A shame as I was happy when he got reassigned back to the Knicks.

We shun those who oppose opinion?

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.

But let's see what he really says.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/sports/basketball/in-game-2-knicks-reiterate-message-dominating-celtics.html?_r=0

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.

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".

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.

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 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.

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

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!