Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

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

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

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.  "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.  

 

 

 

Yea, and that's why I believe both the media and the consumer shares equal responsibility in this.  The media will continue to exploit anything that garners them $$$, and the readers will consume whatever supports their echo chamber.  And for the past...what? 20+ years?  The biggest money generator for media has been negativity and contraversy, and the team's lack of ultimate success during that time has just continued to feed it.  **sigh** I wonder how different things would've been in this area had we won in 2011 ya know?

  • Hydration 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, snipes2539 said:

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

I think the media clowns get way more defensive and butthurt than the fans. They seem to feel a need to come on their usual whining CDC accounts and defend all things media.

 

The negative popularity contest fans don't seem self aware enough to see that they're just following the crowd.

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

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.

 

I never said the media are heroes. I said they are part of the equation that is important so you dont just hear what the powers that be want you to hear. They dont particularly care if the story is positive or critical. They only care that its interesting. To fault them for doing their job is kind of stupid, sorry to say.

 

Your own quote from Sekeras shows the extreme bias people have against certain media. Judging by that quote he never stated it was a fact. He said there were reports about it. I am not a fan of Sekeras at all, dont get me wrong. But people are overreacting to something that everyone in the media does fairly regularly. 

 

Step back from your bias for a minute and ask yourself honestly how many times a media person you think is credible has reported something exactly the same way as that. Then think about if it supported what you thought must be true what was your reaction to it? Were you outraged? Did you consider that journalist unethical? Did you suggest he made up astory out of nothing?

 

I cantell you (simply based on your extreme bias in almost every response you ever give to what I post) that the answer to those would almost definitely be a hard no. You would assume it was true if it is something you need to believe is true, like most people do.

 

People always point to Friedman as being above reproach. And he is a very ethical guy with great sources and an honest approach. One of the best. But listen to him pretty much every time he is on the air and count how many times he says "I am hearing" or "there are reports out there", etc. Its literally all the time.

 

The reality is that is done by pretty much everyone in the media. It covers their ass if something turns out to not be true or doesnt happen. Its a pretty standard media approach actually. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I never said the media are heroes. I said they are part of the equation that is important so you dont just hear what the powers that be want you to hear. They dont particularly care if the story is positive or critical. They only care that its interesting. To fault them for doing their job is kind of stupid, sorry to say.

 

Your own quote from Sekeras shows the extreme bias people have against certain media. Judging by that quote he never stated it was a fact. He said there were reports about it. I am not a fan of Sekeras at all, dont get me wrong. But people are overreacting to something that everyone in the media does fairly regularly. 

 

Step back from your bias for a minute and ask yourself honestly how many times a media person you think is credible has reported something exactly the same way as that. Then think about if it supported what you thought must be true what was your reaction to it? Were you outraged? Did you consider that journalist unethical? Did you suggest he made up astory out of nothing?

 

I cantell you (simply based on your extreme bias in almost every response you ever give to what I post) that the answer to those would almost definitely be a hard no. You would assume it was true if it is something you need to believe is true, like most people do.

 

People always point to Friedman as being above reproach. And he is a very ethical guy with great sources and an honest approach. One of the best. But listen to him pretty much every time he is on the air and count how many times he says "I am hearing" or "there are reports out there", etc. Its literally all the time.

 

The reality is that is done by pretty much everyone in the media. It covers their ass if something turns out to not be true or doesnt happen. Its a pretty standard media approach actually. 

Spots media are the hand puppets of those they serve:  Team management, agents.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Russ said:

Benning held his ground and didn't buckle on that one, and thank god he did.  OEL advanced stats are hot trash now.

Not sure what you meant by buckle but Benning has a hard on for OEL. And Benning is still chasing OEL this season. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I never said the media are heroes. I said they are part of the equation that is important so you dont just hear what the powers that be want you to hear. They dont particularly care if the story is positive or critical. They only care that its interesting. To fault them for doing their job is kind of stupid, sorry to say.

 

Your own quote from Sekeras shows the extreme bias people have against certain media. Judging by that quote he never stated it was a fact. He said there were reports about it. I am not a fan of Sekeras at all, dont get me wrong. But people are overreacting to something that everyone in the media does fairly regularly. 

 

Step back from your bias for a minute and ask yourself honestly how many times a media person you think is credible has reported something exactly the same way as that. Then think about if it supported what you thought must be true what was your reaction to it? Were you outraged? Did you consider that journalist unethical? Did you suggest he made up astory out of nothing?

 

I cantell you (simply based on your extreme bias in almost every response you ever give to what I post) that the answer to those would almost definitely be a hard no. You would assume it was true if it is something you need to believe is true, like most people do.

