Leafs vs. the Media

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Welcome A/14 to the site, always like to see new blood coming on board.  Lupul tweeted the challenge, probably available on twitter.

New blood?  That's funny, because, I was a member of penaltybox.com.  My post count back then was in the hundreds, if I remember correctly.  I just have not been on this new site very often the last couple of years.

Someone posted the link earlier in the thread, deadspin I believe. 

 

[Bill_Berg]

Looks like Lupul was accepting a challenge, not offering one.

https://twitter.com/SlamSports/status/573173538573701120/photo/1 

 

[Rebel_1812]

ESPN: Sharp: Rumors have taken toll, considering legal action

Wasn't far off the Lupul/Cuthbert crap from what I loosely gather. Sharp's parents and family were calling him, upset, etc.

Like the TSN tweet, over the top, hurting innocent family members.

Here's an update on Burke with stuff like this:
Canoe: Brian Burke continues quest to uncover alleged online defamers
The Calgary Flames executive won a default judgment in B.C. Supreme Court against five online posters last week, according to the Vancouver Province.

The 58-year-old has won the right to serve legal papers to the aforementioned online commenters using the message boards he claims he was defamed on.

As a result, the hunt continues for anonymous online users NoFixed Address, CamBarkerfan, Lavy 16, Tulowd and Naggah, all of which failed to respond to the former Toronto Maple Leafs general manager?s lawsuit.

The court also ordered each of the defendants, whose real names remain unknown, to pay Burke damages and any legal costs he accumulates as a plaintiff.

Burke?s legal proceedings began in April when rumours surrounding his dismissal from his position with the Leafs became the subject of much gossip.

Burke claims he was defamed in online comments accusing him of having an extra-marital affair with sports reporter Hazel Mae of Rogers Sportsnet.

Take note social media: BC Supreme Court agrees with Burke and Burke is winning.

He won that 'by default'  so the other parties likely weren't identified or showed up.  Not exactly a victory if that is the case.

 

[Rebel_1812]

ESPN: Sharp: Rumors have taken toll, considering legal action

Wasn't far off the Lupul/Cuthbert crap from what I loosely gather. Sharp's parents and family were calling him, upset, etc.

Like the TSN tweet, over the top, hurting innocent family members.

Here's an update on Burke with stuff like this:
Canoe: Brian Burke continues quest to uncover alleged online defamers
The Calgary Flames executive won a default judgment in B.C. Supreme Court against five online posters last week, according to the Vancouver Province.

The 58-year-old has won the right to serve legal papers to the aforementioned online commenters using the message boards he claims he was defamed on.

As a result, the hunt continues for anonymous online users NoFixed Address, CamBarkerfan, Lavy 16, Tulowd and Naggah, all of which failed to respond to the former Toronto Maple Leafs general manager?s lawsuit.

The court also ordered each of the defendants, whose real names remain unknown, to pay Burke damages and any legal costs he accumulates as a plaintiff.

Burke?s legal proceedings began in April when rumours surrounding his dismissal from his position with the Leafs became the subject of much gossip.

Burke claims he was defamed in online comments accusing him of having an extra-marital affair with sports reporter Hazel Mae of Rogers Sportsnet.

Take note social media: BC Supreme Court agrees with Burke and Burke is winning.

He won that 'by default'  so the other parties likely weren't identified or showed up.  Not exactly a victory if that is the case.

In fact it didn't take long to find evidence of the most likely situation:
"had the right to serve legal papers against online commentators via the message boards allegedly used to spread the material."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/hear-that-story-about-brian-burke-read-this/article12271860/
So Burke never identified the people or got them to pay him.  He put notice on a message board like this and then the court said he won and so did the papers.  He didn't win any money, he actually would have spend money for his legal and court fees.  There was no legal defence either.  This is not a good precedence to point to.

