Keep on 'em Bruce

[goonys evil twin]

No, it's not asinine.

 

It's incredibly popular on this board to bash Sullivan and his articles (not that there's anything wrong with that), but the second that Hendry finally has had enough of Sullivan and lets him know about it, everyone suddenly think that it's unacceptable. Fans can slam a writer but a general manager can't?

 

Yes, exactly. The team, and everybody involved with it should ignore the media coverage and focus on the team.

 

Fans are fans, GMs are GMs. Comparing the two in this situation is asinine.

 

 

Furthermore, a tremendous amount of the Sullivan bashing on here is misplaced and juvenile. People on here get mad whenever Sullivan has a negative word to say about the Cubs, no matter how accurate it was. Justifying his rant against a writer by saying some random fans had similar rants is absurd.

Edited May 19, 2006 by goony's evil twin

[Caryatid]

Hmm, seems like us NSBB'ers are quick to slam a column whenever we don't like it. Now we're slamming Hendry for... doing the exact same thing?

 

That's assinine. We don't run the Cubs. But anyway, I can't speak for anyone other than myslef, but if Hendry were justified in calling a reporter on the carpet that would be one thing. But with the state of the currentl club, it is quite another. And I am in no way defending the hack Paul Sullivan. His sportswriting is just bad, but then again that is not what Hendry was complaining about.

No, it's not "assinine" at all. If you or I see something from Sullivan that we don't like, no one is going to get all pissy because we comment on it. Just because Hendry has the ability to go straight to Sullivan rather than whining about it on a message board doesn't make it any different.

 

He saw something that he didn't like and he let it be known. Not a big deal.

 

No, it's asinine.

 

Alou and Mercker were whiny little babies for complaining about the announcers. That's not the same as fans complaining about the announcers. Their job is to play the game. Our job is to watch, listen to or read about the game.

No, it's not asinine.

 

It's incredibly popular on this board to bash Sullivan and his articles (not that there's anything wrong with that), but the second that Hendry finally has had enough of Sullivan and lets him know about it, everyone suddenly think that it's unacceptable. Fans can slam a writer but a general manager can't?

 

EXACTLY. The power relationship between a writer for one company and another, higher ranked member of that same company carries with it a weight that the relationship of a fan to that writer does not.

 

To explain: if a fan criticizes a column, it is highly unlikely that this columnist will cease to write columns expressing that opinion; actually, this should make him write more columns of this nature, as the columnist's job to elicit a reaction.

 

Conversely, if someone high up in an organization, with the power to influence that writer's career on some level, criticizes a column, especially in the manner in which Hendry and MacPhail did, it will much more likely result in less of that type of column written in the future-a passively induced self-censorship, which is the antithesis of what a columnists is supposed to do.

 

So, on a VERY simplistic level, there is little difference. But a very minimal look into the relative positions of the people making the criticism shows that that very simplistic level is just plain wrong.

[badgercub]

No, it's not asinine.

 

It's incredibly popular on this board to bash Sullivan and his articles (not that there's anything wrong with that), but the second that Hendry finally has had enough of Sullivan and lets him know about it, everyone suddenly think that it's unacceptable. Fans can slam a writer but a general manager can't?

 

Yes, exactly. The team, and everybody involved with it should ignore the media coverage and focus on the team.

 

Fans are fans, GMs are GMs. Comparing the two in this situation is asinine.

 

I would also add, that when most of the bashing goes on on this site people tend to back up their criticism with fact.

[davearm]

If Sullivan misquoted Hendry (MacPhail) in an article in the paper, then Hendry (MacPhail) has every right to be POed and let Sullivan know he's POed.

 

If Hendry (MacPhail) is POed because Sullivan wrote something critical of the team, then he should STFU and stop reading the paper.

[oldcubsfan]

If Sullivan misquoted Hendry (MacPhail) in an article in the paper, then Hendry (MacPhail) has every right to be POed and let Sullivan know he's POed.

