Tim Sullivan fired from the U-T for not being "positive"

Tim Sullivan's Dismissal From San Diego Union-Tribune Draws Strong Media Response
Published June 4, 2012

Plenty of folks are "upset at the San Diego Union-Tribune for booting out popular long-time columnist Tim Sullivan” on Friday, according to Ed Sherman of SHERMANREPORT.com. Sullivan wrote on his Twitter feed, “(Friday) marks the end of my 10 years with the Union-Tribune. Thanks to all who have offered their insight, their time and their readership.” He added, “I was reporting a column this afternoon when I was notified my services were no longer required” (SHERMANREPORT.com, 6/2).

NOT ENOUGH CHEER? In Cincinnati, Paul Daugherty writes Sullivan was fired "apparently because ownership at the San Diego Union Tribune didn't think Sully was 'positive' enough regarding the local sports teams." Daugherty writes, "It's not a columnist's job to be 'positive.' That's why we have chambers of commerce. ... To dismiss a capable opinion writer for writing his opinion is egregious and dangerous" (CINCINNATI.com, 6/4). In California, Jay Paris wrote Sullivan is "not only a keen writer, but among the better guys in our business" (NCTIMES.com, 6/3).

TWITTER REAX: Several members of the media took to Twitter to offer their opinions. Fox Sports’ Ken Rosenthal said, “I’m biased, Tim Sullivan is my friend. But I will say this -- it is insane that the San Diego U-T let him go. He is a brilliant columnist.” Yahoo Sports’ Tim Brown: “TimSullivan714 is one of the most talented, decent and intelligent columnists in the country. What a thing.” The Buffalo News' Jerry Sullivan: "Tim was fired from job as sports columnist at the Union-Tribune in San Diego. Word is, because he wouldn't be a cheerleader for new stadium. Tim Sullivan was my mentor at Missouri and the man mainly responsible for me taking journalism seriously when I was a kid. I'm proud of him." The Cleveland Plain Dealer's Bill Livingston: "All best to Tim Sullivan, late of the SD Union-Tribune, an excellent sports columnist who deserved far better." FoxSports.com's Tracy Ringolsby: "Too bad newspaper owners aren't as committed to good product as they demand from teams. SD Union Trib is a farce, laying off Tim Sullivan."

This is unfortunate. Just because their agenda agrees with my personal agenda, that does not make me like the idea of the media having an agenda.

I was just thinking last week that the senior sport writers room was getting crowded with Acee's promotion.

Which is why they should have canned that d-bag Canepa

When did Murdoch buy the U-T?

As much as I enjoy a headline like: "Tim Sullivan fired from the U-T for not being 'positive'"
I can't help but wonder whether it's smart to run with Paul Daugherty's out-of-his-@ss
straw man nonsense about TS "...not being 'positive' enough regarding the local sports teams"
(and his deft, bold swatting swatting down of the imaginary foe with "It's not a columnist's job to be 'positive.'" Duh!)

Besides pointing out that there is zero evidence offered for that explanation,
one could add that even Sullivan's own four guesses (certainly not definitive truth, anyway)
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblo.../04/tim-sullivan-tells-his-side-of-the-story/
do not say anything about being positive re. the local teams.

In short, for those who want to believe that TS was sinisterly sacked for being some kind of Woodward-esque
journalistic truth-teller, fighting to tell the ugly truth about San Diego's teams, in a way the local
rag just can't tolerate, this story is--aside from the absolute absence of evidence--a gift turd. Enjoy.
For those that care about facts and stuff, it may be a while before we know why Sullivan was let go.

Did you have a point to make, Lance?........ not sure what you're trying to say here.

Did Sullivan write or doing something worthy of being fired after 10 years?....... I must've missed it. I've yet to hear of anything to warrant his dismissal. The "not on board" with the stadium push seems as likely as an explanation as any I've seen. It hardly appears to be baseless speculation.

Sorry. Thought I was pretty clear: The headline of this thread reads as a fact.
But upon inspection, the "positive" refers back only to utter speculation,
and total speculation about "the local sports teams" at that...
(Daugherty clearly isn't addressing the stadium issue with his "positive" remark).

So we have a headline--stated as fact--that is about as unsupported by fact as it could be.

p.s.: This is evidently my 500th post...I'm giddy imagining what my prize might be!

p.p.s. I sincerely hope it's great (eye) news for Fred today...

I will really miss Tim Sullivan which was the main reason I subscribed to the UT. This paper has really gone down and down the last few years.

