How bad is the Vancouver hockey media?

Bougieman

Registered User
Nov 12, 2008
6,565
1,715
Vancouver
Here's what you need to know about the sports media in Vancouver: They want the Canucks to fail, they want controversy and rifts amongst the people involved in the team, they want drama, and they want to have things to complain about.

They believe that all of these things will make their reporting more popular, and get better ratings/get more hits/sell more papers.

Which is fine. But just don't fool yourself into thinking that they care about the team the way you do. They want the worst for the team.
 

Proto

Registered User
Jan 30, 2010
11,523
1
I think everything about the Sportsnet broadcasts is awful. Everything.
 

Jinsell

Registered User
May 11, 2007
728
23
TWO WORDS: JEFF PATTERSON

King of Nitpicking the Canucks. He needs to get a life. His behaviour has also rubbed off on Blake Price who at one time was pretty decent.

Don't usually rip on people, but the one guy that's a real channel changer is Jason Botchford from the Province on TSN. Not sure if it's the shrill in his voice or his obsession with sports related drama, but without fail, it's a cue to hunt down the remote.

This. Both Jason Botchford and Paul Chapman have become absolutely unbearable with their constant negativity of the Canucks on TEAM 1040 Radio in the morning. It's one thing to be critical but these guys just push it way too far. That's their whole schtick though. Last night the Canucks played one of their best 60-minute games in a long time. This morning Botchford and Chapman were grasping at straws because they had nothing to whine about...well except the predictable "well...it's just the Edmonton Oilers." Get real guys...:help:

By and large though, the SportsNet Crew is good. Shorthouse and Garrett are good to listen to - take them over the leaf commentators any day. Valk's a good guy, enjoy listening to him. Listening to Pat Quinn the other night in a round table of GM's was terrific.

More or less agree with this. SportsNet's crew is was better than CBC's which is just so bad it's pathetic. John Garrett is laughably bad though.
 

Nucker101

Foundational Poster
Apr 2, 2013
20,556
15,807
Can't stand the Team 1040, ditto with most of the newspaper guys. Valk makes some good points sometimes, but he does make some head-scratching comments at times, but overall I can live with him. I've watched "The Reporters" show on TSN a few times when I've been up early in the morning and I like Bruce Arthur, he's a TSN guy but apparently he's from Vancouver and he's usually put spot on about his comments on Canuck topics on that show. I also like some of the blogs like Canucks Army, etc that actually use good stats and numbers when writing.
 

CanadianPirate

Registered User
Apr 17, 2007
1,238
31
I like Shorthouse and Garrett. The rest of the sportsnet "experts" are just awful. I used to think the tsn guys knew what they were talking about but this whole Luongo situation has really opened my eyes. Seeing what is supposed to be a national network running pr for the maple leafs is really annoying. CBC is just stupid. Other than MacLean I don't think they are malicious just really really dumb.
 

Chubros

Registered User
Dec 9, 2011
1,526
22
I don't understand all the hatred people on here profess for this town's sports media. There are one or two annoying personalities, but by and large the media does a good job.

The journalists ask the right questions, don't just brown nose all the time, and they give credit where credit is due.

The radio personalities are usually pretty knowledgeable and are actually genuine personalities, not just put on caricatures.

The TV coverage team is good - our play-by-play guy is second to none, and the colour guy isn't too annoying. The intermission/ post game guys generally do a good job too.

All-in-all, this town's sports media is pretty damn good.
 

Aphid Attraction

Registered User
Jan 17, 2013
5,064
1,699
Not living in VAN means I do not have a lot to do with radio or TV media, (apart from in games), the only thing I have to go on is what is put on twitter, and I absolutely hate twitter for news, It is garbage reporting that tries to break stories first, and in an attempt to do that they give you half the info before the full story has even happened, but the biggest problem I have with twitter is when these guys put a misleading quote out there so they get retweeted, and how people speculate from peaces of information in tweets. what I like to do where I can is watch and listen to interviews myself, twitter is ok for stuff like who is in net that game but that's about it as far as news is concerned.

I like our SN commentary guys, just the right amount of homer for my likeing...
 

Hammer79

Registered User
Jan 9, 2009
7,223
1,033
Kelowna
I give the local media 4 Milbury's on the Puck Daddy/Mike Milbury rating scale. If you watched the trade deadline show on Sportsnet, you get what I'm referencing. :laugh:

There is very little insight from anyone in the local media really. It seems that they play up the negative angle, because negativity sells. It's a bit of a chicken-egg riddle, is the media negative because that's the mood of the fan base, or is the fan base negative because that's how the media is telling them to feel? From the negativity, it would be easy to assume that they are an 8th place team, and not a team that only has 3 more regulation losses than a Ducks team that's been on fire and yet can still be caught by the Canucks.

