Jump to content

Media & Accountability


BTH

Recommended Posts

Media & Accountability

Criticism of Criticism From Critics That Ought To Be Left In Critical Condition

Maybe the anti-Montreal fan/media critiques have gotten old... but last night I was thinking about Price and his biggest dickrider, Jack Todd, and how this situation can possibly play out.

I have always supported Price and believed that he was going to someday be an elite goaltender. For a year or two, it seemed like there was hardly a hockey enthusiast around who would have disagreed. Then came Halak. Unlike Price, Halak was not a high draft choice, hadn't been a star player all through his junior years and hadn't come to Montreal facing an unendurable wall of pressure. The underdog began to outplay the struggling hero and so the goalie controversy began. Fans and journalists complained that Price was being awarded starts based on reputation, that he was not being held to the same standard as his mild-mannered teammate. An outright war seemed to break out among fans: Price or Halak? One was a superstar, the other was lucky to be a back up. The only issue more important to us Habs fans was whether Bella from Twilight would wind up with the ghostly Edward or with Jacob, the hunky werewolf.

Players were attacked personally, boos were heard, blah blah blah. This is a story we all already know intimately. When Halak was traded to St. Louis, half the fan base felt like they had just lost the war they had been fighting for the past year or two. Even Jack Todd shut his mouth for a short while (though nothing would stop Red Fisher from ranting about the trade without actually bringing up any of the factors that Gauthier had to consider in making his decision). It was a time for Team Price-ers to celebrate their victory and Team Halak-ians to complain that Habs management is clueless and just made The Roy Trade 2.0.

Now we play the waiting game.

This is what I was thinking about last night as I watched Price steal a win against the Penguins. If Price bombs and Halak has a solid career with the Blues, it would suck for all Habs fans... except for Jack Todd and his like who will delight in the opportunity to say that they were right all along (whether by fluke or by insight). A couple of weeks ago, just after Price was booed in that first pre-season game, I saw a couple of guys on my Facebook news feed saying that they were rooting against the Habs until Price was gone, admitting that they "want him to fail so bad." Being upset with management's decision is one thing but rooting against a specific player because of your disappointment in the trade (or because you think the player in question sucks) takes things to another level, a personal level. This, however, only applies to a few extreme cases, and probably to nobody on this board.

But what if the trade turns out to be a great one? This is where things get interesting, isn't it? In this situation, all Canadiens fans should be happy. Will Todd and the extremists be disappointed or even embarrassed that they harassed and booed a young player over the span of years only to see him turn into an elite player and prove many of his articles to be the mean-spirited, self-promoting rantings of a gutless provocateur? I think not. I think that if Price turns into an elite goalie, Jack Todd will shrug his shoulders and say, "I've never been so glad to have been proven wrong! Price sure has matured an awful lot in these past seasons and showed up his critics," ignoring the fact that he was the critic (or the main voice in the press representing the critics) and that his contributions were nearly the cause behind ruining this player's career. Price was attacked personally on a regular basis by a so-called professional (the same "professional" who wrote an article bashing a leader and good guy like Gomez for being ugly) in articles that persuaded many fans to voice their displeasure for Price - which in turn caused a hell of a lot of stress on our player, not to mention the fact that it nearly (and still may) ruin his career (--> life) - and then he can shrug it off and he say he's happy he was wrong. I don't write this so that we can all feel bad for Price, however; the guy's a millionaire, young, handsome and is probably doing just fine even while facing so much pressure and so many detractors.

My question, instead, is: where is the accountability? Why should anyone bother to analyze decisions rationally when you can bitch, bitch, bitch about professionals trying their hardest and then never be held accountable when it turns out you were completely clueless? Why root for a team that may win or may lose when you can root for yourself and win all the time? By making life hell for your athletes, you can take pleasure in being right when you contribute to their crashing and burning or you can shrug it off and take pleasurable in them succeeding when they prove you wrong. Those of us who actually cheer for the players on our team don't have such luxuries.

I'm still confident that Price will be a top goalie in the NHL and I'm equally confident that Todd will shrug it off, praise Price's new-found maturity and Gauthier's foresight, and then move on to his next target without ever losing any credibility among the general public. Nobody will be held accountable for almost ruining an innocent humans career (even less so, if they actually succeed in doing it). Nobody will change the way they analyze hockey from then on. Nobody will lose their job, their credibility or even their mean streak.

It disappoints me that media coverage in general is so weak. The French media's crazy and the English media's dumb. The Gazette reports the news competently but also holds biases and doesn't offer much analysis beyond the most basic statistics. TSN has entertaining coverage but also relies on their analysts to be experts on all 30 NHL teams which is frankly impossible. As a result, they wind up talking out of their asses a lot of the time. Sportsnet is just pathetic. I was watching them the other day (don't ask) for about 10 minutes and in that time their experts were predicting the results for that nights games. The conversation went something like this when it came time to speak on the Pittsburgh-Montreal game:

"Pittsburgh is predicted to win this game."

