In late January of this year, a club from the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League decided it would not cooperate with the local media in the city they were visiting.
The reported reason?
The club evidently felt their actions in a game in that city earlier this season had been unfairly reported. In that game, the club in question amassed almost 300 minutes in penalties, and according to published reports, instigated two separate brawls.
By the end of the game, the club reportedly did not have enough players left on the bench to change lines.
Not having been in attendance at the game, it is not our intention to pass judgment on the club’s on-ice actions, though most hockey observers – even those who appreciate tough, hard-hitting action and the occasional ‘dust-up’ – are pleased that brawling has by and large left the game, including at the junior level.
The point here is that it is interesting that the club’s reaction was to shun the local media the next time they were in town. (For the record, The Hockey News reports that the club was indeed fined by the QMJHL for breaking league policy.)
Evidently feeling they were branded as “thugs”, as THN reported, the club did not cooperate with reporters after the January game.
Is this what leaders in junior hockey really want to teach young players: that the way to deal with adversity, or negative publicity, is to refuse to accept responsibility for your actions? What message does it send if clubs endorse the idea of players – at the age of 16, 17, 18 and 19 – viewing the media as the problem?
Did the media make up the story about the fight-filled game? Or simply report on the events of November game?
It’s always easy to “Monday Morning quarterback”, while sitting back and criticizing the decisions of others after the fact.
But such a response (encouraging your young players to intentionally not make themselves available to the media) by a club at this level, in fairness, begs some scrutiny.
Most players, and teams, are more than happy to accept public and media praise when they do well. It’s often easier to be accessible and pleasant when things are going well.
But when things don’t go well……
Was there no other way to deal with the team’s upset with the way they were portrayed in the local media? Did they consider the possibility of taking the time to express their disappointment for what they must have perceived as one-sided, biased, or incomplete reporting of the original game incidents back in November? Did they encourage their young players to take the high road, and demonstrate to the media, their own fans and the fans of the league at large that the events of last November were an aberration, and not reflective of the kind of team they are, or representative of the character of the young men who represent the team and their community?
It just seems there would have been different – and better – ways to handle an organization’s disappointment at how they felt they were “treated” by the media.
To play the ‘silence’ game (or playing word games with League rules… one player is reported to have come out and said “I came out to tell you [the reporters on hand after the January game] I have no comment…so you can’t say I didn’t talk to you”) only serves to reinforce a negative image of the players, the club and the organization – and unfortunately in the eyes of some, the entire league.
Two franchises in the Quebec loop are moving next season. Like many sports leagues, the league depends on fan support to survive. It also depends upon the good will of organizations, coaches, team officials and players who recognize the importance of positive publicity – and respecting relationships, including those with the media.
These kinds of decisions – to in effect boycott the media, the very people who publicize the games – are confusing at best.
