Larry Fitzgerald's dad

[Moderator1]

Who ate like a hog on free food and said they were too stuffed to work?

 

[Angola!]

Do newspapers that cover minorities get a pass when it comes to ethics and proper behavior in a press box?

WTF?
Last time I checked, there were more people from papers who didn't cover minorities acting like idiots in a press box. I have never seen a minority cheer in a press box, ask for an autograph or eat like a hog on free food and say they are too stuffed to work.
As for Larry Sr., I'm sure he's a proud papa but I also believe he wants to do the right thing and present himself as an unbiased journalist.

I don't have a horse in this race, but this is a pretty galling statement to make.

 

[Drip]

Who ate like a hog on free food and said they were too stuffed to work?

Too many to name Moddy. Too many to name. Also wouldn't do it on these lines for obvious reasons.

 

[Joe Williams]

Lots of papers run articles about hometown guys who made good.
I'd think Fitzgerald Jr., would fall into that category without much argument.
Just seems to me that people are looking for an easy story to write and having a sportswriter's son playing in Super Bowl, a game that the father is going to cover, makes for an easy story.
More lazy than shameful.
Than the ever-predictable, navel gazing as to why it is wrong for a father to report on his son.

People need to effing calm down here.

This is a weekly paper in a market served by two dailies, for a specific audience and for whom Fitz Sr. writes as a columnist. If he's hammering the claim that he's going to offer objective coverage of the Super Bowl in spite of his kid's participation, well, that's just silly. Doubt hardly anyone is looking to him for that.

But he can serve his readers awfully well by taking this unique opportunity to do first-person and behind-the-scenes stuff that very few sports columnists of any stature -- Mt. Rushmore or not -- ever can. If I were the editor of that weekly, that's exactly what I would expect from him. Not some contorted attempt to be just like all the other sportswriters on this one.

In these times, particularly, where a unique reporting angle might attract eyeballs.

Fitz Sr. isn't going to try to get a job at the NY Times off this or even the Twin Cities papers. He is what he is what he is and need not apologize for it. He gets a crack at "covering" (better yet, let's just call it writing about) his kid in the Super Bowl for once in his professional life. That's a special assignment and shouldn't be treated like any other gig requiring classic objectivity.

Besides, I think that paper specifically forgoes classic objectivity to serve its niche audience.

Re: the 1997 press box incident, the Minneapolis paper needs to do a lot more explaining and introspection about Sid Hartman -- a so-called big-timer -- than Fitz Sr. and his weekly editor have to do about their guy's ethics and behavior. Everyone has been scared of Grandpa Sports for the past 40 years or so, including his bosses.

 

[Drip]

Do newspapers that cover minorities get a pass when it comes to ethics and proper behavior in a press box?

WTF?
Last time I checked, there were more people from papers who didn't cover minorities acting like idiots in a press box. I have never seen a minority cheer in a press box, ask for an autograph or eat like a hog on free food and say they are too stuffed to work.
As for Larry Sr., I'm sure he's a proud papa but I also believe he wants to do the right thing and present himself as an unbiased journalist.

I don't have a horse in this race, but this is a pretty galling statement to make.

Galling perhaps but oh so very true Angola.

 

[Angola!]

Do newspapers that cover minorities get a pass when it comes to ethics and proper behavior in a press box?

WTF?
Last time I checked, there were more people from papers who didn't cover minorities acting like idiots in a press box. I have never seen a minority cheer in a press box, ask for an autograph or eat like a hog on free food and say they are too stuffed to work.
As for Larry Sr., I'm sure he's a proud papa but I also believe he wants to do the right thing and present himself as an unbiased journalist.

I don't have a horse in this race, but this is a pretty galling statement to make.

Galling perhaps but oh so very true Angola.

You have never seen a minority cheer in a press box, ask for an autograph or eat like a hog on free food and say they are too stuffed to work?

Well, have you ever worked in a press box would be my question for the first two?

My second question would be: Who have you ever worked with that claimed they ate too much they couldn't work?

 

[Drip]

Lots of papers run articles about hometown guys who made good.
I'd think Fitzgerald Jr., would fall into that category without much argument.
Just seems to me that people are looking for an easy story to write and having a sportswriter's son playing in Super Bowl, a game that the father is going to cover, makes for an easy story.
More lazy than shameful.
Than the ever-predictable, navel gazing as to why it is wrong for a father to report on his son.

People need to effing calm down here.

This is a weekly paper in a market served by two dailies, for a specific audience and for whom Fitz Sr. writes as a columnist. If he's hammering the claim that he's going to offer objective coverage of the Super Bowl in spite of his kid's participation, well, that's just silly. Doubt hardly anyone is looking to him for that.

But he can serve his readers awfully well by taking this unique opportunity to do first-person and behind-the-scenes stuff that very few sports columnists of any stature -- Mt. Rushmore or not -- ever can. If I were the editor of that weekly, that's exactly what I would expect from him. Not some contorted attempt to be just like all the other sportswriters on this one.

In these times, particularly, where a unique reporting angle might attract eyeballs.

Fitz Sr. isn't going to try to get a job at the NY Times off this or even the Twin Cities papers. He is what he is what he is and need not apologize for it. He gets a crack at "covering" (better yet, let's just call it writing about) his kid in the Super Bowl for once in his professional life. That's a special assignment and shouldn't be treated like any other gig requiring classic objectivity.

