Bill,

Brian's boycott of The Sun has everything to do with Mike Preston, who has been doing everything possible in print to run him out of town for years. They've clashed from the beginning. Jamison Hensley and the others (Edward Lee, Don Markus) and others covering the team on a regular basis have been extremely fair, in my opinion. However, with Preston, its been a vendetta. Don't know why...

Pul-lease. You and everyone over at the Sun SHOULD be ashamed because of the type of coverage you give the Ravens. It usually is about as biassed at it comes, including this article.

I teach a class right now about Mass Media and politics and about the rise and fall of the objective media. You know what i'm talking about.

The Sun does what it has to do to try to sell papers (although subcriptions continue to fall)

in the case of the ravens, what sold was negative stories on Brian Billick.

Like Billick said, thats your right, but why he would talk to you, I also have no idea.

Now I'm interested to see if this comment gets "approved" or if you censor it.

Truth is, the age of the trusted, useful, objective media are OVER. Now you and the rest of the media feel the need to consistently taint the news with opinion in order to sell newspapers.
-----------------------------------------
Mr. MacMickey,

Thanks for writing. Yep, it'll get approved. I've had over 3,200 comments on blog items since I started this less than a year ago and except for a tiny handful, some of which included highly inappropriate language or sentiments, all have gone up -- inlcuding ones that basically said I was a chowder head.
I was interested in what you had to say about your teaching. My masters degree is in education and I've taught undergraduate courses at West Chester University and Temple University. I've also taught in the public school system in Philadelphia so I'll address this educator-to-educator ... although you neglect to mention where you teach your Mass Media course. But if you are teaching students that newspapers can somehow succeed by writing negative stories about the home sports team, you show little understanding of what drives circulation. Nothing succeeds like success ... for everyone. The team wins, the paper sells more papers. Simple as that. Circulation is falling at all newspapers with the exception of a miniscule few. Broadly speaking, papers with so-called liberal editorial boards and ones that have so-called conservative editorial boards all show circulation declines. Ones that have good NFL teams with glowing press and ones with poor NFL teams where the press is less than flattering. For anyone to suggest ... especially someone who holds him- or herself out as an authoritative voice ... that an absence of fairly presented content is the primary reason for falling circulation is exhibiting an incredibly narrow view of the sea changes occurring in this industry.

Best regards,
Bill Ordine

Billick was terrible he never deserves another head coaching job.... GO JOHN HARBAUGH!!

Bill,

Billick's motive is simpler than you think. He knows that the print media is dying and electronic media is alive and well.

It must be tough for print guys like you to accept that fact. I don't live in Baltimore so I don't know if you do any radio or TV gigs, but you ought to get into it - it's the future.

And by the way, stop kidding yourself that The Sun is "the news outlet that best understands the Ravens' situation."

Newspapers just are relevant anymore. Just ask the NY Times (nobody cared about the McCain adultery story).

I love that Billick knows that traditional print is dead and The Sun actually needs him more than he needs The Sun.
---------------------------------------------------
Gary,
Thanks for writing. You are correct that daily general audience print media is struggling, we are reminded of that every day. But apparently you're unaware that many electronic media outlets are also suffering from the balkanization of information distribution. If you think that Billick's move was based on utilizing a so-called healthy medium as opposed to a less healthy medium, you know as little about media in general as you do about Baltimore's former football coach. Billick's own recognition of the paper's influence was evident in his comments.
-- Bill O.

I wouldn't talk to the sun if I were him either, he has nothing to gain from it and hack's like preston would just twist his words and sadly take few parting cheap shots at a man, who gave nothing but his best effort, won a super bowl and put the baltimore ravens on the map.

You'll all be crying for him to comeback when Harbaugh starts off 0-2 next year

I think, if you read between the lines, Billick's comment has more to do with Mike Preston than with the Sun in general. From my perspective, as a regular reader of the Sun and as a Raven's season ticket holder, I can understand Billick's position. Not to suggest that Preston's columns aren't educational, accurate or relevant. Rather, there appears to me to be a negative tone in his writing about the Raven's (and Billick specifically) that manifests itself in the form of sarcasm. It comes across as a personal vendetta. You don't see that same tone when he writes about lacrosse. I'll be interested to see if that tone continues with the new head coach.

Good for Brian. The Sun has always been negative in its coverage of our local teams. I'm glad he refuses to give an interview with this paper. I'm sure he wanted to say this stuff everyday but he knew, being the educated man he is, that he had to be nice to the media. I find it interesting that on the article the sun wrote about the interview, the comments that were written yesterday and last night are no longer there. It seems that the Sun is uncomfortable with people trashing the paper and its so called "columnists." Apparently, trashing Mike Preston is not allowed and trashing the Sun will get everything deleted.
-----------------------------------------
Ben,
My experience with all our writers is that all of them are open to criticism. Of course, we don't all agree with each other. It would be pretty boring if we did. But I know that all of them are entirely capable of debating their points of view. And returning to Billick, that's what I wish he had done ... take up specific points that he had an issue with rather than imply that the newspaper as a whole had been unfair to him.
-- Bill O.

I agree 1000% with Billick's comment about the negative portrayal from the Sun.
What Billick didn't say, probably becasue Billick has class and tries to to get personal, is Mike Preston's coverage was extreme, unprofessional, and often amounted to slanderous attacks against Billick.
How many columns did Preston write about Billick, WITHOUT using personal insults? How many columns did Preston complain that the Ravens need to draft a "franchise quarterback", yet never acknowledged that the Ravens tried to do exactly that in drafting Bollar?

Preston belongs in politics, because nothing he says is consistent with what he said the previous week, and he lacks the ability to write without using personal attacks.
-------------------------------------------------
Mike,

Mike Preston's critiques of Billick may not have always pleased Billick supporters but they were never slanderous. With all due respect, where were all these Billick supporters when the team was losing to the Dolphins.
-- Bill O.

Its probably killing Mike Preston that he can't pen an column today that assails Billick and his coaching tactics (I guess he could but why? Billick's recent interviews are not news really...its just fluff). Brian is getting to throw the last stone at that vindictive jerk. He's been waiting along time..and though i thought it was time to go for Billick, its been long past that Preston should have been canned. Now the Sun is paying the price for it.

Kudos to Brian, "Who looks like the goat know." If you remember, Rick Masse got his 5 mins. of fame when he wrote an article last year that Billick should be fired. ( which made it on the "MIKE & MIKE SHOW.") Mike Preston was in Billick's ass all year ,(camp cream puff,etc.) I see no comments today from either one. Here is there opportunity to make good on the situation. People may differ on his coaching abilities , but he is very active in the community and in charitible functions in the state. He is more liked know then he was as the coach of the Balitmore Ravens. He brought football life into this city and should get considerable recognition for that. Once again kudos to Mark Viviano for being the first to get to interview the ex -coach after his firing. Maybe the beat writers of the sun should take lessons from the best in the business on taking a situation and evaluating both sides, instead of writing an article, trying to get back at someone( Billick) who has more superior intelligence then the one who writes the article. Here is your shot, start writing.

