Nick Friedell and other media negativity thread

[MisterRoy]

I'd have to say this is pretty objective reporting.

Watch on YouTube

Yeah, I don't see anything "overly" negative in that report.

That interview is 3 weeks old, and yes, it ins't that bad. Some of the questions have been answered, like whose team this is. Rondo and Wade have said this is Jimmy's team. Nick said this doesn't make the Bulls contenders. I don't think anyone else has said it does. So, yes, this isn't an overly negative report(first time i've seen this interview, btw). However, in the last 3 weeks, and specially since the presser, it's just his attitude towards it all.

Also, I am venting and it's just my opinion. I didn't mean for this topic to blow up like this.

Edit - One other topic he needs to let die is what the Bulls direction is after Gar saying they are going to go young and athletic. Common sense tells us that was their original plan before Wade was an option. Once he became an option, they had to adjust. Were they supposed to just tell Wade "No, we are going in a different direction."? C'mon, no way.

[MC3]

Nick Friedell is a cheerleader. Literally. That's all you need to know guys.

[Proven_Winner]

Nick Friedell is a cheerleader. Literally. That's all you need to know guys.

I'll give him that, he definitely reps the hell out of Syracuse.

[MisterRoy]

I'd like to hear/read what he said about the wade presser first.

It was on ESPN, in the Twitter section, and I can't find it now. But it was more of the same "...I don't know that Wade makes the Bulls any better..." crap that he's been saying since we signed Wade. I am just tired of it.

Found it: http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:17171539.

He brings up the "young and athletic" issue again. Dude needs to let it die.

I understand some aren't going to agree with me but his attitude that comes through in his talking and his continued negativity...ugh.

[RememberLu]

For me it's not about him being to positive, negative or being a team cheerleader. I haven't read or heard an original thought from him that isn't espn group think. I want objective rational analysis and coverage not cliff notes from what everyother talking head has already said.

What analysis are you expecting? The Bulls' ceiling is Lebron and it has been for 10 years. Every year its the same story. How many times can a man get burned trying to be positive before he learns his lesson and stops. There was reason for positivity in 2012 and again in 2014, Nick and many other sports writers both local and national were positive on the Bulls. They placed them as real contenders going to the ECF to face Lebron.

But that's over. Any objective analysis on this team is going to underwhelm Bulls homers.

No, he wasn't positive then either. I remember vividly in 2012 him always saying "the bulls just dont have enough to get over the hump and get past the heat", He said it all the time and it was really annoying.

is it annoying because he was right?

The most positive thing you could have said bout the Bulls is that they were ECF contenders, which Nick said numerous times. But he always had us losing to Lebron. And lo and behold, we always lost to Lebron.

Sounds like he was clearsighted to me

[MisterRoy]

When you have something that is not "good enough" and know it, you can get tired of hearing it all the time.

[Chicago Brawls]

Nick Friedell is very bad at his job.

He fits this organization right in.

[blumeany]

Here's the thing: Nick is usually right, but the way he reports things makes fans more mad at the delivery than the content. It's ok, as a journalist, to be doubtful that the team is going to win. But when you flippantly laugh about it and act all snarky, it turns people off. On the other side, you have KC, who pretty much tows the company line until he finally has permission to be negative. (When he is negative, it usually means a move has happened or is going to happen.)

[MisterRoy]

Here's the thing: Nick is usually right, but the way he reports things makes fans more mad at the delivery than the content. It's ok, as a journalist, to be doubtful that the team is going to win. But when you flippantly laugh about it and act all snarky, it turns people off. On the other side, you have KC, who pretty much tows the company line until he finally has permission to be negative. (When he is negative, it usually means a move has happened or is going to happen.)

I think this is a good way of saying it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Drellberg]

Whatever I read, especially from a news reporter, I want to learn something significant that I had previously not known. Otherwise that person wastes my time.

Friedell brings no breaking news to the table. He essentially makes his living assembling and curating the opinions of the national sports media and his analysis reflects their views, which are presently skeptical of all things bulls -- Hoiberg, GarPax, Butler, and now Rondo and Wade. I think Joakim is an immensely likable, talented, and entertaining fellow, and losing him in particular has brought skepticism from NBA sportswriters.

