247 replies to this topic

[Andrew]

http://www.barstools...dan_shaughnessy

Evidently someone took a picture of Shaugnessy watching himself on TV and got it posted on a blog and Shaugnessy was so upset by it that he actually called up the individuals employeer to tattle on him.

Maybe this is why Shaughnessy's articles have so little research or reason. He spends all his time personally responding to the tons of hatemail he gets.

Anyway, 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.

Edited by Andrew, 03 June 2007 - 04:33 PM.

[Comfortably Lomb]

http://sonsofsamhorn...&...st&p=764913

[Andrew]

Ah.. dammit. Really sorry. Usually I do a far better job of making sure I'm not repeating information.

[AlNipper49]

No worries man, that's why megathreads need to die. Closed the other thread down, please feel free to start new threads liberally

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

The Globe has no clue about how repulsed their readers are by this guy. NO CLUE.



"Quote Shughnessy, then get kicked in the balls for your ignorance."

Jesus fuck.

[Maalox]

The Globe has no clue about how repulsed their readers are by this guy. NO CLUE.

I wonder which of those guys is the one quoting Shaughnessy. My money's on the one who wears his hat backwards - that's a frickin' jerkoff calling card.

[doc]

I wonder which those guys is the one quoting Shaughnessy. My money's on the one who wears his hat backwards - that's a frickin' jerkoff calling card.

Yeah the other guy just looks exasperated, I mean how do you respond if somebody "quotes Shaugnassy" I'd stop arguing, it's bad luck to fight with the stupid, insane and the retarded.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Adam Reilly of the Boston Pheonix examines why Dan Shaughnessy is the most hated man in Boston.

[BroodsSexton]

I think "quoting Shaughnessy" should be the SoSH equivalent of Godwin's Law.

[David Laurila]

Adam Reilly of the Boston Pheonix examines why Dan Shaughnessy is the most hated man in Boston.

I read the article, and think the writer did a good job. He did a solid job of structuring the story for the paper's audience.

[Dropkick Izzy]

I'm assuming this was the article tied to LJ's pinned request for CHB email stories? If so, I'm a little disappointed there weren't many references beyond the one we saw in the aforementioned article regarding Barstool Sports.

BTW, is "Cheryl" a SoSHer? I won't say any further since this forum is open.

Edited by Dropkick Izzy, 21 June 2007 - 05:35 PM.

[The Gray Eagle]

I didn't like that Phoenix piece. The guy's looks are not why he's hated, at all. He is hated, so people mock his looks. If he was beloved, no one would care what he looked like.

Many of his crimes are de-emphasized or ignored, as well.

I do like the new nickname they coined though-- Boston's Biggest Asshole. BBA is much more fitting than CHB. There's a lot of real assholes around, but he's the biggest. That takes some real effort.

[Myt1]

Color me unimpressed. No questions about a sportwriter's fear of new media as a reason for his antipathy to SoSH and blogs, even after the intro mentions it.

[educatedcheese]

Color me unimpressed. No questions about a sportwriter's fear of new media as a reason for his antipathy to SoSH and blogs, even after the intro mentions it.

Back during spring training, a bunch of reporters got themselves invited to an introductory lunch with Daisuke. Shank and Bradford were among them. Within an hour after the lunch, Bradford had a full recap on his blog. Three hours later, CHB posted a two-line summary (along the lines of "I had lunch with DiceK") in the Globe's Extra Bases thingy, and then said "Check tomorrow's print edition for the full story." We sent him an email calling him on it -- I mean, who waits for tomorrow's print edition anymore except nursing home residents and homeless people?

His return email basically just said it must be nice to be living the dream in mom's basement. Whatev.

I have not clicked on a story bearing his byline since. Irrelevant jerk.

[ChinaCat2]

This line from the article annoyed me:

Then again, why don’t more people admire Shaughnessy’s willingness to tangle with Schilling, or Ramirez, or Patriots owner Bob Kraft, or other eminences from the Boston sports scene? (

I think most fans don't have a problem with the sportswriters who are willing to take an unpopular view, of some very popular sports icons. Its the part where they lose all their objectivity that it gets annoying. This certainly seemed true of Borges...how could any reader take his opinion about Belichick seriously, when his animosity shone through in everything he wrote?
So to use a Shank example, when he writes that Manny "quit on the team" last year, he sounds like he's picking on Manny again, because everything he's written about Manny for the last 6 years has been negative. When Gordon Edes writes that Manny quit on the team last year, one starts to wonder if its true.

