Mainstream Morons

Post image for Mainstream Morons

by Matt Reitz on February 5, 2010

email

One of the reasons I started the blog a few years ago was because I love hockey and couldn’t find many adequate resources to follow my favorite sport. Living in Southern California (and many other markets in the States) provides challenges that a Canadian can’t even begin to imagine. Listening to Sports Talk radio when your team is in the middle of a 7-game winning streak and not even getting the score of the previous game—that’s the norm. You want trade rumors or standings? We can’t get a friggin’ score.

At least they got his name right...

A drum that I’ve continued to beat—repeatedly—is that the mainstream media should pay more attention to “The Greatest Game on Earth.” It annoys me that ESPN can run 10 minutes of coverage on Brett Favre on a typical off-day before they even mention Martin Brodeur breaking the all-time shutout mark. But it’s the world we live in—we don’t have to like it, but I’m beginning to think that we might have to accept it. After a few things I saw yesterday, I’m beginning to wonder if I’ve been wrong all these years.

First of all, I’ve realized there’s a corollary to my desire for hockey to get more attention: I want the people in the media to talk about hockey AND know what they’re talking about. A perfect example was when the guys over at Pardon The Interruption decided to devote over a minute to the Capitals earlier this week (that would be about a minute more than they usually do). Tony Kornheiser couldn’t pronounce the goalies name correctly (and made a joke about it) and Mike Wilbon said something that was just WRONG. Really? They wait this long to talk about hockey and THIS is what they come up with?

I guess I should just be happy that there wasn’t a Marty McSorley or Todd Bertuzzi reference.

The second example the media’s ineptitude was much, much more troubling. TJ Simers wrote an article for the LA Times that is so atrocious; I refuse to provide a link. If you love hockey, it represents every stereotype that has made the mainstream “the enemy” to so many fans. He talks about how the first period was boring, how people asked if Gretzky was still there and how empty the place was (never mind that it was a sell-out). If I said what I truly though of him and the article, this post would be filled with more F bombs than a George Carlin special. It’s Simers’ M.O., but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s broadcasting an incorrect label that needs to die already.

The example from the LA Times serves to explain the bigger picture as well. I get a strong feeling that the paper doesn’t have a feature writer on their entire staff capable of writing a coherent article on hockey.

Helene Elliott KNOWS what she’s talking about. Love her or hate her, she KNOWS what she’s talking about. There are fans that might not like what she has to say, but that doesn’t change the fact that her opinions stem from facts and a deep well of knowledge.

No, Gretzky was not playing on Tuesday night. For either team.

But she’s a hockey writer. I’m talking about the big writers and sports personalities in each market that are directly associated with the game. Talk radio personalities have no problem switching between baseball, basketball and football. Hell, they can go between pro and college for most sports—but when it comes to hockey, they usually regurgitate the same recycled joke, laugh about hockey not being a “real sport” and try to cut to commercial as quickly as possible.

Honestly, Id rather they didn’t even bother.

At some point I had to ask myself, “Why do I want the media to talk about hockey?” Part of it was because I wanted them to talk about something that I was interested in. But a bigger part of it was that I wanted the non-hockey loving world get exposed and hopefully take some kind of interest in the sport. I’m a strong believer that if people are exposed to the sport and give it a chance, they’ll love it. It sells itself.

Keeping these two ideas in mind, neither the LA Times article, nor the PTI segment do much to expose the sport in a great light. The PTI guys clearly have no idea what’s going on with the NHL at large. Should we hockey fans be happy that they just talked about it? Or would it be nice if the host could actually pronounce the player’s name correctly? Worse yet, he pronouncing it wrong—said he was probably pronounced it wrong and made a joke out of it. I don’t see him doing that with Osi Umenyiora or Javaris Crittenton. So why is it OK to do it to Simeon Varlamov? Because hockey isn’t as popular?

The sad part is that the PTI segment was a glowing advertisement for the NHL compared to the article in the LA Times. Basically, it was a glorified hack job by a guy that was just looking to get a rise out of hockey fans for a few cheap hits on the site. At least that’s what I’m telling myself.