 

If Hendry (MacPhail) is POed because Sullivan wrote something critical of the team, then he should STFU and stop reading the paper.

 

Why shouldn't be able to express his displeasure?

[BigbadB]

I haven't agreed with a lot of Sullivan's columns in the past, but if he wrote a derogatory column about Jacque Jones and his 3 miscues at 2nd base in the last two weeks, his column was right on the money. For Hendry to criticize a writer for blasting someone who deserves to be blasted is silly.

 

I suppose Sullivan could have written a column that praised all the other times that Jones didn't get caught off base, but it isn't really newsworthy.

 

Maybe a bit of bad press is what these clowns need to quit ignoring the basic fundamentals this game was founded on.

 

Maybe Hendry should take that article into the Cub clubhouse and tell his team that he doesn't want to read another article about poor fundamentals from this team. Not because the writers were scolded not to do so, but because the team needs to stop playing fundamentally poor.

 

It's one thing to strike out 4 times in a game. It's one thing to give up 5 or 6 home runs from the mound. It's something totally different when guys can't perform the basics that are taught in little league.

 

It blows me away that Hendry and MacPhail think the writers should completely look away when a player drops a can of corn (Bynum). That they should look away when Jacque Jones attempts to advance a base on a routine fly ball that requires TAGGING UP first, etc....

 

Actually, Hendry and MacPhail are extremely lucky that the Tribune owns this team. If it weren't for that small issue, there would be more writers in this town roasting this horribly awful baseball team.

 

Yeah, MacPhail can probably have Sullivan removed from the clubhouse and probably even from the front page of the Tribune just like they had Steve Stone and Chip Caray removed from Tribune/WGN broadcasts. These guys (Stone, Caray, Sullivan) aren't the problem. Shutting them up only masks the problem. The problem is this team sucks and no one seems to care enough to do something about it other than shut up the people who report how badly this team sucks. What will they do next? Plead with ESPN to change the games won and lost in the standings so that it isn't blatantly obvious how bad this team is?

 

I've got a better idea. Make some trades and kick the nonproductive people to the curb. There is no time better than now to blow it up and start over. Cut your losses. Even if you have to pay these clowns for the remainder of their contract, you don't have to reward their poor play with more playing time.

 

Bottom line: Jim Hendry's poor decisions are what created these articles that point out his poor decisions. It isn't putting a stop to those who write the article that will fix the problem. Getting rid of the guy who makes the poor decisions is a much better start.

[badgercub]

If Sullivan misquoted Hendry (MacPhail) in an article in the paper, then Hendry (MacPhail) has every right to be POed and let Sullivan know he's POed.

 

If Hendry (MacPhail) is POed because Sullivan wrote something critical of the team, then he should STFU and stop reading the paper.

 

If he has a problem with being misquoted then fine, issue a statement saying you were misquoted, don't get yourself riled into a tizzy about it. You would think Hendry would have a lot bigger things to worry about than if he was misquoted in the paper. As a fan, it really is disappointing to hear the Hendry has time to throw a fit, when there are so many other problems that need fixing. You are in the big leagues now Jim, start acting like it. Enough with the excuses, it is time to do your job, you are sitting at the "Grown Ups" table now quit acting like a child.

[louisvillecub]

If Sullivan misquoted Hendry (MacPhail) in an article in the paper, then Hendry (MacPhail) has every right to be POed and let Sullivan know he's POed.

 

If Hendry (MacPhail) is POed because Sullivan wrote something critical of the team, then he should STFU and stop reading the paper.

 

If he has a problem with being misquoted then fine, issue a statement saying you were misquoted, don't get yourself riled into a tizzy about it. You would think Hendry would have a lot bigger things to worry about than if he was misquoted in the paper. As a fan, it really is disappointing to hear the Hendry has time to throw a fit, when there are so many other problems that need fixing. You are in the big leagues now Jim, start acting like it. Enough with the excuses, it is time to do your job, you are sitting at the "Grown Ups" table now quit acting like a child.

