[Discussion] Ron MacLean homophobic?

[IBatch]

5 minutes ago, oldnews said:

There's no need to make assumptions here - whether MacLean was referring to testing positive for HIV, or "rum" (as weak a backtrack/denial as they come) - as if anyone has ever been tested "for rum" - people are tested for blood alcohol content when they drive....but 'rum' is just an awkward reach by MacLean.

Ron's contrived / fake 'explanation' just makes him look like that much more of a coward - unable to own his words/responsibility.  He typically digs in in situations like this - as if he 'understands' who people could misunderstand him lol. 

 

What is exceedingly clear - is that the basis of his jab was Bieksa having a photo of a shirtless man behind him.  Period.

 

That is the material point - what he insinuates relates directly to implying what Bieksa exposes himself to as a result.  

Speculation about what Bieksa would allegedly test positive for - is irrelevent - the nature of the insult/trash talk relates to what a picture of a man 'tarp off' insinuates.

 

Ron - in typical Ron fashion - seized upon an irrelevent distraction - rum - as a means to avoid what the insult really consisted of.

 

Regardless of whether people are railing against 'cancel culture' - or taking offense to MacLean's attempt to 'make fun' of Bieksa's choice to present a shirless photo - literally everyone knows what the gist of the comment was.

 

So - why does Ron feel the need to take a shot at Bieksa's "manhood"?

 

I think the answer is probably fairly obvious.  Bieksa is more 'man' than MacLean could ever hope to be.

Bieksa has become a rock-star - stealing the show - someone who commands attention - while Ron increasingly is a declining sidekick - whose forced metaphor game - his bread and butter - is as cringe and constipated as commentary comes.

 

Was Ron just being 'playful'?   That wouldn't be my take - I think Ron is clearly threatened by Bieksa - and/or felt the need to attempt to take Bieksa down a notch.   Bieksa is, after all - a Canuck - and a team-mate of Burrows - and none of the dynamic on those panels lack underlying context.

Bieksa has changed the landscape.  Jen Botterrill is changing the landscape.  Ron is increasingly irrelevent - appealing to who?

 

So what do you 'do' about it?   'Apologize' for Ron?  Defend his 'right' to speak 'freely'?  'Cancel' him? 

I'm not sure - but I think the discussion flushes it out as much as any 'action'. His 'explanation' was predictably weak.  I'd have more respect for him if he just owned that it was what it was.

I don't necessarily agree with over-reacting to a particular incident - as was done with Cherry - who had a history imo of making an idiot of himself.  There were tons of reasons to let go of Cherry - should have been done earlier - by simple review - of how antiquated / what a liability he was. 

 

Does Bieksa's manhood need to be defended?   I don't think so.  I think it's pretty clear that regardless of this impotent attempt of MacLean - regardless of what Bieksa's person love/sexual preferences may be - MacLean is 'punching way up in weight class.' 

 

If Ron isn't 'penalized' - does that mean he should 'man up' - and drop the gloves with Bieksa - the hockey solution -  which probably would have been the general result in days gone by - if someone made a belittling chirp like that.  Of course few people resolve matters that way any more (aside from hockey players / on-ice, ironically)...  Bieksa doesn't need to prove himself - no need to 'answer' MacLean - probably wouldn't be caught dead obliging such an unworthy opponent.  I imagine Bieksa would brush this aside - while probably also trying not to speak for shirtless men in general lol - who will probably have a range of opinions on the comments.

 

And of course - what is the attempt to 'belittle' founded upon - who is the reduction, the devaluing - aimed at?  I'm not sure it's as debatable as the politicking around it.  Ron simply associated a shirtless man with testing positive for something.  Generally, testing 'positive' of course - has negative implications.

 

Let Ron weasel around his comment.   It is what it is.

'Cancel' him for this?  Nah.  Just conduct a broader review in the offseason - of whether he's worth keeping around.

My two cents would be that hockey broadcasting would be better off without him - he's increasingly 'unentertaining' / borderline unwatchable.  I don't think he stands up to the incoming talent.  He's had his days, his say - he's made a living off it - he's no victim - he isn't 'entitled' to his position.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It all comes down to ratings.   Ron McLean is safe.    In fact this entire fiasco might have bumped his ratings.   Same old thing he did with Cherry for years..

[oldnews]

1 minute ago, IBatch said:

It all comes down to ratings.   Ron McLean is safe.    In fact this entire fiasco might have bumped his ratings.   Same old thing he did with Cherry for years..

what makes you assume 'ratings' for MacLean are 'safe'? 

are you talking about hockey ratings in general - that do not reduce to MacLean?

or do you have specific positive 'ratings' for MacLean?

 

I know how I'd rate him.  Right alongside his former sidekick.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

8 minutes ago, oldnews said:

what makes you assume 'ratings' for MacLean are 'safe'? 

are you talking about hockey ratings in general - that do not reduce to MacLean?

or do you have specific positive 'ratings' for MacLean?

 

I know how I'd rate him.  Right alongside his former sidekick.

Don Cherry was brought up in a significantly different generation.  That doesn't give him an immunity idol but one should take that into context in his actions.  MacLean, born in 1960, should know better plain & simple.

Edited May 28, 2021 by NewbieCanuckFan

[IBatch]

9 minutes ago, oldnews said:

what makes you assume 'ratings' for MacLean are 'safe'? 

are you talking about hockey ratings in general - that do not reduce to MacLean?

or do you have specific positive 'ratings' for MacLean?

 

I know how I'd rate him.  Right alongside his former sidekick.

These things do bump ratings.   Cherry did it for years, created his own empire as result.    That is the point.   Ron McLean making yet another public apology is actually good for business.   People will tune in to see whatever the next goof he makes live.   Cherry was masterful at this for a very very long time. and i'm sure his sidekick picked up on this.   I'm talking about TV ratings, and the advertising dollars that run it. 

Edited May 28, 2021 by IBatch

[alt kilgore]

6 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Damn.   Never thought of it that way but maybe your right and this is a just a ratings thing.  Cherry at the start made waves right away, ratings shot up and the next thing we saw was good old Canadian boys losing jobs to yellow europeans all the time and ratings kept going up because love him or hate him you had to see what he said next.   There is a possibility.   Not making a conspiracy theory's   But there is a possibility that KB is being groomed to be the new Cherry with Ron as the same old Ron, trying to look smart,

failing and getting lambasted by the alpha male of the group.   It did work for 3 plus decades didn't it?  

 

Ha ha.  I never actually went there.  That its a deliberate set up by producers.  Maybe.

 

I don't see Ron going along with being a one way punching bag though. He used to have his intelligence and wit, backhanded compliments etc, while Cherry was the hockey game expert.  Ron was happy as long as he could at least look smarter than his co-host. 

 

Ron vs. someone who is quicker and wittier than he is, AND has more inside knowledge and experience of playing, or coaching, in the NHL?   Poor Ronnie.

[GB5]

On 5/26/2021 at 6:23 PM, Bertuzzipunch said:

Time to get Ron off the Air or no? Does he hate gay ppl?

 

 

I think your title is very misleading and damaging. Is this intentional?

 

Maybe he made a comment that some perceive as homophobic but do you really know the man? Likely not so maybe change your inflammatory title.

[Bertuzzipunch]

2 minutes ago, GarthButcher5 said:

I think your title is very misleading and damaging. Is this intentional?

 

Maybe he made a comment that some perceive as homophobic but do you really know the man? Likely not so maybe change your inflammatory title.

Damaging to who exactly? How about no

[oldnews]

23 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Don Cherry was brought up in a significantly different generation.  That doesn't give him an immunity idol but one should take that into context his actions.  MacLean, born in 1960, should know better plain & simple.

 

That may be - although I'm not sure being born in 1960 necessarily made anyone 'know better'.

But I'm not talking about culpability/immunity - or when they were born, in any event.

 

I don't think MacLean needs to be 'guilty' of homophobia here to be considered post shelf-life.

 

Does this comment qualify as 'offensive' enough to be grounds for dismissal? 

 

That's not how I'd approach it.  If it were my call, his days would be numbered regardless.  Like I said - I'd neither make a 'victim' of him - nor do I consider him 'entitled' to his position.

My review would be that he's increasingly unentertaining cringe material.

But I'm not a dictator - so do it objectively and fairly - it's an entertainment industry - do people want to listen to that?  I'd be surprised if he survives his position under popular review.

 

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by oldnews

[IBatch]

1 minute ago, kilgore said:

 

Ha ha.  I never actually went there.  That its a deliberate set up by producers.  Maybe.

 

I don't see Ron going along with being a one way punching bag though. He used to have his intelligence and wit, backhanded compliments etc, while Cherry was the hockey game expert.  Ron was happy as long as he could at least look smarter than his co-host. 

 

Ron vs. someone who is quicker and wittier than he is, AND has more inside knowledge and experience of playing, or coaching, in the NHL?   Poor Ronnie.

Cherry was a coach.   And a player too. All Ron has is his reffing - for sure doesn't stack up to Bieksa or Cherry.   He's never going to shake that, all he has is his trying to outsmart them.   Like Mr. Rogers against The Friendly Giant.  Or Scobbie-Do?  At best he's Gillagan from Gilligans Island, the central character that has no skills and really isn't the central character.   Just a fool and he at least owns it.   What do kids want to watch really?   KB is like the roadrunner same as Cherry was, never ever going to be that no matter how hard he tries.   Looking smart is what he tries to do, and it's mostly just a waste of air time.    You do have to wonder how much of this is just made up on purpose.  The guys rich and famous regardless.   Bet 99% of the CDC would trade their life for the one he's had.  

[IBatch]

3 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I'm not talking about culpability/immunity - or when they were born.

