Mondi wrote:
I'm in the camp of enjoying guys who cover sports, talk sports, and don't make it about themselves (i.e. Kurtblogg, Rob Fai). I don't really enjoy guys who stir the pot on purpose or just talk about their heyday of partying, pornography, and sprinkle in their take on sports.
Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. I'm sure Botch himself was conflicted on whether to report it or not as its sensationalist news which is everything the old school hockey fan hates.
Regardless of my own personal opinion (which is don't report idiotic things like this because I personally feel dumber after reading it) in order for the NHL to continue to move forward and grow their viewer base in the United States, a good tactic to do so is to report ludicrous events like these and hope its ludicrous enough to make ESPN.
Looking at the trend of hockey reporting on ESPN, I observe only two categories of events that happen before hockey is ever mentioned. Winning east/west/SC or something idiotic happens (IE Sean Avery getting a rule named after him, Bert's attack on Moore, etc).
So even though I'm not a fan, I don't mind the odd useless sensationalist media story.
I count myself as a Botchford fan. When it comes Vancouver columns, you really don't get much choice and almost any writer is better than negative nelly Skelator. Botch certainly has his sensationalist side but I find his underlying message, more often than not, reasonable and logical.
I eagerly welcome your contrarian replies.