 

REally...a tongue lashing for beat writers the day that Neifi ends a game with the most astounding blunder seen this year...

[davearm]

If Sullivan misquoted Hendry (MacPhail) in an article in the paper, then Hendry (MacPhail) has every right to be POed and let Sullivan know he's POed.

 

If Hendry (MacPhail) is POed because Sullivan wrote something critical of the team, then he should STFU and stop reading the paper.

 

If he has a problem with being misquoted then fine, issue a statement saying you were misquoted, don't get yourself riled into a tizzy about it. You would think Hendry would have a lot bigger things to worry about than if he was misquoted in the paper. As a fan, it really is disappointing to hear the Hendry has time to throw a fit, when there are so many other problems that need fixing. You are in the big leagues now Jim, start acting like it. Enough with the excuses, it is time to do your job, you are sitting at the "Grown Ups" table now quit acting like a child.

Issue a statement? Cmon now.

 

If he was misquoted, then the correct course of action would be to confront the guy that wrote the piece and explain a) that's not what I said, and b) I don't appreciate you misrepresenting me.

[Caryatid]

If Sullivan misquoted Hendry (MacPhail) in an article in the paper, then Hendry (MacPhail) has every right to be POed and let Sullivan know he's POed.

 

If Hendry (MacPhail) is POed because Sullivan wrote something critical of the team, then he should STFU and stop reading the paper.

 

If he has a problem with being misquoted then fine, issue a statement saying you were misquoted, don't get yourself riled into a tizzy about it. You would think Hendry would have a lot bigger things to worry about than if he was misquoted in the paper. As a fan, it really is disappointing to hear the Hendry has time to throw a fit, when there are so many other problems that need fixing. You are in the big leagues now Jim, start acting like it. Enough with the excuses, it is time to do your job, you are sitting at the "Grown Ups" table now quit acting like a child.

Issue a statement? Cmon now.

 

If he was misquoted, then the correct course of action would be to confront the guy that wrote the piece and explain a) that's not what I said, and b) I don't appreciate you misrepresenting me.

 

For clarity's sake, Sullivan said that Hendry chastized him for what Hendry heard was a misquote of Jones, not of Hendry. So Jones told Hendry that he was misquoted, and Hendry went after Sullivan.

[davearm]

If Sullivan misquoted Hendry (MacPhail) in an article in the paper, then Hendry (MacPhail) has every right to be POed and let Sullivan know he's POed.

 

If Hendry (MacPhail) is POed because Sullivan wrote something critical of the team, then he should STFU and stop reading the paper.

 

Why shouldn't be able to express his displeasure?

I assume you mean his displeasure over Sullivan writing something critical of the team, not his displeasure about being misquoted.

 

The answer is, because Sullivan's simply doing his job, and if the team's failing miserably then it's his responsibility to write about how and why he thinks they're failing.

 

Meanwhile a big part of Hendry's job is to be immune from this sort of criticism. It goes with the territory.

[davearm]

Issue a statement? Cmon now.

 

If he was misquoted, then the correct course of action would be to confront the guy that wrote the piece and explain a) that's not what I said, and b) I don't appreciate you misrepresenting me.

 

For clarity's sake, Sullivan said that Hendry chastized him for what Hendry heard was a misquote of Jones, not of Hendry. So Jones told Hendry that he was misquoted, and Hendry went after Sullivan.

OK, so Hendry was essentially speaking out on Jones' behalf.

 

Doesn't really change the fact that if Sullivan misquoted somebody, he deserved to be called on it.

[oldcubsfan]

If Sullivan misquoted Hendry (MacPhail) in an article in the paper, then Hendry (MacPhail) has every right to be POed and let Sullivan know he's POed.

 

If Hendry (MacPhail) is POed because Sullivan wrote something critical of the team, then he should STFU and stop reading the paper.

 

Why shouldn't be able to express his displeasure?

I assume you mean his displeasure over Sullivan writing something critical of the team, not his displeasure about being misquoted.

 

The answer is, because Sullivan's simply doing his job, and if the team's failing miserably then it's his responsibility to write about how and why he thinks they're failing.

