Turfing Strombo from Rogers Hockey

This post, published on Eyes on the prize here, assesses what went wrong with the short-lived George Stroumboulopoulos era on Rogers' revamped Hockey Night in Canada. While many of the pundits have insisted that Strombo was too edgy and unconventional for older hockey viewers to relate to, I argue here that the producers at Rogers did not allow Strombo to be nearly avant-garde enough. Below I explain the particular reasons Strombo, and the way he was used by the new Hockey Night in Canada, failed to grab the attention of the very millennial hockey fans they were apparently trying to capture with his appointment to the position in the first place. 

Was Strombo Too Edgy or Not Nearly Edgy Enough?

With none of their teams having been in the playoffs, and with the NHL Draft still several days away, Canadian hockey fans had been so shut-out of their sport that the timing was perfect for some national sports-media drama.

So, cue the opening rumours, and now official news, that George Stroumboulopoulos will be replaced by Ron MacLean as host of Rogers' national hockey TV broadcast next season.
As the observers started to weigh-in, pretty much all of the expected assessments were advanced.

• Strombo is a news and culture guy, so he really wasn't knowledgeable enough to be talking hockey all the time.
• Strombo is too hip, and older audiences simply couldn't relate to his skinny suits and earrings.
• Strombo is an outsider to the hockey community, and so he never could have been a credible replacement for the consummate insider and widely popular Ron MacLean.

In addition to the predictable rationalizations, some more nuanced responses to Strombo's dismissal surfaced as well.

• Strombo shouldn't be viewed as the main cause of Rogers' declining ratings and revenue, but Rogers' poor ratings and revenue - coinciding with the recent weakness of the Canadian teams - must be seen as the cause of the telecom's unexpectedly dire need to cut the cost of Strombo's salary.
• The problems with Rogers' broadcasts have had much more to do with larger issues plaguing the game of hockey than with the show's host, and no replacement for Strombo will be able to do a damn thing about that.
• Strombo was brought in to fix a problem that really didn't exist.
• Maybe Strombo's just not as talented as we all thought he was.

As news about additional significant cuts to Rogers hockey continues to leak out, how can we make sense of the termination of the Strombo experiment? Did Strombo fail in his adventure in hockey TV? Is Rogers making the right move by jettisoning Strombo and bringing back the familiar Ron MacLean? 

I say firing Strombo at this point is more than disappointing, but maybe not for the predominant reasons that are currently being bandied about.

Really. You have a problem with what Strombo wears and his "overall look". Really. pic.twitter.com/Pio1FKzAp2

— Mimi (@HabsMimi) June 20, 2016

Though regular hockey fans are expressing mixed feelings, and some pretty heavy-hitters have come out strongly against Rogers' decision to let him go, I must admit that I was among those who were a little skeptical when it was first announced that Strombo would take over hosting duties of the national hockey TV broadcast in Canada. 

It wasn't that I didn't believe in Strombo's ability to do the job, and it certainly had nothing to do with his fashion. What worried me then were comments that Strombo made indicating that he planned to approach his new job more as a fan than as a journalist. 

Coming at a time when many were craving an upgrade to the overall quality of Hockey Night in Canada, the notion that hockey reporting relied more on fan fun than on journalistic acumen bothered me. Even with these reservations, I was ready to give Strombo a chance, and excited to see how he'd do.

Now, two years later, if I had to give my own personal view of Strombo as host, I'd have to say that I think he did ok.

I was never bothered by Strombo's appearance - in fact, I was quite alright with the contemporary look he brought to hockey television. I also neither missed Ron MacLean nor ever felt that Strombo was out of his league dealing with the weekly affairs of the hockey world. Sure, I'd find it a little off-putting to watch Strombo welcome TV viewers to a Saturday night hockey broadcast only to see him promote his CBC radio music show in a timed Tweet just a few moments later, but, hey, these are the times in which we live.    

Though I ultimately tend to believe that he handled his duties as a competent professional, I also had some problems with Strombo on Canada's national hockey broadcast. My concerns had less to do with what Strombo actually did, and much more to do with what he, and his broadcast team, failed to do with the potentials I believe they collectively held.