"Ya think!? They lost their first game and are pumped up to get a win in their new building. Against Montreal, this is money in the bank for them." I can only hope that poor analyst didn't lose too much of his hard-earned cash last night.

I was amazed at how they spoke as if 1) Montreal was a bottom 5 team in the NHL and 2) whenever a good team plays a bad team, the good team has a 90% chance of winning, as if upsets rarely occur at the NHL level.

This is all a bit besides the point. I just find it kind of gross that experts aren't held to a higher standard than they are. They can spew whatever garbage they want and never worry about being wrong. I don't think this is only the case in hockey. I'm a bit of a cinema (amateur for the moment) expert and I see similar idiocy among the major mainstream media voices in that field as well. And then there's Fox News...

This post isn't targeted at someone like brobin who falls closer to Halak on the Price-Halak continuum. It's targeted at the boo birds and trolls like Todd who are constantly poisoning the Canadiens well. Journalists will blame the General Manager when he throws contracts worth millions at stars that refuse to come here, never acknowledging the fact that they're a major part of the reason why players will sometimes accept less money to avoid playing in Montreal. So ###### them. The best hockey analysis I've read has been by amateurs on message boards and blogs. So keep it up posters. For every troll like Todd let there be fifty of us billy goats gruff. :lol:

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited by BTH
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 to this BTH.

I've been wanting to write a post like this for a while, but I could never really articulate the way I wanted to.

Why do people take the 'experts' seriously when they are frequently incorrect. What bothers me is like you mentioned above, the drive by analysis, they say "the better team in the standings are going to win", instead of actually looking at what the so called underdog can do to win. I really like the sunday countdown crew for the NFL on ESPN, they rarely outright dismiss teams, they can say the game favours another but they actually do analysis, yes, I know it's not hockey, I was just using it as a comparission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love to see fans websites begin to track journalists and media coverage, write report cards on analysts daily performance etc.

They have the monopoly of the air, and despite the number of different media companies out there, there are hardly watching each others. They have a big part of the blame behind the unfair treatment Price gets. And obviously there's a part of fans that only feeds from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Green Day - American Idiot:

Don't want to be an American idiot.

One nation controlled by the media.

Information age of hysteria.

It's calling out to idiot America.

Welcome to a new kind of tension.

All across the alien nation.

Where everything isn't meant to be okay.

Television dreams of tomorrow.

We're not the ones who're meant to follow.

For that's enough to argue.

This is true of all media and the "experts" they employ. They are a businesses and the hysteria they shovel sells. All forms of media are meant to provoke thought not to tell us how to think. When we let people like Jack Todd tell us how how to think then we are in trouble. Media accountability is a thing of the past, welcome to the age of selling viewership.

I don't want to be a Canadian idiot.

LOL Jack Todd really hates Price.

Edited by Prime Minister Koivu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Green Day - American Idiot:

Don't want to be an American idiot.

One nation controlled by the media.

Information age of hysteria.

It's calling out to idiot America.

Welcome to a new kind of tension.

All across the alien nation.

Where everything isn't meant to be okay.

Television dreams of tomorrow.

We're not the ones who're meant to follow.

For that's enough to argue.

This is true of all media and the "experts" they employ. They are a businesses and the hysteria they shovel sells. All forms of media are meant to provoke thought not to tell us how to think. When we let people like Jack Todd tell us how how to think then we are in trouble. Media accountability is a thing of the past, welcome to the age of selling viewership.

I don't want to be a Canadian idiot.

LOL Jack Todd really hates Price.

Hey Guys,

First of all, kudos for BTH for an articulate post. However, and I know that this viewpoint won't be popular here, I see nothing wrong with Todd's writing and no evidence in the column quoted above that Todd hates Price. Todd is a journalist not a fan; yet even when he bashes Price he seems to be wishing that the kid was doing better. In the article above, his basic arguement is that all Price has to do to win over fans and qwell the media is win. I can't argue with that. I don't see his treatment of Price as any different than when he used to deride Patrice Brisebois as " breeze-by" a moniker that many here agreed with. I'm referring of course to PB's first incarnation of the team, not the second.

As to whether I was in the Price camp or the Halak camp, the answer is neither. I was hoping Price would have done better last year and I was ecstatic when Halak won. Now that Halak is gone, I wish him well--except when he plays against MTL-- but I don't really care about former Habs, my loyalty is to the team.

My main area of discontent is with FANS. As BTH rightly says, a real fan should cheer for the team and not get too caught up in whatever issue that they are actually committing the blasphemy of cheering against the Habs or any player on the team. If you are a fan cheer for team in good times and in bad. If not, then find another team. There is a difference between being critical of players and/or management and wishing them to fail. Even in the Dark Years of Reggie" I can't believe they made that trade" Houle, I never stopped hoping for the team to win. :hlogo: :clap: :hlogo: No matter what happens: whether Price becomes the second coming of Roy or the colossal blunder that sullies Gainey's reputation and costs Gautheir his job (I freverently hope for the former) I will always cheer for the team

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great thread!

