Gary Bettman Needs to Resign

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't doubt that she's genuine in what she's saying, I just didn't give a flying #### what she has to say. And it sounds like I'm targeting Tara Sloane, and that's really only because she's being talked about in this thread. Really, I also mean Greg Wyshinski, who was unlistenable on the latest episode of Puck Soup I was listening to this morning, or Adam Wylde from the Steve Dangle Podcast I was listening to yesterday, who is consistently unlistenable, but especially when he tries to hold himself out as having some important viewpoint about some social issue, and all the rest of the people who think their personal feelings about this should be important to anyone but them and the people they interact with in their personal lives.

These people are not some sort of fonts of wisdom or public intellectuals whose input we should care about. They do not matter in the slightest. They're opportunistically attempting to bolster their own personal brands by spouting off, as if to say, "hey, pay attention to what I think about this! Don't forget about me! My personal feelings and emotions are important, indulge me! Give me affirmation!" It's obnoxious and distasteful. Allan Walsh is the perfect example of this crap, he's totally self-serving.

Some NHL reporters are, of course, doing a good job here, and asking the right questions of the people who are the subject of the story. But for every one of them, there are ten who won't ask Duncan Keith, "hey, you said you weren't interviewed - is that because you declined to be" or "Mr. Quenneville, in light of the revelations in the report this evening, why did you decide to coach tonight" - or won't apply the required pressure to persist and demand answers to those questions. It bugs the crap out of me. I don't give a damn what you think or how you feel; find out what the facts are and report them.

I think you're 90% off the mark here, especially lumping in someone like Slone with someone like Walsh. I don't see anything self-serving about what Slone had to say. She is a human being, and as one, she is equipped to use her platform to speak her mind. I don't believe she is asking you, personally, to care and take seriously her authority on the matter.

I do find some humour in your position here. You're quite animated about why we shouldn't care about what these people have to say, or at least why you don't, but I'm left wondering why anyone should care what you have to say either?

And if we shouldn't, how is your desire to share your opinion here any less ridiculous than someone like Slone's or Wyshynski's? It's not hard to argue that it's significantly more ridiculous. A lot more people care what they have to say than care about Faceless Poster on Local Message Board, but here you are, speaking like an authority about whose opinion has value, who we should care about, and whose personal feelings and important.

At least the lowly sports journalists seem equipped to view a situation like a human being. They have that going for them.

[RyZ]

Originally Posted by fleury

But she’s only looking at it from the angle of emotional appeal. Where are facts to back anything she’s saying? Has she even proposed anything to consider? She doesn’t realize there are so many things to consider here that Bettman and co have to play the cards close to their chest for legal reasons into the future. This speaks to credibility. She knew she was being given the spotlight to speak and she did it alright I guess but there are no facts. Just words and emotion. Like Corsi said, perhaps she should have a debate with Bettman or a bigwig and challenge them while on the show. Come with facts and not emotionally charged sweet nothings.

All media thrives on emotionally charged sweet nothings. I guess I cant blame sports reporters for following suit.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And if we shouldn't, how is your desire to share your opinion here any less ridiculous than someone like Slone's or Wyshynski's? It's not hard to argue that it's significantly more ridiculous. A lot more people care what they have to say than care about Faceless Poster on Local Message Board, but here you are, speaking like an authority about whose opinion has value, who we should care about, and whose personal feelings and important.

I haven't been, and I basically consider a message board with individual people I interact with on a regular basis, like you, to be not dissimilar to shooting the #### at a bar. It's precisely the opposite of trying to project myself as some sort of public intellectual who should be given attention or whose opinions should be of elevated importance. I also have no personal brand or public persona attached to anything I say, I'm basically anonymous. I don't want any spotlight to be pointed my way. It's completely different.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by agulati

I thought the responses to his questions were quite snarky too, though maybe I was reading a bit into it.

I didn't love Bettman's answers but I thought Westheads questions were cringe gotcha type stuff designed solely to get a soundbyte he wanted so he could go on SC later (which he did) and badmouth Bettman.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

If you think the NHL is Mickey Mouse under Gary, you should read about the clown show that existed when John Ziegler ran the zoo.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by fleury

But she’s only looking at it from the angle of emotional appeal. Where are facts to back anything she’s saying? Has she even proposed anything to consider? She doesn’t realize there are so many things to consider here that Bettman and co have to play the cards close to their chest for legal reasons into the future. This speaks to credibility. She knew she was being given the spotlight to speak and she did it alright I guess but there are no facts. Just words and emotion. Like Corsi said, perhaps she should have a debate with Bettman or a bigwig and challenge them while on the show. Come with facts and not emotionally charged sweet nothings.

Which outstanding facts are you asking she present? Her job is to comment on news and stories relating to the hockey world, specifically the NHL. I certainly didn't listen to what she has said or supported over the last 24-48 hours and thought of them as "sweet nothings".

If the reporter who fronted the story can't get a word in edge wise without help from other journalists, what clout does Slone have to do what you've asked? Typically Bettman has one interview a year, and that's getting softer and softer at each subsequent All-Star game.

I feel like the expectations of personalities like Slone, in particular, are flawed. Them speaking out and offering support are literally the limitations of their power until they are invited to the table.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Which outstanding facts are you asking she present? Her job is to comment on news and stories relating to the hockey world, specifically the NHL. I certainly didn't listen to what she has said or supported over the last 24-48 hours and thought of them as "sweet nothings".

