Take THAT Boston Globe!

[FlyingElvis75]

Angry ? I'm the happiest guy I know. If you find what I write angry, then I think it reflects more on your state of mind than mine. I certainly ridiculed the poster that attacked shmessy, and justifiably so .... oftentimes ridicule is an effective teaching tool. It's better than just calling him an idiot.

There is so much hilarity, often unintentional, on this board ... whether it be the "Dave Thomas is better than Watson thread" .... or the "Jets did it too !" threads. Cmon, you have to find it ironic that you are attacking *me* for defending *shmessy* from a poster who accuses him of the unforgivable "crime" of being a conservative.

I mean, you just can't make this stuff up. Unless you work for the Boston Globe of course.

R

I'm referring to the fact that six (now seven) of your past ~10 posts have included (and yes, these are all from separate posts):

"mouth-breathers"
"idiocy"
"despicable"
"arrogant ignorance"
A conspiracy-paranoia rant about Hugo Chavez
Insult to the NYTimes
(Latest) Insult to the Globe

That doesn't even include at least one post that was so over-the-top that the mods apparently deleted it. It's hard for me to imagine someone as "happy" if they can't seem to post more than a couple paragraphs without hurling an insult at someone or something.

 

[FlyingElvis75]

It is obvious to us as Patriots fans that the Globe/NYTimes/NESN give the Pats the shaft, to their own monetary benefit. It's been difficult if not impossible to find any fair treatment of the team in this situation from the Globe. Therefore they deserve the scorn they are getting here. Regardless of politics.

Not sure what "fair treatment" means, but I don't think it can be disputed that the Globe (AND Herald) devote a hell of a lot more space to the Sox than the Pats.

It's unfortunate, but hardly evidence of some sort of conspiracy. The Lawrence Eagle-Tribune and Nashua Telegraph devote a ton more space to the Sox, too. Does that mean they're "on the take," as well?

 

[njpatsfan]

I'm referring to the fact that six (now seven) of your past ~10 posts have included (and yes, these are all from separate posts):

I think you are confusing my sarcasm with your own feelings about being the butt of it.

R

 

[FlyingElvis75]

No, I'm just using some facts about your posts to illustrate my point.

 

[FrontSeven]

Too bad because Pats - Cowboys is the least competitive of all these games.

Wow. Bang, zoom. ........

 

[FrontSeven]

Was it the first game of the season when the Sox were playing the Yankees on another channlel, and the local viewership was heavily tilted toward the Pats?

That says it all. I think WEEI and some others have been smoking Red Sox dope for so long that even objective numbers go -ZOOOOOM- right over their heads.

You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH, EEI.

(How was my Jack Nicholson face just now? I practice that line all the time.)

 

[FlyingElvis75]

I alluded to this earlier, but ratings wouldn't tell us much unless the Pats played as many games as the Sox and a significant number of those were in direct competition with each other.

 

[njpatsfan]

No, I'm just using some facts about your posts to illustrate my point.

Your "facts" appear to be opinion and innuendo - a common confusion. Since when is criticizing the NY Times for employing a reporter that fabricated stories "hate-speech" ? Well, maybe in your deluded world. People can read my posts and decide on their own.

Instead of trying to smear, me, perhaps you can answer these questions:

1) If the slant in coverage to Red Sox is so obvious, then what is the explanation for it ? Especially at a time when the Patriots are so consistently year after year fielding dominant teams ? Any theory at all ? Bueller ? Bueller ?

2) And while you are at it, why don't you ask yourself why you are you so uncritical of a situation that is so obviously a conflict of interest ?

R

 

[FlyingElvis75]

Bother to read anything I post? For example, that there are ~10x more Sox games than Pats games? That other newspapers also write more Sox stories than Pats stories, and more baseball than football stories, in general?

And no, direct quotes from your posts are facts, not "opinion." You seem to have an especially hard time distinguishing the two. Not to mention misleading techniques like putting "hate-speech" in quotes, words I have not ever posted in this forum (and don't use, in general).

There are plenty of conflicts of interest out there. I myself have pointed repeatedly to a general conflict between reporting accuracy and the need to sell papers/web hits/airtime. It doesn't mean there's some sort of conspiracy to screw us over.

The point is that this is a Patriots discussion forum, and I don't think I'm alone in being increasingly irritated by your apparent need to slide your political agenda into any post that remotely touches on anything in the non-sports world.

 

[njpatsfan]

I alluded to this earlier, but ratings wouldn't tell us much unless the Pats played as many games as the Sox and a significant number of those were in direct competition with each other.

Nonsense. It is absolutely fair to compare head to head ratings between a Red Sox / Yankee - a game with potentially dire playoff consequences, with the Patriots home opener. The fact that Red Sox got clobbered in the ratings was a story in itself, and speaks volumes about how the sports fan base has shifted over the last 7 years.

And if you think that this development isn't effecting what's being covered at your beyond-reproach Globe, then I think you are being naive.

