[Speculation] Is Schmidt on the move?

[RWMc1]

6 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

What about Iain McIntyre? Ben Kuzma? Patrick Johnston? To me, they seem to be far more balanced reporters who actually have some journalistic integrity and competency.

I don't put all media members in the same category. I also believe that there are decent media guys with an actual realistic outlook who come on to CDC.

 

I also believe that media clowns from other cities come on to CDC to troll the fans. cox and o'neill etc.

[PhillipBlunt]

2 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

I don't put all media members in the same category. I also believe that there are decent media guys with an actual realistic outlook who come on to CDC.

 

I also believe that media clowns from other cities come on to CDC to troll the fans. cox and o'neill etc.

EXPOSE THEM!!!!

[Convincing John]

29 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

If our local media clowns want to regain respect, losing their constant negative agenda would help. This thread is based on a story that contains an outright lie. It claims that no-one has denied the Schmidt rumour. That is an outright lie to push an agenda. They've been pulling this garbage for a long time.

 

Media clowns coming on to CDC to defend other media clowns and maybe even themselves doesn't convince anyone.

What harm does it do though? These guys literally sit around and make stuff up. I travel around a lot for work. I’ve been in hotel lounges with scouts and media and they literally all pull up to the bar, get drunk and talk Schmidt about other players and teams. I remember sitting in Seattle with a Florida scout talking about how weird David booth was and like a year later we acquired him. Lol. It’s a social

group that probably collectively holds some truth due to sheer volume, but way spew way more static and noise. I actually remember being drunk and posting stuff on CDC while I was talking to that scout. 
 

my point is, it’s harmless, if you don’t want to be in the public eye than don’t play in Vancouver. Complaining about the media is actually feeding them. You’re creating more of a buzz than I person that simple reads the tweet and scrolls down, they’re trying to put food on the table, who cares? 

[JM_]

54 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Its not BS. Its something that is being discussed by the media.

same thing. 

[PhillipBlunt]

6 minutes ago, Convincing John said:

What harm does it do though? These guys literally sit around and make stuff up. I travel around a lot for work. I’ve been in hotel lounges with scouts and media and they literally all pull up to the bar, get drunk and talk Schmidt about other players and teams. I remember sitting in Seattle with a Florida scout talking about how weird David booth was and like a year later we acquired him. Lol. It’s a social

group that probably collectively holds some truth due to sheer volume, but way spew way more static and noise. I actually remember being drunk and posting stuff on CDC while I was talking to that scout. 
 

my point is, it’s harmless, if you don’t want to be in the public eye than don’t play in Vancouver. Complaining about the media is actually feeding them. You’re creating more of a buzz than I person that simple reads the tweet and scrolls down, they’re trying to put food on the table, who cares? 

[Dazzle]

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Thats actually not what I have been saying. Thats the reason you have to paraphrase rather than quote me. You are essentially taking a middle of the road argument and pushing it out to the ectremes to further your natrative that Benning is always honest and the media is always dishonest. 

 

I have said the rumor could be true or it could be false. I applied no preferential likelihood to either of those outcomes. Simply stated a fact that either is possible.

 

I clearly never stated that all media people are honest or ethical. I said the main players in Vancouver, on the whole, actually are based on my own experience dealing with them. That doesnt mean they are perfect or dont reach for juicy stories sometimes. Thats, in fact, their entire job.

 

I also never stated that Benning always lies, I stated that - like all GM's - sometimes he lies, sometimes he misleads, and sometimes he crafts a narrative that he needs. Sometimes he is truthful almost to a fault. In the case of a trade request, I said if it was true, Benning would be stupid to acknowledge it when the player has not forced his hand by going to the media.

How ironic because that isn't what I said at all.

 

I'm questioning your tendency to defend the media as being ethical, and the fact that you didn't criticize Sekeres (again, you deliberately ignored him) for his unethical behaviour with regards to Hughes.

 

Your continued silence on the above speaks volumes about where you stand, or at least how you want to portray your stance to be. If anything, I'm using your line of logic; why aren't you talking about how the media deals with stories, especially ones that are poorly verified?

 

You've clearly avoided the Sekeres topic many times. Here is yet another example. I guess you're excusing his behaviour then?

[4petesake]

43 minutes ago, Alflives said:

So true.  Rumour is started, and because there is no denial it is therefore true.  That’s just the stupidest logic ever!  These are same media hacks who said (and then quoted one another) that Quinn was so sick with Covid he was on an IV.  

One hack starts a rumour, Schmidt wants out’ and then the other hacks say they hear something about Schmidt wanting out, when in reality they are just parroting one another.  And then posters defend these hacks!    

There is a rumor going around that the earth is flat. This rumor has persisted for a long time. Nobody is denying it. Oh wait, scientists deny it but then again they have an agenda and it suits their narrative. Why do people get so wound up arguing about this rumor? Usually when a rumor persists for a long time and has legs there is a good chance it is true.

 

Maybe I’ve got this whole round earth thing wrong.

 

(Funny story - over on Reddit anti-vaxxers and flat-earthen are at war telling each other to take their bullschizz somewhere else and stop being so stupid.)

[Dazzle]

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

The question then becomes why are people so wound up about the media doing their job?

 

Here's a news flash. The media members being incessantly whined about actually do have inside sources. They talk to people in and around the team all the time. They know much more than anyone on CDC does.

 

Regarding Schmidt. If people arent worked up about him being traded, why should they be worked up that the media is speculating he could be? Its not BS. Its something that is being discussed by the media. As a rumor it has long legs and often where there is smoke there is fire. 

 

 

Why can't it be BS as it's being discussed by the media?

 

This is an assumption on your part that the media is always telling the truth. It doesn't matter if you don't flat out say it. This post by itself is proof that you

already given credence to the media because they reported a story. You are not considering what they're reporting because, quite frankly, they are not reporting anything new.

 

In other words, you're more biased than you are saying. You are NOT objective.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Dazzle

[TheRussianRocket1994]

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

How ironic because that isn't what I said at all.

 

I'm questioning your tendency to defend the media as being ethical, and the fact that you didn't criticize Sekeres (again, you deliberately ignored him) for his unethical behaviour with regards to Hughes.

 

Your continued silence on the above speaks volumes about where you stand, or at least how you want to portray your stance to be. If anything, I'm using your line of logic; why aren't you talking about how the media deals with stories, especially ones that are poorly verified?

 

You've clearly avoided the Sekeres topic many times. Here is yet another example. I guess you're excusing his behaviour then?

It's like beating a dead horse with some on here! I think it's a lost cause with a handful of these people...

[RWMc1]

14 minutes ago, Convincing John said:

What harm does it do though? These guys literally sit around and make stuff up. I travel around a lot for work. I’ve been in hotel lounges with scouts and media and they literally all pull up to the bar, get drunk and talk Schmidt about other players and teams. I remember sitting in Seattle with a Florida scout talking about how weird David booth was and like a year later we acquired him. Lol. It’s a social

group that probably collectively holds some truth due to sheer volume, but way spew way more static and noise. I actually remember being drunk and posting stuff on CDC while I was talking to that scout. 
 

my point is, it’s harmless, if you don’t want to be in the public eye than don’t play in Vancouver. Complaining about the media is actually feeding them. You’re creating more of a buzz than I person that simple reads the tweet and scrolls down, they’re trying to put food on the table, who cares? 

It creates a toxic environment and makes players not want to sign here. This comes straight from former players like Bieksa.  It's one of the reasons we have to over pay for UFAs.

 

[Dazzle]

17 minutes ago, Convincing John said:

What harm does it do though? These guys literally sit around and make stuff up. I travel around a lot for work. I’ve been in hotel lounges with scouts and media and they literally all pull up to the bar, get drunk and talk Schmidt about other players and teams. I remember sitting in Seattle with a Florida scout talking about how weird David booth was and like a year later we acquired him. Lol. It’s a social

group that probably collectively holds some truth due to sheer volume, but way spew way more static and noise. I actually remember being drunk and posting stuff on CDC while I was talking to that scout. 
 

my point is, it’s harmless, if you don’t want to be in the public eye than don’t play in Vancouver. Complaining about the media is actually feeding them. You’re creating more of a buzz than I person that simple reads the tweet and scrolls down, they’re trying to put food on the table, who cares? 

@wallstreetamigo Are you going to invalidate his claim that local media literally sit around and make stuff up?

 

If you're going to be consistent about defending the media, you'd say something about this post because this reflects what the rest of us have concluded; that the media is not as credible as what you make them out to be.

[Dazzle]

56 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I see those kind of articles. Maybe people who dont just arent able to be objective?

 

The reality is that if the media stirred up no controversy, no one would want to read what they write. Being critical sells. Being a homer does not.

Thanks for confirming to us that the media has an interest in selling papers. Here here, this is coming from the horse's mouth. Stirring up controversy means making a story up to sell. You can't "stir up" a controversy that is formed by itself.

 

So much for 'ethical practices', huh?

[PhillipBlunt]

8 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

It creates a toxic environment and makes players not want to sign here. This comes straight from former players like Bieksa.  It's one of the reasons we have to over pay for UFAs.

 

What did Bieksa say? Never heard that. I would think being a well known athlete in Vancouver is harder than in larger cities like Toronto, New York or other cities where various other prominent major league teams help to share in the spotlight and take some of the heat off of hockey. In Vancouver, the Canucks are, far and away, the top draw and the laser focus that the media has, due to their being a limited sports landscape, falls directly on them.

Edited July 6, 2021 by PhillipBlunt

[TheRussianRocket1994]

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

Thanks for confirming to us that the media has an interest in selling papers. Here here, this is coming from the horse's mouth. Stirring up controversy means making a story up to sell. You can't "stir up" a controversy that is formed by itself.

 

So much for 'ethical practices', huh?

Ahhhhhhhhhh...hypocrisy at it's finest eh! It's like some of these people don't even know they're shooting themselves in their own foot. Lol! 

