BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Ebert scolds Mariotti for “ugly way” he left Sun-Times

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, August 29, 2008

Ebert scolds Mariotti for “ugly way” he left Sun-Times

One thumb down!

What an ugly way to leave the Sun-Times. It does not speak well for you. Your timing was exquisite. You signed a new contract, waited until days after the newspaper had paid for your trip to Beijing at great cost, and then resigned with only an e-mail. You saved your explanation for a local television station.

As someone who was working here for 24 years before you arrived, I think you owed us more than that. You owed us decency. The fact that you saved your attack for TV only completes our portrait of you as a rat.

Matt Garza smells it deep (Mr. Tapeworm) Posted: August 29, 2008 at 09:33 AM | 77 comment(s)
Related News: General, Media

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 1 pages

1. Elisabeth R�hm and Walter Haas Posted: August 29, 2008 at 10:15 AM (#2921382)

wheeee

2. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: August 29, 2008 at 10:18 AM (#2921385)

three thumbs down

3. Dewey, Local Boy and Soupuss Posted: August 29, 2008 at 10:21 AM (#2921389)

Apparently it wasn't just the sports desk that hated Mariotti.

4. rconn23 Posted: August 29, 2008 at 10:28 AM (#2921397)

Granted, it's hard to tell one hack sports columnist from another these days. Most of them proffer the same "these guys suck " garbage each week and seem to loathe the very sports they cover.

However, Mariotti seems to be a particularly bad guy. What a horrible way to leave a company that's given him tremendous opportunities over the years. Ebert is spot on with his remarks.

Unfortunately, he'll continued to be employed by ESPN because they specialize in hiring bad columnists for their shows.

5. Edmundo is Super Average Man

Posted: August 29, 2008 at 10:45 AM (#2921420)

Unfortunately, he'll continued to be employed by ESPN because they specialize in hiring bad columnists for their shows.

Aha, it makes sense to me now. ESPN hires bad columnists to make their their mainstays look better. Seriously, in a world of Jay Mariotti, Woody Paige and Skip Bayless, Stuart Scott is a beacon of good sports journalism.
EDIT: Fixed some crappy sentence construction. No proposal writing today for me.

6. Greg Maddux School of Reflexive Profanity Posted: August 29, 2008 at 10:49 AM (#2921427)

So you're saying the one-eyed man is king?

7. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: August 29, 2008 at 10:49 AM (#2921428)

Apparently it wasn't just the sports desk that hated Mariotti.

I don't think Ebert had a problem with Mariotti per se...why would he...he just didn't like how he went out the door.

8. Superunknown Gary Geiger Counter Posted: August 29, 2008 at 10:50 AM (#2921431)

Holy ####, Greg, that was good.

9. scareduck Posted: August 29, 2008 at 10:53 AM (#2921437)

In order to give someone else decency, he would first have to borrow some.

10. Matt Garza smells it deep (Mr. Tapeworm) Posted: August 29, 2008 at 10:56 AM (#2921442)

http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=13570

The link to the full letter, since it doesn't appear to be working at the moment ...

To #7, it doesn't seem as if Ebert thought all that highly of Mariotti ...

You were a
great shouter in print, that's for sure, stomping your feet when
owners, coaches, players and fans didn't agree with you. It was an
entertaining show. Good luck getting one of your 1,000-word rants on
the air.

Edited to add the article link ...

11. Dayn

Posted: August 29, 2008 at 11:13 AM (#2921470)

It's impossible to overstate how entertaining this has been.

Still, this has been a rough stretch for the Sun-Times. It's my favorite paper, mostly because their city coverage is so much better than the Trib's, and I'm a huge fan of Telander's. But on the heels of Conrad Black, you've got Ebert's health problems, Novak's retirement, and now Mariotti's exodus. Those are serious blows, regardless of the fact that Mariotti was a welcome departure. That's of course to say nothing of the problems all newspapers are facing. I hope they survive.

On the ESPN thing, Rick Reilly's continuing sinecure has amazed more than any other. Even Bayless or Mariotti. He's just thunderously awful in every way.