Chuck
------------------------------------
Chuck,
My point was and still remains that Billick got a square deal in news stories. Columnists get paid to have an opinion. That Billick chose to use a medium that best fit his message was, as he said of the owner and the paper, his right. But I'm not buying into this business of using the Sun's coverage as cover for that decision.
-- Bill O.

Bill: With all due respect, what you express is opinion, not fact. If the Sun is not guilty of bias against the coach, it is guilty of hiring weak and immature writers like Maese. It is also guilty of bad judgement for allowing Preston to continue to write after submitting numerous unprofessional columns. If I was Billick, I would no more talk to the Sun than I would spit on Preston if his moustache was on fire. The Sun has employed many great sports journalists. Those 2 are not among them. Just my opinion...
---------------------------------------------
Tom,

You are correct ... this blog is an opinion forum. I spent may years writing straight news reports in both news and sports and in those instances was excrutiatingly careful to play it down the middle. As columnists, Rick Maese and Mike Preston are also obilgated to express opinions and I'm sure both of them will gladly defend their positions. My point, and I'm getting tired of hearing myself say it, is that the Ravens news coverage was about as fair as it could be. Billick chose to get his message out in the way that he did for his own reasons but using the Sun's overall coverage as cover for that decision was baloney.
-- Bill O.

The Sun has consistently been negative in its writings regarding the Ravens and with Billick in particular. Do the terms "Compu-Coach", "Camp Cupcake" and "the Castle" ring a bell? Why Preston, who writes one thing one day and contradicts himself the next, is still on the payroll is beyond belief. His disrespectful and slanted diatribe is trite and should be worn out. There's really no need to read his columns any longer; it's the same thing over and over again.

For those that take issue with Mike Preston and his relationship with former coach Billick, remember that Mike Preston provided the only consistent and accurate team information for much of the Brian Billick era. All those times when the Raven's were spinning stories, Mike Preston was telling things as they were... and in almost instances, eventually the Ravens confirmed what Mike had been saying all along.

And, you KNOW that to become an NFL coach, one has to develop a very thick skin. Does anyone really believe that an NFL coach would treat an organization differently because one of the writers for that organization at times presented information that appeared unflattering???

Bruce

Bill, I have been a journalist for many years. I don't understand why this is even an issue, nor why you sound defensive about it. The guy didn't like his coverage in the Sun. He chose to go to more sympathetic media. Why would you expect anything else? You're not doing the newspaper industry any favors by whining about it.
------------------------------------------------
Thanks for writing. I was really trying to avoid a whining tone. But there is a larger issue here and that's the more sophisticated approach that sports organizations in general and really savvy sports personalities, like Billick, are artfully controlling their messages. I will spare you the longer essay on NFL.com, NFL network, et al. On that point all I'm doing is recognizing a reality that none of us can probably change but that the audience should be kept aware of for the obvious reasons. In the long run the public will be more wounded than traditional media because traditional media will adapt somehow and move on. It's the public that will be all the more ignorant. And if the argument is that citizen journalism will save us, well, maybe but I'm far from convinced ... but I digress. As I've said now many times, my objection was using the paper's overall coverage as the rationale for how Billick did things yesterday.
-- Bill O.

.

I think Billick made the right move. I love a majority of what the sun does with regards to covering the ravens, especially Jamison Hensley and Edward Lee.

An earlier poster made the point that it did seem personal between Billick and Preston, which to me is not ok. Yes Billick is to blame too, but Preston enjoys a privilege that Billick doesn't, being able to communicate anytime he wants directly with the fan. Preston was extremely harsh on Billick a number of times for things that can't be proven with facts, like "he's lost his feel for the game." How on earth would he know that?

I understand Billick not wanting to reward journalism like Mike Preston's, but I was dissapointed that he didn't sit down with someone like yourself or Jamison.
---------------------------------------
Brian,
Thanks for writing. Mike Preston brings a lot of experience and expertise to what he does. If Billick wanted to tackle any columnist, there was that opportunity. And it didn't have to be personal, you can taje issue with issues. I agree with you, Billick would have been well served to sit down with Jamison.
-- Bill O.

So firstly I would like to say "Go Bill" for sticking it to Mr Mass Media teacher.

Secondly in reply to shart's comment, it's what happens after this proposed 0-2 that I'm interested in.

Look so what if Mike Preston's comments were a bit harsh or sarcastic or whatever. Not everyone is going to love you no matter what you do. Someone will always have a bone to pick with you. It's just the way the world turns. And though Preston's comments or thoughts may have been harsh, they became increasingly more relevant. If Bill Belichick has been taping plays all his career, he wouldn't have needed to here in Baltimore. Regardless of how that Monday night game went, at the end it was predictable and it was time to change. Sad as that may be for Billick who achieved so much here

M Preston did his job. He gave a public forum to what many Ravens fans felt. I had to turn off a local radio station this morning hearing him blah blah blah once again it was like a bad dream. I was his biggest supporter in the past but at some point a change had to be made. M Preston called him on his 10 minutes speeches that said nothing that’s what got to Billick. The media in all formats should not be throwing softballs all the time.

BadMin

David Steele hammered Billick mercilessly and ceaselessly, when he deserved it and when he didn't. I woulodn't talk with that guy or his associates either.
-----------------------------------
Jon,
Gosh, David was just in Billick's corner this morning.
-- Bill O.

Bill,

Let's stop dancing around this issue. The majority of the readers of The Sun have the opinion that, on the whole, Mike Preston's columns regarding Billick, have been sophmoric, sarcastic, condescending and mostly combative. That's fine if that is his "style" (think Jim Rome), but as one writer posted, it is not when it comes to other issues. So as readers, what are we to think, except that Preston has some issue with Billick that we do not know about. So I'm asking your opinion, since I belive that is the purpose of having a "blog" in the first place...to state an opinion, not just regurgitate facts. Why is it ok for a columinst to continually attack an individual and then get to hide behind the "media" shield? I don't belive anyone is above critique, but Preston's objectivity when it came to Billick was almost non-existant. I assume that this was fine with the editors, and I have contacted them in the past for basically promoting lazy, unimaginative columns...basically one-trick pony viewpoints. If that's the best The Sun can offer, then yes, if I was Billick, I don't know why I would want to involve myself with that either.
---------------------------------------------
Mike,
I will be as candid as I can possibly be. I believe Mike Preston brings experience, expertise and considerable reporting skills to the job. Does that mean I agree with him all the time? Of course not. And I'm sure I write plenty that Mike may not endorse. Let's be fair ... none of us can speak for the majority of Sun readers. There are many readers that I heard from, especially during the losing streak, who praised Mike Preston for holding the coach accountable. Thanks for taking the time to write.
-- Bill O.

