Why we are never in the conversation for big name trades in the Benning era?

[Gurn]

13 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

the way Amigo goes on and on defending the media makes me think he's Sekeres. 

Anyone want to look at amigo's posting times, see in Sekeres was not "on air" at the time?

[Ghostsof1915]

3 minutes ago, gurn said:

Anyone want to look at amigo's posting times, see in Sekeres was not "on air" at the time?

Still means nothing. Sekeres can be on a computer at the same time, and be on the air.

Edited July 11, 2021 by Ghostsof1915

[Gurn]

6 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Still means nothing. Sekeres can be on a computer at the same time, and be on the air.

Oh, right,  I think the kids call that multi-tasking.

[Ghostsof1915]

2 minutes ago, gurn said:

Oh, right,  I think the kids call that multi-tasking.

Or commercial breaks.

[wallstreetamigo]

1 hour ago, debluvscanucks said:

As for the part in red (first part):

 

Come on, do you really believe they don't put their own spin on things?  That's cooking them up.  "Speculating".  

 

If they don't reveal their source it could be the neighbour's cat.  It could be them putting pieces of puzzles together according to what makes their story (spin) work.  Let's call it...embellishing.   

 

It ties in to the second part.  Their job is to get people to read their story and that involves "cooking up" something, often out nothing.  Media likely cares less about "harming the team" than a GM - it's THEIR team.  If they lie to the masses, they can lose their jobs.  Accountability is important.

 

Media people care about getting the scoop and will sacrifice a team if it means they can generate a buzz.  It sometimes does harm the team - ask Brian Burke how he feels about Vancouver media people.  It's for a reason.

 

It doesn't matter if they have "an agenda" to lie or not....it's about putting stuff out there, often without having credible sources.  It's often their own brainstorming and momentum that they run with (more so than facts).

 

 

 

It comes down to what you define as "firm evidence". Of course they put their "spin" on things. Thats their job. I have said they do all along.

 

Where people seem to get confused is when I say its exceedingly rare for established media people to just make a lie up, attribute it to a secret source that is their cat, and tell it. Thats just not how the process of utilizing a source works. Sources and their information typically are verified to the best extent possible before being used. Its also not a situation where no one but the reporter knows who the source is. Their superiors do as well in most if not all cases. And they would probably be fired immediately if they risked the reputation of their company based on an outright lie. That doesnt mean they dont go with stories that arent 100% verified because they also are racing the clock to get a story out before someone else does.

 

Most of what you say here isnt actually how the relationship between a source and a reporter works. 

 

The media is not the enemy. You guys all sound like Donald Trump.

[wallstreetamigo]

1 hour ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

We'd probably have less issues if the media worked at the standards they used to hold.

- Two sources minimum, you didn't have to publish who the sources are. But even two sources are "thin". 

- Three was preferred by newspaper editors (or more). Especially if it's an important story. 

 

Mind you I doubt Twitter/Modern print media editors even go this far anymore to confirm sources on stories. 

 

Most Twitter stories state they have one source, and don't say anything if anyone else bothers to confirm.

 

In fact a caller on 1040 said that Price was being irresponsible as a journalist spreading gossip. 

Price's counter to that? "I'm not a journalist, I'm a radio personality."

So basically saying his opinions and speculation was worth nothing. 

 

Thats not really a Vancouver media phenomenon though. Its just the way media has evolved (if you can call it evolving). The need for right now speculative information has superceded 100% verified reporting.

 

And honestly, thats not entirely the media's fault. They have simply adjusted to the demand thats out there now.

[Ghostsof1915]

2 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Thats not really a Vancouver media phenomenon though. Its just the way media has evolved (if you can call it evolving). The need for right now speculative information has superceded 100% verified reporting.

 

And honestly, thats not entirely the media's fault. They have simply adjusted to the demand thats out there now.

So facts don't matter? Don't you think the public wants facts? 

[wallstreetamigo]

Just now, Ghostsof1915 said:

So facts don't matter? Don't you think the public wants facts? 

Facts do matter. But for most people not as much as they used to unfortunately. 

