DukeSox Likes Rick Reilly

weeba

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
3,012
Lynn, MA
Ah, a Brady/Tebow comparison article, including such gems as:

Tom is a national sex symbol who's had two kids out of wedlock, one by a stunning actress and the other by a Brazilian supermodel, who is now his wife. Tim is a national sexless symbol, a proud virgin.
http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/7355585/tim-tebow-tom-brady-take-your-pick
 

The Social Chair

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 17, 2010
2,627
A. O. Scott review of 'Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close'

http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/12/23/movies/extremely-loud-incredibly-close-with-tom-hanks-review.html
In truth, “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close” isn’t about Sept. 11. It’s about the impulse to drain that day of its specificity and turn it into yet another wellspring of generic emotions: sadness, loneliness, happiness. This is how kitsch works. It exploits familiar images, be they puppies or babies — or, as in the case of this movie, the twin towers — and tries to make us feel good, even virtuous, simply about feeling. And, yes, you may cry, but when tears are milked as they are here, the truer response should be rage.

Rick Reilly on "'Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close'

https://twitter.com/#!/ReillyRick/status/149974142584750080

Best movie I've seen this year: Extremely Loud + Incredibly Close: A boy, 9/11, and a search. Cried like Dick Vermeil.

I think this sums up Rick Reilly perfectly.
 

Three10toLeft

lurker
Oct 2, 2008
1,482
Asheville, NC

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,781
Boston, NY
Yeah, I was kinda shocked that it was a Rick Reilly piece as I was reading it.

Great perspective by Rick, the overreaction by the fans over Tom Brady after the game was somewhat shameful. We've really come to be spoiled by this QB/Coach over the years.
I liked a lot of that column but not the generalization about how Pats fans are reacting.

While I'm not in New England, my take from the many Pats fans I'm in touch with is that most are not actually mad at the team or Brady or Welker, in particular. Conversely, most seem to be a combination shocked and saddened, especially given that SB 46 was a game that was definitely within reach.
.
Reilly extrapolates from Eric Wilbur and other ninnies and nutcakes and reaches an extreme, though entertaining, conclusion. I just don't think he's right.
 

RIFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,744
Blackstone MA
Theo, I'm here is Mass and I agree with you.. Most fans are accepting it for what it is. I haven't heard a lot of people screaming for Brady, Welker or anyone else to go. The national media keeps trying to stir it up. The Reiter article on Fox today and others harping on Belichick telling the players to take away Cruz and Nicks and take their chances on Manningham is more evidence. I really didn't expect Reilly to be the voice of sanity.
 

Blacken

Robespierre in a Cape
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2007
12,113
Norm MacDonald has apparently declared jihad on Rick Reilly. It's pretty fantastic.

https://twitter.com/#!/normmacdonald
 

4 6 3 DP

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2001
1,909
I've read the story of Tiger and his step-siblings before, but I don't know what to think of this piece by Reilly up right now. Part of me feels like it's information I shouldn't know...
 

The Long Tater

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
2,612
I've read the story of Tiger and his step-siblings before, but I don't know what to think of this piece by Reilly up right now. Part of me feels like it's information I shouldn't know...
spot on. It isn't news and it isn't anybody's business.
 

Dehere

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2010
3,115
No fan of Reilly here and the stabs at humor are characteristically weak, but substantively I don't disagree with him. The game does have a pace problem.
 

Tartan

lurker
Aug 20, 2008
361
MA
It does. But simply having that point doesn't validate the column when he's both written it before and has clearly, long ago established that he hates baseball because of its pace. Good writing requires far more than having a correct opinion, and many bad writers rely on easy targets to churn out lazy columns.
 

weeba

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
3,012
Lynn, MA
Anyone catch this last night?

http://deadspin.com/5960039/rick-reilly-tells-stu-scott-to-credit-him-for-breaking-roethlisberger-shoulder-injury-news-as-espn-inadvertently-airs-its-own-sausage-production
 

Corsi

isn't shy about blowing his wad early
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2010
12,955
Boston, MA
 
This is real.
 
 
QB or not QB
That is the question.
Who should the Jets start?
Who should the Jets shun?
 
Dealt a hand of 5
None of them a king
They have to find one
Can we re-deal this thing?
 