PMAC, I think you're overlooking one basic problem: the media sets the terms for fan discourse. We cannot let the Todds of the world off the hook on the grounds that they're not responsible for fan attitudes. Quite the contrary. Most fans simply regurgitate the subjects and ideas spewed at them by media 'experts.' The media frame public discussion, and not just in sports either. So if fans are irrational and hysterical you need to inquire into what made them that way.

For instance, did the media offer an informed discussion of the Halak deal? Well, as BTH points out, Fisher wrote article after article attacking it without ever considering factors such as the cap. This does not contribute to informed discussion. It does the reverse. The wider national media did even less to examine the constraints that led to the decision.

The media commentators are generally NOT experts in analysis despite their labels. Pat Hickey is just some guy who knows how to meet a deadline; he is not an 'analyst.' Todd, while an entertaining journalist, has no hockey credentials whatsoever. I like Boone, but the same applies to him. These guys are just fans who happen to be journalists. Fisher is a legend, but now only a part-timer, and he stopped being insightful about 20 years ago. The TSN guys, as BTH says, are spread out over 30 teams, which makes serious analysis impossible by definition. RDS at least offers some useful Habs analysis (Joel Bouchard, Danny Dube, these guys are competent). But they are also infected with yahoos like Michel Bergeron or loveable-but-not-terribly-insightful perosnalities like Brunet and Demers.

Sad to say, but the place for real insight is the blogosphere. Consider Wamsley's brilliant dissection of Price's performance in Game One:

http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2010/10/...s-a-b-in-opener

THIS is what a really serious hockey journalist covering the Habs should be providing. SERIOUS engagement with the controversies of the day. There is something deeply perverse in a situation where the people who get paid to do this are routinely outclassed by engaged amateurs. But there it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent post, BTH. For the first time ever, I've actually linked a forum topic (this one) onto our Twitter page...congrats on being the first...if that's any sort of accomplishment to you. :D

Thanks. I didn't know there was a Twitter page but I'm following it now.

I know that this viewpoint won't be popular here, I see nothing wrong with Todd's writing and no evidence in the column quoted above that Todd hates Price. Todd is a journalist not a fan; yet even when he bashes Price he seems to be wishing that the kid was doing better. In the article above, his basic arguement is that all Price has to do to win over fans and qwell the media is win. I can't argue with that. I don't see his treatment of Price as any different than when he used to deride Patrice Brisebois as " breeze-by" a moniker that many here agreed with. I'm referring of course to PB's first incarnation of the team, not the second.

With Todd, the line between journalist and fan is blurred. Really, what's the difference other than occupation? Is his opinion worth more than that of the average guy off the street? I suppose so. But he still reacts to hockey emotionally and doesn't do much analysis beyond referring to wins, shutouts, save % and goals against average, useful stats but ones that are very easy for fans to find on their own.

I don't know if you've been reading his writing consistently over the past year or two but it's been much worse than this morning's article. Remember, this one was written immediately after a monster performance from Price (and notice that he still took his usual jab, calling the Toronto performance "decidedly so-so" even though Price was quite solid). Imagine what he'd write when Price is slumping.

The point however, is not that he has bashed Price's play. It's that he chooses victims (Brisebois, Don Matthews, Gainey, Tiger Woods) and makes it his mission in life to take every opportunity he can to reduce their credibility. He once wrote two articles in the same week saying the EXACT same thing: that the only reason that Price was in the NHL was because Gainey had a big ego and was trying to save his job, that Price was immature and deserved blame somehow for repeatedly being chosen over Halak as our starter, and, worst of all, that the Canadiens brass should get over themselves and send Price down to the AHL where he can work on his game. Two articles in a row! This is where I had to email Todd myself and inform him what every hockey journalist in the city should have already known: that Price would have to clear waivers in order to be sent to the minors. "You're right about the waivers thing, " he replied and never brought up the point again.

Bottom line: You can make your points without being a bully or a provocateur. Todd's criticism of public figures is excessive and often gets to a personal level. I can understand him criticizing Woods or Vick as a person (I still think it's stupid though) because they "screwed up" outside the workplace, in their personal lives. Attacking Gainey or Price or Brisebois personally because you aren't happy with their work, however, is totally different.

Sad to say, but the place for real insight is the blogosphere. Consider Wamsley's brilliant dissection of Price's performance in Game One:

http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2010/10/...s-a-b-in-opener

THIS is what a really serious hockey journalist covering the Habs should be providing. SERIOUS engagement with the controversies of the day. There is something deeply perverse in a situation where the people who get paid to do this are routinely outclassed by engaged amateurs. But there it is.