 

I dont believe a large portion of the public actually want facts, unless those facts support their pre-conceived notion of what the story must be.

 

We see it all the time on here. People look at what is said and transpose their own opinion on what must be true onto it. When in reality no one actually knows the truth.

 

The Hughes thing. The Gaudette thing. The Tryamkin thing. The Toffoli thing. The Schmidt thing.

 

All of those were similar in that they were put out in the puic sphere and contradicted by statements made. In some cases, people were outraged (Hughes, Schmidt). In others, they immediately jumped out to suggest the story must be true (Toffoli, Gaudette, Tryamkin).

 

As near as I can see, the only difference in any of those comes down to perception. Whose version you choose to believe and if a story supports what Benning says it must be true and the other person must be lying. 

 

Perception is not fact. My issue is when people misrepresent what qualifies as facts. No one knows the real story behind any of those things and they likely never will. But they are more than willing to assign a definitive level of truth to any situation as if they do based on simply what they think. 

 

[4petesake]

10 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Thats not really a Vancouver media phenomenon though. Its just the way media has evolved (if you can call it evolving). The need for right now speculative information has superceded 100% verified reporting.

 

And honestly, thats not entirely the media's fault. They have simply adjusted to the demand thats out there now.

The word “media” has been completely redefined since we entered the digital age. Media is simply the means of communication by which information is shared. Originally this was print, radio and television. Accuracy was critical to the success of any of these outlets so if you got stories wrong you lost eyes and ears. Now with the internet accuracy as a criteria is very near the bottom of the list. Outlandish, argumentative, controversial and negative stories and reports garner views. Clicks, comments, likes and dislikes all lead to sales so accuracy has little bearing on success. The very fact that we are all talking about a rumor makes the author successful.
 

Some members of this new age media like Elliotte Friedman still rely on accuracy to maintain credibility which lead to more interest and others like Sekeres rely on controversy for interest. While both might put out rumours that may turn out to be false, one is an honest effort and the other is clickbait.    It’s up to us to see the difference and so far we’re not very good at it.

[-DLC-]

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

It comes down to what you define as "firm evidence". Of course they put their "spin" on things. Thats their job. I have said they do all along.

 

Where people seem to get confused is when I say its exceedingly rare for established media people to just make a lie up, attribute it to a secret source that is their cat, and tell it. Thats just not how the process of utilizing a source works. Sources and their information typically are verified to the best extent possible before being used. Its also not a situation where no one but the reporter knows who the source is. Their superiors do as well in most if not all cases. And they would probably be fired immediately if they risked the reputation of their company based on an outright lie. That doesnt mean they dont go with stories that arent 100% verified because they also are racing the clock to get a story out before someone else does.

 

Most of what you say here isnt actually how the relationship between a source and a reporter works. 

 

The media is not the enemy. You guys all sound like Donald Trump.

The media is not a hero.  You sound like a Donald Trump supporter (see how that works?).

 

No one's saying the media is "the enemy" (there's another one of those exaggerations intended to validate a point when, really, it just discredits it).....just that they can put things out there that snowball as some hang on their every word as "truth" and make excuses for them when they do share their version of it.  Some of us know that it's not as much about gathering and reporting the truth as it is creating clickbait and followers.

 

So how DID the "report" of Quinn being on IV come to circulate?  Tell me how that relationship worked when this was stated in an interview?  Most wouldn't hear these things if the media didn't pick them up and run with them.  "Share them" before confirming them.

Quote

“My understanding is Quinn had one of the roughest goes with COVID amongst the Canucks,” Sekeres said on his new live streaming show with Blake Price. “There were reports of IVs for Quinn Hughes. I think he lost some weight.”

 

[-DLC-]

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

We see it all the time on here. People look at what is said and transpose their own opinion on what must be true onto it. When in reality no one actually knows the truth.

 

 

So wait...when the "media" does this, it's ok?  They are the "sources" for much of the conversation that takes place afterward.  So hit it at the source rather than blaming people who do believe what's being put out there.  Because it should be factual and it's not up to us to weed through it, it's up to those reporting on the team as "sources" to make sure they're not leading us down a rabbit hole because it makes for a better story.

