News Article: Rachel Doerrie has left the Canucks

[wonton15]

In case I missed someone else touching on it, the time line for the Aquilini tweet doesn't add up.

Donnie and Dhali mentioned her being let go about 15 min into their show, so 10:15 say. (They run 10-12.) Right before Jeff Paterson comes on.

Wyatt Arndt made the tweet at 12:26. She liked the tweet sometime after that.

I don’t think people were saying it was because she liked the tweet. It was moreso that she liked it after the Dhaliwal rumour came out, which is a weird thing to like on your public twitter account if you were still employed by said boss. So the timing of it added fuel to the speculation fire, thats all.

 

[nowhereman]

There's a pretty big difference between speculating on why a public persona has been let go from an organization and whether or not someone raped a minor or beat their children, especially when said person was very vocally critical of the organization. Drawing the comparison is essentially moral posturing for the purpose of suggesting someone is sexist and it's pretty tired. There has been constant speculation about the going-ons of this organization, boasting some pretty wild reaches, so what's the difference here?

 

[im gangster]

Shockingly, all of the same people who were saying you can't rush to judgement on Virtanen and the Aquilini stuff look like Usian Bolt in the 100m as they rush to judgement with no facts of any sort here. I wonder what the common denominator is?

This whole thing is super strange. It could be a lot of things. I was a bit surprised when she was hired here given some of her comments about the organization and some of the people in it (including high-profile players) when she was in the media - especially given how she got that info - and wondered if that was vetted and cleared before the hiring? Or just not noticed? And wondered if it would ever come back to bite her.

You are wrong. Those particular people don’t make any fast judgements. They always like to do their own research. So they’re a little slow.

 

[Peen]

Media people don't 'make things up'.

Sometimes things can get muddled and end up incorrect, especially when it's indirect sources, but nobody goes and invents a story. It's a ludicrous notion.

Except Sekeres at this point

There's a pretty big difference between speculating on why a public persona has been let go from an organization and whether or not someone raped a minor or beat their children, especially when said person was very vocally critical of the organization. Drawing the comparison is essentially moral posturing for the purpose of suggesting someone is sexist and it's pretty tired. There has been constant speculation about the going-ons of this organization, so what's the difference here?

There's also a distinction that you're missing where there's people making accusations against JV/FA in what you're referencing while here, there has been no accusation that came across Doerrie.

Don't really want get into that more but I do think that's an important distinction.

In a way, it reminds me of the speculation around Ime Udoka this past week where as the reason as to why he was removed as coach was unknown and people speculated and unfairly assumed things about the wrong people.

I get what you're saying here to a certain extent, don't get me wrong. I do agree the background is relevant and I stated it's not a great look for Doerrie as well if she's gone within 8 months, but we still don't know why. Nothing has been stated yet.

 

[im gangster]

Except Sekeres at this point

There's also a distinction that you're missing where there's people making accusations against JV/FA in what you're referencing while here, there has been no accusation that came across Doerrie.

Don't really want get into that more but I do think that's an important distinction.

I get what you're saying here to a certain extent, don't get me wrong.

In a way, it reminds me of the speculation around Ime Udoka this past week where as the reason as to why he was removed as coach was unknown and people speculated and unfairly assumed things about the wrong people.

Wasn’t the celts skipper putting it in an underling?

 

[Peen]

Wasn’t the celts skipper putting it in an underling?

No one knows yet. It has not been revealed publicly. Apparently, even the celtics players have been told that the management is not able to tell them exactly what happened for legal reasons.

There's been a lot of speculation about what has happened and wrong assumptions about who the female was in that case.

Not saying the context is the same. I should clarify - the speculation that I'm saying is unfair is regarding how female staffers on the Celtics were incorrectly assumed to be a part of it and what their role was and a bunch of other nonsense.

 

[MS]

Have you read/heard the stuff Sekeres produces?

And this is my point exactly.

HURR DURR SEKERES MADE UP A STORY ABOUT HUGHES BEING ON IV!

And of course he didn't. It's ridiculous. No reporter would make up a false, easily deniable, easily proven wrong story like that which is guaranteed to embarrass them and reduce their all-important credibility.

Sekeres is a terrible reporter who has run with stories without vetting them properly. But he isn't 'making stuff up'. In that case, what I suspect happened is that the extremely sick Brandon Sutter was on IV or given a fluid bag and that somewhere in the chain of information the name got switched and Sekeres didn't double-check the story well enough and ran with it prematurely. And that makes sense. Making stories up does not make sense.

And then, of course, we also often see this effect happening :

Media : *reports embarrassing story*

Team : We, uh, predictably deny this embarrassing story!

Fans : OMG, see? The reporter just totally made it up!

