Opinion article "Kings Fans Should Be More Gracious"

[TheSentinel]

The only unsavory things I've seen are a handful of drunk Kings fans falling down the stairs after the game. However, I've encountered awful visiting fans on many occasions. Vancouver, Boston and Philly being the worst of the bunch. Complete scum. The funny thing is not a single Kings fan by me got aggressive in retaliation to those fans. In fact, they didn't say anything and just let those fools mouth off and belittle us the entire game. My favorite was when the rude Boston fans ending up fighting with another group of Boston fans over where they lived. They were so clearly looking for a fight that they had to turn on one of their own when we wouldn't oblige them.

On the flip side, St. Louis, Ottawa, Dallas, Edmonton, Minnesota, Phoenix and Chicago fans have always been very classy when I've encountered them at Staples.

All of this is anecdotal though, so to pass it off as fact and paint an entire fanbase with a brush based upon the actions of a few is garbage journalism. I'm sure we have awful fans, but to say that as a whole we need to be better is ridiculous. On top of that, how anybody can defend that type of "journalism" is beyond me. Actually, it's completely embarrassing.

You lost me Doc.

I said the same thing.

 

[Ron*]

Commentary pieces have a lower standard. What did you expect him to do? Interview the people involved, identify them by name?

Well, we sure as hell agree there. That piece was about as low on the "standard" tree as you can get.

Do you honestly expect me to do the same? That's silly, in this case. Get real. You evidently don't have much idea what journalism really is.

Admittedly, I am not sure. I took my journalism courses in the 1970s at LBSU. It was a different world back then. "Journalism" was considered a professional occupation back then.

Now, I am not so sure. Check that: I'm pretty damn sure that the majority of journalists that write solely for the Internet are not all that professional in their behavior, "getting paid" notwithstanding.

As for social media, you can't just discount it completely. If you do so, that's your choice, but doesn't mean it's not legitimate. Depends on the post in question.

While this is true, I sure as hell wouldn't want to reference it when talking about a subject you just know is not going to be popular with decent Kings fans, which clearly make up the prohibitive majority. You have a writer here that references all of two instances of social media unrest and paints a broad brush over Kings fans. Do you really expect that NOT to get a reaction, or otherwise have us all fall in line brainlessly agreeing with his foolhardy proclamation?

Seems to me that this is more about defending the Kings fan base than it is about what's really happening.

Don't need to defend what is patently obvious to most Kings fans. The opinion piece, as loose as a term as I will apply it here, is crap. And you are wrong: if he is going to make such an outrageous claim, then he is going to have back it up with a lot more evidence than merely regurgitating two lousy social media twits from apparent Neanderthals. Doesn't fly with me, and from the reaction here, doesn't fly with a lot of Kings fans.

It's yellow, man. And I am pretty sure as a "journalist," you know what I am talking about.

 

[FrozenRoyalty]

Well, we sure as hell agree there. That piece was about as low on the "standard" tree as you can get.



Admittedly, I am not sure. I took my journalism courses in the 1970s at LBSU. It was a different world back then. "Journalism" was considered a professional occupation back then.

Now, I am not so sure. Check that: I'm pretty damn sure that the majority of journalists that write solely for the Internet are not all that professional in their behavior, "getting paid" notwithstanding.



While this is true, I sure as hell wouldn't want to reference it when talking about a subject you just know is not going to be popular with decent Kings fans, which clearly make up the prohibitive majority. You have a writer here that references all of two instances of social media unrest and paints a broad brush over Kings fans. Do you really expect that NOT to get a reaction, or otherwise have us all fall in line brainlessly agreeing with his foolhardy proclamation?



Don't need to defend what is patently obvious to most Kings fans. The opinion piece, as loose as a term as I will apply it here, is crap. And you are wrong: if he is going to make such an outrageous claim, then he is going to have back it up with a lot more evidence than merely regurgitating two lousy social media twits from apparent Neanderthals. Doesn't fly with me, and from the reaction here, doesn't fly with a lot of Kings fans.

It's yellow, man. And I am pretty sure as a "journalist," you know what I am talking about.

As you've surmised in earlier posts, I have very high standards for what I consider "journalism," and I hold myself to them. That said, I don't have a problem with the story in question, given the plethora of examples that are out there, including those often occuring at games. Maybe you haven't seen them but A LOT of fans have.

 

[Ron*]

As you've surmised in earlier posts, I have very high standards for what I consider "journalism," and I hold myself to them. That said, I don't have a problem with the story in question, given the plethora of examples that are out there, including those often occuring at games. Maybe you haven't seen them but A LOT of fans have.

