I’m convinced that the majority of these media people 1) only read the headline or summary of the column, namely that sportwriters shouldn’t root for teams,  and 2) have no idea about some of the stuff Shaughnessy has pulled over the years.

I’m not going to launch into another 2000 word screed here. Just want to reemphasize a couple of things.

I keep hearing from media, while Shaughnessy goes on his media victory tour “Dan’s absolutely right, media shouldn’t be rooting for teams.” – as if that is the entire issue here. The enabling hosts cry “But it would be so boring if there weren’t brave people like Dan and Ron Borges around!  They’re making this into “Shaughnessy makes fans mad because he picks against the locals!!!”  As if that matters at all. I don’t care who he picks to win.

Let me be clear: I don’t think sportswriters should be rooting for the home team.

It is possible though, to write entertaining columns while remaining detached from the outcome and without completely trashing the locals.

I understand that Dan Shaughnessy is simply not a talented enough writer to do this. He’s no Ray Fitzgerald or Leigh Montville. He’s not Bruce Arthur. He only knows one way, and that is the misery way. Shaughnessy is utterly predictable.

Either that, or he’s just too lazy.  Yeah, he’s not there to root. He’s there to troll the fans. That’s brave? That’s creative? When was the last time you ever learned something from a Shaughnessy column? The next time will be the first time for me.

This morning Shaughnessy said his not caring about the outcome allowed him to sit and write after the Patriots blew a 19-0 season instead of “wetting his pants” like the fanboys and presumably others in the pressbox were doing. Even on the air, he needs to bring that game up whenever possible.

How noble. How brave. Yes, Joe Sullivan, I know Shaughnessy is the bravest columnist you’ve ever seen.

I can see how others in the media just want to hold him up as a shining example of their profession.



16 thoughts on “Media Circling Wagons Around Shaughnessy Are As Clueless As He Is

  1. It hurts to see Adam Kaufman’s comments. Someone with a Newhouse education from Syracuse should know better.


  2. I would love to know all these writers’ honest opinions of Shaughnessy’s last three columns. Would be quite telling.


  3. Well i think it is obvious. Half of them want to defend Shanks style because trolling is an easy way to write their articles. The other half are older writers who know him.


  4. It’s pretty depressing that CHB’s entire premise was basically, “i don’t care” and even gave him a standing ovation. Maybe you SHOULD care.

    Sportswriters are so full of themselves. Whether you root for the team or not has ZERO impact on the games. Especially a columnist, who is just sharing his opinion. The CHB is basically an old-timey blogger.

    If you’re not invested in the result of the game…then wtf are you even watching?



  5. I learn everything I need to know about sports by watching them, not by reading trolls with high tech crayons.


  6. So after reading the “article” yesterday and now sitting through the entire D&C interview today I am convinced that Bruce is right, the media who defend him are clueless.

    I waited all through the interview this morning to hear John Dennis or Gerry Calahan ask Shaughnessy why he can’t couch his material in a way similar to Tom E Curran. Curran is the complete polar opposite of Shank or Borges. He is funny, sardonic, sarcastic, caustic and wry all while presenting informative coverage of the Patriots. It can be done without insulting the fan or denigrating the fans enjoyment of the product.

    I also waited for D or C or for that matter Minihane to ask Dan if he thinks he covers the Patriots differently than he covers the Sox. He wrote a book with Tito….granted it was while he was not he way out but still he had and has far better access to the Sox than he does to the Patriots. The issue for most fans who think Shaughnessy is a problem is not that Dan writes with an agenda when discussing the Patriots…its that he refuses acknowledge that he has an agenda. Not a point of view but an actual agenda. Borges, brave Ron Borges, has the same issue. Borges has no problem carrying an agents water, but god forbid he actually look at what he is writing with any sort of journalistic standard and think…”do I really want to only report what the agent is telling me…maybe I should attempt to understand the team’s position in this negotiation or situation”? In Dan’s case does he even think “hmmm….the Pats are 10-4 in first place with 2 games to go and a 2 game lead in the division….maybe I can write a column about the perceived problems I see without calling the coach arrogant, egotistical or evil….maybe I can write a column and mention the owner of the team’s name and discuss his incredible charitable endeavors rather than make a vague reference to a stop watch incident that never happened”?

