Another Bucky low blow

[PASabreFan]

A few weeks ago, Bucky referred to the shooting incident involving Malarchuk as "sad." Well, it's only "sad" if it wasn't accident, and no one really knows. The police called it accidental but suspicious. I thought the comment was over the line but let it go.

 

In today's paper, however, Bucky does it again. He sure has learned to formulate his sentences to make it sound like someone else is making an accusation, not him ("leading some to wonder if it was a suicide attempt."). He writes about Tim Connolly's "back" -- two broken vertebrae, to be precise -- but that's not what bothered me. It was this:

 

The injury "...left some in the organization rolling their eyes and questioning his courage."

 

Classic Gleason.

 

He's a sports writer, and it's an opinion piece, so I guess some of the journalistic standards (if there are any left) are waived. But doesn't he have an obligation to be much more specific? Don't we as readers and fans deserve it? Who questioned Connolly's courage? Was it said directly to Gleason? If the source doesn't want to be on the record, say that. It's important to know. At least be more specific about who it was. "Some in the organization" can be the team's media relations guy, a scout, the alumni relations director, the guy who fixes the glass. You know damn well a lot of fans are going to read that as a coach or a teammate. This is how rumors start.

 

I'd have a lot more respect for Bucky if the sentence had been written either of these ways:

 

1. The most recent injury left one of the team's medical staff, who wishes to remain anonymous, rolling his eyes and saying, "I question the guy's courage."

 

2. I question Tim Connolly's courage.

 

The way it's written really sounds like Gleason is making up sh*t again.

[frisky]

I thought it was pretty much a blog where all bets are off. That's what I've always assumed Op-Ed articles were before they were called blogs or whatever.

[deluca67]

A few weeks ago, Bucky referred to the shooting incident involving Malarchuk as "sad." Well, it's only "sad" if it wasn't accident, and no one really knows. The police called it accidental but suspicious. I thought the comment was over the line but let it go.

 

In today's paper, however, Bucky does it again. He sure has learned to formulate his sentences to make it sound like someone else is making an accusation, not him ("leading some to wonder if it was a suicide attempt."). He writes about Tim Connolly's "back" -- two broken vertebrae, to be precise -- but that's not what bothered me. It was this:

 

The injury "...left some in the organization rolling their eyes and questioning his courage."

 

Classic Gleason.

 

He's a sports writer, and it's an opinion piece, so I guess some of the journalistic standards (if there are any left) are waived. But doesn't he have an obligation to be much more specific? Don't we as readers and fans deserve it? Who questioned Connolly's courage? Was it said directly to Gleason? If the source doesn't want to be on the record, say that. It's important to know. At least be more specific about who it was. "Some in the organization" can be the team's media relations guy, a scout, the alumni relations director, the guy who fixes the glass. You know damn well a lot of fans are going to read that as a coach or a teammate. This is how rumors start.

 

I'd have a lot more respect for Bucky if the sentence had been written either of these ways:

 

1. The most recent injury left one of the team's medical staff, who wishes to remain anonymous, rolling his eyes and saying, "I question the guy's courage."

 

2. I question Tim Connolly's courage.

 

The way it's written really sounds like Gleason is making up sh*t again.

Why do people still read his crap?

[tom webster]

You guys kill me! Anonymous sources are the back bone of news paper journalism. Do you guys read anything but sports.

 

And DeLuca is hysterical here. Bucky didn't come close to the things that our illustrious contrarian wrote.

 

Let's see how fast the FO comes to Tim's defense.

[bottlecap]

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/fbucky/

[stenbaro]

You guys kill me! Anonymous sources are the back bone of news paper journalism. Do you guys read anything but sports.

 

And DeLuca is hysterical here. Bucky didn't come close to the things that our illustrious contrarian wrote.

 

Let's see how fast the FO comes to Tim's defense.

Funny aint it..I have schopped a few here..Gets more ridiculous by the day..

 

Schopped: The art of using the ignore button...

[PASabreFan]

You guys kill me! Anonymous sources are the back bone of news paper journalism. Do you guys read anything but sports.

 

And DeLuca is hysterical here. Bucky didn't come close to the things that our illustrious contrarian wrote.

 

Let's see how fast the FO comes to Tim's defense.

 

I wasn't complaining about the use of anonymous sources. Bucky didn't make it clear there was a source at all. Probably because there wasn't one.

[Bmwolf21]

Funny aint it..I have schopped a few here..Gets more ridiculous by the day..

Schopped: The art of using the ignore button...

:thumbsup:

[tom webster]

I wasn't complaining about the use of anonymous sources. Bucky didn't make it clear there was a source at all. Probably because there wasn't one.

 

You can start with two assumptions;

 

newspaper reporters make whings up, or

 

newspaper reporters assume their readers can come to reasonable conclusions without having every detail spelled out for them.

 

Considering that Bucky is still welcomed in the locker room, the team, while they might not like everything he writes, does not believe he makes things up.

[PASabreFan]

You can start with two assumptions;

 

newspaper reporters make whings up, or

 

newspaper reporters assume their readers can come to reasonable conclusions without having every detail spelled out for them.

 

Considering that Bucky is still welcomed in the locker room, the team, while they might not like everything he writes, does not believe he makes things up.

 

So it's OK for Bucky, based on nothing, to come to a reasonable conclusion that someone in the organization questions Connolly's courage? Doesn't it strike you as an easy way for Gleason himself to question it?

 

Actually, I don't think it's based on nothing. I think Bucky gossips like an old lady with people around the team. He heard something. But he wants us to think he heard it from James Patrick or Craig Rivet or one of the trainers. The use of the word "organization" is a dead giveaway. It was more likely the guy who freezes the pucks.

 

BTW, the Sabres know he makes things up. But I don't think they know a good way to throw a media critic out the door.

[SabreNod]

A few weeks ago, Bucky referred to the shooting incident involving Malarchuk as "sad." Well, it's only "sad" if it wasn't accident, and no one really knows. The police called it accidental but suspicious. I thought the comment was over the line but let it go.

 

In today's paper, however, Bucky does it again. He sure has learned to formulate his sentences to make it sound like someone else is making an accusation, not him ("leading some to wonder if it was a suicide attempt."). He writes about Tim Connolly's "back" -- two broken vertebrae, to be precise -- but that's not what bothered me. It was this:

 

The injury "...left some in the organization rolling their eyes and questioning his courage."

 

Classic Gleason.

 

He's a sports writer, and it's an opinion piece, so I guess some of the journalistic standards (if there are any left) are waived. But doesn't he have an obligation to be much more specific? Don't we as readers and fans deserve it? Who questioned Connolly's courage? Was it said directly to Gleason? If the source doesn't want to be on the record, say that. It's important to know. At least be more specific about who it was. "Some in the organization" can be the team's media relations guy, a scout, the alumni relations director, the guy who fixes the glass. You know damn well a lot of fans are going to read that as a coach or a teammate. This is how rumors start.

 

I'd have a lot more respect for Bucky if the sentence had been written either of these ways:

 

1. The most recent injury left one of the team's medical staff, who wishes to remain anonymous, rolling his eyes and saying, "I question the guy's courage."

 

2. I question Tim Connolly's courage.

 

The way it's written really sounds like Gleason is making up sh*t again.

 

 

Good post, and I agree. I generally agree with any statement that concludes that Bucky Gleason is unimpressive in his profession. In his writing you can always see, just under the surface but in plain sight, the reactionary and emotional impulse of an ordinary fan.