Media Vs. the Fans

[bloodycanuckleheads]

27 minutes ago, spook007 said:

But it is almost as if the local press don't even want a team in Vancouver. Constant whining and unhappiness with everything Canucks.

You would think they would look at Canucks fair or favourably as it is the team of the city, but they crap all over them all the times. 

WHY?

Because it's a journalist's job to be objective and honest and report the truth (well, except for FoxNews and the conservative press, where the job is to lie and spread propaganda).  So, the reason why the local media has been crapping all over the Canucks for the last 4 years - is because our team has been god-awful.  The reason they've been crapping all over our management - is because our management has been doing stupid and delusional things that have only served to prolong our god-awfulness.

 

Everyone here is complaining how negative the press has been recently - without bothering to remember that they've been mostly right.

 

And, it's the same thing with this board here.  The people who've been giving you an honest appraisal of our team for the last 4 years have been getting flamed and down-voted - while the ones who have been painting a ridiculous, rosy picture have been getting praised to the rafters.  Even though they were 100% wrong.  As wrong as they could possibly have been.

 

 

[butters]

33 minutes ago, bloodycanuckleheads said:

Because it's a journalist's job to be objective and honest and report the truth (well, except for FoxNews and the conservative press, where the job is to lie and spread propaganda).  So, the reason why the local media has been crapping all over the Canucks for the last 4 years - is because our team has been god-awful.  The reason they've been crapping all over our management - is because our management has been doing stupid and delusional things that have only served to prolong our god-awfulness.

 

Everyone here is complaining how negative the press has been recently - without bothering to remember that they've been mostly right.

 

And, it's the same thing with this board here.  The people who've been giving you an honest appraisal of our team for the last 4 years have been getting flamed and down-voted - while the ones who have been painting a ridiculous, rosy picture have been getting praised to the rafters.  Even though they were 100% wrong.  As wrong as they could possibly have been.

 

 

the press has been negative for as far back as I noticed, which is over 20 years.

[IBatch]

Personally I find it more refreshing to listen to the international talking heads that don't have the same stake in it.  Ferraro, Friedman, McKenzie, and especially Kelly Rhudey.  When they talk about the Canucks it's more objecrive, accurate, thoughtful and from a more nuetral position.  Of course they don't live and breathe the Canucks as they cover all the teams, but they are smart hockey people and often their insights are good.  

[bloodycanuckleheads]

1 hour ago, butters said:

the press has been negative for as far back as I noticed, which is over 20 years.

To be fair, I can remember back in the late-80's when we were - literally - the worst team in all of professional sports.  We'd won less than every other team in every other sport (over our entire history).  Then, in the late-90's we were awful again.  And, right now, we've been the worst team in the league over the last 3 years.  Most people on this board are young and don't remember how awful we were for such an unbelievably long time.  They've been lucky that we've been good for most of their lives.

 

Again, the press was actually right here.  For much of the last 20 years, when we often had the best team in the league (regular season only, of course), there were glaring errors with our line-up that management ignored - and that led to horrendous runs in the playoffs every year but one.  Like, seriously, we were probably the best team in the league over the 2001-2013 period.  And, over those 12 seasons, we only won 7 playoff series!  Total.  Detroit, our closest competition, won 17 over that same span.  But, oc course, they had management that was a lot smarter than our's...

[Down by the River]

4 hours ago, TheGuardian_ said:

This is just an interesting post from the Canucks Army warning it is long;

 

I have posted many times that Linden/Benning's education is a lot less than the average fan.

 

About That Authority You’re Appealing To…

 

 

I deleted the rest of the article only so that I didn't take up more space. Although I do agree with a lot of what the article says, it is completely ironic that it is written by Canucks Army, which is a group of guys that are wholly under-qualified when it comes to trying to apply "analytics" to hockey (i.e., they're not very well-educated either). 

[TheGuardian_]

An example would be the blow out, some will zero in on Boeser's bad wrist instead of just how bad the team was, tha is just an example and a bad one at that because a lot of media circled Gudbranson in the PK.

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, bloodycanuckleheads said:

To be fair, I can remember back in the late-80's when we were - literally - the worst team in all of professional sports.  We'd won less than every other team in every other sport (over our entire history).  Then, in the late-90's we were awful again.  And, right now, we've been the worst team in the league over the last 3 years.  Most people on this board are young and don't remember how awful we were for such an unbelievably long time.  They've been lucky that we've been good for most of their lives.