It seems hockey Twitter is universally for Strombo being great on HNIC all of a sudden. Never saw such a tweet before today.

— Doug (@Drdougboston) June 20, 2016 

Was like Dennis Miller experiment on MNF. Odd choice that didn't last.

— Doug (@Drdougboston) June 20, 2016

When Rogers gave Strombo the lead role on its re-jigged Hockey Night in Canada, most of the hockey people I knew were elated. Yes, my hockey people - many of whom are at least ten years younger than I am - really liked that, in his outward appearance and demeanour, Strombo literally embodied the zeitgeist of their generation. But, to conclude that the only thing these people were counting on was having the chance to watch a host who looked more like they did than like the greying on-air talent who've monopolized traditional Canadian hockey media really sells the very viewers Rogers hoped to attract much too short. 

What I mean is that, more than the fact that the new host was youthfully on fleek, and beyond the technological innovations that were intended to appeal to a young generation of digital-natives that consumes sports in radically different ways than traditional - older! - TV watchers, Strombo's appointment carried additional millennial-appropriate expectations about the kind of content that was needed for his target demographic to buy in. 

I feel this way because, contrary to the lazy stereotypes that likely informed Rogers hockey producers, the millennial hockey fans that were supposed to flock to Strombo aren't selfishly focused on themselves, aren't devoid of attention spans, and aren't clueless about what's going on in their communities. In fact, and fed by their interactive digital lives, millennials are independent thinkers, motivated to seek meaning in life, and hungry for social involvement. 

The point is that, rather than condescending to millennial viewers by serving up a host whose primary generation-specialized niche role was to reflect their taste in external style, Rogers needed to harness Strombo to deliver content that engaged the substance contained internally within young hockey fans' minds and hearts.

Looking back for just a moment, how did the Rogers and Strombo actually do on this score?

The message to abusive men this year: If you're good at sports, we will consistently look the other way. https://t.co/j68mW6Gz4H

— Julie S. Lalonde (@JulieSLalonde) June 23, 2016

Well, while younger hockey TV viewers very likely would have used their digital spaces to participate in media-facilitated reckoning with big picture issues such as whether the NHL might have played a role in preventing its players from ensuring their on-ice safety while working to promote a risky physical game, Strombo's Hockey Night in Canada didn't touch it.

And, though millennial hockey fans constantly convene on social media to hold vibrant discussions about whether sports leagues like the NHL do the right things, or don't even think about doing anything, to help address persistent abusive attitudes and behaviours of some of their players, Strombo's Hockey Night in Canada turned a blind eye - both to the issues as well as to the digital networks of young fans that could've been engaged.

Finally, many of today's young female and male fans speak up to say that they want changes to the ongoing reality of nearly all-male sports media, but with the exception of The Intermission Social Media Reporter, the gender representation on Strombo's Hockey Night in Canada remained firmly, and embarrassingly, in the dark ages. In 2016, how demotivating is that?

Regrettably, and despite the availability and clarity of feedback during its two year stint, there really wasn't much of anything substantial on Strombo's Hockey Night in Canada for the coveted millennial hockey fans to feel particularly excited to grab hold of and share.

The popular narrative currently going around is that, since Rogers Hockey Night in Canada under Strombo was just too edgy and glitzy for true, mostly older, hockey fans in Canada, a return to a calm familiarity was needed for the broadcast to reconnect with its bread and butter constituency. Yet, even parsing the research that's being trotted out by Rogers and the columnists to support this claim, I say that the perception gaps between Hockey Night's older and younger viewers have been formed in response to changes that were mostly superficial in nature.

In my view, Rogers Hockey Night in Canada didn't fail because Strombo oversaw and led a radical change in the show's format and content that only made sense to younger hockey viewers. It failed because, by refusing to deliver meaningfully contemporary and challenging content in modes that recognize and accommodate millennials' participatory media practices, Strombo's Hockey Night in Canada didn't actually change enough to match young hockey fan's generational interests and identities.

