How bad is the Vancouver hockey media?

[King of the ES*]

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.

In general, I agree. It does bother me when MG is brought on to the radio and the important questions are blatantly ignored, and a vanilla back-and-forth ensues.

Gallagher is just fantastic. Easily my favorite columnist and radio interview. Great sense of humor and very smart. Same with B-Mac - he's my fave radio guy.

By and large, this city's media is good. Team1040 rules.

 

[Var]

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.

Oh? Here's the top result in youtube for the Botch. If you can get through it, you'll need some Zanax.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=snwP9suEMhc

 

[Jinsell]

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.

I don't know if it's sensitivity so much as annoyance. Jeff Paterson is just plain bad. I understand that if there was no criticism, the media wouldn't have anything to talk about, but he just nitpicks for the sake of nitpicking. Not only that, but he offers so very little in terms of opinion as if he's afraid to have a view or take a stance on something and get completely flamed for it. I can't count the amount of times he's said "I don't want to speculate on ... but [insert an obvious critcism of the Canucks here]." At least Chapman and Botchford have actual opinions. Paterson just states the obvious and spouts off stats like a computer.

I usually have an interest in hearing what Paul Chapman and Jason Botchford have to say (otherwise why would I tune in?) but lately having to listen to them talk about the Canucks has been trying. For the past two months, Chapman has basically been saying "this team isn't good enough" over and over again every morning. We get it, Paul. Botchford's "holier than thou" tone in talking/writing about the Canucks has just been grating. He's almost like a younger Tony Gallagher, which may not be a good thing (although I get the odd chuckle out of hearing Tony).

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the media trying to be objective and critical. Otherwise we get guys like Scott Rintoul who don't say anything of consequence and are just talking heads. That being said, the Canucks played one of their best 60 minute efforts in a long time the other night against an Edmonton team that, granted, was the lowly Oilers, but had also been one of the hottest teams in the NHL in recent weeks (the Vancouver and Edmonton media were making comparisons between this Edmonton squad and the one of the early 1980s in the pregame show). I expected Chapman and Botchford to change their tune (even slightly) the next morning but tuned in only to hear the same stuff they've been saying for the past two months. If it was just them talking you wouldn't know if the Canucks won or lost. I swear these guys have roles and they stick to them (just like Dave "The Pot Stirrer" Pratt who probably doesn't believe half of the stuff he spouts off about).

I guess I shouldn't listen if it bothers me that much. It doesn't really, but since this is a thread about how the Vancouver media is bad I'm just speaking about how tired certain individuals' schticks can be sometimes.

 

[Jinsell]

In general, I agree. It does bother me when MG is brought on to the radio and the important questions are blatantly ignored, and a vanilla back-and-forth ensues.

Gallagher is just fantastic. Easily my favorite columnist and radio interview. Great sense of humor and very smart. Same with B-Mac - he's my fave radio guy.

By and large, this city's media is good. Team1040 rules.

I don't always agree with Tony Gallagher but when he comes on the radio to talk it's usually worth tuning in simply to hear him say something funny. I remember he was critcizing the Canucks physicality in one of the playoff series against Chicago a couple of years ago and he said something to the effect of "the only thing that was hurting on the Blackhawks were their sides from laughing at the Canucks attempt to forecheck." That was priceless.

 

[Jinsell]

Oh? Here's the top result in youtube for the Botch. If you can get through it, you'll need some Zanax.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=snwP9suEMhc

...I actually agree with him here.

The problem is he's been saying the same thing over and over since last season ended.

 

[Smokey McCanucks]

The guys at the Province and the guys on talk radio like Mcrae are pretty darn terrible, they vacillate between being outrageously biased homers and treacherously ripping the team and players at the worst possible times.

