Thread: Sports Illustrated starting to look like a real villain

Other than the swimsuit issue I don't pick up SI anymore. I suppose that they need to be a bit controversial. Things like the book will give them a boost for awhile but after that they won't attract long time readers.

I also wouldn't worry about the book either way. Six months or a year they will have to move on to something else to maintain readers. It's a book not a bible.

Originally Posted by The Benjamin

According to Hub, there are three covers for the new SI that is coming out this week.

One has the Phillies on it, not sure what is on the other. But Chicago ONLY has one with the Payton book on it. They are trying to stir the pot with the Chicagoians, and that is why I will not buy that issue (not that I usually buy SI... only have one and that is the dedication that was done to him after his death). Pearlman is said to be really upset about this ploy by SI.

Whether or not you like him or not, the book or not, SI is starting to look like the framework of everything that is wrong. They put out the piece that made the book look like a complete slam job on Payton as well.

They, in my mind are the real evil that us Bear fans should be upset with.

Will I read the book, no. Still will not want to string up Pearlman for writing it, but something 4th brought up is something I missed in the long stretches of quotes. He knew it would upset the kids and family and hurt them but included it anyway. Understandable to a point because it was a biography (only reason why I won't be completely pissed).

But SI is starting to join ESPN and FOX on my bus list.

How can Pearlman be all that upset with SI? He owns the rights to his own work doesn't he? Therefore he sold them the rights to print the excerpt from the book! He had to know that they'd make a cover story out of it. I think this mea culpa is just another ploy to gain back some measure of respect. While that SI article may be denounced in Chicago it will undoubtedly spur sales nationally. He can say what he wants but he's not that upset, trust me.

Just because it's a biography that doesn't mean it needs to include all the sordid details from a man's life. There have been a ton of biographies written that don't delve into the darker side of the subjects existence and in this case especially not without some caveat about the possibility of a mental illness being an underlying factor. Even a footnote or a parenthetical statement following that chapter stating that possibility would have gone a long way toward smoothing ruffles feathers.

Knowing that this expose' would hurt the family and friends yet still deciding to include it tells you all you need to know about that man. He had a choice between doing the decent thing and leaving it out or including it to boost sales and he opted for the latter. Doesn't that make the article by Ken Valdiserri and my arguements against it a little more valid now?

A biography that doesn't include everything in a person's life is the result of a hack writer, especially if they knew about it.

Originally Posted by Henry Burris

A biography that doesn't include everything in a person's life is the result of a hack writer, especially if they knew about it.

In YOUR opinion that's true but not in MINE. And by the way, wouldn't it be pretty difficult to include everything they didn't know?



Sorry but I just had to point that out. It struck me as too funny not too.

Originally Posted by Jimmors

Wait...hold on there a second.

People still buy magazines?

Only Hustler in 3D.

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

bi·og·ra·phy

noun /bīˈägrəfē/  biographies, plural An account of someone's life written by someone else Writing of such a type as a branch of literature A human life in its course - although their individual biographies are different, both are motivated by a similar ambition

not opinion fact. A biography is a written account of someones life. If these are in fact verifiable accounts in WP's life, then they should be part of his biography. It's your OPINION that it shouldn't be, but in FACT it should.

And that's your OPINION Ric because nowhere in the above mentioned defintion do the words verifiable accounts or fact appear. If you're gonna use Merriam-Websters to support your contentions don't you think that it should at least support it?

The principal defintion provided states; "An account of someone's life written by someone else". That's what it states right? The tertiary definition states; "A human life in it's course".

Where does is say anything about needing verifiable facts and if that's a commonly accepted practice where in the definiton does it say ALL verifiable facts. It would seem to me that the author could chose what he or she wished to include and leave out that which he or she didn't. It says nothing about completeness nor does it define incompleteness as not being biographical.

It doesn't define it as "A humans life down to the smallest detail in it's course" either and it doesn't say that the author isn't permitted to speculate about that which cannot be proven fact and still have a biography considered to be biographical.

So exactly what part of this defintion supports your OPINION!

Ric you and I disagree about what consitutes an accurate bio but it doesn't make either of us right or wrong. I think that if Pearlman was going to lift the lid on certain facets of Walter's life then he should have had the decency to at least mention the possiblity of a mental illness as a potential cause. Lacking that caveat I think he should have left it alone.

He knew about it and admitted as such but he CHOSE not include it so as for his books accuracy and completeness I'd say it isn't. But again, that's the way I view it. You can view it as you like and even buy the damn book if you want but I'm gonna pass.