Jump to content

Media & Accountability


BTH

Recommended Posts

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:

How old are you? That will likely determine the stance you are taking. That is the bias I refer to. If you are less than 40, then my bias remark is wrong. If you are 50+ then I think the main basis of your argument is based on your age and your emotional attachment to the man and not his recent body of work.

As for Mandela and the Dalai Lama, their experience and wisdom lies in universal terms of understanding, acceptance, forgiveness, passion etc. Fisher doesn't display that type of maturity or wisdom. Mandela sits in a prison for 30 years and forgives his captors, Fisher's prose helps deify Roy for his competitiveness and cockiness and then strings him up for displaying those same traits because they ran contradictory towards the CH (does it even matter that Roy was right and the Habs have been mediocre for 15 years?). I don't see any understanding, forgiveness or acceptance of what made that man a hero to a generation that Red doesn't care about.

I don't understand why a writer is immune to a prime. Why they don't have a best before date. Everybody has their prime, a time in which they hold the pulse of the culture. They understand what people care about, they understand what makes them tick and what interests them. Musical artists, writers, TV personalities etc hit the sweet spot of a moment in time. Even though they may become technically more proficient and wiser they lose touch with their audience as their audience shifts. Not many artists can maintain cultural signifigance as they age, what happens is as they age, their peers move forward with them.

A Rolling Stones concert in 1970 had 25 year olds, in 1980 35 year olds, in 2010 it is mostly 65 year olds. Their connection is not severed with that generation, it moves with them. Why? Because that is the only generation that they remain relevant to, that generation identifies them with the good ol days. A 20 year old cares about the Rolling Stones today as much as a 20 year old cared about Cab Calloway in 1965 regardless of their previous influence or greatness.

In 1965 Red Fisher was 40 years old and could relate to the players. He understood what it was like in the depression, he understood what it was like to have a World War, he understood the working class nature of the players. Hence he had a better understanding of what they did and why they did it. Today, he doesn't understand that Carey Price had a computer from the time he was born, he doesn't understand what it is like to be connected to everybody you know at all times, he doesn't understand how he can multitask by watching TV, texting, surfing and playing videogames. He cannot relate, therefore he doesn't understand the motivations of these players. He holds them accountable to the standards of a society that does not exist anymore. Whether or not those standards should be followed is irrelevant.

This played out in baseball over the last 20 years. Traditional minds rejecting the statistical revolution that was going on because it ran contradictory to what they had known for 50 years. Hall of Fame writers making asses of themselves because they didn't want to be shown up. Red Fisher is relevant to the older generation. He is their comfort zone, to anybody less than 40 he carries nothing but a legacy. If I want to find out anything relevant about the 2010 Canadiens there are 50 people I will go to before him, if I want to find out about the 1970s Canadiens, then he is the person I look to.

I don't care if you agree with me or not, I don't write to convince everybody. People believe what they want to believe and I can't change that. I put forth my viewpoint and allow whoever reads to make up their own mind. The odds of those under 40 nodding with me are much greater than those 50 and above. Fortunately for me, that is the main demographic that the Canadiens marketing and fanbase are looking for, that is the way it was, the way it is today and the way it will be when I am 50+years old.

Edited by Wamsley01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I haven't posted for a long time, been busy but now that season's back I'm around again, and this is just too good of a thread to pass up on... I have to say that this is a fairly fair generalization, but that in reality, whether it's Red Fisher's age or something else that drives him not to be analytical anymore, I agree that he simply isn't. And it's true that he rewrites (almost) the same article weekly, most of which are just him on his soapbox... I wish that he would consider more information, more factors, but his articles on the price/halak trade were just very much the rantings of a frustrated fan - where you could basically reduce hi whole argument to "but did you see the save Halak made?"... I could do that...

In fairness, other "older" journalists, such as Stubbs and Boone, are at least fair to the players and consider a lot of points. They don't go nuts on the emotion factor. They may write more fluff pieces than analytical ones, but I think this can be said for most sports writing.

