JR reporting that the Blues will not name a C this season?

[Brian39]

That article is bad. He does include a press quote from Armstrong to try to show the other side. It is difficult to show the other side if he is being frozen out.

The subject of the article was the opinion that Armstrong and the Blues had bungled trade negotiations and killed Tarasenko's trade value. It isn't remotely difficult to show the "other side" of that opinion (or to demonstrate support for that opinion) without the Blues giving him a quote that they are actually good at their jobs and totally not botching it.

The opinion is that not trading Tarasenko immediately was a horrible mistake. Good information to include from other sources would be what types of offers were presented to the Blues immediately following the request, what teams Tarasenko would accept a trade to, what types of offers the Blues were presenting to teams, what offers were on the table immediately following the expansion draft, Tarasenko's perceived value according to other prominent agents, Tarasenko's perceived value according to the Athletic's in-house statistical model, etc.

None of this requires a meaningful comment from the organization you are actively criticizing. No journalist should expect the organization to offer meaningful insight into active trade negotiations. That isn't being frozen out of a story. That is business as usual for every team in the league. If you can't get a single source to around the league to comment about how the first 3 weeks of negotiations following a public trade request have impacted the player's trade value, then that is your own problem and you shouldn't write a story about it.

I do think the way he referenced his source is intentionally confusing. It definitely reads like he has one source an is trying to hide the fact he has one source. He should be clear when referencing sources if they are the same or not. "A source said" when you already referenced an anounymous source is not a good way to put it. It shoud be "The same source" or "a second/another source".

FWIW, all 6 references to the source talking about the perceived trade value are referred to a 'the source.' The only time he uses 'a source' is the reaction quote to Army's statement about Tarasenko needing to be ready to come to camp.

I agree that his language is intentionally confusing though. I can't tell whether that source is different or not, but he is at least somewhat straightforward that he only has the one anonymous source supporting the thesis opinion of the article.

He should also detail where the source is situated. "A source close to Tarasenko's camp" as to opposed to a "league source". If the source was a GM in the league, I think he is fine. But it does appear to be Tarasenko's agent.

Agreed. It is pretty basic journalism to provide as much detail as you can about the nature of your source's position. 'League source' is intentionally vague and clearly used to cover up the bias of his source. There is no chance it was an accident.

So I have qualms about how he worte the article. But again, the topic is a worthy thing to discuss, as would be a league source saying Tarasenko's value is falling (just not his agent as a source). It would be fine but it just wasn't discussed in the right way.

I don't think this rises to the level of hate he gets. I also think it is slightly on the Blues for freezing him out. If you don't want one-sided articles written, give the journalist with a national outlet with good reach covering your team a quote, even a generic one.

My issue is that the way he wrote the article is so enormously below the standards of undergraduate level journalism sourcing that there is absolutely no chance it wasn't intentional. He very clearly made the decision to give his source a platform to push their agenda completely unchallenged and then did everything he could to try and hide the fact that he was doing it.

It is shitty journalism and he is now living with the consequences. Once you actively pick a side in a negotiation, the side you picked against doesn't treat you like a journalist anymore. And they shouldn't.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

The subject of the article was the opinion that Armstrong and the Blues had bungled trade negotiations and killed Tarasenko's trade value. It isn't remotely difficult to show the "other side" of that opinion (or to demonstrate support for that opinion) without the Blues giving him a quote that they are actually good at their jobs and totally not botching it.

The opinion is that not trading Tarasenko immediately was a horrible mistake. Good information to include from other sources would be what types of offers were presented to the Blues immediately following the request, what teams Tarasenko would accept a trade to, what types of offers the Blues were presenting to teams, what offers were on the table immediately following the expansion draft, Tarasenko's perceived value according to other prominent agents, Tarasenko's perceived value according to the Athletic's in-house statistical model, etc.

None of this requires a meaningful comment from the organization you are actively criticizing. No journalist should expect the organization to offer meaningful insight into active trade negotiations. That isn't being frozen out of a story. That is business as usual for every team in the league. If you can't get a single source to around the league to comment about how the first 3 weeks of negotiations following a public trade request have impacted the player's trade value, then that is your own problem and you shouldn't write a story about it.


FWIW, all 6 references to the source talking about the perceived trade value are referred to a 'the source.' The only time he uses 'a source' is the reaction quote to Army's statement about Tarasenko needing to be ready to come to camp.

I agree that his language is intentionally confusing though. I can't tell whether that source is different or not, but he is at least somewhat straightforward that he only has the one anonymous source supporting the thesis opinion of the article.


Agreed. It is pretty basic journalism to provide as much detail as you can about the nature of your source's position. 'League source' is intentionally vague and clearly used to cover up the bias of his source. There is no chance it was an accident.


My issue is that the way he wrote the article is so enormously below the standards of undergraduate level journalism sourcing that there is absolutely no chance it wasn't intentional. He very clearly made the decision to give his source a platform to push their agenda completely unchallenged and then did everything he could to try and hide the fact that he was doing it.

It is shitty journalism and he is now living with the consequences. Once you actively pick a side in a negotiation, the side you picked against doesn't treat you like a journalist anymore. And they shouldn't.

