Don Cherry Fired by SN - Poll Added

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Don Cherry hasn't said anything useful or insightful in well over a decade. As for him being fired for that rant in particular, it would be surprising if it weren't, like, the tenth time he's said something similar.

I'm surprised he didn't walk it back, though - it would have been pretty easy to say he didn't mean immigrants. He didn't say immigrants directly. He could have cast it as, "no, when I say "you people", I'm talking about everyone in the country, and saying if you enjoy our way of life here, the least you can do is pay tribute to the men and women whose sacrifice allowed you to enjoy it", or something like that. But to essentially just give a "no comment, I've had my say" is obviously going to be interpreted as "yes, you understood me correctly, and I stand by my statements"... and yeah, given his history, this being the straw that breaks the camel's back and gets him fired isn't the least bit surprising.

That's what gets me, too. This would have been a softball to walk back.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Agree 100% its not an immigration issue. And that's why Cherry is gone. He should have walked his comments back. But he refused so the intent of his comments are clear. Sportsnet had no choice but to distance themselves.

Yeah, he probably didn’t even have to apologize. He could have said his words were misconstrued and he meant everyone, just worded badly.

The fact he wouldn’t speaks volumes.

[Mayo]

Cancel culture strikes again - sad

Too bad he couldn't have stepped down a few years ago on his own terms

[Scorch]

Originally Posted by tkflames

No issues with the decision to dismiss him...should have waited until the 12th. His comments were inappropriate, but delaying to recognize how much he has done for getting veterans their deserved recognition justifies having a bit of class here by SN with the dismissal.

It would’ve looked much worse for SN if it dragged on any further. All the other news networks would’ve had a field day for tonight’s news if Cherry was still on their payroll

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Could he have said, "look I have noticed a good number of new Canadians are not wearing poppies and that concerns me..."? I suppose not.

I don't know if this is much better. Why single out any specific segment of the population? "A good number of new Canadians" in this context is still an indefensible stereotype.

[GirlySports]

And logistically SN has to move on today and start planning for this Saturdays show.

[monkeyman]

Hockey night in Canada used to be an institution, people would tune in from coast to coast to watch. It's really just a shadow of what it once was and becoming indistinguishable from rogers hometown hockey or any other regular weekday game. This move shifts that needle even more toward the bland and ordinary, removing any kind of colour from an increasingly boring broadcast.
Being kicked off that ship might not be a bad thing for Cherry.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Mayo

Cancel culture strikes again - sad

Too bad he couldn't have stepped down a few years ago on his own terms

This isn't cancel culture, actually. That refers to digging up past indiscretions and applying them incongruently and/or out of context to present persons/situations to have them discredited, dismissed, or cancelled.

This was a man saying something stupid and offensive that did not align with company values, refused to apologize, and was subsequently terminated from his position.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

And logistically SN has to move on today and start planning for this Saturdays show.

I bet there’s no person (eg Burke) replacing him next week. They will wait a bit I think. There will likely be some lip service from Maclean thanking Cherry for years of broadcasting. They may do an extra interview or video of something.

[Looch City]

Could be a positive for him, he can now start his own channel and go even more far right.

Maybe call it the Hockey Rebel.

[flames_fan_down_under]

That's a bad take curves2000. Simply digging in your heels when you're clearly wrong and showing no desire to change perspective or learn from mistakes is exactly what is wrong with so much right now. If Don had taken a moment to learn how his remarks are first, untrue, but hurtful he wouldn't be without a job.

Second and unrelated to that post: what Don said was drenched in racism because what he said is based on nothing other than him walking around town and seeing a handful of people he classifies as "you people" who "come here" not wearing poppies. I doubt his eyes picked up the numerous white people who didn't wear a poppy that day. That wouldn't feed into his confirmation bias.

Nevermind the fact that I don't even see any evidence that recent immigrants wear poppies at less a rate than 2nd+ generation Canadians. (Even though I know Don simply means white people vs those of other skin colors). Even if this somehow is the case this could simply come down to education of those recently who came to Canada of what the poppy means, why we wear it this time of year, where to wear it, where not to wear it etc.

I highly doubt it would ever be anything as sinister as intentionally not wearing a poppy to show your disrespect of Canadian veterans. Which is something anyone could do anyways, regardless of ethnicity, race, cultural background. Simply equating "immigrant" + not wearing poppy = disrespect of Canadian veteran sacrifices, is lazy and racist.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Yeah, he probably didn’t even have to apologize. He could have said his words were misconstrued and he meant everyone, just worded badly.

The fact he wouldn’t speaks volumes.