All those questions to Luongo and MG, and no one asked the key question. MG made a long term commitment to Luongo, so what changed over the course of a single playoff game win by Schneider to completely reverse this commitment? Why is it on Luongo to move, when he signed that contract thinking he'd have long term stability in Vancouver? For the past two years before that series, the media constantly hounded MG and Schneider over a possible Schneider deal, and how he felt about it. Now it's not even mentioned by reporters, even though moving Schneider would be the easier move, likely bring back more assets, and may in fact be the better strategic long term move for the franchise.

It's always the same questions over and over. Nobody is digging or doing in depth research (hello, advanced stats?) to ask better questions. Instead, they just re-phrase questions that have been asked and answered already.
 

Kirk Mclean

Registered User
Jan 30, 2013
1,898
65
Vancouver
I can't listen to scotty & company or sekeres & price. Just too annoying and idiotic.

I'm a big b-mac & taylor fan though, i think those guys do a pretty good job and i actually enjoy listening to them.

I like shorty and garrett (we're stuck with them people) and murph.

Jeff Patterson and Jason Botchford should be forced to go live with wild apes in a jungle somewhere, just so bad its not even funny. I hate both of their faces too.
 

TheDiver*

Guest
I lost respect for Don Taylor...

1. During Luongo's first few season's here, Taylor talked about how it didn't seem like Luongo "wanted to here" and that the Canucks should have effectively been insulted because his "body language" and "tone" indicated he didn't like it here. He went after Luongo on this for no reason, all Luongo did was win and re-sign in Vancouver long-term.


2. In around 2006-2008 the Pratt & Taylor show was simulcast on Sportsnet. Every time someone brought up a non-Canuck player, you could see him google the player, and then read off his stats as part of his conversation as if it were off the top of his head. I remember him saying that Alex Ovechkin had a great future because he would receive "long range passes" from "offensie defenseman" Karl Alzner.
He really doesn't know sports. Call in about football and enjoy the dead air.


3. His unfair criticism of Markus Naslund, and blaming Naslund for the lack of playoff success in the Burke/Nonis era. Nevermind the fact that the team went through about a dozen number one goalies during this era, and the best of the bunch was Dan Cloutier.
He argued that Naslund's jersey should not have been retired due to this, and when Gillis and Gilman were on to debate him, they brought up the example of Dale Hawerchuk and others, and Taylor was silenced. When Gillis and Gilman left, Taylor whined that he lost the debate because "he wasn't a lawyer" and continued to criticize Naslund without counter argument.
 

Apple Juice

Registered User
Oct 13, 2008
161
0
Vancouver
I really dislike the Sportsnet crew.

They're intermission shows are a snooze fest (I'd rather watch a full game of the Canucks vs Blue Jackets) with stupid analysts (Shannon, MacLean, Kypreos (who isn't as bad as the others).

Shorthouse is great. Don Taylor is fine. Garry Valk is all sorts of bad. Garrett is awesome, but a huge homer and says stupid things. But the stache is amazing.
I honestly don't mind the Sportsnet crew... Except if I see Doug MacLean or John Shannon, I instantly mute or flip channels.. These two think they know hockey but they're so stupid even if they broke a trade first, they still won't be credible... MacLean keeps on going on and on and refers back to his days as a GM and he keeps talking about the past.. News flash MacLean, you're a dumbass and that's why you're not the GM of the Blue Jackets anymore... He's a big reason why they were a laughing stock of the league since their inception..


And I love it when Garry Valk is angry. He's just hilarious to listen to when he's so upset about a few things Canucks related or not.
 

Hyack57

Registered User
Aug 6, 2004
5,520
240
Airdrie, AB
Chicken neck Gallagher and bobble head botch ford are two of the worst while Ed willes is just a bitter disenfranchised fan himself. An acquaintance of mine Patrick Johnston has a really good blog. Plus I enjoy reading these forums way more than the big newspapers.
 
Last edited:

Dado

Guest
Sports media is like this everywhere. They're part of the entertainment circus. Plus Vancouver is a small city, with only one major team, so what focus there is all ends up on that one team.
 

Karl Hungus

Registered User
Oct 6, 2007
2,470
0
Vancouver media is a liability to the team. Just look at the way our playoff opponent's local media mobilize to attack the Canucks in between games. Our own local media basically rolls over piles on. Way to often they bring nothing of substance and instead just offer opinions, and bad ones at that, which give voice to the worst of our fan base and nationalize views of our team that I generally find myself at odds with.
 

