Jump to content

Media & Accountability


BTH
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

I am not saying that old people cannot be relevant, but it is rare when they will take the time to understand the following generations. They are more apt to adopt the "Things were better in my day attitude" and "This generation is spoiled" stance. Experience and wisdom are always appreciated, but just because you are older does not mean you shut the door to those less experienced and ignore their viewpoint. I still stand by my point of having a prime when you are in tune with social, political and the religious environment making your viewpoint historically relevant as it represents THAT moment in time. Most writers don't want to change because they have a vested interest in not changing, those who adapt are the ones who end up still relevant when the onslaught of progression ultimately occurs.

As for the Canadiens heritage, it should be celebrated, but regardless of how many times it is celebrated there becomes a disconnect. As much as a Leaf fan doesn't want to admit it, the ones born in the 70s cannot to relate to what we felt in 86 and 93. It cannot be replicated without experience. So any Canadiens fan born in 1988 can't really connect to the history of this franchise, it is why Patrick Roy was so important and to watch the arrogance of Fisher essentially attempt to burn the bridge from my father's generation to mine because he took offense to what Roy did was short sighted, egotistical and absurd. Patrick Roy allowed me to be apart of the glorious history of the Montreal Canadiens and not an outsider viewing a museum like entity.

The same thing happened with Red Sox/Yankee fans when the Sox finally won. They tried to place their 80+ years of misery on the Yankee fanbase and were frustrated when it had zero affect. You can't replicate 80 years of suffering to somebody who has had to suffer for only a decade.

The Canadiens will always have their history and the media will wait to spin nonsense every time they have success. Last year they compared Halak to Dryden and Roy and missed the most obvious comparison. They don't report anymore, they attempt to create a more sensationalizedc narrative that trumpets their agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Canadiens will always have their history and the media will wait to spin nonsense every time they have success. Last year they compared Halak to Dryden and Roy and missed the most obvious comparison. They don't report anymore, they attempt to create a more sensationalizedc narrative that trumpets their agenda.

Theodore?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theodore?

Well, it wasn't a goalie that won a Cup.

They also failed to mention that Roy and Dryden lead top 8 teams to the Finals, not the 18th ranked team in the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it wasn't a goalie that won a Cup.

They also failed to mention that Roy and Dryden lead top 8 teams to the Finals, not the 18th ranked team in the league.

Yeah, not to mention the fact that both Roy and Dryden went on to long and successful careers... and while I wish Halak the best, there's no telling yet which way his whole career will go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this thread was still missing the contribution of one more person: Jack Todd himself. I emailed him this morning and he emailed back almost immediately. I replied but there's been no answer as of yet.

BTH said:

Hello, this is completely random but a film critic (Armond White) that reminds me of you (or maybe you remind me of him *shrug*) recently wrote an article bemoaning what the internet has done to film criticism. He points out that everybody has an opinion now and that those opinions can be made public and placed alongside the opinions of the professionals. Basically, he finds it annoying that amateur film critics are taken as seriously (by some) as the professionals who have degrees and years of experience in the field.

In hockey there is a similar landscape. The local English media is dominated by The Gazette (/HabsInsideOut), the French media is led by RDS and La Presse and then there are many "alternative" forms of media outside the mainstream, namely blogs and messageboards. In many articles you've mentioned getting idiotic emails from readers. So what's your opinion on the blogosphere? Do you know of any Habs bloggers that you think are as capable and insightful as the professionals (either English or French)? Do you think that the more free online discussion of the Habs poses as a threat to writers like yourself who write for print? Is there any Habs messageboard or blog that you're familiar enough with to have an opinion on?

Thanks.

Jack Todd said:

I don't read any of the blogs, including Habs Inside/Out, which is primarily a cheerleader forum.

There are very bright fans out there and there are a lot of idiots. I think the overall effect of all the blogging and tweeting is to make the average fan much dumber than he used to be. They don't really WATCH the games any more. They get one little idea fixed in their heads (Price is better than Halak) and they can't let it go, even when all the evidence points to the contrary.

And if any person has a life, surely he has something better to do than to read some hot-headed amateur blogging about a bunch of overpaid hockey players.

So there you have it, folks. Through spewing our hot-headed amateur online opinions, we're making each other dumber.

ps. he reminds me of Armond White because they're both ######ing trolls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read the whole thread - just a few of the first ones, but here's my two cents: (barely worth it)

The media and the effect of their influence on the fans is why I no longer follow hockey. No one tells it like they see it anymore, they put in their bias and push their agenda. Now, don't get me wrong, every writer has to inject some bias or their writing will be about as exciting as watching grass grow. However, the best are the ones who leave as much bias to the side as they can when they write. They are also the ones who have open minds and are willing to see when their opinions need to change based on fact and are willing to call it like it is when what they originally assumed has changed.

