U mad, bro? Readers angry about Chris Archer, Steelers coverage, pierogi sexism | TribLIVE.com
Breakfast With Benz

U mad, bro? Readers angry about Chris Archer, Steelers coverage, pierogi sexism

Tim Benz
1204266_web1_AP_19135729781152
AP
Pittsburgh Pirates starting pitcher Chris Archer walks off the mound after giving up three-run against the Arizona Diamondbacks during the top of the first inning of a baseball game in Phoenix, Wednesday, May 15, 2019.

You should be mad. Why? Because “U mad, bro” is late this week. And waiting a few extra days seems to have allowed some of your venom to bubble quite a bit. 

Follow along as readers pop off about Chris Archer, coverage of the Steelers and those sexist Pirates pierogies.


Here’s a Twitter exchange I had with someone about that City Paper story which suggested the Pirates pierogies were sexist because the female characters carry purses and wear makeup.

Yes, someone defended that stance.

Actually, I didn’t think the column was great copy. I think taking a macro topic deemed to be serious and affixing it to something as trivial as this is counterintuitive.

I think Jalapeno Hannah carrying a purse is a bit far afield from, you know, closing the pay gap.

Also, can I point out the irony of someone putting into writing that they “aren’t the right person” to tell me what offends them?

So you need someone else to decide what offends you on your behalf?

Folks, that may be the most accurate description of Twitter ever.


A few readers didn’t like the column I wrote which was critical of the social media activity of Bud Dupree and Terrell Edmunds. Dupree called a reporter “fat boy” on Twitter, while Edmunds “liked” Antonio Brown’s “two-face(d)” tweet that seemed to be about Ben Roethlisberger.

Here’s one of the responses.

Psst! Allow me to let you in on a little secret, “ManHawk.” It’s their main source of news.

That’s why the players comment on Twitter more than they do to us now.

If they want to use that crummy platform as their information source and avenue for message exchange, this is how it’s going to go whether you and I like it or not.


John isn’t exactly mad. But he feels as if I made an oversight when it comes to my hidden-ball trick story earlier this week.

That softball one was pretty sweet and had the added impact of being the last out, but I always remember the Miami Hurricanes as the best one ever. They also had the other players involved to sell it.

You may have me on this one, John. Also, that trick predated “Little Big League,” so it wasn’t life intimidating art.

Also, I should’ve included this video for two reasons:

1. Wichita State’s super smooth uniforms

2. The marvelous mustaches


Robert seems to think he should be the assignment editor here at the Trib. He sent this email to the entire sports department.

We’ve asked Antonio Brown and Le’Veon Bell to move on from the Steelers. I think it’s time fans and sportswriters moved on as well!!!!!

First of all, Robert, add one more exclamation point. You haven’t made yourself clear yet.

Secondly, I’m not sure Robert really understands how all of this has been working.

Who asked Brown and Bell to leave, exactly? The Steelers bent over backwards to smooth things over with Antonio Brown.

For years. And they threw more money — twice — at Bell than the Jets ended up giving him.

I’ll answer this gripe every time it comes up between now and the end of the season if I must.

Of the 25 stories I posted last week, four of the top six were about Brown, Bell and Terry-Bleepin’-Bradshaw. Don’t tell me Pittsburghers mean it when they say “out of sight out of mind.”

When you stop reading about Brown and Bell, I’ll stop writing about them. So far you haven’t. And I don’t blame you. With the way those two leveraged themselves out of Pittsburgh, you should be mad.

However, don’t try to sell me your passive-aggressive, jilted-bride-at-the-altar routine. The “I don’t even care about them anymore” psychobabble is so transparent.

Don’t act like you are above being ticked off, when you are. It’s a perfectly natural reaction.

Just don’t make it seem like it’s my job to help you get over it.


Uncle Mort is grumpy about the Chris Archer trade. And he wants me to meet his level of angst.

“Do you plan on writing something soon on how ‘great’ the deal was when the Pirates general manager ‘Neal Huntington’ stole pitcher Chris Archer and only had to give up a top outfielder, a top pitcher (Tyler Glasnow), and another top prospect (Shane Baz)? Just sayin!”

Mort, I saw your email this morning. About 18 hours after I recorded this.

Or you could go back to what I wrote when the trade happened, which was that I wouldn’t have included Meadows in any deal. And that was before Baz was being discussed.

You are building a strawman in lots of ways, Mort. Even the most fervent defenders of the Archer trade don’t go so far as to call it “a steal.” Everyone knew the Pirates gave Tampa a lot for Archer.

The Archer trade was always going to be judged on Archer’s effectiveness here more so than the exchange going out the door.

Now, to that end, you are right. Archer hasn’t been good enough.

Tim Benz is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tim at [email protected] or via Twitter. All tweets could be reposted. All emails are subject to publication unless specified otherwise.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.