36 replies to this topic

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Or instead of lying, he simply deliberately misrepresents what others say to further his own shit-stirring agenda.

Others have linked to Schilling's blog notes saying CHB took his quotes out of context in today's Clemens piece.

BSMW has an even more damning comparison:

Quote

Still officially "off" today, but couldn't help but post on this horrific misrepresentation in the Boston Globe today.

From the "and the media wonders why people hate them so much" category:

Dan Shaughnessy today:

After the Sox beat the Twins in Minneapolis yesterday, Schilling was asked his reaction to the Rocket's re entry into the Yankees clubhouse. Ever the blowhard, Schilling declared, "We don't need him" -- a comment of stupefying arrogance that is sure to come up a couple of million times between now and the end of the 2007 postseason.

What Schilling actually said (AP Story):

"It would have been nice to have him, but we didn't need him. We DON'T need him," Red Sox ace Curt Schilling said. "It's May, a long way to go, but I like the way this team is comprised right now. This team has incredible makeup, it's got great chemistry and I feel like we were a legitimate World Series contender without him, so it doesn't change my mind."

If there's any "stupefying arrogance" going on here, it's from Shaughnessy. This is exactly the kind of twisting of quotes and misrepresentation that the Boston sports fans have come to loathe and despise from the knights of the keyboard. While admittedly most writers don't stoop to this level, writers like Shaughnessy poison the readers against all their colleagues.

[mpl6993]

I love seeing schill refer to CHB as "she" on 38pitches.com

linky

Quote

I’ve always believed if I pitched and did what I was capable of doing it would all work out in the end. Contrary to CHB’s belief, and she may find it hard to believe, I LOVE pitching with Daisuke, I love to be able to see first hand what he brings to the team and the organization.

nice.

[ekim colorwaterpit]

Smiling Joe Hesketh, on May 7 2007, 01:42 PM, said:

Or instead of lying, he simply deliberately misrepresents what others say to further his own shit-stirring agenda.

Others have linked to Schilling's blog notes saying CHB took his quotes out of context in today's Clemens piece.

BSMW has an even more damning comparison:

This totally underscores why Schilling's blog is a great idea. If the media and CHB in particular is going to mangle what you say so badly it is a great idea to have a method to counter their stupidity. I would guess because of this blog most people now know that CHB totally misrepresented what Schilling said. Without his blog, who knows? I may be totally naive to think that his blog has this much impact, but I think this example points out the importance of it anyway.

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

The house organ has to get slapped for this one too as after the game yesterday Ken Macha and I think it was Tom Carron were reacting to Schilling's statements and Carron said, "Well, there's you headline for tomorrow: 'Schilling says we don't need him [Clemens]'. " Even at the time I thought it was a pretty disenginuous statement to make because everyone heard the quote and that's not what Schilling said.

Here's a serious question to any journalists reading the board, why even bother to ask the athletes questions any more. Just make up a bunch of shit and see if it sticks, I mean every day we're inching towards that goal anyway ... just quit being pussies and go the whole nine yards. And it's not like I have a love of athletes, I just enjoy reading a newspaper and not having to wonder if the news is real.

[Catch Me Bruno]

I realize this is a Sport page thing, so who at the Globe really gives a shit (unless the CHB was lying about a racial remark, then it would be front-line news apparently), but really, is there any accountability at all for their sports writers? If a writer knowingly takes one remark out of context, and writes his whole column around that one quote, calls a player a "blowhard", well, is there anything at all going on anymore at the Globe that represents actual sports writing? I just can't imagine Edes writing something like this.

It's really become KiddieTown over there. When are they going to slap The Mangina upside his hairdo and take away his keys to the Kool Kids room? I'll give 10 bucks to the first Sox player to shove the CHB down a flight of stairs.

[pedros hairstylist]

John Marzano Olympic Hero, on May 7 2007, 04:26 PM, said:

Here's a serious question to any journalists reading the board, why even bother to ask the athletes questions any more. Just make up a bunch of shit and see if it sticks, I mean every day we're inching towards that goal anyway ... just quit being pussies and go the whole nine yards. And it's not like I have a love of athletes, I just enjoy reading a newspaper and not having to wonder if the news is real.