For those who rightly say that the 'new' Hockey Night in Canada was both a symptom and contributing cause of slow moving and complex disconnections between the game of hockey and its older and younger fan bases, there's still a sad irony in all that's transpired. For, if his talents and interests had been more deeply tapped into, and if his producers had truly enabled him to usher in some substantive content and format innovation, Strombo still might very well have been the ideal personality to help fuse the the older hockey viewers' requirement for cultural comfort with the younger, and future majority, hockey viewers' hunger for provocation, entertainment, and meaningful involvement.

Just please don't go over the tape of the last two years and tell me that this was the formula that the suits at Rogers actually tried.

Evaluating Rogers Hockey: Year One!

Originally published on Habs Eyes on the Prize on April 18, 2015, I asked three hockey observers to give their views of how Rogers did in its first year as Canada's national hockey TV broadcaster. With Rogers currently making severe cuts and changes to its broadcast package following two subpar years (subject of a blogpost in the very near future), the comments and assessments provided by Ted Bird, Christopher Curtis, and Marcy Di Michele in this piece proved to be quite prescient. You can read the Eyes on the Prize version here.  

How Did Rogers Hockey Night in Canada Do in its First Year?

The playoffs are underway! That means we've all made it through year one of the massive new Canadian TV hockey deal that put Rogers in charge of almost everything.

Though the initial announcement of the deal took almost everyone by surprise, and drew a fair amount of criticism, the results of the lengthy and reportedly dramatic negotiation process sealed the fate of Canada's national hockey mediascape for the next eleven years. There was a lot of uncertainty in the air, but hockey fans came into this season well prepared for what promised to be a significantly altered viewing reality.

Out went Ron MacLean and James Duthie from national prominence, and in went George Stroumboulopoulos.

Out with a focus on Canadian teams on Saturday nights, and in went multiple game-viewing options.

Out went the old Hockey Night in Canada set, and in went a new massive broadcast studio and technological innovation for game coverage.

There would be (a little) less Don Cherry, and a lot more Damien Cox and Doug MacLean.

It promised to be a revolution.

Over the course of this season, fans and media watchers were given inside accounts of how the Rogers hockey broadcast worked, updated on the deal's expected versus actual financials, and shown poll results describing how viewers were reacting to the changes in on-air personnel. My own Twitter feed hummed with the same kind of of Rogers-directed critique that I'm already seeing this playoffs, but what more can be said about Rogers hockey at the end of its first year? Did we see a vast improvement to the TV coverage of the good old hockey game over the season? Or, did we miss the people and the shows that we had, and that we basically seemed to enjoy, before?

To assess Rogers hockey in its first year, I've gone to three outspoken hockey observers and media contributors for their expert views. Given the reality in which almost everyone in Canadian media works for either Rogers or Bell, and lest one's opinions be influenced by one's professional affiliation, I turned to experts who have some, but maybe not total, distance from these two telecommunications giants.

Ted Bird is the Morning Show host at CHSV Radio, The Jewel, based out of Hudson-St-Lazare, Quebec. Author of a versatile blog, Bird's done loads of hockey media/analysis work in recent years, and he makes occasional appearances on the Montreal Gazette's Hockey Inside/Out Show. With an early start in news, Christopher Curtis has spent this hockey season as a Montreal Canadiens reporter for the Montreal Gazette. Curtis' thought-provoking reporting and analysis of Habs-related affairs has received much favourable attention, and he has also appeared on the Hockey Inside/Out Show. Finally, Marcy Di Michele covers the Edmonton Oilers, and the wider NHL, for The Hockey Writers blog. Di Michele's keen insights have been noticed, and have brought her opportunities to contribute to CTV News.

While all three media experts were surprised by the sheer size, and financial scope, of the Rogers deal, only Di Michele told me she came into this season somewhat concerned about some of the major changes that would come to the Hockey Night in Canada show to which she'd felt attached since she started watching as a kid. Bird and Curtis were ready for the change, and they also expected to see a continuation of the professionalism and quality in hockey broadcasting they were used to from CBC and TSN.

