• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Dabura

Red Wings & the Media

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I make about one post a year and I have to waste it on this garbage....

BOOO, these reporters are reporting on the news and not on whatever their opinion might be, BOOO.

This is being played like politics and a perceived lack of interest in bashing management is being equated to condoning said moves.

These are not the same things, everyone is taking mental shortcuts to the conclusion and bypassing the idea that media SHOULD report ONLY the facts.

People are so quick to forget that because it is sports, it is journalism too, adding opinion taints that.

Let bloggers speculate, speculation is what you people seem to desire, but is also the reason these speculators don't have credentials, because they only want those credentials to make their asinine opinions seem more valid when they are arguing in their own comments section.

Nobody knows what a good signing is until the season is over and we all have 20/20 hindsight, your intuition is not proof of any fact and your anger is not a catalyst for change. All I read when I see this garbage is a lot of spoiled fans who even after making the playoffs for 23 years in a row and winning more Stanley Cups than any team in a quarter century, think they could do better and sit around bitterly whining about a few depth moves being made.

Grow up Hockeytown!

29 other teams lose the cup or on said free agent, I can't wait for the article to come out saying player X didn't want to come to Detroit because of the entitled fans, well I guess I could buy a website, call myself a blogger, write the opinion myself, use anonymous sources and then ***** because no one takes me serious.

This.

I need to be informed of "what" happened, not what to "think" about it. I can do that on my own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken Holland could start doing his job better and then there wouldn't be so much criticism aimed at the organization.

This article has absolutely nothing to do with "the job Ken Holland is doing".

People are just using it as another soapbox to complain from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like this piece was purposely released at a time when Red Wings fans are at their angriest to have maximum effect.

Time to call the...

wahmbulance-1.jpg

I'm confused about your position. You think that there's nothing wrong with the media coverage of the Wings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think you are missing my point on him. I really don't care if anyone says something bad about a team that is doing bad.heck I will say Michigan is not doing well and that they suck sometimes..just like with the wings...but to do it even when they do good...and to never really say anything good about a team much less the whole state of Michigan just is over board to me and just makes him look like a trolling d-bag.

I've never heard him disparage the state so I can't speak to that. Also, as far as him saying bad things "even when Michigan is good", we haven't been good in over a decade. We've won 2 bowl games in ten years, and beat our biggest rival once in ten years. Winning Conference Championships and mid-level bowl games is fine if you're Purdue, or Northwestern. Nobody expects you to be better. But Michigan?

I guess my point is, Michigan football is supposed to be a nationally relevant football program. That's the standard they've set for themselves, and what we've come to expect. They haven't lived up to that in a VERY long time, and don't seem to be making any headway toward that now. So I don't expect Drew Sharp to gush over them winning the odd Big Ten Title, or Gator Bowl. If U of M wants more respect from the media, they need to win more. And just like when the Tigers are good, or the Red Wings, or the Pistons, Drew will fall in line and write all the fluff pieces that fans can read. But he won't if they aren't.

Now, if you're talking about his demeanor? I don't find it particularly problematic, but if you do I'm going to say you're wrong. It's your opinion.

110213_michigan-state_600.jpg

Couldn't help myself.

Thing is, IT IS the job of a journalist to regurgitate what management says. They are reporting what was said... and that's what was said....

The timing of this article, all the anonymous sources, and the writer constantly citing his own credentials, makes me question this article a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

110213_michigan-state_600.jpg

Couldn't help myself.

Thing is, IT IS the job of a journalist to regurgitate what management says. They are reporting what was said... and that's what was said....

The timing of this article, all the anonymous sources, and the writer constantly citing his own credentials, makes me question this article a lot.

I agree. But surely you don't think that's their ONLY job right? I mean, you definitely believe that if they're doing their jobs correctly they're following up on what's said by management to see if it is accurate, reliable, valid, relevant, and properly contextualized right?

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused about your position. You think that there's nothing wrong with the media coverage of the Wings?

I don't care about the media "asking the tough questions". I really don't. I don't get off on the idea of seeing Holland squirm in his seat and hum and hah.

What does that accomplish? People act like he's going to have an epiphany and all it takes is people confronting him about it and then he's going to see the light!

In today's era of social media they know the general consensus of their fan base's opinion. It doesn't take a beat reporter's "digging" to find that out.

(Much like what 55fan was saying) I rely on the media to give me facts. I'd love more insider info but I also see how that can be counter-productive to the Wings doing business.

I read blogs and message boards (LGW) to hear other people opinions so I can better reflect on my own (which I've gained from watching as many games as I can).