 

[Kin]

In a small victory for meaningful sports coverage and responsible journalism, TSN won't be airing tweets during live broadcasts:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/tsn-to-stop-airing-tweets-during-live-broadcasts-after-post-about-phaneufs-wife-295070741.html?cx_navSource=d-top-story

 

[L K]

Sometimes, it has to do with the content of the reporting, or personal friction. There are feuds that kick off over nothing in a locker room and are resolved in print over decades. But it?s more fundamental than that.

There are players I?ve covered for years, talked to many times about all sorts of things. I think I know them, at least a little.

Then one day, we?ll walk past each other in the street, our eyes meet and they don?t recognize me. Not at all.

As media, we are locker-room background ? as animate as grease boards and laundry hampers. You can?t remember what you haven?t really seen in the first place.

Then you?ll run into the same guy in a Starbucks lineup on the road and end up talking to each other about nothing. Maybe he?ll see you embracing an old coach of his. Or he?ll wander into an actual human conversation you?re having with the GM about families or movies or a mutual acquaintance.

All of a sudden, and in that instant, you become a real person. And that player never forgets you, sometimes even years later. It?s bizarre, and it happens all the time in this business.

Once that?s happened, you?ll never rip that guy in print. You?ll criticize, but the ripping days are over. He?s not just someone you cover any more. He?s someone you know.

This has very little to do with the job. It?s human nature.

Once you?ve seen and been seen, you?ve crossed a bridge together. Empathy?s part of it now. It may not affect the content of your work, but it certainly has an impact on the tone. From then on, disagreements are squashed one-on-one. You?re not friends, but you show each other a rough sort of respect.

Some players don?t get that basic calculus, which is fine. They?re free to behave as they?d like. They have a right to expect that things never get personal ? though ?personal? means different things to different people.

Beyond that, they have no rights. What they have is the environment they?ve created for themselves.

The question only a few take the time to ask themselves is ?What do I want?? If you would like to see the best part of yourself reflected in the way people report on you, then you show it. If you don?t care, then don?t bother.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/kelly-a-lesson-in-media-relations-for-phil-kessel/article23276623/

Cathal knows that respect is a two-way street, right?  I think the notion that players have to earn the respect for the media, meanwhile the media doesn't appear to feel they need to earn the respect of the player is telling.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Sometimes, it has to do with the content of the reporting, or personal friction. There are feuds that kick off over nothing in a locker room and are resolved in print over decades. But it?s more fundamental than that.

There are players I?ve covered for years, talked to many times about all sorts of things. I think I know them, at least a little.

Then one day, we?ll walk past each other in the street, our eyes meet and they don?t recognize me. Not at all.

As media, we are locker-room background ? as animate as grease boards and laundry hampers. You can?t remember what you haven?t really seen in the first place.

Then you?ll run into the same guy in a Starbucks lineup on the road and end up talking to each other about nothing. Maybe he?ll see you embracing an old coach of his. Or he?ll wander into an actual human conversation you?re having with the GM about families or movies or a mutual acquaintance.

All of a sudden, and in that instant, you become a real person. And that player never forgets you, sometimes even years later. It?s bizarre, and it happens all the time in this business.

Once that?s happened, you?ll never rip that guy in print. You?ll criticize, but the ripping days are over. He?s not just someone you cover any more. He?s someone you know.

This has very little to do with the job. It?s human nature.

Once you?ve seen and been seen, you?ve crossed a bridge together. Empathy?s part of it now. It may not affect the content of your work, but it certainly has an impact on the tone. From then on, disagreements are squashed one-on-one. You?re not friends, but you show each other a rough sort of respect.

Some players don?t get that basic calculus, which is fine. They?re free to behave as they?d like. They have a right to expect that things never get personal ? though ?personal? means different things to different people.

Beyond that, they have no rights. What they have is the environment they?ve created for themselves.

The question only a few take the time to ask themselves is ?What do I want?? If you would like to see the best part of yourself reflected in the way people report on you, then you show it. If you don?t care, then don?t bother.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/kelly-a-lesson-in-media-relations-for-phil-kessel/article23276623/

Cathal knows that respect is a two-way street, right?  I think the notion that players have to earn the respect for the media, meanwhile the media doesn't appear to feel they need to earn the respect of the player is telling.

