RealGM

These Tweets caught my eye as this has been something we've all been complaining about for years. We've all pointed the finger at KC, but in these Tweets Cowley is directing his criticism to both the Tribune and writer David Haugh.

Ja Morant received 99 out of 100 votes for Rookie of the Year. The other vote was Joe Cowley's.

I don't care if he's right about KC, Cowley is a clueless idiot who shouldn't be allowed to be in the position he's in. Him complaining about others is straight up hilarious stuff.

Sadly, Cowley is right about KC, and Little Nathan is right about Cowley. Ah well, there are some very good basketball writers at the national level.

Who's Joe Cowley? Never heard of him.

Cowley trying to attack someone? No way. Get the F out of here. It's so unlike him to do this kind of thing.

They're puppets. I don't read any trib articles. They're KC puff pieces behind some stupid paywall. There was a time when I was growing up that it used to be a highlight to read. But now KC and the rest love the org as it all falls apart for their access and Sam Smith (who wrote cutting books) is employed by them.

1000% agree with Cowley. He will get the players story and give you the other side.

TheStig wrote:He will get the players story and give you the other side.

I'd like Cowley a lot more if that's what he did.

However, it isn't. Cowley will create the most negative story possible and present it to you. He has previously used quotes from say 6 months ago out of context in an article he publishes that day without telling you the quotes were old. He does things which you would view as more or less flat out lies.

It doesn't matter if his story is negative about a player or about management, you can be sure its going to be negative. He's going to appeal to whatever part of a fan is super angry and stoke those flames. The Sun Times is the only paper I know of covering sports that has reporters whom I'd view as simply unethical, lying trolls.

There are certainly lots of people that cover the Bulls have a more balanced view than either the Trib or the Sun Times.

I do absolutely agree that the Tribs direct line to management gives them a very management centric perspective and view.

I always found it bizarre to complain about KC parroting the FO's stance, because he was reporting what the FO said. When did reporting become more about spouting opinion than just delivering information?

KC was closer to true reporting than what Cowley and most sportswriters like SAS and Bayless do. KC's routine at the Trib was pretty simple, he asked Foreman or Paxson directly about X, and reported what they said. It's up to the reader to understand the source here is going to be the org itself.

The danger with Cowley's just speculation and dirt digging is inaccuracy. I mean how accurate was all of this from Cowley:

But the Sun-Times learned this week that even if Karnisovas didn’t like what he would have seen from Boylen, he likely would have been handcuffed from making a change.

According to several sources, there is growing thought that financial concerns the Reinsdorfs have about the 2020-21 season will keep Boylen and most of his staff on the Bulls’ bench.

It seems the ‘‘players first’’ motto Karnisovas and general manager Marc Eversley were touting several months ago will be pushed aside by money. That would be a small slap to several Bulls players and a large slap to a vocal Bulls fan base.

I liked KC because what he reported was directly from the org, but obviously that's a source biased toward itself.
I still read what Joe says because he reports things that he believes the org doesn't want made public, but since it's second hand who knows it if it's accurate or not. So it has to be taken with skepticism.

dougthonus wrote:

TheStig wrote:He will get the players story and give you the other side.

I'd like Cowley a lot more if that's what he did.

However, it isn't. Cowley will create the most negative story possible and present it to you. He has previously used quotes from say 6 months ago out of context in an article he publishes that day without telling you the quotes were old. He does things which you would view as more or less flat out lies.

It doesn't matter if his story is negative about a player or about management, you can be sure its going to be negative. He's going to appeal to whatever part of a fan is super angry and stoke those flames. The Sun Times is the only paper I know of covering sports that has reporters whom I'd view as simply unethical, lying trolls.

There are certainly lots of people that cover the Bulls have a more balanced view than either the Trib or the Sun Times.

I do absolutely agree that the Tribs direct line to management gives them a very management centric perspective and view.

Sometimes things develop over months. So that 6 month quote might be more relevant now.

I haven't found them to be terrible. I will only see the Cowley articles that make it hear and I thought they represented the players side. Which when you had such a divided team between FO and Coach/Players, that's what you're gonna get.

Maybe it is because I was done with GarPax the past few years but KC's constant blowjob of the FO has just ruined their paper. Oh the team is terrible but the FO is smart and creative. Oh Jimmy is looking good, well that's nice but he's not a guy who will lead you anywhere. Oh hey look, we got 3 lotto picks for Jimmy, let's ignore the face one has a torn acl, the other was the worst rookie in years and such. We resigned Boylen cause he's instilling a attitude aka doing anything GarPax asked. Objectivity is something lacking on both sides. I guess I enjoy Cowley coming out on the other side because things were clearly bad and the bigger paper was fondling GarPax's ego.