I kind of think he DIDN'T do it on purpose. I think he just had a deadline to have a piece done, and this is what he could come up with. There is only a story if he decides to 'source' it with the agent alone, so that's how he pieced it together. I think he lacks the creativity to do investigative journalism at pretty much any level. His strength is the straightforward interview of a friendly source (Blais' scout, player parents, etc). That can produce some compelling pieces, but its pretty useless in covering front office negotiations.

 

[sbet1998]

It is shitty journalism and he is now living with the consequences. Once you actively pick a side in a negotiation, the side you picked against doesn't treat you like a journalist anymore. And they shouldn't.

You cant even classify that as "shitty journalism". Its not journalism at all if he was choosing a side and trying to sway readers.

Rage creates a lot more clicks and "journalists" -- better known as activists -- have figured that out.

 

[Celtic Note]

You cant even classify that as "shitty journalism". Its not journalism at all if he was choosing a side and trying to sway readers.

Rage creates a lot more clicks and "journalists" -- better known as activists -- have figured that out.

Targeting people who cannot keep their emotions in check to the point that they cannot think rationally is absolutely the best way to get clicks, ratings, political wins, conformity, etc.

It’s a big reason the US is in the sad state it’s in and I don’t see a way that’s going to change. The masses have enabled it with their pick a side response.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

That article is bad. He does include a press quote from Armstrong to try to show the other side. It is difficult to show the other side if he is being frozen out. I do think the way he referenced his source is intentionally confusing. It definitely reads like he has one source an is trying to hide the fact he has one source. He should be clear when referencing sources if they are the same or not. "A source said" when you already referenced an anounymous source is not a good way to put it. It shoud be "The same source" or "a second/another source".

He should also detail where the source is situated. "A source close to Tarasenko's camp" as to opposed to a "league source". If the source was a GM in the league, I think he is fine. But it does appear to be Tarasenko's agent.

So I have qualms about how he worte the article. But again, the topic is a worthy thing to discuss, as would be a league source saying Tarasenko's value is falling (just not his agent as a source). It would be fine but it just wasn't discussed in the right way.

I don't think this rises to the level of hate he gets. I also think it is slightly on the Blues for freezing him out. If you don't want one-sided articles written, give the journalist with a national outlet with good reach covering your team a quote, even a generic one.

Your standards for what we should expect from a Blues journalist are too low. I think long years of poor options has jaded your expectations. We don’t have to pretend JR is a good journalist.

He’s a marginal journalist, passable. But he is a terrible investigative player and he doesn’t know the game of hockey. He’s never played and the next time he provides any strategic insight or illuminates what the team is doing with the Xs and Os will be the first time. He doesn’t have many interesting contacts beyond the Athletic staff guys. Just what is the upside with him, other than he is the guy that covers St Louis?

He’s not a jerk. He seems personable and is responsive to reader comments. That’s literally the only real positives I can think of. It’s faint praise.

 

[Brian39]

I kind of think he DIDN'T do it on purpose. I think he just had a deadline to have a piece done, and this is what he could come up with. There is only a story if he decides to 'source' it with the agent alone, so that's how he pieced it together. I think he lacks the creativity to do investigative journalism at pretty much any level. His strength is the straightforward interview of a friendly source (Blais' scout, player parents, etc). That can produce some compelling pieces, but its pretty useless in covering front office negotiations.

Don't buy that at all.

It was the 2nd day of free agency, he had written a long article about Schwartz the day before and there is plenty of other info in the 'what has the team done so far' summary at the end of this article that he easily could have stretched it into a 'deadline meeting piece' without editorializing the Tarasenko situation.

He still could have included all of the information about teams that may have had interest in Tarasenko but found other options on the first day of free agency. He could have expanded on his one-off comment that the Blues were 'heavily involved in talks with Hoffman" before he signed in Montreal. He could have provided a more detailed update about Saad negotiations instead of the brief mention that they were pursuing him.

Honestly, a 15 minute edit of the article he published to remove the source's opinions and just leaving it as a factual 'here is the state of things right now' article would have been sufficient to meet any deadline that he had for the 2nd day of free agency. He made a conscious choice to make that article a platform for an agent to negotiate via the media. That is not a deadline-driven decision.

 

[rumrokh]

Your standards for what we should expect from a Blues journalist are too low. I think long years of poor options has jaded your expectations. We don’t have to pretend JR is a good journalist.

He’s a marginal journalist, passable. But he is a terrible investigative player and he doesn’t know the game of hockey. He’s never played and the next time he provides any strategic insight or illuminates what the team is doing with the Xs and Os will be the first time. He doesn’t have many interesting contacts beyond the Athletic staff guys. Just what is the upside with him, other than he is the guy that covers St Louis?

He’s not a jerk. He seems personable and is responsive to reader comments. That’s literally the only real positives I can think of. It’s faint praise.

What's funny is that my personal tastes for a sports journalist don't involve investigation or game insight. Sure, there are occasionally times when a sports journalist gets a lead on serious misbehavior or corruption and rightly follows through; but for the most part, especially for a local beat/team writer, give me someone who embraces the entertainment and humanity of the sport, team, and fans. The last thing I want to hear is a SRS BSNSS jagoff sticking a mic in someone's face and "asking the tough questions" about blocking shots and converting on the powerplay and crap like that.

I think Rutherford is legitimately good at the human side - telling players' individual stories. He always seemed to want to be - or at least was more suited to be a Sports Writer rather than a Journalist. It's his rumors/news/business of hockey approach that sucks now that he's basically his own editor.