Perhaps Billick didn't want to speak to a newspaper (The Sun or any other) because that could lead to a filtering of his words. The radio is direct communication, whereas any newspaper is going to filter (at least somewhat) what he says based on the angles they want to play up. The author and editors will select what direct quotes to include, what comments to analyze, and in what light all of Billick's comments will be portrayed in. Will he be presented as defending himself or his actions throughout his tenure in Baltimore? Will there be a sense of empathy for him as a result of his unexpected dismissal?

Billick is trying to control his message, of course. However, the reason why he is doing so is not related to the NFL and its marketing plan for the future. It is because he wants his thoughts to be heard, not interpreted by a columnist, beat reporter, or some editor.
---------------------------------------
Josh,
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I wasn't suggesting that Billick's approach was part of some larger plan, just that it mimicked the control that I anticipate sports organizations hope to achieve.
-- Bill O.

Of course Billick considers the influence the Sun with his choice of venues. The mere fact that so many posters always complain about the paper, is itself evidence of its influence. I think the distinction Bill O. draws between reporting and columnists is widely (and tragically) overlooked when people post their complaints on this matter. Now, I for one do believe that from the beginning Preston worked backwards from conclusions when he discussed Billick, and also that he had a major role in shaping the public debate about Billick's strengths andweaknesses.
I understand, Bill, that you feel he should have discussed the specifics, but wouldn't that have come off as whiny or petty? There was really no way for him to win that PR- wise, so why shouldn't he take the opportunity to frame it as he see's it. After all, he's a private citizen now.

His detracters will, of course, condemn regardless. His fans and the neutral hopefully are capable of understanding the nature of both the medium and the message. If we're not than, well, we have bigger problems to face . . . .
-------------------------------
Thanks for the comments and adding to the discussion.
-- Bill O.

Bill,

I think, unfortunately, Billick's position is fairly understandable. True, the entire staff did not necessarily participate, but some of the columnists, Mike Preston as noted among them, were instrumental in shaping certain areas of public opinion about Billick, the coaching staff, and the quarterback situation. Did the Ravens front office or ownership make their decisions on that basis? Most assuredly not entirely, but let's remember that Bisciotti is first and foremost a businessman, and the Ravens team is his product. If public opinion is that the team's success is imperiled by a coach or a player, and that opinion is heralded several times a week, every week...that's bound to get noticed.

While I enjoy many of Mike Preston's columns and did find his blunt assessments to be often uncomfortably close to the mark, I did find some of his comments to be needlessly critical and endlessly negative. That kind of negativity, whether directly responsible for the firing or not, certainly did nothing to aid Billick's cause.
------------------------------------------
Don,
Thanks for writing and taking part in the discussion.
-- Bill O.

Bruce,

Accurate? Boller is an idiot for tripping over his feet, but McNair is a warrior for doing the same thing? You see, McNair was just trying to escape the rush behind a porous line...

For all the Mike Preston's haters in the world. Funny, they sure took the time to read his articles. I thought Mike was dead on with most of his anaylsis. What is Mike supposed to do. Be a homer and write with purple colored glasses?

Why cant BB be held accountable for all of his mistakes and poor coaching decisions. Why do we have to blame Preston or the Sun for BB being fired.
--------------------------------------------
Capt.,
Thanks for weighing on the discussuion.
-- Bill O.

I think it all boils down to editing. On the radio, you hear the whole quote, in the paper, you read the quote the author wants you to read. As to Preston, it's obvious he never liked Billick and by extension Boller. Could it be jealousy because Billick can do what Preston can (write), but Preston can't do what Billick can (coach)?

OH PLEASE, Stop whining about poor Brian Billick…. Mike Preston treated him so bad….The bottom line is much of what Mike Preston and other columnist said was completely true. It was time for a change and thank God Steve Bisciotti had the good sense and guts to not compound his mistake of given Brian a contract extension last year and going one and done a playoff game, at home, in prime time by letting him stay around for another year.
----------------------------------
CJ,
Thanks for writing. Just to clarify, Billick did get an extension after 2006 but I assume what you mean is that he did not get another after last season.
-- Bill O.

Bill,

I have to agree with you. Billick took several licks over the years from the opinion writers, but the reporters gave him a fair shake. I too think it is incredible to see all of these Billick supporters on here, when so recently I couldn't find one poster that wanted him to stay. A few weeks ago a poster said that he hoped Bisciotti read these comments and I had to laugh. If Biscotti is taking notes from these comments we are in for some trouble. I am beginning to think that Baltimore, not Chicago, is the "windy city" - going this way one day, that way the next.

It was clear to me that Preston had a strong dislike for Billick. However, he did what any editorial writer should do and voiced his opinion. To be fair, Billick's attitude toward people in general (e.g. his habit of speaking down to people that Bisciotti scolded him for in 2006 or his often curt remarks to interviewers during press conferences) made his media bed, so to speak. So I never felt particularly bad for him. When he was winning he had the last laugh. When he wasn't, Preston seemed like the one with the crystal ball. I don't think it is such the conspiracy that some are making it out to be.

As far as print media is concerned (from a layman's point of view, of course) it seems the downfall began about the same time newpapers began giving their content away for free on the internet. I consider myself well read in the news and I cannot remember the last time I felt the need to buy a paper. Why pay for it when I can get all of it for free at home?
--------------------------------------------
Thanks for adding to the the discussion. If you're around teachers, they can talk forever about teaching. If you're around medical practicioners, they can talk forever about medicine. And when you're around guys like me, well I confess I can talk anyone glassy eyed about the news business. What you say about giving away content for free puts you in a big club with many distinguished journalists.
-- Bill O.

By going on the radio Billick knew that the public would hear the words he was saying. When he tells those words to a reporter the words may not be the same or may be taken out of context.

It's nice to be Brian Billick. Very nice. Better then nice. The only thing he has to do is not kill somebody with his car. Dont say the dreaded N word. Thats about it. Good luck Mr. B . Could I drive for you ? I'm cleaner then Schmuck. [ Kidding.}
------------------------------------
Herbie,
Yeah, but do you have as good a tan as Peter.
-- Bill O.

Come on, Bill... We all know this is about Mike Preston. Maybe Maese to a lesser extent, but Mike Preston is what kept Billick away from the Sun.