If the reporter who fronted the story can't get a word in edge wise without help from other journalists, what clout does Slone have to do what you've asked? Typically Bettman has one interview a year, and that's getting softer and softer at each subsequent All-Star game.

I feel like the expectations of personalities like Slone, in particular, are flawed. Them speaking out and offering support are literally the limitations of their power until they are invited to the table.

So if she wants to do something about it, she could wait outside his New York office, and question him. Or report she wants to meet with him to speak with him. Great the emotional appeals work for some (not for me when a week has passed), but you gotta bring more to the table if you want to be taken seriously. Else it’s looking for attention.

[Winsor_Pilates]

I have no problem with the Sloan clip and do think she is genuine in her emotions.

However, there is a place beyond the emotional where these things need actual decisions, policies, and actions.
Bettman and the NHL are in that position where they can't just act on emotions and have to make tempered decisions.
Their decisions will impact many lives, livelihoods & careers and can't just be made out of emotion.
Have they gotten this 100% right? maybe not.

But it's important to have people is a job like his that won't just take the axe to everyone because the emotional public and people on the internet are looking for justice.
That's no way to run an organization, no way to issue justice and no way to frankly run anything.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by fleury

So if she wants to do something about it, she could wait outside his New York office, and question him. Or report she wants to meet with him to speak with him. Great the emotional appeals work for some (not for me when a week has passed), but you gotta bring more to the table if you want to be taken seriously. Else it’s looking for attention.

She's literally doing what she's paid to do on the platform she's paid to do it. I really don't understand how grandstanding outside the NHL offices and being immediately removed by security makes her more credible to speak on this story.

And this isn't simply just an emotional appeal. It's commentary from a specific perspective. I believe we are all emotional regarding this abuse in some form or another.

I also don't like this current wave of dismissing a person's opinion because they didn't physically charge out and take down the establishment. We can always feel free to ask for more, but we should be realistic with our expectations.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Yamer

She's literally doing what she's paid to do on the platform she's paid to do it. I really don't understand how grandstanding outside the NHL offices and being immediately removed by security makes her more credible to speak on this story.

And this isn't simply just an emotional appeal. It's commentary from a specific perspective. I believe we are all emotional regarding this abuse in some form or another.

I also don't like this current wave of dismissing a person's opinion because they didn't physically charge out and take down the establishment. We can always feel free to ask for more, but we should be realistic with our expectations.

Because it’s slacktivism. And it’s tiring. Anyone can get on a soapbox and scream. Do something different than appealing to emotion. Present facts, present findings, do something hard instead of the easy thing that they all take the easy way out doing.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by fleury

Because it’s slacktivism. And it’s tiring. Anyone can get on a soapbox and scream. Do something different than appealing to emotion. Present facts, present findings, do something hard instead of the easy thing that they all take the easy way out doing.

There's room for both, no?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

There's room for both, no?

There really isn't. The slacktivist side of the boat is dangerously overcrowded already.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by fleury

Because it’s slacktivism. And it’s tiring. Anyone can get on a soapbox and scream. Do something different than appealing to emotion. Present facts, present findings, do something hard instead of the easy thing that they all take the easy way out doing.

That's a reductionist viewpoint I just can't get in step with.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by fleury

Because it’s slacktivism. And it’s tiring. Anyone can get on a soapbox and scream. Do something different than appealing to emotion. Present facts, present findings, do something hard instead of the easy thing that they all take the easy way out doing.

Anyone can, few do. Fewer still do so on national television speaking out against the organization that is the entire driver behind their current employment.

This is not a matter of a random person posting on a message board. Slone took the opportunity to do what was within her power to do, and did exactly that. She, personally, cannot change the inner workings of the NHL. But she can speak her mind and point out where they are wrong, bring public attention to it using her public platform, and do her part to ensure it doesn't get washed over.

I don't understand the desire to separate emotion from this. It's emotion. A human being was sexually assaulted and the crime was covered up and ignored until a decade later. We've known about this for what, a week? And people are eager to forget already?

[Enoch Root]

I am surprised anyone speaks up about anything anymore. All they will get for their troubles is criticism.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I haven't been, and I basically consider a message board with individual people I interact with on a regular basis, like you, to be not dissimilar to shooting the #### at a bar. It's precisely the opposite of trying to project myself as some sort of public intellectual who should be given attention or whose opinions should be of elevated importance. I also have no personal brand or public persona attached to anything I say, I'm basically anonymous. I don't want any spotlight to be pointed my way. It's completely different.

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?

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by Torture

https://twitter.com/user/status/1455521526263033858

Maybe Frank and the others should have investigated this when it originally came out, don't try to play the high road now. Rick Westhead can along with Katie Strang, the rest just shut up and follow along.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Maybe Frank and the others should have investigated this when it originally came out, don't try to play the high road now. Rick Westhead can along with Katie Strang, the rest just shut up and follow along.

There is literally no pleasing people.

Ever.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Maybe Frank and the others should have investigated this when it originally came out, don't try to play the high road now. Rick Westhead can along with Katie Strang, the rest just shut up and follow along.

Why not? They have to dig their heels into their history of not helping the situation??? Why?

So the feeling is “Don’t be better, what you did before is your lane to stay in”? That’s ridiculous.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

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.