    There are countless examples of Dan injecting himself into the story….violation of rule one of the Journalistic Rules he seems so intent on following. There are countless examples of him not telling the truth or when faced with facts that counter his narrative not acknowledge them…violating rule 2. His problem and the reason why he has the reputation he has is because he arrogantly believes the is doing something no one else can do. If that something is generate page views from people viewing the train wreck that is his writing…he succeeds. If that something is him thinking he has insight others lack…then he is delusional.

    One last thing, in Dan’s interview with D&C today he said reading blogs and comments is tiring. I would assume being shown the folly of your ways by a non paid professional on a regular basis would be difficult for the ego and for that matter the id to handle. The dismissive tone in which he made the comments however point to a fact that many of us have postulated for years…he does not like or respect the reader.


    1. Heard that interview and was disappointed in Minihane. He’s the new kid in town and I expect him to be the contrarian in this Boston sports media good old boy network toe (or other body parts) sucking exhibition we’ve been witnessing. Was very disappointed that Minihane did not challenge Shank when he refused to address the team cheerleading found among his own Globe colleagues.


      1. Minihane on D+C this morning with Shaughnessy vs. what he said yesterday on Matt Perrault
        http://bit.ly/1fJ58zS is quite different. I have to think that it has
        to do with him solo vs. having to be a bit ‘subservient’ when on with

        Maybe it has a bit to do with this meeting D+C keep teasing him about regarding his future with the station?


          1. Btw Minihane questions how he can take any Boston Globe Red Sox reporting seriously because John Henry now owns the Globe?? Someone might want to tell that Kirk that John Henry owns HIS STATION also, the one and only NESN.


  7. The most pointed and accurate response to Shaughnessy’s column was found in the comments section by a poster. Hits a homerun with this diagnosis.

    >>NYerInBalto 12/18/13 08:41 AM

    You are predictably pessimistic about most things in Boston sports.

    You get personal and snarky

    Most of all, you enjoy the misplaced notion that you are above it all.

    Just having this story on Page One is about stirring the pot, not informing or reporting.

    Stop complaining about being a pot-stirrer that no one understands.

    People are more perceptive than you give them credit for.

    They are rightfully calling you on this sham of a story<<<
    Says it all.
    Oh and by the way, fanboy/pinkhat are terms the all knowing media uses to dismiss the mutterings of the ignorant and uneducated public.


  8. Saw an except from the RSS reader of boston sports.

    “Picked-up pieces while hiring a food taster after reading fanboy blogs, tweets, and e-mails . . .”

    I didn’t even have to click the info button to figure the author out.

    You still don’t get it, Dan. You probably never will.

    How long ago was it that media, and not just sports, gained this entrenched status where you were fortified in this intellectual tower, clearly a notch above society? So much in the media is, “wait you disagree? it’s because you don’t get what I get. You’re stupid or insert a tons of other insults/claims here”

    You don’t need a sales 101 class to realize how this won’t just work from the media side but not exactly make you an amicable person to be around.

    I noticed a few hosts talking about the piece, outside of D+C. There was one host/show I noticed not taking it on: F&M. Why I find this odd is that Felger clearly keeps his eyes out for pieces like this. Furthermore, it’s not like 2-6 on WBZ isn’t a daily object lesson in “Shaugnessyification”.

    Unless I missed him covering this, I’ve heard nothing. Hit a bit too close to home and he know that him agreeing with Shaughnessy opens the floods gates on his game?


  9. Tom Curran gets it:

    Tom E. Curran ‏@tomecurran 43m
    @jerrythornton1 Sad truth. Fans read other fans because, in too many instances, fans better analysts than people paid to write drive-bys

    Tom E. Curran ‏@tomecurran 36m
    @tadthebad the “sad” of it is the effort level of the people who are paid to inform compared to those that aren’t

    Tom E. Curran ‏@tomecurran 10m
    @jerrythornton1 I believe that, though. Media roots for column, talk show fodder because analysis is harder and dull. Quiet win<chaotic loss


  10. sports media hacks are a universally unloved bunch. They stick together just like all those misfit toys on ‘Rudolph.’


Comments are closed.