Sports has always operated in it's own little world with regards to everyday newspaper journalism standards, access, sourcing, etc. It's gotten a *tiny* bit better in the wake of the Jayson Blair fiasco, but really, the sportswriters live in a different universe than the rest of us. (Hey, no one provides me a free lunch/dinner, and a parking space when I do a daily story. People don't automatically grant me access to a newsmaker before and after an event so I can get quotes--you hustle and try to make it happen. That's called shoe-leather.)

The whole "clubhouse sources say..." shit was supposed to go out the window, just like in Washington, DC political coverage, but these guys are resistant to old habits and let's face it, they wouldnt be able to break the stories they do if they had to rely on 'on the record' sourcing (again, like the rest of us). I actually raised this issue specifically with the top echelon, JMOH, a few years back and was told the sports staff is supposed to be held to the same ethical and coverage standards as the rest of the paper. But clearly, we all know that's not the case. All I can say is keep complaining to them--that's the best route to getting heard.

[SuzynWaldmansO-Face]

He really got away with "ever the blowhard" in a column? How long until this officially devloves into CHB calling Schilling a cunt? At this point, it speaks just as much about the Globe as it does Danny boy.

Edited by SuzynWaldmansO-Face, 07 May 2007 - 05:44 PM.

[twoBshorty]

There are other instances of Shaughnessy doing this as well. In a column last August, he wrote:

Quote

Remember what Theo Epstein told us Sunday night as he stood on the Fenway lawn before Game 4 of the Carnage by Lansdowne Street: ``We're not going to change our approach and all of a sudden try to build an uberteam and all of a sudden win now at the expense of the future."

There you have it. Let's not win now. This should help you enjoy the remaining 36 games of 2006. Just relax and check out Dustin Pedroia's footwork around second base. It's not about 2006 anymore. It's about the future.

Link

Here is the same quote, with the multiple subsequent sentences that Shaughnessy left out:

Quote

``We're not going to change our approach and all of a sudden try to build an uberteam, and all of a sudden win now at the expense of the future. That's not an excuse. I'm not trying to throw some sort of a cloak over the clear holes that are on this team by sort of talking instantly about the future. I'm not. Our goals are now and our goals are to put ourselves in a position to win every single year."

Link

Kind of changes things a little bit, doesn't it?

Edit: idiocy

Edited by twoBshorty, 07 May 2007 - 06:02 PM.

[someoneanywhere]

The Hairstylist giveth some great insight above. As a former member of the Fourth Estate -- hard news, not sports -- I can tell you that what you see in major markets is only an outgrowth of what goes on everywhere. Sports writers are not journalists, and should not even be thought of in the same category. They are what I called them: sports writers.

When done well, very little tops good sportswriting. It can capture the full range of the human experience. But it is also very difficult to do well. Vey difficult. The cliches alone -- and the cliched way of thinking that goes along with them -- are writers' jungles. Hacking your way through is awfully tough.

The basic problem, IMO -- and this comes not only from my own experience working with them as well as almost 20 years of watching my father, an editor, work with them -- is that most sports writers themselves know that what they do ultimately doesn't matter. Now, we all know that ultimately it does not matter. But if you allow yourself to think that way about your craft and your craftsmanship, you are on your way to a career of hacking.

[Hee-Seop's Fable]

someoneanywhere, on May 7 2007, 07:07 PM, said:

The Hairstylist giveth some great insight above. As a former member of the Fourth Estate -- hard news, not sports -- I can tell you that what you see in major markets is only an outgrowth of what goes on everywhere. Sports writers are not journalists, and should not even be thought of in the same category. They are what I called them: sports writers.

When done well, very little tops good sportswriting. It can capture the full range of the human experience. But it is also very difficult to do well. Vey difficult. The cliches alone -- and the cliched way of thinking that goes along with them -- are writers' jungles. Hacking your way through is awfully tough.

The basic problem, IMO -- and this comes not only from my own experience working with them as well as almost 20 years of watching my father, an editor, work with them -- is that most sports writers themselves know that what they do ultimately doesn't matter. Now, we all know that ultimately it does not matter. But if you allow yourself to think that way about your craft and your craftsmanship, you are on your way to a career of hacking.

