Thanks for sharing Joe Thornton!

[mikeecho]

Botchfords story changed during the course of the day yesterday. In some initial radio I heard, I think he realized he may have just blown his credibility so he tried to make it out like Joe was doing a solid when Hertle was being pushed by the media and in turn, he was kinda helping Joe by running with it to take the heat off Hertle (whom he referenced as a zit faced kid).

When that "I was just trying to help Joe help Hertle" slant failed, he turned it into this thing where Joe was an aggressor telling the media to "shut up," lashing out at Lalji and insulting the media about never having played the game before his so called joke.

In the end, if you listen to a bunch of the radio Botchford did yesterday, he can't keep his story that tight and admits in various pieces that he gets paid to write on the edge and his publisher isn't as pc as some of the mainstream media. He knew the other outlets would likely not print it, or that it would take time to get approval to print it, so him and his publisher jumped on it to score a big story. In the end, it looks to have blown up in his face.

He put his entire career credibility (which to be honest isn't really much) on the line for one scoop. Some media put their career on the line for a scoop like the NHL is returning to Winnipeg or the NHL lockout is over. Others put it on the like for a penis joke. I think I know which ones I'd rather commit my reading time to.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Has Farhan Lalji weighed in on this? Botchford's explanation makes no sense. Botchford said that Thorton interrupted another interview (presumably Lalji/Marleau) told Lalji to shut up, and then told his joke. WTF?

I've heard the audio, that's what happened.

Lalji to Marleau: What are your thoughts on the talk about Hertl's goal being discussed as being over the top?

Marleau begins to answer

Thornton in the background, "Oh shut up. Have you ever played the game before?"

There was laughter here between Marleau and media guys.

Lalji: I'm not being critical, I'm just asking.....

Marleau continues to answer about Hertl

Thornton, in the background, "I'd have my dick out if I scored 4 goals in a game."

More laughter.


That's how it went down. That's how Botchford told the story, what doesn't make sense?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Response

Your logic is fine. The basis of my argument (and I agree with you i wish they printed more stuff like this since it's hilarious, but then the line would be VERY blurry) is that as a human being, who has regular social interaction, Botchford thinking it is appropriate to print a masterbation joke from a player, especially without his consent, is just plain stupid. Like really, how stupid can you be? How did it not cross his mind "hmm... maybe I shouldn't print Joe Thorntons quote about him stroking his little Joey. You know, since I'm not a ######."

Your hypothetical about Marleau is completely different. If a reporter can't tell the difference between a comment on a hockey play, and a masterbation joke, maybe they shouldn't make their living in something that revolves around....words.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

That's how it went down. That's how Botchford told the story, what doesn't make sense?

The fact that Botchford printed and quoted it.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

I've heard the audio, that's what happened.

Lalji to Marleau: What are your thoughts on the talk about Hertl's goal being discussed as being over the top?

Marleau begins to answer

Thornton in the background, "Oh shut up. Have you ever played the game before?"

There was laughter here between Marleau and media guys.

Lalji: I'm not being critical, I'm just asking.....

Marleau continues to answer about Hertl

Thornton, in the background, "I'd have my dick out if I scored 4 goals in a game."

More laughter.


That's how it went down. That's how Botchford told the story, what doesn't make sense?

Botchford made it sound like Thornton's comments were shocking and rude, and everyone was shocked he said it. The script you post here is nothing like Botchford explained.

[jhunt223]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Gotta admit, I've always wondered what was with that avatar

I've always assumed it was a picture of him.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

As mentioned above, what doesn't make sense is that Botchford made it sound like Thorton bullied his way into another conversation and then made a joke. Doesn't it make sense that the whole thing was a joke? If it went down as Botchford potrays it, isn't Lalji the first to defend him? Or the other 19 reporters?

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

Here is Botchford's comments, directly from his mouth, word for word. I am not altering anything. Botchford said he has never seen a situation like that before. He repeated it.

Yes you did alter it! You put in ellipses! You clearly excerpted part of his statement! Are you trolling?! Here is what he said word for word.

No I've never heard another player in a scrum shout out "shut up", use a curse word, and then ask everyone in the media, "have any of you played the game?" No, I have never seen that before. Then he engaged in a debate with Farhan, Farhan turned around to defend himself and Joe launched into his joke in front of everyone. I've never seen a situation like that.

That is unaltered. Yours is altered. Within the context of the conversation, he is clearly not talking about the content of what Joe said - everyone knows players have used the "never played the game" comment to reporters - but the situation where a player interjects into an interview with another player in the fashion that Joe did. This is obvious because it's the entire point of the segment; whether in those circumstances you're allowed to report what he said.