Going beyond their expectations heading into this season, I asked each of the media experts the same set of questions about what they saw during the first year of Rogers hockey. Aside from full agreement on what all the experts described as the annoyance of Rogers' nebulous regional blackout policy, the experts gave varying answers across four different question categories: game broadcast, intermission programming, George Stroumboulopoulos, and Habs coverage.

I present the media experts' analysis of year one of Rogers hockey below.

The Game Broadcast

Even with the blending of staff between Sportsnet and CBC (plus Dave Randorf and Mike Johnson from TSN), there was concern heading into the season that Rogers might not have enough quality talent to properly cover its massive schedule of games. As they watched their favourite teams over the season, the media experts don't totally agree on the level of quality of the Rogers broadcasts.

For Marcy Di Michele, some of the fans' biggest concerns about talent shortage have definitely been realized.

"Every chance I have to watch a broadcast on TSN over Sportsnet, I take it," Di Michele said. "I think Rogers dropped the ball not signing Chris Cuthbert. He's one of the best in the business. The talent is spread pretty thin because of all the national coverage. I know the guys they have are doing the best they can, so I don't want to criticize individuals."

Unlike Michele, veteran media man, Ted Bird, says the quality on Rogers has mostly been fine. And while he thinks it's time for some CBC talent to move on, Bird also appreciates the new-old personalities who have found their way back onto Canadian hockey TV under Rogers.

"I haven't seen a significant different in the quality of the broadcast because it's a lot of the same people doing a lot of the same things, in front of and behind the cameras," Bird said. "[It's] nice to see Paul Romanuk back in the saddle, but Bob Cole should have been put out to pasture long ago, in my opinion."

Count Christopher Curtis among those who had hoped that the Rogers broadcast would actually bring some interesting innovation in how they game is showed to the viewers. So far, he's been a bit disappointed.

"You spend billions of dollars getting the hockey rights, you're going to want to tinker with some things, and almost all of the tinkering was in vain because they don't use all those [new] things," Curtis said. "The one technological innovation that really actually does make the game a little bit more of an enjoyable experience is only available in Toronto. I like the Sky Cam. It's the one camera rig that they've built that isn't hokey, and you only [got] to see it in games where literally nothing [was] at stake because Toronto [was] playing."

Along with noting some of their particular disappointments, the media experts give Rogers game broadcasts a satisfactory evaluation.
Intermission Programming

What did it mean to hockey fans to have no Ron MacLean and less Don Cherry during intermissions on Saturday night games? Was it a loss to say goodbye to Hockey NIght in Canada's panels? Did Rogers hockey new approach to intermission programming draw fans into the games and players in a way that CBC and TSN did not? Regarding intermissions, I asked the media experts to consider three specific areas: hockey analysis, Don Cherry, and the diversity of the Rogers broadcast team. Their responses are mixed.

Hockey Analysis

Ted Bird appreciates Rogers' new 'USS Enterprise' studio, but he argues that the content delivered by the intermission teams fails to meet previously high standards of Canadian hockey broadcasting.

"As a group, the intermission casts are palatable and competent, but still have a long way to go to match Bob McKenzie, Darren Dreger, James Duthie, Aaron Ward et al at TSN for broadcasting chops and journalistic credibility."

Marcy Di Michele agrees with Bird that hockey content and analysis are lacking on Rogers hockey, but she sharpens the stylistic and substantive criticism an additional degree or two.

"Intermission shows [have] become more like a gimmick than actual hockey content, however, I much prefer the analysis of guys like Darren Dreger and Bob McKenzie as opposed to the talking heads at Rogers," Di Michele said. "I feel as though Sportsnet intermission broadcasts are a bunch of guys who think very highly of themselves, trying to one-up each other rather than actually provide insightful hockey analysis. Or, name dropping all the famous players they know and telling us boring stories of when they were in the NHL."