Whither Clarke Booth has gone? Your post makes me fiercely lament his disappearance. To me, he was the Ted Williams of sportswriters/broadcasters. In particular, I wish he had been around to comment on the Sox in '03 & '04. I'd pay $100 for the priviledge of getting those segments from him on DVD. And I believe CHB could have done a reasonable job at filling his shoes, had he ever set his mind to it, rather than becoming the whore he is.

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I think that Clark Booth is still around and (if it's the person I'm thinking of) he's a bitter, old hack who literally hates every single thing about sports. Nothing pleases the guy.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Yeah, Clark's literally senile these days if his current scribblings are any indication.

More from Bruce Allen at BSMW:

Quote

I've gotten a few notes asking why I didn't take the Herald to task for their front page headline of Schilling's "We don't need him..." quote yesterday.

Some wondered if it was just an example of only targeting Shaughnessy for the sake of targeting Shaughnessy. Not true. The difference between the two situations is that the Herald was just a headline. Once you looked inside the paper you would not find any references to Schilling being a blowhard, coupled with the statement that the quote "we don't need him" represents "stupefying arrogance" - without giving any of the context of the quote.

Shaughnessy misrepresented the position that Schilling had, and then crucified him for it. While Schilling may well be a blowhard at times and arrogant at others, he was neither in this instance. He was not putting down Clemens, or saying that he wasn't any good, and that Sox couldn't use him. He was expressing confidence in his team. He also noted last week on WEEI...before any of this...that should Clemens come here, it would put one of his teammates out of a job, and he wasn't sure he wanted that. Shaughnessy made it look entirely different. He also spent time on various media outlets yesterday saying that Schilling was now backpedaling from the quote.

Enough on that topic.

[JohntheBaptist]

Just because I don't totally remember- was CHB the one that perpetuated the "twilight of his career" quote myth? Not that it matters who did it- it's just another example of this. That said, it's an example of what can happen with a quote taken out of context like this.

[Fratboy]

Not sure. A bunch of them did. I did a whole thing on that a couple years ago, and the entire quote has been misconstrued for years. I'm gonna dig through the Glob and Herald archives to find the quote, but it's something on the line of "We were hoping Clemens would remain with the Red Sox through the twilight of his career", not indicating specifically when the "twilight" was to be. The inference was that it was at some point in the future, but not the 1997 season.

EDIT:

GOT IT!

From the abstract: Michael Silverman, December 14, 1996:

Headline: END OF AN ERA No return fire from Sox Brass tried to keep ace

Quote

The Red Sox brass kept a mostly stiff upper lip yesterday, putting the shiniest gloss possible on the news that lifelong Sox Roger Clemens had left the fold.

Restraining themselves from returning the type of salvos that Clemens threw at the club, and particularly Dan Duquette, during his press conference in Toronto, the general manager and CEO John Harrington were more subtle.

"The Red Sox and our fans were fortunate to see Roger Clemens play in his prime and we had hoped to keep him in Boston during the twilight of his career," said Duquette, who joined Harrington on a conference call yesterday afternoon. "We just want to let the fans know that we worked extremely hard to sign Roger Clemens. . . . We made him a substantial, competitive offer, by far the most money ever offered to a player in the history of the Red Sox franchise.

That's where the abstract ends.

Edited by Fratboy, 08 May 2007 - 10:45 AM.

[Cuzittt]

The Wiki is our friend:

Twilight_of_his_career

[JimD]

Nobody in the media cares that they got the 'twilight' quote wrong. It has taken on a life of its own, and many of them seem to enjoy bringing it back up to tweak the Red Sox organization and their fans as the perceived need arises. So it will be with G38's 'We don't need him' quote if the Sox falter this season.

[Catch Me Bruno]

I'm still trying to understand how a newspaper could allow one of its writers to call someone a "blowhard", and get away with it. And then let the writer go on the air to claim other people are using quotes out of context. I mean, it really must be quite the professional setting at the Globe these days. It's simply unbelievable. As someone else mentioned above, the list of things he can't say is apparently getting shorter with every story he writes.

