Get ready for a quiet couple of weeks

[WestCoastJoe]

Wow! First, let me say that I think it's important to distinguish between critical, as opposed to insulting commentary. My comments about Beamish were based on my reading of his columns over a long period and represent my opinion. And I don't believe that they should be described as insults, but rather as considered criticisms, even if others disagree with the specifics. However, perhaps I went a little too far and, in the future, will try to be more specific and objective, and avoid subjective comments. More importantly, though, perhaps I need to learn a little more about the forum rules/values. Do you consider forum members "bloggers"? I had seen things a little differently. I thought that we were private forum members (not public writers) who were free to express our views about public figures like players, coaches, GMs, team executives, and, yes, professional writers and media commentators. If, by being classified as "bloggers," we are now equal to the latter, then I guess I see your point about not criticizing our own. (You have said that they--the writers and possibly other bloggers--are "part of our website community," something I hadn't realized.) However, by my understanding of "blogger," Beamish and Ullrich (a writer I like much better) are, in fact, bloggers, as is Glen Suitor (a guy we seem to be free to criticize)--but more importantly, they are professional writers and commentators--who, by making their views public by choice and occupation, open themselves to debate and criticism about those views. I had somehow thought that we were operating in a much more restricted, non-public, forum, where our views were about people outside our group.

I think whenever a public figure, most often a player, is criticized, there will be many who disagree with the criticism--who won't like it. The criticism will offend some members. I had thought that Tim Brown was getting too much criticism a while back (although I certainly wasn't offended by it) and started a thread to that effect, but my point wasn't that the criticism was insulting or inappropriate, or in any way, shape, or form, over the line; it was simply that I wanted to present another view of his performance. I guess you're saying that professional writers (or bloggers), and I guess we'll have to include TV media personalities too, fall into a different segment of public figures, and, because of their connection with the team, should be cut considerably more slack. You may be right. But I'd be interested in others' opinions on this too.

I don't want to get into a legal public debate here. If our differing views continue, we can discuss it in a pm.

Parsing words: insults/considered criticism. It can be a judgment call.

"However, perhaps I went a little too far" Seems like it to me.

Beamish is a member here, as well as being a sports writer. He posts here on occasion.

"Beamish (who, in my opinion, is borderline incompetent)" Seems like an insult to a professional sports writer.

"generally come off as a real amateur" That seems like an insult to a professional writer.

"but never really understood it (football)" To say that about a professional football writer seems like an insult to me.

"Are there any decent sports writers in Vancouver (besides, perhaps, Cam Cole)?" That is insulting to many sports writers here in Vancouver.

Players and coaches get some criticism here.

Beamish posts here on occasion. He seems to have been your primary target.

The other writers posting here? Not that I know of. To consider them part of this website community is my attitude on it, not necessariy shared by all the Mods.

Suitor, TSN guys, et cetera, as far as I know, have never posted here, and are more national than local. Suitor takes some heat here.

All of these threads are public, except the one I informed you of, for more private discussions.

I guess you're saying that professional writers (or bloggers), and I guess we'll have to include TV media personalities too, fall into a different segment of public figures, and, because of their connection with the team, should be cut considerably more slack. You may be right. But I'd be interested in others' opinions on this too.

I spoke on behalf of Mike Beamish, who posts here.

And then I spoke on behalf of the other local sports writers, such as Lowell Ullrich, et al, none of whom I have seen post here.

I didn't speak on behalf of any TV personalities such as Suitor (as distinguished from the sports writers I've mentioned).

This is just IMO as a poster and Mod here.

Was a time when there was a lot of bickering, rudeness, hostility and insults between posters/bloggers here. In the last couple of years, the tone has generally been quite civil, as compared to some football websites.

If you had started that thread, "Are there any decent sports writers in Vancouver (besides, perhaps, Cam Cole)?", I would have put it up for discussion with some other Mods as to whether it represented what this site is all about. My opinion would be that it was not.

But I'd be interested in others' opinions on this too.

It sounds like you want to hear from more posters than me. You've heard my views, which are mostly about a civil tone between posters/bloggers, and respect for our local sports writers.

Not much is carved in stone. Cultures evolve and develop over time. Within teams and even within websites.

You have strong opinions, and a willingness to express them. Fair enough.

Just IMO for all of these comments ...