Exactly. Wamsley's posts on Price put every reporter in the business to shame. Apart from maybe Habs management, our goalie coaches, and a few scouts, Wamsley probably knows Price as well as anybody in the world, certainly better than anybody else that's sharing their analysis publicly. That type of in-depth analysis, with graphs and charts, references to technical terms like the V-H technique and "t-push," with links attached so that I was able to go learn about the terms I didn't understand, and with an analytical writing style in place of the typical emotional one employed by most columnists, is literally impossible to find on TV, the radio or in the newspaper.

dlbalr's cap sheet on this site is more detailed and accurate than the one on nhl.com (or anywhere else other than the private, official documents belonging to the Canadiens and the NHL). What does that tell you? He also has more knowledge of the CBA than anyone writing for the Gazette.

The quality of the writing in your post that you typed up for free in two minutes is better than any of the professional work I've ever seen in the newspaper, where paragraphs are kept to a maximum of two sentences.

Many fans agree with the pros without thought. Improve the quality of the media coverage and you improve the hockey IQ of the fans. It's a process I shall now dub "turning the sheep into billy goats gruff." :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many fans agree with the pros without thought. Improve the quality of the media coverage and you improve the hockey IQ of the fans. It's a process I shall now dub "turning the sheep into billy goats gruff." :)

Yes, but if they improve the quality of the media coverage and de facto the hockey IQ of the fans, some of them could realise that they could be able to steal their jobs... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All society took a hit when journalist decided to write the news instead of reporting it. Sports could be the worst offenders.

so true, sometimes TSN and some hockey blogs are such examples of this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we overrate the impact the media or the fans have on the players. You really think that Price is reading fan sites?

Sure, booing impacts them, but it usually comes as a result of the performance on the ice. If Price plays well, then the fans will love him. Simple as that.

I think the biggest issue last year (on boards like this) was Price fans who could not see or admit that Price was struggling and Halak wasn't. The team made a decision mid way through the season to go with Halak, and it was a good decision. It was not based on fan sites, media, or our views. it was based on the performance of the athletes on the ice.

In the off season, they made another decision, to keep Price and trade Halak. While we don't know if that will turn out to be a good call or not, I am pretty confidence that the views of Jack Todd are irrelevant.

Price will only get booed when he lays a stinker. People seem to ignore that they cheered more then they booed him in the preseason. I bet if that Pitts game was in Montreal they would have been chanting his name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack Todd loses his credibility with every newspaper subscription that is not renewed. Unfortunately, that's a team hit for the Gazette: people who make an honest living doing real journalism get adversely affected by consumers objecting to buffoons like Todd. So Stubbs and Hickey, who bust their butt off covering the team day in and day out, suffer because of Todd's ivory tower bitching.

There's a lot of value to the fan in what guys who follow the team for a living do. I know a lot of bloggers who just absolutely loathe the MSM writers, and vice versa... but I try and give guys the benefit of the doubt as a rule. It's the muckrakers like Todd and Cox that really... I don't understand the value they provide anymore. Why do they get any access? Why do they need it? They are after opinion, not news.

It'd be great if newspapers had thorough analysis sections like what Chris provides on Price. Honestly, they could employ Stubbs and Hickey to follow the team, get insight from the coaches and players, and then pay a guy to do extensive analysis that doesn't require him to follow the team at all. The Gazette has something like 6 different writers who do articles on the Habs... surely they can have one or two assigned to thought provoking analysis, not just off-hand opinion based on gut reaction.

The Stu Cowan article on the Habs' drafting record was another lazy piece of journalism. Lions in Winter did a great rebuttal of it.

Unfortunately, the newsroom is an old boys club and there hasn't been much change on that front. Hopefully guys like James Mirtle end up as the sports editors for major papers soon. But I think they're already too late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we overrate the impact the media or the fans have on the players. You really think that Price is reading fan sites?

Sure, booing impacts them, but it usually comes as a result of the performance on the ice. If Price plays well, then the fans will love him. Simple as that.

I think the biggest issue last year (on boards like this) was Price fans who could not see or admit that Price was struggling and Halak wasn't. The team made a decision mid way through the season to go with Halak, and it was a good decision. It was not based on fan sites, media, or our views. it was based on the performance of the athletes on the ice.

In the off season, they made another decision, to keep Price and trade Halak. While we don't know if that will turn out to be a good call or not, I am pretty confidence that the views of Jack Todd are irrelevant.

Price will only get booed when he lays a stinker. People seem to ignore that they cheered more then they booed him in the preseason. I bet if that Pitts game was in Montreal they would have been chanting his name.

The controversy represented both ends of the spectrum for the Price and Halak sides.

Bias leads to nonsense like Todd presents daily.

I don't really think Price was struggling, I mean his SV% on the season was the league average. Goalie's World did a goal by goal

breakdown and hot/average/cold breakdown per game and Price and Halak were almost even. The problem was that Price's meltdowns were massive.

There were plenty of factors that made it seem that there was a huge divide between the two and when the playoffs were added it seemed

like an easy decision. When strength of schedule, goal support etc were added they were a lot closer than it seemed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is true of all media and the "experts" they employ. They are a businesses and the hysteria they shovel sells. All forms of media are meant to provoke thought not to tell us how to think. When we let people like Jack Todd tell us how how to think then we are in trouble. Media accountability is a thing of the past, welcome to the age of selling viewership.

