Howard Beck is one of my favorite writers. I was very upset when the Times changed his beat to the Nets. Once that happened I thought his tone regarding the Knicks changed but I discounted it because I thought he was into his new position and he appears to have a lot of fun trash talking with his friends/fellow b-ball writers. However since he has been back on the Knicks beat he has continued to be negative in my opinion. Are others seeing this?
Beck is a writer
Just one man with an opinion.
Nothing more.
Beat Boston.
Yep- he used to be one of the best Knick writers, but ever since he got the Net assignment he seems to have been bitter against the Knicks. Maybe he was a big Lin fan or something. He said last season that he doesn't support any team, he just writes about whatever he's assigned to. He tore his ACL this year too, so maybe that factors in to his mood. Don't like reading his articles anymore and they don't really provide any insight either. Time he got a new job- he seems to get no joy from beat writing anymore.
A shame as I was happy when he got reassigned back to the Knicks.
He's one of the best in the NY scene, but keep in mind it's his job, he's a writer, not a team fan.
he isn't gonna be alan Hahn, who never says anything negative about the team.
We making a list now?
We shun those who oppose opinion?
Nalod wrote:We making a list now?We shun those who oppose opinion?
Not a list. Just checking to see if others have the same impression. He was one of my favorite writers. In my opinion his tone/demeanor has become very negative. Just my opinion. Looking to see if others have noticed something similar.
CrushAlot wrote:Nalod wrote:We making a list now?We shun those who oppose opinion?
Not a list. Just checking to see if others have the same impression. He was one of my favorite writers. In my opinion his tone/demeanor has become very negative. Just my opinion. Looking to see if others have noticed something similar.
What do you want him to do other than report about the team, he's not a fan.
But let's see what he really says.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/sports...
In another time, another spring, the duel would have been tantalizing, electric and potentially epic: Carmelo Anthony versus Paul Pierce, for control of the Eastern Conference. The names alone inspire visions of a classic playoff scoring battle.
In another era, it might have been. In this one, the duel has become an unfair fight, between a still-rising superstar and his superior supporting cast and a fading likely Hall of Famer, who has hardly any support at all.
Anthony dominated the court again Tuesday night, overpowering Pierce and anyone else in his path, leading the Knicks to an 87-71 rout and a commanding 2-0 lead in this first-round series.
Through two games, the Knicks have been sturdier defensively and simply better in the second half, but most of all they have Anthony, who has been brilliant in the critical moments. He scored 34 points Tuesday and might have gone for 40 had the Knicks needed it. He was at his best in the second half, making 8 of 13 shots from the field as the Knicks turned a close game into a stunning rout, outscoring the Celtics, 45-23, over the final 24 minutes.
CrushAlot wrote:Nalod wrote:We making a list now?We shun those who oppose opinion?
Not a list. Just checking to see if others have the same impression. He was one of my favorite writers. In my opinion his tone/demeanor has become very negative. Just my opinion. Looking to see if others have noticed something similar.
'
Perhaps you liked him because as a fan, you liked what he wrote.
What example of him dissing the knicks can you point to? Or the fact he is fawning over another team seem to portray him as being disloyal now and thus is now a "hater"? Just curious.
Im not trying to ride you, I am not emotionally attached to most of this as I was when I was younger. This makes me more objective or a "centrist fence sitter".
Nalod wrote:CrushAlot wrote:Nalod wrote:We making a list now?We shun those who oppose opinion?
Not a list. Just checking to see if others have the same impression. He was one of my favorite writers. In my opinion his tone/demeanor has become very negative. Just my opinion. Looking to see if others have noticed something similar.
'
Perhaps you liked him because as a fan, you liked what he wrote.
What example of him dissing the knicks can you point to? Or the fact he is fawning over another team seem to portray him as being disloyal now and thus is now a "hater"? Just curious.
Im not trying to ride you, I am not emotionally attached to most of this as I was when I was younger. This makes me more objective or a "centrist fence sitter".
Obviously my question wasn't based on what I read this morning or yesterday. It is a change I noticed when he went to the Nets beat as stated earlier.Just wondering if others noticed it.
CrushAlot wrote:Nalod wrote:CrushAlot wrote:Nalod wrote:We making a list now?We shun those who oppose opinion?
Not a list. Just checking to see if others have the same impression. He was one of my favorite writers. In my opinion his tone/demeanor has become very negative. Just my opinion. Looking to see if others have noticed something similar.
'
Perhaps you liked him because as a fan, you liked what he wrote.
What example of him dissing the knicks can you point to? Or the fact he is fawning over another team seem to portray him as being disloyal now and thus is now a "hater"? Just curious.
Im not trying to ride you, I am not emotionally attached to most of this as I was when I was younger. This makes me more objective or a "centrist fence sitter".
Obviously my question wasn't based on what I read this morning or yesterday. It is a change I noticed when he went to the Nets beat as stated earlier.Just wondering if others noticed it.
In a way, on paper the nets are a better team, but games are not won on paper.
Knicks in reality were the better team.
I think this is what barkley thought and some writers. This happened because three things:
Melo did elevate his game.
JR lived up to his potential and showed greater maturity.
Amare being out did not kill us, and Kmart contribution was unexpectedly fantastic!
Our season looked to spiral down but it never did. I really think Woodson did a masterful job this year and our maturity really worked.
Knicks in my opinion played above their on paper projections and the nets never got their chemistry right. That team ON PAPER is better than 49 wins. But Paper don't play!
Season 1: Knicks were the better team!