 

[SgtToody]

I don't know if it's sensitivity so much as annoyance. Jeff Paterson is just plain bad. I understand that if there was no criticism, the media wouldn't have anything to talk about, but he just nitpicks for the sake of nitpicking. Not only that, but he offers so very little in terms of opinion as if he's afraid to have a view or take a stance on something and get completely flamed for it. I can't count the amount of times he's said "I don't want to speculate on ... but [insert an obvious critcism of the Canucks here]." At least Chapman and Botchford have actual opinions. Paterson just states the obvious and spouts off stats like a computer.

I usually have an interest in hearing what Paul Chapman and Jason Botchford have to say (otherwise why would I tune in?) but lately having to listen to them talk about the Canucks has been trying. For the past two months, Chapman has basically been saying "this team isn't good enough" over and over again.....

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the media trying to be objective and critical. Otherwise we get guys like Scott Rintoul who don't say anything of consequence and are just talking heads. That being said, the Canucks played one of their best 60 minute efforts in a long time the other night against an Edmonton team that, granted, was the lowly Oilers, but had also been one of the hottest teams in the NHL in recent weeks (the Vancouver and Edmonton media were making comparisons between this Edmonton squad and the one of the early 1980s in the pregame show). I expected Chapman and Botchford to change their tune (even slightly) the next morning but tuned in only to hear the same stuff they've been saying for the past two months. If it was just them talking you wouldn't know if the Canucks won or lost. I swear these guys have roles and they stick to them (just like Dave "The Pot Stirrer" Pratt who probably doesn't believe half of the stuff he spouts off about).

I guess I shouldn't listen if it bothers me that much. It doesn't really, but since this is a thread about how the Vancouver media is bad I'm just speaking about how tired certain individuals' schticks can be sometimes.

First of all, the win over Edmonton was worthy of some dissection and not just unadulterated praise. The schedule gave Vancouver a distinct edge (as it gave Edmonton one a week earlier) and while it was a very positive sign, it shouldn't be embraced as a typical "we're out of the woods now" fact.
Otherwise a knee jerk reaction like that would equally be followed by today's "our hair's on fire because Calgary nearly stole our lunch money Saturday" storyline... You don't have to agree with them or even listen. Most of it, especially the talking heads who aren't trained journalists, are just there for noise and entertainment anyways.

 

[Var]

...I actually agree with him here.

The problem is he's been saying the same thing over and over since last season ended.

Yaaaaa, what? You're acting like you got through the video. Nice try.

He's more suited to a cooking show or the View or something. Actually, he'd be perfect for entertainment news and you know it's true.

 

[Smokey McCanucks]

Here's an example of the problem I have with the hockey media in Vancouver. After the win over Calgary on HNiC, Jason Botchford's headline reads "Canucks' 5-2 Win Flatters Sloppy Performance Against Inept Calgary Flames." That's a freaking pathetic viewpoint to take, it's a view our media is extremely partial to...namely, the negative column after a hard-fought victory. Fools like Botchford look at the standings and expect a gimme, so when it's a tight contest, it must be because the Canucks were "sloppy," because heaven forbid the "inept" Flames might put up a fight.

Well guess what, even a bad team has pride and can come out playing hard, and Calgary did. It's not on the Canucks, you have to give some credit to the Flames for playing a good game and making it tough. I thought we played a real good game, and so did Calgary, it was up-tempo, lots of hitting, lots of shots and good saves, it was a throwback to four, five years ago when Calgary was our biggest rival. Great game. But these media jerks think it's only a good game by the Canucks if the other team doesn't show up at all. Me, I think it's a better game, because we were challenged and still won handily.

Some gems from Botchford's latest: Derek Roy "floated"...the honeymoon is over for 15! Edler and Bieksa "got smoked" (Edler had a goal, was +2 with four shots, Bieksa was physically engaged all night)...the Sedins were "uneven" but somehow managed to get six points, because it was Calgary though, not because they played well at all. The defence was "a disaster." Throw in a Duncan Keith reference for good measure. It really riles me up, going to read some hockey analysis and I get this drivel instead, it's like they're watching a completely different game than I am.