Edited by Son of a Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. But surely you don't think that's their ONLY job right? I mean, you definitely believe that if they're doing their jobs correctly they're following up on what's said by management to see if it is accurate, reliable, valid, relevant, and properly contextualized right?

Uncovering and reporting the truth? Yes.

EDIT: I think that's a lot easier said than done though

Edited by number9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't expect Babs or Holland to say "Renney sucks", I expect the reporters to say "Renney sucks" IF he actually does suck. And to determine that, they should talk to people outside the organization, who nevertheless, actually might know something about hockey and powerplays. Not simply repeat back what KH or Babs says, because as you've mentioned, those guys are DEFINITELY NOT going to say "Renney sucks"...even if it's true. And they shouldn't be expected to do so.

It's not like I'm asking them to perform some sort of journalistic black magic. Verifying the accuracy of what's being told to you, and getting the thoughts of knowledgeable outsiders is standard practice for journalists.

This is a slippery slope for a couple reasons. 1, slander laws protect people from getting their names bashed in media, even if they do suck. A coach could be the worst coach in history, but if he has a good lawyer, professional statistics aren't that difficult to skew in your favor. Most of LGW has no experience in law and we already mastered that one. NHL personelle likely make way more money than best writers and local journalists, too, so I imagine the lawyer battle would be somewhat one-sides.

Secondly, if a reporter made a reputation for calling out someone in the organization for having a negative impact, chances are that reporter will have a great problem even trying to get interviews, or get into the lockerroom to discuss the game. Hockey players are a loyal bunch, and no organization wants bad rep on them or their employees, no matter how true. Reporters have to tread a fine line in covering stories, but also doing so in such a way that they will have the team's blessing to continue reporting in the future.

In short, I think writing up a "Renney Sucks" article is professional suicide.

Edited by Echolalia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care about the media "asking the tough questions". I really don't. I don't get off on the idea of seeing Holland squirm in his seat and hum and hah.

In today's era of social media they know the general consensus of their fan base's opinion. It doesn't take a beat reporter's "digging" to find that out.

What does that accomplish? People act like he's going to have an epiphany and all it takes is people confronting him about it and then he's going to see the light!

(Much like what 55fan was saying) I rely on the media to give me facts. I'd love more insider info but I also see how that can be counter-productive to the Wings doing business.

I read blogs and message boards (LGW) to hear other people opinions so I can better reflect on my own (which I've gained from watching as many games as I can).

I don't think anybody here "gets off" watching Holland squirm. I do think some people want management held accountable for bad decisions and underperforming expectations. Media can play a role in doing that (for good or ill).

I don't think anybody here truly believes that media doesn't have a bigger part to play in all this. Nobody would be satisfied if each day Holland just stood in front of a camera, said what he wanted, took no questions, and then went about his business.

I think the whole point of this media discussion, is that some fans (myself included) believe that's essentially what's happening because the Detroit sports media does not fulfill the "check and balance" role that media (by its independent nature) can provide.

This is a slippery slope for a couple reasons. 1, slander laws protect people from getting their names bashed in media, even if they do suck. A coach could be the worst coach in history, but if he has a good lawyer, professional statistics aren't that difficult to skew in your favor. Most of LGW has no experience in law and we already mastered that one. NHL personelle likely make way more money than best writers and local journalists, too, so I imagine the lawyer battle would be somewhat one-sides.

Secondly, if a reporter made a reputation for calling out someone in the organization for having a negative impact, chances are that reporter will have a great problem even trying to get interviews, or get into the lockerroom to discuss the game. Hockey players are a loyal bunch, and any organization doesn't want bad rep on them or their employees, no matter how true. Reporters have to tread a fine line in covering stories, but also doing so in such a way that they will have the team's blessing to continue reporting in the future.

In short, I think writing up a "Renney Sucks" article is professional suicide.

I have a hard time believing that anybody is going to sue a reporter for saying the powerplay is worse under Renney than it was under McClellen. Seems like a stretch to me. Especially considering that assertion can be supported by empirical fact.

Uncovering and reporting the truth? Yes.

EDIT: I think that's a lot easier said than done though

Sure, but they have to at least try. And just repeating back to readers the things that management says, without properly scrutinizing those things, isn't really doing a very good job of trying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anybody here "gets off" watching Holland squirm. I do think some people want management held accountable for bad decisions and underperforming expectations. Media can play a role in doing that (for good or ill).

I don't think anybody here truly believes that media doesn't have a bigger part to play in all this. Nobody would be satisfied if each day Holland just stood in front of a camera, said what he wanted, took no questions, and then went about his business.

