^Mooney is a Puck Daddy columnist, but I don't think he has Botchford's back at all there. He's being sarcastic, and saying that Botchford's counter argument is a straw man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by squiggs96
Botchford said he's never heard a player say those things. This is false. He has written about how he has heard those lines and how he didn't think they were right. He didn't give any context of where the player was, when they said it. He flat out said he has never heard a player said that. They asked never, and he replied never. He obviously has, since he wrote about it.
|
This is wrong. You're deliberately altering his statement. He said he has never seen a particular situation where a player calls out a reporter while said reporter is interviewing someone else. Your "gotcha" methodology here is pointless and distracts from the real issue, which is....
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
Yes but is Thornton engaging the reporter for an interview, or just talking to another human being? Can these guys have conversations with reporters without it being an interview?
|
Clearly they can. The wrinkle here is that Lalji asks Marleau a question, and Thornton then engages Lalji on the subject matter of that question. His response wasn't just an off the cuff joke apropos of nothing, it was a statement directly going to the root of the issue, to the effect that any suggestion that Hertl had been disrespectful was ridiculous.
Take another hypothetical. Let's say a reporter asks Marleau if he thinks the Sharks need to get more shots on net during their power play. Thornton then jumps in and says, "we're getting plenty of shots on goal, what we need is to get more traffic in front of the net". The situation is essentially the same. Can he print that?
The only difference is the TONE of what Thornton said. In this case, he was joking around and cursing. The argument - and it's one Lebrun made sort of offhandedly in that TSN segment and you address later in your post - is that a reporter should be able to take a hint from the tone of Joe's comment and realize that he wasn't expecting it to be reported.
That's really the crux of this whole thing. And when you put it that way, I can see an argument that a reporter shouldn't have to self-censor based on whether he interpreted the player as being in a non-serious mood. EDIT: And I'm biased on that point because I wish they WOULDN'T so that we get to hear about more of these quotes; they're funny and make me appreciate the player more as a human being with an actual personality.
Quote:
|
They see these guys all the time its not out of the question to think they're familiar enough to have off-the-record discussions as friends/collegues. And with something so vulgar being said, I would think Botchford would at least have the tact and professionalism to ASK Thornton if he was ok to print it.
|
That's certainly an argument. I'm not sure how convincing it is that the thing that makes a comment un-publishable without further confirmation from the player in question is that he swore and said some stuff that people might think was vulgar. Why is that the standard?
For me, what probably makes Botchford wrong to print this is that Thornton WAS asked to repeat his comment later and declined (at which point it was clear he was on the record), and therefore he'd made his intention clear that he DIDN'T want it published. Essentially, if you DO ask and he says no, then you can't do it. I'm not sure what the parameters are for when you should have to ask, though. That's a point on which reasonable people may differ.