The unofficial online home for fans of the Old Dominion University Monarchs. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

They were part of the Pilot's recent layoffs.

I know Bob gets beat up here, but not having columnists at the local paper is not a good thing.

This is a terrible precedent.

Best of luck to both of them.

I honestly won't miss him.

Not being a d.ck, I just never cared for his articles.

Robinson, however, was a very good columnist.

Man, I hope that's not true. Always liked them both, especially Molinaro who saw things different Thant many and I appreciate that, since I do too!

I'm sorry to hear that and shocked they went for the columnists of all people

Bob M was a convenient punching bag for some of us as we were the same for him. Losing both of them will lessen the coverage of ODU Athletics as they reached an audience that we should be trying to convert.

Looks like it is true. All those years of service and bam, two weeks notice. No sports columnist now for the Pilot? Terrible.

(10-19-2014 06:51 AM)ODUR8R Wrote:  I'm sorry to hear that and shocked they went for the columnists of all people

Given my understanding that the primary economic challenge to the newsprint business is easily accessible internet content, I think it makes perfect sense for columnists to be the first to go. They essentially are little more than bloggers using a slower and more expensive medium.

If the V-P is going to survive as our leading local news source, it is the beat reporters who need to be protected, since they are in a position to create and deliver a product that the on-line community cannot replace (at least not yet).

I don't like anyone losing their jobs, but we always heard Molinaro was a dick because it brought people to the paper.

Clearly not.

Sad sad day. Not just for them, but for us lovers of an actual paper. The Pilot is a dying dinosaur whose days are numbered. It truly represents the end of an era. I loved Molinaro. He was provocative and insightful. In an era of sports excess and loss of perspective, he was a needed counterpoint. Wish him and Robinson nothing but the best.

When papers and writers started writing about their opinions vs researching and stating facts they lost their way. People don't want to be told what they think. They want the news and fact. Newspapers lost the news part and started promoting their own agendas.

(10-19-2014 10:27 AM)Mr.BigBlue Wrote:  When papers and writers started writing about their opinions vs researching and stating facts they lost their way. People don't want to be told what they think. They want the news and fact. Newspapers lost the news part and started promoting their own agendas.

I thought we were talking about the sports page and not the editorial page.

(10-19-2014 10:27 AM)Mr.BigBlue Wrote:  When papers and writers started writing about their opinions vs researching and stating facts they lost their way. People don't want to be told what they think. They want the news and fact. Newspapers lost the news part and started promoting their own agendas.

I don't agree. Newspapers in the United States have published opinion pieces dating back to the Colonial era. Much of what was published then was anti-government dissent and it played an important role in stirring the population to fight for our nation's freedom.

(10-19-2014 10:27 AM)Mr.BigBlue Wrote:  When papers and writers started writing about their opinions vs researching and stating facts they lost their way. People don't want to be told what they think. They want the news and fact. Newspapers lost the news part and started promoting their own agendas.

That is truth.
At one time, opinion was relegated to the editorial pages.

I am not by any means savvy as to the recent history of print media, but I know that in television, where I spent most of my career, we started seeing the change in the mid eighties; with the meteoric rise of UHF independents and subsequent UHF network affiliates.
The radio and television stations, which had been owned and operated by journalists and broadcasters, became commodities to be bought and sold by speculators.
This led largely to the change in television (and radio) philosophies, and the rise of sensationalism.

It became all about money, and little else. That is what drives the media now. Pride is a thing of the past and fact is often nothing more than an inconvenient happenstance.

(10-19-2014 11:03 AM)paintedblue Wrote:  

(10-19-2014 10:27 AM)Mr.BigBlue Wrote:  When papers and writers started writing about their opinions vs researching and stating facts they lost their way. People don't want to be told what they think. They want the news and fact. Newspapers lost the news part and started promoting their own agendas.

I don't agree. Newspapers in the United States have published opinion pieces dating back to the Colonial era. Much of what was published then was anti-government dissent and it played an important role in stirring the population to fight for our nation's freedom.

True. However in those days, the paper always stated that it was the opinion of that paper, and thus didn't usually weave opinion and bias into actual reporting that was presented as factual.

(10-19-2014 11:14 AM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  

(10-19-2014 11:03 AM)paintedblue Wrote:  

(10-19-2014 10:27 AM)Mr.BigBlue Wrote:  When papers and writers started writing about their opinions vs researching and stating facts they lost their way. People don't want to be told what they think. They want the news and fact. Newspapers lost the news part and started promoting their own agendas.

I don't agree. Newspapers in the United States have published opinion pieces dating back to the Colonial era. Much of what was published then was anti-government dissent and it played an important role in stirring the population to fight for our nation's freedom.

True. However in those days, the paper always stated that it was the opinion of that paper, and thus didn't usually weave opinion and bias into actual reporting that was presented as factual.

I agree that if a newspaper prints opinion it should be identified as such. If the idea is that news organizations (any media) should not present opinion as fact, I agree. I do think opinion should continue to have it's place in news media but I think a lot of people (readers and viewers) have a promblem of misconstruing opinion as fact, either intentionally or not. In my opinion the conversation is not germane to Robinson and Molinaro as they are columnists and are paid to write theirs.

There is the problem....too many columnists and not enough reporters.

You guys are having a discussion about the role of papers IN GENERAL. Molinaro never pretended to be a reported. He was a columnist, one that happened to write his opinion about the sports scene. No problem here with that. Let's not get all political about it.

(10-19-2014 01:48 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  You guys are having a discussion about the role of papers IN GENERAL. Molinaro never pretended to be a reported. He was a columnist, one that happened to write his opinion about the sports scene. No problem here with that. Let's not get all political about it.

Yeah we skewed the topic. Guilty as charged.
Molinaro and Robinson never represented themselves as anything other than writers of opinion.

I would speak more eloquently on this, but right now it's, well, a little too close to home

I would never root for anyone to lose a job but I will not miss him or his column. The Batten's opposed ODU bringing back football and even after they sold the paper he never dropped the party line. In general he was negative about college football and specifically all things ODU football. On a few occasions when I thought he went to far (think ODU won't win another game) I engaged in a little back and forth via email and found he was as he wrote. As it was a column/opinion he could write what he wanted but as a fan of the return of ODU football and a lover of college football in general I tired of reading it over, and over. I could, of course, drop the paper or not read what he wrote but as someone who grew up reading a daily paper old habits die hard and I was/am reluctant to give up that morning tradition. Again, I do not wish him ill but I will not miss him and ODU will have a brighter future without his constant negativity. Oh, and thankfully we will still have Harry covering ODU.

I tend to agree with ETSUDB8-79. Molinaro has always had a negative bent towards Old Dominion, most recently relative to the football program. I've always had the impression that he was not a happy person in general and his writing reflected that. As far as distinguishing between fact and opinion, his articles often confused the two. I won't miss his articles one bit.