 

Again, the press was actually right here.  For much of the last 20 years, when we often had the best team in the league (regular season only, of course), there were glaring errors with our line-up that management ignored - and that led to horrendous runs in the playoffs every year but one.  Like, seriously, we were probably the best team in the league over the 2001-2013 period.  And, over those 12 seasons, we only won 7 playoff series!  Total.  Detroit, our closest competition, won 17 over that same span.  But, oc course, they had management that was a lot smarter than our's...

We were pretty bad weren't we?  St.Louis our older brother expansion team went on a record how many years before the missed the playoffs? 25plus.  I like your post, it's obvious you've watched this team when we were bad and have watched us rebuild and just toil before.  Aside from the last run, the 94 team no matter how great we were, was just a .500 team that year and our first run to the final had a lot to do with the better teams losing opening the door to what's considered the boringest final in the modern era by THN with the NYI at the peak of their power (towel power and one OT game aside).   

 

It sucks that we have to go through another rebuild but at least we have some hope.  I'm ok with two more top five picks (including this year), it's what we need.  

[alt kilgore]

8 hours ago, Tre Mac said:

I get tired of Botch and Gallagher but don't mind guys like Jeff Paterson asking tough questions.  I don't think the media is all that negative to be honest.  Look at how bad this team has been for the past 5 years, there isn't anything to be positive about aside from Boeser and Horvat.  If you guys don't like reading so much negativity around this team tell the Canucks to start winning lol.

Its funny to read these threads where there is more hatred towards Vancouver sports media personalities than the amount of actual hatred directed towards the team from our local media.

 

I remember when Dan the man Russell with his 'longest running sports show in Canada' was always criticized for being too soft on the Canucks. The theory was that CKNW, being the flagship station of the Canucks at the time, was brown-nosing all the time.

 

Finally we had another sports talk station who could be more critical. Then 1040 got the Canuck game rights, and suddenly they were coddling the team.  Now that they've lost Canuck games, they are now once again, too hard on them. It never ends.

 

I'm just thankful that if I don't like what they are talking about on one of the stations, I now have the luxury of simply turning the dial to the other one. I couldn't stand Dan Russell but it was the only Canucks show running.

 

Yes once in awhile one of the hosts goes off on a rant that is stupid.  (and 95% of the time it is Dave Pratt) And also some of them may milk controversies on things like odd line-up changes etc.. but for the most part they simply stoke conversation on the pros and cons of the latest goings on in the team. Like the signing of Guddy for instance. They allow callers to share opinions. And a lot of times the hosts don't agree with each other so, its not a conspiracy. 

 

Yeah some of them stir the pot, its not a big shocker. I appreciate even out of the box criticisms.  I like that even for the reason to re-think something, or just to yell at the radio and solidify my own opinions.  The hand wringing on here because some sports personality said something negative on some aspect of a team that has screwed the pooch for five years, delayed a rebuild,  traded picks for stop gaps, and made some atrocious signings, is amusing to say the least.

[King Heffy]

At this point the only media I bother listening to are the Johns calling the game for us.  Other than that, I'll take my own eyes over a guy desperately trying to get enough clicks to avoid being part of the next round of layoffs.

 

I like what Benning's doing.  Whine all you want but don't expect me to help pay your bills because of your negativity.

[Toews]

15 hours ago, dpn1 said:

Who do you respect among the Vancouver Media?

My post was not about individual member of the media but about the media as a whole with the qualification below.

 

11 hours ago, spook007 said:

The thing is... how do you know if he is honest?

Perhaps "honest" wasn't the right word, "consistent" fits better. 

 

11 hours ago, spook007 said:

Already here on CDC its easy to see that the people standing up for various media personalities (cheepers had to write that a few times), and normally the one promoting the views of these fans.

 

Fans who'd like to see JB sacked will believe anything certain writer write, and vice verse...

People enjoy listening to those individuals that echo their sentiments. This is more prevalent than ever in the world of politics but also applies to sports. Dhaliwal is popular because he is reporting facts and not forcing his own opinions on to the audience. In other words he is a source and not an analyst. 

 

If you are giving your opinions on players then you open yourself up to scrutiny and there will always be someone who have a problem with what you have to say whether it is "positive" or "negative". If you head over to HF, its like a completely different reality down there and any media member who is pro-management is a "mouthpiece" for Linden and Benning.

 

11 hours ago, spook007 said:

But it is almost as if the local press don't even want a team in Vancouver. Constant whining and unhappiness with everything Canucks.

You would think they would look at Canucks fair or favourably as it is the team of the city, but they crap all over them all the times. 

WHY?

What you see as "fair or favourably" is not someone else's interpretation.of the same. Being on CDC can make it seem that the vast majority are in agreement but this is not the case if you check other places. This fan base is pretty big and opinions are skewed across the board. While you are complaining about their "whining and unhappiness", the other side is complaining that there is too much "pandering".

