You won't have Fraley...

by rodinuk on Sep 13, 2006 6:51 AM CDT

to kick around any more. Nor Blackistone, apparently.

Found this in a thread on the Newberg site, and thought I'd post here as not everyone here goes there, but everyone here has a view on Fraley.

http://www.dallasblog.com/dallas-blogs/2006/9/6/dmn-buyout-list-.html

As an ex-newspaper person, I hate to see any paper gutted, but since I don't really read the papers anymore myself, I can't really complain when other don't. Is that 300 characters?

Tweet Comment 22 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Is getting rid of Blackistone and Fraley

really gutting a paper? I think they are part of a once great sports section that is now a bit of a joke. I think the Startlegram passed the Morning News in the sports department a while back.

Baseball wives are leeches. ... They're just hookers on retainer. -- Rangerchick

by DJCahill on Sep 13, 2006 7:09 AM CDT reply actions

Getting rid of Blackistone and Fraley...

...isn't necessarily...

However, axing about 20% of the staff is a gutting...and that's what's happening...

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 13, 2006 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions

I will miss

a few of the other names on that list, though, especially in the arts section.

by t ball on Sep 13, 2006 7:14 AM CDT reply actions

more than just them...

the paper is buying out lots of people (see the blog list). I've heard the DMN has gotten pretty bad in recent years, though. Still, I recognised lots of names on the list from growing up in DFW.

by rodinuk on Sep 13, 2006 7:41 AM CDT reply actions

Didn't they get killed

by a subscription inflation scandal? I believe they jacked up their subscription information to advertisors, and got nailed.

Baseball wives are leeches. ... They're just hookers on retainer. -- Rangerchick

by DJCahill on Sep 13, 2006 9:57 AM CDT up reply actions

yes

I don't know the details, but that is true. I read somewhere else that the NY Times got in trouble for something similar. Desperate times, desperate measures, I guess.

But that does remind that it's not just declining readership that's causing their problems: their own stupidity hurts, too. (Hey, that sounds kinda like the Rangers. Sigh.)

by rodinuk on Sep 13, 2006 10:48 AM CDT up reply actions

I dont think I will miss anybody on that list

Then again, probably the only DMN columnist I like at all is Steve Blow.

I dont really like any of the sports opinion guys. Cowlishaw, bleh.

Cowlishaw is all pro-Romo now. What a surprise. I cant remember the last time he took a non-politically correct sports opinion, and that's why I find him fairly useless.

by Sharky on Sep 13, 2006 7:45 AM CDT reply actions

FYI

For those who aren't Shark vets, "politically correct" means that you disagree with shark, presumably because he's the lone crusader for all things true and just.

by Brett Perryman on Sep 13, 2006 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions

...if a newspaper or any other media outlet makes an argument (usually 100% factual and sans spin) that Sharky finds antithetical to his way of thinking, its credibility is immediately called into question and the source is automatically labeled "liberal"...

Your Texas Rangers...laying the foundation for 2009...ok, who am I kidding? 2012.

by RangerMoto on Sep 13, 2006 11:24 AM CDT up reply actions

Haven't you heard?

The liberal media RUNS this country. They are the big ballers and the shot-callers

Macho, macho man. I want to be, a macho man.

by Brian Thomas on Sep 13, 2006 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions

at least

according to all those conservative tv and radio talk show hosts who have somehow escaped the liberal media hegemony

by t ball on Sep 13, 2006 2:26 PM CDT up reply actions

The most accurate statement...

...I've read concerning this topic:

"This is why liberals have a disadvantage against conservatives in over-the-air media. Libs are a diverse, independent and free-thinking assortment of individuals while conservatives are loyal group-thinkers who are quick to support the dividers and deciders."

Your Texas Rangers...laying the foundation for 2009...ok, who am I kidding? 2012.

by RangerMoto on Sep 13, 2006 2:44 PM CDT up reply actions

Sure

I now live in a context where conservative is a dirty word. Everybody wants to be a liberal. At first it was refreshing. Now it's just as mind-numbing. I like to tell people over here I'm a conservative just to get funny, uncomfortable looks. I'm sure if I ever moved back to Texas, I'd call myself a liberal again just to get the similar reaction. (Although American conservatives are just as likely to berate you, which is a different kind of fun. Brits are too 'proper' for that.)

by rodinuk on Sep 13, 2006 4:12 PM CDT up reply actions

You live in England now?

Macho, macho man. I want to be, a macho man.

by Brian Thomas on Sep 13, 2006 6:22 PM CDT up reply actions

What?

You mean liberals, whilst portrayed as peace loving blokes, are actually vicious hardcore ideaologists who love censorship and violence to attain there goals, the very things they claim to hate?

No way.

by Sharky on Sep 13, 2006 6:36 PM CDT up reply actions

No way=

Yes way

by Sharky on Sep 13, 2006 6:36 PM CDT up reply actions

Sharky, why are you replying to my question

Is your reply button faulty since the right-wing country club fatcats outsourced the manufacturing to kuala lumpur?

Heh. You are a funny little bloke...

Macho, macho man. I want to be, a macho man.

by Brian Thomas on Sep 14, 2006 3:47 PM CDT up reply actions

Not England

I lived in England for five years. Now I live in Scotland. If I said out loud here that I lived in England, I'd likely get my face punched in. They're rather touchy about that.

by rodinuk on Sep 14, 2006 3:57 AM CDT up reply actions

Politically correct in the sports world

Can mean a lot of different things, but generally I use it to denote "conventional wisdom" or, agreeing with the vast majority on a sports issue.

Supporting Tony Romo for starter is not a very brave , unique, or interesting stance in the DFW sports world.

So what if Cowlishaw legitimatly agrees with the majority in this case you say? I say fine, but I'd like a track record of unpopular opinions in the past, to prove that he's not afraid to go against the grain, and frankly Cowlishaw doesn't have much of one that I recall.

I'll give you an example of PC that you (alledged) statheads should be familiar with in baseball, and actually should, theoretically, agree with me on. Pitching and defense. That's right, those factors are somehow, some way, seen as morally better than slugging home runs, in a majority, conventional wisdom kind of way.

Or I outlined it for Adam once in a way I'm sure he instantly got. Derek Jeter=politically correct.

Or another example, when all the hype over the PC Superman movie was going on, all the early reviews were glowing. Then basically Roger Ebert comes out and says it sucks. Goes against all the grain and what everybody wants to hear. That to me establishes a certain credibility. Ebert may be a flake that I rarely agree with, but I know he's not afraid to give his honest opinion in the face of overwhelming pressure such as over the supes movie. And that counts for something, and maybe it's part of why he's the most influential critic in America. Now, if the next PC movie comes along and Ebert loves it, I can trust that's his opinion because I know from supes he's not afraid to go anti-PC.

by Sharky on Sep 13, 2006 6:45 PM CDT up reply actions

PC

You don't know what "politically correct" refers to, do you? You misuse it all the time. Your opinion on a baseball player cannot be "politically incorrect" unless it's based on race or something like that.

Repeat after me:

"Popular" does not mean "politically correct"
"Unpopular" does not mean "politically incorrect"

Nobody cares about your fantasy or video game teams.

by Dustin on Sep 13, 2006 8:15 PM CDT up reply actions