The vitriol he spewed in Billick's direction... the name calling... the calls to be fired... the rumors from the "unnamed sources."

You said that you're a teacher, Bill. You have to know that Preston's garbage isn't fit for a third grader, and has about the same level of maturity. It really makes your paper look awful.

Maybe a way to improve circulation is to stop hiring and keeping around writers that 95% of your readership hates. Vecsey is gone now, but the fact that she ever got hired after she wrote an article trashing our 2000 championship team pretty much shows what the Sun is going for here. I guess they think they need writers that people will hate.

While we don't always have to agree with what is written here, it should at least be well written. No anonymous sources stirring up trouble, and certainly no personal vendettas and childish name calling from some ex-Towson State alum who thinks he's more qualified than the coach.

Good for Billick. If *I* was in charge the whole sports staff would be on notice. You and Schmuck would have a shot to stick around, Bill, but the only sure thing would be Roch. If we had a Ravens reporter half as good as Roch you can't imagine how thrilled the fan base would be.
------------------------------------
Joe,
I seriously considered not posting this because Roch will be impossible to live with if he finds out about it.
-- Bill O.

you know good and well the baltimore suns mission was to get rid of billick. for you to write an article saying he was fairly treated, well that would be true to youre form.
-----------------------------------
You're entitled to your opinion. It was not my mission, I know that.
-- Bill O.

I think the print media has evolved from printing mostly news (aka facts) with some opinion to a split of news, modified news with subjective comment, and opinion. In addition to that, the media in general reports more on negative 'news' than positive because controversy sells as you admit. Having that said, the print media can be an ally and a threat to one's market brand and Brian Billick has chosen to exercise his right to protect his branding based on what is marketed by said print media.

Starting with Ken Rosenthal and now Mike Preston, the Sun has demonstrated a stance that has been and continues to be detrimental to Brian Billick's image with, frankly, non-objective and divisive reporting which in essence is manufacturing news rather than reporting on it. While the Sun wasn't directly responsible for his firing, the paper wasn't exactly responsible for his contract extensions either. In essence, you've repeatedly bitten the hand that has fed you for 9 years, but you're hungry again and you're wondering why your dish is empty.
-----------------------------------------
John,
Thanks for writing. You've done some thinking about the news business in general and I appreciate that although I don't agree with everything you say.
-- Bill O.

I found the approach you took to explain the preponderance of Brian's appearances on the front page rather interesting. If it was because the Ravens are such big news, why wasn't it pictures of the team. That the focus of the journalism appeared to gravitate towards the coach, and away from the football players, is certainly enough to give Brian reservations about dealing with The Sun.

Also, I don't buy the cloak and dagger motive. The paper was actively supporting the idea of firing Billick. It does not matter whether it was responsible journalism or not; you can't expect to get special favors from people that you are actively sabotaging.

Don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed The Sun's coverage of the Ravens, but it seems even in 'not getting an interview with Billick' there is Billick bashing. I think you have to find Brian's rationale as reasonable.
---------------------------------------
Alex,
I apologize for being a broken record. I do understand entirely that Billick found it advantageous to express himself through the medium he did. I don't resent that but I realize it's a harbinger of things to come. What I'm making a deal out of was using the paper's coverage as the excuse ... it's a red herring. Billick is a brilliant guy in my opinion. He knows that the news coverage was about as fair as it could be. Can you imagine what they would have been writing in some other markets after a nine-game losing streak.
-- Bill O.

To defend those who think the Sun coverage (as a whole) was biased: I didn't keep track of how many days Brian's picture appeared in the sports pages after he was fired... but if I was the editor, I would have kept the story alive via columns for a few days, but dropped the picture after one, out of respect for Billick and his family. But the pictures continued because the paper thought the "Billick fired" story line would sell papers and the pictures promoted that story line. Like the others have said, bashing an unpopular coach sells papers and IMO the Sun as a whole embraced that strategy through their columnists. Is that a bad thing? Should the Sun have chosen to forgo sales and not further bruise the egos of Billick and his family? Hey, to paraphrase Lombardi, we all know selling papers isn't the main thing, it's the ONLY thing :-) (guess that's why I'm not the editor).
-----------------------------------
Jim,
Thanks for writing. I gotta tell you, after Billick was fired, I turned my attention to who the next coach might be. And I think the paper, as a whole, did so as well. Perhaps, I have a different perception but that's how I saw the coverage developing.
-- Bill O.

Bill,
The phrase "sour grapes" comes to mind when reading what you and the other "writers" for the local trash rag paper have to say about Coach Billick. Notice how I put the word writers in quotes above as the coverage that Mike Preston & co. have been giving the Ravens & Coach Billick over the past few years has been very questionable at best. You guys made your bed doing everything you could to trash the guy publicly (camp cupcake, exagerating his love affair w/ Boller, criticizing his coaching moves, etc.) now you have to lie in it and all the "writers" over at the trash rag want to whine about not getting a fair shake or an interview. That's about as funny as someone calling the sun an actual newspaper. Keep standing up for that hack Preston and remember how positive everyone is about Harbaugh now that his record as the Head Coach is 0-0 when the season starts and he's 0-2 or 0-3.

Bill,
After reading all of these comments its sounds like you are just plain out scared to say the truth. You will defend every columnist the Sun employs til the end. No matter what everyone writes you will without a doubt make an excuse for the columns that have been written. And I am still trying to figure out why this is even a story. Billick did nothing but praise the whole Ravens organization and the city of Baltimore, but still you and your buddies at the Sun pick apart everything he says and try to make an issue about it. He said he wasn't going to speak with the Sun, OK get it over it and STOP THE WHINING!! You are just embarrasing yourself.

Sorry Bill,
You can say all you want about Preston but any reasonably intelligent reader can see it for himself. Mike Preston had a major bias against BB from the beginning and David Steele was not much better. Preston's constant negativity and need to find inappropriate nicknames (Compucoach, Boy Quarterback) underline the reality that he is a bad writer. He always has an ax to grind and his favorite place to grind it was on BB's neck. As far as his experience and expertise, he was a washout football player at a lousy Div 2 school. I understand that he is your brother in arms, but his use of the English language is marginal. His sentence construction is frankly poor, and his insights are trite. I appreciate yours and a few of the other writers ability to put together a cogent piece, but Mike Preston is a lousy excuse for a journalist. Given all the times he (criticized) Brian Billick, is it really any surprise that Billick didn't feel like talking to the Sun? He is a free man. He no longer has any obligation as the face of the organization and he can now be the arbiter of how his information is disseminated. I miss his graciousness, intelligence, and ability to command the english language already. He always had something interesting to say. If it were only that way with some of the writers from the Sun.

