Mainstream media fumbles hockey: Incident #6,817
I get in my car to head to pick-up hockey Wednesday night, the night the Red Wings clinched a rematch in the Stanley Cup finals. The radio is tuned to a sports station that has a decent morning show, but in the evening they run one of those syndicated shows by a loudmouth generalist who rants about T.O. or A-Rod or Kobe Bryant or his fantasy team for three hours a night.
Didn't catch his name -- and the particular sports network's jingles and failed branding attempts aren't really relevant to the story.
Anyway, the show accidentally veers toward hockey for a second, so I hesitate before turning on some Underworld to go to a happy place. With the Wings-Blackhawks game having just ended, I hear the tail end of this exchange between caller and host:
Caller: "Disappointing end to the season, but I just hope people realize the Hawks are the next Red Wings, with all the young talent they have."
(Okay, a bit of a leap. The Red Wings are something else which might not be replicated, but I get what the caller is saying: Don't be down, the Hawks are clearly on the way up.)
Loudmouth Host: "No doubt, no doubt. That market just needs a big star. That market needs a Crosby or Ovechkin to really bring them in. Which I'm sure they'll get through free agency."
(Um, what? Come again? That "market," which packed the United Center all season, "needs" something to excite people? And it's a star they need? A star like "a Crosby or Ovechkin" -- who grow on trees -- which will surely come via free agency?)
Caller, now wondering why he bothered, attempts to explain: "Well they have Kane and Toews, who are pretty big deals and still just 20 and 21, so..."
Loudmouth Host (cuts caller off): "Okay, my listeners aren't interested in the depths of the Blackhawks roster -- they just want to know whether Chicago will be able to beat Detroit this time next year.
But thanks for calling. It's good to hear from a hockey fan, to know they have a pulse. The producers always tell me we're heard in Canada, but I don't know. Do they ever call? Where are these people? Anyway, LeBron James..."
That, in a nutshell, is the state of mainstream U.S. sports media's relationship with the hockey fan. This blowhard, in about 20 seconds of air time, demonstrated that he really has no clue what's going on in the NHL, but he'd like to pretend otherwise so that he can sound like an expert generalist both for his audience and for hockey fans -- in the event they are listening -- because they ought to be burning up the phone lines to join the engaging discourse on his show.
In fact, to all those hockey fans "with a pulse" out there, your fearless show host demonstrated that he:
- Has no idea what happened in Chicago this year
- Has no inkling of what role Patrick Kane and Jonathan Toews serve -- "the depths," apparently -- on Chicago's roster
- Has heard of Crosby and Ovechkin; is pretty sure they are good
- Has no clue how rare a talent Crosby and Ovechkin are
- Doesn't know who might be available in free agency this summer, but thinks surely there is a Crosby out there
Yet this guy thinks hockey fans -- if they exist and "have a pulse" -- should bother to both listen to and call his show, wait on hold for however long radio callers wait for the chance to impart wisdom over the air, in order to have an enlightening exchange like the one above, on the eve of the signature series in their sport. I love it.
These are the guys in "mainstream" sports media who rip hockey for not having more exposure -- or because they don't like hockey but as sports "experts" they want to have a credible reason to neglect it -- yet whenever it receives such exposure, they handle it like that. "Inept" does not begin to describe it. "Like political talk radio" is a little closer to the mark.
And that is why, while I understand the NHL's business motive to get more mainstream attention, I think such attention won't do a lick for me. (Sorry for hitting this tangential topic twice this week, but the host's clueless indignation made me chuckle.) In the Web-enabled multichannel 21st-century world, that sort of outlet is for the casual fan. The hardcore fan doesn't need to sift through that mainstream filter with desperate hands to taste its tiny ration of hockey info. There is relevant content -- even informed discourse! -- bursting at the seams all around us. Yet we should be calling this guy to discuss how the Hawks can sign Ovechkin.
Alright, next topic. Kobe Bryant: DOES. HE. HAVE IT?... Talk to me...
18 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I’ll improve your day somewhat. Scott Ferrall does sports radio on Sirius/XM on the Howard Stern channels and his favorite sport is hockey. The only thing is that you definitely have to give his voice a few shows to grow on you. He also used to work for SNY (Sports New York, the Mets response to the Yankees sports network) and he would wear hockey jerseys daily.
Here’s one of his shows from NHL.com, they are somewhat tough to find on there.
Scott Ferrall NHL Show
Nice. Thanks for the tip.
Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.
Wow.
Was that broadcast around here in ATL? Because I swear I’ve heard that. “What? We have hockey? Who is this Koval…Koval…well, whatever he is, he don’t play no FOOTBALL! GO DAWGS!” Sports people like that make me want to jump off of a cliff. Thank GOD I can get KMOX down here at night.
Reporter: There`s a "stamp out the Beatles movement" underway in Detroit. What are you going to do about it?
Paul McCartney: We`re going to start a campaign to stamp out Detroit.
Ha, I’m sure the show is available in ATL! It’s one of the syndicated ones, I stumble upon it at least once a week when I get back in the car, but I don’t know which one.