Taking a bit of a bigger picture approach, Christopher Curtis believes the problem with intermission content in hockey broadcasting has more to do with generically stifling formats than with particular individuals and their talents. Yet, Curtis explains the lack of creativity he saw during Rogers' intermissions this season.

"It's the same basic principle," Curtis said. "It's too safe. It's so formulaic that you would have like to have seen something a bit different. Small documentaries, small segments that look at what's happening outside the lines, issues like domestic violence, sexual violence, which we've seen in hockey this year, PEDs, doping, not only concussions, or the one or two hot button issues. I would have liked to have seen something a little bit different, but you didn't see it."

Don Cherry

The media experts were in agreement that hockey substance was lacking during intermissions on Rogers hockey, but they don't see eye to eye on the status and performance of Don Cherry and Coach's Corner. Interestingly, their contrasting views defy expectations that one might expect based on a consideration of gender and age demographics.

Marcy Di Michele views the Don Cherry-Ron MacLean partnership as an institution in Canadian hockey broadcasting that is being unnecessarily phased out by Rogers.

"As for Don Cherry, I know many people don't care for him, but he's good TV," Di Michele said. "He and Ron MacLean are a good duo and it's a real shame they're getting pushed out the door."

While both Bird and Curtis acknowledge and respect Don Cherry's past cultural relevance, they also agree that the Coach's time is done. Curtis expresses his particular aversion to Cherry.

"I feel like there's this fear of being the network that will be remembered as the network that kills Coach's Corner. I have zero problem watching Coach's Corner die at this point," Curtis said. "It just doesn't feel like he's doing his homework any more. He's going back to the same three or four wells. 

There isn't enough violence in hockey. There needs to be more violence in hockey. Toronto needs to have more players from Ontario. The segment long ago became self-parody. Turn on the camera, point it at Don Cherry, 'Don Cherry, yell something crazy. Excellent! We're done. Let's move on.'"

Gender Representation

In light of an increasing public discussion regarding the fact that women want and deserve more prominent places in hockey media, I asked the media experts if they felt Rogers missed an opportunity to build a more diverse on-air team in terms of gender. The differences in responses to this question were split along a generational line.

For Ted Bird, the elder statesman, there was no need for Rogers hockey to alter the gender composition of its on-air team from what's been done before.

"A hockey broadcast crew with an overwhelming male presence is no different than the all-female panel on The View or predominantly Black hosts on BET," Bird said. "It caters to the target demographic. I don't have a problem with that. Broadcasting hockey games is a business, not a sociology experiment."

Di Michele and Curtis, both from a younger generation than Bird, see the question of gender in hockey broadcasting in a completely different manner, and they both expressed frustration with the standard situation in which women on-air talent are featured in supporting roles rather than as primary contributors of hockey content. Christopher Curtis describes his disappointment that Rogers has thus far failed to innovate in this area.

"The roles women can have are limited," Curtis said. "Women can never be weighing in. It's like, 'I can introduce it, because I speak well, and I'm on television, but I won't weigh in.' It's not these people themselves. It's just the roles that they're given. I would love to have seen Cassie Campbell have the chance to either do the colour commentary or the play-by-play, and that's just not going to happen. It's just this reliance on these old formulas. Come on, guys, tweak it a bit."

From intermission hockey analysis to Don Cherry to the question of gender representation on Rogers hockey, the media experts present diverging responses. In terms of an evaluation of Rogers' intermission programming, there are definitely indicators of dissatisfaction.
Strombo

Arguably, one of the biggest questions heading in to year one of Rogers hockey pertained to the decision to bring George Stroumboulopoulos in to replace Ron MacLean. Viewed as the key for Rogers to appeal to a young and emerging generation of hockey viewers, the media experts' assessment of Strombo in his first year on the job is both mixed and in defiance of demographic expectations yet again.

Ted Bird endorses Strombo after his first year, and he sees him as a welcome change from Ron MacLean.

"I give Strombo credit," Bird said. "The decision to hire him was too hip by a half when Elliotte Friedman was the obvious heir apparent to MacLean. But, Strombo himself has done a good job of deferring to the 'experts' and not trying to make it about him, unlike MacLean, who was always too clever by a half and overtly insecure about his job."

