News Article: Rachel Doerrie has left the Canucks

[Icebreakers]

Damn they took down the podcast she was in with PointShot where she bashed Luke Hughes.

 

[F A N]

The notion that she would just invent a story out of thin air is ludicrous. Same with Sekeres and the IV thing.

These are professionals who care about their reputation and care about relationships they build in their industry. They aren't out there just intentionally destroying their careers and credibility by inventing nonsense.

The fact that someone somewhere once lied about something doesn't mean that there is an epidemic of people in the local sports media acting like total sociopaths and inventing stories.

Like, when a report doesn't appear to be true, these are the options :

1) Reporter believed they were reporting something correct but there was a breakdown in the chain of information.

2) Story is true but the parties involved have done a good job issuing a denial.

3) REPORTER IS A SOCIOPATH INVENTING AND PUBLISHING NONSENSE THAT THEY MADE UP!

It's absolutely f***ing insane that people default to (3) instead of the much more obvious and logical alternatives.

Okay. So you said that Sekeres didn't lie. Let's think about this logically.

Sekeres: Hughes has the roughest go with Covid. He had to use an IV.

Many Canucks players: openly talks about the symptoms they went through.

Brandon Sutter's dad: goes on radio saying he's worried about his son.

Hughes: I don't know where that comes from. I wasn't on IV.

Bieska; It's a false report.

So Hughes lied and Bieksa backed him up when all other Canucks players were openly sharing about what they went through with COVID? Only Hughes is lying about the severity of his symptoms because Sekeres would never make things up and risk his career according to you. It simply isn't a thing according to you. What a bizarre thing to believe you asked.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Exaggerating a story about yourself (basically resume-padding) is not the same thing as inventing stories about others. And one of the people you're listing isn't even a media member.

The fact that someone somewhere once lied about something doesn't mean that there is an epidemic of people in the local sports media acting like total sociopaths and inventing stories.

Like, when a report doesn't appear to be true, these are the options :

1) Reporter believed they were reporting something correct but there was a breakdown in the chain of information.

2) Story is true but the parties involved have done a good job issuing a denial.

3) REPORTER IS A SOCIOPATH INVENTING AND PUBLISHING NONSENSE THAT THEY MADE UP!

It's absolutely f***ing insane that people default to (3) instead of the much more obvious and logical alternatives.

You're leaving out one more obvious possibility -- when a journalist reasonably doubts someone's information is true, or knows it probably isn't, but reports it anyway because it fits with their angle on a story or person. A good example is Botchford reporting he'd been told the Sharks offered the 9th overall for Ryan Miller. I think Botchford had to have realized this information was almost certainly incomplete or false but reported it anyway and deliberately didn't undermine it by appraising it honestly at the same time. Like Doerrie (if memory serves) he took pains to emphasize he'd heard it and didn't explicitly claim to believe it. And to the extent that reporting a rumour without questioning it implies you believe it's more likely than not to be true, I think both of them were probably lying.

Full disclosure, I also just find Doerrie annoying. She's like the computerized radio DJ on the Simpsons, hitting canned stereotypically millennial turns of phrase on cue that aren't funny even when they are said organically or infrequently.

 

[MarkMM]

I'm blocked by him for good reason, but good to know there's a reason to check in

I'm unfamiliar, is he on Twitter? Can anyone share his handle?

 

[MS]

Okay. So you said that Sekeres didn't lie. Let's think about this logically.

Sekeres: Hughes has the roughest go with Covid. He had to use an IV.

Many Canucks players: openly talks about the symptoms they went through.

Brandon Sutter's dad: goes on radio saying he's worried about his son.

Hughes: I don't know where that comes from. I wasn't on IV.

Bieska; It's a false report.

So Hughes lied and Bieksa backed him up when all other Canucks players were openly sharing about what they went through with COVID? Only Hughes is lying about the severity of his symptoms because Sekeres would never make things up and risk his career according to you. It simply isn't a thing according to you. What a bizarre thing to believe you asked.

Jesus, man.

Yes, Hughes may have had a saline bag and then denied it for whatever reason.

More likely something may have been mixed up in the information he received and it was a different player (Sutter?) who had to have an IV.

Information that passed through two or three sources may have gotten garbled.