Botchford didn't even answer the question directly. He was asked if he's ever heard a comment like that, in all his years in a dressing room, in all his years in a Vancouver dressing room.

Yes, he was, and yes he did dodge the question. But the question missed the point. The issue isn't whether reporters can quote any offhanded comment made in a locker room. The issue is, as I stated in my post above, under what circumstances a reporter can report what a player says when he chooses to interject and provide his two cents on the subject matter of a question asked by a reporter to someone else who clearly IS being interviewed on the record.

That is to say, should the reporter exercise judgment and decide whether the player is joking around in a non-serious way or whether he's directly providing a response to the question?

How is my methodology of pointing out facts pointless? Just because you don't like them, doesn't make them pointless.

Jesus tittyf*%@ Christ, this is bad argumentation! I don't give a god damn about your facts, that's the whole point. They add nothing to the conversation because they completely miss the point. The real issue is not whether someone has or has not in the past told a member of the media that they haven't played the game, and if you have half a brain you know that's true. All you're doing here is saying "hey, I took a portion of a statement by this guy out of context and found a vastly different situation which is completely irrelevant to the present situation and if you compare the two it looks like he's being misleading! GOT HIM! HE'S A LIAR EVERYONE!" There is a real question to be discussed here that Botchford may or may not be on the wrong side of and your sideshow hasn't the first thing to do with it.

If you can't see the difference between Thornton masturbating on the ic, and a hockey team getting bodies in front of the net to help score goals, I don't know how to help you.

Did you miss the part where I clearly IDENTIFIED the difference? Are you intentionally being an ass?

Originally Posted by me

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 the difference. In one case he's soberly providing analysis, in the other, he's joking around and making fun of Farhan Lalji. The tone is the difference. I said so. Try reading.

The fact that he declined to repeat the joke on camera and would have no problem saying they need bodies in front of the net is proof enough of this.

Which I also said.

Originally Posted by Me

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.

Could you at least make the first effort to read and comprehend before posting a response?

Originally Posted by MattyC

Your logic is fine. The basis of my argument (and I agree with you i wish they printed more stuff like this since it's hilarious, but then the line would be VERY blurry) is that as a human being, who has regular social interaction, Botchford thinking it is appropriate to print a masterbation joke from a player, especially without his consent, is just plain stupid. Like really, how stupid can you be? How did it not cross his mind "hmm... maybe I shouldn't print Joe Thorntons quote about him stroking his little Joey. You know, since I'm not a ######." Your hypothetical about Marleau is completely different. If a reporter can't tell the difference between a comment on a hockey play, and a masterbation joke, maybe they shouldn't make their living in something that revolves around....words.

Exactly what I said, this is the argument. Should a reporter be counted on to make a judgment as to whether a player's commentary is over some sort of line, and where is the line? How do we decide, and is each reporter's personal compass allowed to be different on this point?

My hypothetical was intended to be the extreme opposite type of content in the same factual circumstances. Obviously you're going to have some situations where the player's interjection is somewhere in between analysis of power play strategies and a joke about him stroking his dick. The question is, where's the line, if it's a grey area? Let's say you ask Marleau about the power play and Joe pipes up and says "there'd be no problem if Todd would give me more minutes"? Or, "Our defensemen have done a crap job getting pucks through from the blue line and they need to get their heads in the game?"

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by jhunt223

I've always assumed it was a picture of him.

correct

[Coach]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Exactly what I said, this is the argument. Should a reporter be counted on to make a judgment as to whether a player's commentary is over some sort of line, and where is the line? How do we decide, and is each reporter's personal compass allowed to be different on this point?

My hypothetical was intended to be the extreme opposite type of content in the same factual circumstances. Obviously you're going to have some situations where the player's interjection is somewhere in between analysis of power play strategies and a joke about him stroking his dick. The question is, where's the line, if it's a grey area? Let's say you ask Marleau about the power play and Joe pipes up and says "there'd be no problem if Todd would give me more minutes"? Or, "Our defensemen have done a crap job getting pucks through from the blue line and they need to get their heads in the game?"

Yes. As I said, much much worse is said around every locker room ever and you never hear about it. Why? Because most reporters have tact, class, common sense and brains. If Botchford can't figure out the difference he needs to find a different line of work. All the other reporters seemed to have good gauge on it.

You're liking it to a guy actually talking about hockey. If all he printed was 'Thornton chimed in and said "shut up, have you ever played the game?" there would be no issue. If Botchford had stopped Thornton and asked him to elaborate and held a mic up to him, than anything he says is fair game. An off color comment as he walks away from the scrum is not what should be printed.

