People often conflate good writing or speaking with intelligent thought and analysis. One of the better examples of this is the columns of Jay Mariotti, sports writer for the Chicago Sun-Times. Mariotti possesses excellent skill as a writer. His columns are breezy and engaging, although Mariotti is sometimes overly preoccupied with style, especially trying to come up with catchy nicknames or turns of phrase. Many dislike Mariotti because they feel he writes only to be controversial and changes his columns according to the sports wind. While I think there is an element of truth in that criticism, I don't think it is strictly accurate. I think Mariotti's real weakness is that although he is technically a good writer, he is not a particularly good thinker or analyst. In fact, I find his reasoning and analysis to be often trite, shallow, knee-jerk, and/or simply sub par. It's almost never particularly insightful. Despite his reputation for controversy, he writes a number of columns where the essential point is something like, Tiger Woods is a great golfer. (I think he essentially has written that very column more than once.) When he does express stronger opinions, not only does his reasoning and analysis tend to be weak, but he appears to do little background research, often failing to mention facts highly relevant to the topic, or mentioning some facts without their proper context. (For example, he recently cited Cubs manager Lou Pinella's 125 roster lineups last year as exorbitant, but the fact is that while the number was above average, it was far from the high in either the National or American League.) His columns are essentially at the level of a bar conversation, albeit expressed in well-written prose.