OK, I see the problem! The Baltimore Sun does not employ "journalists" they employ "columnists". Why report the news when it's so much more fun to provide your opinion on the news!

Maybe it was refreshing to hear what a person had to say - straight up - and then form your own opinion, instead of having to view it through a columnist's "filter". The radio gave a listener that opportunity, your paper (by your own statement) would not.

Shouldn't at least ONE of the writers who cover sports be assigned the job of "journalist"? And more to the point - shouldn't their work be given the prominence that currently is given to the work of "columnists"? And also, if you are going to provide biased opinions - shouldn't a diversity of participants be involved to give a balanced point of view (instead of the same guy marketing the same opinion in article after article)?

I'm just saying, you are pretty high and mighty considering the crappy journalistic standard your are espousing.
------------------------------------------------
Kent,
Thanks for writing but you're missing something pretty central. The Sun beat writer for the Ravens, Jamison Hensley, does an incredible job of producing more stories on the Ravens than anyone else at the paper by far. I challenge anyone to say that Hensley's reporting was anything other than right-down-the-middle. It is Hensley's hundreds, probably thousands, of stories that have been the bedrock of the paper's coverage during the recent Ravens seasons. In addition, I can add Ed Lee and Brent Jones in previous seasons and Don Markus as just a few of the reporters who produced straight, fair non-opinion news reports on the team. It is a misrepresentation to characterize the bulk of what was written about the Ravens as opinion pieces. They may happen to be some of the articles that stand out in a reader's mind but then the reader is making the same faulty judgment that Billick did in evaluating the paper's coverage as a whole. I can excuse a reader but a sophisticated and intelligfent sports personality like Billick lmows better.
-- Bill O.

-- Bill O.

-- Bill O.

Bill,
I just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to respond to most of these comments, even some of the harsher ones.

It shows a true concern for the fans thoughts and it is definitely appreciated.

Brian
---------------------------------------------
Brian,
Thanks for noticing. I take my responsibility as a representative of the fans seriously. I've spent my share of game days in a regular seat anguishing over the home team. I may not be able to get to everyone's note ... and some comments really should just stand on their own without me responding. But I try to let people know, even the ones who think I'm a bum, that I appreciate that they take time to read and write.
-- Bill O.

Billick was a TRUE MOTIVATOR. He was not a miracle worker. He took all shots at him with CLASS even from Ray "COOL" Lewis. I didn't like the (ganging up) attitude some of the newspaper journalists took against him. Brian stuck to his guns and ran the most broken down dragged out team to a near miss win vs the undefeated Patriots. Had he won that game the Pats would have re-grouped and may have beaten the Giants. Mike Preston took plenty of shots at Billick but what does Preston know?? Only that to keep his job he must write an alternative negative view. If Preston didn't take that approach no one would read his column. When he praises a team his column sucks. He is no John Steadman.

What does Preston know?? Only that to keep his job he must write an alternative negative view. If Preston didn't take that approach no one would read his column. When he praises a team his column sucks. He is no John Steadman.

This seems to be a case of Billick simply choosing a different medium than print media to air his side of the story. Look at the number of athletes who have chosen to air "their" side of the story via weblog or website, where they can effectively write/speak unedited. I wouldn't say I'm a fan of Preston's work, but as a columnist, it's fair to say he writes opinion, and obviously he's entitled to his (and realizing that it's just that) opinion. Unfortunately the team had a huge downturn from the prior year, and this usually results in some change or another.

Unfortunately, only 2 or 3 people actually know what was and wasn't discussed (the owner, the gm, and the coach).

Bill: Sports leagues, or other businesses, deciding how and where they want to deliver their message isn't news either.
The Sun made its decision on how to cover Billick. You weren't prevented from writing about his radio interviews. What did you want -- an exclusive interview that radio couldn't have?
Personally I find the talk-show-rant style of sports column offensive, and they're not even directed at me. I'm a print guy all the way, but I don't blame Billick one bit for his actions. I find the dumbed-down sports coverage in my newspaper even more offensive than the slick media manipulations of the NFL. I come to the Sun for thoughtful analysis and leave disappointed when all I see is lowest-common-denominator name-calling.
By the way, so that you don't think I'm just a complainer -- Roch Kubatko is showing the newspaper industry exactly how spring training should be covered with his multiple short updates. There never has been enough news in spring training for a full story, but fans are desperate for little anecdotes. The Sun has a winner there.
But give up on the Billick thing and move on.
-------------------------------------------------
Thanks for taking the time to write. Roch's work is certainly ideal for spring training ... I think other events work well that way, too. The recent NFL combine, for instance. And even the draft. You'll see a lot more of that incremental coverage I'm sure.
-- Bill O.

Bill,
I agree that Billick is media/communications master and I agree that Jamison Hensley's Ravens reporting is generally evenhanded. However, The Sun's 2007 Ravens coverage was overloaded with "analysis" and not the pure reporting that Jamison engages in.

I put analysis in quotes because alot of what Mike Preston, et al, write about borders on the soap operatic. I quickly became tired and bored reading about unnamed "team sources" whispering about fractures in the Ravens locker room, problems with the team's psyche, or that feeling that Billick had lost them.

Analyze the games, analyze the players, analyze the coaching decisions, don't drone on and on about interpersonal dynamics. The latter is largely speculative and emotion driven. Players whine after they receive criticism from a coach, they are frustrated with team performance, they're looking to shift blame for a bad season, etc. Pulling together the threads of these emotional outbursts and reading such tea leaves are not the areas that sports analysts should spend their time.

Also, The Sun's Sports Page editors certainly glamorized these opinion pieces and not so much the reporting work by people like Jamison.

Shawn
--------------------------------------------
Shawn,
Thanks for writing and joining the discussion.
-- Bill O.

I don't claim to have any expertise on the media. Nor do I claim to have any special insight into what motivated Billick to choose the outlet that he did. I do claim to be a die hard Raven Fan and a regular reader of the Suns football coverage. I agree with the earlier poster who said that if you read between the lines, Billick's comments were directed at Preston. I agree with all of the posts that intimate that Preston's columns were derisive, frequently sarcastic, and in my opinion over critical of Billick personally. Having said that, I always read them. I always look for his grades on each unit on Monday morning. He was the man I loved to hate but secretly hoped would have something positive to say. I readily admit that I sometimes drink the purple kool aide. I equate it to talk radio hosts. I don't have to agree with them or their journalistic style to find their comments interesting. I want to hear different opinions. More to the point of Bill's original blog entry, I will say that I only read the Sun because it is available on line. I do think it's legitimate to say that "print" is going the way of the dinosaur in favor of other media options.
---------------------------------------------------
Ken,
Obviosuly, there is a wholesale transition from ink to pixels. The key is finding a business model that can still support the reporting.
-- Bill O.