DadBod

Registered User
Sep 1, 2009
3,361
15
Coquitlam
The problem I have with Vacouvers media is you CANNOT! find info on any of the Canucks prospects. I don't know why they can't spend 5 minutes to interview Arneil at least once a week. You would be hard pressed to name a single prospect in our system unless he's playing for the Nucks. With having prospects scattered all over the world you think they could fill 1 time slot interviewing coaches, scouts, prospects etc..

1040 wants to spend more time naming washed up celebs birthdays, interrupting sponsor commercials, NBA talk etc.. Hire me FFS and I will travel watching prospects and give a 5 minute update every week
 
Feb 28, 2002
10,922
0
Abbotsford, BC
Visit site
You know why everyone hates the media... Cause they call it like it is and if anyone remembers 2010-2011 the media was all about this team winning the cup. Gallagher rick ball botchford Taylor... Only Patterson who's always negative, said they couldn't win.

But for the most part they call it as it is and don't look at the team from homer coloured glasses.

You call it hard I call it a reality check. It might get frustrating to many but the truth hurts. Gallagher is by far the most brutally honest out there.
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,875
3,570
Vancouver, BC
^ completely disagree.

I think we've been spoiled with excellent pbp and commentary. Tom and Shorty were a class act that deserves to be put on a pedestal... same with Hughson when he was here.

I think the rest of the media in Vancouver are pretty poor.
 

SgtToody

Registered User
Mar 16, 2013
1,215
30
You know why everyone hates the media... Cause they call it like it is and if anyone remembers 2010-2011 the media was all about this team winning the cup. Gallagher rick ball botchford Taylor... Only Patterson who's always negative, said they couldn't win.

But for the most part they call it as it is and don't look at the team from homer coloured glasses.

You call it hard I call it a reality check. It might get frustrating to many but the truth hurts. Gallagher is by far the most brutally honest out there.

Agree. Most of us think we're the experts and take offence when someone has a counter and forceful view... That and plus there may be a little envy on some people's parts - who wouldn't want a job where the toughest part (at least the job tasks the public is aware of) has you having to think up newish cliches to wrap their opinion around.
 

Karl Hungus

Registered User
Oct 6, 2007
2,470
0
Agree. Most of us think we're the experts and take offence when someone has a counter and forceful view... That and plus there may be a little envy on some people's parts - who wouldn't want a job where the toughest part (at least the job tasks the public is aware of) has you having to think up newish cliches to wrap their opinion around.

I quite like listening to hockey pundits like Bob MacKenzie and Elliott Friedman even though neither is particularly generous to my team in particular. Their analysis is coherent and logical and not just intended to stir things up for the sake of getting attention. There's a clear difference between journalists like those and the loud, opinionated personalities that make up the majority of sports media.
 

TheDiver*

Guest
Agree. Most of us think we're the experts and take offence when someone has a counter and forceful view... That and plus there may be a little envy on some people's parts - who wouldn't want a job where the toughest part (at least the job tasks the public is aware of) has you having to think up newish cliches to wrap their opinion around.

If you read the OP, I never complained about the media being tough on the team.

What I complained about was the quality of questions they ask, and the quality of reporting.
 

King of the ES*

Guest
TWO WORDS: JEFF PATTERSON

King of Nitpicking the Canucks. He needs to get a life. His behaviour has also rubbed off on Blake Price who at one time was pretty decent.

This. Both Jason Botchford and Paul Chapman have become absolutely unbearable with their constant negativity of the Canucks on TEAM 1040 Radio in the morning. It's one thing to be critical but these guys just push it way too far. That's their whole schtick though. Last night the Canucks played one of their best 60-minute games in a long time. This morning Botchford and Chapman were grasping at straws because they had nothing to whine about...well except the predictable "well...it's just the Edmonton Oilers." Get real guys...:help:

Paterson - 1 "t". ;)

Anyway, I've always wondered why so many Canuck fans - like you - appear to be so sensitive. All of the "negativity" complaints are pretty silly. Who cares? And Botchford is really not negative. He's defending Gillis and the Canucks all the time. He was even arguing post-deadline that it was somehow unethical for the Leafs to not acquire Luongo at the last minute, since the Canucks extended an olive branch, which I thought was totally ludicrous. Rintoul tends to be the "good guy"/homer, as does Sekeres in the afternoon show.

Paul Chapman can be critical, and I like it. It is a fact that a win against the Oilers is not as noteworthy as a win against the Blackhawks. He really tends to tell it like it is. The flip side of the negativity is that the game against the Kings is also frequently brought up on the Team, and that's because they won decisively against the Stanley Cup champs while playing a full 60 minutes.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->