Besides, I think that paper specifically forgoes classic objectivity to serve its niche audience.

Re: the 1997 press box incident, the Minneapolis paper needs to do a lot more explaining and introspection about Sid Hartman -- a so-called big-timer -- than Fitz Sr. and his weekly editor have to do about their guy's ethics and behavior. Everyone has been scared of Grandpa Sports for the past 40 years or so, including his bosses.

It is a unique situation and if handled in the manner that you propose, would make for an outstanding story. That might be the best way to handle it.

 

[Angola!]

Lots of papers run articles about hometown guys who made good.
I'd think Fitzgerald Jr., would fall into that category without much argument.
Just seems to me that people are looking for an easy story to write and having a sportswriter's son playing in Super Bowl, a game that the father is going to cover, makes for an easy story.
More lazy than shameful.
Than the ever-predictable, navel gazing as to why it is wrong for a father to report on his son.

People need to effing calm down here.

This is a weekly paper in a market served by two dailies, for a specific audience and for whom Fitz Sr. writes as a columnist. If he's hammering the claim that he's going to offer objective coverage of the Super Bowl in spite of his kid's participation, well, that's just silly. Doubt hardly anyone is looking to him for that.

But he can serve his readers awfully well by taking this unique opportunity to do first-person and behind-the-scenes stuff that very few sports columnists of any stature -- Mt. Rushmore or not -- ever can. If I were the editor of that weekly, that's exactly what I would expect from him. Not some contorted attempt to be just like all the other sportswriters on this one.

In these times, particularly, where a unique reporting angle might attract eyeballs.

Fitz Sr. isn't going to try to get a job at the NY Times off this or even the Twin Cities papers. He is what he is what he is and need not apologize for it. He gets a crack at "covering" (better yet, let's just call it writing about) his kid in the Super Bowl for once in his professional life. That's a special assignment and shouldn't be treated like any other gig requiring classic objectivity.

Besides, I think that paper specifically forgoes classic objectivity to serve its niche audience.

Re: the 1997 press box incident, the Minneapolis paper needs to do a lot more explaining and introspection about Sid Hartman -- a so-called big-timer -- than Fitz Sr. and his weekly editor have to do about their guy's ethics and behavior. Everyone has been scared of Grandpa Sports for the past 40 years or so, including his bosses.

It is a unique situation and if handled in the manner that you propose, would make for an outstanding story. That might be the best way to handle it.

I agree with this, wholeheartedly.

As for your insane statements earlier? No. I don't believe those.

 

[Drip]

Do newspapers that cover minorities get a pass when it comes to ethics and proper behavior in a press box?

WTF?
Last time I checked, there were more people from papers who didn't cover minorities acting like idiots in a press box. I have never seen a minority cheer in a press box, ask for an autograph or eat like a hog on free food and say they are too stuffed to work.
As for Larry Sr., I'm sure he's a proud papa but I also believe he wants to do the right thing and present himself as an unbiased journalist.

I don't have a horse in this race, but this is a pretty galling statement to make.

Galling perhaps but oh so very true Angola.

You have never seen a minority cheer in a press box, ask for an autograph or eat like a hog on free food and say they are too stuffed to work?

Well, have you ever worked in a press box would be my question for the first two?

My second question would be: Who have you ever worked with that claimed they ate too much they couldn't work?

I firmly stand by my initial statement. Angola I would never name anyone publicly on this thread like that. Two wrongs don't make it right.

 

[Moderator1]

A. You won't name anyone because you can't.
B. I was in press boxes for 30 years. Many of them. Different sports, different places, different countries. Never one time saw the behavior you describe. If it was "many," you'd think the odds would be in my favor of seeing it once.
C. See A.

 

[Angola!]

Do newspapers that cover minorities get a pass when it comes to ethics and proper behavior in a press box?

WTF?
Last time I checked, there were more people from papers who didn't cover minorities  acting like idiots in a press box.  I have never seen a minority cheer in a press box, ask for an autograph or eat like a hog on free food and say they are too stuffed to work.
As for Larry Sr., I'm sure he's a proud papa but I also believe he wants to do the right thing and present himself as an unbiased journalist.

I don't have a horse in this race, but this is a pretty galling statement to make.

Galling perhaps but oh so very true Angola.

You have never seen a minority cheer in a press box, ask for an autograph or eat like a hog on free food and say they are too stuffed to work?

Well, have you ever worked in a press box would be my question for the first two?

My second question would be: Who have you ever worked with that claimed they ate too much they couldn't work?

I firmly stand by my initial statement. Angola I would never name anyone publicly on this thread like that. Two wrongs don't make it right.

Oh, I won't name anyone, but I will say this: I have seen plenty a minority eat free food and cheer in press boxes.

I've also never seen a journalist anywhere "eat too much and not be able to work."

I've seen journalists not be able to work because they were ill, but not because they ate too much.

The hyperbole is a bit strong, Drip.

 

[Drip]

A. You won't name anyone because you can't.
B. I was in press boxes for 30 years. Many of them. Different sports, different places, different countries. Never one time saw the behavior you describe. If it was "many," you'd think the odds would be in my favor of seeing it once.
C. See A.

Who benefits from naming a name? heck moddy, I was once in your neck of the woods covering an NCAA event and had a fellow staffer stand up and cheer during the game.
You know a lot but you don't know what you are talking about on this subject. I stand by what I said.