I don't want to be a Canadian idiot.

LOL Jack Todd really hates Price.

I disagree with you on that one. True that Todd has been tough on Price, but the link you posted to Todd's article was actually decent. I thought he was pretty fair with Price... Todd even went to say: " The Penguins were gunning for the insurance goal, the Habs weren't doing much and Price was about to get hung with a loss he didn't deserve."

Now if that isn't an acurate portrayal of the game with 2 and a half minutes to go, i don't know what is?!?!

I've always liked Price, even when Halak stole his job. I was one of the few who didn't really pick a side in the Halak/Price debate. I liked both guys, and I wanted the best man to play and to lead OUR TEAM to the holy grail. Halak outperformed Price last season, and deserved his playing time. Halak is gone, there's nothing we can do about it now, so Price is my man once again. I hope saturday's win in Pittsburgh will help with his confidence.

As far as the media is concerned, yes, there are a shitload of idiots out there, but there are some good reporters/media members as well.

François Gagnon (LaPresse, RDS, Team 990), Randy Tieman (CFCF Sports, Team 990), John Lu (TSN), Marc-Antoine Godin (LaPresse), Andie Bennett (Team 990), Bob Mackenzie (TSN), and yes, even Pierre McGuire. He might be a little excentric, but he knows his shit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point isn't that I think Todd is a horrible journalist. It's that I think (sports) journalist is one of the few jobs where incompetence goes almost completely unpunished. If a teacher can't control the class, he/she may lose his/her job. If a car salesman can't make any sales, he'll go out of business. If a hockey goalie can't stop the puck, he'll be benched and publicly criticized. But if Red Fisher's pre-season predictions turn out to be completely off, or if his stories of the past are completely irrelevant, or if his analysis of trades is totally worthless or if he rewrites the same article on the shootout every 3 weeks, none of it will make a difference. What are they going to do, fire him? IF Todd turns out to be 100% incorrect about everything he's ever said about Price, is he going to face any consequences at all? Will his career be in jeopardy the way Carey Price's would be if he constantly guesses incorrectly on breakaways? NO ACCOUNTABILITY.

I think we overrate the impact the media or the fans have on the players. You really think that Price is reading fan sites?

Sure, booing impacts them, but it usually comes as a result of the performance on the ice. If Price plays well, then the fans will love him. Simple as that.

I think the biggest issue last year (on boards like this) was Price fans who could not see or admit that Price was struggling and Halak wasn't. The team made a decision mid way through the season to go with Halak, and it was a good decision. It was not based on fan sites, media, or our views. it was based on the performance of the athletes on the ice.

In the off season, they made another decision, to keep Price and trade Halak. While we don't know if that will turn out to be a good call or not, I am pretty confidence that the views of Jack Todd are irrelevant.

Price will only get booed when he lays a stinker. People seem to ignore that they cheered more then they booed him in the preseason. I bet if that Pitts game was in Montreal they would have been chanting his name.

I think Todd (and the Gazette in general which has been slightly anti-Price) has had plenty of influence. I don't know if you live here or not, but Price is a bit of inside joke in the city. People who don't follow hockey still know that Halak rocks, Price sucks, Gainey sucks and Don Cherry wears funny suits. Virgin Radio is doing a contest where people have to guess the mystery celebrity voices. The other day somebody guessed that the final voice was Price. The answer was: "Nope. We said that the final voice wasn't an athlete. But then again, some people wouldn't consider Carey Price an athlete." That's the typical sort of comment you hear and it doesn't stem from Price being an awful goalie, it stems from Todd.

saskhab, yeah that article sucked big time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as the media is concerned, yes, there are a shitload of idiots out there, but there are some good reporters/media members as well.

François Gagnon (LaPresse, RDS, Team 990), Randy Tieman (CFCF Sports, Team 990), John Lu (TSN), Marc-Antoine Godin (LaPresse), Andie Bennett (Team 990), Bob Mackenzie (TSN), and yes, even Pierre McGuire. He might be a little excentric, but he knows his shit!

As-tu lu le dernier François Gagnon ? Si c'est pas du beau journalisme de caca, je me demande ce que c'est : http://www.cyberpresse.ca/sports/hockey/20...88_section_POS1 !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen:

With all respect, this kind of discussion is what this forum has been lacking... an articulate, well reasoned discussion that has not degenerated into name caliing and stupidity.

And before I forget: @@!*&(()!@@^%$#!! to all of you who don't accept my brilliant opinion as fact :rolleyes:

CC, great reply. My responses are imbedded below, in a larger font--for ease of reading not emphasis.

Great thread!

PMAC, I think you're overlooking one basic problem: the media sets the terms for fan discourse. We cannot let the Todds of the world off the hook on the grounds that they're not responsible for fan attitudes. Quite the contrary. Most fans simply regurgitate the subjects and ideas spewed at them by media 'experts.' The media frame public discussion, and not just in sports either. So if fans are irrational and hysterical you need to inquire into what made them that way.