[HarryCanuck]

17 hours ago, Coconuts said:

Not really, the media generally jumps on the negativity train and tries to stir things up. They're in it to make money, get listeners, sell papers, get traffic to their sites and pages.

 

I hate the media in Toronto and Edmonton, but at least they're supportive of their teams at times. Our boys love to jump in with them and roast their own team at times.

 

If it's not Dhaliwal I don't really care what local media has to say about the Canucks anymore.

i completely agree. Where was the Vancouver/western media in the SCF when the Eastern media went to town on the Canucks?

 

The NHL in general terms will support the largest market which makes them the most money. Van led almost every stat in the 10-11 season. The Bruins could not beat the Canucks with skill and decided to goon their way to a Stanley Cup and the Eastern media jumped on board (inc the CBC). 

 

Case and point Rome is rightfully suspended for injuring Horton, yet Boychuck was given a free pass to DDT Raymond miles away from the puck - he broke MR’s back. There was no media support for a Boychuck suspension, the NHL did nothing. 

 

I often wonder if the Western media are just positioning themselves for work in the Eastern media or is the Eastern management who decide their pay structure?

[oldnews]

17 hours ago, dpn1 said:

Who do you respect among the Vancouver Media?

good question.

 

17 hours ago, GarthButcher5 said:

There is often a very negative culture with most of the media and has been for years but add in the blogger culture now and you get a whole new element.

 

I miss the old UTV Sports Page.

Yes.

The new age of everyone having a voice is great and all, but the downside of it is the volumes of reactionary noise.  It lowers the bar to where it's acceptable for some people, who sit in what used to be traditional roles - ie professionals - are now no more credible than the rest of the noise. 

 

On one hand you have misleading, trolling by the likes of Botchford who manipulates a hypothetical [osed by one of his peers into suggesting the Canucks turned down that hypothetical - a 2nd and 4th, as if this is a source reporting on actual trade talks - and proceeds to protest the failure to get picks for Gudbranson under the circumstances. Flake news.  Manipulative, and peddling an agenda - probably out of frustration that his preference, that Gudbranson be traded, was not the result the franchise sought.   Are some people sold on that cheap and easy garbage?  Yes. Do some jump on board because they agree with the goal of acquiring picks?  It doesn't change the fundamentally unprofessional nature of that kind of 'reporting'.  Does it represent people's perspectives in a more general way?  No, of course not.  Most people aren't that invested.

 

To SN tonight, where you get the kind of shaded circle, plus/minus 'analytics' that essentially troll Erik Gudbranson - and do so while having no idea whatsoever what they're talking about.

 

1 hour ago, Adarsh Sant said:

 

A laughable, but quick hit attempt to lay blame on this play - on Gudbranson.

 

No real idea - elementary things about the game - but misrepresented with a slant against a player and essentially, the re-signing of that player.  

 

If I'm going to watch that on a mainstream sports reporting highlight show - I want it accompanied with a whiff of credibilty or actual analysis.

 

The principal blown coverage is Horvat - the center, standing in the slot whose man that is - Karlsson.  He's caught standing flat footed, puck watching and doesn't pick up the guy coming off the boards (while ther are two D down low already.  Karlsson is coming off Gudbranson's opposing boards (ie. on the other side of the ice) - walking into the paint - right in Horvat's direction. Goldobin likewise doesn't see the play developing, and floats (but his job is to deal with potential pass back to the point in any event).

 

Second, when the puck carrier goes behind the net - and Edler peels off, actually reacts to Karlsson as quickly as Horvat does - Gudbranson does the right thing - if he doesn't pick up the puck carrier they are free to wrap around unimpeded.  He's about the 4th of 4 people that could be said to have blown a coverage and/or failed to read the play and intervene here.

 

The shaded circle 'analytics' of Gudbranson's plus/minus on a play like this - wreaks of agenda.

 

Add to that a constant background gaggle of equally weak corsi-gazing / elementary analytics wanting a regime change in Vancouver - and what you get is an absolutely loaded media atmosphere that sacrifices the old school professionalism that you rarely get any more.  Instead you get media egos valuing their own influence peddling more than representing and reporting on the game.

 

[spook007]

7 hours ago, Toews said:

My post was not about individual member of the media but about the media as a whole with the qualification below.

 

Perhaps "honest" wasn't the right word, "consistent" fits better. 

 

People enjoy listening to those individuals that echo their sentiments. This is more prevalent than ever in the world of politics but also applies to sports. Dhaliwal is popular because he is reporting facts and not forcing his own opinions on to the audience. In other words he is a source and not an analyst. 