I mean, Calgary played a good game! They played hard, they were physical and getting pucks to the net and put up a solid fight. What does Botchford want, for them to not even come to the rink? It was an entertaining, engaging game, lots of things going on, very eventful. The Habs-Boston game was terrific, hard-fought and fast-paced if not terribly eventful or pretty, and Don Cherry was on top of his game as he swore to see the end of touch-up icing if it's the last thing he does. It was a great HNiC, great performances, nice storyline with Reinhart playing his debut, and now I look in the Province and have to read this crap? Infuriating!

The worst thing is, it's not a one-off, it's every freaking time. "Oh, the Canucks won by three but I thought they could have played better, criticize this guy, criticize that guy, uninspired performance, should be beating Calgary/Columbus/team X by eight or twenty, giving up six shots. Blah Blah Blah." That isn't the way hockey works, you expect a Calgary team with guys fighting for roster spots next season, playing on Hockey Night, to not show up? To just roll over? And criticize the Canucks, because the Flames didn't just give up and pack it in? It's not how hockey works, but it's how the media around here works, that's for sure...to the detriment of the team and the overall atmosphere surrounding it. I'd like to see Gillis take these clowns to task, it's like Pink Floyd sang, "get 'em up against the wall!"

 

[SgtToody]

Here's an example of the problem I have with the hockey media in Vancouver. After the win over Calgary on HNiC, Jason Botchford's headline reads "Canucks' 5-2 Win Flatters Sloppy Performance Against Inept Calgary Flames." That's a freaking pathetic viewpoint to take, it's a view our media is extremely partial to...namely, the negative column after a hard-fought victory. Fools like Botchford look at the standings and expect a gimme, so when it's a tight contest, it must be because the Canucks were "sloppy," because heaven forbid the "inept" Flames might put up a fight.

Well guess what, even a bad team has pride and can come out playing hard, and Calgary did. It's not on the Canucks, you have to give some credit to the Flames for playing a good game and making it tough. I thought we played a real good game, and so did Calgary, it was up-tempo, lots of hitting, lots of shots and good saves, it was a throwback to four, five years ago when Calgary was our biggest rival. Great game. But these media jerks think it's only a good game by the Canucks if the other team doesn't show up at all. Me, I think it's a better game, because we were challenged and still won handily.

Some gems from Botchford's latest: Derek Roy "floated"...the honeymoon is over for 15! Edler and Bieksa "got smoked" (Edler had a goal, was +2 with four shots, Bieksa was physically engaged all night)...the Sedins were "uneven" but somehow managed to get six points, because it was Calgary though, not because they played well at all. The defence was "a disaster." Throw in a Duncan Keith reference for good measure. It really riles me up, going to read some hockey analysis and I get this drivel instead, it's like they're watching a completely different game than I am.

I mean, Calgary played a good game! They played hard, they were physical and getting pucks to the net and put up a solid fight. What does Botchford want, for them to not even come to the rink? It was an entertaining, engaging game, lots of things going on, very eventful. The Habs-Boston game was terrific, hard-fought and fast-paced if not terribly eventful or pretty, and Don Cherry was on top of his game as he swore to see the end of touch-up icing if it's the last thing he does. It was a great HNiC, great performances, nice storyline with Reinhart playing his debut, and now I look in the Province and have to read this crap? Infuriating!

The worst thing is, it's not a one-off, it's every freaking time. "Oh, the Canucks won by three but I thought they could have played better, criticize this guy, criticize that guy, uninspired performance, should be beating Calgary/Columbus/team X by eight or twenty, giving up six shots. Blah Blah Blah." That isn't the way hockey works, you expect a Calgary team with guys fighting for roster spots next season, playing on Hockey Night, to not show up? To just roll over? And criticize the Canucks, because the Flames didn't just give up and pack it in? It's not how hockey works, but it's how the media around here works, that's for sure...to the detriment of the team and the overall atmosphere surrounding it. I'd like to see Gillis take these clowns to task, it's like Pink Floyd sang, "get 'em up against the wall!"

