Tuesday, August 28, 2007


"Be honest, it's great, isn't it? Go ahead, say it's great if you want to."

I was just peeking at calgaryflames.com to see if there was any official reaction to the Giordano departure, and ran across this Q&A with Craig Conroy.

I sort of understand the attraction of working officially and directly for a pro sports team rather than being a professional and/or independent journalist; hell, at times it seems like it's probably more honest work. Nevertheless, it's hard not to feel vaguely humiliated on behalf of former Calgary Herald scribe Mike Board when he asks this question:
With the signing of Jarome Iginla and Robyn Regehr to long-term contracts this looks like a team that is committed to winning for some time. Would you agree?

Yeesh. Whole thing here; header reference here.


It would certainly be a tough transition, but you can see why guys are making it.

A tough transition? I think you kind of missed the point, James.

Mike Board. Nice guy, but in three years I worked there he didn't write anything that couldn't have eventually been cobbled together by a hundred monkeys typing for a week or two. They had Duhatschek, Maki and the vastlyl underrated Gyle Konotopetz. Board was consistently fifth in a four-man race.

I thought that he got the point exactly. That said, I assume that James is thinking there's more dough on the team side of it...there probably isn't.

Also, "Mr. Burns: your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?"

I don't see what the problem with the question is.

I thought that he got the point exactly.

Well then maybe I didn't. I fail to see how making the transition to lobbing softballs is difficult.

I don't see what the problem with the question is.

The problem is, it's not really a question. It's the journalistic equivalent of Board waving red pom-poms right in Conroy's face.

But it's perfectly valid--re-signing Regehr and Iginla are the signs of a team committed to winning. Witness the Ryan Smyth debacle--where the EIG & K-Blowe let Smyth walk because they weren't committed to winning. Just committed to saving bucks and screwing fans.

I really fail to see the merit in your post. I'm more baffled than anything.

I'm pretty certain every team outside of the Chicago Blackhawks is committed to winning. It's kind of the whole point of playing games and all. So asking a pointedly obvious question like that is kind of, well, dumb, because there is only one real answer, and it's suggested by the question itself. There's nothing to be baffled about unless you are so used to intermission interviews that this inane set of questions seems appropriate.

Name one sports journalist (and no, bloggers don't count) who would have done an "insightful" interview by your standards.

Stephen Brunt. Cam Cole. Tony Gallagher. To name just three.

Name one sports journalist (and no, bloggers don't count) who would have done an "insightful" interview by your standards.

I fail to see how this solves anything. Are you suggesting that he should be left off the hook because every other hockey writer would have been just as bad? And why shouldn't bloggers count? Myself, I'd like to see Matt given the chance to ask someone with the Flames some questions.

edgemont -- hey man, you said it. Bloggers would play "journalist" better than the "journalists" do. The web has exposed Terry Jones, Eric Francis, and others as the lazy bums that they are. The casual fans around these parts know more about the CBA, player value, economics of the NHL, etc. than these teat-suckers. Matt doesn't do this professionally yet he puts the "professionals" to shame time and time again. Weak stuff from the "pros".

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?