I think the whole point of this media discussion, is that some fans (myself included) believe that's essentially what's happening because the Detroit sports media does not fulfill the "check and balance" role that media (by its independent nature) can provide.

I couldn't disagree more with that first sentence...

By the sounds of it your advocating for a media atmosphere more like Toronto. I live in that media sphere and let me tell you it is one huge distraction for that team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anybody here "gets off" watching Holland squirm. I do think some people want management held accountable for bad decisions and underperforming expectations. Media can play a role in doing that (for good or ill).

I don't think anybody here truly believes that media doesn't have a bigger part to play in all this. Nobody would be satisfied if each day Holland just stood in front of a camera, said what he wanted, took no questions, and then went about his business.

I think the whole point of this media discussion, is that some fans (myself included) believe that's essentially what's happening because the Detroit sports media does not fulfill the "check and balance" role that media (by its independent nature) can provide.

I have a hard time believing that anybody is going to sue a reporter for saying the powerplay is worse under Renney than it was under McClellen. Seems like a stretch to me. Especially considering that assertion can be supported by empirical fact.

Sure, but they have to at least try. And just repeating back to readers the things that management says, without properly scrutinizing those things, isn't really doing a very good job of trying.

That's cause that's not slander

That's what opinionated pieces are for.

Edited by number9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Playmaker

So the Powerplay is struggling, whatya have to say about that Mr. Holland? We've had a lot of injuries. What's there to follow up on? What could Chaka Khan or HSJ say to that? No, you're wrong, it's all your fault for the poor signings? Gee, guys, you're right, I suck and I'll quit right now. If it wasn't for your hard hitting reporting and pointing that out, I might not have realized that.

So you signed Danny Cleary when it wasn't popular with the fans, what do you say to THAT? Well, it was popular with our players and coaches, and that's who I listen to. I also promised DC that when he chose to come back to the Wings that if he signed with us for a year, I'd give him a second year and we keep our promises, for the good and the bad. But we think Cleary sucks and we need a defenseman for our PP. You do???? Oh, well then, I'll tear up the contract and go sign a top rated RH offensive minded D man for the league minimum. I didn't realize we needed help there. Thanks for being such good reporters!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't disagree more with that first sentence...

By the sounds of it your advocating for a media atmosphere more like Toronto. I live in that media sphere and let me tell you it is one huge distraction for that team.

I didn't say a word about Toronto and you're misrepresenting my point to the extreme in order to validate your own. Surely you'd agree that there's a happy middle ground between "not questioning the organization at all" and "being endlessly combative for the sake of validating oneself".

I don't think anybody should second guess each and every single little roster decision the coach or GM make. But I also don't it would be asking too much if the next time Ken Holland said "We don't want to overpay for free agents", a member of the media would respond "didn't you just overpay for Cleary and Quincey? Why is it ok in those instances?"

So the Powerplay is struggling, whatya have to say about that Mr. Holland? We've had a lot of injuries. What's there to follow up on? What could Chaka Khan or HSJ say to that? No, you're wrong, it's all your fault for the poor signings? Gee, guys, you're right, I suck and I'll quit right now. If it wasn't for your hard hitting reporting and pointing that out, I might not have realized that.

So you signed Danny Cleary when it wasn't popular with the fans, what do you say to THAT? Well, it was popular with our players and coaches, and that's who I listen to. I also promised DC that when he chose to come back to the Wings that if he signed with us for a year, I'd give him a second year and we keep our promises, for the good and the bad. But we think Cleary sucks and we need a defenseman for our PP. You do???? Oh, well then, I'll tear up the contract and go sign a top rated RH offensive minded D man for the league minimum. I didn't realize we needed help there. Thanks for being such good reporters!

The powerplay has struggled since 2010. Was it injuries every year or is there a bigger problem? You know who would be great at answering that question? A member of the sports media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's cause that's not slander

That's what opinionated pieces are for.

Checking the validity of what's said doesn't move something from the realm of "truth" into the realm of "opinion". If Holland says "our powerplay is bad because we've been injured" and a reporter says "wait a minute, your powerplay is bad even when the team isn't injured"; that doesn't make what the reporter said an opinion. And wouldn't you rather have a reporter ask that follow up question than just trumpet "our powerplay is bad because we were injured" back to you whether that's the actual truth or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say a word about Toronto and you're misrepresenting my point to the extreme in order to validate your own. Surely you'd agree that there's a happy middle ground between "not questioning the organization at all" and "being endlessly combative for the sake of validating oneself".

I don't think anybody should second guess each and every single little roster decision the coach or GM make. But I also don't it would be asking too much if the next time Ken Holland said "We don't want to overpay for free agents", a member of the media would respond "didn't you just overpay for Cleary and Quincey? Why is it ok in those instances?"

