Murray Chass is back

[spnited]

Not to mention how many pro-Red Sox and anti-Yankees columns come up. :

 

[Boom_70]

Not to mention how many pro-Red Sox and anti-Yankees columns come up. :

Well since you asked in 2006 Murray was writing about 3 pro Red Sox columns for every 1 negative Yankee column he wrote. Most of the info being obviously fed to him by Larry Lucchino.

 

[JR]

That's cool, but his speech would have made sense at APSE, not Cooperstown. Totally inappropriate for the occasion.

Yup.

Everything Murray Chass said in his speech may be true.

The HOF induction ceremony is not the place to vent your spleen.

Like I said before, he sounded (from the transcript posted here) like a miserable old brick.

No class and a lack of manners.

 

[Boom_70]

Came across a blog from Seth Mnookin ( wrote "Feeding the Monster" and "Hard News - the Times Scandals" ) where is takes out Murray- Pretty funny stuff. I had no idea that so many were not overwhelmed by Murray's work.

http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2006/12/18/murray-chass-and-the-shaky-ethics-of-the-sports-section/

No wonder why Murray hates bloggers.

 

[cranberry]

That's fine cranberry. You gave me an inane exercise and I delivered on what you asked. I certainly did not think that one or ten or even 50 examples would get you to change your mind.

Why don't you go to the Times search site and type in Murray Chass. See how may pro union stories come up and then see how many pro owner stories come up.

During the period of time Murray was covering labor, MLB was routinely getting its ass kicked back into place for violating agreements it had made to the union -- grievance arbitrations, collusion, etc. So that's to be expected. They tried to fight the union for three decades before bringing in an age of significantly more enlightened labor relations over the past 10 years or so.

You seem to think the bad guys should win half the time or somehow the reporter isn't being objective. If the Yankees win 100 games they're going to look good in 100 game stories. Conversely, if they lose 100 games they'll look bad that often. Is it the reporter's responsibility to make the Yankees look good 61 times and bad the other 61 games?

Well since you asked in 2006 Murray was writing about 3 pro Red Sox columns for every 1 negative Yankee column he wrote. Most of the info being obviously fed to him by Larry Lucchino.

And, well, there you go. There were few bigger hawks during the '94-95 labor dispute than Lucchino. You really think he trusts someone so clearly biased?

I was actually hoping you would post the whole damn NY Times archive from that period because I think it would serve as a great example of good and often great reporting by Murray.

 

[Boom_70]

That's fine cranberry. You gave me an inane exercise and I delivered on what you asked. I certainly did not think that one or ten or even 50 examples would get you to change your mind.

Why don't you go to the Times search site and type in Murray Chass. See how may pro union stories come up and then see how many pro owner stories come up.

During the period of time Murray was covering labor, MLB was routinely getting its ass kicked back into place for violating agreements it had made to the union -- grievance arbitrations, collusion, etc. So that's to be expected. They tried to fight the union for three decades before bringing in an age of significantly more enlightened labor relations over the past 10 years or so.

You seem to think the bad guys should win half the time or somehow the reporter isn't being objective. If the Yankees win 100 games they're going to look good in 100 game stories. Conversely, if they lose 100 games they'll look bad that often. Is it the reporter's responsibility to make the Yankees look good 61 times and bad the other 61 games?

Well since you asked in 2006 Murray was writing about 3 pro Red Sox columns for every 1 negative Yankee column he wrote. Most of the info being obviously fed to him by Larry Lucchino.

And, well, there you go. There were few bigger hawks during the '94-95 labor dispute than Lucchino. You really think he trusts someone so clearly biased?

I was actually hoping you would post the whole damn NY Times archive from that period because I think it would serve as a great example of good and often great reporting by Murray.

Most people who read the Times for baseball are baseball fans - not union leaders. Fans do not want to read about strikes. They want to read about the game. Why should the average baseball fan have any regard for Marvin Miller?

 

[cranberry]

Most people who read the Times for baseball are baseball fans - not union leaders. Fans do not want to read about strikes. They want to read about the game.

I agree. Fans don't like to read about strikes. They don't like to read about tax increases, starving children, tornadoes, AIDS, soldiers and civilians dieing in Iraq, or the Dow getting pummeled, either. But they happen and they, too, are significant stories that affect peoples' lives in various ways. Newspapers report these things sometimes when they're not pleasing their readers by writing about who Alex Rodriguez is having sex with this week.

Why should the average baseball fan have any regard for Marvin Miller?

Maybe because after Jackie Robinson, Marvin was the person who most influenced the baseball industry in the the last 60 years?

 

[Singapore Slim]

And fans, almost to a man, always side with the ownership. It's the strangest thing. They never side with the players, in any sport, no matter how unfair the other side has been.

They just can't bring themselves to side with those who play a game for a living, no matter how much they're getting screwed over in their own profession relative to the owners.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Came across a blog from Seth Mnookin ( wrote "Feeding the Monster" and "Hard News - the Times Scandals" ) where is takes out Murray- Pretty funny stuff. I had no idea that so many were not overwhelmed by Murray's work.

http://www.sethmnookin.com/blog/2006/12/18/murray-chass-and-the-shaky-ethics-of-the-sports-section/

No wonder why Murray hates bloggers.

We're not thrilled with a BoSox towel boy like Mnookin, so we're even.

 

[Singapore Slim]

Fanboy or not, the blogger is right on.

Chass is off. Way off.

Shoot the messenger all you want merely for wearing a "B" on his cap, but the blogger got things right, and Chass got things way, way wrong in this instance.

 

[tangotiger]

First-timer here.

Someone mentioned the possibility that the Chass site is a hoax.

Some details are
- the third-person and inflammatory About page,
- the incorrect position about getting the travel details 3 months ahead of time for two cities yet to be determined,
- the similarity in site look and graphics between Chass site and BaseballEvolution.com and both sites happen to be sitting on the same server,
- the dead-email address posted.

Is there someone in the group here that has heard first-hand from Chass that he is in fact writing on that site?

 

[cranberry]

First-timer here.

Someone mentioned the possibility that the Chass site is a hoax.

Some details are
- the third-person and inflammatory About page,
- the incorrect position about getting the travel details 3 months ahead of time for two cities yet to be determined,
- the similarity in site look and graphics between Chass site and BaseballEvolution.com and both sites happen to be sitting on the same server,
- the dead-email address posted.

Is there someone in the group here that has heard first-hand from Chass that he is in fact writing on that site?

Murray told me about the site himself. Not a hoax.