Here’s my question for you readers: If this is what the mainstream media is going to bring to the table, do you even want them talking about hockey? Comment away.

Matt Reitz

facebook twitter google plus linkedin

Matt Reitz is an NHL Writer for ProHockeyTalk on NBCSports and the Editor-In-Chief here at ViewFromMySeats.com. When he's not shoving a mic in the face of NHLers or explaining why home teams should wear white, he's usually trying to figure out what song to play next on his iPod. It's a never-ending job.


  • The Shadow

    I just stumbled onto this blog today so I'm a little late with my response. First of all if the media in the U.S. prefers not to write or broadcast about hockey because it is primarily a Canadian sport could they be aware that basketball was started in Canada? Secondly according to the statistics found on Wikipedia basketball is only a hair breadth ahead of hockey in attendance. Now, basketball may get more t.v. viewers but maybe that's because people like ESPN promote it in their editorials and show it on their mainstream programming. Third, not a real sport? What a joke, clearly these sports commentators have never tied up a pair of Bauers and went out to see for themselves how much ability is required go one on one against a skilled opponent.

    In 2009 almost a half million people attended the World Junior Hockey Championships in Ottawa in an eleven day tournament and that's an amateur level. Next year this tournament is being held in Buffalo and American public will miss some of the most competitive sport in the world if they do not attend.

  • Jeff Dark

    I always used to joke that ESPN and mainstream media won't cover hockey because NHL players don't beat their wives or accidentally shoot themselves in nightclubs. But the harsh reality is simply the lack of education about the sport. The media doesn't cover what it doesn't understand.

    While I don't there's a cut and dry solution here, the NHL needs to take alternative action at leveling the playing field. I don't think NHL management has the balls to really get itself out there and raise some eyebrows. Whoever is head of PR really needs to step up and think outside the box. It sounds cliche, but it's the truth.

    Hockey fans are devoted, unflappable, and most importantly, smart. The NHL needs to figure out how to harness that power and use it to get hockey back to where it was in the mid 90s.

  • http://web.me.com/kakitadoug/geekblog/Blog/Blog.html DougS

    Another thought:

    The appalling state of mainstream press coverage of hockey is, I think, exactly why the Kings put Rich Hammond on their payroll this summer. Hammond's blog was clearly the best single source of reporting about the Kings to be found. The problem was that the Daily News clearly considered it a secondary (or even tertiary) duty for him, and he didn't have as much time for it as he wanted. On the Kings' payroll, reporting about the team is all he has to do.

    As you may remember, there were some questions raised at the time about whether the Kings would allow Rich to maintain his objectivity as a reporter. But I never worried about that because, given how little attention the Kings were getting in the press, even negative stories would have been a major improvement. The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about, and all that.

  • http://web.me.com/kakitadoug/geekblog/Blog/Blog.html DougS

    Matt, I hear what you're saying and very much sympathize. But I think it's worth pointing out that at least the LA Times is sending Helene Elliott out on Kings road games this season, which is more than they did last season and, IIRC, the season before that. And they seem to have brought Robyn Norwood out of cold storage to help cover the Ducks again, so Helene doesn't have to do double duty. Given the financial problems that they've had (and still have, no doubt), that may be the best they can do to cope with the Kings' dramatic change of fortune this season.

    The big issue that you bring up, I think, is the truly appalling state of the sports columnists. I can remember when the LAT's regular sports columnists were Jim Murray and Scott Ostler. And now who do they have? My theory is that T.J. Simers long ago realized that he doesn't actually have much in the way of writing talent or perceptive intelligence, and so he developed this shtick in which he intentionally tries to piss off a lot of people so that he'll get attention. Otherwise, everyone would realize that he's interesting as unsalted soda crackers, and he'd be out of a job.

    But at least (I think) Simers has that degree of self-awareness. Plaschke is an idiot who doesn't realize he's an idiot. Otherwise, he wouldn't write so many columns that put you in mind of watching someone soil himself in public.

  • Agg

    Matt, I totally agree. If you could rank the frequency of hockey stories in the national sports media, the first most featured story would be about the ratings or attendance. The second would be any recent incident of thuggery.