That's the reason I stopped writing here. I couldn't stand how the politics of the Habs changed how I viewed the game. I couldn't stand fans who had one opinion, and despite a barrage of absolute fact, couldn't get past bias. I was willing to change my opinion when wrong, but virtually no one else would.

Debate is only fun when each side is willing to come to the table with an open mind.

So when a Jack Todd spews his vitriol with no discernible evidence except and personal agenda, and when fans of his vomit his acid verbatim with no thought, I can honestly say it's ruined the game for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this thread was still missing the contribution of one more person: Jack Todd himself. I emailed him this morning and he emailed back almost immediately. I replied but there's been no answer as of yet.

BTH said:

Jack Todd said:

So there you have it, folks. Through spewing our hot-headed amateur online opinions, we're making each other dumber.

ps. he reminds me of Armond White because they're both ######ing trolls.

BTH, that's absolutely glorious that you emailed him and managed to get a response from Jack Todd himself.

I especially like his last line:

And if any person has a life, surely he has something better to do than to read some hot-headed amateur blogging about a bunch of overpaid hockey players.

He basically just ignores you trying to find out if he has an inkling of respect for absolutely any blogger or amateur out there, and lumps them into the hot-headed blogger category without a hint of acknowledgement. That's a guy who's afraid for his job, but will never admit it. What a douche.

He's the hot-headed professional writer who writes about ovepaid hockey players, so why is he any better than a blogger?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also like how discussing the topic, and seeking out a wide variety of opinion on the topic, makes the average fan dumber.

Hey Jack, the question you should be asking is this: Why don't they trust the opinion of professionals like yourself anymore?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't read any of the blogs, including Habs Inside/Out, which is primarily a cheerleader forum.

There are very bright fans out there and there are a lot of idiots. I think the overall effect of all the blogging and tweeting is to make the average fan much dumber than he used to be. They don't really WATCH the games any more. They get one little idea fixed in their heads (Price is better than Halak) and they can't let it go, even when all the evidence points to the contrary.

And if any person has a life, surely he has something better to do than to read some hot-headed amateur blogging about a bunch of overpaid hockey players.

This is funny because this is what he has done for more than a year (just flip the names).

He also contradicts himself by saying that he doesn't read blogs, then offers his opinion on blogs.

He then criticizes fans for not watching games and offering opinion on the games.

I had an e-mail exchange with Steve Simmons a couple of years ago and he is a carbon copy.

Lazy, uninspired egomaniacs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I really would love to hear from each and every sports journalist following the Habs is their qualifications. What are they?

I'm assuming they're all "journalists", whether through school or (someone like Red Fisher) it's been their job for a 1000 years.

How many of them played hockey?

How many of them played a high level of hockey (pro, junior, etc.)?

Can they be considered experts in what they write? Have they coached at a high level? Been in a front office position?

I basically would love the find out the reasons for why they think the way they think, and also why they feel that their opinions are worth more than a blogger's. If they don't claim to be experts on something, then they shouldn't be allowed to print their opinions as news, because it's an abuse of the publication's influence. People see their names in the papers and figure "these guys must know their stuff". But really, do they? Does Red Fisher know what it's like to be a goalie? Enough to write an entire article with no purpose other than to make sure everyone knows that Price should have had both those second period goals in the Sens game?

If they want to be "reporters", fine, report the news. We need some of those. But when your article has your name on it in public, it becomes "Jack Todd's" (or anyone else's) article, and I want to know why you get to publish your opinion for everyone else to see and why I should give more than 2 cents about it. I think if you're reporting news, your name shouldn't be on the article (the publication should know who wrote it, but it's the publication's article, regardless of who wrote it). If it's fact, just write it. I doesn't need to be referenced, because it's a fact. Do I put a reference in my math to Pythagoras everytime I use his theorem? No, it's a fact (he discovered it, but he doesn't own it).

(As a side note: when you read news, how often is there a portrait or picture of the author? It drives me so crazy when I see the face of the guy writing the article. Like who the f*!$ cares about your ugly-ass purple turtleneck and ugly face; if you're writing about Mike Cammalleri, put a picture of him, not you. Man it pisses me off.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(As a side note: when you read news, how often is there a portrait or picture of the author? It drives me so crazy when I see the face of the guy writing the article. Like who the f*!$ cares about your ugly-ass purple turtleneck and ugly face; if you're writing about Mike Cammalleri, put a picture of him, not you. Man it pisses me off.)