Honestly, this is why I find I almost only read Mirtle's stuff unless I'm linked to a piece by someone else.  I don't want to say his work is never coloured by personal interactions with players (because I haven't read everything) but I really get the impression that he doesn't care about anything other than their performance on the ice (or in the case of management/coaching, their performance in their roles).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/leafs-beat/mirtle-athletes-should-be-judged-on-their-performance-not-persona/article23284425/

 

[herman]

I only read James Mirtle and Jonas Siegel/Mark Masters for the most part. Bob McKenzie on Draft/Deadline weeks. MLHS's Leafs Notebook is great as well.

This site is a great place to share and hash out the discussions that come up throughout the season.

 

[bustaheims]

I only read James Mirtle and Jonas Siegel/Mark Masters for the most part. Bob McKenzie on Draft/Deadline weeks. MLHS's Leafs Notebook is great as well.

I wish Mark wrote more stuff. He's a really intelligent guy with a great sense of humour, and I think he could really be one of the best sportswriters in the city if he was in that kind of position.

 

[cw]

ESPN: Sharp: Rumors have taken toll, considering legal action

Wasn't far off the Lupul/Cuthbert crap from what I loosely gather. Sharp's parents and family were calling him, upset, etc.

Like the TSN tweet, over the top, hurting innocent family members.

Here's an update on Burke with stuff like this:
Canoe: Brian Burke continues quest to uncover alleged online defamers
The Calgary Flames executive won a default judgment in B.C. Supreme Court against five online posters last week, according to the Vancouver Province.

The 58-year-old has won the right to serve legal papers to the aforementioned online commenters using the message boards he claims he was defamed on.

As a result, the hunt continues for anonymous online users NoFixed Address, CamBarkerfan, Lavy 16, Tulowd and Naggah, all of which failed to respond to the former Toronto Maple Leafs general manager?s lawsuit.

The court also ordered each of the defendants, whose real names remain unknown, to pay Burke damages and any legal costs he accumulates as a plaintiff.

Burke?s legal proceedings began in April when rumours surrounding his dismissal from his position with the Leafs became the subject of much gossip.

Burke claims he was defamed in online comments accusing him of having an extra-marital affair with sports reporter Hazel Mae of Rogers Sportsnet.

Take note social media: BC Supreme Court agrees with Burke and Burke is winning.

He won that 'by default'  so the other parties likely weren't identified or showed up.  Not exactly a victory if that is the case.

In fact it didn't take long to find evidence of the most likely situation:
"had the right to serve legal papers against online commentators via the message boards allegedly used to spread the material."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/hear-that-story-about-brian-burke-read-this/article12271860/
So Burke never identified the people or got them to pay him.  He put notice on a message board like this and then the court said he won and so did the papers.  He didn't win any money, he actually would have spend money for his legal and court fees.  There was no legal defence either.  This is not a good precedence to point to.

In the series of articles you linked to:
Globe link

From a San Diego defamation lawsuit over a post made on a Yahoo site, golfer Phil Michelson went after an anonymous poster in Quebec and won a judgement in Quebec court in 2012 ordering his internet provider to reveal his identity so they could go after him. The internet provider complied with the Quebec court order.

Still think "This is not a good precedence to point to." ?

In short, in Canada, your anonymous internet handle does not protect you from a defamation lawsuit. That's the case law on the matter. Once there's case law established, other internet providers are not as likely to waste money on legal fees on trying to protect the identity of their defaming subscriber - because it's already been established that their efforts will end in futility.

This jackass who posted about Lupul has probably already found out that reality and that it ain't fun when they track you down. At the very least, it's probably embarrassing and a little scary. Might be expensive if they have to get legal advice. If they posted from work, it could cost them their job. Could be financially problematic if their mortgage comes up and there's a defamation lawsuit out against them (I've seen that happen to someone), Etc.

