FAN CLUB NOTE: This Thread is an "evergreen" thread, best read backwards; the top posts were written Oct 2001. More relevant comments on the subject of Fran Blinebury being an enduring menace to local sports coverage appears at the bottom. Thank you for your time. This thread has been started for the sole purpose of collecting links to all future piece-of-garbage Fran Blinebury commentaries and articles into one thread. Consider it a large electronic tupperware container in the Clutch BBS refrigerator marked “Evidence as to why the media reign of Fran Blinebury must end and end soon.” Forget his opinions, just for a moment. The Houston Chronicle should be embarrassed to have such a poor writer and journalist on their staff (which of course implies that they have any shame at all…) Weakly stretched metaphors, unfunny jokes and puns, condescending tabloid-style half-sentences and conspicuously inflammatory mini-quotes are not “exciting.” They suck and do an injustice to the greater scope of sports, which, at its best, can be inspiring. Even if he write about local politics or gardening or travel, it would suck because he writes like an arrogant, thick headed college-paper columnist. Is he is a pawn of certain past/present elements of the Houston Rockets organization? It does not matter, because his writing indicates that his articles are not based in fact or even independent, critical thinking, so might as well be. But does anyone else think his Hakeem pandering and his access to Hakeem are unrelated? He always gets the Hakeem scoop. Always. And like clockwork, he returns the favor by blowing smoke up Hakeem’s netherport in print (“Curse of the Dreambino?” What crap.). Year in, year out, access would appear to be Blinebury’s price for positive press. Clyde “The Slide” Drexler vs. Charles “Big-Hearted” Barkley? One gave chippy jokes and access and got worshipped. The other gave milquetoast quotes and got demonized (and then stuffed it in his face, for those who recall). Since Blinebury never fails to sound like a tool – not just of Hakeem, by the way – he is a tool. His lightweight combination of “reporting” and “analysis” is an embarrassment to all serious and semi-serious basketball fans in Houston. He mimics the style of rags like the NY Post and Philly Inquirer when this city desperately needs a NY Times-ish sports reporter, who gets to the factual heart of a story and/or offers insight (Berman?). Just because something is written well does not mean it is PBS-brand boring. Good insight is interesting too. This Cato Article – which may or not play out as an accurate indicator of Cato’s performance in 2001-2001, that’s not the point – is essentially written by a seventh grader who is pissed at his new stepmother. That is valid, but then write an article about feelings, rather than a warped “factual” one. What has he done this offseason? Why was ne not at the big man camp? Etc. etc. Roast him, if you like, but roast him right. Yes, Cato’s quotes sound bad. But anyone who has ever written an interview knows that you can elicit quotes with certain questions, and de-contextualize responses (the fishy “No Comments” supposedly lend credibility to his assertion that Cato does not care about basketball. In fact, Cato might not care about him.) If I was Cato, I would not talk to a sensationalist, Hakeem-panderer who askes “are you going to play with more FIRE this year?” The fact that Cato’s quotes to a recent ESPN article are in direct conflict makes Blinebury even tougher to believe. You see, Cato may have said that and even think those things – and he should humor Blinebury for his (and our) own good – but because they were reported so badly by such a bad writer, it is impossible to trust them. It’s a waste of newsprint. Whatever on Cato. One thing is for sure: Blinebury is a style-deprived lackey, and he needs to go. He is worse than the uniforms, worse than Cato’s contract, worse than the Barley Trade, worse than the blue court, worse than Clutchcity.com, worse than AirClutch, and worse than the Warrior girls. Any number of posters on the Clutchcity.net board already write more readable, informed, humorous and pointed opinions. And I will not rest until the day Clutch, Jeff, Will, HeyPartner or ZRB replace this fish-hack. Beginning now, friends, is an evergreen thread that I will bring back as long as his ‘Blinebury-esque’pieces – inevitably – appear in Houston’s Leading News Source during the upcoming season. Feel free to call me out, agree, post links and add your takes. I think he has earned our attention and discussion, if not our respect. SO, with no further ado… CHAPTER ONE: KELVIN CATO MIGHT INDEED SUCK AND HE DOES NOT LIKE ME, by Fran Blinebury http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22751
I agree Blinebury is wincingly awful. Not just his writing (always full of hokey puns and hack metaphors), but his attitude as well. It's not so bad when you attack an obvious lame duck player like Cato, but to call Mobley a sideshow freak? To accuse the team of being cursed for letting Hakeem walk? Why don't we have a sports reporter who is also a sports fan? And what's with that whole column that was a poem to his grandson about a month ago? Give it to him, not to me! I read the sports page for sports not for gushing sentiment. Down with Blinebury, ladies and gentlemen. Down with Blinebury.
