http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailywee ... es_spo.php

Much like with Mike Gastineau, I am not a fan. But he's been here forever. So you gotta tip your hat, I guess.

I did enjoy these two quotes from this article:

"I find myself at a lot more games thinking 'I've written this story 411 times now. Isn't that enough?'" says Kelley, who came to the Times in 1982 from The Oregonian, with earlier newspaper stops in Olympia, Centralia, and Pennsylvania. "It's more and more a challenge to find a different way to write it."

That's what your readers have been saying for years!

"The reader comments section, it's a free-for-all," Kelley says. "The level of discourse has become so inane and nasty. And it's not just at the Times, it's ESPN, everywhere - people, anonymous people, take shots at the story, writers, each other. Whatever you've achieved in that story gets drowned out by this chorus of idiots."

Couldn't agree more.

Adios, Kelley. Bring on more Jerry Brewer!

For all the times I have disagreed with him, sadly another valued member of our sporting scene fades to black. Contrary views many times in his columns, maybe not popular many times but a perspective that made you think and formulate an arguement to disagree. Isn't that the whole point of a writer to give the reader information, food for thought and to formulate an opinion.

Good Luck Steve

Great writer. Happy trails to him! Agree on the food for thought part even though I did disagree with him at times.

He used to have personalities that the times took away from him.

He would write from viewpoints of characters such as Ducky Ponds, and Jim Ratt. Usually sonics related stuff. For various reasons the newspaper took that away, not allowing him to write those types of articles. Don't know if anyone here remembers those characters from back in the 90's and earlier. I sent him an email asking what Jim Ratt would say about the entire Clay Bennett fiasco. Kelly told me that the newspaper would not allow him to write in that style anymore.

That is was my favorite stuff from Kelly. The rest wasn't as enjoyable to read but I still respected him.

When he was with the Post Intelligencer he had all those.

I loved it when he called the Mariners out in 1995 and just absolutely blasted them. They went on a winning streak the likes of which the city has never seen. He ripped everybody to shreds, and rightfully so from ownership right down to Griffey. It was beautiful.

If you don't like him... watch the Sonicsgate movie and ask yourself again if you dislike him and if so why. He loves Seattle. He loves Seattle sports. He cares. A lot of writers are just looking for the next big job and the next check. Here you had a writer that actually gave a crap and everybody wanted to run him out of town. Why? We can have multiple writers. At least he isn't Bob Finnigan. Now that guy sucked.

Steve Kelly is a mensch, but (I hate to say this since he's leaving) his stories haven't measured up since Internet sports writing (ESPN) emerged, and all these old-school, dependent-on-some-feeble-gimmick type writers just got outclassed.

"The reader comments section, it's a free-for-all," Kelley says. "The level of discourse has become so inane and nasty. And it's not just at the Times, it's ESPN, everywhere - people, anonymous people, take shots at the story, writers, each other. Whatever you've achieved in that story gets drowned out by this chorus of idiots."

I always figured professional writers avoided the comments (you never see them responding in them).

I remember sending a letter to "pocket lint" Bob Finnigan at the Seattle Times back in 2003 or 2004. He responded back, and long story short, he said that he only responded because my letter was one of the very few cogent and civil ones. You have to have very thick skin as a public figure: I think sports writers have it almost worse than politicians do. At least politicians have half of the people at their back. Finnigan retired (to jeers) in 2006.

I've never been a fan of Kelley, but the quote above scores points for me. Good for him, taking a parting shot at the masses of fans who use anonymity to be nasty idiots. Seriously, read any comment section at the times or ESPN and it is a complete troll's nest. The negativity in our culture is out of control, and I'm glad that at least one person is speaking out about it.

I wanted to like the guy, seems like a nice enough guy. He just doesn't add any original thought of value to our sports scene. Meh.

He's from a different time really. I can remember reading him back in the 80's. I can imagine to a guy like that, the change the internet brings is just inconceivable to the notion of why he wanted to be sport's writer in the first place. Newspaper men are no longer real - its changed in ways that I can't imagine being a young kid dreaming of career could have imagined when he was pushing himself towards his future.

The blog and the instant capabilities for feedback encourage nonsense in big ways. I am sure editors and writers from the old school found themselves looking at letters from disgruntled readers all the time, but you couldn't troll through that process. But because SEO likes to see feedback, the more the better, and because just about anybody can leave a comment without it being monitored, there is no real need for discipline to actually write a nasty letter that won't ever be published in the old school newspaper world.

I am pretty sure he feels the integrity behind that world is completely gone. I am sure he is right about that too. Journalism at all its levels has been changed. Older people still look at a guy like Walter Cronkite and miss what felt like unbiased reporting while today points of views seem to be what network a person is watching, regardless of how much fair and balanced is being touted.

