Curious Hair wrote:
So let's talk about Dan's Kaner article. As usual, Dan is superficially upset that the Chicago media doesn't cover the Blackhawks like they're a major team. However, when anyone suggests that he devote time on his show to said major league team rather than, say, talking about how when he was in the CBA, Flip Saunders ran a TON of stuff, he pretty much flips his shit and says he doesn't have to because no one cares about the Blackhawks. So why all the dissatisfaction with the Hawks' treatment in the media? Do you not care that at a 20-year-old sports talk station whose personnel more than significantly overlaps that of the city's two (three with the Herald) newspapers, you, too, are the media? Do you really want the Blackhawks to be covered like they're on the same level as the other four teams in town? Or do you want the Blackhawks to be covered only on your terms, which is that their games are insignificant, their league is insignificant, but their visibly sodden punkass of a star player is a transcendent figure in Chicago sports only to the extent that he is a visibly sodden punkass?
That sure is the impression I got when they talked this story to death. A few callers said, "whoa, you guys are talking about hockey" or something to that effect, only to be met with "this isn't about hockey, this is about a Chicago sports figure who is in trouble" or something to that effect. You can't shit on the Blackhawks and their place in Chicago for years and then boil over with righteous indignation that nobody is treating a Patrick Kane misadventure like a Jay Cutler misadventure, or pout about how no one is this easy on "Derrick." Perception is reality, and this station has worked overtime to cultivate the perception that the Hawks don't matter, all the while running counter to the team's post-$Bill efforts to remind Chicago that they in fact do. If you want people to be as upset as they should be that one of the best players on our local team, one whose first five seasons through age 23 have been among the best ever, is in trouble, then you have to give a flying fuck about just how good he is and how important it is that he remain good. And if that's not "adversarial" enough, then it fits right in with every other cozy media-fan-club relationship in this town.
Bra-fucking-vo! Seriously. Of late I've been listening a lot less because of their tired, worn, and cliched approach on too many topics. The panties-in-a-bunch story on the website has become all too typical of the how the show relies upon the unattributed, the anonymous, and the rumor mongerers (Deadspin). Another excuse to bitch and whine about something that is otherwise seen in their eyes as being irrelevant. It's time to stop pretending what they aren't and acknowledge what they are, the New York Post of Chicago sports media. No, I'm not a Kane apologist but the story ran out of gas weeks ago and what was reported by others was nothing more than the resurrection of previous speculation based upon wildly inconsistent and unverifiable accounts. You can't ride the backs of others and bitch about their lack of coverage when you are an appendage of a news and entertainment media conglomerate (CBS) and you write a column that cites your own station (WSCR) as your information source.
And it is the pinnacle of hypocrisy to decry someone's attempt at notoriety for charitable reasons (goat walk for cancer) when you endlessly shill for your own charity that has the exact same goal (oncology = cancer).
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
