News Article: Rachel Doerrie has left the Canucks

[rypper]

Again -- what does this mean? How does it differ from the way literally any other team would handle it?

They've handled it by doing nothing until it snowballed into something they had to address, and did the bare minimum.

Another team might have recognized the error in doing that, and just got ahead of it by releasing a statement.

Edit... and this market isn't like every other market and the team should know that.

 

[Hodgy]

Why is the organization obliged to immediately explain to the public why they fired someone? I can't actually think of an example of a team explaining the departure of a low-level employee a day or two after firing them. Calling this a "veil of secrecy" is absurdly hyperbolized.

I always have a good laugh at how entitled the media sometimes are. Like, you aren't entitled to shit. You are the little fish that follows around the big fish and eats scraps or whatever is growing on the big fish. Now I get that its generally a symbiotic relationship in that the big fish benefits from the little fish, but at the end of the day, the little fish are not "entitled" to the scraps from the big fish.

Its one of the reasons I loved Mike Gillis, and why the media disliked him. Because Gillis knew that the media were entitled and didn't put up with their shit.

On a related note, I also find it funny that the media when whining about how entitled they are to certain information, seem to take the self-righteous position that they are acting for the people who need the information, and are just providing a generous service. Like, give me a break. You are looking out for you and are just trying to make money covering pro sports. Which is great, that's fine. I have no problem. But don't pretend its anything else than that.

 

[racerjoe]

They've handled it by doing nothing until it snowballed into something they had to address, and did the bare minimum.

Another team might have recognized the error in doing that, and just got ahead of it by releasing a statement.

Edit... and this market isn't like every other market and the team should know that.

I would add this employee isn't like others, and I would even add the timing of the FA news.

Situations and circumstances can be different between two people with the same position

 

[TruGr1t]

They've handled it by doing nothing until it snowballed into something they had to address, and did the bare minimum.

Another team might have recognized the error in doing that, and just got ahead of it by releasing a statement.

Edit... and this market isn't like every other market and the team should know that.

Canucks PR has been brutal for a long time, so not sure that's particularly surprising.

 

[Killer Orcas]

She could be fired for as simple reasons as being a bad fit or being toxic. If JR fired her (which would be his call) then there is likely good reasons.

If that's the reason why create so much controversy by not just saying it? Something strange has happened indeed.

 

[Kryten]

So I have no clue who this was when hired, no clue now that shes fired, no clue why its a big deal, no clue about Vancouver sports journalists. Why is this such a big deal? Is it because shes a woman, a young person, analytics?

 

[Killer Orcas]

So I have no clue who this was when hired, no clue now that shes fired, no clue why its a big deal, no clue about Vancouver sports journalists. Why is this such a big deal? Is it because shes a woman, a young person, analytics?

A very loud outspoken women who doesn't shy from airing here opinion. Hence why she so quiet now? Also she's been fired twice now from NHL teams in short stints. Add it's Vancouver and you know were a curious bunch.

 

[F A N]

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.

What’s your favourite tabloid?

I don’t know why anyone here would defend a journalist or media person for making shit up. It’s like if a media person was reporting that a celebrity couple was having marital problems (true) and then add something completely untrue and made up like “I heard there were multiple affairs involved” and this is just a mistake? Not enough time to verify? Where is the accountability? And why so gullible?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...fe32d0-acc0-11e4-9c91-e9d2f9fde644_story.html

 

[MarkMM]

Over/under on when they release a statement this Friday afternoon? Classic Canucks move

Wait...is the bet on whether a statement will come out from the Canucks, or whether it will address Doerrie or the child abuse, or both? Just too much going on!

But when a reporter claims to have heard something there's absolutely no way to distinguish what they actually heard and what they made up because they deemed it likely or within the realm of possibility. And then later they can simply shrug and say whoever they heard it from, who is never named and rarely even localized to a certain organization or profession, must have had it wrong, gosh darn them.

This is very true. And where I've seen bias come in. When it aligns with what they want the story to be (often because that's what they originally reported) then anything and everything goes, but if it refutes what a reporter believes / has reported, suddenly it's they need to do their due diligence.

It's human nature and not unique to reporters, but definitely something that muddies the falsely clear line of "had sources or didn't have sources".

There are obviously people who are going to be quick to go after her because she's a woman, but there's also quite a big difference between jumping behind allegations of serious crimes like sexual assault and child abuse, and saying a known lippy person was probably fired for being lippy.