12. TFTIO Posted: August 29, 2008 at 11:18 AM (#2921479)

As if I didn't love Roger Ebert already.

13. Cabbage Posted: August 29, 2008 at 11:20 AM (#2921485)

He's just thunderously awful in every way.

Bob Greene with sports.

14. Rough Carrigan

Posted: August 29, 2008 at 11:25 AM (#2921496)

I always trusted Ebert's opinion over Siskel's and now Roper's and this confirms that I was listening to the right guy.

15. Chase Utley, Shooty's Favorite Robot (Joey Belle) Posted: August 29, 2008 at 11:33 AM (#2921510)

Siskel was the man. I enjoy Ebert too. And Roeper's a tool.

16. Superunknown Gary Geiger Counter Posted: August 29, 2008 at 11:33 AM (#2921512)

Good to see that some folks like Telander. He wrote a book years ago that I liked. I didn't want to find out that he had become a terrible ink-stained wretch over the years.

17. Dayton Moore is a Big Fat Idiot (AG#1F) Posted: August 29, 2008 at 11:53 AM (#2921552)

The link doesn't work. Two thumbs up for Ebert, and its good to hear he is still feisty. I miss him on "At the Movies"

18. Dayn

Posted: August 29, 2008 at 11:56 AM (#2921556)

Good to see that some folks like Telander.

He's a very thoughtful writer. And based on my very limited interactions with him, a hell of a nice guy.

19. Crispix Attacks is in the best shape of his life. Posted: August 29, 2008 at 12:04 PM (#2921563)

For some reason when I was like 15 and on the internet for the first time, I discovered Telander and read him religiously. He was the only sportswriter in my bookmarks except Jayson Stark. Not sure why, now.

Eventually I got a bit tired of how he always sticks to the "At most, one sentence per paragraph" format which looks a lot better in newsprint columns than on a website. But he's a good writer.

20. Greg Maddux School of Reflexive Profanity Posted: August 29, 2008 at 12:06 PM (#2921567)

Holy ####, Greg, that was good.

Well, at least someone liked it. Even if it's the guy who thinks The Run Fairy™ trumps anything in my oeuvre.

21. Dewey, Local Boy and Soupuss Posted: August 29, 2008 at 12:08 PM (#2921570)

I always liked Telander, but I remember him mainly for the "Sportswriters on TV" show back in the day. That was probably the best sports talk program ever, and Telander was a big reason for that.

22. Dag Nabbit: formerly tolerant of lactose Posted: August 29, 2008 at 12:15 PM (#2921581)

I always liked Telander, but I remember him mainly for the "Sportswriters on TV" show back in the day. That was probably the best sports talk program ever, and Telander was a big reason for that.

Oh, absolutley. I have tons of affection for Telander just because of that show. Great show and he was its best element - sharpest guy on it, the only conservative balance to them, and the interplay with Jauss was great. When he left, it went downhill quickly. It also didn't help that they'd replaced your host and friendly moderator Ben Bentley with the shrill, knee-jerk Lester Munson.

23. Moses Taylor's bus bench has been Tom Sellecked Posted: August 29, 2008 at 12:25 PM (#2921599)

Heaven is a Playground is one of my favorite sports books, so Telander is cool by me.

24. winnipegwhip Posted: August 29, 2008 at 12:26 PM (#2921601)

I am waiting for Pete Hamill to update his list of three most evil people in history.

Will Hitler, Stalin or O'Malley get bumped?

25. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: August 29, 2008 at 12:34 PM (#2921614)

Even Neil Steinberg had a column on it, mostly featuring Telander. Extracts of his Mariotti stories:

Well, Jay's gotten a lot of criticism recently, and I feel that, as a former colleague, I should do my best to refute the parts that are untrue.

First, he was accused of never facing his critics. I know that isn't true. A few years ago, I joked about him on the radio and--after first complaining to the union, and the publisher, demanding that I be punished and getting nowhere--he strode right up to me in the newsroom, fists doubled, and threatened to punch me. We had never spoken before.

