Paul Stewart: Quagmires and Stomped Grapes

This may be the best thing I’ve read on this subject.

One point though, the ‘freedom of speech’ thing, in the USA anyway, only refers to the government’s ability to censor speech, in most instances. Private companies can, and do, have the ability to control what their employees say, and do.

As an example, if a manager at McDonald’s told a customer, ‘these burgers don’t taste good’, I would fully expect the company to part ways with that employee.

Definitely the best thing I've read about this. Well said.

Great work

two refs on the ice way back when?

great read Stewie!

Articulately said, Paul!

However, in the United States, there is so much power centered in Washington, that politicians have sold their souls to the devil to acquire it, and at all costs. Any progress that is made is derided by the other side. So, no ideas, no matter how promising, are dismissed without consideration.

Your point about it being a teaching moment, was spot on. But again, the lessons will never be put forth, due to SN’s rush to both judgment, and caving to the cancel culture, even if it was their corporate right to do so. Morally, it is repugnant.

Our media here in the United States has stoked the divisive flames for years. I remember the days of the news broadcasts where you never knew what side of the aisle the broadcaster was on. They just reported the news in an impartial manner, and let the viewer interpret it as he/she saw fit. Now it comes with commentary meant to influence the viewer. Even our political debates come with a pundit, that tells us what we should glean from it. Our athletes, musicians, celebrities, all the same. Using awards shows, an interview, or their concert, to tell us how we should be thinking, living, or voting.

So much foundational discourse has been put forth, that “trust”, “goodwill”, and “cooperation”, have been stomped on, in the name of power, money, and influence.

As someone said “power corrupts, ultimate power corrupts ultimately”.

The anger and vitriol that resides in the masses seems to be close to a breaking point. When that volcano erupts, and it’s being stoked every day in the name of power and control, will leave those very same people powerless. Their ignorance is astonishing.

This Don Cherry firing is but another twig thrown on the flames of discourse, when it could have been used to help, teach, and understand.

"all encased in a wardrobe that only Ernie Roth or WKRP's Herb Tarlek could love."

Genius.

Great read and great response from HokeeGuy too!!

Articulately said, Paul!

However, in the United States, there is so much power centered in Washington, that politicians have sold their souls to the devil to acquire it, and at all costs. Any progress that is made is derided by the other side. So, no ideas, no matter how promising, are dismissed without consideration.

Your point about it being a teaching moment, was spot on. But again, the lessons will never be put forth, due to SN’s rush to both judgment, and caving to the cancel culture, even if it was their corporate right to do so. Morally, it is repugnant.

Our media here in the United States has stoked the divisive flames for years. I remember the days of the news broadcasts where you never knew what side of the aisle the broadcaster was on. They just reported the news in an impartial manner, and let the viewer interpret it as he/she saw fit. Now it comes with commentary meant to influence the viewer. Even our political debates come with a pundit, that tells us what we should glean from it. Our athletes, musicians, celebrities, all the same. Using awards shows, an interview, or their concert, to tell us how we should be thinking, living, or voting.

So much foundational discourse has been put forth, that “trust”, “goodwill”, and “cooperation”, have been stomped on, in the name of power, money, and influence.

As someone said “power corrupts, ultimate power corrupts ultimately”.

The anger and vitriol that resides in the masses seems to be close to a breaking point. When that volcano erupts, and it’s being stoked every day in the name of power and control, will leave those very same people powerless. Their ignorance is astonishing.

This Don Cherry firing is but another twig thrown on the flames of discourse, when it could have been used to help, teach, and understand.
- Hokeeguy9

It's all about money. Big money ruins almost everything. People love to hate-watch/listen, and the more outrageous something is, the more people will tune in; therefore increasing ratings and revenue. That's how we got to primetime on the "news" networks that are nothing more than diatribes or shouting contests, but if you tune in in the middle of the afternoon, no matter the network, it's mostly straight news without commentary.