As much as there are some going after her for being a woman (thankfully haven't seen too much of that), there's also a bit of a knee-jerk white knight overreaction where any critique or even interest in the issue is derided as "sexist piling on" (looking at you Cam Robinson). Man or woman, she had hot takes that upset people and sure, some of those people are feeling she wasn't going to be a good fit and are at worst feeling proven right or otherwise people are just thinking this is a lesson in professionalism, regardless of age or gender. But trying to reduce everything to #ButSexism #BeBetter is lame.

...while he was busy winning Stanley Cups..?

Yup, Rutherford (or the loud-mouth Brian Burke) has earned his stripes, so if they create controversy you can weigh it against their track record. When you're young enough to have no track record, then there's not a lot to balance off against any drama you might bring.

 

[Weltschmerz]

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.

Claas Relotius - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[MS]

What’s your favourite tabloid?

I don’t know why anyone here would defend a journalist or media person for making shit up. It’s like if a media person was reporting that a celebrity couple was having marital problems (true) and then add something completely untrue and made up like “I heard there were multiple affairs involved” and this is just a mistake? Not enough time to verify? Where is the accountability? And why so gullible?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...fe32d0-acc0-11e4-9c91-e9d2f9fde644_story.html

Reporting on the Vancouver Canucks is not the same as the National Enquirer reporting on celebrities.

The fact you can find the odd bizarre case in international news over a period of decades does not mean that this is regularly happening in Vancouver Canucks coverage.

Again, Occam's Razor. The simple, obvious explanation is just bad reporting and running with stories without properly vetting them. The crazy explanation is that reporters are bizarrely fabricating easily disprovable stories and destroying their credibility for no apparent reason in the process.

I'm not 'defending reporters for making shit up'. If any reporter actually intentionally made shit up, that person should never work again in this market and I would be their loudest critic. But it doesn't happen.

 

[racerjoe]

Claas Relotius - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Stephen Glass - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Closer to home...

 

[Hodgy]

I think MS' was too absolute in his point that journalists don't ever make things up. What he should have said is "Journalists almost never totally fabricate stories".

 

[bobbyb2009]

This thread

View attachment 589837

If the Canucks had reason or cause or a contractual right to terminate any non-NHLPA employee—I doubt you are going to hear anything publicly from them about it. They have zero obligation to disclose private information like that.

In fact, they likely have an obligation NOT to disclose such personal information!

 

[MS]

Stephen Glass - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Closer to home...

But again, the fact that you can only find a couple examples globally in a period of decades kind of proves my point.

And the stories these guys fabricated were generally of a different nature - total nonsense about invented people. They weren't real stories about real people. It's absolutely nothing like reporting that Quinn Hughes was on an IV.

I think MS' was too absolute in his point that journalists don't ever make things up. What he should have said is "Journalists almost never totally fabricate stories".

I mean, yes. I'm speaking generally.

It's like saying 'taking a coke machine defender who had 8 points in the CHL in the 2nd round never turns out' - if you back back over 30 years, sure, you'll probably find 1 or 2 cases that did work out ok.

 

[bobbyb2009]

The way they've handled it has only increased the focus on it.

This is someone a week ago the coach was raving about by name and then something happens and they go complete radio silence. The team has to know the market and how it would react. They've handled things terribly.

The team could very likely have an obligation to keep private what cause they had for firing her. Any release of her personal employment issues could be actionable.

Somehow we think that as fans, we are entitled to know everything. She is not a player on the team. She is an employee or contractor and has privacy rights. The team may well be responsible for keeping the reasons private.

This may be exactly the way they have to deal with it.

 

[F A N]

I don’t get the comparison to Brian Burke. Burke was the captain of his college team under Lou Lamoriello. On the advice of others, he went to law school at Harvard and became a player agent. Then he was mentored by Pat Quinn, became GM, and went to work for the league. You think Burke went around disrespecting people?

Burke clearly earned the respect of those he worked with and worked for (with the exception of non-hockey people). He also didn’t stop wearing a tie until he had a Stanley Cup ring?

I don’t know what happened to Rachel and I hope that if she was fired she was fired for cause and not for some BS reasons.

 

[MS]

I don’t get the comparison to Brian Burke. Burke was the captain of his college team under Lou Lamoriello. On the advice of others, he went to law school at Harvard and became a player agent. Then he was mentored by Pat Quinn, became GM, and went to work for the league. You think Burke went around disrespecting people?

