Dan Boyle goes off on Larry Brooks

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I will page you when my dial-up loads the information.

Wait, what year are we in?

Please page my editor instead as I'm now a media member and don't have the time to always reply to my readers.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I will page you when my dial-up loads the information.

Wait, what year are we in?

Can you send me that information on a floppy?

I will also require VHS film copy of their accredited media exploits.

[JiriHrdina]

Blueshirt Banter describes themselves as: Your best source for quality New York Rangers news, rumors, analysis, stats and scores from the fan perspective.

So are they fans or members of the media? Can't be both. If they are fans it should be no surprise that they are on the players' side here.

It is also clear from reading through this guy's social media feed, that he generally doesn't think highly of MSM.

In short - not really an objective POV.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

So are they fans or members of the media? Can't be both.

By whose definition?

There is a whole classification of people in the media who are fans of the team that they cover. They are generally referred to as ‘homers’.

[GomerPile]

This situation reminds me as to why hockey players are some of the worst interviews in the world. They have trained themselves, and been trained, to just get through it. I can't imagine having a day of work that always ends or begins with people questioning my every action. I would lose it far quicker then Boyle did.

Not saying he's right or wrong, just, man it'd be tough to bite your tongue after two long years.

I guess if Boyle has another shot at a year end interview it might sound something like "Me and the boys gave it our all out there. Never fun to come up short, hope to be back next year."

[taco.vidal]

Like I said earlier, Brooks is an unlikeable troll. I doubt many, if any players or those in the Rangers org like him. Boyle did a good job of reminding Brooks of this just in case that Brooks forgot that the players he covers on a daily basis think he is an arse and unwelcome in room but allowed to be there only because of the rules.

[jar_e]

Obviously despite all this hot air, the Rangers themselves have no issue with Brooks as he is continually issued a press pass year in and year out.

[CliffFletcher]

Boyle also called out another reporter whose only offense was to comment that Boyle is over the hill (but in nicer terms).

I just think it's interesting that fans find it easier to put themselves in the shoes of the professional athlete being interviewed than in the shoes of the person doing the interviewing, when reporters are actually a lot more like the typical fan than athletes are. And guess what - reporters have bad days, get fed up with their work, have to deal with #######s every day, and face losing their jobs and involuntary retirement. Still wouldn't make it right if a reporter blew a gasket the next time the guy their boss told them to interview brushed them off.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

By whose definition?

There is a whole classification of people in the media who are fans of the team that they cover. They are generally referred to as ‘homers’.

And this guy Adam is generally referred to as a 'blogger'.

[Dion]

Blueshirts writer pens a piece in defense of Dan Boyle saying we can't be to harsh on players because they have feelings

I figured it out. I had to. Still, I regard my access to the Riveters' locker room as a privilege. When I need to critique a player or the team or its staff -€” and I have -€” I write and rewrite sentences in my head, wondering if I'm being too harsh or not harsh enough.

Why? Because there are people on the other ends of those words. Not just players. People.

I think Larry Brooks and Brett Cyrgalis sometimes forgot that. Maybe Dan Boyle could have come up with a put-down more pithy than "F***ing clown," but he didn't. And he shouldn't have to. Boyle was brought here to play a game, and he played it. There are consequences for not playing well, and he and the rest of the Rangers are now paying them.

But Boyle has been paying the consequences since he arrived in New York. In almost every Post article in which his name appears, Boyle was blamed not only for the team's defensive woes, but also for the deal that brought him here. As Brooks wrote recently:



Here, Boyle is even blamed for the cost of the Keith Yandle trade, since, if he had done his job as captain of the power play, it wouldn't have been necessary.

There's a lot more. Brooks deemed him "consistently dreadful." Cyrgalis called him "a 39 year old weight on Marc Staal's back" (huh?). Perhaps most significantly, Brooks described Boyle as "one of the least accountable players to come down the pike," although he made a point of mentioning that Boyle was certainly accountable to the organization.

Who wasn't he accountable to? Brooksie, apparently. This is what we call a narrative, and the Post hammered it home every chance they got. Right or wrong, those words clearly affected Dan Boyle. So yesterday, in what may have been his final play as a Ranger, Boyle decided to challenge that narrative. You can watch what happened here.

http://www.blueshirtbanter.com/2016/...e-of-dan-boyle

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

And this guy Adam is generally referred to as a 'blogger'.

These categories are not mutually exclusive.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Obviously despite all this hot air, the Rangers themselves have no issue with Brooks as he is continually issued a press pass year in and year out.

I would bet that the Rangers would probably prefer to pull Brooks' press pass, but they wouldn't dare.

How did that work out for the Islanders when they pulled Chris Botta's press pass for essentially being "Brooks" in what they describe as constantly overly-negative stories being written about them? The entire media at large - including Bob McKenzie - jumped down their throats and eventually that press pass was reinstated. The Professional Hockey Writers Association jumped all over the Islanders accusing them of censorship. Islanders eventually buckled under the pressure. Botta was a blogger. Doing this to Brooks - however much deserved - would create an even bigger backlash.

Problem I think here is that guys like Brooks know it, and don't bother to walk that line of fair and unbiased journalism, and crosses over into the inflammatory and sensationalism that drives up his clicks.

Boyle was over-the-top in his statements - but context is needed here before vilifying him as well. He not only has just been eliminated from the playoffs, but knows there is a very real possibility that he played his very last game in the NHL. Definitely emotionally charged.

Now, we don't know what preceded it, but keep in mind that Boyle does NOT have to talk to Brooks. He only has to make himself available to media with press passes at a certain appointed time, IIRC. This means that Boyle just needs to show up, but he can talk and interact with just who he chooses. Boyle is not forced to actually speak or interact with Brooks I believe - he can ignore him. I would like to know what directly led to the outburst.

Was Brooks being ignored but persistent? Did Boyle look for him in order to 'get even'? Was this a build up where Boyle was holding his tongue for a long time? We don't know that. Was Brooks sought-out immediately and 'attacked'? We don't know the background here other than what Brooks wrote about Boyle. Maybe that was all there was to it. Maybe not.

All that I am happy for is that some of these 'journalists' who seem to have converted to the social-media click-bait inflammatory articles who are otherwise seemingly immune from criticism and any repercussions from what they say, just got his just deserts. This needs to happen more in my opinion.

I have always been a big believer in freedom of the press, and if you know much about me, I am actually quite alarmed at how much censorship is (and has been) going on in mainstream media in the west. However, there seems to be a huge social-media driven push to go the other way with TMZ-style journalism covering celebrities of any type, and I just think it is sleazy. Brooks to me is sleazy. I didn't care to see what exactly Brooks wrote about Boyle or what the history was - there is a long established history with Brooks in NY, and I actually assumed it was just Boyle thinking "This really sucks being eliminated, my hockey career is almost done, and there is no way I am going to let that @#$#% Brooks into my media scrum."

[Clarkey]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

If that's all Brooks wrote than I fail to see how he crosed the line.
We all deal with pricks in our jobs. I would never react like Boyle did. It is unprofessional and would probably get me fired.
Boyle is a millionaire who gets paid big bucks to play a game. He needs to put on his big boy pants and act like an adult.

I work with guys who own construction companies and who manage construction sites and this is kids glove response compared to what I see regularly. I actually see his reaction as being pretty passive overall.