[Dazzle]

On 7/5/2021 at 2:09 PM, wallstreetamigo said:

The media typically has a lot more info, sources, and context than the average person does. If they are reporting it, that generally means they have verified it to the best degree they can. Does that mean they are always correct? Of course not. They have a tough job for sure.

 

Anything the media says should always be taken with a grain of salt. That doesnt mean everything they say is to be disbelieved though just because you have the view that unless they are cheerleading for Benning that nothing they report is fair. Anything a team or player says in response should likewise be taken with a grain of salt. They have their own reasons to craft a narrative too. More so than the media tbh. 

 

Rumors persist for different reasons. The longer a rumor persists, the more likely it is to have some truth to it. Disproven rumors die quickly. A player not immediately shutting down the rumor certainly keeps it going. Thats not some heinous crime against the Canucks, its just the way media works. And if people werent always starving for Canucks news it would probably not work that way as much. 

 

The media in Vancouver certainly has its share of hacks like anywhere else. But I do defend the main media players because I know and deal with them. They do have a lot of integrity compared to a lot of other places media. I actually find that collectively as a group they go pretty easy on Benning and the Canucks overall.

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Why do you struggle understanding what the media's job actually is?

 

Sports reporting would be extremely boring if it was only 100% provable and verified news. Speculation and "I think" is what actually sells. Not sure why people get so offended that they dont just kiss Bennings ass. Its not their job.

 

[Dazzle]

On 7/4/2021 at 6:16 PM, wallstreetamigo said:

The only thing we know for sure is that there is always a ton more behind the scenes that we never get wind of in almost every situation.

 

Reporters jobs are to report what they hear. Not to tow the company line. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. And sometimes between the time they report something and the public backlash, something material changes in the situation. Players wanting to be traded often fall into this category as there can be any number of reasons for those kinds of requests. 

 

No one knows what really was going on with any of those situations though. You only know what you are told. That doesnt mean anything though. Rumors are rumors for a reason. Doesnt mean they are true or arent. 

 

As an example, just because Hughes denied the IV thing doesnt 100% mean it actually didnt happen. It could very well mean that him and the Canucks just didnt want anyone to know it did. They would have a lot of reasons to want that hidden especially during the season. I personally think that story was BS but the reality of how media and organizations work is sometimes they do craft the narrative they want.

 

Clark stayed but he got a pretty sweetheart deal to do so. That could just as easily mean Benning delaying forced him into a situation where he had to give in to what Clark wanted to keep him. Again, not saying that is or isnt the case. Just saying that what you hear, especially from hockey players and executives along with the media, must always be taken with a grain of salt because rarely do we ever get the full context of any behind the scenes situation.

 

I cantell you that there have been stories over the years that were not reported even though verified and viable because of the potential collateral damage. If the Vancouver media did not have ethics, they would not have thought twice about reporting them. I stand by my opinion that the key Vancouver media players get a bad rap on here. 

2 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Why do you struggle understanding what the media's job actually is?

 

Sports reporting would be extremely boring if it was only 100% provable and verified news. Speculation and "I think" is what actually sells. Not sure why people get so offended that they dont just kiss Bennings ass. Its not their job.

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I see those kind of articles. Maybe people who dont just arent able to be objective?

 

The reality is that if the media stirred up no controversy, no one would want to read what they write. Being critical sells. Being a homer does not.

Hmm...

On one hand, you said they report what they hear, not "tow the company line". On the other hand, you said it would be "extremely boring" if they reported stuff that was 100 percent accurate.

 

Then you said that stirring up controversy sells papers (something we all suspected), while you claim that Vancouver media has ethics.

 

Ok buddy. You've thoroughly contradicted yourself.

Why are you so offended by the media being criticized? Millennials....

 

Why is there a zero sum approach to reporting? Why is it that "being a homer" can't sell a paper? The fact that people buy a controversial story is exploiting people's psychology. In other words, this demonstrates, and you've confirmed this, that the media doesn't care about having ethics, so long as they sell papers.

Also, what is it about reporting accurately that makes you somehow "a homer"? So many questions.... @wallstreetamigo

 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by Dazzle

[4petesake]

14 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

What did Bieksa say? Never heard that. I would think being a well known athlete in Vancouver is harder than in larger cities like Toronto, New York or other cities where various other prominent major league teams help to share in the spotlight and take some of the heat off of hockey. In Vancouver, the Canucks are, far and away, the top draw and the laser focus that the media has, due to their being a limited sports landscape, falls directly on them.

 

 

[PhillipBlunt]

1 minute ago, 4petesake said:

 

 

Thank you, 4pete.

 

Juice makes some solid points. I long for the days of journalistic integrity. 

Edited July 6, 2021 by PhillipBlunt

[Dazzle]

4 minutes ago, 4petesake said:

 

 

@wallstreetamigo This is the consequence that you get when you "sell" news. You claim to think the news was BS, but your other comments say otherwise. You're complicit with the poor reporting, in favour of entertainment.

[RWMc1]

7 minutes ago, 4petesake said:

 

 

I was actually going off of a segment of HNIC where he stated that it was so bad for some players because certain media members hounded them with negativity to the point that they didn't even want to speak with them.