Consider this article from October, 2001, in, of all places - The NY Times:
BASEBALL; Lead Bidder for Red Sox Has The Times as Investor

''This investment bid is being made as part of The Boston Globe's long-term strategic plan to solidify its position as the leading news and advertising media in New England,'' she said. ''This investment in the Red Sox franchise, and specifically the New England Sports Network, would allow us to bring Boston Globe journalism from print to television by creating and producing Globe-branded sports programming.

....

''The New England Sports Network would enable The Globe to extend its nationally recognized sports reporting franchise to the television medium, as well as allow it to better serve advertisers with combined print, television and Internet advertising sales.''

In other words, we will use our current business position to make money with the newly acquired business unit.

And this gem:

Asked if even minority ownership of the Red Sox would represent a conflict of interest, Robinson said: ''This minority investment would present a conflict of interest only if Globe or Times reporters and editors were required or encouraged to give the team favored treatment. This will not be the case.''

Yep, we all know how that turned out.

R

 

[Master Yates]

Dire playoff consequences? Do you even watch baseball, just wondering before you speak about something you seem to have no knowledge about. Sox were up 5 1/2 games on the Yankees with 13 to go when this game was played. Only a monumnental collapse, which I admit they were close to having, would have let the Yanks catch the Sox. And not only that, even if they did the Sox were so far up in the wildcard they would have made the playoffs regardless. Comparing that to a rematch of a Pats playoff game with spygate to boot is ludicrous. Maybe some of you don't want to admit it, but part of the Patriots pride was on the line that game. Not only were they probably sick of hearing how San Diego was the better team the year before, even though they lost , but they had to deal with a week of every moron and their mother calling them cheaters.

It's simple, you can't compare a sport that plays 162 games to one that plays 16, and this is from somebody who actually enjoys the game of football more than baseball. Can't we all just friggen enjoy both teams and be proud to be from the city of Boston? It makes me sick to have to listen to this nonsense over and over. Sorry for the rant.

Edit: Oh and I watched the Pats game, and I was never prouder to be a Pats fan. Well maybe with the exception of the 3 SB wins.

Nonsense. It is absolutely fair to compare head to head ratings between a Red Sox / Yankee - a game with potentially dire playoff consequences, with the Patriots home opener. The fact that Red Sox got clobbered in the ratings was a story in itself, and speaks volumes about how the sports fan base has shifted over the last 7 years.

And if you think that this development isn't effecting what's being covered at your beyond-reproach Globe, then I think you are being naive.

Consider this article from October, 2001, in, of all places - The NY Times:
BASEBALL; Lead Bidder for Red Sox Has The Times as Investor



In other words, we will use our current business position to make money with the newly acquired business unit.

And this gem:



Yep, we all know how that turned out.

R

 

[FlyingElvis75]

Nonsense. It is absolutely fair to compare head to head ratings between a Red Sox / Yankee - a game with potentially dire playoff consequences, with the Patriots home opener. The fact that Red Sox got clobbered in the ratings was a story in itself, and speaks volumes about how the sports fan base has shifted over the last 7 years.

And if you think that this development isn't effecting what's being covered at your beyond-reproach Globe, then I think you are being naive.

Now you're just projecting. Who ever said I have some special place in my heart for the Globe?

NO researcher would ever take head-to-head ratings between football and baseball to determine which one is favored more in general by the population. The fact is that no matter what the outcome of that Sox game was, there was one the day before AND one the day after, while an entire week would pass before the Pats played another one. In a sense, a regular-season NFL game is nearly ten times more important than a regular-season MLB game. The idea that the Sox may have actually been expected to outdraw the Pats speaks to what a disproportionate hold the Sox are expected to have on the Bostonian psyche.

Consider this article from October, 2001, in, of all places - The NY Times:
BASEBALL; Lead Bidder for Red Sox Has The Times as Investor



In other words, we will use our current business position to make money with the newly acquired business unit.

And this gem:



Yep, we all know how that turned out.

R

And this explains the prominence of the Sox on the Herald, Eagle-Tribune, and Telegraph...how?

Btw, at this moment, 6 of 8 latest "Headlines" on www.boston.com/sports are about the Patriots. The herald has 3 stories each on the Sox and Pats on their front page.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

It's not that you can't compare MLB to the NFL because of the number of games played. It's the fact that baseball is only exciting when compared to reading victorian novels -- which was, in fact, its main competition when it was invented.

I'm originally from Mass, so I am a dyed-in-the-wool Sox fan... in that I'd never follow the Yankees or the White Sox or the Cubs or any other baseball team. Yes, I too let out a "wow, whoda thunk it?" of historic proportions when the Sox won the world series...

But then again, if they made different paint in different cities, and the Boston Red Paint was playing the Cincinatti Red in the World Series of Paint Drying, I would also root for Boston's paint to dry faster. That's not to say that it's interesting to watch.

I have to say, I don't go a Sunday without watching football when it's on, but baseball? It's like "hey look honey, the Sox are on!" "So's law and order." "Okay, maybe we can put it on after the seventh inning stretch."

PFnV