Leafs vs. the Media

[GhostofPotvin29]

And I think more and more players are coming around to the understanding that, with the internet, social media, etc., mainstream print media journalists need them a heck of a lot more than the players need their coverage.

There was a Kelly article a few months back that basically argued the exact opposite. Basically said that sports needs journalists (and the storylines that they created) for it to be exciting.

That's what I find so scummy about it - the invented narratives or storylines.  I feel like I read this on twitter the other day, but basically the discussion was how someone like Cox could write an article and opine on something.  Then he can go on radio and talk more about whatever thing he said.  Then it gets traction and the players get asked about it.  Suddenly they're responding to something that never existed until it was created by the media member.

 

[herman]

[tweet]573199154190553089[/tweet]
#3 was a really good read about the consequences of publishing your thoughts unfiltered, and the shame/cruelty that can result once you go viral.

When Jeter retired, he launched The Player's Tribune for pro athletes to get around the MSM circus. Shanahan wrote a letter to his past self.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

But I think there's a truth that Kelly is getting at which is that if a player doesn't like a media member in a perverse way it's almost to the media member's benefit where they're likely to create some moments of genuine tension between the two which can lead to good copy. On the flipside, well, we all know that players want to have favourable media coverage. Even a guy like Kessel, who's long been held up as the guy for whom media coverage is largely immaterial, showed that he doesn't like the negative media coverage around the team these days.

So I really think it's more to a player's benefit to be on good terms with the media than it is the reverse.

I'm of course not naive enough to think that for some journalists this isn't all true. Nothing that Kelly wrote was necessarily a surprise. I just think that it goes against the most basic ethics code a journalist can have and that's to provide an unbiased point of view for your reader. And Kelly is gleefully claiming that he doesn't do that. I've always thought that he was a crappy journalist and in my eyes he just admitted it himself.

 

[Coco-puffs]

But I think there's a truth that Kelly is getting at which is that if a player doesn't like a media member in a perverse way it's almost to the media member's benefit where they're likely to create some moments of genuine tension between the two which can lead to good copy. On the flipside, well, we all know that players want to have favourable media coverage. Even a guy like Kessel, who's long been held up as the guy for whom media coverage is largely immaterial, showed that he doesn't like the negative media coverage around the team these days.

So I really think it's more to a player's benefit to be on good terms with the media than it is the reverse.

I'm of course not naive enough to think that for some journalists this isn't all true. Nothing that Kelly wrote was necessarily a surprise. I just think that it goes against the most basic ethics code a journalist can have and that's to provide an unbiased point of view for your reader. And Kelly is gleefully claiming that he doesn't do that. I've always thought that he was a crappy journalist and in my eyes he just admitted it himself.

I agree with you to some extent.  The people who's job it is to REPORT on the Leafs should be unbiased.  But isn't Kelly a Columnist?  Similar to Cox and Steve Simmons, these guys are paid to express their opinions in print- not report on the team.  In that case, personal bias is actually desired- and its up to the reader to understand "this is a column... not a news report".

 

[Kin]

When Jeter retired, he launched The Player's Tribune, for pro athletes to get around the MSM circus. Shanahan wrote a letter to his past self.

I always thought, though, that it was weird that Jeter who's probably gotten the most universally positive coverage out of any major athlete in the last 25 years was the guy to take that step.

That said I think that there's a real danger in that too. It's nice to think that what you'll get there is a truer look at people but realistically all you'll get there in this era of "brand management" is PR releases. I think the media does have sort of an obligation to present things players don't want represented about themselves. Think of all of the guys like Kobe or Lance Armstrong or Kirby Puckett who built up these media presences for themselves that were, well, false. Distortions of reality. As much as I think the media falls down on stuff like that a lot I really don't think anything will get better is if we focus only on what Athletes want heard.

 

[Kin]

I'm of course not naive enough to think that for some journalists this isn't all true. Nothing that Kelly wrote was necessarily a surprise. I just think that it goes against the most basic ethics code a journalist can have and that's to provide an unbiased point of view for your reader. And Kelly is gleefully claiming that he doesn't do that. I've always thought that he was a crappy journalist and in my eyes he just admitted it himself.