I'm not defending Cherry. But what's the conclusion here? (a) Neither he nor anyone else should be concerned that perhaps new Canadians do not seem to share the sentiment for Remembrance Day that older Canadians born in Canada do - ie it's totally wrong to even harbour the thought; or (b) don't make the point on television.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

He's got a point. It's a fact that a large portion of Canadians voted in the Black Face PM (that also grabs female buts when he's under the impression that they are just pretty faces not working in the media) which does not reflect well on the nation. It's also a fact that a large portion of Canadians were upset and with Cherry's comments and wanted him disciplined. While I don't feel that reflects negatively on the nation we do really have to look in the mirror and ask ourselves what exactly we are standing for as this nonsense of picking and choosing what is offensive and what no based on how it suits our narratives is not cool. There is little doubt that a large portion of Canadians are major hypocrites which is unfortunate.

A point, but not a very big one.

Besides the assumption that all the groups are the same, it's not really as simple as picking one action that Trudeau did and voting based on that. I was very uncomfortable with the black face news. But, not enough to disqualify him over Scheer.

There are many issues in politics, not just one. There's no chance any politician's morals, ethics, and values map to my own one-to-one... so there's always the opportunity to have a "gotcha with the hypocrisy" moment.

Honestly, though, if I had voted it would most likely have been for neither.

[MelBridgeman]

Lots of people don't wear poppies...no need to single out new immigrants. SN had no choice.

[flames_fan_down_under]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

He's got a point. It's a fact that a large portion of Canadians voted in the Black Face PM (that also grabs female buts when he's under the impression that they are just pretty faces not working in the media) which does not reflect well on the nation. It's also a fact that a large portion of Canadians were upset and with Cherry's comments and wanted him disciplined. While I don't feel that reflects negatively on the nation we do really have to look in the mirror and ask ourselves what exactly we are standing for as this nonsense of picking and choosing what is offensive and what no based on how it suits our narratives is not cool. There is little doubt that a large portion of Canadians are major hypocrites which is unfortunate.

Again you are saying the same people who voted for Trudeau are the exactly same people who wanted Cherry fired for offensive comments. Where is there any evidence of this being true? Certainly fits a tidy narrative to keep grinding that anti-Trudeau axe though! fun!

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

Hockey night in Canada used to be an institution, people would tune in from coast to coast to watch. It's really just a shadow of what it once was and becoming indistinguishable from rogers hometown hockey or any other regular weekday game. This move shifts that needle even more toward the bland and ordinary, removing any kind of colour from an increasingly boring broadcast.
Being kicked off that ship might not be a bad thing for Cherry.

Oh, god. All this nostalgia for HNIC most likely stems from the reality of network broadcasting in the years before cable television. The reason HNIC is "indistinguishable" from other broadcasts is because 30 years ago there was only one weekly national hockey broadcast. Now there are several.

I continue to care substantially less about broadcast filler and trappings than I do the actual games being played. I watch because I love hockey, and will continue to do so.

[Rando]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

And logistically SN has to move on today and start planning for this Saturdays show.

Coaches corner is what, two minutes? Won't be difficult

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

I'm not defending Cherry. But what's the conclusion here? (a) Neither he nor anyone else should be concerned that new Canadians do not seem to share in the sentiment for Remembrance Day that older Canadians born in Canada do - ie it's totally wrong to even harbour the thought; or (b) make the point on television.

The conclusion is he made an assumption (in fact, several) based on nothing more than hearsay and expressed it in bigoted terms, using a platform that has nothing to do with the subject matter. And refused to apologize, explain or even acknowledge the issue.

Where is the evidence that I need to be concerned about immigrants showing enough respect for vets, especially by something as minor as wearing a poppy (as opposed to the many other ways that support can be given).

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Without getting into all the dynamics about what he said, I kind of don't like how Rogers just gets to skirt this and simply cut ties with him this way.

Don is 85 years old........clearly he is who he is (whatever that means). Clearly he's never been the best a presenting his opinions in the most productive and effective ways (regardless of what those opinions are). Sure, Don has a role to play in understanding when his time is up and retire.................but so did his employer. They knew what he was about and how he communicated. Plenty of history and incidents to show what his opinions might be and how he communicates them. They were well aware that his brand was no longer aligned with what society finds acceptable from both how and what he communicates.

Yet Rogers continued to give him a his slot, because they wanted to benefit from the ratings he brings in and the advertising revenue he brings in. But then they get to simply cut the ties and pull a Shaggy and wash their hands of any of the responsibility. Sorry doesn't fly for me. You knew what you were putting on the air, you knew this was a likely outcome from decades of history.................Rogers = as guilty as Don Cherry IMO. You can't knowingly put someone on the air on your staff who you know is off brand with what you want to say your company is about, then simply can them and say sorry. I mean you can............obviously, but seems wrong.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by flames_fan_down_under

Again you are saying the same people who voted for Trudeau are the exactly same people who wanted Cherry fired for offensive comments. Where is there any evidence of this being true? Certainly fits a tidy narrative to keep grinding that anti-Trudeau axe though! fun!

I would say this is true considering many LPC MPs and cabinet ministers were calling for him to be fired but were ok with Trudeau wearing blackface in the 2000s.