Bill let me ask you a question If you were Billick and the Sun had did everything that It could do on Its end to try to get you fired would you talk to the paper either?Preston had a personal vendetta against Billick... As far as the Billick haters go PLEASE LET IT GO Brian Billick will coach again In the NFL and he will win big. Do not praise John Harbaugh just yet he has not coached a down as a HC In the league yet. Let`s wait and see.
-----------------------------------------
Donta,
Part of my point is that the reporters who covered the team as a beat did not push for Billick's dismissal. There were columnists who certainly felt otherwise. I won't keep going over the same territory as to how that fits into the discussion I raised because I'm sure everyone has read enough from me on that. Thanks for writing.
-- Bill O.

Bill you said you state your opinion of mike prestons writing strongly, then you wrote - he doesn't agree with everything I write and I don't agree with everything he writes. Thats lame. What is this kindergarten?
One last thing about preston. For years he slapped Boller referring to him as the boy quarterback or my boy kyle. Will write my boy Troy when he writes about Troy Smith?
What? is that insensitive? preston is classless. he couldn't resist giving Billick a few parting shots in his blog.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/blog/2008/02/brian_billick_2.html

Mr. Ordine, here is a perfect example of why Billick shouldn't give The Sun the time of day. That is pure, unadulterated, unprofessional garbage. I've seen posts on the Ravens opinon board that are more professional than that.

It's EMBARASSING to read the way my fellow ravens fans MIS-read the whole Billick fiasco. The Guy had to go and trust me, he will rue the day he dissed the Sun - especially the next time he needs to promote something ( like his alleged book!) But for fans to take shots at Mike Preston and the other writers is pathetic! Billick deserved EVERYTHING from Preston and company ( comes with the $5m a yr ) - wake up ! they won the super bowl 7 years ago and since then he NEVER developed an offense or qb! it got old ....and gee, how many head coaching offers has Billick got ? Please, take off those purple glasses baltimorons!

Some folks need to get a grip about Mike Preston. With the talent on that team (albeit w/o a 1st string QB), the continued lack of offense warranted Billick's dismissal. Preston provided information and opinion, as a columnist should - why read his column, otherwise?

I doubt the earlier poster, Jeff, who took the Sun to task is really an educator. To wit: the word is 'biased'. The phrase would correctly be 'As Billick said...'

Of course, any person with a little knowledge knows that reporters state the facts and columnists give opinions.

There are other awkward phrasings/mistakes in 'teacher' Jeff's post. I only point out the most egregious. Any would have caused the nuns to focus on me.
------------------------------------------------
BB,
Thanks for writing. There is something to be said for an unflinchingly stern parochial school education. I am a fellow graduate.
-- Bill O.

Bill,

I first started reading Preston quite a few years ago. At the beginning it seemed as if he was just a straight reporter. He did a lot of good work for Sporting News on the Ravens. His take on the Ravens and Billick seemed pretty informed, reasonable and objective, even if he seemed very demanding. Then about 3-4 years ago something suddenly changed and it seemed that every piece he did had to have some little sarcastic bit of spite in it. At first I thought he was just getting tired of it all but then he really went vitriolic and it occurred to me that either he had some personal problem with someone on the Ravens or someone told him that negative sells. Whatever the truth it seemed as if he had developed an agenda and that is always unappealing. I've never had a problem with his opinions but his style of expression grew increasingly condescending, malevolent, cynical and vile.

I grew up believing in the importance of the 4th estate to a viable democracy but I am in despair over the current state of print media. It's hard to trust them. I don't read the NY Times anymore because of Jayson Blair. I suppose its naive to view papers as the guardians of the public trust instead of the rags grubbing for survival that they now seem to have become. Since I presume the Sun would not continue to employ a sociopath I have to assume Preston' s agenda is financial.
--------------------------------------
Thanks for taking the time to write. You cover a lot of territory and have given some thought to the role of the media in our culture. What I will say is this ... and I guess I can say it until I'm blue in the face ... but in more years than I care to admit to, I have never found that negative sells. And I can't imagine a publication that would pursue such a strategy for financial reasons. The home team wins and everybody does well ... the paper sells more papers, electronic media gets larger audiences, the supermarket sells more party platters for the big game and so on. I can only directly speak for myself when I say that the mission is to represent the fans but I also believe that those feelings are shared by the vast majority of my colleagues.
-- Bill O.
.

Bill, instead of telling everyone who disagreed with you that their opinion is wrong, perhaps you ought to consider why the vast majority endorse Billick's snub of the Sun.

I won't spend more time explaining to you why that is -- if you're an intelligent and honest person, you'll figure it out. And, if you lack one of those two qualities, no amount of reasoning will convince you.

When 50 people tell you that you're drunk, maybe you ought to quit drinking....

PS The comment I liked the best was the one that said Preston was no Steadman -- ain't it the truth!!

Mr. Ordine,

I actually took more out of your piece concerning the movement of the NFL and its properties to control its image, and how Coach billick is doing the same.

"What I found interesting was how Billick went public yesterday"

I disagree with your position in defense of some of the Sun's coverage in respect to Billick. Mike Preston's columns are biased and lack journalist integrity. His disdain for Billick clouds his objectivity. In Mr Preston's defense, he can and does let you know how he feels, even if its prejudiced.

I also disagree with your view on the content of the radio interview.

'He was articulate, politic and generally said as little as possible while sounding darn good saying it.'

Brian Billick has tried to alway present a respectful opinion and articulate viewpoint. Whether many of us get him or not, he sounds like "alot to about nothing". However, as I listened to the radio interview, I heard someone speaking honestly from the heart and quick on his feet with his responses. The medium of radio certainly lends itself better to "see" that side of a person than does print.

John- Laurel

PS, I also enjoyed your replys to posts. It shows me your passionate about your blog.
--------------------------------------
John,
Thanks for writing and your criticisms as well. I do think over the years the fans and media here have been fortunate to have a coach who has been willing to often comment in a thoughtful way. Sometimes people thought Billick was condescending but that was never my impression. And I apologize if my characterization of his being politic seemed harsh. I do believe Coach Billick's comments, while often heartfelt and almost always well-expressed, dance around the substance of the issue at times ... and perhaps we can agree to disagree on that ... but that's understandable considering everything he says is magnified by guys like me.
-- Bill O.

Bill O,

The simple fact that you have to continually promote your education and the 'accomplishments' you've established in defense of your article is pretty disgusting. 'The Sun', from the front page to the sports page has become a joke. A Tabloid, just like the NYT. Mr. Preston, who played football at Towson (chuckle) thinks he knows it all about football. Apparently, you think the same. Did you ever play any sports, by the way? 'The Sun' (again, chuckle) should be ashamed of itself. Hats off to Peter Schmuck and the few other reporters who tell it like it is, and actually try to support our local teams. W/O them, this paper will continue its nosedive into the tabloid realm.