Well, I can only speak for a handful of Journalism courses I audited but I think what someone who is invested in ethical journalism would tell you is that it's more or less impossible for a journalists to not have biases that dictates how and what they say. The issue is more about how to balance one's own biases with their responsibility towards objectivity.

So I think that might be the disconnect between where you're coming from and Kelly's piece(which I generally agree was obnoxious and self-important).

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

But I think there's a truth that Kelly is getting at which is that if a player doesn't like a media member in a perverse way it's almost to the media member's benefit where they're likely to create some moments of genuine tension between the two which can lead to good copy. On the flipside, well, we all know that players want to have favourable media coverage. Even a guy like Kessel, who's long been held up as the guy for whom media coverage is largely immaterial, showed that he doesn't like the negative media coverage around the team these days.

So I really think it's more to a player's benefit to be on good terms with the media than it is the reverse.

I'm of course not naive enough to think that for some journalists this isn't all true. Nothing that Kelly wrote was necessarily a surprise. I just think that it goes against the most basic ethics code a journalist can have and that's to provide an unbiased point of view for your reader. And Kelly is gleefully claiming that he doesn't do that. I've always thought that he was a crappy journalist and in my eyes he just admitted it himself.

I agree with you to some extent.  The people who's job it is to REPORT on the Leafs should be unbiased.  But isn't Kelly a Columnist?  Similar to Cox and Steve Simmons, these guys are paid to express their opinions in print- not report on the team.  In that case, personal bias is actually desired- and its up to the reader to understand "this is a column... not a news report".

In my understanding of their job, it's to present their opinions on hockey.  If it's Leafs specific, it's to present their opinions on the Leafs, the players on the Leafs, the management of the Leafs.  Kelly in his column is saying that I maybe shouldn't trust him to accurately give his opinion on the players or management because his opinion of the on-ice product or the player is likely to be swayed by that player's attitude.

 

[herman]

I agree with you to some extent.  The people who's job it is to REPORT on the Leafs should be unbiased.  But isn't Kelly a Columnist?  Similar to Cox and Steve Simmons, these guys are paid to express their opinions in print- not report on the team.  In that case, personal bias is actually desired- and its up to the reader to understand "this is a column... not a news report".

I think you've highlighted the correct distinction. Columnists generate print clickbait (flipbait?). To that end, Kelly was successful with his piece.

I always thought, though, that it was weird that Jeter who's probably gotten the most universally positive coverage out of any major athlete in the last 25 years was the guy to take that step.

That said I think that there's a real danger in that too. It's nice to think that what you'll get there is a truer look at people but realistically all you'll get there in this era of "brand management" is PR releases. I think the media does have sort of an obligation to present things players don't want represented about themselves. Think of all of the guys like Kobe or Lance Armstrong or Kirby Puckett who built up these media presences for themselves that were, well, false. Distortions of reality. As much as I think the media falls down on stuff like that a lot I really don't think anything will get better is if we focus only on what Athletes want heard.

Good point. It's another voice in the cacophony.

 

[bustaheims]

I think the media does have sort of an obligation to present things players don't want represented about themselves. Think of all of the guys like Kobe or Lance Armstrong or Kirby Puckett who built up these media presences for themselves that were, well, false. Distortions of reality. As much as I think the media falls down on stuff like that a lot I really don't think anything will get better is if we focus only on what Athletes want heard.

I agree with you here, but, as I'm sure you'd agree, their primary responsibility still needs to be to the truth rather than to their opinion or feelings about an individual. If a person in the public eye legitimately does something immoral or illegal, then, absolutely, they should be called out on it - but, that's where the line has to be drawn. It needs to be about facts and real events, not about personal relationships with media members or hurt feelings of reporters.

 

[Leaflifer]

I just want to throw in the pot that we are all aware that this isn't about respect, or etiquette, or journalistic integrity...it's about selling clicks and paper. Make no mistake, THAT'S what their job is.