The BBC online has a good system. They have the news at the top, "just the facts, ma'am", and then, clearly delineated, there will be an "analysis" section underneath with someone's opinion on what's happening. Here everything just gets jumbled together, lines get blurred, and people pick sides and lob insults at the other side.

The BBC online has a good system. They have the news at the top, "just the facts, ma'am", and then, clearly delineated, there will be an "analysis" section underneath with someone's opinion on what's happening. Here everything just gets jumbled together, lines get blurred, and people pick sides and lob insults at the other side.
- Wetbandit1

I would counter that by saying that it is virtually impossible to report "just the facts" about anything without having at least some bias. When I read between the lines of any news article, even those that claim to be unbiased/"just the facts", I can always detect some bias. Moreover, few people, particularly journalists (who, by nature, typically cover a variety of subjects), know enough about the subject they are covering to really, truly discuss the subject comprehensively and fairly enough to ward off bias. There is a reason why Jeopardy winners are usually lawyers, engineers, scientists, and librarians and not journalists (no offense to any journalists) .

To me it is a matter of picking which bias I trust more and keeping that in mind when I read it (having a healthy amount skepticism toward it). Perhaps even more importantly, it is best to keep in mind that ideally news is not supposed to influence and especially not supposed to be entertainment. This calls to mind my favorite show (from the late 80's), Max Headroom. At one point Edison Carter yells at his boss "Since when is news supposed to be entertainment?" to which his boss responds "Since it was invented". This reflects the reality of news but not the "ideal state". Ideally, it should be dry and boring and not at all influential. Like you said, though, that doesn't sell as well.

Here's the problem with this entire premise. You...the media...the offended... SportsNet... all off you who agree with this firing... are asserting your meaning...to his words. You say he is dividing the people in an unfair way... that he can't throw an entire group under the "you people" heading... but you're 100% wrong. He can. It's literally what it means in the English language. His use of "you people" literally means anyone embracing Canada as their current homeland who also don't embrace the tradition of honoring the men and women who went before them and made Canada into what it is. Some simply were unaware of the tradition. That's fine. They shouldn't be offended. They should at worst...maybe face-palm...excuse their ignorance(I'm sure that word will trigger a few...even if it 100% accurately describes their being unaware) and will happily join in the tradition. Others knew and decided not to participate. And that is the "you people" he was talking to. And... its is also 100% accurate. He has EVERY right to lump everyone who is aware and who chooses not to participate into a single group of "you people". Because...they are a single group of people in this instance. Nowhere did he say "no-white" or "immigrants"... which I've heard attributed repeatedly. He said "you people". That's only a derogatory phrase when its inaccurately used. In this case...it wasn't. And people are vilifying him for them hearing something he didn't say. And before everyone jumps on the "well it's not his choice whether people are offended... but his responsibility to not offend"... I could literally say "I love you" to someone and they could choose to be offended. In this day and age...this is my fault? ... That's "progress"?

Stewie for Prime Minister or President. Well done.

Well said, wcrogers!

@wcrogers78

I agree that his INTENT was on everyone not wearing the poppy, but his actual on air quote does go beyond JUST "You People." It was actually "You people that come here". That's a little less ambiguous in referring to immigrants.

Overall it is a great post though. My opinion, and based on his comments since (that are also being skewed) where he wishes he says "Everyone" instead of "You People" point to me that he meant the 100% backable "Everyone should wear a poppy. Shame on you people who don't support our troops on Remembrance Day."

But alas, he's 85, and hasn't been the most coherent in his thoughts in the last few years.

Spot on Paul. You summed the whole situation up perfectly and I agree 100%

Some excellent perspective and a good read, as usual. Thank you.

Stewy
Catching up on stuff, your piece on the " CLOWN " was right on.
Don't have much use for "SPINELESS" know it nothings.
Bobby Orr made him, and Mr.Orr, hasn't always been the greatest at picking people you can trust and befriend for life.
ag