As for writing in general, I completely agree that newspapers, and the conventional media as a whole, have stopped writing the news and become sensationalistic.. They report on reporting half the time. They manufacture. It's so meta... And no one does any proper investigation anymore - it's just repeating what's been told to them without any critical thinking whatsoever. It's how the US ended up in Iraq, and only after that turned into a collossal disaster did any of them ask any questions. Well, where were you before? What happened to investigative journalism... Off topic, but drives me crazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't posted for a long time, been busy but now that season's back I'm around again, and this is just too good of a thread to pass up on... I have to say that this is a fairly fair generalization, but that in reality, whether it's Red Fisher's age or something else that drives him not to be analytical anymore, I agree that he simply isn't. And it's true that he rewrites (almost) the same article weekly, most of which are just him on his soapbox... I wish that he would consider more information, more factors, but his articles on the price/halak trade were just very much the rantings of a frustrated fan - where you could basically reduce hi whole argument to "but did you see the save Halak made?"... I could do that...

In fairness, other "older" journalists, such as Stubbs and Boone, are at least fair to the players and consider a lot of points. They don't go nuts on the emotion factor. They may write more fluff pieces than analytical ones, but I think this can be said for most sports writing.

As for writing in general, I completely agree that newspapers, and the conventional media as a whole, have stopped writing the news and become sensationalistic.. They report on reporting half the time. They manufacture. It's so meta... And no one does any proper investigation anymore - it's just repeating what's been told to them without any critical thinking whatsoever. It's how the US ended up in Iraq, and only after that turned into a collossal disaster did any of them ask any questions. Well, where were you before? What happened to investigative journalism... Off topic, but drives me crazy.

Agreed about Stubbs and Boone, although Boone writes from a fans perspective and it generally accepted that he will over react to situations. They are very understanding of the blogosphere and respect the quality of what is produced by it. That is why Habsinsideout is a massive success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed about Stubbs and Boone, although Boone writes from a fans perspective and it generally accepted that he will over react to situations. They are very understanding of the blogosphere and respect the quality of what is produced by it. That is why Habsinsideout is a massive success.

very true. and no one treats boone as though he's an expert. He doesn't expect it either so there's no false impression there that he's supposed to know more...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you also belive that Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama are irrelevant to the computer generation because they are much older?

Not really chiping in your discussion, but please, bringing non-sport related example such as Mandela and the Dalai Lama is totally irrelevant.

The causes or what these two focus on haven't much changed in years while sports (and hockey) world changed a lot more.

Black and whites egality, slavery and huge causes such as freedom of a people cannot be taken on the same level as game of hockey.

The way Mandela or the Dalai Lama or anyone look at huge planet wide issues certainly evolved over years, but never ever as fast as how we look at hockey evolved in the same period of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ShortHanded - where've ya been? you haven't posted in what, a year?

PMAC,

The Internet = more voices. More voices = more good + more bad. Usually it becomes apparent very quickly which one the writer in question is. There are a few advantages that bloggers have over professional journalists working for newspapers - all of them have to do with freedom.

1) Freedom of length: a blog can be several times longer than a newspaper article. This gives the writer all the space he needs to develop his argument and actually get into analysis instead of skimming through ideas. This is only a message board and yet the opening post of this thread is too long to appear in a newspaper.

2) Freedom of style and language: here we can be however experimental as we like with our writing style. i can refrain from capitalizing letters if i think that suits my post better - or i can play around with other grammatical laws to Drive. Points. Home. I can swear (sort of.. if I had my own blog I would have complete freedom of language) while Pat Hickey can not. I can say "sloppy seconds," Pat Hickey can say "disparaging remarks about Phaneuf's girlfriend, Elisha Cuthbert."

3) Freedom of content: I don't have to worry about losing readership or my job. Everything I write is for free and done in my spare time. Writers for the Gazette need to worry about selling copies and may have to compromise some of their ideas so that they can sell more copies. As soon as money gets involved work becomes less authentic because it needs to appeal to as many people as possible. Stu Cowan is also there to go over everybody's articles and tell them "you can't say this, somebody might get offended" and make whatever changes he wants.

Basically, bloggers get to write whenever they want, however they want and about whatever they want. If they have nothing to say for 6 years, they can go 6 years without writing a word about hockey. Hickey has to write 1-2 articles a day about whatever his boss tells him to write about. Then someone else will slap a title on his article and another person will find a picture to put on top of it. Bloggers can put whatever pictures they want (they can even take them themselves) and can add graphics and charts.