First of all, writers generally have nothing to do with the headline. It's typically some overworked scrub who's hunched behind an old computer somewhere... Secondly, if the Canucks put that effort into a playoff game, you're likely looking at a loss. While I didn't see it as an embarrassing effort, they certainly didn't have their A game... So criticism is warranted.

 

[Smokey McCanucks]

First of all, writers generally have nothing to do with the headline. It's typically some overworked scrub who's hunched behind an old computer somewhere... Secondly, if the Canucks put that effort into a playoff game, you're likely looking at a loss. While I didn't see it as an embarrassing effort, they certainly didn't have their A game... So criticism is warranted.

The way I look at it, you have two choices as a columnist, you can tell your readers about the close, exciting, eventful game you just watched, the hits, the fights, the scoring chances and big saves and crazy shifts by the Sedins, the milestones by Vigneault and the Sedins (600 assists for Henrik, and Daniel moves into second on the franchise scoring list). Or you can criticize the team because, even though they won by three, they allowed a team with a roster that is not as good to make it into a close-fought game. Certain individuals will take the second option EVERY TIME. Now, in a single instance that is defensible. But as an ongoing pattern, it is unwarranted, excessively critical, overly negative. The celebration of victory is lacking, and even more, the enjoyment of a good hockey game is lacking in this reportage.

 

[Wizeman*]

I grew up in Vancouver and its a unique experience. There is no other team to write about. This is not to take anything away from the Lions, or Whitecaps. There was briefly the Grizz, but they were an expansion team so the media couldnt really breathe down their throat.

The Canucks are the only game in town. And the sports writers in Vancouver think its their own personal mission in life to bloviate their musings regarding each player, each coach, GM and even scouts. Hell, even the guy who drives the Zamboni is judged.

the problem with editorial media is that it doesnt have to be 'true' and there is no governing body to tell them to shut the !#$! up.

The players learned decades ago that to turn on a TV or read a newspaper could lead to suicide if they took it personally.

 

[Hollywood Burrows]

I think it's pretty obvious the legacy media is terrible. I cannot stress enough how important it is that no one listen to Team 1040. Stop listening to Team 1040. If we all stop listening the station will go out of business. That's economics.

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...

What you're describing is a non-problem. Twitter allows misinformation to spread rapidly, but the corrections spread just as quickly. Anyone posting fake news is smacked down by the hivemind with astonishing speed. Twitter is infinitely faster and more accurate than print or broadcast media.

 

[Var]

The way I look at it, you have two choices as a columnist, you can tell your readers about the close, exciting, eventful game you just watched, the hits, the fights, the scoring chances and big saves and crazy shifts by the Sedins, the milestones by Vigneault and the Sedins (600 assists for Henrik, and Daniel moves into second on the franchise scoring list). Or you can criticize the team because, even though they won by three, they allowed a team with a roster that is not as good to make it into a close-fought game. Certain individuals will take the second option EVERY TIME. Now, in a single instance that is defensible. But as an ongoing pattern, it is unwarranted, excessively critical, overly negative. The celebration of victory is lacking, and even more, the enjoyment of a good hockey game is lacking in this reportage.

Exactly. Good post.

 

[Wisp]

I think Vancouver's media has a huge negative impact on our hockey culture. Thankfully, the blogosphere is providing some fresh insights that we didn't have a decade ago and the traditional voices are becoming quieter as the discussion becomes more muddled.

 

[SgtToody]

Right. Keep the bloviating to hockey futures only! The 1040 is not necessarily the only option but they offer what the public will accept, according to the latest numbers. Of course when our hockey club edges a team that was about 50-percent AHL the victor gets to write the story, so a "convincing" win it is, then.

 

[shortshorts]

Botchford is a dud.

 

[Jinsell]

Yaaaaa, what? You're acting like you got through the video. Nice try.