Reilly writes that people hate Shank because he doesn't root for the team. That's ridiculous. I know the sportswriters aren't supposed to have a rooting interest. I don't want them to be homers. But I do want a measure of objectivity. You don't prove you're not a homer by being negative all the time.

[jose melendez]

Back during spring training, a bunch of reporters got themselves invited to an introductory lunch with Daisuke. Shank and Bradford were among them. Within an hour after the lunch, Bradford had a full recap on his blog. Three hours later, CHB posted a two-line summary (along the lines of "I had lunch with DiceK") in the Globe's Extra Bases thingy, and then said "Check tomorrow's print edition for the full story." We sent him an email calling him on it -- I mean, who waits for tomorrow's print edition anymore except nursing home residents and homeless people?

His return email basically just said it must be nice to be living the dream in mom's basement. Whatev.

I have not clicked on a story bearing his byline since. Irrelevant jerk.

Here's what I don't totally get with CHB. He hates us. Not just SoSHers, anyone who likes baseball. We are the reason he has a job, so he craps all over us? If we're basement dwelling shut ins, what does it make him?

The only reason I can possibly comprehend is that he's playing a heel, like his role is to draw anger, but don't the Globe folks watch wrestling? If CHB is the heel, they need a writer who's the face, and kicks the crap out of him.

[Jethro Q. Walrustitty]

The only reason I can possibly comprehend is that he's playing a heel, like his role is to draw anger, but don't the Globe folks watch wrestling? If CHB is the heel, they need a writer who's the face, and kicks the crap out of him.

Schilling is the Hulk Hogan to CHB's Sargeant Slaughter, not some other writer.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Here's what I don't totally get with CHB. He hates us. Not just SoSHers, anyone who likes baseball. We are the reason he has a job, so he craps all over us? If we're basement dwelling shut ins, what does it make him?

The only reason I can possibly comprehend is that he's playing a heel, like his role is to draw anger, but don't the Globe folks watch wrestling? If CHB is the heel, they need a writer who's the face, and kicks the crap out of him.

He's doesn't hate us. He hates major league baseball. It's clear that he no longer has the slightest enthusiasm for the sport he covers. His writing is much better when he's covering high school stuff or inspirational stories.

[Worst Trade Evah]

He's doesn't hate us. He hates major league baseball. It's clear that he no longer has the slightest enthusiasm for the sport he covers. His writing is much better when he's covering high school stuff or inspirational stories.

I think Jose is right. CHB has contempt for fans. He's bored by baseball and has contempt for the people interested in it. He thinks he's above it -- I bet he's one of these guys who was drawn to sports writing as a means to an end to tell a bigger story. Maybe he got started with some romantic notion about what sportswriting was. But now he doesn't know what the story is any more, or doesn't care, so gets his juices going with knee-jerk, bitter contrarianism tinged with contempt for his own audience.

[TheoShmeo]

I agree with a lot the criticisim mentioned above, especially the point about his looks (which are admittedly pretty scary).

Despite some of the problems, I'm glad that the author mentioned what is by far my biggest problem with the CHB -- his need to inject himself into the overall story -- and I'm glad that such a negative article is out there about him. I don't know how widely it will be read, but raising awareness that Shaungnessy is an unmititgated prick is never a bad thing, even if some of the points of emphasis are off base.

[YouLookAdopted]

He's doesn't hate us. He hates major league baseball. It's clear that he no longer has the slightest enthusiasm for the sport he covers. His writing is much better when he's covering high school stuff or inspirational stories.

And he tries to hide his hatred of the sport behind a sort of faux-objectivism despite the fact that he's obviously an extremely biased writer*:

“I don’t think people covering the 2004 presidential campaign should be rooting for John Kerry; I don’t want to read a post-election story where a guy’s disappointed that John Kerry didn’t win. That’s not what that guy’s hired to do."

So this is his professed journalistic standard. By this standard, would it be appropriate to write a post-election story that referred to John Kerry as "The Big Blowhard" and indicated that his supporters were overweight, middle-aged men that live in their parents' basements? My guess is that any reputable who wrote an article like that would lose his job and be forced to take a job at the Weekly Standard.