Both Curtis and Di Michele acknowledge Strombo's skills, but fail to give him the resounding youth vote that Rogers was counting on capturing.

"I look at George Stroumboulopoulos and I remember him from the New Music," Curtis said. "I always pigeonhole him in that role, and I think maybe a lot of people do. Look, he's done more than a satisfactory job, and it does take a little bit of time to develop chemistry with the people you're on a panel with. So, I would say give Strombo a pass for this year. Let's not be too harsh on the guy, and let's see what he can bring us in the future."

Whereas Curtis looks ahead optimistically, Di Michele hits Strombo's performance in his first season where it might hurt the most.

"Strombo is a good interviewer, but he knows very little about hockey. I never understood why he's there, and I still don't. He can't fill Ron MacLean's shoes," Di Michele said. "Strombo is fine to do lengthy interviews a la Barbara Walters, but keep him away from intermission reports and actual hockey opinion."

Strombo may not have hit it out of the park in his first full season as host of Rogers hockey, but, in a split decision, the media experts say they'll give him more time.
Habs Coverage

There was one last question I wanted the media experts to mull over, and that was how the new Rogers hockey broadcast handled our very own Montreal Canadiens. As Habs fans, we're used to Toronto-centric coverage, and we've often felt that our team neither gets the airtime nor the appreciation that it deserves. Knowing that Strombo's a fan of the blue-blanc-rouge, hopes were a little higher heading into the season. What did the media experts think?

Whereas both Marcy Di Michele and Christopher Curtis say they'll often tune in to RDS to watch the Habs, Ted Bird appreciates most of what he's seen this year when it comes to coverage of the Canadiens.

"I like that we're getting a lot more Habs games in English. Pierre Houde is the best, but I still prefer watching in my first language when possible," Bird said. "John Bartlett is a premium play-by-play talent who deserves national exposure. Colour commentary and intermission elements of the regional broadcasts could definitely be better."

As a local Habs reporter, Curtis says he likes hearing the analysis that comes from reporters outside the Montreal media bubble, but he also feels that Rogers hockey has not delivered an upgraded commitment fro Habs coverage than what we've seen before.

"When the Habs get national attention, they've been treated as this regional curiosity," Curtis said. "The regional games, you can tell that they're saving a few bucks here and there. [Rogers] puts together a fine show, but, as any Montrealer, I have that inferiority complex. I would like to see the team, and the city, get more national recognition. But, it is what it is. The media centre of our country is Toronto, and we have to accept that, because, 'shut up Montreal, you'll get yours.'"

The media experts weren't blown away by year one of the Habs on Rogers hockey.

Overall

So, with all the money spent, and with the the changes to the Canadian hockey-media industry, the experts' opinions suggest that, while it was far from a catastrophe, Rogers has a fair amount of thinking and work do do before it will deliver a truly interesting and innovative hockey broadcast to Canadians in the next eleven years.

But, despite the concerns that were duly raised by the media experts, and that we all hope will be heard by the new national hockey media bosses, it's still hockey, and it's still Canada. We're all already tuning in to Rogers to watch playoff games this spring. And, with that in mind, I leave you with one last set of opinions from the media experts, their playoff predictions. After all, they come closer to reaching a consensus on the eventualStanley Cup champion than they did on the network that will bring all the action to the fans.

Enjoy the Stanley Cup Playoffs!

Strombo takes over Hockey Night in Canada on Sportsnet

For this Huffington Post Canada piece, I give my take on the announcement that George Stroumboulopoulos would be taking over as the host on the new Hockey Night in Canada under the direction of Rogers Communications and Sportsnet. I take issue with Strombo's claim that, because hockey journalism doesn't require attention to serious issues, he expected to be able to approach his new gig as a fan of the game as much as in the capacity of journalist. You can read the original HuffPo version here.