I said "more like" which is true and *not extreme at all. Besides I think that's a slippery slope and hard to find a middle-ground.

Bottom-line I rely on the beat writers for daily factual updates and the columnists for opinion pieces.

I could care less if Holland is posed with those questions. What does that accomplish?

*Ok maybe it was a little extreme after re-reading my comment.

Edited by Son of a Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said "more like" which is true and not extreme at all. Besides I think that's a slippery slope and hard to find a middle-ground.

Bottom-line I rely on the beat writers for daily factual updates and the columnists for opinion pieces.

I could care less if Holland is posed with those questions. What does that accomplish?

Well for starters, identifying the actual truth about a subject informs the public. And since the Red Wings, like all other businesses, are dependent on the public for revenue they are generally are very amenable to public opinion.

Those types of questions also help inform management too. One of the biggest mistakes any decision maker can make is thinking that their way is the best way, or their thought process cannot be criticized. The press acts as a sounding board for decision makers all the time. Ken Holland is not different.

Finally, asking relevant questions and ensuring that the answers provided are accurate and reliable is also the whole point of having journalism in the first place. If you'd rather they didn't ask questions, then why do you bother reading news? Just have the Red Wings twitter and facebook posts sent to your smart phone and move on if you don't care if the news is accurate or not. However I suspect, since you do go out of your way to consume news (by your own admission), that you'd likely prefer that the news you get is being collected and distributed in accordance with best possible industry standards and not just phoned in.

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Checking the validity of what's said doesn't move something from the realm of "truth" into the realm of "opinion". If Holland says "our powerplay is bad because we've been injured" and a reporter says "wait a minute, your powerplay is bad even when the team isn't injured"; that doesn't make what the reporter said an opinion. And wouldn't you rather have a reporter ask that follow up question than just trumpet "our powerplay is bad because we were injured" back to you whether that's the actual truth or not?

Yes. But said reporter would need to present some facts that support that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a hard time believing that anybody is going to sue a reporter for saying the powerplay is worse under Renney than it was under McClellen. Seems like a stretch to me. Especially considering that assertion can be supported by empirical fact.

Nobody will be successfully sued for stating fact (which in your case, "the powerplay is worse under Renney than it was under McClellan" is the fact), but postulating as to the cause of the fact, especially when it casts a professional in a negative light, is definitely sue-able material ("Renney sucks", in your case). Regardless of your thoughts on the matter, this is a real possibility and it's entirely within anyone's right to pursue, should they feel their name is tarnished. This, and the other issue I mentioned (establishing yourself as a reporter who casts others in a negative light will likely remove yourself from any future interview opportunities or other journalist access, and it would be quite difficult to be a journalist without these privileges) are likely the reasons who we don't see more beat writers trying to dig up who's to blame because the powerplay isn't as good as it used to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. But said reporter would need to present some facts that support that point.

Sure, I'm not suggesting they make things up. They should always do fact-based reporting. That's precisely what I'm advocating. Not just repeat things that may or may not be accurate or truthful (despite being said by management).

Nobody will be successfully sued for stating fact (which in your case, "the powerplay is worse under Renney than it was under McClellan" is the fact), but postulating as to the cause of the fact, especially when it casts a professional in a negative light, is definitely sue-able material ("Renney sucks", in your case). Regardless of your thoughts on the matter, this is a real possibility and it's entirely within anyone's right to pursue, should they feel their name is tarnished. This, and the other issue I mentioned (establishing yourself as a reporter who casts others in a negative light will likely remove yourself from any future interview opportunities or other journalist access, and it would be quite difficult to be a journalist without these privileges) are likely the reasons who we don't see more beat writers trying to dig up who's to blame because the powerplay isn't as good as it used to be.

My "Renney Sucks" comment was shorthand. I don't expect, nor would I enjoy if, if a journalist said someone "sucks" in an article. If the powerplay is objectively worse under Renney than someone else, reporters should ask the coach or GM why. If the answer they get is properly scrutinized and stands up to fact checking, then the matter can rest. But if the answer doesn't stand up to scrutiny (for instance: Our powerplay sucks because we have too many injuries), then I would expect a responsible reporter to try and figure out why and not just take management's word for it.

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well for starters, identifying the actual truth about a subject informs the public. And since the Red Wings, like all other businesses, are dependent on the public for revenue they are generally are very amenable to public opinion.

Those types of questions also help inform management too. One of the biggest mistakes any decision maker can make is thinking that their way is the best way, or their thought process cannot be criticized. The press acts as a sounding board for decision makers all the time. Ken Holland is not different.