Usually, I have the physical courage of a schoolgirl in a slasher movie. But somehow, emboldened by Jay's boldness, I did not shrink back. Instead, I calmly removed my glasses, slipped them into my shirt pocket, then closed my eyes, tipped my chin up and said sweetly, 'You're a bully and a coward Jay, and I know you won't do it. But go ahead. Take your best shot.'

So in a sense, Jay taught me to find the courage hidden within myself, and I'm grateful for that.

The second misconception I want to clear up is the idea that his colleagues hate him. We do not hate him--at least we struggle not to. I have helped friends work through their intense feelings of deep visceral dislike of Jay, assuring them that it puts them at his level, and is also unnecessary.

'The man is his own worst punishment,' I always say.

I don't think I would have found this perspective had I never met Jay. Any time I am filled with myself, or obsessing over my career, I think of Jay, and it's easier to smile and go clean the garage. Thanks.

Since Jay quit on Tuesday, turning to stab at the paper that supported him for 17 years and spit on the colleagues who tolerated his presence, there has been much ill will expressed. But I want to go on record that, speaking for myself and my colleagues, we bear him no malice whatsoever, or try not to. We can't honestly say that we are glad we met him, but we pray that God speeds him to his next assignment, and that God blesses, nurtures, strengthens, supports and comforts all those who come in contact with him in the future.

26. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: August 29, 2008 at 12:37 PM (#2921617)

Eventually I got a bit tired of how he always sticks to the "At most, one sentence per paragraph" format which looks a lot better in newsprint columns than on a website.

Not necessarily his decision.

27. I am Ted F'ing Williams Posted: August 29, 2008 at 01:37 PM (#2921693)

let's try this link:

Jay The Rat

28. Edmundo is Super Average Man

Posted: August 29, 2008 at 01:45 PM (#2921709)

Dear Abby,
With all this ganging up I'm starting to feel a teensy bit sorry for Mariotti. Should I seek help?
Signed, Time Wounds All Heels

29. Cowboy Popup Posted: August 29, 2008 at 01:49 PM (#2921712)

The column in 25 is wonderful.

30. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: August 29, 2008 at 01:51 PM (#2921718)

Wow, Jay stood up to Neil Steinberg. What a stallion.

31. ValueArb Posted: August 29, 2008 at 01:55 PM (#2921723)

Schadenfreude, never have you tasted so sweet!!!!

32. Cooperstown Schtick Posted: August 29, 2008 at 02:03 PM (#2921734)

I'd like to see Yankee Haters vs. Mariotti Haters in a 2008 Schadenfreude Death Match.

33. Srul Itza Posted: August 29, 2008 at 02:27 PM (#2921785)

One complaint about Ebert's column:

We believe in our profession, and in the future. And we believe in our Internet site, which you also whacked as you slithered out the door.

Since he was going with a rat metaphor, as opposed to a snake metaphor (although that would have worked as well), shouldn't he have "scampered" out the door?

34. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: August 29, 2008 at 02:33 PM (#2921810)

The column in 25 is wonderful.

My favorite columnist. He's even written some pretty good books. I like the one about losers, titled Complete and Utter Failure.

Since he was going with a rat metaphor, as opposed to a snake metaphor (although that would have worked as well), shouldn't he have "scampered" out the door?

Even good Homer sometimes nods. I would edit to "scuttered," myself, although there are any number of workable verbs.

35. Owner, SC Harnisches Posted: August 29, 2008 at 02:37 PM (#2921826)

36. Random Transaction Generator Posted: August 29, 2008 at 03:13 PM (#2921914)

I would edit to "scuttered," myself, although there are any number of workable verbs.

"Skittered" would have also been a good choice.

37. cardsfanboy

Posted: August 29, 2008 at 03:22 PM (#2921933)

This type of thing never seems to happen. I'm referring to an organization actually coming out and saying what everyone already knows.

It seems like in the past, you'd see a canned statement such as, "We regret that our relationship with Jay has come to a close. He has been a valued member of our team for quite some time now, and we wish him the best in his future endeavors."

I just can't get enough of this!

I agree, this is just fun and interesting. rarely is the truth allowed to be let out, but with a sub-human being like Mariotti I guess it's alright to be truthful just this once.