This is an embarassment to the Globe. Apparently they're quite happy to count their dollars and allow their writing to go "plop!" in the shitter.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Catch Me Bruno, on May 8 2007, 12:46 PM, said:

I'm still trying to understand how a newspaper could allow one of its writers to call someone a "blowhard", and get away with it. And then let the writer go on the air to claim other people are using quotes out of context. I mean, it really must be quite the professional setting at the Globe these days. It's simply unbelievable. As someone else mentioned above, the list of things he can't say is apparently getting shorter with every story he writes.

This is an embarassment to the Globe. Apparently they're quite happy to count their dollars and allow their writing to go "plop!" in the shitter.

It was an opinion piece, which is presumably what they're paying CHB for: to stir up shit.

What's funnier is Shank calling someone else out for attention whoring. My irony meter just broke.

The problem here isn't CHB calling Schilling a blowhard; it's his deliberate misuse and crop of a Schilling quote in order to misrepresent what Schilling said.

[pedros hairstylist]

The CHB thing is more evidence that what the guy does is not journalism, not even close. You don't plot the storyline and ending to a story and then cherry-pick quotes and faux facts to support your thesis in so-called real journalism.

Like Questec, CHB flat-out sucks.

[BoSoxLady]

I sent an email to Danny Boy asking if he saw Schill's comments, or plucked them off of the internet. Furthermore, I wrote that if he saw the Schill interview, he intentionally misrepresented what was said. Here's his response:

Quote

cheri -- let's be grown up about this, now. i heard it. it was a stand alone statement. "we don't need him.'' right in the middle of all the stuff you cited. tom caron remarked on it immediately. it was a stupid thing to say. you know that. you also know that curt is a big boy and can take care of himself so please . . .
all the best,
dan

He's dilusional. Now he's citing Tom Caron's statement that "there's tomorrow's headline" as an excuse to intentionally take Schill out of context. Anyone with half a brain knows that Schill was wrapping his arms around his teamates.

Let's not forget that Shaughnessy was also the writer who perpetuated the myth that Clemens said he "doesn't want to carry his own bags." Shaughnessy admitted as such to me several years ago in a bar in Fort Myers (shocka!) I tried to locate the article but for some reason, I can't access the Globe archives at the moment. I'll check back and post my findings.

Edited by BoSoxLady, 08 May 2007 - 03:09 PM.

[troparra]

BoSoxLady, on May 8 2007, 04:08 PM, said:

I sent an email to Danny Boy asking if he saw Schill's comments, or plucked them off of the internet. Furthermore, I wrote that if he saw the Schill interview, he intentionally misrepresented what was said. Here's his response:
He's dilusional. Now he's citing Tom Caron's statement that "there's tomorrow's headline" as an excuse to intentionally take Schill out of context. Anyone with half a brain knows that Schill was wrapping his arms around his teamates.

Let's not forget that Shaughnessy was also the writer who perpetuated the myth that Clemens said he "doesn't want to carry his own bags." Shaughnessy admitted as such to me several years ago in a bar in Fort Myers (shocka!) I tried to locate the article but for some reason, I can't access the Globe archives at the moment. I'll check back and post my findings.

That's a classic manipulative response. First he tells you you're being childish, then he says other people agree with him, and then he says you should know better.

[jose melendez]

On his blog, Curt said "Contrary to CHB’s belief, and she may find it hard to believe, I LOVE pitching with Daisuke, I love to be able to see first hand what he brings to the team and the organization."

Nice to see he's channeling Bill Parcells to Terry Glenn.

[Fratboy]

Cuzittt, on May 8 2007, 11:52 AM, said:

The Wiki is our friend:

Twilight_of_his_career

Indeed it is. Thanks for capturing that. Going through the Globe archives, I did a search for "Clemens" and "twilight of his career". No mentions until midseason 1997, when it was apparent that Clemens was kicking major ass. It is at this time that when "twilight" is mentioned. Once in the summer, it's that Roger is "entering" the "twilight". But on September 28, 1997, Duquette is misquoted for the first time:

Quote

Clemens remains confident that the [Blue Jays are]headed in the right direction. At 35, he is aware that his time for winning a championship is dwindling. But not because he is "in the twilight of his career," words that will dog Red Sox general manager Dan Duquette for as long as Clemens remains the Rocket.

Duquette never said that. What he said, as cited above, was "we hoped to keep him in Boston during the twilight of his career."