 

People always point to Friedman as being above reproach. And he is a very ethical guy with great sources and an honest approach. One of the best. But listen to him pretty much every time he is on the air and count how many times he says "I am hearing" or "there are reports out there", etc. Its literally all the time.

 

The reality is that is done by pretty much everyone in the media. It covers their ass if something turns out to not be true or doesnt happen. Its a pretty standard media approach actually. 

I will admit that most of what you have stated is true. The media reports what they believe is relevant with or without bias. It is their job to do so regardless of the facts. IMO reporting of the actual fact of a matter has gone by the wayside. We as readers can take this as we like. Personal opinion will always play in these conversations. Our individual psyches will affect our responses. I understand your point but your iteration of this issue will not convince the readers who have their own solidly ingrained bias. That is all. Cheers.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours 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. 

5 hours 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.

 

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I never said the media are heroes. I said they are part of the equation that is important so you dont just hear what the powers that be want you to hear. They dont particularly care if the story is positive or critical. They only care that its interesting. To fault them for doing their job is kind of stupid, sorry to say.

 

Your own quote from Sekeras shows the extreme bias people have against certain media. Judging by that quote he never stated it was a fact. He said there were reports about it. I am not a fan of Sekeras at all, dont get me wrong. But people are overreacting to something that everyone in the media does fairly regularly. 

 

Step back from your bias for a minute and ask yourself honestly how many times a media person you think is credible has reported something exactly the same way as that. Then think about if it supported what you thought must be true what was your reaction to it? Were you outraged? Did you consider that journalist unethical? Did you suggest he made up astory out of nothing?

 

I cantell you (simply based on your extreme bias in almost every response you ever give to what I post) that the answer to those would almost definitely be a hard no. You would assume it was true if it is something you need to believe is true, like most people do.

 

People always point to Friedman as being above reproach. And he is a very ethical guy with great sources and an honest approach. One of the best. But listen to him pretty much every time he is on the air and count how many times he says "I am hearing" or "there are reports out there", etc. Its literally all the time.

 

The reality is that is done by pretty much everyone in the media. It covers their ass if something turns out to not be true or doesnt happen. Its a pretty standard media approach actually. 

 

image.thumb.png.5fac5f01d063f0485719319bf3462203.png

 

Sure the media cares. You just said it yourself here that "being critical sells". Therefore, it IS in their interest to write knee-jerking responses to Canuck stories. After all, they're not here to "tow the company line".


So now you say that the media's "job" is to evolve with the times, which is to use tabloid journalism (aka sensationalist reporting). We knew that already, but thanks for confirming yet again. :lol: And they're not to blame, huh?

 

LOL, who are you to say that the public doesn't actually want facts? And you're telling people to step back from their bias?

This is next level hypocrisy, @wallstreetamigo

 

 

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, runtzguy said:

Not sure what you meant by buckle but Benning has a hard on for OEL. And Benning is still chasing OEL this season. 

says who?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dazzle said:

 

 

image.thumb.png.5fac5f01d063f0485719319bf3462203.png

 

Sure the media cares. You just said it yourself here that "being critical sells". Therefore, it IS in their interest to write knee-jerking responses to Canuck stories. After all, they're not here to "tow the company line".


So now you say that the media's "job" is to evolve with the times, which is to use tabloid journalism (aka sensationalist reporting). We knew that already, but thanks for confirming yet again. :lol: And they're not to blame, huh?

 

LOL, who are you to say that the public doesn't actually want facts? And you're telling people to step back from their bias?

This is next level hypocrisy, @wallstreetamigo

 

 

Their job absolutely is to evolve with the times.

 

Saying you are hearing that such and such is happening is not equal to tabloid journalism. How do you know they havent heard what they report? The fact is you dont. 

 

Sensationalism by the media is a direct result of what the public wants and responds to. People dont want facts. In many cases what they want confirmation of their pre-determined opinion and they want it right now. 

 

All the people on here complaining about the media if they report anything the least bit critical of Benning or the Canucks (while trumpeting as 100% truth anything that supports Benning or the Canucks) is doing this exact thing. Their idea of "news" or "truth" has little to do with getting facts. It is limited to what they believe it to be based on their own bias. 

 

X rumor cant possibly be true because it makes Benning look like a scatterbrained reactionary slacker. But x rumor about whats wrong with a player must be true if Benning traded away a guy for scraps or let them walk for nothing. 

 

Confirmation bias. And its really because a lot of people live at the extremes rather than in the real world where things are rarely as simple as they need it to be.