* = A writer in that he properly strings together various syllables to construct semi-coherent sentences.

[JimD]

Schilling is the Hulk Hogan to CHB's Sargeant Slaughter, not some other writer.

That only lasts as long as Schilling remains a viable member of the Red Sox starting rotation.

[Sea Dog]

That only lasts as long as Schilling remains a viable member of the Red Sox starting rotation.

See, I'm not a Schilling fan, so when he writes something like this, I love it. ...

http://www.boston.co...ening_at_petco/

"Curt Schilling was in the clubhouse before the game. He filled out his All-Star ballot and was busy with various other tasks when the media asked if he'd speak about his shoulder. Schilling declined, saying he had a "million things to do." Never saw a guy so busy while spending time on the disabled list. Perhaps he'll share on his blog or his radio show."

... I don't have any problems with Dan Shaughnessy, so long as he continues to rip Schilling.

[jayhoz]

See, I'm not a Schilling fan, so when he writes something like this, I love it. ...

http://www.boston.co...ening_at_petco/

"Curt Schilling was in the clubhouse before the game. He filled out his All-Star ballot and was busy with various other tasks when the media asked if he'd speak about his shoulder. Schilling declined, saying he had a "million things to do." Never saw a guy so busy while spending time on the disabled list. Perhaps he'll share on his blog or his radio show."

... I don't have any problems with Dan Shaughnessy, so long as he continues to rip Schilling.

Yeah, the DL is like vacationing in Hawaii. It's all relaxation and pina coladas. It just might be that Schilling had some rehab work to do, or other media commitments, or charity work, or he didn't feel like talking about his shoulder at that very instant to a group that included the half wit that is CHB.

I am sure that reporters get blown off 100 times a day by players "too busy" to talk. The fact that CHB feels the need to call out his nemesis on it speaks volumes about his infatuation with Schilling.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Funny that Shank rips Schilling for not talking, when he usually refers to Schilling as the Big Blowhard for talking too much.

Consistency, hobgoblins, etc. You read something like that bit and the only impression I get from it is that it's a snipe at a player for personal reasons.

[Sea Dog]

I am sure that reporters get blown off 100 times a day by players "too busy" to talk.

Not really. It's not uncommon to hit the locker room to talk to players before games. Sometimes, writers steer clear of players that they know do not want to be bothered and won't talk if asked (think Albert Belle). But most have no problems talking to reporters before games, giving quotes that can be used in features, columns and notebooks.

Schilling, though, he falls in the Albert Belle category.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Not really. It's not uncommon to hit the locker room to talk to players before games. Sometimes, writers steer clear of players that they know do not want to be bothered and won't talk if asked (think Albert Belle). But most have no problems talking to reporters before games, giving quotes that can be used in features, columns and notebooks.

Schilling, though, he falls in the Albert Belle category.

There's no mandate for players to talk to the media. Ever. The good reporters know this; Edes mentions it occasionally that a player did not speak to the media, and doesn't hold that fact against a player. The reporters know players do not have to make their jobs easier.

Dan praised Bill Mueller when he left town despite the fact that Mueller said he didn't talk to the media on game days. It's always personal with Shaughnessy.

[Sea Dog]

There's no mandate for players to talk to the media. Ever. The good reporters know this; Edes mentions it occasionally that a player did not speak to the media, and doesn't hold that fact against a player. The reporters know players do not have to make their jobs easier.

Never said there was a mandate for players to talk. But reporters are not "blown off 100 times a day by players." It's more like once or twice at each game.

Edited by Sea Dog, 25 June 2007 - 11:48 AM.

[JimD]

See, I'm not a Schilling fan, so when he writes something like this, I love it. ...

http://www.boston.co...ening_at_petco/

"Curt Schilling was in the clubhouse before the game. He filled out his All-Star ballot and was busy with various other tasks when the media asked if he'd speak about his shoulder. Schilling declined, saying he had a "million things to do." Never saw a guy so busy while spending time on the disabled list. Perhaps he'll share on his blog or his radio show."

... I don't have any problems with Dan Shaughnessy, so long as he continues to rip Schilling.