 

Strombo Should Approach HNIC as a Journalist, Not a Fan

After days of speculation, the announcement was made that, starting next year, George Stroumboulopoulos will replace Ron MacLean as host of CBC's Hockey Night In Canada. Coming months after the massive new Canadian NHL TV rights deal, this was the first indication of what Rogers, the new national hockey content provider, would do with our iconic Saturday night broadcast. Aside from concern that HNIC's new on-air team was short on social diversity, most commentators hailed the selection of Strombo as a great move to refresh a show that had become stilted in its predictability and routine.

In all the hoopla, one interesting subplot of the news pertained to Stroumboulopoulos' press conference admission that he'll be approaching his new gig more as a fan than as a journalist. While my Twitter feed, and a few local writers, went back-and-forth over whether this meant that HNIC would become more friendly to the fortunes of the Montreal Canadiens - Strombo proudly supports the Habs - Simon Houpt of the Globe and Mail posed tougher questions about whether being a fan might not clash with the professional responsibility to report about the game and the business of hockey. Stroumboulopoulos was unconcerned.

"Sports is a bunch of people gathering around, watching something that they're not actually connected to - they're just emotionally connected," Stroumboulopoulos told Houpt. "Sports is entertainment....So this isn't like covering Syria. And it's a mistake to think it is like covering Syria."

Stroumboulopoulos made a heartfelt claim to be able to perform the role of both journalist and fan in his new job. He also appeared to justify this belief on the parallel stance that, since reporting on sports is most certainly not like reporting on something important like Syria, "the division is different between a journalist and a sports journalist."

I agree when Strombo says that he can leave his personal biases aside when talking about teams other than his beloved Montreal Canadiens, but do sports journalists really have less serious reporting to do than traditional journalists? Is Strombo right that the fan and journalist roles in sports are unlikely to clash? Recent events say no.

It's fashionable in certain circles for sports to either be dismissed as unserious or to be denounced for promoting practices and values that are socially damaging. Yet, with all the legitimate concerns, one cannot also ignore the growing number of situations in which either members of the media or athletes are not only calling attention to particular problems in sports but also raising awareness of how they might be tied to the structure and culture of the wider society. The point here is that these trends show that sports matters. It's neither simple entertainment nor merely a microcosm of society's serious issues. Sports is a place where people are doing things to raise questions and to promote meaningful change in their social worlds.

Seeing sports in this light, and recognizing the role being played by some members of the media in reporting on this reality, I can't help but struggle with Strombo's perspective on fan-journalism and HNIC. Is hockey immune to the serious? Does our national sport not face any of the same struggles that are being waged elsewhere? Are there no issues in the hockey world that could press the host of the new HNIC to take distance from a fan's mirth and to work on the basis of a journalist's muckraking instincts instead? Of course there are.

One of the major issues in hockey arises out of questions regarding violence and player safety. Other than Ken Dryden, there are additional media voices consistently pushing folks to explore connections between fighting and player health. In recent years, however, this discussion tends to rise up during crisis, but then fades to obscurity as memories of a shocking incident start to diminish. Journalists were brave to tackle the question of NFL responsibility for the damage caused to its players by concussion injuries. Will HNIC, fronted by a fan-journalist, be willing to engage a similar debate in hockey?

A second dynamic pertains to gender and hockey. Whether it's the undeniable growth in women's participation in the game, the argument that women hockey players and media want and deserve more exposure, or questions about the readiness of NHL players to welcome an openly gay teammate, there's stuff to talk about. There's exciting journalism confronting the complex ways gender awareness is changing sports and society. If its host denies connections between sports and the serious, can the new HNIC step up when these challenges surface in hockey?

Finally, in today's hockey media, bloggers, and some mainstream journalists, are ramping up their analyses of the game by using a battery of non-traditional analytic statistics. Though different from the social issues described above, this trend represents innovation that's not quickly being welcomed by all in the hockey world. Bringing advanced stats to HNIC would carry risk, but it would also offer new tools for analysts who've long been critiqued for providing precious little in the way of informative explanation of what happens on the ice. Which kind of host is more open to trying? A fan-host who's thinking about viewers' habits and comforts or a journalist-host who's attracted to the challenge of exploring the possibilities of the new?