Burke clearly earned the respect of those he worked with and worked for (with the exception of non-hockey people). He also didn’t stop wearing a tie until he had a Stanley Cup ring?

I don’t know what happened to Rachel and I hope that if she was fired she was fired for cause and not for some BS reasons.

I ... have you actually followed the career of Brian Burke?

Burke is a smart guy who was good at his job, and definitely made some friends in the OBC.

He's also a hothead asshole who has made countless enemies over the past 30 years by publicly fighting with agents, players, other GMs, and media members and insulting them in the media at pretty much every possible opportunity. He once tried to fight Kevin Lowe for the crime of ... signing an RFA to an offer sheet.

 

[Vector]

I ... have you actually followed the career of Brian Burke?

Burke is a smart guy who was good at his job, and definitely made some friends in the OBC.

He's also a hothead asshole who has made countless enemies over the past 30 years by publicly fighting with agents, players, other GMs, and media members and insulting them in the media at pretty much every possible opportunity. He once tried to fight Kevin Lowe for the crime of ... signing an RFA to an offer sheet.

Does noone remember Burke blasting Al Strachan on HNIC?

 

[mriswith]

Kind of funny to see this getting blown up into a big deal. 99% of the time no one would know or care if it were someone else but like Pattersson said, if you make a big deal of the hiring you can't avoid it being a big deal for the firing.

 

[racerjoe]

But again, the fact that you can only find a couple examples globally in a period of decades kind of proves my point.

And the stories these guys fabricated were generally of a different nature - total nonsense about invented people. They weren't real stories about real people. It's absolutely nothing like reporting that Quinn Hughes was on an IV.



I mean, yes. I'm speaking generally.

It's like saying 'taking a coke machine defender who had 8 points in the CHL in the 2nd round never turns out' - if you back back over 30 years, sure, you'll probably find 1 or 2 cases that did work out ok.

I mostly agree. I think @Hodgy had it right, you can't use absolutes with anything really. However I totally agree that I doubt most hockey reporters don't make things up. I think most are now just too fascinated by trying to be first. Its a huge problem in reporting its the twitter age.

 

[shottasasa]

This thread has gotten ridiculous. I’m not sure why people on here think they are entitled to an immediate explanation as to why a mid-level employee left the company. There are many reasons why they aren’t putting out a statement immediately and the fact that Dhaliwal, who is pretty plugged in with this team, has made it clear he isn’t comfortable talking about the details right now, should give everyone pause and to see how this plays out.

Patterson’s take is nonsense. The Canucks said they wanted to be progressive in their hiring and they followed through. Surely it’s good that they are helping to to chnage the industry? You can argue that maybe Doerrie wasn’t the right hire, but the at wasn’t what Pettersson took issue with. I don’t see why he feels an explanation needs to be given in what may be a sensitive situation for any number of reasons. This is the sort of thing that makes me dislike the man

 

[pitseleh]

Kind of funny to see this getting blown up into a big deal. 99% of the time no one would know or care if it were someone else but like Pattersson said, if you make a big deal of the hiring you can't avoid it being a big deal for the firing.

It’s also the timing.

If she was fired as part of the normal cycle of front office turnover, it probably wouldn’t be a big deal, but being fired (or quitting) right before the season is about to start is unusual.

If it was due to her being a difficult personality, why publicly promote her a week earlier rather than try to sweep this under the rug?

If it was due to her prior public comments, did they not do their due diligence before hiring her and how are they just finding out now?

Social media was plausible but Dhaliwal said that wasn’t it and you would think someone would have noticed something outrageous.

The whole thing points to something relatively major happening over the past week and the radio silence from the organization about it until now has only magnified the speculation that is the case. They didn’t have to release details about what happened but to have to wait this long to even receive an acknowledgment makes it seem like a big deal, even if it is not.

 

[Canucker]

Again -- what does this mean? How does it differ from the way literally any other team would handle it?

This thread has gotten ridiculous. I’m not sure why people on here think they are entitled to an immediate explanation as to why a mid-level employee left the company. There are many reasons why they aren’t putting out a statement immediately and the fact that Dhaliwal, who is pretty plugged in with this team, has made it clear he isn’t comfortable talking about the details right now,l should give everyone pause and to see how this plays out.

The team made a big deal about hiring this "mid-level employee", and used her as part of their re-imagined, "forward thinking" management team...they'd have to be kind of dense if they thought they'd be able to remove her without anyone asking questions about it...especially in this market.

 

[Vector]