38. JPWF13

Posted: August 29, 2008 at 03:26 PM (#2921944)

Usually, I have the physical courage of a schoolgirl in a slasher movie.

don't they usually have quite a bit more courage in those flicks than the boys do?

39. Ben Grieve -automatic dp Posted: August 29, 2008 at 03:43 PM (#2921993)

6. Greg Maddux School of Reflexive Profanity Posted: August 29, 2008 at 11:49 AM (#2921427)

So you're saying the one-eyed man is king

What does that make the one-testicled man then?

40. Edmundo is Super Average Man

Posted: August 29, 2008 at 03:48 PM (#2922007)

The Sperminator, in the land of no-testicled men.

Surely, surely, Ron Jeremy has starred in a movie of that name.

EDIT: Of course there was an X-rated movie of that name, but there was also a Brit documentary of that name with this plot: The story of Dr Cecil Jacobson, a leading fertility expert who misled women into thinking they were pregnant and fathered 75 children by donating his own sperm. (thanks to imdb.com)

41. STEROIDS!!!!! Posted: August 29, 2008 at 09:05 PM (#2922444)

I keep waiting for MHS to show up and tell us what a fan he is of Mariotti.

42. winnipegwhip Posted: August 29, 2008 at 10:12 PM (#2922518)

The last time I heard comments like that (paragraph in # 25)I was a kid and would hear the audience laugh while the tv camera showed the laughing faces of Milton Berle, Dom Deluise, Jack Benny, Rickles and Dean Martin. Of course those comments were in jest, Marrioti is receiving real feelings.

Didn't Marrioti's mom or dad in Pittsburgh lash out at someone a couple of years ago for picking on their poor Jay?

43. Joshua Gibsons Ruth (Voxter) Posted: August 29, 2008 at 10:18 PM (#2922530)

I saw this, and I thought, "That can't be Roger Ebert." And then it was.

And then it was AWESOME.

44. rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar Posted: August 29, 2008 at 10:23 PM (#2922535)

Since he was going with a rat metaphor, as opposed to a snake metaphor (although that would have worked as well), shouldn't he have "scampered" out the door?

I would go with "skulked." Rats skulk, right?

45. Zuvella! Posted: August 29, 2008 at 10:49 PM (#2922559)

I think Ebert has debased movie criticism, making it very superficial. He is right, however, about Marrioti.

46. NTNgod Posted: August 29, 2008 at 10:54 PM (#2922566)

Oh, absolutley. I have tons of affection for Telander just because of that show. Great show and he was its best element - sharpest guy on it, the only conservative balance to them, and the interplay with Jauss was great.

Back was it was on SportChannel years ago, and the show's total budget was apparently $10, and cigar smoke filled the air...

47. Hello Rusty Kuntz, Goodbye Rusty Cars Posted: August 29, 2008 at 11:11 PM (#2922581)

I remember when the Sportswriters talked about Brian Bosworth's movie, Telander said something along the lines of "I hope I never again have to hear the term 'Get on your hog,' Jauss."

"Get on your hog, Jauss" instantly became one of our elementary school catchphrases.

48. NTNgod Posted: August 29, 2008 at 11:18 PM (#2922589)

Telander was the only one on the original show who appeared to be under the age of 80, too.

49. Hello Rusty Kuntz, Goodbye Rusty Cars Posted: August 29, 2008 at 11:40 PM (#2922601)

Roach has a logo?!?!?

50. Srul Itza At Home Posted: August 30, 2008 at 12:15 AM (#2922617)

I think Ebert has debased movie criticism, making it very superficial.

That is a very superficial analysis.

51. Monty Posted: August 30, 2008 at 12:30 AM (#2922624)

I think Ebert's one of the best movie reviewers out there. Although I agree that the show probably had a negative effect on criticism as a whole. I much prefer him in written form.

52. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: August 30, 2008 at 12:58 AM (#2922635)

I think Ebert has debased movie criticism, making it very superficial. He is right, however, about Marrioti.