That's so awesome CBFC. I mean, it isn't even what he says....it is just that you can tell it reeks of no work, just manipulation, laziness, and bad writing. The guy is a bad writer with the worst in sports journalism metaphors. I also believe with you 100% that the whole reason he focused on Cato after this huge off-season of change with two emerging young studs taking the reigns is that he wants to hammer home his point that we shouldn't have let Dream go. He did the same thing last year on opening night that the Rockets sucked in the new era. I like that "stepmother" comment. But most of all, I love your point about how if he really wanted to roast Cato there are dozens of people on this board who could have done a better job. The best piece on Cato's attitude ever was Clutch's piece off the front page about his history. As for, "Uh, no comment." Dude, Les doesn't like you. You consistantly trash him. I guarantee you that is Les's comment even if you ask him whether he thanks Osama bin Laden is a bad man. (Fran, take note how I properly used a political current event.) Maybe Steve knows now to always say "no comment" if he smells controversy. Especially since your early (too early) roasting of the youth movement last year: <a href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/sports/blinebury/734513">Nov 1st: Opening Night Downright Scary</a> Note that he already had a Dream pandering article in Oct by this time. In 2000, he uses his first two game columns on opening night and Nov 11th to roast Francis, Mobley and the entire new era. Uh Fran, most writers don't trash a young lottery team on opening night without some kind of agenda. Usually you trash veteran teams for not starting fast out of the gate. If you trash every team for not winning opening night...you are a bandwagoner. He actually says to Les that one fan stood up on opening night and yelled "Hey Les, I want a refund." I doubt that. If so, it was someone sitting on the floor for Fran to hear it....no one up in the family seats. More likely, Fran is using a made up quote to tell Les what he believes. <b>And now for the bad writing</b> He does the cheesy strategy of using a holiday as a theme throughout an article. This is Nov 1st, after Halloween. He opens the article: <ul> <li>"Will this season never end?" referring to bad scary movies, I presume. <li>He equates the mess on the floor to Linda Blair being possessed by Satan so he can segue .... <li>into saying that they don't need a coach, they need an exorcist. <li>Then he switches gears immediately to say it is more like a wearing the same costume to a masquerade party two years in a row so that he can use another Hollywood movie anecdote "dumb, and dumber" although it has nothing to do with Halloween, so he can apparently begin his real basketball analysis by saying they seem to have learned nothing from their lottery year..."dumn and dumber." Remember, this is opening night of a young team. <li>Then he just couldn't get off the Halloween kick and says, "They played panicky. Scream-in-the-dark panicky, as if one of those guys wearing a hockey mask was chasing them with a long knife. <li>They played like a bunch of scared teen-agers who were being turned loose to perform in front of a large crowd for the first time. <li>OK, not too large of a crowd since only 11,327 showed up. Look, honey. Trick or treat. Some kids came to the door and made me take two Rockets tickets or else they were going to toilet-paper the house. [<b>now this one is truly stupid writing!!!</b>] </ul> To borrow a phrase, "will these bad metaphors never end." (Again Fran, notice how I use pertinent quotes or event to play on words.) This is already like a dozen Halloween metaphors and scary movie anecdotes, two morale crushing slaps referring to fan distaste, and he isn't even to his first bold subheading, yet. And of course, he ends the whole opening day column with he last Halloween metaphor, just in case you are dying laughing and are pleading for more Fran, more" because he is so funny: <ul><li><i>On Halloween night, here's a scary thought: 81 more.'</i></li></ul> Now here is his second column of last year. <a href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/sports/blinebury/744771">Nov 11th: Francis, Mobley fail in role as team's catalysts</a> Here he takes a early pounding by Portland after 2 wins in a row and equates it to Francis and Mobley should not carry your Grandmother's fine china on Thanksgiving. And that they were more embarrassing than spilling gravy on your shirt. First off Fran, that article was more than 10 days before Thanksgiving. Most writers save the holiday metaphors for the holi-DAY. Is that all you have? Secondly, equating a pounding to Portland away as a sign our brand new leaders suck and can't lead us on NOVEMBER freaking 11th of their 2nd year together....is nothing short of pandering to Hakeem like CBFC says. They can have sucky games without really sucking....I mean, what does your whole "Choke City" slap show us....you idiot.
Couldn't agree more, CBFC. But does it stop at just Blindburry? Have you ever read a decent commentary from Robertson? I almost never read any of the Chronicle columnists because they are all just so terrible. And they never change. It's the same insipid columns that I didn't want to read when I was 16. It really wasn't until I moved to the west coast that I realized just how bad the Chronicle is. Really, it makes USA Today look like journalism.