A blog is the ideal platform for writers. If they are working for free, even better. Can you expect all of the world's top analysts to want to work for free? No. But there are many who do manage to take advantage of a new medium. It is easy enough to ignore the bad voices and only read the ones you enjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bloggers can put whatever pictures they want (they can even take them themselves) and can add graphics and charts.

Bloggers and websites are still supposed to get permission to use someone else's photos. I legally can't just do a Google search for "Roman Hamrlik" and put up a picture taken from another website and put it on my blog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bloggers and websites are still supposed to get permission to use someone else's photos. I legally can't just do a Google search for "Roman Hamrlik" and put up a picture taken from another website and put it on my blog.

You can't because you work under the SBNation umbrella. If you had a eblogger account and Getty comes after you, what are they

going to get? At best you will take it down and it will be the end of the story.

When ad revenue etc is involved, you have a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really chiping in your discussion, but please, bringing non-sport related example such as Mandela and the Dalai Lama is totally irrelevant.

The causes or what these two focus on haven't much changed in years while sports (and hockey) world changed a lot more.

Black and whites egality, slavery and huge causes such as freedom of a people cannot be taken on the same level as game of hockey.

The way Mandela or the Dalai Lama or anyone look at huge planet wide issues certainly evolved over years, but never ever as fast as how we look at hockey evolved in the same period of time.

Granted, comparing anyone in sports to these two is a bit of a stretch. However, the statement was " an 85 year old man cannot related to the current generation". I was just enjoying refuting Wamsley's arguement and was using whatever device I could to make a point--- yes, the very thing I accused him of doing when he mentioned tradinng Subban for Versteeg to emphasis his point. Isn't discussion fun? ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ShortHanded - where've ya been? you haven't posted in what, a year?

PMAC,

The Internet = more voices. More voices = more good + more bad. Usually it becomes apparent very quickly which one the writer in question is. There are a few advantages that bloggers have over professional journalists working for newspapers - all of them have to do with freedom.

1) Freedom of length: a blog can be several times longer than a newspaper article. This gives the writer all the space he needs to develop his argument and actually get into analysis instead of skimming through ideas. This is only a message board and yet the opening post of this thread is too long to appear in a newspaper.

2) Freedom of style and language: here we can be however experimental as we like with our writing style. i can refrain from capitalizing letters if i think that suits my post better - or i can play around with other grammatical laws to Drive. Points. Home. I can swear (sort of.. if I had my own blog I would have complete freedom of language) while Pat Hickey can not. I can say "sloppy seconds," Pat Hickey can say "disparaging remarks about Phaneuf's girlfriend, Elisha Cuthbert."

3) Freedom of content: I don't have to worry about losing readership or my job. Everything I write is for free and done in my spare time. Writers for the Gazette need to worry about selling copies and may have to compromise some of their ideas so that they can sell more copies. As soon as money gets involved work becomes less authentic because it needs to appeal to as many people as possible. Stu Cowan is also there to go over everybody's articles and tell them "you can't say this, somebody might get offended" and make whatever changes he wants.

Basically, bloggers get to write whenever they want, however they want and about whatever they want. If they have nothing to say for 6 years, they can go 6 years without writing a word about hockey. Hickey has to write 1-2 articles a day about whatever his boss tells him to write about. Then someone else will slap a title on his article and another person will find a picture to put on top of it. Bloggers can put whatever pictures they want (they can even take them themselves) and can add graphics and charts.

A blog is the ideal platform for writers. If they are working for free, even better. Can you expect all of the world's top analysts to want to work for free? No. But there are many who do manage to take advantage of a new medium. It is easy enough to ignore the bad voices and only read the ones you enjoy.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate or ignore blogs, many are quite good, but I just don't believe that they have rendered the mainstream media completely obsolete. In fact, when, if, I finally finish my dissertation I plan to start one.... I would start one now...the grad student's lament, but right now it would just be one more way for me to put off working on what I need to finish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How old are you? That will likely determine the stance you are taking. That is the bias I refer to. If you are less than 40, then my bias remark is wrong. If you are 50+ then I think the main basis of your argument is based on your age and your emotional attachment to the man and not his recent body of work.

