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!

Murray Chass is back

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by cranberry, Jul 15, 2008.

  1. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    There you have what? That Murray is a cranky old guy who didn't make a lot of friends in the business in recent years? I'd have stipulated to that from the beginning.

    Again, the only point I've tried to make is that Murray's body of work over several decades makes him perhaps the single most knowledgeable writer with respect to off-the-field baseball issues. I took issue with your suggestion that he wasn't objective and with your singling out his less-than-inspired work recently while he recuperated from surgery for brain cancer as being representative of his overall contribution.

    As for Mike (whom I don't know), he's a very good columnist and maybe the best in NYC now that Lisa Olson isn't with the News. He's also much more gifted writer than Murray ever was and he isn't alone in his opinion of Murray's crankiness. But he's a long, long, long way from Murray as a reporter.
     
  2. NDub

    NDub Guest

    Well put, Walter.
     
  3. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    Murray sold his soul to Marvin Miller and the players union.
     
  4. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Give an example of a single instance when he wrote something that wasn't objective. I'll wait. Probably a very long time.
     
  5. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    What's really funny is that MLB.com's heds on the speech were: "Chass receives Spink Award/New York Times writer encourages today's scribes"

    http://cubs.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20040725&content_id=810238&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=null

    Anyway, the speech transcript:

    http://apse.dallasnews.com/news/2004/080504murraychass.html

    He was pissy and unkind -- and his shot at editors is probably meaningless to anyone outside the business and thus gratuitous -- but what part isn't true?

    As for his union/management reporting, it wasn't his job to write something that would validate your personal bias. That's, umm, what blogs are for. Ringolsby had a sane perspective -- they often disagreed, but he admired Chass' ethics and hard work.
     
  6. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    Thanks for posting that, Frank.

    The speech was entirely inappropriate, not to mention classless.

    Accpeting an award at Cooperstown is not the place to start scolding the children.
     
  7. Walter_Sobchak

    Walter_Sobchak Active Member

    Murray needs to take a long, hard look in the mirror.
     
  8. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    I just re-read the speech (delivered about a year after brain cancer surgery) and it was milder than I'd remembered. Vaccaro is probably a little sensitive about it because he's one of the guys who rose to columnist at a relatively young age.

    And Murray was right, anyway. There are too many columnists who get big forums based on their writing ability but in the end don't have very informed opinions. Several of them get roasted here quite a bit. Doesn't mean they're not talented; just that they haven't been around and seen enough to have a well informed opinion.
     
  9. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    Classless, possibly. But then if he had made those comments in a different venue, they would not have gained as much attention.
    I think it's entirely appropriate for someone receiving a career achievement award to comment on the state of that calling.

    Now, he could have handled that in a less accusatory manner and in a way in which he didn't appear to be putting himself on a pedestal. Or he could have blamed the assignment editors rather than the beat reporters, whose shallowness in the field is often mandated from above. But his points about the decline of substance -- and basic fairness to the people being written about -- are completely valid.
     
  10. Walter_Sobchak

    Walter_Sobchak Active Member

    He makes valid points - as you said, just look at any one of the Jemele Hill threads on the board - but given his recent bitterness and refusal to become informed on ubiquitious trends in the game today makes it hard to take his words seriously.
     
  11. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    What do you mean?
     
  12. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Who cares what he says about advanced statistical analysis? You read Murray because he's a guy that usually knows what's going on off the field and has the background knowledge necessary to put it in perspective.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page