They cut Tim Tebow
A big deletion
20 mag covers
6 completions
 
(Tim was just voted
"Most Influential"
Whoever they asked
Must be demential)
 
They could start Sanchez
But fans would grumble
His most famous play
Is the butt fumble
 

Rex Ryan's seat is hot
Mark's been killin' him
What hurts worse is
He makes 8 million
 
They picked brash Geno
Who's a bit of a diva
He says he'll behave
But who's a believa?
 
Smith doesn't listen
He'd much rather text
Try that in meetings
His phone will get Rexed
 
What about Dave Garrard?
He stands tall among men
But hasn't thrown a pass
Since 2010
 
Garrard was a Jag
Who never flew high
Guess J.A.G. means
"Just Another Guy"
 
Then there's McElroy
The ex-'Bama gun
Has a hot girl, too
Or ... is that the other one?
 
Matt Simms has good genes
But his hope is slim
Coaches over 40
Rarely play The Sims
 
If the Jets were a car
They'd need a loaner
Is it possible
To fire the owner?
 
Not much of a group
But Rex says: "Compete!"
(This will be less fun
than looking at feet)
 
Let the battle start
though the talent's thin
But wait -- what happens
If nobody wins?
 
http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/9261432/jets-view-stanza
 

Corsi

isn't shy about blowing his wad early
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2010
12,955
Boston, MA
John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
He's the highest paid sportswriter in the country, no?
 
He was making $3M/year in his last contract with ESPN.  They recently signed him to another deal, but I haven't seen the figures.  I assume he took a paycut.
 

PBDWake

Member
SoSH Member
May 1, 2008
3,475
Peabody, MA
Hoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooly shit.
Rick Reilly just weighed in on the Redskins team name issue. And aside from confirmation bias (I totally know Native Americans that are cool with the name so it just proves that people are overreacting), completely ignoring the actual protests of numerous Native American groups, and awful straw man arguments (If you change the Redskins name, you have to change the Saints because its offensive to atheists. Also, Redskins is an entirely equal term to Braves and Fighting Irish"), he ends the article with a whopper.


Trust us. We know what's best. We'll take this away for your own good, and put up barriers that protect you from ever being harmed again.
Kind of like a reservation.
Changing the Redskins team is analogous to putting Native Americans on a reservation. How fucking tone deaf is he? I think this is a new level, even for him.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
Did they remove the comments section to this article? Or maybe at work I can't see it.
I'm going to assume it's been removed as it fits my narrative of him being a worthless piece of shit, lambasted by even the ignorant and self absorbed. I too can be like rick reilly

I have not read anything of his that didn't make me gag in... Er ever. How is this piece of shit employed let alone paid millions and how did he win 11 national sportswriter of the year awards?? Was he good once? If so what the hell happened.

Either he was talented and is doing an astros/ sixes level deliberate tank job or there is a real inquisition needed into those awards. Either way I'd love to know.


Edit
In regard to the article. He knows one guy who isn't offended and his conclusion is that the "majority of native Americans who don't care" is beyond inane. That level of sourcing is relevant for any journalism.
Also if it's so inoffensive why is he not using redskins instead of native Americans in his article?
As is his argument that other names are offensive too but no one cares? Really? There are plenty of people who find the Indians offensive too, esp chief wahoo! And I find the tomahawk chop a large braves and chiefs etc horrible and racist too.
I think he was trying to be funny in areas? But is the whole piece tongue in cheek?? If so it's even worse writing but less dumb.
 

Seabass177

has an efficient neck
SoSH Member
Oct 30, 2004
4,857
Brooklyn
This is amazing - Reilly quoted his father in law completely out of context. Here's what he had to say:
 
 
So you can imagine my dismay when I saw my name and words used to defend the racist Washington Redskins name. My son-in-law, ESPN’s Rick Reilly, completely misunderstood the conversation we had, quoting me as saying “the whole issue is so silly. The name just doesn't bother me much. It's an issue that shouldn't be an issue, not with all the problems we've got in this country."
But that’s not what I said.
What I actually said is that “it’s silly in this day and age that this should even be a battle — if the name offends someone, change it.” He failed to include my comments that the term “redskins” demeans Indians, and historically is insulting and offensive, and that I firmly believe the Washington Redskins should change their name.
When Rick’s article came out, it upset me to be portrayed as an “Uncle Tom” in support of this racial slur. I asked him to correct the record. He has not, so I must do it myself.
 
