A column to make you cringe

We're on the same side of the argument. I'm just not ready to subject the guy to the knout.

You blame him. I blame the profession for lacking structure and accountability. He had no business being behind a keyboard for 20 years, at least not on press row and not in a vocational capacity.

 

well no fucking shit that piece hurts our profession, but, you obviously are one of those people who leave their leather shoes in the middle of the floor on your way to work and then come home and kick the shit out of your puppy because he chewed your shoes up.

give me a fucking break. high horse? no. ready to admit not everyone is equipped with the same skills and knowledge, yes.

go kick your dog again.

 

i'm saying we don't know, period, and the guy's not here to defend himself.

wasn't there a thread just a couple of weeks ago with a high school kid asking if he should take a job straight out of HS instead of going to college? yes, there was.

 

I don't know what it says about my personality, but as soon as I read everyone piling on this guy, I felt compelled to offer a defense. I'm not completely playing devil's advocate either. I think I actually believe most of what I am about to type.
First of all, the guy was trying to do something nice for his 4-year-old kid. He wasn't selling an autographed goalie stick on ebay. I mean, his heart was in the right place.
Second, the reason journalists shouldn't accept gifts is to avoid a conflict of interest or a perceived conflict of interest. Well, I assume this guy doesn't cover the Buffalo Sabres on a daily or even an occasional basis. What difference does it make, journalistically speaking, if he's in the tank for the Sabres? Do we have to be objective about stuff we don't even cover?

 

Fair enough. I agree with you. But, making someone pass a test isn't going to fix the problem.

 

Yeah, throwing that proposal out there usually brings on a lot of sound and fury.

Not many logical reasons for not doing it, though.

 

You and analogies must not get along well.

The only way your analogy works here is if I was the one who ordered a hockey player to offer him the tickets, offered him and his kid a looksee around the locker room, offered his kid an autographed stick or whatever the fuck he got.

How is me reading a published article and finding it damaging to our profession tantamount to getting angry and inflicting pain on someone because of an oversight I made? Please fill me in. It was stated above. The guy has been around 20 years.

And if a guy from his paper can become legendary enough to make into the Hockey Hall of Fame, then the Podunk argument doesn't work. That paper, by definition, has to have some sort of significance in the hockey world, and this column was about accepting gifts from an NHL player and/or team.

 

god you're not real smart sometimes.

let me simplify it for you: you supported beating the guy down without knowing the facts ... for starters. and the analogy is it's stupid to kick someone or something in the teeth for doing something they don't know is wrong.

 

Absolutely, they have probably the smallest staff of any daily in Canada and they're always winning awards for the innovative work they do — and that's not their goal, it's coming up with angles beyond the routine. I went to a seminar conducted by their assistant managing editor in the fall, and his passion is certainly a motivator. More people should give them credit.

On this whole story, I actually wasn't aware that the Standard covered the Sabres with a regular beat reporter - so either I'm not paying attention (and I used to live in Niagara), or the reporter in question is getting his connections to the Sabres outside of his day-to-day work. Whether that makes this better or not, I really can't say. It's possible Peters' gift was outside the realm of his job — as it appears he didn't know Miller himself — but still ethically iffy.

I would consider it more acceptable if the reporter had nothing to do with the Sabres' beat, but an outside friendship with Peters, and if he took the boy to an open public skate and didn't use any special press clearance to arrange the meeting that took place (I think that's unclear here). Those are connections that any Joe Businessman might have and be able to provide for his kid.

I still remember reading a passage from Roy MacGregor - maybe the most celebrated, and arguably respected, columnist in Canada - about taking his own son out of school to see Wayne Gretzky in the morning skate during the early years in Ottawa... and I don't recall him being ripped for that (though the skate is open I believe). I'm sure Roy didn't go through the hoops to make sure the young guy would meet the Great One, but his own celebrity might have helped a meeting take place.

 

That wasn't your analogy. Your analogy was I baited a baby animal, it bit and then I beat it for taking the bait I supplied.

As for your revamped "analogy," I don't need to know the journalist in question's background to knwo what he did was unethical and reckless.

 

god, you really, really aren't very smart sometimes.

thanks for the lame attempt, though.

 

reading this thread is now worse than reading the original column