    Personally, all I really need is the league to stay in business. On another level, I want thriving, competitive teams from Vancouver to Florida; while I don't need the validation of E-SPiN at all, positive exposure would help the marginal franchises fill seats, and help them keep their rosters together. But what we get doesn't help. The old business model of putting a team in each city and relying on local media to get a fan base going is finished – teams need to pay for their exposure. I'd even go so far as to offer a few weekend games to the broadcast channels like CW in local markets at cost.

    Honestly tough the ratings for football absolutely crush any other sport. So as I agree with you, I also suggest that the US hockey community needs to leave the whole inferiority complex behind. Be happy you can go to a few games a year (or 42!) and have fun.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Keith-Korneluk/543036253 Keith Korneluk

    Great stuff here. I was pretty pissed off after that article by Simers. Was he actually at the game? It sounds like he phoned it in. How does this guy still have a job?

  • misha876

    Its so funny you posted this! I actually ranted to a local news reporter and she suggested I email the morning news – and I telling them that not everyone cares about tennis/golf and that the Kings are kicking ass and no one in LA is talking about it.

    So here comes Wednesday morning after the win against the Rangers and I'm watching my morning news and low and behold – the sports guy interjects with a “by the way I have to say that no one in LA is talking about how great the Kings are playing! They just got back from a 5 game road trip where they won all the games and just beat the Rangers last night! Great job” Immediately I regretted ever saying anything.

  • Chad

    I remember a week or two ago, the day after the Penguins-Capitals game, Around The Horn did a little segment. They were saying how the NHL didn't advertise enough for the game. As a huge NHL fan, I know that they advertised it. I remember seeing so much advertising that I almost got tired of it. But my belief is that they said that because ESPN didn't do anything to get it out there. Which is disgusting. So, I agree, I would rather them not talk about it than say things that are so egregiously false.

    • http://www.viewfrommyseats.com/ Matt Reitz

      Just to further prove your point, there's another Pens/Caps game on Sunday. Its 2 days away and NHL.com already had it on their front page. If there's ANYTHING they make sure they market… its the Winter Classic and Sid vs Ovie! ;)

      I wonder if they could afford a commerical during the Super Bowl. Maybe that's what they had in mind… LOL

  • Andre

    Nice article. I have come to terms with the fact that more people would rather (apparently) watch poker, bowling, golf, and NASCAR than hockey. Its just a matter of taste. But the treatment of the NHL as less than a professional sport is what boggles me the most. ESPN will gladly give me a rundown of the stats for Oral Roberts University's quarterback, wide-receivers, and running backs versus North Dakota Community College but they can't let me know even just one stat for each NHL game (I am talking about the “bottom line,” where the scores run consistently day/night). The college stuff is amateur at best and I do not even think there is even any fantasy interest in that. Like you alluded to, I guess we will hear more the next time someone gets hit from behind, hospitalized, cut with a skate, etc.

  • Kris

    not to defend Tony (who I hate) but he did get Varley's name right and is probably making reference that last season Varley asked that announcers change the pronunciation from Var-l-uhh-mov to Var-l-ahh-mov. Just saying.

  • disco

    May I submit one more article to assist in your answer:

    http://www.suntimes.com/sports/morrissey/202193…

    • http://www.viewfrommyseats.com/ Matt Reitz

      Good find…. that was pretty brutal. Thanks for that ;)

  • http://www.cyclelikethesedins.com/ Cycle like the Sedins

    It all goes back to the old journalism rule: “Follow the money.” There's a reason why the focus is always on the big sports: money. After all, TV ratings are a big part of the discussion.

    The only way that hockey will get more mainstream media attention is if there is more of a widespread demand for it. At some point, you just have to let it go and accept that hockey is a niche sport.

    It's the reason that many of us stop watching ESPN altogether. They're only interested in enhancing their own brand (which explains why they only hire the blandest anchors and mysteriously give the most coverage to the games they cover).

    Honestly, I've been quite happy following the hockey blogosphere and alternative sources (like Deadspin) for other sports. It certainly beats the superficial “analysis” that lazy sports columnists and ESPN trot out over and over again.