 

[krutovsdonut]

i think the fact doerrie just got untimely let go from her second hockey team raises enough red flags that a little speculation on why would be justified., but i think there are so many possibilities we are just farting in the wind trying to guess which one.

there must be 50 ways to lose your dream job.

 

[sting101]

Could care less. This person has done fuxx all for this organization and they will find someone bright to take her place if they want

Full disclaimer that i dont know anything factual or want to get involved in yet another morality discussion but if after 8 months you cant walk the line and put your head down do a great job and not piss off people who have made an impact and have reputations then good riddance.

 

[krutovsdonut]

reporters in this market absolutely make shit up trying to generate enough content to fill airtime.

ms has a remarkable blindspot for this going back a long way. i am not sure why. one could speculate.

 

[MS]

reporters in this market absolutely make shit up trying to generate enough content to fill airtime.

ms has a remarkable blindspot for this going back a long way. i am not sure why. one could speculate.

I honestly can't believe that people actually think this happens.

There are bad reporters here. There are reporters who prematurely run with stories based on bad/suspect sources and get it wrong. Bad reporting happens. It doesn't mean that the bad reporter is making stuff up.

Inventing specific, easily disprovable stories is career suicide and no media member is doing this. Ever. But fans who need to be introduced to Occam's Razor run with this as the explanation every time.

 

[StreetHawk]

And this is my point exactly.

HURR DURR SEKERES MADE UP A STORY ABOUT HUGHES BEING ON IV!

And of course he didn't. It's ridiculous. No reporter would make up a false, easily deniable, easily proven wrong story like that which is guaranteed to embarrass them and reduce their all-important credibility.

Sekeres is a terrible reporter who has run with stories without vetting them properly. But he isn't 'making stuff up'. In that case, what I suspect happened is that the extremely sick Brandon Sutter was on IV or given a fluid bag and that somewhere in the chain of information the name got switched and Sekeres didn't double-check the story well enough and ran with it prematurely. And that makes sense. Making stories up does not make sense.

And then, of course, we also often see this effect happening :

Media : *reports embarrassing story*

Team : We, uh, predictably deny this embarrassing story!

Fans : OMG, see? The reporter just totally made it up!

Isn’t the job of the reporter to check the sources? Reporting something that ultimately turns out not to be true that they could have vetted is about as bad as it gets for a sports reporter. The thing with Quinn in the IV could have been vetted.
This isn’t reporting on a trade rumour and then a GM denying talking to another GM about a player. As the GM won’t want to let their guys know that they were potentially on the block.
Unless they don’t consider that their reputation means something.

 

[Peen]

And this is my point exactly.

HURR DURR SEKERES MADE UP A STORY ABOUT HUGHES BEING ON IV!

And of course he didn't. It's ridiculous. No reporter would make up a false, easily deniable, easily proven wrong story like that which is guaranteed to embarrass them and reduce their all-important credibility.

Sekeres is a terrible reporter who has run with stories without vetting them properly. But he isn't 'making stuff up'. In that case, what I suspect happened is that the extremely sick Brandon Sutter was on IV or given a fluid bag and that somewhere in the chain of information the name got switched and Sekeres didn't double-check the story well enough and ran with it prematurely. And that makes sense. Making stories up does not make sense.

And then, of course, we also often see this effect happening :

Media : *reports embarrassing story*

Team : We, uh, predictably deny this embarrassing story!

Fans : OMG, see? The reporter just totally made it up!

i mean i don't think there's much of a point of drawing the line between making up/not properly vetting with sekeres

i think it's pretty potato potahto

with everyone not named sekeres, sure. but with sekeres, i don't think it matters how you describe him. either way it's terrible journalism

the whole ciara mccormack thing also bothers me sekers as well

 

[bobbyb2009]

I honestly can't believe that people actually think this happens.

There are bad reporters here. There are reporters who prematurely run with stories based on bad/suspect sources and get it wrong. Bad reporting happens. It doesn't mean that the bad reporter is making stuff up.

Inventing specific, easily disprovable stories is career suicide and no media member is doing this. Ever. But fans who need to be introduced to Occam's Razor run with this as the explanation every time.

I believe it is about the spectrum of truth. Not a binary choice between truth and making shit up.

It is not that they invent some completely false story from nothing, I will agree (at least this is very rare, I would think). Instead, however, it is not rare for a writer/reporter to take something; a rumour, a nugget, the beginnings of a story and draw a false context or narrative from that beginning. The end result can be stories that end up looking very different from the underlying inherent facts. And this is what some mean by "They make shit up." And to that definition, there is zero doubt that this happens a great deal in this or in any market.

