He doesn't have to act like a literary genius, it's seems to me that the lad doth protest too much, however to his detriment.
Meh. he didn't protest to much. He simply let them know, and calmly I might add, that it wasn't acceptable.
The context has to be observed with his previous behaviour and how he was going to adapt to this market which is right now the toughest English speaking Hockey Market in North America. You mentioned "most of the media I've seen comment on it agrees with Torts."
What media are you reading or hearing?
1040 guys were fine with it when talking about it afterwards for example. Various others. I for one don't believe that a media member looking to ask questions and get answers is going to be at all impressed if the bonehead beside him has a ringing phone. The reason it rarely happens is because most people know and abide by the etiquette. They can try to play up the Torts vs media angle of course but in the end they know not to keep phones one. Which is why they are off/silenced
Yeah ... but it's all in the deliver and in the person's history and how he is perceived. Either as a cordial individual or a belligerent individual ... cut from cloth of Burke etc..
It's worthwhile noting that the majority of the press has a lot of good things to say about Torts and how he deals with people. There is really only one guy who he has continual major run ins with and that guy is union shill idiot.
Well, I cited two people yesterday, Gary Mason and Glen Suitor who disagreed with the way Torts delivered his message. Maybe you don't consider media members to be "professional." I don't have an issue of Torts addressing the disturbance, but I didn't agree with the way he delivered the message ... it came across as rather petulant which is par for the course and seems to me a warning sign of things to come.
what comes across as petulant is writing stories about how this is such a big thing when:
1) no voice was raised
2) no one individual was actively pointed out
3) no on was berated
4) no foul language was used
5) there was no disrespect in the comments and certainly none directed specifically at anyone
6) the question he was answering got answered
all that happened was:
1) the phone was noted
2) ground rules were set
3) consequences to those ground rules were laid out clearly
4) the scrum continued on as normal
What is amazing is that SOME in the media believe they set the ground rules to these things and they are only ones that supposedly need to be respected. It's tit for tat. You want to be treated with utmost respect then treat the guy you asking questions to with that same respect. Having phones going off is not doing that. Whining about someone being reminded of a common courtesy and possible consequences is really not doing that.
Anyways, I'll continue happily along knowing that it is impolite to do what the camera man did (accidental or not), and it is more than OK to point it out and that the way it was pointed out never singled anyone out for specific embarassment. You know completely UNLIKE what Obama did. Even if Obama had a smile when he said it, the second part of his comment was specifically to call attention to the guy to shame him into never doing it again. Which IMO is still fine given the situation and far more harsh than what Torts actually did.
Hey I'd be on board if he followed up what he said (that he'd walk if he hears phones) with "besides only a idiot wouldn't have his phone silenced in this environment. You, you there, do you think it's OK to disrupt everyone with your stupid phone? use some common sense or get out! I swear to god I'm surprised some of you guys have the brain power to breathe"
But he didn't do any of that.
And I'm done.