This has to be fireable. 
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
7,983
Washington, DC
Here's the full article, which is crystal clear on where father-in-law stands:
 
 
“Redskins” is part of that mentality from colonial times when our men, women and children were hunted by soldiers and mercenaries who were paid for the scalps of our men, women and children. How can anyone claim this is a proud tradition to come from? The labels, racism and hatred our people continue to experience are directly tied to those racial slurs.
Let me be clear: The racial slur “redskins” is not okay with me. It’s never going to be okay with me. It’s inappropriate, damaging and racist.
In the memory of our Blackfeet relatives, it’s time to change the name. That would honor us.
 
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/10/10/blackfeet-elder-says-rick-reilly-misquoted-him-wants-redskins-banned-151696
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,382
Yoknapatawpha County
What a strange story--obviously he has enough of a relationship with him to have a conversation and use quotes for a column, but then he burns the bridge by fudging the intent of said quotes entirely and not correcting it when asked?  His father-in-law.  And we're not talking about him faking the guy's opinion on the best motor oil on the market.
 
Hopefully enough gets made of this that he has to respond in some way.  Fucking weasel.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
The very notion he would run even a sub-point in an article that went, "My father in law's cool with it so it must be ok" is sorta mind-boggling to me in the first place. I glanced at the article and that seems to be the general MO.
 
I feel dirty having glanced at that, by the way.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,382
Yoknapatawpha County
Reverend said:
The very notion he would run even a sub-point in an article that went, "My father in law's cool with it so it must be ok" is sorta mind-boggling to me in the first place. I glanced at the article and that seems to be the general MO.
 
I feel dirty having glanced at that, by the way.
 
Exactly!  When the FIL says "actually, it is really racist and I find it hard to swallow," at least at THAT point wouldn't you think, "ehh jeez this really isn't the best approach for defending a racist term in popular usage anyway"?
 
"Nah, fuck it, I'm burning this bridge with my wife's dad to get this point across.  I'm going to paint him as being accepting of a racist term instead of repulsed by it.  It is just. that. important."
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
24,812
Southwestern CT
You know, I read the Reilly column only because it was referenced here, and when I did I thought it was incredibly dishonest for a number of reasons.  But the reality was that I thought he was making an intellectually dishonest argument; never in a million years did I believe that what he wrote was dishonest in the sense of being fabricated.
 
He really should be fired.  He won't, but he should be.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
24,812
Southwestern CT
Update:  Reilly's response is  ... well, its surreal.
 
 
While I stand by the reporting in my Sept. 18 column about the Washington Redskins nickname controversy, and felt I accurately quoted my father-in-law in the piece, clearly he feels differently. This is an incredibly sensitive issue, and Bob felt he had more to say on the subject after that column was posted on ESPN.com. We've spoken and cleared this up. I admire Bob and respect his opinions, and he's welcome to express them. Bob and I are good and I'm looking forward to my next steak with him.
 
So many questions ...
 

drleather2001

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,341
JohntheBaptist said:
What a strange story--obviously he has enough of a relationship with him to have a conversation and use quotes for a column, but then he burns the bridge by fudging the intent of said quotes entirely and not correcting it when asked?  His father-in-law.  And we're not talking about him faking the guy's opinion on the best motor oil on the market.
 
Hopefully enough gets made of this that he has to respond in some way.  Fucking weasel.
 
Here's what I think probably happened:
 
Rick and his father in law (FIL) were discussing this issue at some point, maybe even in passing, and his FIL said something to the effect of "You know, as someone who's really involved in Native American affairs, we just have so many other things to worry about like poverty and alcoholism, that wasting time and effort arguing about this issue is silly to me" (an attitude I have heard expressed frequently; not that they approve of the name, but that it's pretty low on the list of things that NA's have to deal with), never thinking for one second that his idiot son in law would quote him on that.  
 
But he did.
 
So FIL calls up Rick and says "Rick, first of all, fuck you for quoting me out of context like that, and second of all, as a tribal elder statesman I can't have this shit out there like this. You've really put me in a bind.  Take that back."
 