A word to the wise here should be sufficient.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Cathal knows that respect is a two-way street, right?  I think the notion that players have to earn the respect for the media, meanwhile the media doesn't appear to feel they need to earn the respect of the player is telling.

I like the idea that the media's feelings are hurt when players don't look them in the eye.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

If they posted from work, it could cost them their job.

You say the story about Curt Schilling I'm assuming?

Schilling told the NY Daily News that so far, he's aware of nine trolls who've been fired or kicked off athletic teams because of his having published their tweets - "and we?re not done."

He went into detail about two of the worst, including their names and backgrounds.

One of them, identified by Schilling as a recent graduate of Montclair (New Jersey) State University, was fired by the Yankees as a part-time ticket seller on Monday after the team learned of his posts.

Schilling identified another troll as a Brookdale Community College student.

Avis McMillon, a spokeswoman for the New Jersey school, told the newspaper that the student has been summarily suspended

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2015/03/05/twitter-troll-fired-another-suspended-after-curt-schilling-names-and-shames-them/

 

[Andy007]

Cathal knows that respect is a two-way street, right?  I think the notion that players have to earn the respect for the media, meanwhile the media doesn't appear to feel they need to earn the respect of the player is telling.

I like the idea that the media's feelings are hurt when players don't look them in the eye.

And when that connection is met, they will never rip that guy in print. Otherwise ripping, on top of mere criticism, is perfectly acceptable.

What journalism school did this guy attend?

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Cathal knows that respect is a two-way street, right?  I think the notion that players have to earn the respect for the media, meanwhile the media doesn't appear to feel they need to earn the respect of the player is telling.

I like the idea that the media's feelings are hurt when players don't look them in the eye.

And when that connection is met, they will never rip that guy in print. Otherwise ripping, on top of mere criticism, is perfectly acceptable.

What journalism school did this guy attend?

That's the crazy thing him just admitting that.  I mean, clearly he doesn't care that people know that but still.  It's like when TSN radio always has Darren Dreger on to discuss moves made by the Leafs.  If he's just providing insider info?  Sure.  But they have him on there analyzing moves and stuff when he's Nonis' cousin.  He's never going to seriously criticize the guy.

And I know they probably couldn't care less as long as they get listeners.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

This was my favourite comment about the Kelly article:

[tweet]573121982033743873[/tweet]

 

[cw]

Sometimes, it has to do with the content of the reporting, or personal friction. There are feuds that kick off over nothing in a locker room and are resolved in print over decades. But it?s more fundamental than that.

There are players I?ve covered for years, talked to many times about all sorts of things. I think I know them, at least a little.

Then one day, we?ll walk past each other in the street, our eyes meet and they don?t recognize me. Not at all.

As media, we are locker-room background ? as animate as grease boards and laundry hampers. You can?t remember what you haven?t really seen in the first place.

Then you?ll run into the same guy in a Starbucks lineup on the road and end up talking to each other about nothing. Maybe he?ll see you embracing an old coach of his. Or he?ll wander into an actual human conversation you?re having with the GM about families or movies or a mutual acquaintance.

All of a sudden, and in that instant, you become a real person. And that player never forgets you, sometimes even years later. It?s bizarre, and it happens all the time in this business.

Once that?s happened, you?ll never rip that guy in print. You?ll criticize, but the ripping days are over. He?s not just someone you cover any more. He?s someone you know.

This has very little to do with the job. It?s human nature.

Once you?ve seen and been seen, you?ve crossed a bridge together. Empathy?s part of it now. It may not affect the content of your work, but it certainly has an impact on the tone. From then on, disagreements are squashed one-on-one. You?re not friends, but you show each other a rough sort of respect.

Some players don?t get that basic calculus, which is fine. They?re free to behave as they?d like. They have a right to expect that things never get personal ? though ?personal? means different things to different people.

Beyond that, they have no rights. What they have is the environment they?ve created for themselves.