[South Pender]

Funny you should mention that; were you listening to 1040 in the last few hours? With news today of Don Matthews battling cancer, Taylor and BMac were reminiscing on his years here as head coach and pointed out that the Lions were indeed the sports toast of the town as recently as the mid/late 80s, while the Canucks in those days struggled to reach five digits in their attendance figures.

That's really interesting. The Don came to the Leos as HC when BC Place opened in 1983, and crowds jumped from 25,000 in 1982 to >40,000, with two years' in excess of 45,000. This was a period of very good Lions teams--1983-1986. However, in 1987, the team fell apart, Matthews was replaced (by Larry Donovan), and average attendance dropped from 46K in 1986 to 36K, and then went downhill to 31,000 in 1990, only about 1000 more than our average figure this year. With the exception of 1991 (40K), attendance dropped considerably through the 90s and up to 2003, with most years in the low to mid 20Ks (a low of 16K occurred in 1998). When Buono arrived in 2003, attendance started to go up, exceeding 30K by 2005 and staying near or above that up to the present (excepting the year at Empire Field). This year, we averaged a little over 30K.

Here's my source for those figures:

http://www.bclions.com/uploads/assets/B ... ndance.pdf

So I wonder just what the main factor was in those years of high attendance. Was it really better marketing, or was it The Don, a really good team, or the novelty of the new indoor stadium? To my mind, a bigger factor than the obvious marketing strategies, including outreach programs, is the quality of the team--the number of wins--and this, of course, can be partly attributable to the quality of the coach. In our history, when we've had a good coach and a good team, attendance has been high. It seems to be as simple as that.

[South Pender]

Wow! First, let me say that I think it's important to distinguish between critical, as opposed to insulting commentary. My comments about Beamish were based on my reading of his columns over a long period and represent my opinion. And I don't believe that they should be described as insults, but rather as considered criticisms, even if others disagree with the specifics. However, perhaps I went a little too far and, in the future, will try to be more specific and objective, and avoid subjective comments. More importantly, though, perhaps I need to learn a little more about the forum rules/values. Do you consider forum members "bloggers"? I had seen things a little differently. I thought that we were private forum members (not public writers) who were free to express our views about public figures like players, coaches, GMs, team executives, and, yes, professional writers and media commentators. If, by being classified as "bloggers," we are now equal to the latter, then I guess I see your point about not criticizing our own. (You have said that they--the writers and possibly other bloggers--are "part of our website community," something I hadn't realized.) However, by my understanding of "blogger," Beamish and Ullrich (a writer I like much better) are, in fact, bloggers, as is Glen Suitor (a guy we seem to be free to criticize)--but more importantly, they are professional writers and commentators--who, by making their views public by choice and occupation, open themselves to debate and criticism about those views. I had somehow thought that we were operating in a much more restricted, non-public, forum, where our views were about people outside our group.

I think whenever a public figure, most often a player, is criticized, there will be many who disagree with the criticism--who won't like it. The criticism will offend some members. I had thought that Tim Brown was getting too much criticism a while back (although I certainly wasn't offended by it) and started a thread to that effect, but my point wasn't that the criticism was insulting or inappropriate, or in any way, shape, or form, over the line; it was simply that I wanted to present another view of his performance. I guess you're saying that professional writers (or bloggers), and I guess we'll have to include TV media personalities too, fall into a different segment of public figures, and, because of their connection with the team, should be cut considerably more slack. You may be right. But I'd be interested in others' opinions on this too.

I don't want to get into a legal public debate here. If our differing views continue, we can discuss it in a pm.

Parsing words: insults/considered criticism. It can be a judgment call.

"However, perhaps I went a little too far" Seems like it to me.

Beamish is a member here, as well as being a sports writer. He posts here on occasion.

"Beamish (who, in my opinion, is borderline incompetent)" Seems like an insult to a professional sports writer.

"generally come off as a real amateur" That seems like an insult to a professional writer.

"but never really understood it (football)" To say that about a professional football writer seems like an insult to me.

"Are there any decent sports writers in Vancouver (besides, perhaps, Cam Cole)?" That is insulting to many sports writers here in Vancouver.

Players and coaches get some criticism here.

Beamish posts here on occasion. He seems to have been your primary target.

The other writers posting here? Not that I know of. To consider them part of this website community is my attitude on it, not necessariy shared by all the Mods.

Suitor, TSN guys, et cetera, as far as I know, have never posted here, and are more national than local. Suitor takes some heat here.

All of these threads are public, except the one I informed you of, for more private discussions.