Stupidity, lack of education, the inability, or lack of inclination, to think critically or rationally? Failures of the educational system?

Too much lead in the water supply? The possibilities are endless....

I don't buy the " public ignorance is the media's fault" arguement. It is simply that uncritically accepting mainstream media's offerings on any subject is seldom a good idea.

For instance, did the media offer an informed discussion of the Halak deal? Well, as BTH points out, Fisher wrote article after article attacking it without ever considering factors such as the cap. This does not contribute to informed discussion. It does the reverse. The wider national media did even less to examine the constraints that led to the decision.

The truth is that despite cap considerations the Habs could have chosen Halak, but didn't. Fisher like Todd does not like the idea that Price's potential was seemingly chosen over Halak's performance.

The media commentators are generally NOT experts in analysis despite their labels. Pat Hickey is just some guy who knows how to meet a deadline; he is not an 'analyst.' Todd, while an entertaining journalist, has no hockey credentials whatsoever. I like Boone, but the same applies to him. These guys are just fans who happen to be journalists. Fisher is a legend, but now only a part-timer, and he stopped being insightful about 20 years ago. The TSN guys, as BTH says, are spread out over 30 teams, which makes serious analysis impossible by definition. RDS at least offers some useful Habs analysis (Joel Bouchard, Danny Dube, these guys are competent). But they are also infected with yahoos like Michel Bergeron or loveable-but-not-terribly-insightful perosnalities like Brunet and Demers.

I can't argue with your analysis except to say that following a hockey team for 20 years Todd, 25 + Hickey and since some time just after God created hockey (Fisher) ought to provide some insight. I' m not going to defend Todd or Hickey (and I'm not sure how Zeke Herbowksy keeps his job covering the Als or the Habs) but Fisher although in decline is an amazing hockey mind and perhaps the best Hockey journalist ever. IMHO, he deserves respect for his accomplishments even though he seldom hits the heights these days.

My main beef is with the Gazette for its poor coverage--slow and lacking depth- on all sports. In fact, for analysis of the CFL or NHL I much prefer --shock, horror, the Globe and Mail.

Sad to say, but the place for real insight is the blogosphere. Consider Wamsley's brilliant dissection of Price's performance in Game One:

http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2010/10/...s-a-b-in-opener

THIS is what a really serious hockey journalist covering the Habs should be providing. SERIOUS engagement with the controversies of the day. There is something deeply perverse in a situation where the people who get paid to do this are routinely outclassed by engaged amateurs. But there it is.

:clap:Unfortunately, however, like Fisher in decline, most blogs do not often hit the heights noted above. One of the reasons that I value Habsworld so much is that many of the contributors do offer thoughtful, well reasoned and insightful commentary.

:clap: :hlogo: :clap:

Edited by PMAC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen:

With all respect, this kind of discussion is what this forum has been lacking... an articulate, well reasoned discussion that has not degenerated into name caliing and stupidity.

And before I forget: @@!*&(()!@@^%$#!! to all of you who don't accept my brilliant opinion as fact :rolleyes:

CC, great reply. My responses are imbedded below, in a larger font--for ease of reading not emphasis.

:clap:Unfortunately, however, like Fisher in decline, most blogs do not often hit the heights noted above. One of the reasons that I value Habsworld so much is that many of the contributors do offer thoughtful, well reasoned and insightful commentary.

:clap: :hlogo: :clap:

The problem with this is that you are not holding Fisher accountable for what he is today. It would be like the Habs giving Patrick Roy the starting goaltender job because of what he did 15 years ago.

Red Fisher is 85 years old! Do you think he is willing to spend time re-watching film to get it right? Do you think he knows what Corsi is? Offensive zone starts? The Salary cap? Twitter? Facebook? a Blackberry? Do you think he knows anything about the technical revolution that has changed the face of goaltending? No, he probably goes and sits in the same seat he has for the last 50 years, watches the game absorbs what he sees and spits out his opinion just like he always has.

Sports reporting is drastically changing. It is not about having a journalism degree anymore. It doesn't matter if your prose or grammar are correct. It is changing into knowledgeable individuals breaking down the game and destroying sacred cows of laziness. You can't toss out your opinion in a paper and ignore the backlash anymore. With messageboards and comments sections your under researched, under informed bias filled opinion can be destroyed instantly.

There is a reason why newspapers are going #### up and that is because they were bloated advertising sections who had lost their way. Like mentioned earlier, they have morphed from reporting news to creating news in order to increase circulation. 25 years ago a paper like the National Enquirer was mocked for it's sensationalism, now US, People, etc are the largest selling magazines in North America.

It is why traditional media continually bash the blogosphere. If you had a job where you didn't have to push the envelope and you were handed free tickets and access to players and management and you could mail in an uninspiring column, would you reject the notion of somebody destroying your opinion through hard work and research? Of course you would because you have spent the past two decades working in your comfort zone. So their personal lifestyle agenda mocks those showing them up as amateur because they don't have credentials or a journalism degree.

Like BTH says in any other profession hungry kids chomping at the bit with fresh ideas and unique perspectives would move in and replace the older generation. They are bashing down the door and the old generation refuses to A. raise the level of their game or B. retire. They are not accountable for their lazy ideas and stale view of hockey and are entrenched in their positions. It is like they have life tenure.

That is great that Red Fisher thinks that you shouldn't keep potential over actual performance, but that would mean you should trade PK Subban for Kris Letang or Ryan Whitney as well.

Talk to an 85 year old man about war, politics, family values, technology, racial tolerance, a woman's role and tell me how much of their viewpoint you can relate to. How much of their viewpoints will be antiquated. I respected my grandfather dearly but at 85 not only was his memory a shadow of what it was 20 years earlier but he was caught in a different era. The Net generation is a different animal to a senior citizen and something they fail to grasp.

Red Fisher is a legend and I still enjoy listening to him wax poetic about Canadiens history, but his opinions hold zero relevance or insight in 2010.

Edited by Wamsley01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow eh, thats quite the article Jack Todd wrote.

From that article I can only imagine that if the Habs had have beat the Flyers and then beat the Blackhawks in 5 games to win the Cup he'd be bitching that the Habs didnt sweep them. Apparently he needs some of what Wisniewski was doing. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all respect, you couldn't be more wrong than if you were Reggie Houle making a trade.

The problem with this is that you are not holding Fisher accountable for what he is today. It would be like the Habs giving Patrick Roy the starting goaltender job because of what he did 15 years ago.

Mental activity is not the same as physical ability. That is why some of us ( and I hope to include myself in this category in the future) develop wisdom as we grow older.

Red Fisher is 85 years old! Do you think he is willing to spend time re-watching film to get it right? Do you think he knows what Corsi is? Offensive zone starts? The Salary cap? Twitter? Facebook? a Blackberry? Do you think he knows anything about the technical revolution that has changed the face of goaltending? No, he probably goes and sits in the same seat he has for the last 50 years, watches the game absorbs what he sees and spits out his opinion just like he always has.

Again, and I might be revealling my age, but I don't think that using facebook, twitter or a Blackberry produces better writing or analysis. To be fair, how many of Fisher's fellow journalists, regardless of affiliation, know about the this technical revolution in goaltending or could write coherently about it if they did?

What is wrong with writing one's opinion based on one's live experience of an event?

Sports reporting is drastically changing. It is not about having a journalism degree anymore. It doesn't matter if your prose or grammar are correct. It is changing into knowledgeable individuals breaking down the game and destroying sacred cows of laziness. You can't toss out your opinion in a paper and ignore the backlash anymore. With messageboards and comments sections your under researched, under informed bias filled opinion can be destroyed instantly.

It should matter. If it doesn't how can we decode the message? Most of the posts I see on message boards -- this one excepted-- or in response to a journalist's efforts could be replicated by a chimpanzee of average intellect.

There is a reason why newspapers are going #### up and that is because they were bloated advertising sections who had lost their way. Like mentioned earlier, they have morphed from reporting news to creating news in order to increase circulation. 25 years ago a paper like the National Enquirer was mocked for it's sensationalism, now US, People, etc are the largest selling magazines in North America.

I think that is a comment better reserved for a discussion of the decline and fall of the American Empire. Like all media, newspapers are adapting to new ways of communicating. Those that manage to learn how to make a profit in the new context will thrive, see Globe and Mail-- Toronto; while those that cling to antiquated ways of doing things will fall into decline and possibly fail, see Gazette--Montreal.

It is why traditional media continually bash the blogosphere. If you had a job where you didn't have to push the envelope and you were handed free tickets and access to players and management and you could mail in an uninspiring column, would you reject the notion of somebody destroying your opinion through hard work and research? Of course you would because you have spent the past two decades working in your comfort zone. So their personal lifestyle agenda mocks those showing them up as amateur because they don't have credentials or a journalism degree.

I just don't get your love affair with the blogosphere. With a few shining exceptions, I find blogs to be ego driven, innane, poorly written POS. Admittedly, I find a lot of so-called " journalists" to be the same. See: Sportsnet, except Jim Lang occaisionally; Al Strachan-- if that hack is still writing; most of the goons at Tsn except McKenzine

Like BTH says in any other profession hungry kids chomping at the bit with fresh ideas and unique perspectives would move in and replace the older generation. They are bashing down the door and the old generation refuses to A. raise the level of their game or B. retire. They are not accountable for their lazy ideas and stale view of hockey and are entrenched in their positions. It is like they have life tenure.

Fisher is employed by the Gazette because people pay to read him. Editors generally have no problems getting rid of those who do not serve the purpose of selling papers or attracting customers to the website.

That is great that Red Fisher thinks that you shouldn't keep potential over actual performance, but that would mean you should trade PK Subban for Kris Letang or Ryan Whitney as well.