The question only a few take the time to ask themselves is ?What do I want?? If you would like to see the best part of yourself reflected in the way people report on you, then you show it. If you don?t care, then don?t bother.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/kelly-a-lesson-in-media-relations-for-phil-kessel/article23276623/

Cathal knows that respect is a two-way street, right?  I think the notion that players have to earn the respect for the media, meanwhile the media doesn't appear to feel they need to earn the respect of the player is telling.

Honestly, this is why I find I almost only read Mirtle's stuff unless I'm linked to a piece by someone else.  I don't want to say his work is never coloured by personal interactions with players (because I haven't read everything) but I really get the impression that he doesn't care about anything other than their performance on the ice (or in the case of management/coaching, their performance in their roles).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/leafs-beat/mirtle-athletes-should-be-judged-on-their-performance-not-persona/article23284425/

Mirtle is one of the better sports journalists the Leafs have had over the last several decades. No question. I don't always agree with him but I do agree with him a heck of a lot. And I like that he searches for facts to test his theories and kind of holds court on issues trying to weigh all sides. He fair and intelligent, etc.

Phaneuf, for all his efforts ? and he?s made many since he was named Leafs captain ? sounds wooden and cold.
....
Burke said back in 2010, when asked about Phaneuf being put into a media-heavy role. ?He's not hosting a day-time talk show.?

No he?s not. But he?s being judged by some who want him to.

I think that stuff and much of what Mirtle writes isn't far off. But a key word in the above quote is "some".

Yet I also think Cathal also raises a fair point that has been proven over the years here - like many things in life: how you treat the media impacts how the media treats you.

Unfortunately for Phaneuf, if you sound "wooden and cold" - something that may not be one's forte or is a natural gift one can lack and can't do anything about, then he can suffer some for it. And I think he has.

Having said that, if the team were winning, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Phaneuf and Kessel getting the biggest  share of the ice time, can't escape taking some responsibility for the results.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Yet I also think Cathal also raises a fair point that has been proven over the years here - like many things in life: how you treat the media impacts how the media treats you.

Yet I think the media expects this to be a one-way street.  Take Cathal Kelly - he's written that the Leafs should've traded Kessel to sign Clarkson, called Kessel overweight, said he had multiple chins,  and questioned his ability to be coached (before the famous Wilson clip).  But seemingly in Kelly's mind, he should be able to say what he wants and call a player fat if he wants and that player should take it and play nice with him.  If the media are influenced by genuine human nature, why shouldn't the players?

And I think more and more players are coming around to the understanding that, with the internet, social media, etc., mainstream print media journalists need them a heck of a lot more than the players need their coverage.

 

[cw]

This was my favourite comment about the Kelly article:

[tweet]573121982033743873[/tweet]

I think the article exposes that media use personal bias just fine.
He didn't scold them for it, as maybe he might or ideally should. And the reason for that might be that it is a lesson: like most people in life, while striving for journalistic virtues, media folks do have biases. If you want to get along better with the media, then you play to those biases - just like a corporate salesman does when trying to sell an account or a politician often does when trying to muster voter support or one might when trying to persuade a family member to go along with them on something.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

And I think more and more players are coming around to the understanding that, with the internet, social media, etc., mainstream print media journalists need them a heck of a lot more than the players need their coverage.

There was a Kelly article a few months back that basically argued the exact opposite. Basically said that sports needs journalists (and the storylines that they created) for it to be exciting.

 

[Kin]

And I think more and more players are coming around to the understanding that, with the internet, social media, etc., mainstream print media journalists need them a heck of a lot more than the players need their coverage.

There was a Kelly article a few months back that basically argued the exact opposite. Basically said that sports needs journalists (and the storylines that they created) for it to be exciting.

But I think there's a truth that Kelly is getting at which is that if a player doesn't like a media member in a perverse way it's almost to the media member's benefit where they're likely to create some moments of genuine tension between the two which can lead to good copy. On the flipside, well, we all know that players want to have favourable media coverage. Even a guy like Kessel, who's long been held up as the guy for whom media coverage is largely immaterial, showed that he doesn't like the negative media coverage around the team these days.

So I really think it's more to a player's benefit to be on good terms with the media than it is the reverse.