JoeLassister Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Impress me. Go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted March 12, 2011 Author Share Posted March 12, 2011 It's on. Candidate #1 ! l.moustakas, on 12 March 2011 - 04:04 PM, said:In short, during the 2010-11 NHL season, here is what I have learned. This is disrespectful: This is a hockey play: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=1enycgSIWJ4 Of course. Makes perfect sense. Well said Louis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted April 8, 2011 Author Share Posted April 8, 2011 Is the defending champion going to repeat ? Time will tell. for candidate #2 ! It makes no difference whether the topic is politics or hockey. My point is exactly that this applies to every sentence in every language. The example could easily be: Halak carries Habs past Penguins. Halak backstops Habs past Penguins. Halak, Habs top Penguins. They are all recounting the same story but with slightly different connotations. The first version seems to imply that Halak stood on his head and was the only reason the Canadiens won. This perpetuates the myth that Halak is the sole reason Montreal won the series. The second version makes it sound like Halak played a solid game in a team win. The third version is pretty neutral and merely implies both that Montreal won and that Halak is one of the key players on Montreal. The way this sentence is stated makes it appear to be an objective fact. It is not presented as an opinion. This can be deceiving. When a journalist presents his opinion, people have the chance to accept or reject it. When he embeds his opinion into his phrasing of "the truth" (something that is impossible not to do) most people do not even realize they are reading something that is slanted. If you are able to shrug it off, you are in the minority. The sentence I bolded from your post is exactly my point. You don't completely ignore the media, you merely choose what is objective, what is intelligent opinion and what is dumb opinion. What I'm saying is that an objective relaying of the news is impossible and that if you accept any journalist's writing as such, your point of view is being manipulated (maybe accidentally) by that journalist. I'm not talking about the Laraque story. Laraque blatantly expressed his view and people decided for themselves whether they thought he was full of shit. There are much more subtle cases where even intelligent people are fooled. In these cases, the journalist's view is inserted into a sentence without leaving much of a trace. People read it and take it as fact without even realizing they were being fed an opinion at all (note the above example). About the last point - how many Stanley Cups do the Habs have? Who is Bobby Orr? Who is the captain of the Atlanta Thrashers? How is Ovechkin's year going? Have there been many hits to the head this season? All of this information you've accumulated comes from the media. You said you get your info from games, morning highlights and stats. Games: They are narrated by Pierre and Benoit. Even if you tune out the intermission commentators, Pierre Houde has a tremendous influence over how people perceive the game. Most people watch the game first and listen to the commentary second. They take in Houde's words but don't pay 100% attention to them. They can easily be subject to his influence based on his word choices alone. Camera angles also change how you view a game but that does not fit this example so well because sports matches have standard angles. Highlights: They are narrated by Jay and Dan. Same thing as above. As your post suggests, these guys aren't taken seriously as hockey analysts, they're merely reporting the news. This is exactly where people then become victim to external influence. If they hear the same myth repeated (even - especially - when it's in passing) every single day (e.g. goaltenders are the most important players on the team) people start to believe it. After all, it doesn't sound like an absurd statement. Stats: Who chooses which stats you get to see? Who chooses which stats are important when it comes to evaluating players? Who tallies these stats? NHL, TSN, ESPN, The Gazette, HabsInsideOut, ... In other words, the media. Basically, the information you get about hockey largely comes from media sources (TV, newspaper, web sites, magazines). None of it is 100% objective. (Or even 99% objective, if you're going to argue that nothing is 100% objective.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Is the defending champion going to repeat ? Time will tell. for candidate #2 ! DYNASTY! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.