I'm actually 43 and the cups in '86 and 93 are a lot clearer in my memory and dearer to my heart than those of the late 70's. That's just one reason why we disagree. In fact, if you read |Red's most recent articles they are as good as any other journalist or blogger that I have read lately.

As for Mandela and the Dalai Lama, their experience and wisdom lies in universal terms of understanding, acceptance, forgiveness, passion etc. Fisher doesn't display that type of maturity or wisdom. Mandela sits in a prison for 30 years and forgives his captors, Fisher's prose helps deify Roy for his competitiveness and cockiness and then strings him up for displaying those same traits because they ran contradictory towards the CH (does it even matter that Roy was right and the Habs have been mediocre for 15 years?). I don't see any understanding, forgiveness or acceptance of what made that man a hero to a generation that Red doesn't care about.

Why do you assume that R. Fisher doesn't care about the current generation? Is it because he constantly attempts to link past and present and compare the golden years with today--and often finds today lacking? I have to say I find his voice a link to Les Glorioux and I am happy we still have it. If hickey, Todd or Stubbs were half as good as he is even now we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

I don't understand why a writer is immune to a prime. Why they don't have a best before date. Everybody has their prime, a time in which they hold the pulse of the culture. They understand what people care about, they understand what makes them tick and what interests them. Musical artists, writers, TV personalities etc hit the sweet spot of a moment in time. Even though they may become technically more proficient and wiser they lose touch with their audience as their audience shifts. Not many artists can maintain cultural signifigance as they age, what happens is as they age, their peers move forward with them.

Some artists writers and even journalists transcend generations: think Leonard Cohen, Neil Young, Tolkien, Shakepeare, Betty White :rolleyes:

This has been fun, but I think I have had enough.

BTH, can you whip up another rant? I havent had this much fun on this forum for far too long :clap: :hlogo: :clap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been fun, but I think I have had enough.

BTH, can you whip up another rant? I havent had this much fun on this forum for far too long :clap: :hlogo: :clap:

lol

Me? I just did. Nothing's stopping any of you from making new threads. I just started this because it seemed like there was never any new discussion here.

I have stupid homework to do now. Ten 1-2 page journal entries on "Food and Religion." :rolleyes: If only I had taken a "Media and Accountability" elective instead, I would be 1 journal entry down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't because you work under the SBNation umbrella. If you had a eblogger account and Getty comes after you, what are they

going to get? At best you will take it down and it will be the end of the story.

When ad revenue etc is involved, you have a problem.

I realize, just saying it's technical illegal. I could be on eblogger and plagarize an article and really what would become of it, too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize, just saying it's technical illegal. I could be on eblogger and plagarize an article and really what would become of it, too?

Wild West my friend.

This has been fun, but I think I have had enough.

BTH, can you whip up another rant? I havent had this much fun on this forum for far too long :clap: :hlogo: :clap:

Why in god would you try to link the Canadiens past to the present? I think it is painfully obvious that there is no comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why in god would you try to link the Canadiens past to the present? I think it is painfully obvious that there is no comparison.

It's called a proud tradition my friend. Jersey retirements, centenial celebrations, passing the torch when the team moved to the Bell centre..... these are attempts to link the past to the present. These are not--or should not be-- mere opportunities to sell memorabilia.

Its why when I go into my son's school to read, I usually chose the Hockey Sweater...its why he is proud to wear the colors, he is learning about a great team with a great tradition. That is why I try to link Les Habs past and present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ShortHanded - where've ya been? you haven't posted in what, a year?

Maybe about that long... very sucky, I know... but I did actually check the site in between - just never posted as I was insanely busy on both the work/life/family front...

You will find me either posting A LOT more in the coming months or not at all again - I am expecting my first kid and it'll really depend if I'm up all night feeding and my hands are free, or if I'm up all night feeding and my hands are tied up :wacko:

It's good to be back though ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3) Freedom of content: I don't have to worry about losing readership or my job. Everything I write is for free and done in my spare time. Writers for the Gazette need to worry about selling copies and may have to compromise some of their ideas so that they can sell more copies. As soon as money gets involved work becomes less authentic because it needs to appeal to as many people as possible. Stu Cowan is also there to go over everybody's articles and tell them "you can't say this, somebody might get offended" and make whatever changes he wants.