  • Haha 2
  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Their job absolutely is to evolve with the times.

 

Saying you are hearing that such and such is happening is not equal to tabloid journalism. How do you know they havent heard what they report? The fact is you dont. 

 

Sensationalism by the media is a direct result of what the public wants and responds to. People dont want facts. In many cases what they want confirmation of their pre-determined opinion and they want it right now. 

 

All the people on here complaining about the media if they report anything the least bit critical of Benning or the Canucks (while trumpeting as 100% truth anything that supports Benning or the Canucks) is doing this exact thing. Their idea of "news" or "truth" has little to do with getting facts. It is limited to what they believe it to be based on their own bias. 

 

X rumor cant possibly be true because it makes Benning look like a scatterbrained reactionary slacker. But x rumor about whats wrong with a player must be true if Benning traded away a guy for scraps or let them walk for nothing. 

 

Confirmation bias. And its really because a lot of people live at the extremes rather than in the real world where things are rarely as simple as they need it to be.


I’m not sure why you keep bringing up confirmation bias as though it belongs only to people who want to protect or endorse Benning. Of course we all tend to do this but why act like you’re the one poster unbiased  enough to be able to rise above the fray and manage to stay objective.
 

Aren’t you the one one who criticized JB when Travis played Highmore on the first line against the Oilers? Your comment was that JB was having him play there to boost his stats to make the Gaudette trade look better. The team was riddled with injuries playing youngsters, subs and waiver pickups and Green was trying to find a way to slow down the McDavid line. A near impossible task that was hardly going to pad Highmore’s stats.  Maybe if Green was playing this line against the Oilers 3rd or 4th line you might have been able to make that case. That had zero to do with Benning and yet you tried to tie it to him.  Clearly you are just as guilty of confirmation bias as the rest of us. Welcome to the club!
 

 

  • Hydration 3
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Their job absolutely is to evolve with the times.

 

Saying you are hearing that such and such is happening is not equal to tabloid journalism. How do you know they havent heard what they report? The fact is you dont. 

 

Sensationalism by the media is a direct result of what the public wants and responds to. People dont want facts. In many cases what they want confirmation of their pre-determined opinion and they want it right now. 

 

All the people on here complaining about the media if they report anything the least bit critical of Benning or the Canucks (while trumpeting as 100% truth anything that supports Benning or the Canucks) is doing this exact thing. Their idea of "news" or "truth" has little to do with getting facts. It is limited to what they believe it to be based on their own bias. 

 

X rumor cant possibly be true because it makes Benning look like a scatterbrained reactionary slacker. But x rumor about whats wrong with a player must be true if Benning traded away a guy for scraps or let them walk for nothing. 

 

Confirmation bias. And its really because a lot of people live at the extremes rather than in the real world where things are rarely as simple as they need it to be.

This is exactly what tabloid journalism is. Here's what it is, and how your definition has undermined your own point about the media "reporting what they hear".  :picard::lol: 

 

image.png.cbfcb05351a218892ba00784236ee8f5.png

 

Just hilarious, @wallstreetamigo Please keep talking because you are discrediting the media with your words. Also, your point that the public doesn't want facts is total nonsense. You are stating that people don't want to hear the truth, and only the lies, thus the lying by the media is morally acceptable? :lol::lol:

 

Get this guys... he thinks people want to be fooled, therefore the media gives what the public wants. He has thus confirmed that the media is driving the news, not the news being reported accurately. 

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

This is exactly what tabloid journalism is. Here's what it is, and how your definition has undermined your own point about the media "reporting what they hear".  :picard::lol: 

 

image.png.cbfcb05351a218892ba00784236ee8f5.png

 

Just hilarious, @wallstreetamigo Please keep talking because you are discrediting the media with your words. Also, your point that the public doesn't want facts is total nonsense. You are stating that people don't want to hear the truth, and only the lies, thus the lying by the media is morally acceptable? :lol::lol:

 

Get this guys... he thinks people want to be fooled, therefore the media gives what the public wants. He has thus confirmed that the media is driving the news, not the news being reported accurately. 

:frantic: :frantic: :frantic: Media three stars. :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

You may not want facts but you aren't all the people.  This person wants facts.

 

 

I want facts too, straight up. I’m eager for the facts. But damn, that spurious slithery speculation can be so tasty at times, especially when all we really have right now is speculation. 
 

My trick is to be clinically cynical about what I read and hear from the media and what is purported here on the CDC from all agents, characters and individuals including amigos, you, me and anybody else with an opinion. 
 