The problem with Friedell's approach is that each of these NBA sports writers spend something less than 1/30th of their time looking at the bulls. It's not just that Friedell ends up bringing no news to the table. It's that his curation is breathtakingly superficial and group speak. He effectively pastes in lines from other people's work and holds it together through what I see as a sort of passive aggressive snarkiness -- 'I, NF, know better.'

Except that his pasted-together stories don't in the end hold together, because they are often at odds with basic facts. Friedell is viscerally anti-Rondo, for example. But ... At age 30, Rondo should be looking for a long-term contract. Or to chase a ring. Or to get some sort of big immediate payday. Or ... what? He clearly did not come to the bulls for any of those things. If Hoiberg is a dunce, if Butler and Wade are going to leave Rondo with very few touches. If there is NOTHING appealing about the bulls or what they are offering Rondo, then Nick, WTF? Why did Rondo join? The overall narrative that NF is telling does not square with the contract that Rondo signed. It just doesn't.

The same can be said of the way NF represents Wade, Butler, and Hoiberg. The facts don't gell in NF's stories in ways that are logically internally consistent. One gets the sense in listening to NF that he is spewing factoids that he has gathered without actually ever bothering to knit together a story. And there is no plausible way that he has any insider connections. Give me Ralph07 any day.

[Red Larrivee]

nick asked the best question. do you want to retire as a bull? It did not get a warm and fuzzy response...

Aside from Cowley being Cowley, this was probably the dumbest question of the press conference.

Even if he says yes, it means nothing.

[MC3]

Nick Friedell is very bad at his job.

He fits this organization right in.

He is better cheerleader than journalist. He choose wrong profession.

[Axxo]

I'd have to say this is pretty objective reporting.

Watch on YouTube

Yeah, I don't see anything "overly" negative in that report.

That interview is 3 weeks old, and yes, it ins't that bad. Some of the questions have been answered, like whose team this is. Rondo and Wade have said this is Jimmy's team. Nick said this doesn't make the Bulls contenders. I don't think anyone else has said it does. So, yes, this isn't an overly negative report(first time i've seen this interview, btw). However, in the last 3 weeks, and specially since the presser, it's just his attitude towards it all.

Also, I am venting and it's just my opinion. I didn't mean for this topic to blow up like this.

Edit - One other topic he needs to let die is what the Bulls direction is after Gar saying they are going to go young and athletic. Common sense tells us that was their original plan before Wade was an option. Once he became an option, they had to adjust. Were they supposed to just tell Wade "No, we are going in a different direction."? C'mon, no way.

I knew the video was 3 week's old when I posted. You guys have been saying he is "always" overly negative, that would include the last 3 weeks would it not?
All said I understand where you are coming from, I just disagree. Respectfully of course.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

His style of 'reporting' is what irks me the most. He'll start laughing at callers on the radio, or giggling when someone says something he doesn't agree with. He comes off as someone with a fairly large ego.

He rarely provides anything insightful. Many minds here have better things to say than him.

[DuckIII]

Its been Nicks entire attitude since Wade committed to the Bulls. I just said that maybe its time for him to cover a new team if he is gonna be so negative.

If you want beat reporters to just be positive, you'll never be happy. Friedell isn't going to give up his beat just because this internet forums wants him to be positive.

It doesn't matter to me personally, because whether he's positive or negative, he's not interesting, thought provoking, funny, knowledgeable, or well-sourced. He's a complete afterthought for me when it comes to NBA coverage.

However, I am confronted with him coincidentally because I do watch ESPN and post here. And what I see is not a bunch of superfans wanting Friedell to tell them what they want to hear. What I see are some fans who think he's a one trick pony, and would like to see some balance to his work.

I'll give you an example. I was watching ESPN the day the Wade story broke, and he was of course brought onto ESPN news to give a hot take. He literally laughed mockingly at the signing, and then went on to describe how Bulls fans were disappointed and confused with the signing when, in reality, Bulls' nation appeared then, and appears now, largely supportive and excited about Wade coming to the team.

Its just bad reporting, and unnecessary. He's a schtick reporter. And schtick reporters suck.

[RememberLu]

Its been Nicks entire attitude since Wade committed to the Bulls. I just said that maybe its time for him to cover a new team if he is gonna be so negative.

If you want beat reporters to just be positive, you'll never be happy. Friedell isn't going to give up his beat just because this internet forums wants him to be positive.