A blog is the ideal platform for writers. If they are working for free, even better. Can you expect all of the world's top analysts to want to work for free? No. But there are many who do manage to take advantage of a new medium. It is easy enough to ignore the bad voices and only read the ones you enjoy.

about the money point: if you take it to the next level, the issue becomes not only that the individual writer is getting paid and that there's a concern about readership, but rather that the entire media company that owns the newspaper has ties to specific corporations/lobbyists/groups with financial interests, and that everything that falls under this media empire - newspapers, tv stations, radio stations, etc... has to tow that line, or at the very least not contradict it... If somone working for a newspaper uncovers something unpleasant about a certain pharmaceutical company for example, or even finds in their investigative journalism that a drug trial has been unsucessful or resulted in many many negative side effects, and that pharmaceutical company is a sponsor of that newspaper, or of a radio station or a tv station run by the same empire, or even that the two hotshot bosses of the pharma company and the media company play golf together, chances are, whatever the reporter HAS uncovered is either not to be reported or is to be majorly watered down... We think we have so many sources of media in the mainstream because we have a million tv stations, a million newspapers, etc.. but if you follow the ownership, there are very few independent professional media sources anymore (independent papers, tv, radio stations, etc...)

I think a huge factor in the blogosphere and the independent media that's sprouted up online is the fact that the mainstream media just doesn't cover what matters anymore... There can be a huge event, but if no one is there to cover it, it's like it never happened, and so what is news has become dictated by the media giants and the independent writers/bloggers/etc are a reaction to that...

I know this always existed at some level, but I think with globalism and corporatism (I think I just invented a word) it has definitely increased.

That said, a separate point is that we can now pick and choose exactly where we get our information, and it's so often mixed with opinion that it's very easy for someone to focus only on what he cares about and the news that reflects his opinions, and not realize that he's doing so, and that there's a ton of material out there refuting his opinions. If I'm left wing, I can read only huffington post and have all my views confirmed. If I'm rightwing (shudder), I can read only fox news and have all my views confirmed... and I might never have a conversation with "the other side" and see if anything they're saying makes sense. We have the ability to "fragment" our media now and so we have the ability to completely lose sight of what else is out there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's called a proud tradition my friend. Jersey retirements, centenial celebrations, passing the torch when the team moved to the Bell centre..... these are attempts to link the past to the present. These are not--or should not be-- mere opportunities to sell memorabilia.

Its why when I go into my son's school to read, I usually chose the Hockey Sweater...its why he is proud to wear the colors, he is learning about a great team with a great tradition. That is why I try to link Les Habs past and present.

Yeah, the team bashes us over the head with a tradition that anybody under 20 doesn't undestand. I guess the Leafs should do the same thing, how relevant is it to a Leaf fan born in 1960? We all know, we all like it so Red Fisher comparing this version of the Habs to the tradition of the 1970s Canadiens is as relevant as Damien Cox telling us that Kadri is no Dave Keon.

The NHL which the Canadiens dominated had 6 teams and then less than 20. Expansion diluted the product when they dominated the seventies and their GM was taking advantage of overmatched executives not ready for prime time. When Red Fisher can present me a plausible scenario in which that success can be duplicated in the 30 team NHL, then I will buy his comparisons.

TIMES HAVE CHANGED which is exactly my whole point. A dynasty today is considered a Red Wing team that has won 4 cups in 14 seasons or the Devils who have won 3 in 15. Holding up the Canadiens to a standard that is impossible to replicate in a salary cap era is absurd. Expecting a 20 year old to act the same as one from 50 years ago is also absurd.

The Canadiens are a decade away from being the Leafs. A once proud franchise who will have been average for close to 3 decades. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that shit done changed!