I admit, maybe most fans just want the good old hockey game on Saturday nights, and don't really want to be challenged. And, I actually do have faith that Strombo will be open to trying new things. But, there will be much more potential for the new HNIC to turn the page on its recent languid past if Strombo were to embrace reporting on the seriousness of the game of hockey to society, rather than suggesting that, because it's just sports, there really isn't that much of a need.

It's Easy to Bash the CBC

This piece appeared in the print versions of the Montreal Gazette and the Calgary Herald in early June.  It was panned by local radio guy, Ted Bird, in his Bird Droppings blog, and by close friends and family.  After an e-mail exchange with Bird, he invited me on the TSN990 morning show to discuss with his colleagues over knishes.

MacLean's 9/11 Comparison Wasn't Insensitive

With all eyes moving between the streets of Montreal and the Mother Corp during a dramatic second round series in this year’s Stanley Cup playoffs, it was easy for Pat Hickey and other national columnists to rebuke Ron MacLean for his recent equation of NHL hockey players with the 9/11 first responders (“MacLean’s 9/11 comments were insensitive,” May 10, 2012).  To claim that his remarks were insensitive or dumb, however, is to deny a central role performed by athletes in society.  It is also a missed opportunity to acknowledge Canada’s social identity at this moment in our history.

With the selflessness, bravery, and strength that it takes to do the job, firefighters and police officers clearly represent the best values of a society.  In times of crisis, such as during the 9/11 terror attacks, we are amazed by the tasks they perform under life threatening conditions.  As citizens watch men and women coolly perform their duties, communities come together.  Solidarity is engendered not only out of shared fear and uncertainty.  It results from the fact that a community’s highest values are embodied in, and publicly displayed through the actions of, the first responders.

It is neither inappropriate nor preposterous to suggest that identical social dynamics and meanings characterize the performance and fan appreciation of athletes.

As with the first responders, athletes are also implicated in a community’s value preferences.  In discussing, for example, the presence or absence of character traits like leadership, gameness, and integrity in the actions of the players, fans apply venerable societal values to what athletes do.  A hero in sports is thus not necessarily a player who scores the most, but the one who competes and comports him or herself in a manner that conjures up the highest qualities a society encourages in its members.  Community bonding around sports heroes is not only engendered by collective appreciation of their skill.  The special feelings shared by sports fans when they watch athletes perform also flow from the satisfaction of a social need to be reminded of a community’s core set of values.  This happens routinely in fan involvement with athletes.

Though first responders literally work to save lives and athletes do not, they are both rightly hailed as heroes.  This is because, in invoking many of society’s highest principles for human conduct, the public practice of both of their jobs serves the function of animating moments in time when individual citizens share the experience of sensing, and participating in, their community in truly meaningful ways.

If the preceding arguments are compelling, then how can the swift rejection of MacLean’s similar analogy be explained?  Is it, as most commentators suggest, inherently obscene to compare those who save lives to million dollar athletes?  Are the values that are embodied by the first responders more important to members of our communities than those that are symbolized by athletes?  There are better answers.

It is a time of small and large ‘c’ conservative ascendance in Canada.  In response to cuts to our social services and to belt tightening in the private sector, we are disdainful of our very own student opposition movement and we seem ready for the chopping block to be dropped on the public broadcaster.  With the CBC susceptible, it also doesn’t help MacLean’s case that Hockey Night in Canada and Don Cherry are widely believed to have lost their direction.  Add to this context the fact that the private media corporations for whom the Canadian columnists who led the attack work are angling to squeeze the CBC out of the business of sports broadcasting and there was a perfect political-economic-cultural storm brewing not far beneath the surface.

It was certainly delicate for a highly paid broadcaster working for a targeted public institution to compliment highly paid sports heroes by comparing them to first response heroes.  Calling the analogy insensitive, however, establishes an invidious distinction between athletes and first responders that is both inaccurate regarding the social functions that two the groups share and less than forthright regarding the range of reasons motivating the censure.