 

Come on now, you're reaching.  People do want "facts" to be shared from "sources" that tout themselves as insiders and close to the team.

 

Quote

I dont believe a large portion of the public actually want facts, unless those facts support their pre-conceived notion of what the story must be.

It seems more that you're doing that by using these non facts  to support a perceived notion that JB is awful.  Some of what's been put out there has been dispelled but you still use it in your tally.  The media reports on things but it's ok if they're not factual?  We can still use these reports to propel our own ideas as supporting evidence.......but guess what?  Supporting evidence does have to be factual.

[johngould21]

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Facts do matter. But for most people not as much as they used to unfortunately. 

 

I dont believe a large portion of the public actually want facts, unless those facts support their pre-conceived notion of what the story must be.

 

We see it all the time on here. People look at what is said and transpose their own opinion on what must be true onto it. When in reality no one actually knows the truth.

 

The Hughes thing. The Gaudette thing. The Tryamkin thing. The Toffoli thing. The Schmidt thing.

 

All of those were similar in that they were put out in the puic sphere and contradicted by statements made. In some cases, people were outraged (Hughes, Schmidt). In others, they immediately jumped out to suggest the story must be true (Toffoli, Gaudette, Tryamkin).

 

As near as I can see, the only difference in any of those comes down to perception. Whose version you choose to believe and if a story supports what Benning says it must be true and the other person must be lying. 

 

Perception is not fact. My issue is when people misrepresent what qualifies as facts. No one knows the real story behind any of those things and they likely never will. But they are more than willing to assign a definitive level of truth to any situation as if they do based on simply what they think. 

 

You’re still on about this?

[-DLC-]

4 minutes ago, johngould21 said:

You’re still on about this?

If you say it enough times, it becomes truth.

 

But not really.

[Ajax-]

Trumpism at it's  finest, Antagonistic Amigo doing what he does best

 

 

[Ajax-]

But why are we rarely in the big name trades under JB?

 

How many trades fizzle between GMs and are not reported? 

[snipes2539]

3 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

If you say it enough times, it becomes truth.

 

But not really.

Ah deb I enjoy reading all your posts. 

 

I think there's an aspect of accountability here that should be considered too and it's the context of confirmation bias.  You're absolutely right, hit at the source for their personal spin on things and their desire to create click bait and gain followers.  But readers are also accountable too, it's like they read something or hear some rumor and they quickly google something along the lines of what they want or expect to see, so they're fed back a bunch of tweets, articles, videos, etc... that simply fit what they wanted to find.  When it comes to the consumption of any media these days, a lot of people are simply content to stay firmly in their echo chamber.

 

The saddest part of all this is that the ability to have civil conversations about contradicting opinions is all but gone from the public space.  Obviously i'm heading in to a much larger conversation but still applicable here haha.

 

It's just easy to hate on JB and Green right now, tomorrow it'll be easy to add someone else to that list.  I'm still waiting for someone to actually make some suggestions as to who they'd replace either of those two guys with.  Is it true that ANY GM out there would be better than JB?  Realy?  I hear Pierre Mcguire is available and he has "experience" as a GM, maybe we should fire JB and get him right? lol

[snipes2539]

7 minutes ago, AbrasiveAjax said:

But why are we rarely in the big name trades under JB?

 

How many trades fizzle between GMs and are not reported? 

I think it's a smokescreen created by lack of reporting.  Just because it doesn't gain traction in popular sports media doesn't mean that discussions didn't happen  That's just my opinion on that.

 

Also, I think it's sports media bias too, the only thing Canuck land is good for right now from a click bait perspective is contraversy and negative sentiment.  Plenty of stories there everyone under the sun will happily report on.  

[RWMc1]

7 minutes ago, snipes2539 said:

Ah deb I enjoy reading all your posts. 