Edited by Wamsley01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

about the money point: if you take it to the next level, the issue becomes not only that the individual writer is getting paid and that there's a concern about readership, but rather that the entire media company that owns the newspaper has ties to specific corporations/lobbyists/groups with financial interests, and that everything that falls under this media empire - newspapers, tv stations, radio stations, etc... has to tow that line, or at the very least not contradict it... If somone working for a newspaper uncovers something unpleasant about a certain pharmaceutical company for example, or even finds in their investigative journalism that a drug trial has been unsucessful or resulted in many many negative side effects, and that pharmaceutical company is a sponsor of that newspaper, or of a radio station or a tv station run by the same empire, or even that the two hotshot bosses of the pharma company and the media company play golf together, chances are, whatever the reporter HAS uncovered is either not to be reported or is to be majorly watered down... We think we have so many sources of media in the mainstream because we have a million tv stations, a million newspapers, etc.. but if you follow the ownership, there are very few independent professional media sources anymore (independent papers, tv, radio stations, etc...)

I think a huge factor in the blogosphere and the independent media that's sprouted up online is the fact that the mainstream media just doesn't cover what matters anymore... There can be a huge event, but if no one is there to cover it, it's like it never happened, and so what is news has become dictated by the media giants and the independent writers/bloggers/etc are a reaction to that...

I know this always existed at some level, but I think with globalism and corporatism (I think I just invented a word) it has definitely increased.

That said, a separate point is that we can now pick and choose exactly where we get our information, and it's so often mixed with opinion that it's very easy for someone to focus only on what he cares about and the news that reflects his opinions, and not realize that he's doing so, and that there's a ton of material out there refuting his opinions. If I'm left wing, I can read only huffington post and have all my views confirmed. If I'm rightwing (shudder), I can read only fox news and have all my views confirmed... and I might never have a conversation with "the other side" and see if anything they're saying makes sense. We have the ability to "fragment" our media now and so we have the ability to completely lose sight of what else is out there...

Exactly. There was a time when you gained instant credibility because you wrote for a newspaper or magazine. There was a trust accounted to you, so you didn't have to prove your assertions, it was assumed that with inside sources and info that you were obviously more entitled to that opinion.

We didn't understand the agenda they were working towards. I won't tell this story, but you need to help me out with another one. I will bury this, but you owe me. I won't question you because you might deny me access and with it my career.

Today, the media has been exposed as a corporation who controls the news and pushes their agenda. Bloggers don't have personal contact with players or coaches so their writing is not skewed to protect anybody. More transparency, better access to information, better opinions.

Simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. There is no intrinsic reason why an old guy cannot be 'with the times' and up to speed on the essentials of the present. (Of course, a wise older person will also bring a critical eye to foolish trends and unhealthy developments, but being up to speed doesn't mean uncritically embracing the fads of the day). Yes, it is true that at some point people are likely to calcify and stop adapting - but there are people who continue to be fluid learners right up to the end. However, Red Fisher is not one of these. So while I'd disagree with Wamsley that age is necessarily an impediment to relevance, I'd also agree with him that Red no longer brings any analytical insight to the table. This is a guy who doesn't even seem to factor in the salary cap when evaluating managerial moves. 'nuff said.

2. The blogosphere just does offer better insight than the mainstream media when it comes to hockey, in that the best blogs far outclass the best media outlets - to a degree that seems simply undeniable. The superb analysis periodically offered on Eyes on the Prize, for instance, absolutely clobbers anything ever put forward by The Gazette; JT's ruminations offered on The H Does Not Stand For Habs frequently surpass those of the professional press; the smarmy and informed witticisms of Lions in Winter generally outperform the 'smart remarks' of the talking heads; the discussions on this board frequently yield insights that far outstrip that which you get from media 'hot stoves' and equivalents. You learn more from the blogospher. This is just a fact.

3. BTH makes an excellent point when he observes that bloggers have a lot more room (as well as time) in which to make their case. So point (2) be taken as a criticism of journalists, so much as of the constraints they work under. An operation like The Gazette should be adapting to the challenge by, say, hiring Chris Boyle to write a weekly detailed analysis of the type he does for EOTP, allocating a lot of space to that. Instead the Gazoo keeps on going with the same old same old: journalists/fans masquerading as 'analysts' and considered 'experts' because they can meet deadlines and get to jostle in scrums around the dressing room. Sad.

4. Times have changed, no question. But the Habs really do have a tremendous heritage and it is entirely justifiable to celebrate it. Wamsley is right that we're a decade away from being the Leafs, with 30 years of mediocrity behind us. But one of the biggest things the Leafs did wrong during the Ballard era was precisely to sever themselves from their own heritage, failing to honour their own rich past and depriving fans of the opportunity to consider themselves a part of that. The result was a franchise with no sense of its future OR its past. At least the Habs have avoided that mistake.