 

If you are giving your opinions on players then you open yourself up to scrutiny and there will always be someone who have a problem with what you have to say whether it is "positive" or "negative". If you head over to HF, its like a completely different reality down there and any media member who is pro-management is a "mouthpiece" for Linden and Benning.

 

What you see as "fair or favourably" is not someone else's interpretation.of the same. Being on CDC can make it seem that the vast majority are in agreement but this is not the case if you check other places. This fan base is pretty big and opinions are skewed across the board. While you are complaining about their "whining and unhappiness", the other side is complaining that there is too much "pandering".

Fair enough Toews.

 

Agree that it goes both ways as I also stated.

 

Dwaliwal is not only popular, he is a shining light in the media world, mainly, as you rightly stated, because he is sticking to the facts, and giving us to opportunity to make up our own minds. He is a source and not an analyst.

 

I don't have a problem with positive or negative sentiments... after all I am neither blind nor dumb (at least not too much).

Whether we agree or disagree is up to us as fans. Journalists have their take on it as well, just like us and it gives us different point of views.... But, when the views of the media becomes constantly negative and shiitstirring, then it is no longer creditable. Might as well come out and say they don’t like Canucks. 

 

Unfortunately in sports, not just hockey, you find a lot of former players turning pundits, suddenly becoming the best managers/players to ever have existed, and constantly find fault at the present players/ managers in order to become relevant. Its interesting at first, then humorous and finally incredibly boring and tiresome to listen to. 

 

Long story short. 

 

PS. I love Dwahalis reporting

 

 

[dpn1]

I have played, coached and watched enough hockey to enjoy formulating my views that agreeing or disagreeing with someone else isn't a big deal.  I just wish I could hear more factual info to help me make z decisions. 

[alt kilgore]

11 hours ago, oldnews said:

good question.

 

Yes.

The new age of everyone having a voice is great and all, but the downside of it is the volumes of reactionary noise.  It lowers the bar to where it's acceptable for some people, who sit in what used to be traditional roles - ie professionals - are now no more credible than the rest of the noise. 

 

On one hand you have misleading, trolling by the likes of Botchford who manipulates a hypothetical [osed by one of his peers into suggesting the Canucks turned down that hypothetical - a 2nd and 4th, as if this is a source reporting on actual trade talks - and proceeds to protest the failure to get picks for Gudbranson under the circumstances. Flake news.  Manipulative, and peddling an agenda - probably out of frustration that his preference, that Gudbranson be traded, was not the result the franchise sought.   Are some people sold on that cheap and easy garbage?  Yes. Do some jump on board because they agree with the goal of acquiring picks?  It doesn't change the fundamentally unprofessional nature of that kind of 'reporting'.  Does it represent people's perspectives in a more general way?  No, of course not.  Most people aren't that invested.

 

To SN tonight, where you get the kind of shaded circle, plus/minus 'analytics' that essentially troll Erik Gudbranson - and do so while having no idea whatsoever what they're talking about.

 

 

A laughable, but quick hit attempt to lay blame on this play - on Gudbranson.

 

No real idea - elementary things about the game - but misrepresented with a slant against a player and essentially, the re-signing of that player.  

 

If I'm going to watch that on a mainstream sports reporting highlight show - I want it accompanied with a whiff of credibilty or actual analysis.

 

The principal blown coverage is Horvat - the center, standing in the slot whose man that is - Karlsson.  He's caught standing flat footed, puck watching and doesn't pick up the guy coming off the boards (while ther are two D down low already.  Karlsson is coming off Gudbranson's opposing boards (ie. on the other side of the ice) - walking into the paint - right in Horvat's direction. Goldobin likewise doesn't see the play developing, and floats (but his job is to deal with potential pass back to the point in any event).

 

Second, when the puck carrier goes behind the net - and Edler peels off, actually reacts to Karlsson as quickly as Horvat does - Gudbranson does the right thing - if he doesn't pick up the puck carrier they are free to wrap around unimpeded.  He's about the 4th of 4 people that could be said to have blown a coverage and/or failed to read the play and intervene here.

 

The shaded circle 'analytics' of Gudbranson's plus/minus on a play like this - wreaks of agenda.

 

Add to that a constant background gaggle of equally weak corsi-gazing / elementary analytics wanting a regime change in Vancouver - and what you get is an absolutely loaded media atmosphere that sacrifices the old school professionalism that you rarely get any more.  Instead you get media egos valuing their own influence peddling more than representing and reporting on the game.