Facts are framed either negatively or positively, but they are framed. And this framing creates a narrative that is so often so much not the complete story that the actual story is no longer perceived under it all.

 

[MS]

Isn’t the job of the reporter to check the sources? Reporting something that ultimately turns out not to be true that they could have vetted is about as bad as it gets for a sports reporter. The thing with Quinn in the IV could have been vetted.
This isn’t reporting on a trade rumour and then a GM denying talking to another GM about a player. As the GM won’t want to let their guys know that they were potentially on the block.
Unless they don’t consider that their reputation means something.

Of course it is. Like I said, there are bad reporters doing bad reporting. There is a lot of pressure to be first to a scoop and some guys run with stuff before they've done the proper legwork.

And absolutely that deserves to be criticized. Like I said, Sekeres is a crappy reporter. And if someone is hesitant in believing a scoop from him because his track record is spotty ... fair enough.

But again, nobody is 'making stuff up'. Reporters are reporting stuff they believe to be true. Some of them are just more thorough and accurate than others.

 

[MS]

i mean i don't think there's much of a point of drawing the line between making up/not properly vetting with sekeres

i think it's pretty potato potahto

with everyone not named sekeres, sure. but with sekeres, i don't think it matters how you describe him. either way it's terrible journalism

the whole ciara mccormack thing also bothers me sekers as well

I think there is a huge moral difference between sloppily reporting something you believe to be true and intentionally reporting falsehoods.

I believe it is about the spectrum of truth. Not a binary choice between truth and making shit up.

It is not that they invent something completely false story from nothing, I will agree (at least this is very rare, I would think). Instead, however, it is not rare for a writer/reporter to take something; a rumour, a nugget, the beginnings of a story and draw a false context or narrative from that beginning. The end result can be stories that end up looking very different from the underlying inherent facts. And this is what some mean by "They make shit up." And to that definition, there is zero doubt that this happens a great deal in this or in any market.

Facts are framed either negatively or positively, but they are framed. And this framing creates a narrative that is so often so much not the complete story that the actual story is no longer perceived under it all.

For sure that happens to an extent.

In the Hughes IV example, though, the story was so simple and so wrong that it could only have come from a bad source. There wasn't a spin to it - it was a report of a fairly simple thing that Sekeres believed to be a fact.

It's no different than the Seravalli/Mikheyev thing today. Seravelli - normally an excellent reporter, way above Sekeres' level - tweeted out something that turned out a few hours later to be 100% wrong. Again, nothing to spin, just a fact that was wrong. And again, bad source not vetted properly.

 

[krutovsdonut]

I honestly can't believe that people actually think this happens.

There are bad reporters here. There are reporters who prematurely run with stories based on bad/suspect sources and get it wrong. Bad reporting happens. It doesn't mean that the bad reporter is making stuff up.

Inventing specific, easily disprovable stories is career suicide and no media member is doing this. Ever. But fans who need to be introduced to Occam's Razor run with this as the explanation every time.

without proper editors keeping the reporters honest, journalism is a shit show and most sports reporters these days have no editors.

there are bad reporters and then there are bad reporters trying to fill air time as on air personalities and too busy to even do what they did as bad reporters.

and how exactly is prematurely running with bad or suspect sources you have no vetted not lying if you don't disclose that when you report it? when you report a story aren't you representing to the public that you have properly vetted the facts everytime unless you put in a disclaimer? so aren't you lying if you run a story with a source you doubt and have not verified without telling the public you are running on fumes.

most of the lying i am talking about is the gilding of the lily and/or playing dumb that on air personalities do all day long here to get to the next commercial break. all the bullshit where they report on rumours or tweets or someone else's story or the thinnest of source, sometimes knowing the whole time the story is crap.

 

[MS]

without proper editors keeping the reporters honest, journalism is a shit show and most sports reporters these days have no editors.

there are bad reporters and then there are bad reporters trying to fill air time as on air personalities and too busy to even do what they did as bad reporters.

and how exactly is prematurely running with bad or suspect sources you have no vetted not lying if you don't disclose that when you report it? when you report a story aren't you representing to the public that you have properly vetted the facts everytime unless you put in a disclaimer? so aren't you lying if you run a story with a source you doubt and have not verified without telling the public you are running on fumes.

most of the lying i am talking about is the gilding of the lily and/or playing dumb that on air personalities do all day long here to get to the next commercial break. all the bullshit where they report on rumours or tweets or someone else's story or the thinnest of source, sometimes knowing the whole time the story is crap.

Again : sloppily running with something you believe to be true is not 'lying' or 'making things up'.

You can criticize bad journalism without this kind of absolute hyperbolic nonsense.

 

[bobbyb2009]

I think there is a huge moral difference between sloppily reporting something you believe to be true and intentionally reporting falsehoods.