Schilling can't win with Shaughnessy - if he had sat there for an hour fielding questions from the media, I have no doubt that CHB would have tossed in a sarcastic comment about G38 being too busy holding court to rehab his shoulder.

But, hey, if you hate Schilling, I'm sure you would have loved that, too.

[jayhoz]

Not really. It's not uncommon to hit the locker room to talk to players before games. Sometimes, writers steer clear of players that they know do not want to be bothered and won't talk if asked (think Albert Belle). But most have no problems talking to reporters before games, giving quotes that can be used in features, columns and notebooks.

Schilling, though, he falls in the Albert Belle category.

Where did I say it was uncommon for a player to talk to the media exactly?

Schilling (aka redlight) is bothered and unwilling to speak to the media when asked? Are we talking about Curt Schilling here, or some other Schilling I am not aware of. This is a Red Sox board. You sure you are in the right place?

[JimD]

Not really. It's not uncommon to hit the locker room to talk to players before games. Sometimes, writers steer clear of players that they know do not want to be bothered and won't talk if asked (think Albert Belle). But most have no problems talking to reporters before games, giving quotes that can be used in features, columns and notebooks.

Schilling, though, he falls in the Albert Belle category.

And you know this how? Are you a reporter?

[Sea Dog]

And you know this how? Are you a reporter?

Yep.

[Nuf Ced]

What a great comparison, Albert Belle to Curt Schilling.

The same Albert Belle who got a jail sentence last year for stalking his ex-girlfriend;chased Halloween pranksters with his SUV; had a profanity-laced tirade aimed at NBC's Hannah Storm during 1995 World Series; suspended for a brutal hit on Brewers' Fernando Vina; and suspended 10 games in 1994 for using a corked bat.

Yeah, that Schilling is always pulling crap like that.

[Comfortably Lomb]

See, I'm not a Schilling fan, so when he writes something like this, I love it. ...

http://www.boston.co...ening_at_petco/

"Curt Schilling was in the clubhouse before the game. He filled out his All-Star ballot and was busy with various other tasks when the media asked if he'd speak about his shoulder. Schilling declined, saying he had a "million things to do." Never saw a guy so busy while spending time on the disabled list. Perhaps he'll share on his blog or his radio show."

... I don't have any problems with Dan Shaughnessy, so long as he continues to rip Schilling.

Honestly, I'd be thrilled if Schilling told Shaughnessy he had no time for comments if he were sitting in a lounge chair with a paddle-ball in one hand and a propeller cap on his head.

...as Shaughnessy boots up the Globe's Tandy 400 supercomputer to scour their subscriptions for my real name so he can leave me a sharply worded voicemail.

What a great comparison, Albert Belle to Curt Schilling.

The same Albert Belle who got a jail sentence last year for stalking his ex-girlfriend;chased Halloween pranksters with his SUV; had a profanity-laced tirade aimed at NBC's Hannah Storm during 1995 World Series; suspended for a brutal hit on Brewers' Fernando Vina; and suspended 10 games in 1994 for using a corked bat.

Yeah, that Schilling is always pulling crap like that.

This guy says he's a reporter too. Faaantastic. On the one hand, he might not actually be a reporter, on the other hand, if he is the blog-o-sphere will eliminate the need for his job within a few years.

Edited by Comfortably Lomb, 25 June 2007 - 12:11 PM.

[JimD]

Yep.

Just curious - as a professional repoter, do you merely get private amusement when Shaughnessy rips Schilling, or are you actually OK with the way Dan uses his position as a columnist to attack those players whom he holds a personal grudge against?

[Spacemans Bong]

I think Jose is right. CHB has contempt for fans. He's bored by baseball and has contempt for the people interested in it. He thinks he's above it -- I bet he's one of these guys who was drawn to sports writing as a means to an end to tell a bigger story. Maybe he got started with some romantic notion about what sportswriting was. But now he doesn't know what the story is any more, or doesn't care, so gets his juices going with knee-jerk, bitter contrarianism tinged with contempt for his own audience.

What he is is the guy who got into newspapers to write about sports, got sick of it, and doesn't have the balls to go do something else. It's hardly uncommon for sportswriters to get sick of sports - when you're busting ass for 50 grand a year and living with a shitty roommate, a guy making $10 mil bitching about the wind and treating you like shit just makes you want to throttle him. Honestly, I understand.