Wow, I think that Ebert has fought tooth and nail to lift film criticism to a much higher level, even though with the direction film in general is going, it seems to be a losing battle. He's the only major critic I know of who seems to understand films relation to life and why it is so vital.

53. VoodooR Posted: August 30, 2008 at 02:59 AM (#2922655)

I think Ebert has debased movie criticism, making it very superficial. He is right, however, about Marrioti.

I think this is what someone says who only knows Ebert casually as the thumbsy television personality. As opposed to his mountain of top-notch written work...

54. Zuvella! Posted: August 30, 2008 at 07:57 AM (#2922684)

I think this is what someone says who only knows Ebert casually as the thumbsy television personality. As opposed to his mountain of top-notch written work...

I've read his work. He's a charismatic writer, has a very good sense of humor, can be deliciously nasty at times, etc. But generally speaking his ideas aren't very interesting, but because he has done a good job of reaching a mass audience (and this is where the television show has really played a part), he has a big influence on the content and form of current film criticism. He is/has been more a reviewer than critic throughout his career. Compare him to a Pauline Kael or Andrew Sarris and it's like a match-up between this year's Rays and this year's Yanks.

I think Ebert has debased movie criticism, making it very superficial.

That is a very superficial analysis.

Two thumbs up! :)

55. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: August 30, 2008 at 07:01 PM (#2923121)

I think Ebert gets much greater watching coverage beyond the mainstream indy film scene than either of the two reviews. I have not read enough of their work to compare in a meaningful way, but Ebert has a kind of iconic status in the minority communities. In the Asian American community, for instance, he's seen as the lone mainstream crusader for the acceptance of Asian American film.

56. the Tuque of Flatbush

Posted: August 30, 2008 at 07:47 PM (#2923165)

57. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: August 30, 2008 at 08:15 PM (#2923186)

Personally, I liked Siskel better but he could be spectacularly wrong sometimes. He blew it bigtime on Gladiator, Apocalypse Now and Miller's Crossing.

I'd be willing to give Siskel a pass on Gladiator, what with him being kind of dead when it came out.

58. Fred Garvin, Collateral Damage Posted: August 30, 2008 at 08:25 PM (#2923193)

Roach has a logo?!?!? has a logo?

59. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: August 30, 2008 at 08:40 PM (#2923210)

I fully agree w/ Ebert on Gladiator, right down to the stars.

Does anyone like Mariotti? Anywhere?

60. Eraser-X is emphatically dominating teh site!!! Posted: August 30, 2008 at 09:07 PM (#2923244)

Yeah, I felt the same way on Gladiator. It was better than the first two LoTRs--especially the second which I fell asleep trying to watch within the first fifteen minutes both times I attempted it--but it still quickly got to the "This is time I'm never getting back" point rather quickly.

61. Fumbduck Joe Bivens Posted: August 30, 2008 at 09:35 PM (#2923289)

I'd be willing to give Siskel a pass on Gladiator, what with him being kind of dead when it came out.

Why not kick him when he's down?

62. ?Donde esta Dagoberto Campaneris? Posted: August 30, 2008 at 10:02 PM (#2923305)

Did Ebert really suggest that Gladiator would have been better if it was more like Raiders of the Lost Ark?

That's like arguing that Hamlet would be better if it was more like Scooby Doo. I generally like Ebert but that review is hilarious. Its almost like he expected History of the World and was pissed when Mel Brooks didn't appear.

63. JC in DC Posted: August 30, 2008 at 10:10 PM (#2923308)

I'm an Ebert fan as well (how about that, E-X?), and think he nailed the Gladiator review as well.

64. Srul Itza Posted: August 30, 2008 at 10:28 PM (#2923314)

I dislike all "Roman" films, where they keep some of the names, but just totally make up history to tell a story.

65. Dedicated to Esoteric but he wasn't listening Posted: August 30, 2008 at 10:38 PM (#2923318)

Chalk up another huge fan of Ebert's here. Were it not for his constant championing of Dark City, I never would have given it a chance.

66. Harveys Wallbangers

Posted: August 30, 2008 at 10:43 PM (#2923323)

Srul:

I have the best example of writers getting in the way of a great story.