 

Meanwhile a big part of Hendry's job is to be immune from this sort of criticism. It goes with the territory.

This has been boiling for quite a while. It goes back at least to 2003.

[Caryatid]

Issue a statement? Cmon now.

 

If he was misquoted, then the correct course of action would be to confront the guy that wrote the piece and explain a) that's not what I said, and b) I don't appreciate you misrepresenting me.

 

For clarity's sake, Sullivan said that Hendry chastized him for what Hendry heard was a misquote of Jones, not of Hendry. So Jones told Hendry that he was misquoted, and Hendry went after Sullivan.

OK, so Hendry was essentially speaking out on Jones' behalf.

 

Doesn't really change the fact that if Sullivan misquoted somebody, he deserved to be called on it.

 

True, however, its not up to Hendry (who would be hearing the story secondhand at best) to go after Sullivan. If Jones was misquoted, its Jones' job to set the record straight. Not some guy who wasn't even there, and who could intimidate the writer into self-censorship.

[brinoch]

Well, speaking as someone who serves in a media relations role professionally -- and in a much higher intensity environment than a baseball team, too, I can say that this is generally not a good thing to do.

 

However, sometimes you have to do it.

 

On occasion, I've gone toe to toe with reporters and editors when I've felt they missed a quote, misunderstood a key point, mischaracterized a situation, or whatever. Frankly, I can recall several serious screaming matches with reporters and editors, and, while it was the right thing to do, it still left a bad taste in my mouth.

 

As Bruce noted, such an occurence with him is usually related to an individual column/article. Same for me. I do not let it get personal, and I am very careful to keep it on the article at hand and NOT to make generalizations. But it's hard on both sides nonethless. And if you aren't very careful, it can have an enduring negative influence on your relationship with them.

 

I don't know the particulars, and I don't know the personalities, so I don't think its fair to criticize in this case.

[SCCubbieFAN]

Sneed hears top Chicago Cubs executives Andy MacPhail and Jim Hendry berated Chicago Tribune sports editor Dan McGrath and Cubs beat writer Paul Sullivan over what they felt was the paper's unfairly critical coverage of the team. The expletive-laced tongue-lashing supposedly took place last week at Wrigley Field, according to a source."

 

Link:

 

http://www.suntimes.com/output/sneed/cst-nws-sneed19.html

 

I thought this was the reason this thread was started to chastise Hendry & MacPhail, not because Hendry was upset because Sullivan misquoted Jones. :roll:

Edited May 19, 2006 by SCCubbieFAN

[brinoch]

True, however, its not up to Hendry (who would be hearing the story secondhand at best) to go after Sullivan. If Jones was misquoted, its Jones' job to set the record straight. Not some guy who wasn't even there, and who could intimidate the writer into self-censorship.

 

No, it's not Jones's job to correct this. I completely disagree. He should never, ever deal with a reporter in an adversarial situation. Jones should let the media relations staff deal with this. If the staff dealt with it, and they felt it was still unresolved to their satisfaction, then Hendry approaching Sullivan might be appropriate. But without knowing the chain of events and conversations, I don't think it's fair to cast judgment on Hendry.

 

And, I don't blame Sullivan for leaking it, by the way. There's a reason you don't pick fights with people who buy ink by the barrell.

[davearm]

Sneed hears top Chicago Cubs executives Andy MacPhail and Jim Hendry berated Chicago Tribune sports editor Dan McGrath and Cubs beat writer Paul Sullivan over what they felt was the paper's unfairly critical coverage of the team. The expletive-laced tongue-lashing supposedly took place last week at Wrigley Field, according to a source."

 

Link:

 

http://www.suntimes.com/output/sneed/cst-nws-sneed19.html

 

I thought this was the reason this threat was started to chastise Hendry & MacPhail, not because Hendry was upset because Sullivan misquoted Jones. :roll:

Apparently Sullivan himself indicated on WSCR that the entire incident was triggered by the alleged Jones misquote.