It doesn't matter to me personally, because whether he's positive or negative, he's not interesting, thought provoking, funny, knowledgeable, or well-sourced. He's a complete afterthought for me when it comes to NBA coverage.

However, I am confronted with him coincidentally because I do watch ESPN and post here. And what I see is not a bunch of superfans wanting Friedell to tell them what they want to hear. What I see are some fans who think he's a one trick pony, and would like to see some balance to his work.

I'll give you an example. I was watching ESPN the day the Wade story broke, and he was of course brought onto ESPN news to give a hot take. He literally laughed mockingly at the signing, and then went on to describe how Bulls fans were disappointed and confused with the signing when, in reality, Bulls' nation appeared then, and appears now, largely supportive and excited about Wade coming to the team.

Its just bad reporting, and unnecessary. He's a schtick reporter. And schtick reporters suck.

Uhm no he was totally right on the Wade signing. **Edit**. So props to Nick and to the majority of beat writers who were critical of it and called it out for the terrible signing it was.

So once again it just appears like a case of Nick being right and people are mad at him for being right. You'd rather be fed positive lies than the negative truth.

Please do yourself a favor and stop posting here if you just want to troll and or throw insults.- RB83

[DuckIII]

Uhm no he was totally right on the Wade signing. Smart Bulls fans aren't supportive of it.

He made a prediction. He can't be right about a prediction when no games have been played. As for his statements about Bulls fans, he didn't say "I mean only the smart ones." He was trying to portray Bulls' nation as being against the signing, which you know is demonstrably false. Its a perfect example of him being unnecessarily negative.

The majority will just clap like circus seals at anything this organization does. So props to Nick and to the majority of beat writers who were critical of it and called it out for the terrible signing it was.

So you appear to agree that the majority of Bulls' fans like the Wade signing?

So once again it just appears like a case of Nick being right and people are mad at him for being right. You'd rather be fed positive lies than the negative truth.

He has an opinion. He's not "right." And the point of my story is that in expressing his opinion, he did it by laughing and mocking the signing. Its a degree of negativity that is unnecessary. You can objectively question the move without that. Its just more evidence of his schtick.

But the worst part was him lying about Bulls fans not liking the move. Again, he was just doing that to be unnecessary negative. They do like it on the whole, which you seem to recognize.

As to your comment about what I'd rather read, save it. I've been openly critical of the FO all summer long for not trading Butler and committing to a full rebuild. While I was in here analyzing the Bulls, you left for the Knicks board and declared yourself a Knicks fan. So I can see why negative views of the Bulls excite you.

[RememberLu]

What I saw on the day of the signing was the majority of Bulls fans being confused, shocked and against the signing. Then as time went on they talked themselves into liking it because they had no other choice. Wade was a Bull now and they could either throw a fit (like I did) or convince themselves that they like it, which is what most did.

Nicks reaction was the purest and most correct one imo. f%$& Dwyane Wade. I don't care what jersey he wears, I still hate him. He's a Trojan Horse from the Heat organization and he'll always be a Heatle. Never a Bull.

laughing at and mocking the signing was the correct reaction imo. I didn't see a single beat writer who was positive on that signing the day the news broke or positive on the direction of the Bulls generally speaking.

[HomoSapien]

Feel free to dislike Friedell as a journalist all you want, but this notion that the local media should be cheerleading the team is outrageous. That's what Bulls.com is for.

[the ultimates]

What I saw on the day of the signing was the majority of Bulls fans being confused, shocked and against the signing. Then as time went on they talked themselves into liking it because they had no other choice. Wade was a Bull now and they could either throw a fit (like I did) or convince themselves that they like it, which is what most did.

Nicks reaction was the purest and most correct one imo. f%$& Dwyane Wade. I don't care what jersey he wears, I still hate him. He's a Trojan Horse from the Heat organization and he'll always be a Heatle. Never a Bull.

laughing at and mocking the signing was the correct reaction imo. I didn't see a single beat writer who was positive on that signing the day the news broke or positive on the direction of the Bulls generally speaking.

You mean the same beat writers banging the drum for a rebuild yet acknowledged the talked about deals for Butler didn't give the Bulls enough value? Sounds like somebody is talking out of both sides of their mouth.