Tunnel vision from a member of the Edmonton media

I was doing some reading today and came across this quote from one Mark Spector:

For example, you’ll never have come to an agreement with a member of the Vancouver Canucks organization about that team’s propensity for diving or referee baiting.

For familiar Canucks Army readers, you may recall that that doesn’t seem quite right. There is at least one published example of at least one member of the Vancouver Canucks calling out his team for diving and referee baiting:

Specifically, Kevin Bieksa calling out members of his own team last spring:

“I know guys will do whatever it takes for a power play to win a game,” Bieksa said. “But sometimes they’re crossing that line of integrity. I think for the better of the game, for the good of the game we need people to stay on that line and not cross it, and not dive and exaggerate for calls.”

This isn’t the first time that Spector has latched onto a specific narrative. This was the man who made the prophetic prediction that Cody Hodgson was angling to take over Manny Malhotra’s job.

Thomas and myself are at a panel this weekend, Blogs with Balls, which discusses how blogs and fans are playing an increasingly pivotal role in the sports discussion landscape. Objectivity doesn’t begat accuracy, which is why I’m comfortable suggesting that while Canucks Army is technically a “fan” website, as in, many of the writers on this site double up as fans, we also strive for objectivity. We want to paint as realistic of a picture of the game and the media surrounding it as we can.

I’m sure Spector is a nice guy, but you can’t take liberties with a basic narrative if you’re a paid hockey writer. That’s just common sense. Whether the Canucks dive or not isn’t the issue. The issue is that there is at least one member of the Vancouver Canucks organization who is calling his own team out.

  • KleptoKlown

    Typical. The guy writes an entire article (which was actually quite interesting) and a Canucks fan gets all uppity over a side comment made that wasn’t even the main thrust of the argument.

    Option A was to ignore the comment.

    Instead you chose Option B, which was to get all defensive and reinforce the stereotype. I’d say you’re not helping the image of Canucks fans or the team at all with this blog post.

    • An argument isn’t something that’s factual. Argument is just opinion. A good argument has factual examples, however, to give it strength. If the examples aren’t factual, then the argument falls apart.

      I wrote about this one specifically because this is a Canucks blog and the writer has a short history of writing the wrong thing about this team. My point is that objectivity doesn’t lead to accuracy.

  • KleptoKlown

    So if Spector changes the word ‘never’ to ‘rarely’ then the whole thing is avoided I suppose?

    I do understand to a degree. If you’re going to write then do it right. And what you are saying is not wrong – he is factually incorrect in what he is saying. Indeed, a Canucks player has called into question the antics of his team mates.

    I guess this just feels like arguing over minutea which leads to more stereoptyping of the Canuck fanbase.

  • Unbelievable that you would waste whatever time it took you to write this. I mean ‘boohoo’ you found one mild quote from one player using generalities to suggest that maybe some Canucks cross the line in exaggerating for calls. So you use that to defame a media guy who made one inocuous comment in an article that has nothing to do with the Canucks? That is the definition of pathetic and too much time on your hands.

    jstainer is right, it just makes you and Canuck fans seem even more whiny, defensive, and pathetic than others already think you are.

    • So what does that make you if you’re going onto a Canucks centered blog to comment on an article that has nothing to do with any other hockey team except the Canucks?

      And Bieksa has gone on record more than once saying that he’s against diving.

    • stinkpickle

      Just read some of Spector’s work, fact check it, then tell me you don’t want to spend all day writing rebuttals. There is a lot more than just one “inocuous comment”. He does not put the required research into being a member of the paid media.

    • KleptoKlown

      It’s unreal that someone would call out Spector on being directly wrong, again, on a subject that he is paid to know about..

      ..but it’s totally reasonable that you can call out all Canuck fans for being whiny, defensive, and pathetic because someone pointed out another blatant error he made?

      You know who else painted an entire faction with the same brush? Hitler. Go back to HFBoards.

  • KleptoKlown

    Mark Spector is as big of a waste as they come. I’ve read enough of his crap in the past to know to avoid wasting my time on his drivel. I guess bitterness comes naturally when you live in a city as horrible as Edmonton.

  • KleptoKlown

    This article is hilarious for talking about being “objective” and then failing on that very point.

    Spector: “For example, you’ll never have come to an agreement with a member of the Vancouver Canucks organization about that team’s propensity for diving or referee baiting.”

    Just because Bieksa called out his team for diving in a general sense doesn’t mean he’d agree with my assessment on the propensity of it.

    In fact, from the SAME BIEKSA INTERVIEW:

    “It’s not cheating,” Bieksa said. “It’s within the rules and if the referee wants to assess it, he can penalize you for it.”
    (from: http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/08/kevin-bieksa-tells-canucks-teammates-to-lay-off-diving/)

    So…while you’re being objective Cam, can you apologize to Spector, ’cause I doubt he was talking about the Canuck “propensity” as “not cheating”…

  • stinkpickle

    The 2 worst sports reporters in the game. The funny thing is, everyone knows it. Not sure how they find employment – says more about their employer than anything.

  • puck-bandit

    Things seem to come in two’s for my experience with Spec. Got the boot twice from S/N due to defending our beloved Nuck’s and then he actually wrote 2 good articles.
    Why he has such a resentment toward our Nuckee’s I do not know? They say that he who focus’s on one primary issue is envious.
    I have so much respect for this site that I won’t cross the threshold of how I really feel. Take it from the source.
    He is a third-rate-news wanna-be, and one can be assured that he pays to be heard. His knowledge of anything Hockey is hearsay. He wanted to be a Canuck, but sadly his figure skating coach suggested Ballet.
    So; if you get the impression that I don’t care for Mark, you don’t need to take a poll, you are right.
    I want Hockey, I’m slippi’n lately……