As Machiavellian as the delivery of facts might have become, as long as we all take a sober and thoughtful approach to discussing the subject matter at hand, the CDC can serve an important purpose (and diversion!)

 

(but maybe that’s wishful thinking?)

  • Hydration 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Their job absolutely is to evolve with the times.

 

Saying you are hearing that such and such is happening is not equal to tabloid journalism. How do you know they havent heard what they report? The fact is you dont. 

 

Sensationalism by the media is a direct result of what the public wants and responds to. People dont want facts. In many cases what they want confirmation of their pre-determined opinion and they want it right now. 

 

All the people on here complaining about the media if they report anything the least bit critical of Benning or the Canucks (while trumpeting as 100% truth anything that supports Benning or the Canucks) is doing this exact thing. Their idea of "news" or "truth" has little to do with getting facts. It is limited to what they believe it to be based on their own bias. 

 

X rumor cant possibly be true because it makes Benning look like a scatterbrained reactionary slacker. But x rumor about whats wrong with a player must be true if Benning traded away a guy for scraps or let them walk for nothing. 

 

Confirmation bias. And its really because a lot of people live at the extremes rather than in the real world where things are rarely as simple as they need it to be.

So then what exactly are you saying here? You talk about confirmation bias while using confirmation bias of your own beliefs. You don't even need facts apparently as you seem to want to believe whatever the media's saying? Are you really that prone to propaganda?

 

Some people want proof, as should be. You being satisfied by not knowing what the media has or hasn't heard in all of this is confirmation bias. Dare I argue that you already have an idea on what you think of Benning and his trades; thus, it led you to your very post here "condemning" people who think differently of you.

 

Don't get me wrong. There's a lot of confirmation bias on this forum, but you are part of it and no different (nor am I at times even),

Edited by The Lock
  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, zimmy said:

I want facts too, straight up. I’m eager for the facts. But damn, that spurious slithery speculation can be so tasty at times, especially when all we really have right now is speculation. 
 

My trick is to be clinically cynical about what I read and hear from the media and what is purported here on the CDC from all agents, characters and individuals including amigos, you, me and anybody else with an opinion. 
 

As Machiavellian as the delivery of facts might have become, as long as we all take a sober and thoughtful approach to discussing the subject matter at hand, the CDC can serve an important purpose (and diversion!)

 

(but maybe that’s wishful thinking?)

I think that when some of the media bought in to fake Twitter accounts that had posted fake news under FA's heading despite real account names showing, it showed me how little effort is sometimes put into things.  Confirm your source.  Tread lightly until you do.  Gather information and make critical decisions (and reports) on what your findings show.  Not hit "retweet".

 

I believe that it's more their job to get it right before putting it out there than it is ours (I mean, they get paid for it as a job).  But I have become pretty skeptical of everything I read online lately so it goes with the territory for me.  I think social media "reporters" are more like radio DJ's these days and it's more about filling air time than giving facts.

 

Take it all with a grain of salt (and a shot of tequila?).  Yep.

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2021 at 2:34 PM, gurn said:

Yes, just yes.

I'll take either Sedin before Kuch.

Lol. Guys got 2 cups and is an absolute beast in the playoffs. He’s a game changer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Wayne Glensky said:

Lol. Guys got 2 cups and is an absolute beast in the playoffs. He’s a game changer. 

It's easy to discount our players simply because we don't have cups.

 

Doesn't mean it's correct though. I think both Sedins and Kucherov are all good in their own right, cups or no cups.

 

If we're really going for cups being the standard then Justin Williams is one of the greatest players of all time. Perhaps we should also consider Luke Schenn as being better than the Sedins since he won a cup too. lol

Edited by The Lock
  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, The Lock said:

It's easy to discount our players simply because we don't have cups.

 

Doesn't mean it's correct though. I think both Sedins and Kucherov are all good in their own right, cups or no cups.

 

If we're really going for cups being the standard then Justin Williams is one of the greatest players of all time. Perhaps we should also consider Luke Schenn as being better than the Sedins since he won a cup too. lol

At the end of the day, it’s all about winning a cup. I don’t care what anyone says. And your logic doesn’t make any sense. The cup should be a standard when playing in the NHL. Anyone playing here only for a pay check doesn’t deserve to be in a Canuck uniform. 

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Wayne Glensky said:

At the end of the day, it’s all about winning a cup. I don’t care what anyone says. And your logic doesn’t make any sense. The cup should be a standard when playing in the NHL. Anyone playing here only for a pay check doesn’t deserve to be in a Canuck uniform. 

How does "not winning a cup" translate to "playing here only for a paycheck?"

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...