 

 

peddling an agenda?    See that's where you lose me.  What is the agenda? To make fun of the Canucks?, make the team you cover look worse than they are to the fans in the city you live in?  Why would that be some dedicated 'agenda' for a major swath of Vancouver sports media?  See, I think someone like Botch is too lazy and self centered to follow some nefarious pre-planned agenda.  Also too stubborn a SOB to go along with a conspiracy like that.  I just think he can be a bit of a d*ck sometimes, and doesn't really care what anyone thinks about that. I wouldn't want more than one of Botch, but I kind of like that there is one of him. And not just for that reason, he also raises other points that fans like me find never get discussed, and calls out other personalities on their own BS.

 

Yeah, you can find examples of negative overreaction on some player like you posted on the tweet from Wagner. But by the time clock it was during the game. I know you've read and are a part of the GDTs so you know that things are said in the heat of the moment during a game that in retrospect one may realize they may have been a little harsh. What goes on it GDT, stays in GDT.  Not trying to make excuses, if he considers himself a member of the press, who should be held to a higher standard, then he should have thought a second before posting. I agree with your analysis on that BTW. Edler was more at fault there , if anyone.

 

You're also right in that every sports personality wants to get noticed, engages in their own 'influence peddling' to further their careers. But this is the age of social media, and personal marketing is almost a requirement especially in that business these days. I also think that most every one of them does like, even love, the game of hockey, and what you call an agenda, I just call getting a bit over excited and brash, whether to the positive, or the negative. 

 

These sports personalities haven't hardly worked a day in their lives (relatively speaking).  They have great cushy jobs just talking sports all day (or 3 hours).  Some travel with the team as well. But that's not a bad gig either.  I just don't see any of them going out of their way to make sure to follow some 'agenda' on top of their day job.  They'd have to think too much.

 

Meh.. to each his own. I've seen CDCers on here that rave about Dan Russell for instance, while I cheered the day MOJO 730 radio started with the Moj and Pratt, and I had another choice. Anyone remember that? I don't think they've ever worked together since. Some nasty shouting matches. Now we have two legit 24/7 sports talk stations. And there's bound to be a few personalities that rub each of us the wrong way, and others we value more.  Simple as that.

 

 

 

6 hours ago, dpn1 said:

I have played, coached and watched enough hockey to enjoy formulating my views that agreeing or disagreeing with someone else isn't a big deal.  I just wish I could hear more factual info to help me make z decisions. 

 

Thats just it.   If we just had on these stations commentators that just dryly read the scores, gave out other stats, and trades. Stuck to the facts, never had their own opinions, I think sports radio would be unlistenable. Donny is right, there has to be some form of entertainment to sustain listeners. And throwing out what-if scenerios, or trade ideas, or questions on why this or that player is benched...etc...even if one of them is over the top at times....is better than simply a fact copy reader...IMO.

[oldnews]

47 minutes ago, kilgore said:

 

peddling an agenda?   

yeah - pretty straight forward actually - regime change - and bitter that they didn't achieve it.

[dpn1]

1 hour ago, kilgore said:

 

Thats just it.   If we just had on these stations commentators that just dryly read the scores, gave out other stats, and trades. Stuck to the facts, never had their own opinions, I think sports radio would be unlistenable. Donny is right, there has to be some form of entertainment to sustain listeners. And throwing out what-if scenerios, or trade ideas, or questions on why this or that player is benched...etc...even if one of them is over the top at times....is better than simply a fact copy reader...IMO.

I don't have a problem with some entertainment.  There just doesn't seem like there are a lot of facts being given.   You spelt Scenario wrong.  

[alt kilgore]

6 hours ago, oldnews said:

yeah - pretty straight forward actually - regime change - and bitter that they didn't achieve it.

Ok. I just don't see a bunch of ex jocks and failed jocks that seem to be trying to always crack each other up too much for my liking being savy enough to be playing some other heavy agenda like that.  Regime as in ownership or JB?  Regardless seems a little too complicated for those minds.  I think you give them too much credit. But whatever.

 

 

[alt kilgore]

5 hours ago, dpn1 said:

I don't have a problem with some entertainment.  There just doesn't seem like there are a lot of facts being given.   You spelt Scenario wrong.  

That's true.

BTW, on this side of the pond we use "spelled" 

 

 

[oldnews]

20 minutes ago, kilgore said:

Ok. I just don't see a bunch of ex jocks and failed jocks that seem to be trying to always crack each other up too much for my liking being savy enough to be playing some other heavy agenda like that.  Regime as in ownership or JB?  Regardless seems a little too complicated for those minds.  I think you give them too much credit. But whatever.

 

 

Fire / Don't resign Benning. 

I'm not giving them much credit - it's not that complicated. 

And I doubt many, if any, of them are/were athletes.