Rick doesn't, for whatever reason, because he realizes (too late) he's in a pickle, and because he's a coward.
 
The whole thing is so gross on Reilly's part.  He either deliberately falsified the quote, or (what happened, IMO), he used a private, candid, conversation to make a point that will put him in good graces with the NFL while throwing his family under the bus in the process.   I'm not sure which is worse, to be honest.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
It just occurred to me to marvel at the idea that he didn't run the column past his father-in-law before submitting it.
 
I get why journalists wouldn't submit everything to their sources for final approval, but: 1) Reilly is not a journalist; and 2) Um, family?
 
 
drleather2001 said:
 
Here's what I think probably happened:
 
Rick and his father in law (FIL) were discussing this issue at some point, maybe even in passing, and his FIL said something to the effect of "You know, as someone who's really involved in Native American affairs, we just have so many other things to worry about like poverty and alcoholism, that wasting time and effort arguing about this issue is silly to me" (an attitude I have heard expressed frequently; not that they approve of the name, but that it's pretty low on the list of things that NA's have to deal with), never thinking for one second that his idiot son in law would quote him on that.  
 
But he did.
 
So FIL calls up Rick and says "Rick, first of all, fuck you for quoting me out of context like that, and second of all, as a tribal elder statesman I can't have this shit out there like this. You've really put me in a bind.  Take that back."
 
Rick doesn't, for whatever reason, because he realizes (too late) he's in a pickle, and because he's a coward.
 
The whole thing is so gross on Reilly's part.  He either deliberately falsified the quote, or (what happened, IMO), he used a private, candid, conversation to make a point that will put him in good graces with the NFL while throwing his family under the bus in the process.   I'm not sure which is worse, to be honest.
 
As CoffeeNerdness said, I mean, that he only responded after his father-in-law went public.
 
And I just saw AverageReds's post where Reilly refers to his column as "reporting"...
 
I think I need to try to forget this guy exists again.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
24,812
Southwestern CT
Going to elaborate on the statement from Reilly that I posted last night.
 
As a matter of logic, one of the following choices is true:
  • Reilly flat-out lied about the feelings of his father-in-law because he realized that using him as an example would be strong support for his premise that white people have no business getting involved in fixing a problem that Native Americans don't seem to be jumping up and down over.

    or ...
     
  • Reilly had already determined that he was going to write a compelling, contrarian article about how the name of the Washington Redskins was not a big deal to people of Native American heritage, so when he discussed this with his father-in-law, he simply blocked out anything that did not fit with the narrative.
Given the way things have played out, I understand Reilly's reluctance to correct the record when confronted - he used his father-in-law as the foundation of his entire point, and admitting that he wasn't just wrong, but that he could not have given an impression of where his father-in-law stands that was at greater odds with reality is something that would have shattered his credibility.  So he suppressed it and hoped his FiL would STFU.  For someone who likes to think of himself as a journalist, that's like taking something that is as awful as you can imagine to your professional credibility and then taking it to the tenth power. 
 
This is a long way of saying that I consider the statement that he released last night to be about the most self-serving fraudulent POS I've ever read.
 
Rev is right.  We need to forget this guy exists.
 
 
 

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,082
I love that he just casually calls his father-in-law a liar: "clearly he feels differently." 
 
This allows for two possibilities:
 
1. Reilly somehow remembers better than his father-in-law what his father-in-law actually said and believes, which makes no sense.
2. Reilly is saying that the father-in-law knows Reilly to be correct, but is now lying. 
 
How Bob could be "good" with that is beyond my comprehension. 
 
There's also nothing close to an apology in there, so Reilly is essentially completely sticking to his guns. One would think an editor of some sort might be interested in finding out who is actually in the right. Did Reilly take notes or record the conversation? Or is he completely just, as Leather proposes above, writing up a casual conversation? If the latter, I can't believe his response is basically "nuh-uh."
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
24,812
Southwestern CT
Let me explain why I am 100% convinced that Reilly is the one who is fundamentally untruthful.
 
If you were so upset about something that was written by your son-in-law that you had to challenge the account in public - and by challenge, I mean "completely shatter the premise of what was written" - would you ever, under any circumstances, describe yourself as "good" after a quick conversation with your son-in-law?  Me neither.
 
