Thread: Jim Souhan Haters

I've noticed a lot of posters here don't like Jim Souhan. What is it about the guy that rubs you the wrong way?

Yeah, I've never really hated him either - the only guy I really hated was Dan Barrerio but I was 13 at the time.

He consistently spouts off about things which he clearly knows little or nothing about. He is close to the Rush Limbaugh of Twins commentary.

He's snarky.

Souhan is a legend in his own mind. Who else would write "Sunday, he cruised through five, then reverted to his broken-water-sprinkler delivery, making Butera dance like an extra in a Western whose shoes are being peppered by bullets from a Colt 45."

Originally Posted by jjswol

Souhan is a legend in his own mind. Who else would write "Sunday, he cruised through five, then reverted to his broken-water-sprinkler delivery, making Butera dance like an extra in a Western whose shoes are being peppered by bullets from a Colt 45."

Maybe that is a little too much for some people, but sports writers used to use more colorful language. I'm not old enough to remember it, but in the book Life and Times of the Thunderbolt kid, Bill Bryson goes into this topic as his dad was one of the more respected baseball writers of his day.

Originally Posted by gunnarthor

Yeah, I've never really hated him either - the only guy I really hated was Dan Barrerio but I was 13 at the time.

I don't think Dan Barrero likes baseball very much.

My guess is some people don't like him because he's getting paid to do the same thing most of us do on this chatboard for nothing - give his opinion on the Twins

I have from time to time found Souhan's articles to be excellent. Yes, there are some that kinda make you wonder where he is coming from or getting his information. For the most part, I don't have a problem with him. I also have wondered where all the hatred comes from. I guess a lot of it is that blogs enable people to say things they normally wouldn't, or at least not to the person's face.

Originally Posted by shanewahl

He consistently spouts off about things which he clearly knows little or nothing about. He is close to the Rush Limbaugh of Twins commentary.

Rush Limbaugh uses innuendo, question begging, hypotheticals, and leading questions to draw the listener to a conclusion without using facts. Examples:

"You just know that if that was Hillary Clinton saying the same thing that the press wouldn't get riled up about it."

I don't see Souhan doing this. I think Souhan does know a little bit about baseball. Remember he is getting paid to get a reaction from his readers/listeners so he has to say something at least a bit provocative.

Agree with jjswol that Souhan uses ridiculous metaphors to an extreme, but so what?

I don't hate pretty much anyone on the planet, not sure why anyone hates anyone they haven't met, or that hasn't committed some heinous act....but I often disagree with Souhan, probably 50% of the time. Also, he has admitted on the radio that he never reads posts to his stories, and doesn't really listen to callers' opinions all that much. He somehow thinks that people that comment want to be writers. I'm not a fan of anyone ascribing motives to other people. Every person I know that comments does so because they want to have a conversation. Columnists supposedly write stories to start conversations. That's what I see on most posts, not people trying to take his job. I have issue with snarky. I have no issue with flowery writing. I have issues with people that ignore those that pay their wages, and ascribe motives to them. Plus, I don't think he's nearly the writer that Reusse or Barrerio are/were, frankly.

This is a good, recent example: http://www.startribune.com/sports/154883415.html

He sounds like that buddy everyone has that is about 5 beers deep and starts handing down baseball knowledge after watching a weekend game if he's not busy and maybe baseball tonight a few nights a week.

Originally Posted by MidwestMeat

This is a good, recent example: http://www.startribune.com/sports/154883415.html

He sounds like that buddy everyone has that is about 5 beers deep and starts handing down baseball knowledge after watching a weekend game if he's not busy and maybe baseball tonight a few nights a week.

I read that article when it came out and I only disagree with getting rid of the bunt, the walk off jump at the plate, and the hit-and-run. Otherwise, I thought he made some good points, albeit a bit smugly.

I will take his opinion over Sid's anyday.

Originally Posted by jlovren

I will take his opinion over Sid's anyday.

I'd take Ramon Ortiz over Sidney Ponson too.

Originally Posted by jlovren

I will take his opinion over Sid's anyday.

I think that qualifies for "damning with faint praise"...

I don't hate the guy, but I dislike his writing style. Besides coming off very smug, he seems to target certain people and beat them to death with his articles. I am thinking about his negative articles about Mauer last summer. He made some very bold assertions about certain players talking about Mauer and rolling their eyes behind his back with absolutely no evidence to back it up. To me, that showed very poor taste.

I don't dislike him but his columns often seem "lazy" to me -- designed primarily to elicit comments rather than to impart useful information or analysis. Not an uncommon affliction but it does seem like "paid journalists" should do more than that.

Originally Posted by JB_Iowa

I don't dislike him but his columns often seem "lazy" to me -- designed primarily to elicit comments rather than to impart useful information or analysis. Not an uncommon affliction but it does seem like "paid journalists" should do more than that.

Speaking of lazy, why does constructive criticism always elicit the predictable response and attack on the criticizer from the supporters of the writer- merely constructively criticized- a "Hater"?

Originally Posted by JB_Iowa

...but it does seem like "paid journalists" should do more than that.

From my point of view he's smug and arrogant without any justification. He's spiteful. I've never seen him show a care about how his writing might affect his target. I dislike him because of these qualities.

In his defense though, he's not a journalist per se. He's a columnist.