I did bother to search online to figure out the guy’s name, but the local stations’ sites aren’t good at disclosing what syndicated shows they use (you know, they have to pretend they’re all local content), and the network sites aren’t good at showing you a lineup of all the voices on their radio shows. I gave up when I realized it didn’t really matter.
Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.
LOL.
I’m pretty sure that it’s on down here on 790. That is the absolute worst excuse for a sports radio station ever. I can’t even get the good station in the northern suburbs b/c the signal sucks.
I tend to do with sports what I do with politics – I’ll flip on TV sometimes (usually only NHL Net or Baseball Tonight), but I stick with blogs and stuff that usually don’t enrage me quite as much by slagging on my teams outside of the realm of common sense.
Reporter: There`s a "stamp out the Beatles movement" underway in Detroit. What are you going to do about it?
Paul McCartney: We`re going to start a campaign to stamp out Detroit.
And that is why I don't listen to Radio
Made the switch to Sirius 4 years ago and haven’t looked back.
Hockey Night in Canada Radio from 4-7 every day is enough hockey talk. Plus they replay it from 7-10.
And now Ken Danyko and Ron Duguay have a own show on Thursday’s I think.
For more hockey news; www.illegalcurve.com
That sounds great. Every once in a while I think about satellite, but ultimately I don’t spend much time in the car, and my job isn’t conducive to audio.
Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.
I'm not in my car too often
but when I do cross country trips, nothing is better to listen to. One negative is that Sirius lost the rights to broadcast hockey games when the NHL left for Xm although now that they are 1 company I could pay to get it back.
For more hockey news; www.illegalcurve.com
Here in the UK, it's the same
Not so much with hockey, mainly because the media in the UK don’t really cover it, but with soccer, if it’s outside the Premier League, the “pundits” on radio and tv are clueless as to what’s going on. Actually, if it’s outside the “big four”, the pundits tend to be just as clueless. Which normally leads to me shouting at the tv/radio and then switching off.
Actually, if it’s outside the "big four", the pundits tend to be just as clueless. Which normally leads to me shouting at the tv/radio and then switching off.
LOL. Thanks for that. I enjoy watching the Premier League (it’s part of my Sunday routine while the rest of this country is watching NFL) but the “big four” dominance is unsettling both for that league and for every other sport dominated by a few giant-revenue teams. The media frenzy around those teams just reinforces it (from this distant perch, anyway).
Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.
Why bother even addressing the topic if you can’t carry your way through the conversation?
Follow the Penguins on SBN @ Pensburgh.com and twitter.
Good point. I think the caller may have surprised him … it sounded like he may have talked about one sport and then switched to hockey in the middle of his call.
Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.
“Inept” does not begin to describe it. “Like political talk radio” is a little closer to the mark.
Perfectly expresses the reason I do not listen to talk radio of any kind unless I am specifically listening for the appearance of an advertised guest (i.e. an interview with Brian Burke on one of the local stations, for example). Even then, the small doses of this unmitigated crap – the level of discourse isn’t much higher, I can tell you, even from broadcasters up here in the Great White North who oughta know better – drive me to shaking my fist at the unseen bastards who allow this shite on air in the first place. Great post.
I don’t understand how talk radio survives in the era of teh Intarwebs.
jrwendelman
The Artist Formerly Known as "Junior", who blogs at heroesinrehab.ca/blog
"But if someone so eager to engage into fist talk, we can always meet after season end in Minsk." (Mikhail Grabovski and a well-meaning but not particularly skillful translator)
by jrwendelman on May 29, 2009 5:28 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I don’t understand how talk radio survives in the era of teh Intarwebs.
Teehee. My hunch is the old captive audience problem (“gaah! stuck in my car!”), plus a certain type of listener who goes for this.
I once had a coworker who: a) is strongly opinionated about things, whether or not he has the background to inform an opinion, and b) extrapolates his own single, personal interactions with a specific subset of clients to project them as “the rule” for all types of clients, even if others’ experiences differ.
One day, on the way to work, I heard him on a radio show, calling in to rant about a certain game-day promotion and how he doesn’t see why they do it because he doesn’t like them. Once I stopped laughing at hearing his voice over the air, I thought, “Oh, this makes perfect sense. Of course he is that guy.”
Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.
Good post, but if you think you’ve got it tough, try being a hockey fan in L.A.! I remember this exchange from about 15 years ago, when Larry Robinson was coach of the Kings:
Idiot Radio Host: :“The King’s defensive scheme is clearly not working”.
Sam McMaster (Kings’ GM, frustrated): “And which defensive scheme are you talking about?”
Idiot Host: “Well, whichever one it is, it’s clearly not working, right? The teams stinks! Time for a commercial. Thanks for being with us.”
Ouch. Good point. You SoCal hockey fans are saints.
Lighthouse Hockey: Side effects may include Weight gain and frequent game loss.

by 
