I am not saying integrity is gone in the world at large, just how he envisioned himself in the world. I kind of get that, regardless of what I think of his writing and opinions, the world he dreamed himself apart of is no longer possible.

madbohem wrote:He's from a different time really. I can remember reading him back in the 80's. I can imagine to a guy like that, the change the internet brings is just inconceivable to the notion of why he wanted to be sport's writer in the first place. Newspaper men are no longer real - its changed in ways that I can't imagine being a young kid dreaming of career could have imagined when he was pushing himself towards his future.

The blog and the instant capabilities for feedback encourage nonsense in big ways. I am sure editors and writers from the old school found themselves looking at letters from disgruntled readers all the time, but you couldn't troll through that process. But because SEO likes to see feedback, the more the better, and because just about anybody can leave a comment without it being monitored, there is no real need for discipline to actually write a nasty letter that won't ever be published in the old school newspaper world.

I am pretty sure he feels the integrity behind that world is completely gone. I am sure he is right about that too. Journalism at all its levels has been changed. Older people still look at a guy like Walter Cronkite and miss what felt like unbiased reporting while today points of views seem to be what network a person is watching, regardless of how much fair and balanced is being touted.

I am not saying integrity is gone in the world at large, just how he envisioned himself in the world. I kind of get that, regardless of what I think of his writing and opinions, the world he dreamed himself apart of is no longer possible.

While all that may be true, the really cool thing about the internet age for a guy like Steve Kelley - that old school journalistic integrity type of writer - is that if he gets the itch to write he can fire up a blog, write whatever he wants whenever he wants and not have to worry about offending sponsors, meeting deadlines or whatever other leashes might come with being attached to a big local paper and still reach the same amount of people.

He's reached a point in his career where he doesn't need the paper to be his platform. He already has a reputation and doesn't need the status of being on the payroll for a paper.

PS: I never liked Steve Kelley. Always seemed like a negative contrarian for the sake of being a negative contrarian.

CANHawk wrote:

madbohem wrote:He's from a different time really. I can remember reading him back in the 80's. I can imagine to a guy like that, the change the internet brings is just inconceivable to the notion of why he wanted to be sport's writer in the first place. Newspaper men are no longer real - its changed in ways that I can't imagine being a young kid dreaming of career could have imagined when he was pushing himself towards his future.

The blog and the instant capabilities for feedback encourage nonsense in big ways. I am sure editors and writers from the old school found themselves looking at letters from disgruntled readers all the time, but you couldn't troll through that process. But because SEO likes to see feedback, the more the better, and because just about anybody can leave a comment without it being monitored, there is no real need for discipline to actually write a nasty letter that won't ever be published in the old school newspaper world.

I am pretty sure he feels the integrity behind that world is completely gone. I am sure he is right about that too. Journalism at all its levels has been changed. Older people still look at a guy like Walter Cronkite and miss what felt like unbiased reporting while today points of views seem to be what network a person is watching, regardless of how much fair and balanced is being touted.

I am not saying integrity is gone in the world at large, just how he envisioned himself in the world. I kind of get that, regardless of what I think of his writing and opinions, the world he dreamed himself apart of is no longer possible.

While all that may be true, the really cool thing about the internet age for a guy like Steve Kelley - that old school journalistic integrity type of writer - is that if he gets the itch to write he can fire up a blog, write whatever he wants whenever he wants and not have to worry about offending sponsors, meeting deadlines or whatever other leashes might come with being attached to a big local paper and still reach the same amount of people.

He's reached a point in his career where he doesn't need the paper to be his platform. He already has a reputation and doesn't need the status of being on the payroll for a paper.

PS: I never liked Steve Kelley. Always seemed like a negative contrarian for the sake of being a negative contrarian.

Bingo! Your last line says it all! I always thought he was a weak writer as well. His imaginary friends in his columns proved this point.

SharkHawk wrote:I loved it when he called the Mariners out in 1995 and just absolutely blasted them. They went on a winning streak the likes of which the city has never seen. He ripped everybody to shreds, and rightfully so from ownership right down to Griffey. It was beautiful.

If you don't like him... watch the Sonicsgate movie and ask yourself again if you dislike him and if so why. He loves Seattle. He loves Seattle sports. He cares. A lot of writers are just looking for the next big job and the next check. Here you had a writer that actually gave a crap and everybody wanted to run him out of town. Why? We can have multiple writers. At least he isn't Bob Finnigan. Now that guy sucked.

He was also the guy that wanted to trade Ken Griffey Jr for prospects after his rookie year! Idiot is he!

I have never liked Steve Kelley, I thought his writing sucked, his opinions were weak and he was, as many people have voiced already, was negative to be negative.

If you want to know what a dog this guy can be, read Breaks of the Game when he got in some of the Blazers ears that they were underpaid and then would cite "sources" that there was friction between the coaching staff and the players. The guy created news for a story, and helped destroy a possible powerhouse(that and Bill Walton's feet did that team in).

I love Jerry Brewer though even though I agree with him maybe 50% of the time, he's honest, humble and I've actually had some decent discussions with him. Steve Kelley was a relic who wrote fluff and built his arguments on faulty rhetoric and BS.