Negative, sensationalistic, and exploitive articles always garner the most attention. Kessel sells articles when he gets mad. They want emotion.

Look at the most popular stories of the day in any online news outlet. It isn't mid eastern politics, or the national budget...it's a cat with a funny nose. An article has to reach people on an emotional level.

For years, TMLfans is the only place I go to get info on the Leafs. Everything else is pretty much worthless. The articles that are any good are posted here.

As mentioned before, if they're winning this all goes away.

Another thing I want to add. I'm in BC these days and I'm listening to some guys talk about the Leaf vs FLA the other night, and the Leafs woes and whose to blame. Their perspective was the fans are idiots for supporting them and enabling the organization to ice a substandard product.

This isn't uncommon. Leaf fans are ridiculed often and with gusto.

As much as the players want respect and to be liked, we're all in this mess together. We, as fans, are being laughed at and are taking the blame as well, in many cases over players and management.

This isn't just Leafs vs. Media...it's Leafs vs Media vs Fans. We're all at odds with each other right now. Things could not be worse. In our little corner of Leafdom here we have taken some solace in the tank...but it's a desperate measure of hope and it's an illusion...and that's where we are.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Well, I can only speak for a handful of Journalism courses I audited but I think what someone who is invested in ethical journalism would tell you is that it's more or less impossible for a journalists to not have biases that dictates how and what they say. The issue is more about how to balance one's own biases with their responsibility towards objectivity.

So I think that might be the disconnect between where you're coming from and Kelly's piece(which I generally agree was obnoxious and self-important).

That's fair. Obviously they're only human and can't possibly be 110% unbiased. I do think that certain parts of that article make it clear that Kelly in particular maybe has some troubles with that balancing act.

I suppose maybe the tone of the article was my biggest issue with it, which you described nicely in your last line.

 

[Kin]

I agree with you here, but, as I'm sure you'd agree, their primary responsibility still needs to be to the truth rather than to their opinion or feelings about an individual. If a person in the public eye legitimately does something immoral or illegal, then, absolutely, they should be called out on it - but, that's where the line has to be drawn. It needs to be about facts and real events, not about personal relationships with media members or hurt feelings of reporters.

Sure but I think that sort of thing is easy to say in the abstract but kind of more difficult in a practical application. I mean, as an example, say you have two players, A and B, who are having lousy seasons on a team having a lousy season. A writer could write a column that said "Player A stinks" and be serving "the truth" and he could write a column saying Player B stinks and be still right and he could write a column that said they both stink and, again, still be telling the truth.

So that's where it gets murky. What Kelly was saying, to me, was that if he had a good personal relationship with Player A he'd probably end up writing more of the "Player B stinks" articles which, again, is still true. The nature of covering a team being what it is you can't encompass the entirety of the truth everyday so deciding which truths to tell is something that is always going to be reflective of a person's biases not necessarily for the reasons Kelly is talking about but just because in trying to present an ongoing narrative of the larger story of a team and their season everyone is going to fall on different ways to try and frame what's going on in the micro and macro levels.

So I absolutely agree that the best reporter, to go back to my hypothetical, would write a Player A stinks column one day then a Player B stinks column the next day and follow it up with something getting at why they stink or who else stinks or how to trade them or something as a sort of occasional overview piece but to me that just separates good reporting from bad reporting as opposed to being the difference between ethical reporting and unethical reporting.

 

[cw]

I think the media does have sort of an obligation to present things players don't want represented about themselves. Think of all of the guys like Kobe or Lance Armstrong or Kirby Puckett who built up these media presences for themselves that were, well, false. Distortions of reality. As much as I think the media falls down on stuff like that a lot I really don't think anything will get better is if we focus only on what Athletes want heard.

I agree with you here, but, as I'm sure you'd agree, their primary responsibility still needs to be to the truth rather than to their opinion or feelings about an individual. If a person in the public eye legitimately does something immoral or illegal, then, absolutely, they should be called out on it - but, that's where the line has to be drawn. It needs to be about facts and real events, not about personal relationships with media members or hurt feelings of reporters.

