Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Is it? If the spotlight was already on you, are you saying instead of what you've said here, you would say nothing?
This is the platform where we get to "shoot the ####" and make bold claims about how things should or shouldn't be. I'm sure you're exactly like me in the sense that you probably do not, actually, think anyone actually cares what you have to say, but you still say it, because it's on your mind, or because you think it needs to be said, or you want to be part of a conversation and think you have something worthwhile to add even if no one else thinks so.
Slone's platform is HNIC. Why shouldn't she use it as freely as we use ours, on a topic directly related to what she's paid to cover?
|
I have no idea what type of person I would be if the "spotlight was on me" - I'd like to think I'd stick to things that I actually have professional expertise in, and even there, not just fly off the handle. If they invited me on one of those podcasts to give my views as a lawyer about the NHL's position or what the Blackhawks should do in their case against Kyle Beach, for example, I'd be willing to say very,
very little about it, and even that is in an area where I have some tangential expertise.
Sloane's platform is HNIC, and Twitter, and anything else she can use to make sure people are talking about "what Tara Sloane said" about whatever issue people happen to be caring about at the moment. Again, everything that is going on here is about brand. The 2010 Blackhawks weren't protecting a video coach by not immediately firing Aldrich, they were protecting the brand. The Blackhawks and NHL resisted an investigation for years because of the damage it would cause to their brands. And a lot of people are now trying to use this opportunity to service their own personal brands.
Allan Walsh is somehow different? Well, he has a hockey podcast, too, now, called "Agent Provocateur" - he's doing exactly the same thing. Listen to what I have to say! Have me on your show so I can tell everyone what I think! Everyone is just trying to get a piece of your attention because they obtain wide-scale affirmation and brand capital from it. They're not, in other words, doing anything analogous to shooting the ####.
It's entirely self-serving, and especially so because as I mentioned, these peoples' opinions have no special value. Sloane is former failed actress and reality show contestant. Adam Wylde is a college dropout radio jockey. I guess at least Wyshinski has a journalism degree, so that's something, but he seems to apply it fairly haphazardly. None of these people are great thinkers whose views about societal issues are worth your time - if you wanted to find someone to listen to about this stuff, you'd have a hard time doing worse.
And it's a different issue from someone like Westhead. He, obviously, has also stopped being a reporter in the wake of this thing because he feels it's more important to be an advocate for the subject of his story, but given his direct personal involvement with this whole thing, I can't really blame him for doing so. I don't see that as opportunistic in the same way.