Thanks for the heads-up...(quickly scratches that idea off the "ways to improve HW list"...or maybe not). :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the heads-up...(quickly scratches that idea off the "ways to improve HW list"...or maybe not). :)

lol

It's for the best we don't resort to that. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tion?

I basically would love the find out the reasons for why they think the way they think, and also why they feel that their opinions are worth more than a blogger's. If they don't claim to be experts on something, then they shouldn't be allowed to print their opinions as news, because it's an abuse of the publication's influence.

Huh? They are allowed in print because the publication hired them and pays them. The fact that they get paid and that many 1000's of people pay to read why they write probably give them the idea that their opinions are worth more than those of a blogger.

My question would be: why do bloggers have the chutzpah to think that they are better than the professionals?

People see their names in the papers and figure "these guys must know their stuff". But really, do they? Does Red Fisher know what it's like to be a goalie? Enough to write an entire article with no purpose other than to make sure everyone knows that Price should have had both those second period goals in the Sens game?

The article you are referring to was a game summary. Price's miscues were mentioned. Should Fisher have said Carey had an outstanding game when it was evident that he didn't?

If they want to be "reporters", fine, report the news. We need some of those. But when your article has your name on it in public, it becomes "Jack Todd's" (or anyone else's) article, and I want to know why you get to publish your opinion for everyone else to see and why I should give more than 2 cents about it.

Again they get hired and unless they write something egregiously offensive or are obviously alienating readers some other way they get to keep their jobs. You don't have to care. If everyone on here is who has a hate on for the Gazette--which I admit often pisses me off-- boycotted the publication and the website, you might see some changes.

Edited by PMAC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Uh, if they don't have any personal contact with the people who actually have the first-hand experience and information where does this bloggers more transparency, better access to info and better opinions come from?

Your argument seems to be

1. journalists are old and part of the establishment== bias and poor reporting

2. Bloggers are young and free of obligation == better reporting and less bias

I still don't see the evidence for all of this bias you seem to see from the Montreal Press.

I do however see lots of bloggers like Ecklund who have nothing to say that is worthwhile

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, if they don't have any personal contact with the people who actually have the first-hand experience and information where does this bloggers more transparency, better access to info and better opinions come from?

Your argument seems to be

1. journalists are old and part of the establishment== bias and poor reporting

2. Bloggers are young and free of obligation == better reporting and less bias

I still don't see the evidence for all of this bias you seem to see from the Montreal Press.

I do however see lots of bloggers like Ecklund who have nothing to say that is worthwhile

Keep following the mainstream media, I could really care less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, if they don't have any personal contact with the people who actually have the first-hand experience and information where does this bloggers more transparency, better access to info and better opinions come from?

Your argument seems to be

1. journalists are old and part of the establishment== bias and poor reporting

2. Bloggers are young and free of obligation == better reporting and less bias

I still don't see the evidence for all of this bias you seem to see from the Montreal Press.

I do however see lots of bloggers like Ecklund who have nothing to say that is worthwhile

You pretty well devalue anything you just said with that last line. There really isn't a point in countering your last two posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, if they don't have any personal contact with the people who actually have the first-hand experience and information where does this bloggers more transparency, better access to info and better opinions come from?

Your argument seems to be

1. journalists are old and part of the establishment== bias and poor reporting

2. Bloggers are young and free of obligation == better reporting and less bias

I still don't see the evidence for all of this bias you seem to see from the Montreal Press.

I do however see lots of bloggers like Ecklund who have nothing to say that is worthwhile

Eklund is a rumour-mongerer. There are guys like that in print media, too (hello, Bruce Garrioch). He's a one-trick pony who's beaten that poor pony to death a million times, don't know why people bother with him but whatever. As P.T. Barnum said, there's a sucker born every minute.

Beyond Eklund, there's a whole world of fan run blogs who get traffic by the quality of their work, enhanced through peer criticism. There's little money involved in the exercise, it's either got to be interesting or entertaining/funny. If you're going to get sustained attention, you have to be able to back up your arguments with evidence. Once you read a well-reasoned rant by Tyler Dellow, a left field player evaluation from Tom Benjamin, or an elegant and passionate piece of prose from Ellen Etchingham I doubt you'll hold beat writers to the same esteem. You'll demand better.

Also, you should read the Battle of California for the most eccentric, off beat fan takes you'll ever read just for good measure. Plus they have cartoons!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PMAC does make a few valid points. Access to people in the sport is what gives writers the one up on bloggers. All bloggers can do is analyze from a distance. This probably helps bloggers to keep a degree of seperation, and avoid bias to some extent. But with that access, writers are able to gain reader attention with first hand information. I don't necessarily think it's better, but I do see his point. I enjoy blogs and articles both, and see bias in both. Fisher's last article was silly. lets face it. gionta's goal was the only positive? really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You pretty well devalue anything you just said with that last line. There really isn't a point in countering your last two posts.

