Wednesday, July 20, 2005

The spectacular Mr. Spector

In his latest soapbox, Mr. Richardson says he isn't exactly enamoured with with what I wrote about his media characterizations:
In my previous Soapbox, I claimed I'd lost respect for certain hockey pundits because of what I believe was obvious bias and lack of objectivity.

Nowhere in that column did I lambast the media as a whole, accuse them of pandering or being in the pocket of league interest or that they're the second worst evil to face hockey fans.
Granted, Lyle hasn't overtly kicked down the doors in good old TB fashion, but even in his Fox columns, there's an underlying disdain for any NHL coverage he doesn't agree with. In last week's piece, for instance, there are none-too-subtle tongue lashings dealt to scribes who report the news of the day. Be sure to read the entire piece to get a sense of what was said, but what follows are choice excerpts:
Starved for real news while impatiently awaiting the finalization of the new CBA, the hockey media lapped these comments up. Curiously, comments from players that disagreed with Avery, Legace and Roenick didn't get as much media play. . .

It's obvious Goodenow was never going to receive favorable treatment by the hockey press. Had the NHLPA achieved a CBA without a hard cap and linkage, he would've been pilloried as killing the NHL's golden goose. Now that he's "negotiating a surrender", he's being painted as a stubborn egomaniac who misled and misinformed the players.
Ah, pardon me while I wipe the grunge from my face — you did, after all, catch me in the middle of lapping up some remaining morsels of comments. As I know you'll understand my rather barnyard-like manner, what being in the media and all (and impatiently starved), I'm sure you won't mind should I relieve myself all over Spec's comments... all that lapping does fill one's bladder.

Look, it's obvious why the press jumped all over players attacking their union leader. It's news! Players supporting the union: status quo, not news. Players bashing the union head which they previously and uniformly (for appearance sake) backed: news.

We shall continue (sorry no graphics available for this exercise). Avery saying Goodenow brainwashed them: why, that sounds mighty interesting! My guess is that it would be interesting to readers as well — thereby making it news! Dan Cloutier saying he continues to embrace the everlasting love that his union leader provides him? Not news, so sorry Sir Chokes-a-lot.

Also, I cannot for the life of me wonder how the press can be unfavourable to Bob Goodenow! A union-leading lawyer! He's so loveable and warm. He cuddles with Al Strachan nightly. And after staunchly saying "no cap" for as long as anyone can remember, he did an about face and undid everything his membership worked for the past year.

There's no one in the hockey media who doesn't think Bob did an absolutely splendid job for his clients in the past. . . he practically strangled the golden goose into a coma for all those years. But, as Lyle says, Goodenow's job isn't to be well-liked. And mission accomplished on that front.

My apologies if I overreacted, but you'll have to attribute that to my animal instincts. Now, please excuse me while I go scratch my ear.

I may have fleas.


At 5:54 p.m., July 21, 2005, Anonymous Limey said...

I don't know, James, I think the coverage in the lockout has been almost uniformly abysmal.

I think Spector made a strong argument when he said the coverage has been largely one sided. Thankfully we can all put this behind us (I hope) and get on with enjoying hockey.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Links to this post:

Create a Link


Free Page Rank Checker
eXTReMe Tracker