Again, you should be ashamed of yourself... chest thumping about your education and grades in school over... football?!?!?!

Go ahead, talk about your education some more. By responding to people in an immature fashion, trying to make yourself sound more 'educated' than those that respond, is immature and laughable.

If your article was so great, you wouldn't respond at all to any criticism. You shouldn't have to. Have some dignity. Stand by your work. Don't act like a child and thump your chest over your education and respond to posts so immaturely as if you were better than anybody else.

You're just another reason why your next step in journalism is the tabloids, and why 'The Sun' is a sinking ship, and fast.

Everyone at that paper should be ashamed to even be a part of it. Same class at the New York Times, across the board. I guess there's no better jobs out there.

Thanks for the free updates online... I suggest you guys at 'The Sun' should start making people pay for reading this BS online. I used to be a subscriber in paper, but it's so pathetic down there you couldn't even get me to dish out one dollar for a weekly subscription.

Cheers
--------------------------------------------
Cheers to you as well ... did I mention my grades ... hmmm, I don't think I would have volunteered that information ... maybe you read it in the New York Times.
On a serious note, I respond to as many readers as possible because if they take the time to express their views, I try to give them the courtesy of a reply.
-- Bill O.

Hey Bill- Another great article from you. But there is no doubt in my mind his decision was mostly based on Preston. I enjoy Preston's candid view on most topics but you're fooling yourself if you don't think he took countless "cheapshots" over the years. Love your blog!
--------------------------------------
Matt,
Thyanks for reading and writing.
-- Bill O.

In response to your response, Bill, I would say read a book by Darrell West Called "The Rise and Fall of the Mass Media Establishment"

If you haven't, its a good read, but essentially unbiassed coverage was the way the media was getting respect and high subscriptions levels, but thats fallen off in recent years.

Editorials are ok, but the Sun, like most news outlets, has gotten to the point where its sometimes impossible to seperate opinion, commentary, and editorials from whats actually "the news", which is turn, bothers your average reader. Most people distrust the media in general because of this.

At it stands now almost all media, including the Sun, show bias even in their reporting of the basic facts. And it is done to sell papers. This applies to reporting of current events, politics,
and our baltimore ravens.

This is why Mike Preston still has a job at that newspaper. His conjecture and other unfounded opinions gets hits on the website and sells papers.

So I don't blame you Bill, but this paper did have its bias, and it was to blast billick during most of his tenure, regardless of records, win lose or draw.

So he shouldn't want to have to deal with you, and he shouldn't be blamed for that.

Give that book a read if you like.

BTW, Brown University.

Best Wishes.
------------------------------------------
Mr. MacMickey,
Thanks for the recommendation on the book. Best regards.
-- Bill O.

Bill,

You wrote in response to another comment in your blog: "What I'm making a deal out of was using the paper's coverage as the excuse ... it's a red herring... He knows that the news coverage was about as fair as it could be."

Actually, the coverage on the radio, by people like Steve Davis and Mark Viviano was much fairer that most of the stuff that appeared in the Sun. "Fair" should be considered presenting both sides of the argument, such as pointing out the numerous injuries to this year's team and the 13-3 record the year before (when everyone was healthy). You heard those points over and over on the radio. Yes, they were mentioned once or twice in the paper, but were always buried by the avalanche of criticism against Billick.

Jamison Hensley pointed out in one article that Billick won a Super Bowl and the team was 13-3 the year before last. And Mike Preston, the Sun's top football columnist (that tells you something about your paper's quality right there) has written 7 consecutive years of columns bashing the coach. And from that we're supposed to take away that the Sun's coverage is fair???

Yes, I agree that Billick probably wanted to present his message unfiltered (and given the bias of the Sun's columnists, who can blame him) and wanted to do it in a 21st century medium. But I'm sure he also didn't mind thumbing his nose at you guys at the Sun. Sorry he didn't come right out and say it, but surely YOU are smart enough to recognize that. (You might have to explain it to Preston...)

Billick was classy enough to not rip you guys (just as he never ripped the players who were constantly ripping him on their radio shows). I am disappointed that you didn't recognize that "class." That's what you get for hanging around Preston.

It's sad how ill-informed so many people are about what drives newspaper sales or web hits. I wonder, sometimes, if their entire understanding of the media comes from the way it's inaccurately portrayed on television.

Negativity doesn't sell. Negative coverage isn't an agenda. In a competitive market like New York City, where readers have five major daily newspapers to choose from, publications like the Post grab their niche by being edgy and controversial, but they don't slam the "home team" because it's what drives sales on the newsstand (which, by the way, are almsot insignifficant in terms of the revenue they generate for a paper; advertisting dollars are what matter). Negative news simply does not sell better than the "good stories" so many people claim they crave. It's a myth, and if it's one that mass media professors are teaching the next generation of intellectuals, god help us all.

What's sad about reading most of these comments is that people don't really want objective news coverage about the Ravens. They want someone who "supports the home team." They want to hear that everything is great, that the front office is brilliant, that the players are saints, and that the fans are the best in the country, even if it's not the case. Sports is the new politics that way. We don't want the truth, we only want someone who confirms our worldview.

Bill is right. More and more coaches and players are going to go around newspapers to get their message out because it's easier to spin their side of the story that way. At some point in the future, it's likely that you'll see beat writers for NFL.com the way MLB.com has beat writers, and all you'll hear is that everything is great, and it's all going according to plan, even when the team is 6-10.

Billick was a great motivator, a very good CEO-style coach, and an awful, absolutely awful, Xs and Os guy. No amount of spin or excuses can change that. All his bluster, his condecesion and his bullying was little more than an attempt to distract us from the fact that he was a below-averge offensive mind in every measurable way. Newspapers have their flaws, no question. And Preston's style -- both as a writer and as an opinion maker -- is certainly polarizing. But it wasn't an attempt to sell more newspapers. If he wanted to do that, he'd have written glowing things about Billick, appeared in ads for him, begged him for exclusive interviews, and tried to carve out a niche as the Billick-friendly media voice in town, kind of like a radio personality with blond highlights whose name I shall not mention.

When things went bad for Billick, he was brilliant at blaming the media as a distraction, just like some politicians. It made people rally behind him and feel like they were part of the club, while the media were "haters" just like the rest of the NFL. But that strategy can only work for so long. Eventually people realize that ignorance is not strength, freedom is not slavery, and war is not peace. Of course Billick was going to avoid talking to the Sun after he was fired, as is his right. Just don't believe him when he says he got a raw deal. The Sun didn't get Brian Billick fired, or shape the way Steve Bisciotti viewed him as a manager and a leader.

