United
Entry posted by Andrew Bucholtz
291 views
(Quick side note; I'll be attending tomorrow night's Canucks Tweetup at the Lamplighter. If you're going to be there, make sure to say hi; I'll probably be the only one with a blond mustache, leather jacket and red/navy old Canucks third jersey! Also, check out this piece I wrote on the Canucks' defensive depth, and go here if you want to see the videos included in this post.)
This Alex Burrows - Stephane Auger saga just continues to spiral. In terms of Vancouver versus the league, the NHL's already come out with their nothing to see here, move along line, and it doesn't look like much of anything further will happen on that front. The Canucks versus CBC story is much more interesting, though, and it hasn't quite wrapped up yet.
Flash back to the Canucks' Jan. 16 game against the Penguins on CBC's Hockey Night in Canada. Before the game started, Ron MacLean and company aired an 11-minute segment on the Burrows-Auger controversy, featuring the comments of MacLean and NHL VP Colin Campbell.
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion on that segment. Personally, I thought it was unfair and irresponsible. One of the key elements of journalism is giving both sides a chance to state their perspective. In news stories, that's done by talking to (or attempting to talk to) both sides. With opinion pieces, that's usually done by providing space for rebuttal; in print or Internet pieces, that can take the form of letters to the editor or comments on a story, while in television, it's usually accomplished by talking to someone with a different perspective or at least suggesting that there is a different perspective out there. It's ironic that MacLean failed to do this, as he frequently provides that balancing information in his Coach's Corner segments with Don Cherry. This time, though, MacLean gave a league official (Campbell) eleven minutes of free air time to state the league's position and fell all over himself agreeing with it. The Canucks were provided with no opportunity for rebuttal until coach Alain Vigneault's segment on After Hours. Vigneault did an excellent job of defending Burrows, but I'm sure his defence was noticed by a lot fewer people, as After Hours doesn't air until around 1 a.m. Eastern. That's not a particularly fair and balanced way to look at things, in my mind, and MacLean's pompous and unapologetic defence of his actions after the fact didn't help matters.
The Canucks agreed with this take, promptly boycotting all Hockey Night In Canada interviews this past Saturday against the Blackhawks. Here's the key part from Ben Kuzma's piece, linked just above:
"It was an organization's decision," said Vigneault. "Any time we feel that one of our players has not been treated fairly, as an organization we have to take a stand and we did that last night and we're moving forward."
My background is as a traditional media reporter, and I usually hate the idea of players or teams deciding not to talk to organizations to make a point. I particularly hate boycotting a media organization over the actions of a columnist or an editorial board, as usually they're not the ones trying to get quotes from you afterwards. Making the beat reporter's life difficult doesn't accomplish anything. However, I do agree with the reasons behind this particular boycott, especially considering that top CBC executives seem unwilling to consider that the Canucks have a point; Bruce Dowbiggin reports that CBC Sports head Scott Moore is standing by MacLean despite other CBC employees questioning the piece, and HNIC executive producer Sherali Najak said "There are no agendas". This isn't a lone media member going beyond the pale; it's his organization backing him to the hilt and refusing to address the improprieties in his work. Because the CBC didn't consider Burrows' side of the story and refused to address the topic in a balanced matter, a boycott seems like the only way for the Canucks to launch an effective protest.
That doesn't mean they should continue the boycott indefinitely, though, and that's why it's reassuring to see that the Canucks are involved in discussions with Hockey Night In Canada ahead of this Saturday's game against the Leafs. They've made their point effectively on the issue; now hopefully they can move forward and put it to bed. Everyone now knows what they were fighting for, and hopefully that will put pressure on Hockey Night In Canada to be more fair and balanced in the future.
Regardless of what HNIC does, though, it will be more valuable to have Canuck players and coaches give their opinions on games on the air than continue a boycott over a past slight; that would just force HNIC to provide one-dimensional coverage of their games, and multiple biased pieces only make things worse. Plus, the Canucks should heed Charles Brownson's famous saying, "Never argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel". It's airtime instead of ink in this case, but the principle is the same; protracted fights with the media don't usually work well. The Canucks need to move forward and get this over with.
However, it is refreshing to see that the team did conduct this boycott against one of the most powerful media entitites in Canada on behalf of one of their players. Rather than hanging Burrows out to dry, they've stuck with him through this entire incident. Burrows has received tremendous support from his teammates, his coaches and his organization, and that's good to see. He's continued to score at a ridiculous pace despite the scrutiny, and I'd venture part of it is because of the backing he's getting. That can inspire a team to come together, and it shows the players that this organization is willing to defend them. United, they can do far more than they ever could apart.
1 Comment
Recommended Comments
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now