I was wondering if I had two articles to do: one on Mats Sundin or Joe Sakic or Steve Yzerman, who I liked and respected as hockey players and one on Sean Avery, who I think of as an example of being a jerk, if I could be "fair and balanced" (unbiased).

I'd like to believe I'd try to be ethical and fair but I'd readily admit, I might have some problem with being absolutely unbiased because I suspect I might naturally or subconsciously gravitate to reaffirming the things I liked about Sundin, Sakic or Yzerman and maybe reaffirm the things I didn't like about Avery.

I recall a discussion years ago on here with some of the St John's media folks about how the Leafs picked who would get called up. A hunk of the response was "it's not merely on merit and not always the most deserving - a hunk of it is who you know" Some maintain that's been the way in hockey for years.

So it's a little awkward to merely point the accusing finger of bias at the media exclusively.

 

[cw]

https://soundcloud.com/mapleleafshotstove/ron-wilson-with-dean-blundell

Sportsnet link
Ron Wilson weighs in in the audio linked above

Talks about leaving the Leafs and the "hate" comment. Defends Kessel & Phaneuf re media. Says Phaneuf is miscast as a #1 dman (can do it for a few months but not all season). Phaneuf is really a #2 playing without a #1, #3 & #4 dman. Leafs really need to rework their dmen. More ..

 

[Frank E]

https://soundcloud.com/mapleleafshotstove/ron-wilson-with-dean-blundell

Sportsnet link
Ron Wilson weighs in in the audio linked above

Talks about leaving the Leafs and the "hate" comment. Defends Kessel & Phaneuf re media. Says Phaneuf is miscast as a #1 dman (can do it for a few months but not all season). Phaneuf is really a #2 playing without a #1, #3 & #4 dman. Leafs really need to rework their dmen. More ..

I'd guess that everyone here would have a different list of the #1 d-men in the league.

 

[Kin]

I'd guess that everyone here would have a different list of the #1 d-men in the league.

I'd bet the list of the top 15 would have, at most, only two or three spots up for debate.

 

[pmrules]

https://soundcloud.com/mapleleafshotstove/ron-wilson-with-dean-blundell

Sportsnet link
Ron Wilson weighs in in the audio linked above

Talks about leaving the Leafs and the "hate" comment. Defends Kessel & Phaneuf re media. Says Phaneuf is miscast as a #1 dman (can do it for a few months but not all season). Phaneuf is really a #2 playing without a #1, #3 & #4 dman. Leafs really need to rework their dmen. More ..

These are true words.  I've long been a proponent of slotting players into their right positions in the hierarchy so that they can succeed. 

 

[TML fan]

The Leafs don't have that luxury.

 

[cw]

I'd guess that everyone here would have a different list of the #1 d-men in the league.

I'd bet the list of the top 15 would have, at most, only two or three spots up for debate.

I think that's a fair statement. The closer we get the to top, the fewer candidates fit. There's only 13 or so NHL dmen who got 100 or more pts in Norris voting over the last five years.

When I was trying to place where Phaneuf fits overall right now, I kind of went through that exercise on the basis "if I had to win a game today, who would I rather have?" I found roughly 25 dmen I'd take over him and about 15 more I could debate.

 

[Kin]

I think that's a fair statement. The closer we get the to top, the fewer candidates fit. There's only 13 or so NHL dmen who got 100 or more pts in Norris voting over the last five years.

When I was trying to place where Phaneuf fits overall right now, I kind of went through that exercise on the basis "if I had to win a game today, who would I rather have?" I found roughly 25 dmen I'd take over him and about 15 more I could debate.

It's a tough one because there is some truth to what Wilson says. Phaneuf is miscast as a #1. So it's a little tough to compare him to someone like Shattenkirk, for instance, or someone else who might be similarly miscast as a #1 but who looks terrific as his team's #2 or #3. Where would he stack against someone like Seabrook or Stralman or Ekblad, right? I don't know if we can say for sure.