Why? and Why? Its ok for you to disagree with me but I would like to know why you find my reference to Eklund so offensive that it renders all of my other points meaningless and therefore not worthy of response.

Anyway, reply or not my assertion remains. Blogs are not inherently good or better than other media. Like all things constructed by humans some are good and some are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? and Why? Its ok for you to disagree with me but I would like to know why you find my reference to Eklund so offensive that it renders all of my other points meaningless and therefore not worthy of response.

Anyway, reply or not my assertion remains. Blogs are not inherently good or better than other media. Like all things constructed by humans some are good and some are not.

I don't think anybody's arguing that amateur bloggers are inherently better than professional journalists. 90% of bloggers are crap. 90% of pro journalism is crap. 90% of everything is crap. Godwin's Law. BUT the best amateur hockey analysis seems to blow the best pro analysis out of the water (apart from the REAL pros who work privately for NHL organizations).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anybody's arguing that amateur bloggers are inherently better than professional journalists. 90% of bloggers are crap. 90% of pro journalism is crap. 90% of everything is crap. Godwin's Law. BUT the best amateur hockey analysis seems to blow the best pro analysis out of the water (apart from the REAL pros who work privately for NHL organizations).

I agree BTH. However, and I could be mistaken, but it seemed that it was Wamsley's arguement that amateur bloggers are better-- and to a lesser extent Seb.

Man, can you ever tell when its been too long without a game to discuss. :hockey:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree BTH. However, and I could be mistaken, but it seemed that it was Wamsley's arguement that amateur bloggers are better-- and to a lesser extent Seb.

Man, can you ever tell when its been too long without a game to discuss. :hockey:

Hahahah!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anybody's arguing that amateur bloggers are inherently better than professional journalists. 90% of bloggers are crap. 90% of pro journalism is crap. 90% of everything is crap. Godwin's Law. BUT the best amateur hockey analysis seems to blow the best pro analysis out of the water (apart from the REAL pros who work privately for NHL organizations).

90% of everything is crap? Well, don't tell that to your friend at work, because pretty soon you won't have many friends on your sides...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree BTH. However, and I could be mistaken, but it seemed that it was Wamsley's arguement that amateur bloggers are better-- and to a lesser extent Seb.

Man, can you ever tell when its been too long without a game to discuss. :hockey:

Nothing like generalizing and putting words in my mouth.

My argument was directed at Red Fisher and that an 85 year old does not have the understanding

of the younger generation or the work ethic to cover the game as it should be TODAY.

It was also directed at numerous members of the mainstream media who are attacking the blogosphere because

it is tipping their gravy train. Just because you are accredited doesn't make you an innovative or observant hockey mind.

An english or journalism degree does not mean you have a better understanding of hockey.

There are plenty of members of the media who understand the game and have a talent at breaking things down into

layman's terms for the majority to understand. There are also a ton like Jack Todd and Red Fisher who bring very little

to the game at this point.

Media has changed and they haven't. There is a level of transparency today that was not available even 10 years ago.

Somebody in Toronto didn't have access to the Montreal dailies, radio, game reports, RDS, the NHL package, GameCenter

etc. So when you commented it was an uneducated opinion. Having credentials and player access was a HUGE advantage

to covering the team, it isn't like that anymore. The Wiki revolution allows me to go over anything I want in regards to the

Canadiens instantly.

How in the hell you think that media members who are not taking advantage of these things are relevant is beyond me.

The days of unsubstantiated opinion and regurgitating old sacred hockey axiom's is gone.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/Coac...7526/story.html

This is exactly the type of story I am talking about.

Consider the Lightning's win here last week. It had more to do with a rookie's brain cramp than Boucher's genius. The Canadiens had that game in the bag until P.K. Subban took a penalty with a little more than two minutes to play, the Lightning tied the game on the power play and won in overtime.

Had Subban not made a rookie mistake, the Habs would be 4-1, Tampa Bay 2-2 and Mensa would be reviewing Boucher's membership.

Hickey has the result trumping everything else that happened on the ice. THe Lightning deserved to win the game and the only

reason they were down was because Price played a great game. The attraction to Boucher was the way he had the Lightning playing.

They were aggressive and it was an exact counter to what habs fans have witnessed over the majority of the last decade.

The Bolts dominated the conventional statistics as well as the advanced statistics and whether they won or not would not change that.

Edited by Wamsley01
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...