I guess you're saying that professional writers (or bloggers), and I guess we'll have to include TV media personalities too, fall into a different segment of public figures, and, because of their connection with the team, should be cut considerably more slack. You may be right. But I'd be interested in others' opinions on this too.

I spoke on behalf of Mike Beamish, who posts here.

And then I spoke on behalf of the other local sports writers, such as Lowell Ullrich, et al, none of whom I have seen post here.

I didn't speak on behalf of any TV personalities such as Suitor (as distinguished from the sports writers I've mentioned).

This is just IMO as a poster and Mod here.

Was a time when there was a lot of bickering, rudeness, hostility and insults between posters/bloggers here. In the last couple of years, the tone has generally been quite civil, as compared to some football websites.

If you had started that thread, "Are there any decent sports writers in Vancouver (besides, perhaps, Cam Cole)?", I would have put it up for discussion with some other Mods as to whether it represented what this site is all about. My opinion would be that it was not.

But I'd be interested in others' opinions on this too.

It sounds like you want to hear from more posters than me. You've heard my views, which are mostly about a civil tone between posters/bloggers, and respect for our local sports writers.

Not much is carved in stone. Cultures evolve and develop over time. Within teams and even within websites.

You have strong opinions, and a willingness to express them. Fair enough.

Just IMO for all of these comments ...

No one wants a "legal public debate" here, but I should be able to defend myself against your criticism of my post. So, please let me do that.

I think I get what you're saying. You did say that "bloggers" should be exempted in your comment "we don't want insults towards other bloggers here." Suitor and others are bloggers, and, thus, your comment would appear to include them, and that was what I was picking up on. Instead, I now see that you are singling Beamish out for exemption from criticism because he's one of us, posting occasionally on this forum. Correct?

I certainly agree that a "civil tone" is important on any forum (or potential forumers are put off). However, I must say that I've seen much more intemperate criticisms, some being outright ad hominem, on this forum than mine of Beamish. I'm not suggesting that this is good, merely providing some perspective for this issue. I guess it's human nature to regard criticisms of those we like and respect as somehow unfair and uncivil, but let's remember that reasonable people can differ in their opinions.

[JohnHenry]

Beamish is a good writer. My criticisms of him are the factual errors which appear in almost every story (especially wrong players ages and wrong stats)...and his infatuation with the NFL...i.e. religiously reporting about CFL players on NFL trouts and using NFL players as a reference to "what type of player" they are. Unfortunately if you're not as familiar with the NFL as Beamish is, saying this player is a CFL version of the Patriot's "Harrison" (5-time Pro-Bowler!) does not mean much.

The Province also has very little to be snooty about when you look at their football website. They only update their football columns once a year. Currently the lead CFL column was written last June. The Province on-line also has no CFL section and they very rarely post CFL game stories not involving the Lions, even though they have free access to the PostMedia wire stories of the game, but they refuse to link them...instead they refer you to the TSN website for CFL game stories. But the Province does have a cricket section (chirp, chirp), lacrosse, MNA, golf and tennis...but no CFL section?

[Lions4ever]

I hope this means Lions are preparing and practising some new plays that other teams have had no previous video to look at and prepare for.

If so, I hope they pan out better than all Les Miles' bag o' tricks against Bama last Saturday.

[MexicoLionFan]

I think that LU and Beamish are good sport's writers, and do at least an adequate job of covering the Lions...Beamish and the Sun, have been a lot better over the last couple of years...

Both of their efforts are greatly appreciated.

[Toppy Vann]

South Pender might be missing the fact that if you go back over the recent years since 2005 - 2006 this site gets mentioned as to what bloggers are saying. Dissing Beamish is very strange as he is a good football writer and he will push the envelope on angles on the Lions even to the point of making things frosty with the Lions at times (where Wally might have been annoyed).

It reminds me of the rants that go on about Rod Black who I find will get in the most interesting stories on Lion players during Lion games and other players. I love that stuff - learning about players and coaches as real people. I could care less about a minor error. I don't need the guy to tell me what is happening - although I like the sound on in a game. These complaints seem so baseless as if their employers thought they sucked they'd be gone. Good thing they don't listen to fan rants.

I think we should be condemning the Lions for this action, not trashing writers who have been pretty darn good for sites like this referring to bloggers. I also have seen numerous posters here chatting to both Beamish and LU at the Lion practices. Trashing them online HERE might mean they'd start to be more aloof.