The wordsmith at fault? Gordon Edes. He, along with countless others, has continued to misquote Duke ever since. I don't have access to the Herald archives, so I'm not sure who's the first, but I'm not surprised if it starts with the beat writers here in Boston.

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Shank has one of his "cleaning out the drawers of the sports mind" columns today and he runs this blurb:

Quote

Remember when the Kentucky Derby was a big deal? Like boxing, daily Mass, and newspaper home delivery, thoroughbred racing is slowly going away as young people turn to new things.

Is it just me or does every time he write about something that was popular 50 years ago does he use the same three examples? I know that daily Mass is in there time and time again.

And then there was a blurb about wanting to know about the cop who gives Papelbon a high five every time he comes in from the bullpen. Here's a tip Bozo, you're a fucking writer with Red Sox connections, get the story your damn self. Jesus.

[AlNipper49]

I think it would be awesome if he finally got his dream interview with the bullpen cop then misquoted the shit out of him, then the next morning a cadre of the bullpen cop brothers pull him over and rape him with an aerosol can and beat him with a length of garden hose.

[TheoShmeo]

Today Dan wrote that GS over the Mavericks is why we STILL love sports.

That Dan needs to stretch and strain for reasons to still love sports tells us a lot about him. Here he is, covering sports in a region that boasts two teams who are at (or thought to be at) the top of their respective leagues and about whom there are dozens of interesting story lines, and he writes that the GS series is why we still love sports. Why does he have to look for reasons? And what exactly happened in the past that would make it so that we'd need to find a reason to sustain our interest in sports? To be clear, I thought that series was great, too, but it never occurred to me that I needed it to maintain my passion for sports.

Dan should really get a new job.

Edited by TheoShmeo, 09 May 2007 - 07:35 AM.

[behindthepen]

Occasionally, the EEI Whiner Line generates a true gem.

Tonight, a guy coined the phrase "Shaughnessize", meaning "to take out of context".

[reggiecleveland]

I think Larry King wrote his last column.

[thekfish]

behindthepen, on May 9 2007, 08:51 PM, said:

Occasionally, the EEI Whiner Line generates a true gem.

Tonight, a guy coined the phrase "Shaughnessize", meaning "to take out of context".

I'm pretty sure it was Ordway who coined "Shaughnessize".

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Barstool Sports has a priceless CHB story.

Dan has apparently not only called an emailer at home to bitch at him, but then called the kid's boss to complain and forwarded his emails to his boss.

Quote

This is a continuation of the Dan Shaughnessy thing from yesterday. If you didn't read yesterday's reader emails than click here to catch up. In a nutshell a reader sent Dan Shaughnessy an email with the above picture attached which prompted Dan to call the kid on the phone and yell at him. We posted the entire story. Now Dan has apparently gone one step further...

Reader Email

Dear Dan Shaughnessy,

You are a douche. After speaking with you on the phone yesterday, I had a little respect for you for actually calling me out. That is all gone today as you have proved yourself to be a scumbag of the highest order. Thanks for calling my boss and sending all those emails alerting them my involvement in the posts on Barstool Sports today (do you know what it is now?). You have shown my employer how questionable my morals and ethics are, but more importantly, showed exactly how batshit crazy you are. Do you want my parents home address so you can go chat with them about the terrible job they did raising me? Just to recap;

YOU CALLED MY BOSS AND TOLD ON ME!!! HOW OLD ARE YOU???

Matt

If this is true and I have no reason to believe it’s not this is one of the weirdest things I’ve ever heard in my life. Dan Shaughnessy calling a kid’s boss who writes something mean about him? Are you serious? Is Shaughnessy that insane? I mean this is like Crazy Joe Davola nuts. I may have to stop writing bad things about him from now on because I don’t want a maniac like this on my ass. The Stool may need to hire personal bodyguards for Chisholm so Crazy Dan Shaughnessy doesn’t put the kibosh on him.

[Nuf Ced]

Holy crap. That is douchebaggery of the highest order.

I bet Shaughnessy got pantsed and wedgied alot when he was in grade school

Edited by Nuf Ced, 17 May 2007 - 12:24 PM.

[moondog80]

Smiling Joe Hesketh, on May 17 2007, 01:09 PM, said:

Barstool Sports has a priceless CHB story.

