View Single Post
09-29-2003, 02:32 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,349
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Corey
Given the subjectivity inherent in sports writing (or art, or music, drama, or literary criticism), it's a good idea to read as many sources as possible. Jack Todd is highly opinionated and not afraid to make his opinions known. We don't have to agree with him on all counts but he's worth hearing because he doesn't go along with the establishment line. He's a rebel, but a passive one. He confines himself to the safety of words rather than deeds. Listing zeroes isn't the same thing as taking action.
I disagree. I find Jack Todd to go along exactly with the 'company line', but parades himself as though he's some kind of 'rebel' as you put it. A perfect example is when Jeffrey Loria and David Samson came in and took over the Expos. Jack Todd was all over it, exclaiming how this was the beginning of a new era of baseball in Montreal; that finally, the Expos have quality ownership that cares.

He was singing praises for the new Expos ownership left and right, until it became popular to bash Loria and Samson for their quick little exodus.

I find this is the case with everything Todd writes about. He goes with the flow; whatever's the popular opinion, he goes with. I've never seen him analyze a situation (especially in hockey), or ever go in depth. I've never gained any knowledge, insight, or new opinions from Todd's articles. I'm not claiming to be a know-it-all here, as I've learned at least some information from Pat Hickey and some insight from Red Fisher in the past, but Todd has never offered anything other than trashy, tabloid-calibre articles as far as I've seen.

He's about as low as one can go in terms of journalism.

Mike8 is offline