I mean they are. KC Johnson is puppet master numero uno. He never writes anything controversial to upset his bosses. He;'s now on the TV side so even more org friendly. He's a tool.

I stopped bothering to read the Trib and Sun Times. I t was my staple for 30+ years the sports page but

Both of them going paywall or making the articles impossible to read free was the first strike-

but finding better writers with more insight and independent blogs are much more fun.
I read and listen to Nick Fredell more than these guys now - because nick is with BSPN and on bigger shows I like better.
But ESPN is also sanitized.

Ringer is most non-team connected news and talks about the stuff the big guys avoid.

If the Bulls were more relevant, Cowley could guest on some real pods like Simmons.
Bill would have him on to talk smack, it sells.

I kinda like that Joe is out here trying to fire missles and bring attention to what used to be a relevant orginization.

Cowley as an entity is an important to journalism. In an era where corporations do everything possible to control their public image, including paying journalists, online BOTS, etc etc, having someone that can grind a pick into the corporation is important to have. That may ruffle lots of feathers and his opinions will likely be unpopular, but it's important to have Cowley's in this world.

Accuses?

I thought this was already established as a fact?

kodo wrote:I always found it bizarre to complain about KC parroting the FO's stance, because he was reporting what the FO said. When did reporting become more about spouting opinion than just delivering information?

But that is not the complaint about KC, or what KC did. Look at the initial tweet. That was, as you write, "spouting opinion," rather than delivering information. KC's tweet was an underhanded slap at Butler as being inadequate to lead a good team, in the guise of being an observed fact. An underhanded slap, by the way, that by no coincidence whatsoever echoed the message that the FO was trying to sell. And which was dead wrong.

There's no worse sin for a reporter than selling your source's viewpoint while pretending that is not what you are doing, and by being wrong in the process. I put the TV on mute when he comes on.

He is not wrong. KCJ doesnt exactly work for Bulls FO but for newspapers where most important part of your job is being credible and thrustworthy to your readers. Not to be a puppet and messenger of certain people. KCJ could have through years say and make his own statement through newspaper on what he sees on court, practices, interviews with players, coaches etc to give his own opinion about situations happening during that time. He could have said about Jimmy Butler good things as both teammate and person and leader on court etc.

He choose NOT to do that. He choose to be a puppet of organization and people working in front offices during that time. And for what, for getting now himself better job? He is a sheep. People wake up. Yes we talking about Cowley here but if someone else said it would you think that same person said something wrong?

If KC and the tribune are puppets of the Bulls does that make Cowley Jimmy's puppet? Some of you may not remember but Cowley covered the Whitesox part of the way through Ozzie Guillen's tenor as manager. When Ozzie was saying absolutely idiotic things and taking shots at his boss Kenny Williams publicly who was there to defend it? Good old Joe, he wrote column after column making Ozzie the martyred and aggrieved party. So Joe pot meet kettle.

kodo wrote:I always found it bizarre to complain about KC parroting the FO's stance, because he was reporting what the FO said. When did reporting become more about spouting opinion than just delivering information?

KC was closer to true reporting than what Cowley and most sportswriters like SAS and Bayless do. KC's routine at the Trib was pretty simple, he asked Foreman or Paxson directly about X, and reported what they said. It's up to the reader to understand the source here is going to be the org itself.

The danger with Cowley's just speculation and dirt digging is inaccuracy. I mean how accurate was all of this from Cowley:

But the Sun-Times learned this week that even if Karnisovas didn’t like what he would have seen from Boylen, he likely would have been handcuffed from making a change.

According to several sources, there is growing thought that financial concerns the Reinsdorfs have about the 2020-21 season will keep Boylen and most of his staff on the Bulls’ bench.

It seems the ‘‘players first’’ motto Karnisovas and general manager Marc Eversley were touting several months ago will be pushed aside by money. That would be a small slap to several Bulls players and a large slap to a vocal Bulls fan base.

I liked KC because what he reported was directly from the org, but obviously that's a source biased toward itself.
I still read what Joe says because he reports things that he believes the org doesn't want made public, but since it's second hand who knows it if it's accurate or not. So it has to be taken with skepticism.