Dan has apparently not only called an emailer at home to bitch at him, but then called the kid's boss to complain and forwarded his emails to his boss.

To be fair to CHB, the only evidence that he actually did all this is the word of some guy on the internet. Which is not to say that it didn't happen, I've heard stories before about him e-mail/calling people who write him to complain.

That said, I find it very ironic that his watching himself on TV is being taken out of context.

[Dick Drago]

I've heard at least fifty of these types of stories. Reader emails CHB, CHB emails sarcastic reply, reader writes again, CHB calls/continues to write. I've heard about 15 or so where he researches (or has one of the Globe flunkeys do it on company time) the person and contacts the employer, tries to make a stink. Have to figure that this is one seriously disturbed curly haired columnist.

* We all have noted CHB's lack of effort that is so obvious in his 'work', Arsenio Hall references, the same tired column recycled ad nauseum. He is obviously spending most of his time confronting his internet critics. Did he not know how many people hate him before this internet thing? Is that why he is so afraid of blogs and chat rooms?

* It has been said, don't pay attention to him, that is what he wants, he loves to be hated. I don't believe this to be true; CHB would not be devoting his life to getting 21 year old kids who send him emails fired if he relished the role of a villian. Hopefully he'll be able to spend the royalties of some of his books on much needed pyschiatric treatment.

* There is an old phrase used to describe a schoolyard bully, one who can 'dish it out but not take it'. CHB targets his foil in a mean spirited, personally cruel, bitter manner. Yet he'll launch into full melt down mode at the slightest critique of his own work. The only difference is that I think CHB probably only bullied the kids at the nursery across the street, he does not seem to be able to pick on people his own size. CHB gets incredibly personal in his attacks on the athletes he covers, their families etc., yet does not tolerate the mildest critiques of his methods.

* His poor, poor son. I can only imagine how much he must resent his father for writing this latest tome. Everyone will now know the poor kid was lying when he insisted that he was not related to CHB.

* As one of the comments in the Barstool site noted, the best part of the CHBs response was that he would no longer 'help' the sick kids if people continued to make fun of him. Glad to see that he has his motivation in helping all these children is SOOO genuine.

Well, I have to say I treasure CHB and Waldman; they are both so unwittingly entertaining. Maybe they can work on a project together, 'what is like to be a serious douche bag' or something....I am guessing that CHBs sales for that yawner about his kid's softball team or whatever it is will buy him about a half an hour on someone's couch, what kind of incriminating evidence does he have on his publisher?

Edited by Dick Drago, 18 May 2007 - 11:02 AM.

[twoBshorty]

That e-mailer is an idiot of the highest order for doing something like that from a work address. Not that it justifies any of CHB's douchebaggery.

[Eric Van]

The big question with CHB is not the above sort of bs, but whether he has ever in his life said something about baseball that was interpretive or analytical and also correct. There are invertrebrates that understand the game of baseball better. It's pretty terrifying.

The latest jaw-dropper was his assertion that "The 1978 Red Sox did not have the pitching we're seeing at Fenway this year." That, ladies and gentlemen, is his one-sentence summary of the reason the '78 club missed the playoffs: didn't have the pitching.

Never mind that Fenway in those days was an incredible hitter's haven and that the team ended with the best park-adjusted ERA in the league, better than the Yankees, but had a mediocre park-adjusted offense (OPS+ of 104). Or that the team had a notoriously awful bench and a manager that played his regulars into the ground.

But I suppose I should cut him some slack, since park effects is a fairly sophisticated sabermetric concept that has only been mainstream since about 1982. And it takes a real discerning eye for talent to differentiate between Alex Cora and Frank Duffy, or Wily Mo Pena and Bob Bailey.

[Andrew]

He is doing a booksigning for his new book (which is awful, by the way) at the Barnes & Noble in Holyoke, Mass where I work on June 9th. I'm thinking of printing out that picture and asking him to sign it for me.

I'm afraid he'll punch me. Or start crying. Both would be pretty weird.

[AlNipper49]

Closing this as it's turning into a Shaughnessy megathread.... I know we may have a new Shaughnessy thread every day if we report on something stupid he does, but that is preferable to this