Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is there an anti-hockey bias in the media?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is there an anti-hockey bias in the media?

    Good article. I'm not sure I agree with it though.

    http://www.devaskarsports.com/national_hoc...imedia0304.html
    June 9, 1973 - The day athletic perfection was defined.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-Kva...eature=related

  • #2
    I'm waiting for the conspiracy-theorists accusations....

    "
    Why are the Russians suddenly a problem?" -Bgats

    Comment


    • #3
      Yeah, the Warren Sapp hit didn't get much media coverage, and that was a legal play.
      Asked what he would do differently in Iraq, Kerry said, "Right now, what I would do differently is, I mean, look, I'm not the president, and I didn't create this mess so I don't want to acknowledge a mistake that I haven't made."

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by BurnKU@Mar 15 2004, 12:49 PM
        Yeah, the Warren Sapp hit didn't get much media coverage, and that was a legal play.
        It got all the media attention it did because of the confrontation between Sherman and Sapp after the game and the fact that Sapp is one of the league;s most well-known players. Half the yahoos who are ripping Bertuzzi in the NYT and everywhere else probably thought Todd Bertuizzi was a cast member on the Sopranos before his hit.

        Comment


        • #5
          I won't say there's a bias against hockey, because it's a niche sport in the U.S., but I think it's ridiculous that the only time the outlets like CNN, Today Show and the like mention hockey is when something bad like this happens.
          RIP Chris Jones 1971-2009
          You'll never be forgotten.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by JWB@Mar 15 2004, 12:55 PM
            I won't say there's a bias against hockey, because it's a niche sport in the U.S., but I think it's ridiculous that the only time the outlets like CNN, Today Show and the like mention hockey is when something bad like this happens.
            I agree. It's not like the media is out to get hockey and to relegate it as a third-tier sport along with arena football, but the fact that hockey is equated with thuggish violence in the media is pretty ignorant.

            Comment


            • #7
              Very well put Dev. I did not even know about that incident you refered to with DePaul and Cincy, but I would have expected it to be front page news since it was the same thing as Bertuzzi's action--cheap shot
              Sponsor of:
              Brian Elliott
              Kolten Wong & the arch in the outfield grass at Busch Stadium
              5-29-14-House77 turns down offer of free beer from me

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by JWB@Mar 15 2004, 12:55 PM
                I won't say there's a bias against hockey, because it's a niche sport in the U.S., but I think it's ridiculous that the only time the outlets like CNN, Today Show and the like mention hockey is when something bad like this happens.
                I think that's because most of the general population doesnt' really care about hockey. At least not on the same level as baseball, basketball, and football.
                Asked what he would do differently in Iraq, Kerry said, "Right now, what I would do differently is, I mean, look, I'm not the president, and I didn't create this mess so I don't want to acknowledge a mistake that I haven't made."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Here's my problem with your points Dev:

                  Though it was not the lead in story on any of them, the incident you describe in the Cincinnati-Depaul game was shown frequently on espn and other news shows. There was little moralizing about the incident a la the Bertuzzi situation but it was highlighted, a lot.

                  I also believe that there are several legitimate differences between the two incidents that justify moralizing Bertuzzi's and not moralizing the other. First, Bertuzzi's actions were clearly more dangerous to Moore than the shot to the nads was to the Cincinnati player. Bertuzzi hit Moore from behind, in the head, and dropped him like a sack of potatoes. He then fell on top of him, continuing to hit him while Moore lay motionless. The hit to the nads, though admittedly painful, was no where near as vicious in effort or appearance as Bertuzzi's.

                  Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, Bertuzzi's act was done long after the alleged incident that made him mad took place, and after another Canuck player had attempted, but failed, to extract revenge through a fight. The DePaul player's reaction was to something immediate. Violence in the heat of passion has always been seen as more excusable than that committed after extended contemplation. In law, the first situation is not condemnable, the second will get you a jail term.

                  Third, I think that one of the reasons that there is a difference in the way that the media addresses violence in the various sports is because most other sports deal immediately, decisively and strongly when unnecessary violence takes place. This at least leads to the understanding by fans and players that stepping out of line isn't a good idea. On the other hand, hockey takes, at best, a passive attitude toward violence and, at worst, incorporates fighting into game strategy. The number of times I have heard a hockey announcer (particularly an ex-player) praise a player who started a fight because it served to inspire his listless teammates is something more than infrequent. Fights occur frequently enough that sportscenter could make a top ten list each week of hockey fights alone. Whether they are as frequent as the media suggests, the fact is that hockey has a unique approach to fighting and violence, and that's why it gets singled out.

                  Finally, what drives me nuts is listening to people like John Davidson and Bill Clement try to rationalize fighting in the game, by suggesting that it is necessary to curb severe violence. Bull. What would curb unneccessary violence would be if hits like what Moore inflicted in the first place (I didn't see it but I'm assuming that it was bad) were punished immediately and effectively so that no follow-up police action was needed. The NFL seems to be able to keep a pretty good lid on defensive linemen engaging in cheap shots...there's no reason the NHL can't either.
                  June 9, 1973 - The day athletic perfection was defined.

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-Kva...eature=related

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by BurnKU+Mar 15 2004, 01:08 PM-->
                    QUOTE (BurnKU @ Mar 15 2004, 01:08 PM)

                  • #11
                    Originally posted by JWB+Mar 15 2004, 01:17 PM-->
                    QUOTE (JWB @ Mar 15 2004, 01:17 PM)
                    Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 01:08 PM

                  • #12
                    wow.

                    I like dev but he's way off on this one.
                    Are you on the list?

                    Comment


                    • #13
                      Originally posted by BurnKU+Mar 15 2004, 01:20 PM-->
                      QUOTE (BurnKU @ Mar 15 2004, 01:20 PM)
                      Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 01:17 PM
                      Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 01:08 PM

                    • #14
                      He broke the guys neck...

                      What Sapp did was totally legal, in fact it was what he was supposed to do.

                      Bias? Stop chopping at people and breaking their hands, stop cross checking your super stars in the back after a goal and knocking out of the game, stop breaking peoples NECKS.
                      Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

                      Comment


                      • #15
                        Originally posted by JWB@Mar 15 2004, 01:29 PM
                        I see where you're coming from Burn, but what I'm trying to say is that the only time the media outlets I mentioned earlier talk about hockey is when something bad happens. They never mention anything when something good happens.

                        I think that's because there is no real interest in sport. A guy getting his neck broken is a news story, regardless of the sport. If a guy scores 5 goals in a game, I don't think most people really care. What kind of good news do you want them to report?
                        Asked what he would do differently in Iraq, Kerry said, "Right now, what I would do differently is, I mean, look, I'm not the president, and I didn't create this mess so I don't want to acknowledge a mistake that I haven't made."

                        Comment

                        • Working...
                          X