I can't decide whether I agree or disagree, but when he wrote, "The Dream is gone. Meet the Hallucination." (about Kelvin Cato) I couldn't stop laughing!
I actually enjoy Fran's articles. I think he is a great writer, and offers a different perspective. One thing I truly like about him, was the support he showed Barkley, and the disrespect he showed Pippen. Anyone who loves Chuck, and hates Quitten, is a friend of mine....
Fran's the man. He says what is on his mind, and he has no qualms about it. He has an EDITORIAL, which means he is given the freedom to state what he wants, factual or not. He is not a beat writer covering a specific team, so don't expect him to be a guy spitting out facts left and right. The Chron pays him to give his opinions, not to make Houston fans feel all good inside.
Other then the Barkley trade (we wouldn't be in the rebuilding position without it), I completely agree with you CBFC. The guy is just a leech, and a latch on. It's embarrassing and boring. He contributes nothing, and whines constantly. It's old and tired.
Editorials are supposed to contain fact-driven opinions and analysis. Educated expert opinions are not just 'whatever I want to say' garbage like we post here. The Chron pays him to be smart and opinated, not just say whatever happens to be in his best interest or easy at that moment. Saying what is on your mind is really, really, really easy. "I had two huge cups of coffee this morning and know I am totally tweaked out" is on my mind, but not really thougtful analysis. The point is, most CC.net posters would have come up with a good question or two for Cato in that circumstance and written something substantive, something insightful. HOW DO YOU NOT GET ONE SINGLE QUOTE ABOUT THE CAMPS AND REVUES HE MISSED?!?!? Instead you want to ask an obtuse question about "Fire?" Playing with "Fire" is stupid sportswriter talk, not investigating facts in order to develop some insightful commentary, it is just plain ridiculous. Good opinions are based in fact, not some writer's self-proclaimed inherent genius, like Blinebury seems to think (or in someone's chumminess with a Hall of Famer or two...). This is not about making anyone "feel good," its about giving us something to chew on other than someone's self-absorbed world of lame-sportswriter babble passed off as meaningful analysis. It's like Bill Walton: "Blah blah blah." Who the hell cares what you think if you are not even tangentially interested in reality? For Xmas' sake, Rockhead and the others asken better questions from the Bulk-Bin area of Whole Foods or out car windows on upper westheimer than Blinebury does all year long, and he has a freaking press pass. I am so worked up I can not even tell you. It's all this coffee. Interesting analysis, no? cbfc
Hey, if I stand on a baseball mound and throw enough baseballs at a major league hitter, eventually I'll throw a strike, it doesn't mean I should be a pitcher!
Bob*, you make a good case to prove CBFC's idea that Blinebury has a symbiotic relationship with Hakeem, and gives him a friendly forum for quotes.
Bob* You offer the infamous "Osmosis" column about how Francis is learning to win by watching Iverson in the stands??? while i can juxtapose that against several game columns where Fran says Francis is failing as the catalyst...and just a hip-hop kid. Just because we want to believe that our stars are great and that Francis can learn how to be a leader by watching Iverson in the playoff while watching the game with McGrady in the stands, does not make Blinebury a good writer. Don't bother trying to believe we care whether Fran is negative or not. Negativity is not our point. He is supposed to be opinionated, both positive and negative. We understand that. The point is that the guy is a bad journalist. And gave us a really bad first column for the season. That column is useless to cc.net's needs....like we didn't already know that. People either know Cato sucks, or they don't know who he is. But make no mistake, no one thinks our success rides on Cato except masochists. Let me put it this way: If Clutch had asked everyone what he should ask at camp and write about....how many people do you think would have said "Get us the Cato Scoop! Does he really suck?" You simply cannot write 10 bombs like this per year and not suck...<b>reposted as a prime example of nothing that should ever be allowed to go to print.</b> <a href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/sports/blinebury/734513">Nov 1st: Opening Night Downright Scary</a> That is Strike One, Two and Three. The guy should be out for that dribble.
btw: if I ever say this to anyone on this board regarding a positive twist to a bad outcome, like Fran wrote about a Francis quote: then, Clutch, please pull the plug....I should not be allowed to post, again.
LETS PICKET THE CHRONICAL!!!!!!!!! SIGNS!!!! MUSIC!!!!!!! CHANTS!!!!!!!PETITIONS!!!!!WAR PAINT!!!!!THIS CHRISTMAS OR SOMETHING, BIG RALLY!!!!!!!