  • thefly

    I read that LA Times story.

    These types of writers are everywhere and they love getting people worked up. Sometimes they are funny if they have a unique style which this guy obviously doesn't possess. He came off as the type who hasn't been on a date in ten years but loves telling people how ugly this and that actress is.

    No need to get worked up over his words. Just smile at his ignorance. Hockey fans are too thin skinned over the game and always feel they need mainstream USA approval but that simply isn't needed.

    • http://www.viewfrommyseats.com/ Matt Reitz

      Yeah, Simers has been doing that for years. When I was much younger, I always wondered how someone that stupid and negative could have a dream job like that.

      Its the media at its worst. Kicking up controversy will get people to read and to tell their friends. I know its the formula that he uses and I know it works… its just disheartening.

  • Press

    Weather aside – I feel bad for all you folks.
    Massive overload of hockey information at our fingertips in Ontario. The media is all hockey, all the time – radio, TV and print. For example, the Toronto Sun had nine page of coverage on the Phaneuf deal on Monday.

  • http://grippingthesticktootight.blogspot.com/ Nuuuuugs

    They can keep their timeouts and pitching changes, and we'll keep our speedy end-to-end action. Hockey fans are a much different, passionate breed of sports fan, we've been relegated to the back pages and we're just fine with that. We still find our scores and highlights, and great hockey writing on blogs just like this. No ESPN coverage or airing of games will replace that, and I'm not sure they ever could. They don't see the love for the game that we have, that's why they'll always miss the boat when it comes to covering hockey. Hell, I'm a hockey fan, and I'm from New Jersey, ridicule from ignorance is nothing new to me!

  • Peggy

    living in WI, I'm stuck with all the Favre fever, even though he hasn't been a Packer for 2 years. We don't have an NHL team, but we have an AHL team. You wouldn't know it though. Even mid-baseball season, all we get is football coverage. Over the years, I've begged our local paper to provide some coverage of NHL. I get an answer of “football is what people want.” Seriously? I know more people who have cancelled subscriptions because of no hockey coverage, than people who have taken subscriptions because of football coverage.

    Last year, the local paper provided some coverage of the USA Hockey Pond Hockey Championships. Did they talk to people from their local area who were involved? Nada. Talked with people from Chicago. The print media is clueless in more ways than one.

    Then they wonder why print media is dying.

    • http://www.viewfrommyseats.com/ Matt Reitz

      Do you get ANY coverage of the Badgers hockey team? I would think they would get as much press (or more) than the Admirals…

  • Steve H

    I'm in Nashville where football is king, so hockey gets kicked down to the back pages on most occassions in the local media as well. I quit watching ESPN a long time ago except when there is a game on that I want to watch. Too much emphasis on the Northeast in their reporting, too much NBA (and if you want to talk about empty arena's look at NBA attendance), and too much empahsis on personalities over teams.

    The problem w/ NHL on mass media outlets like ESPN is that is does not lend itself well because hockey is about teamwork and less about personality unless its someone like Crosby or Avery. Major networks need the sound bites to keep the average joe there for an extra 30-45 seconds while they're surfing channels to generate higher ratings for ad revenue. The average hockey fan is far too intelligent for that!! I pretty much stay on NHL Network 80% of the time personally in the evenings when my wife isn't plugging up the DVR w/ CSI, NCIS, and the Office.

  • gimmeapuck

    I think most markets have done a good job in getting one or two key media-types that can cover their teams with a decent-to-good knowledge base, but they are really catering to the existing hockey fan. The real key is taking it up a level and getting the exposure to the other 98% of sports fans… and obviously NO ONE knows how to do this.

    I know there are tons of people complaining that NBC is a Crosby-fest, and to their defense, it really is – but what else is going to sell hockey in the US? Sure there are other GREAT players in the NHL, but don't they need a “superstar” to focus on to bring people in? I mean, ask someone who doesn't follow baseball who Derek Jeter is and they're going to know who he is and who he plays for regardless of the fact that they don't follow baseball.

    I think the answer lies somewhere between the “small group” individual hockey media markets and the NHL broadcasters. I honestly don't think hockey will grow unless it grows within each market and THEN moves to a national level. So how do we get there from here? Are we really missing Thorne, Clement, and ESPN?