1. The "positive" remark did apply to putting the push for a new stadium in a favorable light. Headlines are by their nature, a tease, rather than the whole story.

2. You will be gifted a meaningless trophy.

3. Good news, if a $1,500 surgery can be viewed as a positive.

1. You know you're just making that up.

2. I'll take any trophy I can get (the only ones I have are from "Everybody Gets A Trophy" Day)

3. You know that I'd have jumped at the $1,500 option...not even UCLA could rescue my Pocket Deity's left eye.
So, yes, if the surgery works, I'd call that very good news.
(though, I would have to add, that he rocked it, hard, for the final 6 years, with just one)

1. I made up the headline, so I know what I was thinking....... do you?

2. They give a bunch of those out around here, so you're in luck.

3. I'm sure you would've. I didn't see the point of going through the same procedure he already had with the other vet, and hoping for a different result. Why prolong his discomfort?

Can we get you two a Suite at a Holiday Inn maybe ????????

From what I have heard he was fired for not toting the company line for a new stadium, since the new ownership for the UT is a land developer and wants to be part of the new stadium project, while Sullivan wasn't going out and advocating for public money to be used like his boss wanted.

Maybe that is wrong, but that is what I heard

All news papers have been going down for years. The print media will not last much longer. It is much cheaper to upload that same content to a website, than it is to pay for the paper, the printers, and the people to run the printers and deliver the papers.

Tell that to Warren Buffett. He certainly seems interested in maintaining the printed paper.

Damn call me old school but when I get home from work I love to grab a beer & sit down with that paper in my hand!

One small problem..... nobody has found a way to make online newspapers profitable. People are used to getting free access to news on the web. Charging for online content has been problematic.

Trying to revive something, is different that taking a look at the direction the entire industry has gone in the last 10+ years. There may be a few that are able to survive, but most have been dying a slow death

Very true. News papers are stuck between a rock and a hard place

Yeah, but papers never made their money off of the 25 cents they charged for a paper. That was basically a break even point for them. They make their money of the advertisers. As advertisers realize that less people are reading papers (by declining subscriptions and distribution) they are going to other sources to spend their marketing dollars. So they don't need to worry about charging for access to the content, they need to worry about making their content attractive enough to increase clicks. More clicks, more advertisers paying to be on your page.

I'll back Warren Buffet's $$ over your opinion.

25 cents?......... you obviously haven't bought a newspaper in a couple decades.

It isn't my opinion, it is the fact that news papers aroundt he nation have been dropping like flies for the last 10+ years. Most big cities had 2-4 papers 20 years ago, most of those cities only have 1 remaining

So they're streamlining. Buffet wouldn't back paper if it's going to disappear entirely. As Blue Bolt said, plenty of folks won't pay to read a paper online - period.


I'm well aware that newspapers have gone out of business - as have car companies, railroad lines, restaurants, mortuaries - name it. For the foreseeable future, there will be a niche for a physical newspaper that you can hold, fold, & use to wrap fish.

If you want to ignore reality, fine. But the fact is, the newspaper business is disappearing nation wide

I think what we're likely to see is the death of the "local paper" and growth of "national papers". The ability of advertisers to market their products to large segments of the population, online and otherwise, is clearly valuable. The impact for local businesses to market themselves is negligable (local businesses rely on repeat/referral business) from papers, and so I imagine you'll see those advertising dollars dry up.

The answer is, you're both right, Newspapers are going away, but there will always be physical Newspapers (even if it's the same 4 or 5 across the country) on the stands.

I don't see what was so hard to understand about Lance's post. One sports columnist's opinion does not make something so. I think adding a question mark to the end of the headline would probably have been a more accurate reflection of the story. Hopefully, as time goes by, we'll learn more about why Sullivan was fired. Until then, it's all just conjecture.

You don't find it odd that a a good columnist with 10 years experience at the paper is suddenly fired without any explanation? Whatever we do find out, it won't be from the U-T.

Who cares? The UT is a business. If an employee isn't looking out for the boss's bottom line business interests, then he's not going to have a job. You have a right in America to freedom of speech, which includes the right to not say anything at all. You don't have a right to work, however, and if the UT management decided that continuing to employ Sullivan was no longer in their best interests, then of course they let him go.

Step back from the moral outrage and realize that this is the real world.

Who cares?..... I don't know, maybe the people who read and enjoyed his column perhaps. How's that for a notion?

Sullivan was one of the few at that ****** rag of a paper who could actually write.