I shouldn' t comment on a comment so ridiculous that is obvious overstatement to emphasize a point, but I will-- your examples are ridiculous. There are a lot of people, including the GM in St L, that believe that Halak can be an elite goaltender-- maybe they are right. I' ll let you know in 5 years which goalie MTL should have kept. Until then, it is silly to critisize Fisher for wanting to keep Halak--he might be right-- I reallly hope not.

Talk to an 85 year old man about war, politics, family values, technology, racial tolerance, a woman's role and tell me how much of their viewpoint you can relate to. How much of their viewpoints will be antiquated. I respected my grandfather dearly but at 85 not only was his memory a shadow of what it was 20 years earlier but he was caught in a different era. The Net generation is a different animal to a senior citizen and something they fail to grasp.

Red Fisher is a legend and I still enjoy listening to him wax poetic about Canadiens history, but his opinions hold zero relevance or insight in 2010.

Again, ridiculous to dismiss the commentary of a highly articulate commentator just because of his age. His most recent article HIO: Habs hopes ride on Price was an example of a well written position piece. I sincerely hope and pray he is wrong-- and I may not agree with him-- but that does not mean the analysis or the writing is weak

[/quote/]

To conclude, I generally think your contributions to the board are strong and worthwhile reading, but on this particular topic, perhaps we should just agree to disagree. I look forward to your response.

:clap: :hlogo: :clap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

85 year old men CANNOT relate to 20-40 year olds that have grown up with a computer and look at the world in an entirely different fashion. It is a generation disconnect on a million levels, from holding Patrick Roy to the standard of the previous dynasties and wanting to deny him his enshrinement when he is the connecting point for a WHOLE generation of habs fans born between 1972-1982. Fans that were just young enough to miss the Lafleur dynasty and their whole link to glory was Patrick Roy.

Twitter doesn't make you a better writer but it represents the current generation, a generation that those over 50 struggle to understand. A generation who has access to information that Red Fisher did not before and ignores today. Information that offers up proof that a lot of the sacred cows he believes in are wrong.

My guess is that you are basing your rebuttal on emotion because of age bias. If you think the blogosphere is ego driven, explain to me Jack Todd's nonsensical daily rants. That isn't ego? Fisher wanting to deny Roy his banner because it doesn't fit his mold of what should be honoured? That is self absorbed and egotistical. If you want to find quality blogs, they are there.

I have learned more in the last 5 years from blogs/messageboards than I did in the previous 25 years from any newspaper, magazine or television show.

Live in the past, get left behind. Simple as that.

Edited by Wamsley01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting response. I respond to your post in detail with examples and you accuse me of an emotional response based on bias.

One example-- what exactly is this " information that Red Fisher did not before and ignores today. Information that offers up proof that a lot of the sacred cows he believes in are wrong". Can you offer me one concrete example to support this assertion?

" Fisher wanting to deny Roy his banner because it doesn't fit his mold of what should be honoured? That is self absorbed and egotistical" .

No, that is believing -- on the experience of a lifetime-- that one does not tell off the president of the Montreal Canadiens and get your jersey retired.

" If you want to find quality blogs, they are there". Name one.

"I have learned more in the last 5 years from blogs/messageboards than I did in the previous 25 years from any newspaper, magazine or television show".

Really? Given the wideopen nature of the Internet and the fact that anyone can write a blog how do you know that all of your learning was accurate or based on facts rather than opinion. That's not to say that mainstream media are infalliable, merely that they have more resources to check facts and a lot more exposure to litigation.

BTW, I didn't say that younger writers weren't competent. I believe that Sean Gordon and James Mirtle are entertaining as informative. I was questioning your mentioning of the mode of communication as being paramount-- not the competency or incompetency of anyone based on age. Your primary argument seems to be " Fisher is old; therefore, he cannot relate to the young. Do you also belive that Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama are irrelevant to the computer generation because they are much older?

If you examine the discussion, there is one person demonstrating age bias and it isn't me.

As I said, agree to disagree.

Pax

:clap: :hlogo: :clap:

85 year old men CANNOT relate to 20-40 year olds that have grown up with a computer and look at the world in an entirely different fashion. It is a generation disconnect on a million levels, from holding Patrick Roy to the standard of the previous dynasties and wanting to deny him his enshrinement when he is the connecting point for a WHOLE generation of habs fans born between 1972-1982. Fans that were just young enough to miss the Lafleur dynasty and their whole link to glory was Patrick Roy.

Twitter doesn't make you a better writer but it represents the current generation, a generation that those over 50 struggle to understand. A generation who has access to information that Red Fisher did not before and ignores today. Information that offers up proof that a lot of the sacred cows he believes in are wrong.

My guess is that you are basing your rebuttal on emotion because of age bias. If you think the blogosphere is ego driven, explain to me Jack Todd's nonsensical daily rants. That isn't ego? Fisher wanting to deny Roy his banner because it doesn't fit his mold of what should be honoured? That is self absorbed and egotistical. If you want to find quality blogs, they are there.

I have learned more in the last 5 years from blogs/messageboards than I did in the previous 25 years from any newspaper, magazine or television show.

Live in the past, get left behind. Simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...