[Caryatid]

True, however, its not up to Hendry (who would be hearing the story secondhand at best) to go after Sullivan. If Jones was misquoted, its Jones' job to set the record straight. Not some guy who wasn't even there, and who could intimidate the writer into self-censorship.

 

No, it's not Jones's job to correct this. I completely disagree. He should never, ever deal with a reporter in an adversarial situation. Jones should let the media relations staff deal with this. If the staff dealt with it, and they felt it was still unresolved to their satisfaction, then Hendry approaching Sullivan might be appropriate. But without knowing the chain of events and conversations, I don't think it's fair to cast judgment on Hendry.

 

And, I don't blame Sullivan for leaking it, by the way. There's a reason you don't pick fights with people who buy ink by the barrell.

 

I think this is a unique situation because they both work for the same company, though. I think someone with less juice within the organization probably would have been a better choice to confront Sullivan (if, in fact, it was erroneous-which is debatable), because there is certainly a conflict of interest here and an unstable power breakdown.

[Banedon]

True, however, its not up to Hendry (who would be hearing the story secondhand at best) to go after Sullivan. If Jones was misquoted, its Jones' job to set the record straight. Not some guy who wasn't even there, and who could intimidate the writer into self-censorship.

 

No, it's not Jones's job to correct this. I completely disagree. He should never, ever deal with a reporter in an adversarial situation. Jones should let the media relations staff deal with this. If the staff dealt with it, and they felt it was still unresolved to their satisfaction, then Hendry approaching Sullivan might be appropriate. But without knowing the chain of events and conversations, I don't think it's fair to cast judgment on Hendry.

 

And, I don't blame Sullivan for leaking it, by the way. There's a reason you don't pick fights with people who buy ink by the barrell.

 

I think this is a unique situation because they both work for the same company, though. I think someone with less juice within the organization probably would have been a better choice to confront Sullivan (if, in fact, it was erroneous-which is debatable), because there is certainly a conflict of interest here and an unstable power breakdown.

 

You really want a player going after the media? Like Mercker did with Steve Stone, by calling the booth? Wasn't players worrying about the media part of what fans were upset about with past seasons?

[goonys evil twin]

You really want a player going after the media? Like Mercker did with Steve Stone, by calling the booth? Wasn't players worrying about the media part of what fans were upset about with past seasons?

 

Isn't this Sharon Pannozzo's job? Or was Jim just filling in for that woman who left for another job? Jack of all trades, master of none.

[Banedon]

You really want a player going after the media? Like Mercker did with Steve Stone, by calling the booth? Wasn't players worrying about the media part of what fans were upset about with past seasons?

 

Isn't this Sharon Pannozzo's job? Or was Jim just filling in for that woman who left for another job? Jack of all trades, master of none.

 

Possibly. I don't know all the Cubs media relations job descriptions and what not, but to argue that Jones should have talked to Sullivan himself is wrong.

[thedaymen]

It depends on their relationship...if Jones and Sullivan are relaxed around each other, there's nothing wrong with him saying, "dude, you misquoted me." I do a lot of media relations in my job and misquotes happen...what they tell you in pr school is just to let the reporter know it happened so that it is less likely to happen again. I say less likely, because it will happen again.

 

If you're a pro-athlete, you have to be able to handle this sort of thing on your own. If you think the reporter is out to get you, thats another situation and its when its acceptable to shut down or have the team's pr folks talk to the reporter and his/her editor if necesary.

 

It is never a good idea to yell at a reporter. Ever.

[Andy]

Awesome post.

[brinoch]

You really want a player going after the media? Like Mercker did with Steve Stone, by calling the booth? Wasn't players worrying about the media part of what fans were upset about with past seasons?

 

Isn't this Sharon Pannozzo's job? Or was Jim just filling in for that woman who left for another job? Jack of all trades, master of none.

 

Yes, in general, I would think this is Sharon's job. However, it may be that this escalated beyond Sharon. Hendry is her boss, too.