Yeah agree with you. I think it’s probably best for us fans to be able to ‘rip the bandaid off’ so to speak and move on to a new chapter (EM’s family and friends notwithstanding).
Get all the talk out of the way, people can frame the legacy as they see fit with a broader spectrum of the man’s actions shared to the public sphere.
I know I’m ready
He did. I think he mentioned in an earlier Melnyk thread as an opportunity to have a frank discussion about his reporting, and somebody said they wouldn't take part because they felt it was purely fluff.
Why would you show up? What possible reason does anyone have to go to a situation that completely favors the host in what will certainly be a failed attempt to get answers and information from said host?
Kind of an odd post considering Ian Mendes was literally posting on this forum up until a year ago, and got chased off by people making the exact sort of accusation you're making here right now.
Oh okay, so that makes it okay.
Pretty easy to see how the sports media landscape in Ottawa ends up dominated by the Garrioches and Brennans when the fanbase prefers to spit on anyone who attempts to engage with them, preferring to presume that any attempt to do so is some conniving act of bad faith.
Who is being spat on here? There seems to be almost cut-like praise of Mendes and his work. Any attempt to question that timeline and why this didn't come out sooner is meant with "GARRIOCH BAD, YOU MUST LIKE HIM", "YOU MUST HAVE WANTED TO COVERED IT ALL UP FOR MELNYK".
I am only going by recent posts but it feels you may be all over Mendes as a publicity hound if he was doing multiple interviews. And who would these interviewers be that would hold his feet to the fire that would satisfy you?
You've made it pretty clear you aren't interested in an honest discussion with him seeing as how he offered a venue for you to ask whatever you want and all you do is complain about the venue based on a presumed outcome. Maybe show up and if goes how you think it will, you'll have every right to say I told you so, but you clearly see what you want to see and then decry anyone else as being a fan boy or cult of Mendes for not buying what you're selling.
Ian Mendes was spat on. The man used to be a fairly regular presence on this forum. Then he got accused of acting in bad faith and chose to leave.
You think somebody deciding to have a discussion about their reporting, after initially declaring they would not, is an act of bad faith? Seems quite the opposite to me. And yeah, the discussion would be on his terms considering he's the one organizing it.
I don't see Shapiro and Mendes as being ethically equal. I also don't presume that every figure offering to hold a discussion is doing so in bad faith because they're using a platform that is convenient.
Yeah, the sports media guy should really consider renting out a conference center and holding a public town hall. That sounds like a very reasonable and not at all wholly out-of-scale thing to do. Maybe then all those with a chip on their shoulder and and axe to grind would feel comfortable telling Mendes to his face just how much they hate him.
It's not about holding feet to fire but asking questions including tough questions in a neutral setting.
Yes, I can agree with that. My interpretation was the most recent piece, the Ukrainian guy angle would have been the last piece of the puzzle. But , for me anyways, they most damning parts of the articles existed in 2019 and 2020, and even 2021, the LGBTQ and BLM comments
I guess some people need to read this so I'll say it more directly instead of being facetious like in earlier posts: I was not seriously suggesting he book the Shaw Centre and take questions from anyone who shows up.
I get it, you want him to do a promo tour on other news outlets, but are unwilling to go direct to the source because you assume his unwillingness to go on other shows indicates an unwillingness to have an honest discussion. I'd submit there are other potential explanations, for example the athletic thinking they'd get more people to subscribe to their service to hear about the story this way than to have mendes or strang to a tour and asking him not to go on those shows. At the end though, he's offered an open venue, live no less and invited anyone who wants to come. You've decided that one isn't good enough for some reason before even giving it a chance, and accused him of nefarious motivations. It bears repeating, you see what you want to see.
We all see what we want to see. The fact of the matter is one venue has been offered. One venue they have complete control over. The point is the setup itself is inherently biased. It's not that they might be biased when the discussion starts. The bias is inherent and can only get worse, not better.
good lord, you're accusing them of things they haven't done, you see that right? You've gone straight to comparing them to Ben freaking Shapiro because what, they used the companies livepodcast forum to facilitate discussion, the horror... Get back to me when they actually abuse the control they have over that forum, until then they aren't the ones trying to control the narrative,
I was making a point that they are incredibly selective with who, when, where they will engage. The examples of people who do this do not paint a flattering picture.
The examples you chose don't. You chose those examples because of the picture the paint. See, I can make accusations of bias too.
