tribune newsroom just for fun, the Sun-Times still "won't win this battle." Because the best advertisers never pick the tabloid and neither do the kinds of readers those advertisers value most.

    I don't think columnists have any effect on circulation, but even if I believed they did, I certainly wouldn't think you'd want all of them to have the same style.
     
  8. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

    Being controversial is one thing, Frank. It helps draw readers in. Being confrontational is another.
     
  9. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    We seem to be accepting this as a given, but I do not see any evidence that it's true for newspapers.
     
  10. D-3 Fan

    D-3 Fan Well-Known Member

    You mean, 1/100 billion-th the enthusiasm for Jay. Ozzie Guillen wouldn't have enough curse words in his vocabulary to spit out at Jay.
     
  11. slappy4428

    slappy4428 Active Member

    There's aguy in our town who is like that. Love him or hate him, people read him and usually the complainers are louder. But he has sources and works. He breaks news or comes away with a good interview.
    Mariotti has none of the redeeming qualities. He gripes and snipes, not because he has a better answer, but because he doesn't like the way it is. He wants to change the world to have it be his way, but has no positive contribution to how that way should be.
    Get rid of Ozzie Guillen? Ok. fine by me. What would it solve, who would be better and why? That's where he gets lost.
    To paraphrase an analogy from Season on the Brink, when he tells you you're an asshole, ignore it. When he tells you why you're an asshole, you listen. Mariotti does a lot of screaming because that's his style, but very little substance.
    Coworkers have seen it at every stop; readers see through it at every stop -- eventually. Management only hear people talk about him and never listen to what people actually are saying.
     
  12. JakeandElwood

    JakeandElwood Well-Known Member

    It's a shame that over 1000 good people at McClatchy lost their jobs while this blowhard who is a disgrace to journalism still pulls in a huge salary.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page