I'm curious what posters around here think about the power of suggestion. Or the psychological impact redundant and insidious questions can have on human beings.
My view is that the new "hockey media" in Vancouver is, consciously or unconsciously, attempting to undermine the Canucks by creating an atmosphere of controversy and impending failure.
I know there are at least three classic responses to this kind of reasoning:
(1) These guys are big boys, professional athletes and they should be able to handle anything the press throws at them
(2) Players in other frenzied markets have succeeded before (Yankees, Lakers, Packers)
(3) Media is going to do whatever it takes to sell papers, gain listeners/viewers and attract hits
I would respond to each in turn, but then I will reserve that for another time or space.
What I am getting at this constant state of controversy and frenzy the local media is creating and does create around this team. Whether it is product of conscious efforts (which I think is true of Sekeras and Botchford) or systemic realities (i.e. 1040, the Province and SNP basically existing solely to cover the Canucks), I'm of the opinion that it does nothing but take away from the team's potential for success on the ice.
____________END HERE IF YOU'RE SATISFIED WITH THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY___________________________________
I've written about this before on this site and old the Central site, but I think with the manufactured "controversy" over the goaltender I've reached a point where I've had it with the local coverage of this team. It is too immature. It is almost as if 20 years olds are covering the team.
There is no longer any support. Nor is their much responsible coverage. Just constant derision, innuendo and repetitive question asking. When Harrison Mooney provides the most thoughtful coverage of the team, I think that suggests we're getting to a point where the tail is wagging the dog. The media is creating the stories about the Canucks
Cam Cole, Iain MacIntyre and Tony Gallagher I suppose represent the old guard, but even they shift between reasoned analysis and junk journalism. And no, today I don't feel like providing citations. You might include Willis and G. McIntrye too.
Botchford, Sekeras, Pratt (formerly) and sometimes Price and Patterson provide, in my view, the lowest common denominator stuff though others contribute. And the others (Taylor, BMac, Rintoul, Moj) provide little balance to mere speculation and derision. Normally, the best they can do it preach about how this is Vancouver and it's a hockey market and people are going ask these questions, over and over. They seem to conflate notions about freedom of the press and journalistic persistence with rabid question asking.Then their are the question askers themselves, probably too numerous to name. Being "media" does not mean you need to get something controversial, it means you need to get the story whatever it may be.
Now, I am not fooling myself into thinking these guys are to hockey journalism what the New York Times is to well, journalism. And, I admit they are smart enough to know that a guy like Luongo will say something stupid if prompted enough times. After all, some hockey players just aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.
I miss the days of balanced, passionate and heck, friendly coverage. I'm all for a little institutional bias if it helps or, and probably more likely, does not hurt the product on the ice. I'm not asking for some of the homerish American coverage you see from time to time, but more a 'friends of the team' approach. After all, as quick as he was to rip them down (and often reasonably), Tom Larschied was equally quick to get excited about their success. Heck Hughson, Robson (and the current protege) provided fair and balanced coverage, but of course their role is in-game. They didn't have to fill hours of time, nor did they have to attend pointless media scrums after practice. David Tomlinson is fair, if a bit robotic. Again, he is limited mostly in-game stuff. Same with Glen Quagmire, I mean Gary Valk--honest and insightful.
I liked what Ray Ferraro brings, but he's no longer "local". I think some national guys are quite good, others are similar to the local media. I liked the insight and intensity of Pierre McGuire, he seems to be gone too. Bob Mackenzie, Aaaron Ward, the guy from ESPN (LeBrun), they seem to cover the league like grown men should. Again, they fill 5 to 10 minute slots and think about other teams and other things.
They way I see it, if you've played team sports you know that unless Luongo is a shit teammate, there was no controversy to be had last week. This isn't NHL12, this just the NHL. The player who is playing better should play, not the goalie with 96 rating.
And, I'm not going to kid myself, the press have their job and the players have their. Some (Dan Russell) even suggest the team has the press in their pockets--that I think is foolish.
I harken for the days when the press covered the team like the men (remember Dennis Boyd) and were supporters of the team but remained honest to their craft (Lee Powel, JP McConnell). Now they seem to act like insecure "fans" who get an idea like "OMG the Canucks are like TOTALLY not tough enough" and then run with it and ask about it ad nauseum. Then they switch, to "OMG their is like TOTALLY a goalie controversy"...rinse, repeat.
OMG, Cody Hodgson is like TOTALLY is not as good as those other guys he played with at the WJC....
OMG, the Hawks like TOTALLY struggled last year so the Canucks will TOTALLY struggle this year...
OMG, Luongo is never good in October, we should TOTALLY like ask him about that starting in training camp every season like a HUNDRED AND FIFTY TIMES...
OMG, the Canucks have a FORTY YEAR DROUGHT, this organization is like totally CURSED...
Anyways, that's my mini rant for the night. And there is another one about the Canadian hockey media always trying to spin the game (or the NHL) into a constant state of chaos, but I digress.
Last edited by Mondi
on Sun Dec 04, 2011 7:14 pm, edited 5 times in total.