  • http://www.predsontheglass.com/ Buddy Oakes

    This is closely related to a discussion after the Preds game while waiting for the Barry Trotz postgame. Nothing screws up locker room interviews more than the occasional TV folks that ask things like “does it feel good to get a win?” or “are the next five games important?”. If they are going to show up and wait to go to the locker room, at least pay enough attention to ask a decent question that relates to the game. Mick Kern at XM said he was avoiding the locker room after the Phaneuf trade because all the “Kens and Barbies” would be there, and that is even in Toronto. It is no wonder that the non-traditional media has claimed the hockey world as its own.

    • http://www.viewfrommyseats.com/ Matt Reitz

      Great story about the Toronto media Buddy.

      I wont lie… there's a small part of me that likes those questions from the press scrum. Not in the way that I'm actually learning something or gaining value, but more in the “let-me-point-and-laugh” at them kind of way.

      “Hey Ron Wilson. You just got player that was under consideration for Team Canada's Olympic team. Do you think he can help your team?” Tell me there isnt humor there!

  • http://twitter.com/that_angela Angela MacIsaac

    Hey Angelica, let ESPN know you know a hockey writer not making a living as a hockey writer, OK? Thanks. ;-)

  • http://nyislesscene.blogspot.com/ Angelica

    See, what I don't understand is that while hockey isn't a primetime sport in the U.S., the fact remains that 24 U.S. cities have hockey teams. ESPN and the like want to call themselves the “authority on sports,” but that involves knowing more than all-baseball and basketball all the time. Sure, there are disproportionate numbers of people watching those other sports, but I'm sure their ratings would still be helped out if they made a conscious effort to learn about hockey and talk more about it. So what I want sportswriters and sportscasters to do is get off their asses and start reading up on and watching this great game, so that they can *really* be well-rounded. If they can talk about professional effing poker (a REAL non-sport), they can talk about hockey.

    • http://www.viewfrommyseats.com/ Matt Reitz

      Its a self fulfilling prophecy. They say that its not popular, so they do talk about it. But if they talked about it, it WOULD be more popular. Like it or not, most of the general sports loving public in the US gets their sports news from places like ESPN.

      My question: if ESPN was televising games (and had a vested interest), how much different/better would the coverage be?

      • http://nyislesscene.blogspot.com/ Angelica

        I think if they have a vested interest, the coverage would show that. It may be a naive assumption, but they do very well with basketball and baseball and football, don't they? I don't see why they couldn't do the same with hockey.

        @gimmeapuck- I just talked about this with @sheesusnat on Twitter- I don't think it would be hard to find a guy to market in the U.S. Look at Zach Parise. A incredible American player- hardworking, humble, dynamic, an All-American guy- yet he's constantly overshadowed by the media's obsession with Crosby and Ovechkin. True, he's not *quite* as flashy, but I don't see anything wrong with trying to get him a little more exposure and thus getting more Americans into the game.

        @Angela- sure, LOL! ;)

      • buddhafisch

        I hate ESPN, let me start with that, OK. However, when ESPN had a vested interest in it, and promoted it, it cost them a ton of money, and no one watched it. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't expect ESPN to lose money to carry games no one is going to watch.

        • Mjs502000

          I'm not really sure that it did cost them that much, certainly no more than any other broadcast company, and it has nothing to do with a vested interest or not. It has everything to do with the national broadcast rights going to Versus and NBC rather than ESPN. When hockey was on ESPN they ran NHL2Night which was a pretty sweet show which had the knowledgeable people we seek. Okay, knowledgeable is qualified because it was Buccigross and Melrose most of the time. Nevertheless, it was dedicated to the sport. After Bettman decided the league wanted to take money over exposure coverage of the sport slipped everywhere. People crucify Bettman for many things, but ultimately the Versus deal may have been the single most hurtful thing to happen to the sport since he's been around. Hopefully, at some point Bettman realizes this and the league can get itself back on the biggest sports network in the U.S. and gain a little respectability again.

Previous post:

Next post: