Have the Buffalo Sports media ever been worse?

[SackTastic]

In my opinion, no. Not at all.

Bucky and Harrington have carried agendas against the Sabres with them for years, but they're talented writers and reporters (more so in Bucky's case) at least. Moritz is neither.

What exactly has she written that you disagree with? Frankly Amy Moritz is a better reporter today than Harrington has been in 10 years.

 

[gallagt01]

Sullivan is a good enough writer but an obnoxious columnist. Being a good writer does not make him a good columnist. Saying that his quality of work is at a "high level" is hilarious to me because he writes maybe 5 columns a year that are even moderately insightful. Bucky as a good reporter is genuinely bewildering to me. His actual reporting of events is perhaps adequate; everything else is quite bad, including his constantly terrible notions of what could or should be done. That does not equate to being good.

Yes, of course I read TBN articles.

It doesn't surprise me at all that your professors loved his work. His work nails every bland columnist trope that I'd expect to be idealized within that world.

Bolded doesn't make sense to me. "Reporter Bucky Gleason is adequate at reporting, but his commentary [in subjective pieces] is bad, so he's a bad reporter."

Whatever. Your opinion. Mine is that Bucky and Sully have poor reputations in Buffalo because readers -- fans -- hate the negative connotations of their subjective, opined pieces.

Harrington is a ********* but I've seen work far worse than his.

 

[gallagt01]

What exactly has she written that you disagree with? Frankly Amy Moritz is a better reporter today than Harrington has been in 10 years.

She's a reporter; a fact-teller. I don't disagree with facts. Because they're facts. I literally cannot disagree with a word that she writes because it's all true.

My beef with Moritz lies more in her neglect of asking actual questions in pressers. It's a trait many sports journalists are guilty of. They stick to statements and fish cliched responses out of their subjects. Additionally, her notebook stories -- the only ones worth reading -- are typically poor, in my opinion.

 

[SackTastic]

You are. I have a degree in journalism. I read a ton of sports stories from papers across the country. It's what I do. Bucky and Harrington are, as I said, good and decent, respectively. Not great, not poor. As for Sully, while he's not much of a journalist at this stage of his career, my professors loved his work. He's a very good columnist.

Your professors loved his work because he's 'edgy' and 'controversial', which by old school newspaper metrics means eyeballs to your particular paper. Except as you probably know, that model means nothing anymore.

Sullivan, Gleason, Maiorana, are nothing more than writers paid to troll. The only difference between them and the Basement Brigade they revile is that those three are better wordsmiths.

Also, my condolences on your journalism degree.

 

[SackTastic]

She's a reporter; a fact-teller. I don't disagree with facts. Because they're facts. I literally cannot disagree with a word that she writes because it's all true.

Then what is your problem with her? I'm legitimate curious how someone whos highest profile beat before this fall was been the Bisons is 'crappy'

 

[msm29]

I have a degree in journalism. I read a ton of sports stories from papers across the country. It's what I do. Bucky and Harrington are, as I said, good and decent, respectively. Not great, not poor. As for Sully, while he's not much of a journalist at this stage of his career, my professors loved his work. He's a very good columnist.

A journalism degree?!?!?!? I bet it's from some two-bit state school where you toiled away on a student-run paper before graduating and now you're struggling to break through covering high schools.

Really, though, you're right. Sully's a very nice guy and a solid columnist. Hockey isn't his thing, and he'll tell you that. He's overly negative and it's easy to disagree with what he writes, but that's his job. Sportswriters aren't fans, nor should they be.

 

[gallagt01]

Your professors loved his work because he's 'edgy' and 'controversial', which by old school newspaper metrics means eyeballs to your particular paper. Except as you probably know, that model means nothing anymore.

Sullivan, Gleason, Maiorana, are nothing more than writers paid to troll. The only difference between them and the Basement Brigade they revile is that those three are better wordsmiths.

Also, my condolences on your journalism degree.

To the last sentence, thanks. You're mature.

Then what is your problem with her? I'm legitimate curious how someone whos highest profile beat before this fall was been the Bisons is 'crappy'

Edited my post.

A journalism degree?!?!?!? I bet it's from some two-bit state school where you toiled away on a student-run paper before graduating and now you're struggling to break through covering high schools.

Really, though, you're right. Sully's a very nice guy and a solid columnist. Hockey isn't his thing, and he'll tell you that. He's overly negative and it's easy to disagree with what he writes, but that's his job. Sportswriters aren't fans, nor should they be.

Maybe.

 

[SackTastic]

To the last sentence, thanks. You're mature.

Thank you. I guess that the people I know who have journalism degrees that either want out of media altogether, or are glad they had other career options must be completely wrong then.

 

[Chad Thundercock]

Sullivan is an excellent writer, but it's wasted for the News (I'm a biased former employee there, but they're really a desperate joke that's been dead for a decade). It's his fault though for continuing to grow his stupid negativity trolling act in his columns and on radio.

 

[SackTastic]

She's a reporter; a fact-teller. I don't disagree with facts. Because they're facts. I literally cannot disagree with a word that she writes because it's all true.

My beef with Moritz lies more in her neglect of asking actual questions in pressers. It's a trait many sports journalists are guilty of. They stick to statements and fish cliched responses out of their subjects. Additionally, her notebook stories -- the only ones worth reading -- are typically poor, in my opinion.

So... how many pressers have you attended to know what questions she does or does not ask? How many times have you attended pressers where she is the junior reporter in the room behind Vogl or Harrington? (Or when Bucky or Sully show up and throw bombs to get some content to gripe about?)

Also, if what you took away from your journalism degree what that reporters are somehow required to poke and prod someone for INTERESTING responses instead of cliched ones, then you failed to understand the objective of the career. Combined with your apparently love of Sullivan's 'quality work', ie, paid a full time salary to write trollbait 3 times a week, I really think your perspective on what the job is and is not is slightly warped.

But hey, you have the magical journalism degree, so by The Law Of Harrington, you are eminently and uniquely qualified to tell us plebs what we're supposed to want to read and enjoy. So sorry to have interjected.

 

[gallagt01]

Sullivan is an excellent writer, but it's wasted for the News (I'm a biased former employee there, but they're really a desperate joke that's been dead for a decade). It's his fault though for continuing to grow his stupid negativity trolling act in his columns and on radio.

His Bills' columns this year have been generally positive. It's cliche, but typically true: if the teams are good, negativity is minimal. If the teams are bad, it's opposite. He's worked at TBN for a long time. Buffalo's sports teams have sucked for a long time.

Thank you. I guess that the people I know who have journalism degrees that either want out of media altogether, or are glad they had other career options must be completely wrong then.

So you make wisecracks at someone else's career choice because some of your friends either didn't find work or joy in that same career choice? And all because somebody doesn't agree with your point of view? Again, mature.

So... how many pressers have you attended to know what questions she does or does not ask? How many times have you attended pressers where she is the junior reporter in the room behind Vogl or Harrington? (Or when Bucky or Sully show up and throw bombs to get some content to gripe about?)

Several at the collegiate and high school levels. None for the Sabres. You can hear her on videos of the pressers.

Also, if what you took away from your journalism degree what that reporters are somehow required to poke and prod someone for INTERESTING responses instead of cliched ones, then you failed to understand the objective of the career. Combined with your apparently love of Sullivan's 'quality work', ie, paid a full time salary to write trollbait 3 times a week, I really think your perspective on what the job is and is not is slightly warped.

Not at all. But OK.

But hey, you have the magical journalism degree, so by The Law Of Harrington, you are eminently and uniquely qualified to tell us plebs what we're supposed to want to read and enjoy. So sorry to have interjected.

Who said that?

I voiced my opinion. For whatever reason, you took it way too personally. I'm done arguing over this here. It's bogging down the GBU. PM me if you wish to carry on.

 

[Paxon]

Bolded doesn't make sense to me. "Reporter Bucky Gleason is adequate at reporting, but his commentary [in subjective pieces] is bad, so he's a bad reporter."

Whatever. Your opinion. Mine is that Bucky and Sully have poor reputations in Buffalo because readers -- fans -- hate the negative connotations of their subjective, opined pieces.

Harrington is a ********* but I've seen work far worse than his.

I said Bucky's average at best and a notch below what you expect in a good hockey market. I also said he's adequate at reporting. There is no conflict there. I have no problem with negativity when warranted, so that's not the issue.

 

[gallagt01]

I said Bucky's average at best and a notch below what you expect in a good hockey market. I also said he's adequate at reporting. There is no conflict there. I have no problem with negativity when warranted, so that's not the issue.

That's fine. Again, I'd rather not carry on with that discussion in this thread

 

[joshjull]

Bucky is a very talented reporter, yes. Harrington is decent. Both are much better than Moritz.

Bucky can definitely write a good article but we get too many of his ax grinding highly predictable articles. When he writes about non Sabres topics he does amuch better job. Harrington , meh. I've tired of their ax grinding and never admitting they are wrong even when its obvious they are. And as reporters with far more experience on the Sabres beat, they should be better than Moritz.

I enjoy Moritz for the "facts" as you put it and the broader range of sports she reports on in her twitter account. I wasn't aware that I was nominating her for a Pulitzer

That's fair. A couple things, though.

1. Sullivan isn't a reporter. He's a columnist and shouldn't be lumped in with the other two. He's extremely good at what he does.

When Sully writes about things he likes and has a very strong grasp of, he is excellent. Those things would be basketball (college in particular) and baseball. He knows next to nothing about hockey.

Its about knowing the sport. Its pretty damn hard to write something insightful about a topic you have a very weak grasp of and don't particularly like.

2. Bucky and Harrington don't report on games (that's Vogl's job). And both guys have had their beef with the Sabres' front office in the past but it's never actually affected their objectivity in non-commentary pieces (other than Harrington misquoting Kaleta last year)

Actually with twitter and the Sabresedge blog they very much report on games. Harrington more so than Bucky. And you're kidding yourself if you think their agendas don't seep into their writing when the Sabres are concerned.

 

[gallagt01]

Bucky can definitely write a good article but we get too many of his ax grinding highly predictable articles. When he writes about non Sabres topics he does amuch better job. Harrington , meh. I've tired of their ax grinding and never admitting they are wrong even when its obvious they are. And as reporters with far more experience on the Sabres beat, they should be better than Moritz.

I enjoy Moritz for the "facts" as you put it and the broader range of sports she reports on in her twitter account. I wasn't aware that I was nominating her for a Pulitzer

Agreed with the bolded. And I didn't say you were nominating her for a Pulitzer.

When Sully writes about things he likes and has a very strong grasp of, he is excellent. Those things would be basketball (college in particular) and baseball. He knows next to nothing about hockey.

Its about knowing the sport. Its pretty damn hard to write something insightful about a topic you have a very weak grasp of and don't particularly like.

Again, Sully hardly pretends to know hockey. He'll tell you that himself. He's a basketball/baseball guy writing football columns on the regular.

Actually with twitter and the Sabresedge blog they very much report on games. Harrington more so than Bucky. And you're kidding yourself if you think their agendas don't seep into their writing when the Sabres are concerned.

I'm speaking to their stories, not twitter/SE, but a fair point nonetheless. I disagree that their agendas seep into their non-commentaries.


As an aside, since we're in the Buffalo sports media thread, WGR is brutal.

 

[SuperNintendoChalmrs]

Did they ever update their computer software?

 

[SackTastic]

I voiced my opinion. For whatever reason, you took it way too personally. I'm done arguing over this here. It's bogging down the GBU. PM me if you wish to carry on.

That was more a shot at Harrington than you. If you're unaware, Big Mike refuses to listen to anything anyone says unless they have a journalism degree. Came across way too snarky, so I'll own that and apologize for it.

 

[Chad Thundercock]

If you're unaware, Big Mike refuses to listen to anything anyone says unless they have a journalism degree.

If you work in the media, you have to be that way or you'll be fighting with people constantly. Which some never learn.

 

[SackTastic]

If you work in the media, you have to be that way or you'll be fighting with people constantly. Which some never learn.

I disagree. You can easily have a difference of opinion without resorting to personal insults, even in the media. Tim Graham does it quite well.

 

[joshjull]

Agreed with the bolded. And I didn't say you were nominating her for a Pulitzer.


Again, Sully hardly pretends to know hockey. He'll tell you that himself. He's a basketball/baseball guy writing football columns on the regular.

And that's a huge issue. He has worked a long time in a town were hockey is a huge part of the local sports landscape. He is a higher up at the TBN not some young kid cover high school sports. To not attempt to learn and understand the sport on some level is criminal in my mind.

I'm speaking to their stories, not twitter/SE, but a fair point nonetheless. I disagree that their agendas seep into their non-commentaries.

Bucky has written roughly the same opinion piece 100+ times bashing Regier since the co-captains left. In many of those articles he gets the facts wrong (like blaming Regier for things he had no control over). He can have whatever opinion he wants but the facts he includes in those opinion pieces should be... well... facts. Bucky has also throws in childish pot shots in straight news pieces, like his inside the NHL column. As an example, he reports that NHL GM X did this and that then includes a potshot at Regier that has no business being tin the story.

I guess having grown up reading Felser and Kelley. My bar for quality writers is much higher than yours and your professors. I mention your professor because it seems like much of your opinion is influenced by his/her opinion of Bucky/Harrington.

As an aside, since we're in the Buffalo sports media thread, WGR is brutal

No argument here. Its depressing how bad the local sports media is. There are a few bright spots like Vogl, Bill Hoppe, Rich Genzler's (sp?) show on 1270AM among some others.

Its incredible how far Schopp has fallen off from his days at WNSA. His show back then was called sports talk for smart people and it actually was just that. He had great guests on and covered a wide range of sports. Now he is a disagrace.

 

[AirBriere48]

He's not a beat guy, but Dave Davis is the best Sabres guy on Twitter, without question.

 

[Sabresruletheschool]

I love to listen to Kevin Sylvester and Andrew Peters. Why? Because there freaking entertaining!! Some guys on here sound like they want a bunch of stiffs on the radio with "just the facts mentality". I for one think they do a hell of a job. They have pretty good insight and I laugh my butt off. I have to disagree on the post that said Peters wasn't good "on the spot". I think he's pretty darn witty and I get a kick out of the stuff he blurs out. Sure I want facts, but I also want to be entertained to.

 

[cramdizzl]

Good:
Vogl
Murph
Genzler
Simon + White
Sal

Bad:
Schopp + BD
Harrington
Hamilton
Bucky

Terrible:
Jerry

 

[TehDoak]

I like Vogl+ Hoppe. Too many of the "Veterans" of the Sabres reporting core are more concerned with people agreeing that they are these genius hockey minds and anyone who disagrees with them in a ingrate who obviously doesn't understand hockey.

The whole furor over Terry Pegula not showing up to the press conference where they announced the Ruff firing (and circus act that was the season ending press conference where Sullivan and Gleason had a literal tantrum over whether or not Terry would be there), it's just some unprofessional entitlement they demand so they don't have to do any actual reporting.

 

[SackTastic]

He's not a beat guy, but Dave Davis is the best Sabres guy on Twitter, without question.

One could pose many questions about this.

Dave Davis is far from the best in any medium.