I don't see Reilly calling his father-in-law a liar.  That may be the practical meaning of his words, but I don't take that as his intent.  I see Reilly as being in full "Move along, folks.  Nothing to see here." mode and he is going to say whatever seems expedient to make this go away as quickly as possible.
 
He's in a tighter spot than House Republicans.  Think about that for a moment.
 

Stevie1der

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 6, 2009
953
Morrisville, NC
Average Reds said:
Going to elaborate on the statement from Reilly that I posted last night.
 
As a matter of logic, one of the following choices is true:
  • Reilly flat-out lied about the feelings of his father-in-law because he realized that using him as an example would be strong support for his premise that white people have no business getting involved in fixing a problem that Native Americans don't seem to be jumping up and down over.

    or ...
     
  • Reilly had already determined that he was going to write a compelling, contrarian article about how the name of the Washington Redskins was not a big deal to people of Native American heritage, so when he discussed this with his father-in-law, he simply blocked out anything that did not fit with the narrative.
Given the way things have played out, I understand Reilly's reluctance to correct the record when confronted - he used his father-in-law as the foundation of his entire point, and admitting that he wasn't just wrong, but that he could not have given an impression of where his father-in-law stands that was at greater odds with reality is something that would have shattered his credibility.  So he suppressed it and hoped his FiL would STFU.  For someone who likes to think of himself as a journalist, that's like taking something that is as awful as you can imagine to your professional credibility and then taking it to the tenth power. 
 
This is a long way of saying that I consider the statement that he released last night to be about the most self-serving fraudulent POS I've ever read.
 
Rev is right.  We need to forget this guy exists.
 
 
 
This is a two page thread started in 2010.  I think we already have.
 

deanx0

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2004
1,872
Orlando, FL
I made the mistake of looking at his "players that have never been in the Super Bowl" article, and noticed he stole Billy Crystal's "Paul McCartney was in a band before Wings" joke. I emailed him asking why he didn't attribute the joke to the man that wrote it 25 years ago. I do not expect to get a response.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
24,812
Southwestern CT
Corsi said:
 
It's not possible to plagiarize yourself, so there's no ethical issue.  To the extent this this is an arguable position, it's still nothing compared to the ethical breach exposed when Reilly completely mislead his (3 or 4) readers about how native Americans (including his own father in-law) feel about the Washington Redskins team nickname.
 
There is the matter of Rick Reilly sucking, but ESPN has proven it doesn't care about that.
 
Average Reds said:
 
It's not possible to plagiarize yourself, so there's no ethical issue.  To the extent this this is an arguable position, it's still nothing compared to the ethical breach exposed when Reilly completely mislead his (3 or 4) readers about how native Americans (including his own father in-law) feel about the Washington Redskins team nickname.
 
There is the matter of Rick Reilly sucking, but ESPN has proven it doesn't care about that.
 
While I agree that the Redskins thing was worse, you should tell Jonah Lehrer your feelings on self-plagiarism.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
24,812
Southwestern CT
Skeesix said:
 
While I agree that the Redskins thing was worse, you should tell Jonah Lehrer your feelings on self-plagiarism.
 
Jonah Lehrer recycled old material for articles appearing in The New Yorker.  (Which is precisely what Reilly did here.)  It violated the standards of The New Yorker and he was forced to apologize.  The ethical standards of ESPN.com are clearly different from those at The New Yorker, which is why Reilly will not even have to issue an apology.
 
The word plagiarism does not appear in that paragraph.  That's because plagiarism is a different violation. 
 
But let's put that aside, because I don't want to get caught up in a semantic fight about bad writers when we all agree that Rick Reilly is one of them.  The point I was trying to make is as follows:
  • Recycling old material is considered to be deceptive and serious publications (like The New Yorker) will take action when it is discovered.
  • ESPN.com is not serious publication. 
  • Ergo, Reilly will not be fired.
One more note related to Jonah Lehrer.  He was eventually fired when it was discovered that in addition to recycling old material, he fabricated quotes from Bob Dylan.  Since Reilly has already been caught doing essentially the same thing in the Redskins article, it's pretty clear that he's fireproof at ESPN. 
 

Myt1

the FRESH maker
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
27,352
South Boston
He's the main character in ever piece he writes anyway, so this makes a perverse sort of sense.