It doesn't take a journalism degree to figure it out, and honestly, the fact that he printed shows he really did never play the game, and if he did, he was the kid that was telling on his teammates for using a bad word (aka dooosh). I would compare this more to a player discussing hockey, a teamate walks by and gives the camera bunny ears and the guy being interviewed screams "hey f*** your mother Hertl!" Is that printable?

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

^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.

He also has a blog in the Vancouver Sun, and might actually be the worst writer of all the Vancouver guys

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yes. As I said, much much worse is said around every locker room ever and you never hear about it. Why? Because most reporters have tact, class, common sense and brains. If Botchford can't figure out the difference he needs to find a different line of work. All the other reporters seemed to have good gauge on it.

Okay, that's fine, totally reasonable perspective to take on it. I'm just saying I can see the other side of the argument, where if you interject into an on the record discussion you've tacitly put your comments on that record as well and it's not up to the person transcribing them to decide what should and what shouldn't be censored on the basis of some vaguely defined notion of tact and social nicety.

I'm not saying that other side's argument is right, I think I agree with you that there's got to be a line somewhere and this is probably on the other side of it. I just don't think it's as cut and dry as people are making it out to be because the standard everyone apparently wants applied, no one has bothered to spell out. Probably because it CAN'T be spelled out; it's a "know it when you see it" judgment call sort of thing. And there are a lot of situations I can think of where it'd be tough to decide what side of the ledger to come down on.

All of which is qualified by the fact that I don't really care if he should or shouldn't have done it because again, it was funny.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by jhunt223

I've always assumed it was a picture of him.

I always thought it was Wallowitz from Big Bang Theory

[SuperMatt18]

Still the question remains, why didn't he just ask Thornton if he could use the quote?

[19Yzerman19]

^Under what circumstances do you have to ask a player, after he's said something, to re-confirm that you're allowed to write about what he said? Is it any time after he's said something that some people might consider vulgar?

Originally Posted by MattyC

It doesn't take a journalism degree to figure it out, and honestly, the fact that he printed shows he really did never play the game, and if he did, he was the kid that was telling on his teammates for using a bad word (aka dooosh). I would compare this more to a player discussing hockey, a teamate walks by and gives the camera bunny ears and the guy being interviewed screams "hey f*** your mother Hertl!" Is that printable?

No, I disagree. Your example has nothing to do with the question. In my assessment it's pretty important that Joe's comments are a direct response to the subject matter of Farhan's line of inquiry; talking about the appropriateness of Hertl's goal and whether it was over the line or disrespecting the game. I guess if a teammate had walked by and yelled "hey F*** you, Adam Oates, you crotchety old prick!", that might be sort of similar. But even then, Thornton's response is still more on topic.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Still the question remains, why didn't he just ask Thornton if he could use the quote?

Someone in the media a couple pages back speculated that he did. Something like "can you repeat that again on the record" and Thornton responded "no".

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Someone in the media a couple pages back speculated that he did. Something like "can you repeat that again on the record" and Thornton responded "no".

I think it was actually that the media scrum shifted to interview Thornton after, at which point he was asked to repeat what he'd said earlier, and he said no. Which for me has roughly the same effect, even though he didn't directly say that his initial comments weren't on the record.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

^Under what circumstances do you have to ask a player, after he's said something, to re-confirm that you're allowed to write about what he said? Is it any time after he's said something that some people might consider vulgar?

No, I disagree. Your example has nothing to do with the question. In my assessment it's pretty important that Joe's comments are a direct response to the subject matter of Farhan's line of inquiry; talking about the appropriateness of Hertl's goal and whether it was over the line or disrespecting the game. I guess if a teammate had walked by and yelled "hey F*** you, Adam Oates, you crotchety old prick!", that might be sort of similar. But even then, Thornton's response is still more on topic.

His initial response is on topic yes. And if Lalji or Botchford had asked him to elaborate on his "Did you play the game comment" and what he was alluding to with it then fine. His obvious joke as he walked away is just so obvious I can't see how any rational person can think it was ok to quote and print.

I'm not saying that everyone needs to know the difference, I'm saying that if you don't (which Botchford clearly does not) sports journalism is not for you. Plain and simple. I say again, if I was a player in the league and saw what has been happening with this, I would not talk to that guy. And if I did, the most I would say is "F*** off". Maybe I would engage just so I could end each comment with the phrase "and stroke my c**k"

"yeah I though we had a good game, good effort in the third. Now we just got to look ahead to the next game and stroke my c**k"

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

No diggity.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by BlackWallStreet

His joke wasn't funny bro, you probably laugh when someone farts to, grow up kid

get some class while you're at it

*too