Brian Billick did that.
--------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ghost,
Thanks for taking the time for that thoughtful response. It's certainly nice to have an agreeable voice but what I'm glad you contributed was what would really be in a newspaper's financial self-interest would be to act as a booster. It is a truth that is hard to get people to believe. Bad news, if that's one way to define negative, does not help us materially one bit. And at the end of the day, advertising, as you point out, is the key. But getting back to the issue of where all this is headed, leagues have already decided that they are not merely sports organizations but media companies. Once those leagues are controlled by a generation of executives without life-experience ties to the traditional press, I have grave concerns.
-- Bill O.

I will say one thing is very very clear, the Sun Boys sure do stick together. Billick was bashed daily in the Sun and after reading the articles this week he continues to get bashed. Soon you will all have to work for your money and it wont be as easy to bash the coach.

Even during the 13-3 run of the year before, references to the Ravens were positive because "the team" did this or a certain player did that. Even words like "miraculous" were being used.

Brian Billick did not get mentioned until the playoff loss to the Colts. Then, somehow, it was his fault. As if he threw the interception or whatever.

And that was during a 13-3 season.

The Sun was fair to Brian Billick. Right. My rear bumper they were.

Bill please stop harping on the differences between beat writers and columnists. You wonder why Billick lumped the Sun as a whole, because all paid writers at the sun defend each other as a whole. Preston does get paid to give his opinion but he doesnt get paid to beat a dead horse week after week and year after year. He showed no class with his blog regarding Billick, he already won Billick is gone.
-----------------------------------------
James,
I certainly don't discourage anyone from writing on any topic they chose but I think I'm ready to move on from the subject for the time being. I made my point as well as I could. And as you can see, a whole bunch of readers made their points ... many of whom took issue with me and I respect that. Thanks for reading and taking the time to write.
-- Bill O.

To Menckden's ghost:

What you fail to realize is that it was only some 30 years ago that the media's job was to be UNBIASSED and report the FACTS to the readers, and let the readers think about the facts on their own.

Then, in editorial columns or letters to the editor, media members and average members of the community like you or I were free to express their OPINIONS.

What the media has become now is as establishment that consistently mixes opinions and rhretoric with the facts.

It was once that the who, what, when, where, why, and how of an event were important, and that what you report should be verifiable by at least 2 sources.

Those days are gone, and we are now where we are.

What would be great would be articles from the Sun that state the "facts". Even if the facts are reporting, w/o commentary, what Brian Billick says in an article.

Because the fact is Mencken's ghost, most people might care about what Brian Billick says in an interview because its his opinon AS A FOOTBALL COACH. He has expertise.

The Mike Preston's of the world completely lack that expertise, so why do I care about his opinon?

Likewise, the issues I take with this blog entry / collumn / article (its all one in the same now) is that why does Bill's opinion of Brian Billick's "strategy" in the media matter? Essentially, why is this news?

Anybody at the Sun care to do some research into what Cam Cameron is up to? Hows that offense coming? Is Bisciotti OK with the current collective bargaining agreement, and why?

Now that would be some good reporting.

You are correct. But, I believe the root cause is 10 consecutive sub-.500 seasons and an owner who real intentions are suspect.
-------------------------------------
Capt.,
Boy, I think I know how to get off this Brian Billick topic, just start the early sniping at Peter Angelos. Just kidding.
-- Bill O.

Gosh, funny how the guy who agrees with you gets thanked for his "thoughtful" response. I guess everyone who disagrees with you is "thoughtless"? Or perhaps just stupid.

Judging by all the responses, it would seem that your opinion is in the minority - by a lot. Not that the majority is always correct. Hardly. But it is quite obvious that the writers at the Sun have a much higher opinion of themselves and what they write than the general public does.

Of course, starting columns with blatant lies like "Gee, our REPORTERS always gave Billick a fair shake" just shows everyone how deeply in the sand your heads are buried.
-------------------------------------------
Mr. Selby,
Thanks for writing. However, you need to read many of the other 3,200 comments I've received over the last year, and the attendant responses, to see that I've often thanked and complimented readers who disagreed with my point of view when they made strong, and, yes, thoughtful arguments. So, sorry, the inference you make is wrong ... I do not think that people who disagree with me are thoughtless or stupid. If I didn't respect their right of dissent, I wouldn't even give those notes public airing or spend the time that I do in response. And personally, I don't appreciate having words put in my mouth regarding how I feel about the people who come here. I appreciate the time they take regardless of whether they agree with me or not.
As far as the other issue, I stand by the belief that the beat reporters who provided the day in and day out news coverage about the team did give Brian Billick a fair shake ... and I'm confident he believes that as well. Columnists have their own opinions, and whether or not you think those opinions were fairly arrived at is your decision.
-- Bill O.

My comment got cut? Was it the Talladega nights reference?
----------------------------------------
Mr. Jackson,
My apologies but I just checked the list of all comments ... believe or not thousands are preserved ... and I can't find another comment by yourself, at least under this name. And the Talladega Nights reference doesn't ring a bell. The only usual reason I may not post a comment is if it's offensive in some fashion but I just don't recall one from you. Please feel free to re-submit.
-- Bill O.

Bill,

Your entire argument is specious. You equate "Jamison Hensley was fair to Billick" to "the Sun was fair to Billick." The who exactly does Mike Preston work for??

Yes, there is a difference between columnists and beat writers. But they both represent the paper, no? And when you allow a "columnist" to use part of your paper as a soapbox for his (in the opinion of many people) completely unprofessional attacks on the head coach, then I don't think you can act surprised when the coach refuses to do an exclusive interview with the paper. You reap what you sow.

And I'm not saying that columnists shouldn't be critical of head coaches. But you might win more converts (and perhaps even more readers) if they did it with intelligence and fairness. Read some sports opinion columns in the Washington Post, for examples on how writers (Wilbon, Wise, Jenkins) can be critical of the home team without being completely unprofessional. Compare any of their columns to the "best" writing of Preston and you'll see what I mean.

Bill:

I will agree that members of the Sun did treat the Coach fairly. Jamison, Peter Schmuck, and you come to mind. Maese and Preston do not. Mike Preston writes with a very negative tone. His sarcasm is very bitter and lacks any sense of comedy. What he lacks in wit he makes up for in bile. His writing is very immature and unprofessional. I struggle to analyze the value of his opinions because they are presented in such a classless and juvenile manner. I didn't always agree with Rosenthal or Eisenberg but at least they were capable of writing in a professional manner.