Not since Ali unmasked Foreman in Zaire...Telander knocks out Mariotti

There's a lot of praise for Telander going on here, but both guys have their strengths and weaknesses.

While Mariotti is wrong not to go into clubhouses, he at least stays informed about the nuances of the Chicago sports scene. Telander probably wouldn't be able to name half the starters for any Chicago team.

Obviously, he's more of an issues guy, though.

 

Look, Jay remninds me of the little fat kid in school who promised to get everyone back when he got older. Well calling people out of their names and then hiding is cowardly. If i were his SE, I'd make the SOB go to a few games. Show his face in public instead of spending too much time on the boob tube.
Telander's shot isn't much better, but i applaude him for calling the situation what it is.
KO in round 1.

 

there's no mystery here....

telander doesn't write the headlines: "in big picture, mariotti huge part of the story."

one of journalism's major rules is "don't become a part of the story."

telander's column -- which ran in mariotti's paper -- basically calls into question whether mariotti should be allowed to cover the white sox, the defending world champions. the column also makes it quite clear that mariotti introduced the name-calling and the gay-bashing (latoya and big skirt).

given where the column ran and given the picture it paints of mariotti, it's clearly the most damaging thing written on this topic. stevie wonder can see that.

 

there's a lot of praise of this one topic. telander seems to be quite informed about this subject.

 

How about taking a stand on the issue, then, Rick?

If he wants to say "our presence is required because we owe it to the readers and to the credibility we strive to earn . . . " then he should say it.

But he didn't.

Which is why it fell flat, IMO.

 

Sometimes your point is stronger if you let the readers connect the dots.

 

That would require Mariotti to show up in the ring, instead of scurrying away

 

Definitely.

 

Reader calls in: "What channel is NBC on my cable system?"

You have more faith in the reader connecting the dots than I do.

 

I agree with BTE.

I got to the end of the column and thought, ``OK, he's got him on the ropes. Where's the knockout punch?"

Not saying it's a bad column. Just not, in my opinion, the devastating blow it was billed to be.

 

Given that the column ran in the same paper that Mariotti works for, Telander probably stretched the boundaries of what he was allowed to say to Chris Farley in Spandex proportions. Ripping a fellow columnist should, and probably does, require several higher-ups reading the column (SE, ME, EE, Pub) and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the stuff about "we must go to the locker room" was taken out in some kind of compromise.

 

I may have disqualified myself from saying this with my earlier statements ... but on second look, I'm beginning to see what Sixty-Nine and BT mean.

No, you DON'T necessarily let the reader connect the dots. You're often better served hitting them over the head, which RT certainly didn't do here.

He obviously had something to say ... so just SAY it.

(Written before Pope made those good points, but still.)