I'm inclined to let this go as I've said just about everything I wanted to say on the matter, but if you are going to continue to make unsubstantiated claims, well, I'm sorry but I am going to have to call you on it.

I took the time and collectively counted the number of responses you and the writer got on your twitter posts and correct me if I'm wrong but 11 posters agreed with the writer's stance while it appeared 3 disagreed with it, or were otherwise not swayed. On this thread, there are a lot of responses but only 4 appeared to agree with the writer while 14 did not.

Unfortunately, the writer doesn't have a comments section for his article, where we could get a better idea directly how many people agreed with his take and how many people do not.

That's it. There is no other evidence that "A LOT" of fans have seen this type of behavior. 11 Twitter responses supporting you and the writer's claims isn't persuasive to me.

To sum it up, the writer really has no basis for his claim. The commentary really didn't need to be written. It would have been very interesting to me what kind of response he would have received if his commentary allowed a comments section.

 

[FrozenRoyalty]

I'm inclined to let this go as I've said just about everything I wanted to say on the matter, but if you are going to continue to make unsubstantiated claims, well, I'm sorry but I am going to have to call you on it.

I took the time and collectively counted the number of responses you and the writer got on your twitter posts and correct me if I'm wrong but 11 posters agreed with the writer's stance while it appeared 3 disagreed with it, or were otherwise not swayed. On this thread, there are a lot of responses but only 4 appeared to agree with the writer while 14 did not.

Unfortunately, the writer doesn't have a comments section for his article, where we could get a better idea directly how many people agreed with his take and how many people do not.

That's it. There is no other evidence that "A LOT" of fans have seen this type of behavior. 11 Twitter responses supporting you and the writer's claims isn't persuasive to me.

To sum it up, the writer really has no basis for his claim. The commentary really didn't need to be written. It would have been very interesting to me what kind of response he would have received if his commentary allowed a comments section.

Just because you refuse to see them doesn't mean their unsubstantiated. Besides, do you honestly expect anyone to get this stuff on video or audio, demand identification from those responsible and present to you? Get real.

Also, that web site doesn't have a comment section because it's not really a blog, as you've claimed.

Sure seems like you're working really hard to paint a rose-colored picture of the Kings fan base by denying that this stuff is more of a problem than you believe, simply because you haven't seen it and by claiming that those who have aren't credible because they don't have names of those responsible or aren't citing dates, times, etc. so that the claims can be substantiated.

Who's going to bother to do that?

Again, get real.

 

[Ron*]

Just because you refuse to see them doesn't mean their unsubstantiated. Besides, do you honestly expect anyone to get this stuff on video or audio, demand identification from those responsible and present to you? Get real.

Also, that web site doesn't have a comment section because it's not really a blog, as you've claimed.

Sure seems like you're working really hard to paint a rose-colored picture of the Kings fan base by denying that this stuff is more of a problem than you believe, simply because you haven't seen it and by claiming that those who have aren't credible because they don't have names of those responsible or aren't citing dates, times, etc. so that the claims can be substantiated.

Who's going to bother to do that?

Again, get real.

You've said that a number of times now, and now I am going to ask you point out where exactly I have said either of you guys are not credible or where I have asked for names, dates, times.

I am not "working hard to paint a rose-colored picture of Kings fans" because I know Kings fans are passionate about their team just as other fans are passionate about their team. The reason why I went into detail about the numbers of people who are presenting themselves on their position in regard to the article was to point out to you the only substantiation that exists, and that those numbers are minuscule to what you and the author are claiming.

If you are going to attempt to mischaracterize my position and/or my statements, and then try to attack those mischaracterizations (an old debating trick), then I think we are done here. As took420s mentioned above, it was a poorly sourced article without substance. That's my position as well, and we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

I suspect that a major reason why you won't venture to write such a negative article yourself about Kings fans on your own website is because you know you will have to go in depth to do it and that might turn off readers. You would lose readership, and that is something your website cannot afford as it is concentrated 100% on the Los Angeles Kings. The AXS web site can get away with such a hit-and-run article because of its diversity (and as you say, the lack of a comments section).

One last thing, and then you can have the last word on this subject, if you wish. At a time that we are supposed to be celebrating two titles in three seasons (an amazing accomplishment in the salary cap era), this hit-and-run article did not need to be written or published. It is a downer and was totally unnecessary. Sometimes, journalistic responsibility includes NOT writing articles that can be seen as intentionally divisive. It reflects poorly on the writer and the medium for which it appears, in my opinion.

 

[TonySCV]

I think we are done here.

Agreed.