Finally, asking relevant questions and ensuring that the answers provided are accurate and reliable is also the whole point of having journalism in the first place. If you'd rather they didn't ask questions, then why do you bother reading news? Just have the Red Wings twitter and facebook posts sent to your smart phone and move on if you don't care if the news is accurate or not. However I suspect, since you do go out of your way to consume news (by your own admission), that you'd likely prefer that the news you get is being collected and distributed in accordance with best possible industry standards and not just phoned in.

But you're acting as if, if the right questions were asked, Holland would be all forth-coming with "the truth".

He has his famous sayings.. "I like our team" etc. for a reason. They don't have to answer to us whether we like that or not.

Success has granted them some leniency in that department. If that continues downward I don't expect them to turn to their fan-base for direction.

Again, I read the Wings media reports to get updates on players (reports, stats, facts) and read opinion pieces to better reflect on my own. Not to read Holland Q&As.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Playmaker

I didn't say a word about Toronto and you're misrepresenting my point to the extreme in order to validate your own. Surely you'd agree that there's a happy middle ground between "not questioning the organization at all" and "being endlessly combative for the sake of validating oneself".

I don't think anybody should second guess each and every single little roster decision the coach or GM make. But I also don't it would be asking too much if the next time Ken Holland said "We don't want to overpay for free agents", a member of the media would respond "didn't you just overpay for Cleary and Quincey? Why is it ok in those instances?"

The powerplay has struggled since 2010. Was it injuries every year or is there a bigger problem? You know who would be great at answering that question? A member of the sports media.

Here, I'll be your media. Ohhh, Ohh, Pick me! Pick me! Playmaker, your turn. Okay, Alex, I'll take Red Wings Power Play for a hundred. Answer: Nick Lidstrom retired. Why has the Wings power play gone down since 2010? RWPP for 2 hundered. Answer: Tomas Holmstrom retired. Question, what's another reason why the RWPP has struggled? For 3... Answer: Ryan Suter, Niskanen, Erhoff: Question: Who have the Wings made serious efforts to sign since 2010 to replace the Perfect Human? Let's go for 4. Answer: Tom Renney. Question: Who was the coach who had the leagues 3rd best PP with Edmonton that the Wings hired to help on Special Teams? Let's run the table, RWPP for 500, Alex. Answer: Johan Franzen, Daniel Cleary, Justin Abdelkader, Todd Bertuzzi, Mikael Samuelsson. Question: Who are guys that were expected to contribute much more on the PP but didn't.

Wow, really thought this game would be a lot harder. I'd better ask someone from the media to be my phone a friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here, I'll be your media. Ohhh, Ohh, Pick me! Pick me! Playmaker, your turn. Okay, Alex, I'll take Red Wings Power Play for a hundred. Answer: Nick Lidstrom retired. Why has the Wings power play gone down since 2010? RWPP for 2 hundered. Answer: Tomas Holmstrom retired. Question, what's another reason why the RWPP has struggled? For 3... Answer: Ryan Suter, Niskanen, Erhoff: Question: Who have the Wings made serious efforts to sign since 2010 to replace the Perfect Human? Let's go for 4. Answer: Tom Renney. Question: Who was the coach who had the leagues 3rd best PP with Edmonton that the Wings hired to help on Special Teams? Let's run the table, RWPP for 500, Alex. Answer: Johan Franzen, Daniel Cleary, Justin Abdelkader, Todd Bertuzzi, Mikael Samuelsson. Question: Who are guys that were expected to contribute much more on the PP but didn't.

Wow, really thought this game would be a lot harder. I'd better ask someone from the media to be my phone a friend.

Here's a couple of quick follow up questions I'd ask based on what you just said if I were a sports journalist (though I'd probably be WAY less condescending about it than you're being).

1. If our powerplay is worse because Lidstrom and Holmstrom retired, why (despite still being bad overall) was it better the year after they left than it was in their final year?

2. How hard did you really go after Suter, Niskanen, and Ehrhoff if you didn't have the largest offer in any of those three instances?

3. Why is Tom Renney's powerplay more successful in Edmonton, despite having lesser talent, than it is on a Detroit team full of Stanley Cup winners, two way superstars, and arguably the best head coach in the NHL?

4. Why would you expect Dan Cleary, Todd Bertuzzi, Mikael Samuelsson, and Justin Abdelkader to contribute significantly on the powerplay? Three of them are declining veterans who can't stay healthy and whose offense has fallen off considerably while one of them has never contributed much offensively in the NHL in any situation.

Clearly no need for good reporting if Holland is providing rock solid answers like those you've provided.

Edited by kipwinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this