Beyond that, we live in a society that offers people very few traditions with which they can identify. History is treated as an irrelevant, deathly bore, old people are shat on, popular music is a vacuous festival of disposable crap, and politics and institutions are viewed as utterly marginal compared to the mercurial world of celebrity, entertainment, and technological novelties. This is a profoundly unhealthy state of affairs that renders life empty and meaningless in the long run. Of course it's all a cash grab, but by offering fans a strong connection to the past, the Habs are doing their small bit to counteract these tendencies. Good on 'em, I say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started off this thread saying that professional analysts are never held accountable for being wrong and now we're talking about how amateurs actually have much more freedom than the professionals.

It seems that the pros have the worst of both worlds. They do not have the freedom to express themselves as completely as amateurs do but they do have the freedom to be mediocre. If you're a journalist, I suppose that second thing is fantastic but if you're anybody else, it's kind of crappy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started off this thread saying that professional analysts are never held accountable for being wrong and now we're talking about how amateurs actually have much more freedom than the professionals.

It seems that the pros have the worst of both worlds. They do not have the freedom to express themselves as completely as amateurs do but they do have the freedom to be mediocre. If you're a journalist, I suppose that second thing is fantastic but if you're anybody else, it's kind of crappy.

Bloggers are only marginally more accountable than journalists. (If your main abenue of expression is online, you are going to face reams of publicly-available discussion of your work, which adds an element of accountability that a Red Fisher needn't bother with to the same degree). The real difference is that bloggers don't condition popular discourse in the way that journalists do, so their lack of accountability is not as important.

I don't think attacking journalists is really the way to go, though. In certain cases - c.f. Jack Todd, Bertrand Raymond - their lazy ignorance is inexcusable and a calling out is thoroughly appropriate. In many cases, though, both their qualifications and the constraints of their job simply don't position them to be good analysts. The problem is that they are nonetheless positioned as analysts: indeed, the only analysts that the average fan gets exposed to. The problem is structural more than individual.

Edited by The Chicoutimi Cucumber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bloggers are only marginally more accountable than journalists. (If your main abenue of expression is online, you are going to face reams of publicly-available discussion of your work, which adds an element of accountability that a Red Fisher needn't bother with to the same degree). The real difference is that bloggers don't condition popular discourse in the way that journalists do, so their lack of accountability is not as important.

I don't think attacking journalists is really the way to go, though. In certain cases - c.f. Jack Todd, Bertrand Raymond - their lazy ignorance is inexcusable and a calling out is thoroughly appropriate. In many cases, though, both their qualifications and the constraints of their job simply don't position them to be good analysts. The problem is that they are nonetheless positioned as analysts: indeed, the only analysts that the average fan gets exposed to. The problem is structural more than individual.

I don't see why somebody doing volunteer work should be held accountable for incompetence.

Some bloggers make money off of advertisements and (perhaps) subscriptions but not all. If you decide to offer up amateur hockey analysis for free out of the goodness of your heart and it turns out you suck, well, stick to your day job. People probably won't read your writing or give you much credit. If an optional service is being provided by someone for free and you choose to accept this service, there isn't much room for you to complain about its quality.

For a professional, this is their day job and we (well... not me because I'm a teenager but... my father + you guys) pay for their product. If THEY suck then they should be held accountable. They aren't, however, because the Sports section continues to be the most read section of the Gazette.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why somebody doing volunteer work should be held accountable for incompetence.

Some bloggers make money off of advertisements and (perhaps) subscriptions but not all. If you decide to offer up amateur hockey analysis for free out of the goodness of your heart and it turns out you suck, well, stick to your day job. People probably won't read your writing or give you much credit. If an optional service is being provided by someone for free and you choose to accept this service, there isn't much room for you to complain about its quality.

For a professional, this is their day job and we (well... not me because I'm a teenager but... my father + you guys) pay for their product. If THEY suck then they should be held accountable. They aren't, however, because the Sports section continues to be the most read section of the Gazette.

Fair enough.

A teenager!! You are one wise puppy, my friend.

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...