This is the problem with today's news. One outlet reports exactly what their side/source/interview said. That's not the role of a journalist. The role of a journalist is to give both sides of the story, find the truth or facts and educate the consumer.

KC presented what the FO said. That was all. They presented it as fact and glorified their source. That's not a journalist. That's a tweet surrounded with fluff.

That's the issue people have with KC.

TheStig wrote:Sometimes things develop over months. So that 6 month quote might be more relevant now.

I'd have to go back and look, but he had this one article that took a 1 year old Dunn quote then applied it to him only doing a half practice to talk about how lazy Kris Dunn was. It was completely and utterly out of context and had nothing to do with anything developing whatsoever.

I haven't found them to be terrible. I will only see the Cowley articles that make it hear and I thought they represented the players side. Which when you had such a divided team between FO and Coach/Players, that's what you're gonna get.

Maybe it is because I was done with GarPax the past few years but KC's constant blowjob of the FO has just ruined their paper. Oh the team is terrible but the FO is smart and creative. Oh Jimmy is looking good, well that's nice but he's not a guy who will lead you anywhere. Oh hey look, we got 3 lotto picks for Jimmy, let's ignore the face one has a torn acl, the other was the worst rookie in years and such. We resigned Boylen cause he's instilling a attitude aka doing anything GarPax asked. Objectivity is something lacking on both sides. I guess I enjoy Cowley coming out on the other side because things were clearly bad and the bigger paper was fondling GarPax's ego.

I generally have found KC to be reasonably balanced when he is editorializing. There are plenty of times where he'll talk about team being lousy or not good enough, he was the one who asked Gar Forman if he still thought this team was a championship team and then Forman said he never said that, then KC said you said that 1 year ago today at media day embarrassing Gar pretty bad on their press conference. He's talked about the Bulls being unwilling to spend or doing things for monetary reasons lots of times.

I've generally found KCs opinion to be pretty moderate. He will tell you why something makes sense and also tell you the risks. He typically isn't going to take a strong side on an issue. As an example, if you look at the article he wrote about the Butler trade he lighted the risk of trading for Butler, Zach looking like a future star, but having a huge risk due to the ACL which the Bulls just went through with Rose, called Dunn someone the Bulls looked whom was very disappointing, pointed out that the Bulls were scared of the supermax, and that Butler had a blow up with Hoiberg and the FO wouldn't admit it but was likely nervous about bringing him back under Hoiberg. He absolutely wasn't out there "rah rah"ing the trade, he doesn't ever "rah rah" anything really. He tells you what the FO was thinking, the good and the bad. At any rate, in his initial article, he laid out all of the different factors at play, and those WERE the factors. He didn't state any opinion one way or the other on whether he liked the trade. That's pretty common for him in most situations.

When people email him and complain about something, and he tells them the reasons why it may make sense, people get annoyed with him. They want him to go out and blast the org and say you're write these guys are awful, this is ridiculous, but he's definitely not going to do that. He's going to give you something pretty moderate no matter what.

Cowley wouldn't ever take a reasonable or balanced approach telling you why someone would do something and why they wouldn't. Though he's theoretically a reporter, he's really an editorialist at heart, he will always go all in on one side of the issue, guns blazing, make his point as strong as possible, and will always pick "these guys are stupid" side of any argument because unless the team wins a title, that side of the argument will always have at least some merit in peoples eyes, so its effectively always a safe thing to do and always has a market. Even in the 60+ win Rose era, there were people saying the Bulls were just screwing up everything and not doing enough because they should win titles. I can understand why angry fans like Cowley because he vents their anger, but he'll be doing that no matter what happens for as long as he writes. However, Cowley will still be venting anger even if things are going well and we're on the right path, and that's ultimately why I don't care for him. It isn't balance of him telling it like it is, it's just a schtick because he knows there will always be a market of disappointed fans thats easy to pander to.

dougthonus wrote:

TheStig wrote:Sometimes things develop over months. So that 6 month quote might be more relevant now.

I'd have to go back and look, but he had this one article that took a 1 year old Dunn quote then applied it to him only doing a half practice to talk about how lazy Kris Dunn was. It was completely and utterly out of context and had nothing to do with anything developing whatsoever.

I haven't found them to be terrible. I will only see the Cowley articles that make it hear and I thought they represented the players side. Which when you had such a divided team between FO and Coach/Players, that's what you're gonna get.

Maybe it is because I was done with GarPax the past few years but KC's constant blowjob of the FO has just ruined their paper. Oh the team is terrible but the FO is smart and creative. Oh Jimmy is looking good, well that's nice but he's not a guy who will lead you anywhere. Oh hey look, we got 3 lotto picks for Jimmy, let's ignore the face one has a torn acl, the other was the worst rookie in years and such. We resigned Boylen cause he's instilling a attitude aka doing anything GarPax asked. Objectivity is something lacking on both sides. I guess I enjoy Cowley coming out on the other side because things were clearly bad and the bigger paper was fondling GarPax's ego.

I generally have found KC to be reasonably balanced when he is editorializing. There are plenty of times where he'll talk about team being lousy or not good enough, he was the one who asked Gar Forman if he still thought this team was a championship team and then Forman said he never said that, then KC said you said that 1 year ago today at media day embarrassing Gar pretty bad on their press conference. He's talked about the Bulls being unwilling to spend or doing things for monetary reasons lots of times.

I've generally found KCs opinion to be pretty moderate. He will tell you why something makes sense and also tell you the risks. He typically isn't going to take a strong side on an issue. As an example, if you look at the article he wrote about the Butler trade he lighted the risk of trading for Butler, Zach looking like a future star, but having a huge risk due to the ACL which the Bulls just went through with Rose, called Dunn someone the Bulls looked whom was very disappointing, pointed out that the Bulls were scared of the supermax, and that Butler had a blow up with Hoiberg and the FO wouldn't admit it but was likely nervous about bringing him back under Hoiberg. He absolutely wasn't out there "rah rah"ing the trade, he doesn't ever "rah rah" anything really. He tells you what the FO was thinking, the good and the bad. At any rate, in his initial article, he laid out all of the different factors at play, and those WERE the factors. He didn't state any opinion one way or the other on whether he liked the trade. That's pretty common for him in most situations.

When people email him and complain about something, and he tells them the reasons why it may make sense, people get annoyed with him. They want him to go out and blast the org and say you're write these guys are awful, this is ridiculous, but he's definitely not going to do that. He's going to give you something pretty moderate no matter what.

Cowley wouldn't ever take a reasonable or balanced approach telling you why someone would do something and why they wouldn't. Though he's theoretically a reporter, he's really an editorialist at heart, he will always go all in on one side of the issue, guns blazing, make his point as strong as possible, and will always pick "these guys are stupid" side of any argument because unless the team wins a title, that side of the argument will always have at least some merit in peoples eyes, so its effectively always a safe thing to do and always has a market. Even in the 60+ win Rose era, there were people saying the Bulls were just screwing up everything and not doing enough because they should win titles. I can understand why angry fans like Cowley because he vents their anger, but he'll be doing that no matter what happens for as long as he writes. However, Cowley will still be venting anger even if things are going well and we're on the right path, and that's ultimately why I don't care for him. It isn't balance of him telling it like it is, it's just a schtick because he knows there will always be a market of disappointed fans thats easy to pander to.

Eh everyone has a moment but I think he's been predominately a company man.

You brought up an interesting point about Cowley. I guess we'll see where he goes with the new FO. Certainly they can't be the devil on day 1 lol. I was very annoyed with GarPax and the Reinsdorf but the new AK/Eversly FO presents a lot of hope and seems to be off to a good start. Even though Billy is probably not my #1. I think they get the chance to institute their system, their team, their picks and then you can evaluate them.

TheStig wrote:Eh everyone has a moment but I think he's been predominately a company man.

I get that, and the covering for the tie thing on VDN definitely is shades of that. As I said, he's never going to blast the org, but I don't think he views that as his job, and neither do I. He's a reporter, not an editorialist. Typically his job is not to blast the org.

You brought up an interesting point about Cowley. I guess we'll see where he goes with the new FO. Certainly they can't be the devil on day 1 lol. I was very annoyed with GarPax and the Reinsdorf but the new AK/Eversly FO presents a lot of hope and seems to be off to a good start. Even though Billy is probably not my #1. I think they get the chance to institute their system, their team, their picks and then you can evaluate them.

He's already started trashing them:
https://chicago.suntimes.com/bulls/2020/6/19/21296928/bulls-arturas-karnisovas-jim-boylen-coaching-decision

But maybe I'm being hard on Cowley, I read some of his other articles that are recent just for the heck of it, and they're not too damning or negative.