Too bad we can't get them in a series!
when a writer for the "paper of record" agrees with you he is a good writer. when his take on the team diverges from your opinion you have a choice: just dismiss him as a negative or bad writer or look carefully at what he has written and question your own take on the game. the new york times is not a tabloid-- its writers are given positions based on their ability to remain objective and impartial while possessing a very good knowledge of their subject matter.
it was a relief to have beck back as the knicks beat writer. i stopped reading about the knicks when his substitute took over the position. he was unreadable and the editorial board probably received a lot of complaints so they brought beck back.
dk7th wrote:when a writer for the "paper of record" agrees with you he is a good writer. when his take on the team diverges from your opinion you have a choice: just dismiss him as a negative or bad writer or look carefully at what he has written and question your own take on the game. the new york times is not a tabloid-- its writers are given positions based on their ability to remain objective and impartial while possessing a very good knowledge of their subject matter.it was a relief to have beck back as the knicks beat writer. i stopped reading about the knicks when his substitute took over the position. he was unreadable and the editorial board probably received a lot of complaints so they brought beck back.
But whatever your viewpoint is on whether a writer should be neutral or not, do you really not see a change in his tone since he came back? He seems like he hates his job now.
smackeddog wrote:dk7th wrote:when a writer for the "paper of record" agrees with you he is a good writer. when his take on the team diverges from your opinion you have a choice: just dismiss him as a negative or bad writer or look carefully at what he has written and question your own take on the game. the new york times is not a tabloid-- its writers are given positions based on their ability to remain objective and impartial while possessing a very good knowledge of their subject matter.it was a relief to have beck back as the knicks beat writer. i stopped reading about the knicks when his substitute took over the position. he was unreadable and the editorial board probably received a lot of complaints so they brought beck back.
But whatever your viewpoint is on whether a writer should be neutral or not, do you really not see a change in his tone since he came back? He seems like he hates his job now.
No, there is no difference in tone.
I just posted his article after game 2 and everyone ignored, because it doesn't support opinion.
beck is not a fan, he is a writer.
smackeddog wrote:dk7th wrote:when a writer for the "paper of record" agrees with you he is a good writer. when his take on the team diverges from your opinion you have a choice: just dismiss him as a negative or bad writer or look carefully at what he has written and question your own take on the game. the new york times is not a tabloid-- its writers are given positions based on their ability to remain objective and impartial while possessing a very good knowledge of their subject matter.it was a relief to have beck back as the knicks beat writer. i stopped reading about the knicks when his substitute took over the position. he was unreadable and the editorial board probably received a lot of complaints so they brought beck back.
But whatever your viewpoint is on whether a writer should be neutral or not, do you really not see a change in his tone since he came back? He seems like he hates his job now.
i see a writer who has allowed some genuine excitement to subtly emerge in his prose lately, just as i saw a writer who practiced genuine restraint with his pessimistic tone when he saw the knicks not playing well. he lately has expressed optimism about the knicks possibilities in the postseason even as he has also expressed concern over their mediocre defense.
be it a sweep or 5 games, this is only the first round. as exciting as it is to be relevant in the playoffs, we are expected to win against a seventh seed, even the celtics. it's the 4-5 matchups that are not quite so predictable.
dk7th wrote:smackeddog wrote:dk7th wrote:when a writer for the "paper of record" agrees with you he is a good writer. when his take on the team diverges from your opinion you have a choice: just dismiss him as a negative or bad writer or look carefully at what he has written and question your own take on the game. the new york times is not a tabloid-- its writers are given positions based on their ability to remain objective and impartial while possessing a very good knowledge of their subject matter.it was a relief to have beck back as the knicks beat writer. i stopped reading about the knicks when his substitute took over the position. he was unreadable and the editorial board probably received a lot of complaints so they brought beck back.
But whatever your viewpoint is on whether a writer should be neutral or not, do you really not see a change in his tone since he came back? He seems like he hates his job now.
i see a writer who has allowed some genuine excitement to subtly emerge in his prose lately, just as i saw a writer who practiced genuine restraint with his pessimistic tone when he saw the knicks not playing well. he lately has expressed optimism about the knicks possibilities in the postseason even as he has also expressed concern over their mediocre defense.
A bit like your posts on these boards, lately 
Howard Beck hates the Knicks and lives in Brooklyn, that's why he switched to the Nets.
VDesai wrote:Howard Beck hates the Knicks and lives in Brooklyn, that's why he switched to the Nets.
I suppose if I was told I'd been reassigned to cover a team that's within walking distance, then tore my ACL, then got told "actually we're reassigning you back to the other team that's a long, busy commute away", I'd be pretty hacked off too!
Beck is a good writer and has good insider status. But he spins towards the negative as much or more than any Knicks beat guy. Even during good stretches.
Fire Breen
Fire Beck
Who's next Jonah Ballow??
CrushAlot wrote:Nalod wrote:CrushAlot wrote:Nalod wrote:We making a list now?We shun those who oppose opinion?
Not a list. Just checking to see if others have the same impression. He was one of my favorite writers. In my opinion his tone/demeanor has become very negative. Just my opinion. Looking to see if others have noticed something similar.
'
Perhaps you liked him because as a fan, you liked what he wrote.
What example of him dissing the knicks can you point to? Or the fact he is fawning over another team seem to portray him as being disloyal now and thus is now a "hater"? Just curious.
Im not trying to ride you, I am not emotionally attached to most of this as I was when I was younger. This makes me more objective or a "centrist fence sitter".
Obviously my question wasn't based on what I read this morning or yesterday. It is a change I noticed when he went to the Nets beat as stated earlier.Just wondering if others noticed it.
i recall beck being very harsh on the knicks, and in particular, melo before being the nets beat writer.