He's more suited to a cooking show or the View or something. Actually, he'd be perfect for entertainment news and you know it's true.

Haha...spot on, spot on.

 

[Ainec]

i think the national media is worse (CBC), etc in regards to how they portray this team

 

[King of the ES*]

For the past two months, Chapman has basically been saying "this team isn't good enough" over and over again every morning. We get it, Paul.

What's wrong with that? It's his opinion, and one that a lot of people agree with.

I personally currently have the Canucks as the West's 4th best team, behind Chicago, Anaheim, and St. Louis. IMO, they didn't do enough by only adding Derek Roy. Doesn't address key needs of the team, specifically toughness.

 

[King of the ES*]

I don't always agree with Tony Gallagher but when he comes on the radio to talk it's usually worth tuning in simply to hear him say something funny. I remember he was critcizing the Canucks physicality in one of the playoff series against Chicago a couple of years ago and he said something to the effect of "the only thing that was hurting on the Blackhawks were their sides from laughing at the Canucks attempt to forecheck." That was priceless.

Tony is the best. How about Phoenix's D being holographic a couple of years ago? Like they were skating with their feet up?

 

[King of the ES*]

The way I look at it, you have two choices as a columnist, you can tell your readers about the close, exciting, eventful game you just watched, the hits, the fights, the scoring chances and big saves and crazy shifts by the Sedins, the milestones by Vigneault and the Sedins (600 assists for Henrik, and Daniel moves into second on the franchise scoring list). Or you can criticize the team because, even though they won by three, they allowed a team with a roster that is not as good to make it into a close-fought game. Certain individuals will take the second option EVERY TIME. Now, in a single instance that is defensible. But as an ongoing pattern, it is unwarranted, excessively critical, overly negative. The celebration of victory is lacking, and even more, the enjoyment of a good hockey game is lacking in this reportage.

We watched this team limp into the playoffs last year, with the whole "flip the switch" mentality in play. It doesn't work. If the goalies were reversed that game, it would've been 5-2 for Calgary. That's why it's a concern. If Schneider has an off-night - "off" meaning practically anything but excellent - this team's odds of winning are very low.

 

[Smokey McCanucks]

We watched this team limp into the playoffs last year, with the whole "flip the switch" mentality in play. It doesn't work. If the goalies were reversed that game, it would've been 5-2 for Calgary. That's why it's a concern. If Schneider has an off-night - "off" meaning practically anything but excellent - this team's odds of winning are very low.

Well maybe if everyone had got behind the team last year and not booed them as they cruised to the President's Trophy, things would have been different! Too many people analyzing and not enough people cheering, that's the real problem. It's not just the media what fixate on the negatives to the exclusion of everything else. I like this team, they're good, they've been playing well all season except for a few stretches where the reason they weren't playing well was obvious (sudden start to the season/injuries and roster changes) and nothing you could really blame anyone for. Last season we were doing well but between the goalie situation and Chicago knocking Sedin out and running into Sutter in the first round again, what are you gonna do? We were unlucky. Could have used some proper fan and media support, is what I'm saying, but people stab them in the back again. Hopefully some folks learned a lesson but I wouldn't count on it.

 

[Gormo]

The media is just fine, no better or worse then in other sports markets. Our fans need to stop being so hypersensitive. We are too easy to offend.

If you cant stand guys like Tony G then maybe its time to stop reading his articles.

I cant believe I just wrote that last sentence, but Im trying to be honest here. Its your choice to listen to guys like Botchford and Patterson, and I dont understand why youd want to indulge if you find them so offensive. Its puzzling.

Ultimately, the antics of the media have absolutely no impact on the Canucks' quality of play. Let them say whatever they like, it doesnt matter.

 

[Gormo]

Tony is the best. How about Phoenix's D being holographic a couple of years ago? Like they were skating with their feet up?

How could I forget.

"Their defensemen are holograms; They have no physical make up"