Let me ask this Mariotti question....Updated by Moddy.

Jay has been known to be a blowhard/wimp/jerk, etc. for many years. His actions now are solidifying that thought process. So, no, there's no empathy for the guy. He brought this on himself. He made the bed. Now he has to sleep in it.

 

Left Coast, let me ask this. How many of the people who're ripping Mariotti have actually met him or talked to him?
If we're gonna rip a guy for not talking to the people he's writing about, how can we do it ourselves here if we don't know Jay? Whitlock and Kindred and some of the guys here probably see Mariotti frequently, and they're entitled to their opinions. But is that across the board? Should this guy get crucified by reputation?
Maybe I don't understand the spirit of this place. I was on here some but not registered and didn't post when the whole Albom thing happened. It amazed me how hard people jumped on him. What Albom did was not a good idea, no debating that. And I certainly don't absolve Mariotti. I absolutely agree that you need to be there to take the insults as well as the compliments when you're a beat writer or columnist.
But in both cases, the vitriolic nature of the reaction just surprises me.

 

I've met him. I've talked to him. He's a dickhead. Fair enough?

 

David,
First, you say this board has turned on MAriotti. By that definition, that would mean support turned 180 degrees. Most of us have never supported him.
Second, count me among the "I've met him and think he's a tool" category. He's lazy and obnoxious.
Strike me down for sa=ying it, but even tho Albom is a pompous ass, he's a hard-working pompous ass who got busted cutting corners. Mariotti is a lazy pompous ass who got busted cutting corners.
As others have said here, Albom is a talented writer, Might not exactly stick to the script but is good writer. Mariotti is a negative bastard 24/7/365
He is getting what he deserves.

 

I don't need to lift the manhole cover of a sewer to know it stinks.
His actions have spoken for him for many years, not just this week.
And the harping probably is a buildup of many years of his arrogant, selfish approach to his job. His approach is what gives our profession a bad name and feeds a perception that mostly is unwanted, and yet he's feeding it.

 

David,
I know Mariotti and those he writes about in Chicago well enough to know that he need not fear going into a locker room any more than any other writer. Someone may yell at him (all right, 25 someones in the Sox locker room plus Guillen). Someone may point a finger, call him a name. But fear of physical harm? Paranoia is a better word.
The point with Mariotti is, he believes that he's above criticism. This was true on his radio show, where he would cut off callers and call them names if they dared to disagree with him -- it happened time and again, never mind that Mariotti would change his opinion -- and cut off callers or yelled at co-hosts who called him out on that as well. It's true of his thin skin when it comes to print criticism as well, witness his rip on Guillen's original attack. Rather than play with it, he went off the deep end.
Imagine if you wrote several columns in succession ripping Dale Jr. during a losing streak, yet never talked to him, his crew chief, anybody. Never went to the garage, never poked your head in an interview room. Just hammered away day after day, week after week. That's Mariotti's style. It wouldn't work on your beat. After years of his blather, it appears not to be working for Mariotti.
He was said to be on vacation Tuesday. If he's still on vacation the rest of the week (NBA draft Wednesday, Sox-Cubs at Wrigley on the weekend), something might be up.

 

Had the unfortunate experience of sitting directly across from Mariotti in the media workroom while covering an NCAA tournament a few years back.

I absolutely had no idea who he was when the day began but knew his name by the end of the day. He was whining and complaining all day long about all sorts of things. He was loud and obnoxious and had no respect for anybody sitting around him.

Most of the media couldn't wait for Bobby Knight's press conference to start. But I'm 99 percent sure our boy Jay (or shall we call him Joy now that he has been neutered?) never left the workroom in case of a Knight meltdown. All I know is I left the workroom as Knight got to the podium and Joy was still sitting. I returned to the workroom immediately after Knight was done and Joy was still sitting in the same place.

At one point, Joy got up and left for a few minutes and three of us (none who knew each other, by the way) looked at each other and rolled our eyes. Then an apparent member of the Chicago media took notice and told all of us what a complete asshole Mariotti was.

So, yes, I have been in his company and seen Joy in action. I was not impressed. He was a complete unprofessional loser in my opinion.

The next day, I made sure to sit nowhere near the dork.

 

Re: Let me ask this Mariotti question....

Gold, you've got to be kidding.
Nobody outside of "SoCal" had a clue who Rome was before Everett.
That was in 1994 or 1995. By the end of the decade, he's on every sports radio station in America. The Evert cracked made Rome; his talent allowed him to take advantage. I'm not a fan, but I recognize that he has a gift.

 

Considering this poster was covering the NCAA tournament, moving your seat is a pretty drastic move and highlights how annoying Mariotti must be. If you find a good seat in the media workroom the day before the games start, whatever the round, chances are you'll be there for the next three days.

 

JW and Michael Gee are right. This story may not matter to the public but it is a huge issue in our industry. Getting rid of someone like Mariotti makes all of us and our industry just a little better. There was a similar situation at a place I worked years ago, although without the public hoo-hah. We had a guy who was a lot like Mariotti - sat at home, took vicious shots at people but never faced them and had the thinnest skin of anyone when someone fired back. Us working stiffs all knew about the guy's lack of integrity but he survived for many years because management believed he sold papers. It was not until many, many examples came to light of his plagairism and making up quotes that he was eased out. And I mean eased out. He got a great severance deal because management had no stomach to fight him in court. He was just like Mariotti in the threatening lawsuit department, too. But the main thing is that he is no longer in a place of prominence in our business and we are all the better for it. As one respected writer said to the guy in front of a group of writers, after the slimeball twisted a stolen quote, "You make each one of us a little worse."
The same thing should happen in Chicago but it won't unless it stays a big issue in our biz.

 

David: Jay took a bad situation and made it much worse, mostly for himself. That's very very unfortunate.
I agree with you that the attitude of malicious glee you find on this board when someone fucks up is unappealing. It's human nature. however and as far as I'm concerned is outweighed by the insight and common sense also found here.

 

I understand all of the points, and perhaps I've come at this the wrong way. Without speaking to Jay Mariotti, specifically, I will just point out that I am sure it's not fair in our profession to hold the people we cover to different standards depending on whether we like them or not. Yes, it's human nature. But if somebody is a good guy, we think, and he screws up don't we have to say "He screwed up" the same way we would if it's a guy we despise? I don't care if Mariotti is the unanimous selection for Jerk of the Century, I think it's short-sighted to "approve" of a situation where a guy is persona non gratis just because we think the guy is a bad guy. It might be "what he deserves," but it's not what we deserve as a profession. If we let it happen to people we don't like, it's that much harder to stop when it happens to people we do like.