 

I think there's an aspect of accountability here that should be considered too and it's the context of confirmation bias.  You're absolutely right, hit at the source for their personal spin on things and their desire to create click bait and gain followers.  But readers are also accountable too, it's like they read something or hear some rumor and they quickly google something along the lines of what they want or expect to see, so they're fed back a bunch of tweets, articles, videos, etc... that simply fit what they wanted to find.  When it comes to the consumption of any media these days, a lot of people are simply content to stay firmly in their echo chamber.

 

The saddest part of all this is that the ability to have civil conversations about contradicting opinions is all but gone from the public space.  Obviously i'm heading in to a much larger conversation but still applicable here haha.

 

It's just easy to hate on JB and Green right now, tomorrow it'll be easy to add someone else to that list.  I'm still waiting for someone to actually make some suggestions as to who they'd replace either of those two guys with.  Is it true that ANY GM out there would be better than JB?  Realy?  I hear Pierre Mcguire is available and he has "experience" as a GM, maybe we should fire JB and get him right? lol

 

I refer to a certain segment of fans as popularity contest fans. They decide they love a player and therefore he can do no wrong. Even further, the fans will hate other players who play above that person or plays a similar role. Conversely, when they hate a player, they look for anything negative to focus on and ignore all else.

If they hate a player they look for similar but "better" players and assume we can ditch our hated roster players and just sign any Ufa they desire. Same with the coach and GM. They never seem to consider the idea that not everyone wants to come to Vancouver and we may have to outbid other teams who also have interest.

Vancouver media has been pointed out as bad by many people over the years. Pretty credible people from other media to former players. Where's there's smoke there's fire, right? These people wouldn't just make that stuff up. That would have an adverse effect on their credibility. Why do our local media and their idiot followers get all butthurt when it is suggested by other media people that they are overly negative? They're just doing their job!!!!!

[-DLC-]

23 minutes ago, snipes2539 said:

Also, I think it's sports media bias too, the only thing Canuck land is good for right now from a click bait perspective is contraversy and negative sentiment.  Plenty of stories there everyone under the sun will happily report on.  

I feel that this has become the theme here and instead of looking at the boring/mundane hockey stuff (the upcoming draft, free agency, etc.) it's become a demand for tabloid like negative "news".  It's kind of sad because SM has really slanted things that way as a sea of "information" is out there and everyone's trying to get their 5 minutes of fame and attention.  One up'ing each other, even if some of it's a real stretch.

 

"We're drowning in a sea of information in a world starving for wisdom and knowledge".

 

Let's face it, we've had our share of negative and awful stories and we've inherited a black cloud that never seems to leave.   Those stories tend to sell more than facts and news.   The GMJB thing really generated momentum but it's a done deal.  Is he perfect?  No.  Has he had mistakes?  Sure.  But hindsight isn't available when you're trying things.  And to dwell there becomes a matter of beating a dead horse.  The "masses" (all 11 of them) gathered and protested but they did not change the outcome of things.  So it eventually becomes a matter of "time to move on".  It doesn't mean there wasn't some good argument presented and reasoning behind the call to have him removed.  But at some point we have to try to move forward and focus on the positive elements of our team (life) because he's in place for now and our team deserves some relief from drama.

 

 

 

[snipes2539]

6 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

 

I refer to a certain segment of fans as popularity contest fans. They decide they love a player and therefore he can do no wrong. Even further, the fans will hate other players who play above that person or plays a similar role. Conversely, when they hate a player, they look for anything negative to focus on and ignore all else.

If they hate a player they look for similar but "better" players and assume we can ditch our hated roster players and just sign any Ufa they desire. Same with the coach and GM. They never seem to consider the idea that not everyone wants to come to Vancouver and we may have to outbid other teams who also have interest.

Vancouver media has been pointed out as bad by many people over the years. Pretty credible people from other media to former players. Where's there's smoke there's fire, right? These people wouldn't just make that stuff up. That would have an adverse effect on their credibility. Why do our local media and their idiot followers get all butthurt when it is suggested by other media people that they are overly negative? They're just doing their job!!!!!

the irony right? complain (extremely publicly) about how much they hate this and that and how everything is horrible here!  Then someone east reports on fan negativity in Vancouver and then the fan base proceeds to get extremely defensive and offended lol