Seabiscuit. Which could have been a 100 times better if they had just TOLD THE STORY AS IS.

Easy example:

When Seabiscuit headed east while folks were talking about a match race he was entering races and winning. And to make it fair they kept adding weight. And he kept winning. I think at one point he got to something like 20 more pounds than the competition which in horseracing is a LOT.

That's amazing.

And the movie never bothered.

Gah!!

67. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 30, 2008 at 11:30 PM (#2923341)

Siskel and Ebert made numerous appearances on Howard Stern's show. As a running topic, Stern liked to cherrypick the star ratings in Ebert's movie books and argue about them. (Made-up, inaccurate example: "You mean you gave Fast Times at Ridgemont High 2 stars, but you gave The Accidental Tourist 3 and a half stars?") Ebert was forever immovable, insisting that every single rating he ever gave was aesthetically precise and correct. Then Stern would try to enlist Siskel into agreeing with him, and Siskel would usually decline.

Until one day, when Stern pointed out that Ebert had given Godfather 2 a 3-and-a-half-star rating in 1974, then gave Godfather 3 a 4-star rating in 1990. And suddenly, the high-pitched laughter of Siskel was heard in the background, followed by "He gotcha, Roger! He gotcha!"

68. JC in DC Posted: August 30, 2008 at 11:38 PM (#2923344)

That's funny, GB. What I like best about Ebert is that he likes movies and it shows. I see no pretense to higher art, no contrivance to be more than he is. He's just a smart, literate guy who likes movies and reviews movies on that basic supposition.

HW: My favorite example of the writers getting in the way of the story is Titanic. Now, I acknowledge no one in the film business is going to argue against the $$$ that movie made, but I just want to see a movie about the drama, intelligence and ingenuity, and arrogance that went into the construction of that boat, its sinking, and the heroism and viciousness on the water. I don't need Leo diCaprio pretending to be an illustrator, a makeout scene in a car, and the implication the ship might have sunk b/c a lookout was distracted by ass.

69. ghost of perros Posted: August 30, 2008 at 11:45 PM (#2923347)

I don't need Leo diCaprio pretending to be an illustrator, a makeout scene in a car, and the implication the ship might have sunk b/c a lookout was distracted by ass.

The Titanic would have sunk if I were a lookout and Kate Winslet's ass was anywhere in the vicinity.

I like the fact that Ebert would give thumbs up to adventurous movies with flaws that Siskel would dismiss. Like Dark City for instance.

70. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: August 30, 2008 at 11:49 PM (#2923351)

"One thumb down!"

That's one small thumb down for one man, one giant middle finger extended straight up for mankind.

71. DCW3 Posted: August 30, 2008 at 11:49 PM (#2923352)

What I like best about Ebert is that he likes movies and it shows.

Precisely. One of the things I admire most about Ebert is his approach to negative reviews. In these snark-filled days, there are so many critics who take such joy in trashing movies, who seem to live for the opportunity to really tear something apart. As entertaining as many of his bad reviews are, Ebert doesn't do that. With the exception of the occasional broadside against a Rob Schneider, there's no joy in his negative reviews. Rather, what almost always comes through is a sense of disappointment that the film didn't succeed, and the consistent hope that the next one will be better.

72. ghost of perros Posted: August 30, 2008 at 11:56 PM (#2923357)

Ebert's obit for Russ Meyer, with whom he collaborated on Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.

73. Russ Posted: August 31, 2008 at 07:28 AM (#2923398)

I think Ebert has debased movie criticism, making it very superficial

Having a somewhat deep knowledge of statistical analysis of baseball and a somewhat superficial knowledge of cinema, I think this comment is quite in the same spirit of criticisms of Rob Neyer's columns. If you want to write for more than a very small audience, you've absolutely got to leave out the details. The problem is not Ebert, it's the people who think that his criticism should be mimicked and passed off as a deep analysis of cinema.

Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Friday, August 29, 2008

Ebert scolds Mariotti for “ugly way” he left Sun-Times

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

My Bookmarks

Hot Topics