Talk:Marty Brennaman

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 06:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Marty Brennaman bio -- family info not entirely accurate

The family info listed for Marty is not exactly correct. Sherri is NOT mother to Thom... if you check dates of birth, you would find this to be quite implausible. Thom (and I think Dawn, too, but I am not sure) are the product of Marty's earlier marriage. He married Sherri sometime after 1982, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.179.188 (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Please cite a reference from a reliable source. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversial comments

OK, folks, knock off the edit war over Marty's comments about the Cubs, or we'll have to lock down the article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Lock it down now with the comments removed entirely. How absurd to think such an event deserves a mention in an encyclopedia. My favorite team's broadcasters criticize other city's fans at least a couple times per month. 71.180.139.129 (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously there is absolutely no reason to have that Cubs fan comment on here. Or do we need to edit every radio announcers article anytime he comments on another teams fans? It was a minor, minor incident blown up by poor Cubs fans who had their feelings hurt and I think having that as the majority of his article takes away from the article as a whole.

His comments received considerable media interest and buzz, and ruffled the feathers of a large national fan base. Some people learned who Marty Brennaman is for the first time as a result of the exposure of the incident, and omitting the incident entirely from the article may indicate a lack of a Neutral POV.Beam1985 (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the concept of NPOV as it applies both on wikipedia and in other facets of life. The NPOV policy is not a guideline for determining the importance of a statement, nor is it a guideline that means that every last "good" or "bad" thing that a person has done is included in his biography in order to provide a "balanced" portrayal of that person. What NPOV means is that those items that are deemed important enough to include based on a variety of criteria are presented in a fair manner in which all important interpretations of that item are included and presented with neutral languange that betrays none of the biases of the wikipedia article author.

What we have hear is not an item worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Local announcers are responsible for keeping fans interested during their broadcasts, for drumming up enthusiasm for the home team, and stoking rivalries in order to keep their fans enganged throughout the season. A variety of methods are used to do this, and belittling the opoosing team and/or its fans may be part of this process. Many of these comments are relatively innocuous, while some come closer to the line of good taste, but the above poster is right that these kinds of comments are made all around and not unique to Mr. Brennaman. Ruffling the feathers of a "large national fan base" that quite frankly should not care about what one announcer for a competing team says anyway is hardly a claim to signifigance, as large national fan bases find dozens of things to get riled up about during any given week. Furthermore, your "national coverage" seems to come from local Chicago sources, blogs, and the like and not many important national news sources. I find no mention of it on epsn.com, si.com, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, or the New York Times, for example. Local papers, even those of national import, are going to focus on this because they like a little local incitement to sell copy. I have no idea whether any national television or radio outlets have picked up this "story", but, again, a little controversy is good for ratings. An encyclopedia is not ratings driven, however, and its editors need to put events in proper perspective. I had hoped wikipedia contributors could hold themselves to this standard, but on this page, regrettably it is currently looking like this is not the case. Indrian (talk)

While I respect your views in this matter, I must disagree with your opinion that the item isn't worthy of inclusion. I would like to point out that I never made any claim about any specifics of national media coverage, but here's 3 pages on the subject from Google News search results. The incident has been mentioned on ESPN. The originality of broadcasters making comments is irrelevant. 64.254.198.20 (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

MLB.com is used as a source in the article, which is a national source of baseball news. 64.254.198.20 (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion as well, but I do not take very seriously those who vandalize wikipedia as you did with your edits here [1] and here [2]. Indrian (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Question as to whether the additional remarks added about Pittsburgh are truly "controversial":

 Also that evening, Brennaman critiqued the Pittsburgh Pirates franchise by saying:

 "There's no light at the end of the tunnel for that franchise. There really isn't. I   
 don't think it has great ownership, I don't think it has great baseball expertise in   
 its front office, and is strapped for finances, which is probably the single biggest   
 problem. I feel bad for them. PNC Park is one of the fine ballparks in Major League  
 Baseball." [8]

Seems that the Pirates weren't doing well at that time, and the remarks seem quite general about the state of the franchise during that period. In other words, I may say the same things about my own favorite team if the circumstances were similar and they sucked.

In my opinion, I think this item should be deleted. Any thoughts? Yobbo14 (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• I largely agree, though I do have a question related to this that I do not know the answer to myself. Is it considered professional for an announcer to make this kind of commentary even when it is true? If convention is to not go there and Brennaman has a history of bucking that convention, it may be worth mentioning. Now, I don't think "Controversy" would be the right, unbiased heading for such a section, and I think the detail around the Pirates comment would be excessive, but it may be worth stating that Brennaman is more opinionated than many announcers and then briefly give a couple of examples. However, if there is no source that states Brennaman is unusual in his commentary, then I think this is all blown far out of proportion and the Pirate comment need not be mentioned at all. Indrian (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. I suppose it's a matter of opinion whether his remarks are professional or not. The late great Harry Caray was always quite colorful. Some were offended, and some considered it a charm. In looking at the leading details in this article and info about Brennaman's work with the Reds, I was surprised to see that nothing about his style of broadcasting is mentioned. His M.O. has always been to be critical of teams and/or players (including the Reds) when he believes his point is valid - and to give credit where it's due. I may add a few lines about this, since it would enlighten people about his style. Yobbo14 (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Went ahead and removed the remarks about the Pirates, as previously discussed. I didn't see any specific objections. Yobbo14 (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marty Brennaman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041121055221/http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/frick_bios/brennaman_marty.htm to http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/frick_bios/brennaman_marty.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)