But I'll guarantee you that Sekeres didn't just wake up and decide with no source or evidence to say that Hughes was on an IV and risk making himself look like a fool. Like, why the f*** would he do that? It makes absolutely zero sense to report something that specific about a specific player if you don't believe it to be true. He has nothing to gain, it's easily disproven, and it harms his career. It would be absolutely idiotic. And sociopathic.

And yes, it is absolutely f***ing insane to believe that it's more likely that a reporter just 'makes stuff up' than that they honestly presented bad information that they thought was correct.

 

[im gangster]

I'm unfamiliar, is he on Twitter? Can anyone share his handle?

Appears to be-

https://twitter.com/drtejdhaliwal?s=21

 

[Vector]

Jesus, man.

Yes, Hughes may have had a saline bag and then denied it for whatever reason.

More likely something may have been mixed up in the information he received and it was a different player (Sutter?) who had to have an IV.

Information that passed through two or three sources may have gotten garbled.

But I'll guarantee you that Sekeres didn't just wake up and decide with no source or evidence to say that Hughes was on an IV and risk making himself look like a fool. Like, why the f*** would he do that? It makes absolutely zero sense to report something that specific about a specific player if you don't believe it to be true. He has nothing to gain, it's easily disproven, and it harms his career. It would be absolutely idiotic. And sociopathic.

And yes, it is absolutely f***ing insane to believe that it's more likely that a reporter just 'makes stuff up' than that they honestly presented bad information that they thought was correct.

Saw confirmation earlier in the season that it was Sutter on the IV. May have been others, it’s not uncommon for sports players to get team doctors to put them on a quick IV to replenish fluids faster. Definitely been used to cure hangovers.

 

[Aphid Attraction]

Your username is severely underrated.

Thanks

 

[overboard]

Not sure why some are worried because of what she said as a media person. We are hiring her for her analytics, not the media side. Saying shit to get clicks/views and analyzing hockey are distinctively different skill sets.

This. These are two different roles, and the behavioural coding is different for each of them.

However, having said that - I don't think she gets a blanket pass for any past hot takes because of the "young" card either. Pot-stirring communications shouldn't get excused because "youth". If I were in upper management, I wouldn't accept this kind of interaction from anyone of any human variety.

Play well with others, contribute with respect, etc. Now that she's in the fold of an organization that has many moving parts, I would expect that she would modulate any contentious behaviour moving forward.

She's young, yes, but seems bright enough. Courageous too. Give her a chance to navigate this. It's likely to turn out just fine in the end.

 

[Melvin]

Why did she seemingly have so much to say about the Canucks? She's seemingly from Toronto ... is there another connection? Or is it just that the Canucks have been the butt of all jokes for the last 7 years.

 

[Peen]

Why did she seemingly have so much to say about the Canucks? She's seemingly from Toronto ... is there another connection? Or is it just that the Canucks have been the butt of all jokes for the last 7 years.

I think the Canucks were an easy one to talk about - especially the last 3.5 calendar years. You had the Beagle/Roussel/Schaller summer meme. Then you had the Myers/Ferland summer along with the constant debates about the value of going all in on that team and they overperformed and it was league-wide discussion. Then, we had the Tanev/Markstrom/Toffoli/Stecher summer and the worst season in franchise history w/ the COVID breakout. This season, we fell on our face and then the changes started. It was all worthy of league-wide discussion.

She also just said straight up that her and her co-host have just taken a particular interest in watching Vancouver the past few years.

 

[Hit the post]

every time you access a memory, you alter the memory.

human memory is extremely, extremely bad. Even for “vivid memories” that people would bet large amounts on.

 

[kanucks25]

First I'm hearing of this Tej character... any relation to Taj?

 

[MS]

Saw confirmation earlier in the season that it was Sutter on the IV. May have been others, it’s not uncommon for sports players to get team doctors to put them on a quick IV to replenish fluids faster. Definitely been used to cure hangovers.

Absolutely - saline bags are not uncommon at all.

But yes - the most likely explanation for this is that somehow there was some sort of mis-communication somewhere along the information chain and Sekeres named the wrong Canuck as the player on the IV. Not that he was out there just making stuff up for no apparent reason.

And I'm not trying to defend Sekeres in any way here. It seems like he's a sloppy reporter and doesn't vet some of his sources well enough. But he isn't out there 'making stuff up'.