The difference between CHB and those guys is those guys have the balls to hand in their notice and work at another section of the paper. I can think of several people in the SF Chronicle who have done so and began writing columns in the community section about local stories. Jimmy Breslin basically did it.

Edited by Spacemans Bong, 25 June 2007 - 12:16 PM.

[Sea Dog]

This guy says he's a reporter too. Faaantastic. On the one hand, he might not actually be a reporter, on the other hand, if he is the blog-o-sphere will eliminate the need for his job within a few years.

So I'm a liar whose job will be eliminated by blogs in a few years? Glad to see you hold no grudge against me.

And JimD, I find the whole debate between the two comical. I simply figure Shaughnessy is the lesser of two evils. He is what he is, while Schilling attempts to be the morality of an entire sport and is, quite possibly, the best self-promoter in the game not named Roger Clemens. Guys like Papelbon -- remember his comments when Schilling attacked Bonds' personal life -- have seen through it, too.

As for the Albert Belle comparison, Nuf Ced, it's in how they deal with the media at times and nothing more.

[Andrew]

Why is Schilling not allowed to speak his mind? He's an athlete. In terms of media he's allowed to be biased. It's not unprofessional. It's not his job. Unprofessional is someone like Shaughnessy who's job is, supposedly, to be a reliable source of news but who can't get through a single article without letting his personal animosities shine through. There's a distinction there, Mr Reporter. It saddens me that you are unable to see it.

Isn't the argument against non-journalists becoming mainstream sources of information that they don't know the codes and morality of being professional? That distinction is gone when the "journalists" themselves lack the ability to be impartial.

Edited by Andrew, 25 June 2007 - 01:15 PM.

[BoSoxLady]

And JimD, I find the whole debate between the two comical. I simply figure Shaughnessy is the lesser of two evils. He is what he is, while Schilling attempts to be the morality of an entire sport and is, quite possibly, the best self-promoter in the game not named Roger Clemens. Guys like Papelbon -- remember his comments when Schilling attacked Bonds' personal life -- have seen through it, too.

Why do you care if Schill is a self-promoter? Schill's alleged "self-promotion" has really hurt the team, eh? BTW...are you a beat reporter or a columnist?

As for the Albert Belle comparison, Nuf Ced, it's in how they deal with the media at times and nothing more.

Shitty comparison. A better comparison would have been Steve Carlton. If Schill gives his thoughts on his blog rather than through the media, that's tough shit. Personally, I prefer Schill un-filtered.

[JimD]

So I'm a liar whose job will be eliminated by blogs in a few years? Glad to see you hold no grudge against me.

And JimD, I find the whole debate between the two comical. I simply figure Shaughnessy is the lesser of two evils. He is what he is, while Schilling attempts to be the morality of an entire sport and is, quite possibly, the best self-promoter in the game not named Roger Clemens. Guys like Papelbon -- remember his comments when Schilling attacked Bonds' personal life -- have seen through it, too.

As for the Albert Belle comparison, Nuf Ced, it's in how they deal with the media at times and nothing more.

I understand your position on Schilling - as much as I appreciate his role in bringing us the 2004 championship, I do think he goes over the top at times. And I don’t doubt that if he had gone to the Yankees back in November 2003, he would have become the favorite punching bag for many on this board.

That said, I can't agree with dismissing Dan Shaughnessy by saying 'he is what he is' and letting it go at that. From my vantage point, his tactics go way beyond being an opinionated columnist. I have a hard time believing that decent journalists can watch him at work and not be as repulsed as many of us are.

[Drocca]

Wouldn't a reporter for a local high school track team(not Stokke's obviously) have less experience of getting blown off by players than someone covering a major league baseball team?

[Sea Dog]

Unprofessional is someone like Shaughnessy who's job is, supposedly, to be a reliable source of news but who can't get through a single article without letting his personal animosities shine through. There's a distinction there, Mr Reporter. It saddens me that you are unable to see it.

Isn't the argument against non-journalists becoming mainstream sources of information that they don't know the codes and morality of being professional? That distinction is gone when the "journalists" themselves lack the ability to be impartial.

Andrew, Papelbon did call Schilling unprofessional for his actions once this season, for what it's worth. As for Shaughnessy, the rules are vastly different when you cover teams like the Sox or Yankees, where you have a certain leeway to make a sarcastic comment or bold opinion here or there, as opposed to preps.

