Houdini

I'm always amazed at how many people complain that the Azrepublic is being negative on the Cardinals. I read much more negative reporting for Green Bay, and they have a winning record. The other week a reporter wrote that one of the Packers is "Toxic Waste." It doesn't get much more negative than that. And I see on this forum how guys like Dave Pashe and Jim O and now Mistler are on it, and they are all very polite to you guys. Us Packer fans actually take some hits from the reporters like Cliff Christl who covers the Packers and purposely takes shots at some of the Packer optimists on our online chats that we have to pay for.


Below is an excerpt from Packer reporter Cliff Christl the day before training camp. His negative reporting doesn't bother me as long as it's objective. But I see more negative reporting by Green Bay writers than I do in Cardinal country by the AZrepublic:

Per Cliff,

"Back to work

Full camp starts tomorrow and I'll be filing a report each day in this Weblog. Here are five items, guaranteed, that you won't be reading.

1) That Jamal Reynolds looks like a world-beater.
2) That Torrance Marshall has turned his life around.
3) That Rod Walker looks like the second coming of Warren Sapp.
4) That any of the quarterbacks behind Brett Favre could lead the Packers to the playoffs in the event of an injury.
5) That the defense will be Super Bowl caliber.
Just thought I'd start the season off on a negative note. Love and kisses to all you eternal optimists."


Below is a few examples of Q&A from a recent Internet Chat of packer reporter Cliff Christl. It's like having Howard Cossell cover the Packers, he rips people and says whatever is on his mind.

Q: Mark Egan of Columbus, Indiana - Cliff, you can be pretty harsh with your comments. Ever get the feeling some the players harbor any ill will towards you?

A: Cliff Christl - I've never cared about that. I have a job to do and I can't care what other people think of me.

Q: Tony of Missoula - Cliff, I enjoy and appreciate your direct and straight forward answers. My question is, how can a player who's career is on the bubble take chances with banned substances and jepordize his future in the NFL? Example Torrence Marshall.

A: Cliff Christl - Because he's an idiot.

Q: John White Jr of Marshfield - You have stated before that you are not a Packer fan since that would be considered a conflict of interest. So who IS your favorite NFL team? In other words, are you a fan of ANY NFL team, or would that also be a conflict of interest?

A: Cliff Christl - There isn't a team in professional sports -- or in college for that matter -- that I root for or like.

Q: PowerBall of East Texas - Hey Cliff, Warren Sapp is not some dynamite DT anymore. He talks and yaks and get's throttled regualary now. Last time the Packer played them, I think Rivera manhandled him MANHANDLED.

A: Cliff Christl - I couldn't resist answering this one last question because of its absurdity. After the Super Bowl last year, I was interviewing Monte Kiffin and he said you can talk all you want about the other players on his defense, but their success all starts with No. 99. He said he was the key. So I'd suggest you go back in the film room and examine how many times Sapp gets double-teammed compared to other tackles and how often that frees up his teammates to make plays.

I just think people blow negative reporting on the Cards way out of proportion.

NEM

There is nothing wrong with "negative" reporting in this town.....because , over the years, there is only negative things to write about, and fans should understand that truth is truth.

Now, if this team does well this season (and 'well" can be different depending on how you look at it) I am sure the press will begin writing "positive" things.

But, all in all, the press here is pretty wimpy assed compared to most major NFL cities, especially Boston, New York, Philly, Chicago, etc.....where they hold NOTHING back at all.

And, the fans in those cities take it for what it is.....and dont get pissed.....

But here, I guess the long history of losing eventually causes the skin to become thin and reaction to negative press becomes common.

So, i guess the best thing to do is to just nod your head up and down, put on your rose colored glasses, and agree that everything is just hunky-Dory and everyone will love you and ks
iss your a$$.

But, when you do that, the team still loses.

Negative press, if looked at in a positive way, can be a good thing.

And, fans should learn how to accept it.

There, now I have said my piece. Am I banned yet? (SMAK) :roll:

Houdini

Very true. Some of those writers back east are brutal.

FischerKing

I think also, it's easier to swallow negative criticism about your team when they are doing well. Back in the 70's & 80's, the negative criticism wasn't all that well received. But when they started winning games it's looked upon as attempting to make the team better rather than piling on and tearing them down.

Shawn

__________________


"Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics... Even if
you win, you are still retarded..."

"I can't trust a woman who would marry me." ~ AzCards21

"I don't care what you believe, keep your religion out of my peanut butter!" ~ Assface

Ryanwb

Lets face it, Phoenix is a ho hum town. People are just not pasionate about the local sports scene. Sure when team does well (Like the 92 Suns, 98 Cards, 01 D'backs) people will come out and watch. We are a bandwagon town, worse than most other cities in this country.

The writers here are really, really trite and smug bastards. They try their hardest to create some sort of negativity, but again...the town is ho hum about it.

I must say however that their is extreme loyalty for the Diamondbacks, they are a top notch franchise....but they also have a World Championship. The Suns lost their loyalty a long time ago....about the time John Paxson was hitting a 3 point shot with 3.4 seconds to go...that just goes to show you how long the attention span is for Phoenix fans

__________________
RIP Tim

Houdini

There's probably some truth to that. The negative criticism the Packers got in the mid 80's though was well deserved and wasn't well received because of the illegal things a lot of the players were doing. I could always handle the losing years as a Packer fan during the 70's and 80's because I always felt the organization was trying their best, they just didn't have good management then that knew what they were doing.

But a part of the 80's I wasn't proud to be a Packer fan because of the off the field stuff. They were a bunch of Thugs. I didn't like the Bears, but I was embarrased when Charles Martin body slammed Jim McMahon. Ken Stills put a cheap shot on Matt Suey a good 2 or 3 seconds well after the whistle blew. Forrest Gregg traded away a 1st round draft choice for a guy in jail for Rape, Mossy Cade. Then they had some other rape charges too against players. The Packers got a lot of bad headlines then that wasn't well received, but they deserved the bad headlines because they had a lot of classless players in the mid 80's. That kind of stuff really bugged me more than any losing season. If you're going to lose, just give your best effort and lose with class. I can handle that. Don't be a cheap shot artist or a criminal.

Arvos

In my best Jack Nicholson impersonation, "You can't handle the truth!"

Brian in Mesa

It's not about the truth. It's about a paper which comments one way with regard to the sports teams it is invested in (D-Backs/Suns), and another regarding a team which they have no ties to (Cardinals). It is biased reporting, plain and simple.

__________________
"If Chuck is Solo, Larkin is his Fett!" - Morgan

whatchamacallit

It is biased reporting. It is positively biased reporting regarding the Diamondbacks and Suns. It doesn't mean it is negatively biased reporting on the Cardinals. I believe the negative articles on the Cardinals are accurate. The Cardinals have been horrible from the day they arrived and will continue to be until there is an ownership change.