 

[MS]

You're leaving out one more obvious possibility -- when a journalist reasonably doubts someone's information is true, or knows it probably isn't, but reports it anyway because it fits with their angle on a story or person. A good example is Botchford reporting he'd been told the Sharks offered the 9th overall for Ryan Miller. I think Botchford had to have realized this information was almost certainly incomplete or false but reported it anyway and deliberately didn't undermine it by appraising it honestly at the same time. Like Doerrie (if memory serves) he took pains to emphasize he'd heard it and didn't explicitly claim to believe it. And to the extent that reporting a rumour without questioning it implies you believe it's more likely than not to be true, I think both of them were probably lying.

Full disclosure, I also just find Doerrie annoying. She's like the computerized radio DJ on the Simpsons, hitting canned stereotypically millennial turns of phrase on cue that aren't funny even when they are said organically or infrequently.

I've said many times that I feel that the most likely explanation for the Miller-9th thing is that it was incomplete information and that Miller and the 9th were involved in discussions about a larger package including Kevin Bieksa and involving us taking back a bad contract the other way.

That rumour is fascinating because it's never been explicitly debunked ... but a huge percentage of this fanbase has just decided that it's debunked because it couldn't possibly be true.

 

[bandwagonesque]

I've said many times that I feel that the most likely explanation for the Miller-9th thing is that it was incomplete information and that Miller and the 9th were involved in discussions about a larger package including Kevin Bieksa and involving us taking back a bad contract the other way.

This is exactly the phenomenon I'm talking about. Anyone with as much common sense and experience as Botchford probably felt similarly but didn't say so because he wanted people to believe unflattering things about Canucks' management, and wanted people to think he believed this rumour even though he didn't. I suspect the Pettersson/Doerrie thing was probably similar. Calling this behaviour anything other than lying strikes me as obfuscation.

That rumour is fascinating because it's never been explicitly debunked ... but a huge percentage of this fanbase has just decided that it's debunked because it couldn't possibly be true.

I've never seen anyone say it's been "debunked," ie contradicted by anything. Lots of people, including myself, have said stuff along the lines of, "well, this is obviously bullshit."

 

[rypper]

First I'm hearing of this Tej character... any relation to Taj?

No two different accounts.

 

[Vector]

We have a whole thread to talk about the Miller for a 9th and the media’s reporting of that. Kinda grown past hiring Doerrie now.

As an aside, I was at the Season Ticket holder event where Benning said he had a great offer presented to him for Miller but turned it down. Boy did he get booed for that. I know for a fact that a couple other posters were there too.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

I had hopes that @Melvin would get the gig... but this hiring is alright, I guess.

 

[SeawaterOnIce]

I had hopes that @Melvin would get the gig... but this hiring is alright, I guess.

Guy has a zero tolerance for bs. He would get snarky with the reporters.

 

[arttk]

This. These are two different roles, and the behavioural coding is different for each of them.

However, having said that - I don't think she gets a blanket pass for any past hot takes because of the "young" card either. Pot-stirring communications shouldn't get excused because "youth". If I were in upper management, I wouldn't accept this kind of interaction from anyone of any human variety.

Play well with others, contribute with respect, etc. Now that she's in the fold of an organization that has many moving parts, I would expect that she would modulate any contentious behaviour moving forward.

She's young, yes, but seems bright enough. Courageous too. Give her a chance to navigate this. It's likely to turn out just fine in the end.

We are not going to find out what she actually does or the decisions that she will have had influenced. A lot of this talk about her qualifications probably won’t be there if she was a guy. I mean did we talk this much when gear or wall got promoted? We didn’t know shit about them and it was like uhh ok sure whatever. The Canucks with more competent leadership made a decision that she was good enough to be hired for this role. If the team does well and she gets promoted then we will know she’s good. If she gets fired in a bit and the team sucks then we might know that perhaps not.

 

[Melvin]

I had hopes that @Melvin would get the gig... but this hiring is alright, I guess.

dont rule me out!

(probably rule me out. The pay is likely lousy and I don’t want to move again.)

 

[LordBacon]

dont rule me out!

(probably rule me out. The pay is likely lousy and I don’t want to move again.)

Work from home, duh

 

[bossram]

Gotta give it to Rutherford. He said he wanted to get more diverse, have different voices, and expand the analytics department. I hope it doesn't stop here but she sounds like a fantastic start.

Yep. I'm very happy with the hire.

I remember reading her articles when she was with the Athletic. I think she's got a great analytical mind and some genuine insights that will help an NHL club.

 

[bossram]

She’s a woman who said some mean things

Pretty much. So many guys are too fragile to grow up.