The funny thing about him is that he does not speak his mind at all, he actually takes the exact opposite side of what everyone thinks is correct on purpose so people will read his column either to rip him for being a dumb ass or for "speaking his mind" as some actually think he believes the s*** he writes. Either way the Sun-Times does sell papers and a whole lot of people sure do talk about his column, so it must be working for him.

Bingo and well said.

It is a wild coincidence like fathom noted that the Cubs "rally" started right after he brought

up Moronotti. That was weird.

The funny thing about him is that he does not speak his mind at all, he actually takes the exact opposite side of what everyone thinks is correct on purpose so people will read his column either to rip him for being a dumb ass or for "speaking his mind" as some actually think he believes the s*** he writes. Either way the Sun-Times does sell papers and a whole lot of people sure do talk about his column, so it must be working for him.

And that's what I admire about the guy and want to emulate

And that's what I admire about the guy and want to emulate

 

It's not exactly an admirable quality.

It's not exactly an admirable quality.

To me, ignoring the critics is. If you can get people to read your stuff, I'd say that's pretty good, regardless of whether they agree with you or not. And to do it on a regular basis for 15 years, as Mariotti has done, that's even better.

To me, ignoring the critics is. If you can get people to read your stuff, I'd say that's pretty good, regardless of whether they agree with you or not. And to do it on a regular basis for 15 years, as Mariotti has done, that's even better.

 

For every douchebag like Mariotti that makes this style work, there's 100 dickwads who piss off so many people that they don't have a job.

To me, ignoring the critics is. If you can get people to read your stuff, I'd say that's pretty good, regardless of whether they agree with you or not. And to do it on a regular basis for 15 years, as Mariotti has done, that's even better.

 

I'd say you're doing a good impersonation of Mariotti at this forum thus far.

I'd say you're doing a good impersonation of Mariotti at this forum thus far.

LOL, so true.

I'd say you're doing a good impersonation of Mariotti at this forum thus far.

And it's working, since everyone responds to it.

The funny thing about him is that he does not speak his mind at all, he actually takes the exact opposite side of what everyone thinks is correct on purpose so people will read his column either to rip him for being a dumb ass or for "speaking his mind" as some actually think he believes the s*** he writes. Either way the Sun-Times does sell papers and a whole lot of people sure do talk about his column, so it must be working for him.

If it wasn't obvious before, yesterday proved it.

 

I realize the entire "controversy = circulation/web hits' angle. My problem is, what he's doing isn't honest journalism. In past columns, I've never doubted his views as anything other than his skewed personal beliefs. His comments atleast appeared genuine; even if they were wrong. This mornings article was utter crap. Completely unbelievable, as if Mike Kiley and Mike Murphy wrote it for him.

 

This situation is similar to Around the Horn (during "showdowns") where both contestants usually adopt different arguments for a topic. Most of the time one viewpoint is obviously correct, yet they'll still oppose it for the sake of television. I understand that. You wonder if he wrote his article merely, as you suggested, to offer a different opinion to incite controversy. Perhaps he's purposely lashing out on AJ because he dislikes him. Or maybe he wrote the article to give the impression he's not impartial to the White Sox. Whatever the reason, I'm sure it wasn't because he felt everything was justified. I shouldn't be upset, but it still manages to aggrivate me.

And it's working, since everyone responds to it.

 

Well if you want to be on everyone's ignore list, and be everyone's least favorite poster, keep doing what you do.

What he's saying is that 15 years of douchebaggery is an admirable quality.

whoa whoa whoa whoa hold up...

 

hold up...

 

why the hell did i have the cubs announcers for the whole game?

whoa whoa whoa whoa hold up...

 

hold up...

 

why the hell did i have the cubs announcers for the whole game?

 

Because you watched on CSN and not on WGN.

Because you watched on CSN and not on WGN.

******* ************ ****** ********* *******

******* ************ ****** ********* *******

 

Haha. For the future, you may want to check the schedule. But when CSN came around last year, if the game wasn't national, the Sox were on one channel, while the Cubs were on the other.

Haha. For the future, you may want to check the schedule. But when CSN came around last year, if the game wasn't national, the Sox were on one channel, while the Cubs were on the other.

CSN has the away broadcast, wgn the home I believe.

whoa whoa whoa whoa hold up...

 

hold up...

 

why the hell did i have the cubs announcers for the whole game?

Even further proof that you suck.

CSN has the away broadcast, wgn the home I believe.

 

We were on CSN on Friday.

We were on CSN on Friday.

Ok, there goes my theory.

I'm actually glad that they decided last year to do the home and away team broadcasts for the Cubs-Sox games. It was nice before I got satalite b/c I could see all 3 games on TV, but it's even better now.,

Even further proof that you suck.

oh, ok

If it wasn't obvious before, yesterday proved it.

 

I realize the entire "controversy = circulation/web hits' angle. My problem is, what he's doing isn't honest journalism. In past columns, I've never doubted his views as anything other than his skewed personal beliefs. His comments atleast appeared genuine; even if they were wrong. This mornings article was utter crap. Completely unbelievable, as if Mike Kiley and Mike Murphy wrote it for him.

 

This situation is similar to Around the Horn (during "showdowns") where both contestants usually adopt different arguments for a topic. Most of the time one viewpoint is obviously correct, yet they'll still oppose it for the sake of television. I understand that. You wonder if he wrote his article merely, as you suggested, to offer a different opinion to incite controversy. Perhaps he's purposely lashing out on AJ because he dislikes him. Or maybe he wrote the article to give the impression he's not impartial to the White Sox. Whatever the reason, I'm sure it wasn't because he felt everything was justified. I shouldn't be upset, but it still manages to aggrivate me.

 

Exactly.

 

He isn't even being honest to himself. It's sad when he purposely goes against the obvious just to rile people up, even if it works or not. Makes him look like scum.

Exactly.

 

He isn't even being honest to himself. It's sad when he purposely goes against the obvious just to rile people up, even if it works or not. Makes him look like scum.

 

Mariotti isn't a straight-news writer, he is a columnist--interpreting current events through his viewpoint. IMO not a very good one, but that's what he is.

 

He puts his far too predictabe one sided spin on everything. He constructs shoddy arguments, the Barrett/Pierzynski piece being an outstanding example, glazing over Barrett's own reputation for being an arrogant hothead out of touch with his own oft-mediocrity to level heavy-handed, mouthbreathing disses anyone whose paycheck is signed by Jerry Reinsdorf. And his writing style is nothing special.

 

Mariotti gets far too much mileage out of ballyhoo sensationalism to be interesting to read. Going against the grain is only noble if you have something worthwhile to say. And when he isn't flying in the face of critics, he's just regurgitating popular opinion. He is popular because any Cubbie-blue dunderhead thinks his argument is as good as Mariotti's, and usually they're right.

 

The guy I loved reading was Bernie Lincicome, who wrote for the Trib through the 1990s. I didn't always agree with his viewpoints but he legitimately could defend them, and he had an amazing command of the language and was always enjoyable to read.

You know what I find strange about Mariotti's rantings and ravings are the strange things he picks up on to complain about. Today for the second straight day he has complained about Pierzynski telling the media what Michael Barrett said to him before he got punched. Yesterday it was Pierzynski breaking some kind of MLB "code" of not repeating what is said on the field. Today he reiterated that point again, though not as strongly :

and slugged A.J. while saying, according to the Pierzynski News Service, "I didn't have the ball, b****.''

http://www.suntimes.com/output/mariotti/cst-spt-jay22.html

 

I am surprised that todays column doesnt have a shot at the Hawk. Mariotti is usually good for a "tit for tat" thing with Hawk at least once during the season.