 

I don't think MacLean needs to be 'guilty' of homophobia here to be considered post shelf-life.

 

Does this comment qualify as 'offensive' enough to be grounds for dismissal? 

 

That's not how I'd approach it.  If it were my call, his days would be numbered regardless.  Like I said - I'd neither make a 'victim' of him - nor do I consider him 'entitled' to his position.

My review would be that he's increasingly unentertaining cringe material.

But I'm not a dictator - so do it objectively and fairly - it's an entertainment industry - do people want to listen to that?  I'd be surprised if he survives his position under popular review.

 

 

His days are numbered based on one thing only - ratings.   That's it.  

[NewbieCanuckFan]

4 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I'm not talking about culpability/immunity - or when they were born.

 

I don't think MacLean needs to be 'guilty' of homophobia here to be considered post shelf-life.

 

Does this comment qualify as 'offensive' enough to be grounds for dismissal? 

 

That's not how I'd approach it.  If it were my call, his days would be numbered regardless.  Like I said - I'd neither make a 'victim' of him - nor do I consider him 'entitled' to his position.

My review would be that he's increasingly unentertaining cringe material.

But I'm not a dictator - so do it objectively and fairly - it's an entertainment industry - do people want to listen to that?  I'd be surprised if he survives his position under popular review.

 

 

To be honest, I've got a built-in bias against him so that likely clouds my judgement on him.  I can't say I could render an objective opinion on anything he does.  If he told me water was wet, I'd have to really think about agreeing with him.

Edited May 28, 2021 by NewbieCanuckFan

[4petesake]

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

I'm not talking about culpability/immunity - or when they were born.

 

I don't think MacLean needs to be 'guilty' of homophobia here to be considered post shelf-life.

 

Does this comment qualify as 'offensive' enough to be grounds for dismissal? 

 

That's not how I'd approach it.  If it were my call, his days would be numbered regardless.  Like I said - I'd neither make a 'victim' of him - nor do I consider him 'entitled' to his position.

My review would be that he's increasingly unentertaining cringe material.

But I'm not a dictator - so do it objectively and fairly - it's an entertainment industry - do people want to listen to that?  I'd be surprised if he survives his position under popular review.

 

 

I’m disappointed that people think he needs to labelled homophobic to get the the axe. IMO he should have been fired for his hatchet job on Burrows rather than letting him portray himself as a weakass victim of cancel culture. 

 

 

[oldnews]

7 minutes ago, IBatch said:

His days are numbered based on one thing only - ratings.   That's it.  

and do you have any data regarding his 'ratings'?

[IBatch]

8 minutes ago, Bertuzzipunch said:

Damaging to who exactly? How about no

It's a little over the top Butcher made a decent point.   Click bait.   Ron McLean is still a human, on camera and like to see what some of us would have said in his shoes.  KB has been schooling him since he came in and i'm sure the ribbing is starting to mount up.   Also i think that fair odds the entire thing was done on purpose.   Ratings and all that.   It matters to every single panel member. He is smart.   And knows hockey (Ron McLean).   As do all of them intimatedly. 

 

So sensationalize it.   For me at least i doubt it was intentional unless it was.  And in that case it's all about ratings.  That's what pays everyone's salary in that gig. 

[IBatch]

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

and do you have any data regarding his 'ratings'?

No.  But i understand the game well enough to know that's what drives their pay-cheques.   And you can be damn sure McLean does too. 

[Gurn]

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

How about Elmo?

I saw a vid of the Cookie Monster on  John Oliver's show; including the commercial breaks.

Very funny stuff, would love Cookie as the host of hnic.

[Goal:thecup]

Ron should just retire and seek medical help.

Even though I enjoy Kevin carving him up, the man is sick and helpless, and beyond cringeworthy, he's a creep; get him out of there for his own good.

 

Whinging around in his sliminess, spreading that stink of inappropriate behaviour, and juvenile commentary that hangs around him like a toxic cloud of historical re-writes and false 'apologies', he just makes me sick.

 

Too bad the good old days are gone or Kev could Federov his ass into &^@#ing off.

Give him a choice: retire, or ...  Blanket Party with Bieksa and Burrows!

 

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, Goal:thecup said:

Ron should just retire and seek medical help.

Even though I enjoy Kevin carving him up, the man is sick and helpless, and beyond cringeworthy, he's a creep; get him out of there for his own good.

 

Whinging around in his sliminess, spreading that stink of inappropriate behaviour, and juvenile commentary that hangs around him like a toxic cloud of historical re-writes and false 'apologies', he just makes me sick.

 

Too bad the good old days are gone or Kev could Federov his ass into &^@#ing off.

Give him a choice: retire, or ...  Blanket Party with Bieksa and Burrows!

 

[King Heffy]

On 5/27/2021 at 8:33 PM, Hairy Kneel said:

Whos your choice to replace RM? 

Caroline Cameron

[linden17]

I’d say Canucks.com is homophobic. My thread with a video of green kissing a guy got locked.