Jim Souhan Haters

[powrwrap]

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?

[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.

[Shane Wahl]

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

[bird]

He's snarky.

[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."

[nokomismod]

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.

[nokomismod]

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.

[IdahoPilgrim]

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:)

[roger]

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.

[powrwrap]

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?

[Mike Sixel]

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.

[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.

[powrwrap]

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.

[jlovren]

I will take his opinion over Sid's anyday.

[snepp]

I will take his opinion over Sid's anyday.

I'd take Ramon Ortiz over Sidney Ponson too.

[jokin]

I will take his opinion over Sid's anyday.

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

[TwinsGuy55422]

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.

[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.

[jokin]

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"?

[Paul]

...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.

[jlovren]

I think that qualifies for "damning with faint praise"...[/QUote

 

exactly what I was going for

[JB_Iowa]

He's a columnist.

Fair enough ... but I still expect more from paid columnists. It seems to me that there should be analysis and insight. Sometimes Souhan offers that .... and sometimes it is pretty apparent that he is just trying to elicit page views (can't point out specific examples but I have called him out on it from time to time in my own comments on the Strib.)

[one_eyed_jack]

I don't hate him, I just don't think much of him. I agree with those who have called him lazy and pointed out his unjustified arrogance. He's awfully dismissive of the average fan, but he doesn't seem to have much more knowledge or insight than the average fan. Once in a while he'll write a piece I think is good, or at least mildly entertaining. But most of them long on snideness and short on analysis.

 

And as far as the journalist/columnist thing, I have a problem with the way he handles that. A columnist is someone who offers analysis and commentary on facts reported by other people. But when you are citing facts not reported anywhere else without a source (e.g. the eye-rolling at Mauer), I'm sorry, but you are reporting. I cannot stand how he makes claims about events that nobody else has reported on, then when pressed about the his evidence for those events, hides behind the "I'm not a reporter, I'm a columnist" thing. It's bush league.

[Paul]

...And as far as the journalist/columnist thing, I have a problem with the way he handles that...

I'm reminded of an older movie. I forget the title, but it has Robert Redford and Michell Pfiefer. Redford plays a TV producer for the nightly news. Pfiefer is an up and coming news reporter who is treated dismissively on air by the news anchor. She is upset and complaining to Redford, who has a confused look on his face, about what a dickhead the guy is. Redford's confused look fades as he realizes what she doesn't understand. He says something to the effect of " He's an anchorman."

[Alex]

I don't hate him, I just don't think much of him. I agree with those who have called him lazy and pointed out his unjustified arrogance. He's awfully dismissive of the average fan, but he doesn't seem to have much more knowledge or insight than the average fan. Once in a while he'll write a piece I think is good, or at least mildly entertaining. But most of them long on snideness and short on analysis.

.

I think this is pretty much what I think about him. He tends to think use information he gets from access as facts, when he should be checking that the information with, well, real facts.

[BHtwins]

I dont like Souhans columns because...he isnt a very good writer. The difference between the golden age of sportswriters and him is that...when they used humor, colorful language and metaphors they were funny and interesting...he is hokey and flat.

 

Oddly, when I've heard him on the radio or seen him on FSN he is not too bad. His columns, on the other hand, are painful like a root canal. I cant and wont suffer through them. He tries to be Rick Reilly and even the real version of Rick Reilly grates my nerves let alone a cheap knockoff.

[YourHouseIsMyHouse]

I think the hatred people give him is somewhat comical. I don't like him, but I don't hate him. His judgement is just something I don't keep in mind because I disagree with his ideas. A lot of people here regularly don't agree with Souhan and belittle him because of it that's all.

[YourHouseIsMyHouse]

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.

Great example actually. For me this is a pretty good article because it makes you think. He is very provocative as other posters have said. However, I hate nearly all of these suggestions except for the marriage cam, shaving cream pies, and head shots. Regardless, none of those are really big issues in the game. The thing is, he writes about petty, minuscule stuff like that which are really just unchangeable pet peeves. Maybe he'd like to bring up instant replay or some sort of realistic issue to make it relevant and worthwhile, but alas that's too big a topic to mention for the Great Souhanduski. To go into further detail in my disagreement, I'd flip out if they got rid of the hit-and-run. It's just plain awesome when it works to perfection and the thought of someone eliminating that just makes me shudder.

[clutterheart]

Since the Strib went to the article limit, I have stopped reading him. Before I might read a few of his articles 1-2 times a month to see what a baboon might say about a current topic.

 

But Now I go to the Strib less than once a week and only to Read the Metro section, LenIII and Joe C's.

[powrwrap]

Since the Strib went to the article limit, I have stopped reading him. Before I might read a few of his articles 1-2 times a month to see what a baboon might say about a current topic.

 

But Now I go to the Strib less than once a week and only to Read the Metro section, LenIII and Joe C's.

What is it about him that you don't like?