But that's beside the point, because Shaughnessy is columnist. He's paid to have strong opinions that hack into readers' emotions so much that they want to discuss whatever it is he just wrote. Seems like he's doing his job well, much like Jason Whitlock in Kansas City. Unlike reporters, columnists aren't supposed to be completely impartial. They're supposed to stir it up somewhat.

BoSoxLady, technically, I'm not a beat reporter or columnist. I'm an editor now. And agree on the Carlton comparison.

I'm going to bow out of this thread before it gets uglier, because I've said all I wanted to already.

[Nuf Ced]

As for the Albert Belle comparison, Nuf Ced, it's in how they deal with the media at times and nothing more.

I don't remember Schilling screaming obscenities at a tv reporter. But whatever.

If you are saying he doesn't suffer media fools gladly, that's another matter. Apparently Shaughnessy isn't the only fool.

[Andrew]

Having opinions is one thing. Consistantly making ludicrous statements and cheapshots that seem to have no bearing on any current event is something different entirely.

No one showed up to the book signing he did at my store. It was well advertised and there were the usual amounts of people shopping on the busy weekend but no one wanted his book. I almost felt bad for him, just standing there twiddling his thumbs. Almost.

[Retire#14]

Put Shaughnessy with the New York Post, with the same Shaughnessy schtick with targets named Jeter, A Rod, Posada and Clemens and the opinions of Dan in here would change completely. Too many of his in house detracotrs here at SOSH, he would be witty, amusing and spot on with his quips and antics. My guess is you would be begging for him to do an SOSH chat.

[Kevin Jewkilis]

You made this point repeatedly in the Sandbox before the season started, and I'm going to call you on it: find a post here praising hackery done any NY paper. There are plenty of posts critical of some of the off-field antics of A-Rod, for example, but who has risen to praise the NY hacks for ridiculing him? This argument was fallacious and empty then, and it's fallacious and empty now.

[pk1627]

The Schill-CHB fight is one that CHB can't win. For all of his supposed personality flaws, Schill has done more for New England than CHB ever can. That's just a fact.

Personally, I am pretty happy that Dan has taken on Schilling. It may end up with Dan leaving town. As more of these altercations take place between Dan and his readers, it becomes more likely.

Edited by pk1627, 26 June 2007 - 11:30 AM.

[pre1236]

I had to go back and re-read what Shaugnnessy had written because I couldn't believe it warranted this much conversation. And I was right.

[Norm Siebern]

The three most correct statements so far:

the blog-o-sphere will eliminate the need for his job within a few years

Which is one reason why Shank is worried; and another:

I had to go back and re-read what Shaugnnessy had written because I couldn't believe it warranted this much conversation. And I was right.

As far as egregious, unprofessional comments by Shank, this one is a mole hill.

But this comment by Smiling Joe is dead certain correct and has been for years, absolutely years:

He's doesn't hate us. He hates major league baseball. It's clear that he no longer has the slightest enthusiasm for the sport he covers. His writing is much better when he's covering high school stuff or inspirational stories.

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

But that's beside the point, because Shaughnessy is columnist. He's paid to have strong opinions that hack into readers' emotions so much that they want to discuss whatever it is he just wrote. Seems like he's doing his job well, much like Jason Whitlock in Kansas City. Unlike reporters, columnists aren't supposed to be completely impartial. They're supposed to stir it up somewhat.

* * * *

I'm going to bow out of this thread before it gets uglier, because I've said all I wanted to already.

I don't know if you're still reading this thread, and this may be a hijack, but I just don't understand this thinking. To me, this is why newspapers are dying. Yes, one can try to build a business model around newspapers as entertainment, and you can pay people like CHB to write stuff that are just going to make people crazy. But I just don't think that's why people buy papers. The people who need to be entertained -- they're going to watch TV, not read a paper. The people who buy papers -- they are probably information junkies who want information. Not gossip, not unsupported opinions, but they want good information.

In other words, of all the people I know who don't ordinarily get the newspaper, I bet a lot more of them would buy a paper because it has a good, informative piece than would buy a paper just for CHB's bluster.

And conversely, all those people who want to buy papers will just stop if they read one too many columns like CHB.