For sure that happens to an extent.

In the Hughes IV example, though, the story was so simple and so wrong that it could only have come from a bad source. There wasn't a spin to it - it was a report of a fairly simple thing that Sekeres believed to be a fact.

It's no different than the Seravalli/Mikheyev thing today. Seravelli - normally an excellent reporter, way above Sekeres' level - tweeted out something that turned out a few hours later to be 100% wrong. Again, nothing to spin, just a fact that was wrong. And again, bad source not vetted properly.

Yes, I agree. In these two cases, it would be incredibly unlikely that Sekeres made up the IV story by fabrication; and it is equally as unlikely that Servalli made up the Mikheyev story. Somewhere, almost certainly, they had sources that suggested these things were happening or possible.

The fact that they chose to write those stories, however, is a part of the framing fabrication.

Almost every story we read by these people has some sort of narrative behind it. For example, if Servalli "wanted" to believe the story because he was on the side of the Canucks paid too much for the ex Maple leafs player, then he is more likely to send his tweet. If Sekeres was on a Canucks are falling apart rant and a COVID is destroying everything path; so Hughes is dying would be his framing. It is like they write whatever confirms their bias rather than actually reporting with clarity and attempted intellectual honesty.

 

[bobbyb2009]

I think there is a huge moral difference between sloppily reporting something you believe to be true and intentionally reporting falsehoods.

This is more than Fair!!!!

But I do think that the idea that you write it because you think it to be true can be almost as dangerous (when you have not done enough to KNOW it is true) than when you intentionally report falsehoods, because as you say, the falsehoods are easier to disprove than the twisted narratives.

 

[MS]

Yes, I agree. In these two cases, it would be incredibly unlikely that Sekeres made up the IV story by fabrication; and it is equally as unlikely that Servalli made up the Mikheyev story. Somewhere, almost certainly, they had sources that suggested these things were happening or possible.

The fact that they chose to write those stories, however, is a part of the framing fabrication.

Almost every story we read by these people has some sort of narrative behind it. For example, if Servalli "wanted" to believe the story because he was on the side of the Canucks paid too much for the ex Maple leafs player, then he is more likely to send his tweet. If Sekeres was on a Canucks are falling apart rant and a COVID is destroying everything path; so Hughes is dying would be his framing. It is like they write whatever confirms their bias rather than actually reporting with clarity and attempted intellectual honesty.

Oh, absolutely. No argument there.

Reporters are human beings and just as prone to biases as everyone else. And for generations, reporters in city have flip-flopped as pro/anti management when management changes happened and their reporting has been coloured by that filter. And absolutely, when something lines up with your narrative it's probably human nature to get excited and run with it quicker than you would with something that goes against it.

Again, I'm not at all saying that we aren't subjected to bad and/or biased reporting. Constantly. It just drives me nuts when, whenever someone sees a story they don't like, the default response is LOL THE MEDIA JUST MAKING STUFF UP AGAIN as though people are inventing stories out of thin air. That simply doesn't happen.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Again : sloppily running with something you believe to be true is not 'lying' or 'making things up'.

You can criticize bad journalism without this kind of absolute hyperbolic nonsense.

ah, the old "honest but mistaken belief" defence. that's hilarious that you're suggesting that journalists, as some of the most cynical people alive, canl rely on such an argument to excuse their lapses of conscience and professional standards. they would never give that generous benefit of the doubt to a subject in a story of course, but i they should get it.

and i guess you're also saying sekeres must be a complete gullbile incompetent idiot given he has repeatedly honestly believed completed wrong poorly sourced unvetted sensational stories?

 

[MS]

ah, the old "honest but mistaken belief" defence. that's hilarious that you're suggesting that journalists, as some of the most cynical people alive, canl rely on such an argument to excuse their lapses of conscience and professional standards. they would never give that generous benefit of the doubt to a subject in a story of course, but i they should get it.

and i guess you're also saying sekeres must be a complete gullbile incompetent idiot given he has repeatedly honestly believed completed wrong poorly sourced unvetted sensational stories?

I've repeatedly said that Sekeres is an idiot. That's very obviously the case. He's a sloppy reporter who doesn't do his job well.

I just don't believe for a second that he's for some reason intentionally embarrassing himself by inventing wrong stories like the Hughes IV thing out of thin air.

 

[credulous]

it doesn't help that teams brazenly lie almost constantly. no one accuses the canucks of fake news when boeser is reported as being day to day and then it's revealed well actually he had wrist surgery and will be out a month. reporters have to skirt the edges of confirming their stories because teams will pretty much never be straight up with them except when it benefits them to do so

 

[Vector]