[Upper Bowl]

I’m fairly new to the board and I’ve been a bit surprised by some of the criticism of the team during a 13-5 season. I think some of the critiques have been a bit excessive, but I fully respect a member's right to state his/her opinion. With that in mind, I’m surprised that coverage by sports writers and broadcasters isn’t considered fair game too. I don’t think anyone’s attacking them personally, just evaluating their presentation. Whether they’re “friends of the board” shouldn’t be relevant. So I’m siding with South Pender on this one.

Beamish has done some good stuff this season, but his article after the regular season finale seemed lazy, dour and unrealistic to me. I don’t mind Ullrich, but he always seems to be grousing about something. I’m definitely not looking for a cheerleading homer, I just think he’s been a bit unnecessarily negative given the recent success of the franchise.

[David]

I can understand WestCoastJoe's concern about the stinging criticism of Mike Beamish. I'm sure Mike can defend himself, but I found the comments to be a touch mean spirited as well.

Borderline imcompetent? A real amateur? Never understood football? Wow. That's all a little over-the-top from where I sit.

In fairness, South Pender wasn't to know that he also posts on here from time-to-time. However, I am of the belief that if you take issue with a public figure, back it up with examples.

I think we fare pretty well with Ullrich and Beamish as beat writers. Ullrich tends to be very detailed oriented - both good and up-to-date with facts. Beamish writes very strong prose; a lot of human interest pieces in the Sun.

I'm no apologist for either of these two guys, but If facts are sometimes compromised, keep in mind their tight deadlines. As for their video blogs, they appear to do their pieces (i.e. The Sun's "Weekly Roar") from memory, not cue cards, so I cut them slack for the odd factual goof there too.


DH

[SammyGreene]

An update to this thread as per Lowell Ullrich. The Lions were fined by the league for denying media access last week and have agreed to open up their practice sessions again (to the media at least), leading up to the Western Final.

The club took a step towards that end, plus enable the few and the proud whose job is to try and convey a sense of life around the Lions, after a meeting Tuesday.

The Vancouver chapter of the Football Reporters of Canada accepted an offer to re-open practice sessions to reporters providing they remain in a viewing area at B.C. Place Stadium open to the field, with photo-journalists given brief sideline access to do their thing.

Wally Buono said the move was made in response to a proposed fine by the CFL for violating its national media policy, and a league spokesman said late Tuesday in an email that the club was indeed docked.

The Lions restricted media access last week, which didn’t escape the notice of the Saskatchewan Roughriders Tuesday, a story on which can be found here.

http://blogs.theprovince.com/2012/11/06 ... ons-fined/

[WestCoastJoe]

Good.

Dumb move locking out the reporters IMO. Paranoia runs rampant amongst football coaches.

Good to hear Valli will be able to play. What? Did I hear that right? Yes, it is good that he is able to play. Hopefully he can just settle down, keep it simple, and use his size and strength effectively. He was a very high draft pick for good reasons. Now he has to show that all this time and effort has been worthwhile.

[ziggy]

Does this mean if Wally posts on here we leave him alone to? I thought a lot of criticism he received was way over the top (remember Area51),but no one seemed to think there was anything wrong with that.I guess because Wally was a professional, public figure ,that didn't post on here he was fair game? Personally I think whether a guy posts on here or not he is entitled to some respect. People often post stuff, they would never consider saying in person.

[South Pender]

I hadn't planned to return to this thread, but some later comments have changed my mind.

First, there appear to be three issues here that have become conflated: (a) the fact that, since Beamish posts occasionally on this site, he should therefore be seen as immune to criticism on the forum, (b) whether the local newspaper writers generally should also be immune to criticism on this forum, and (c) whether Beamish is a good writer.

On the first point, I'm fine with (and agree with) not critiquing fellow forum members. I think I've already made that clear, and that I didn't know that Beamish was a forum member. On the second point, I cannot see the logic in accepting poor journalism in the local newspapers because somehow any criticism of these writers undermines the team and its larger fortunes--Beamish excepted (and, perhaps, we should know about any other local writers that are forum members). The argument that these writers and radio commentators should be treated differently from the TSN crew (who get at least as vociferous criticism as any that I aimed at Beamish) is, in my opinion, unsustainable. They are professional journalists, making their living from accurate reporting and analysis of sporting news. Just as we are critical (often extremely critical--witness the very harsh criticism of Valli this year) of the players and now the Lions staff (with words like dumb and paranoid), in my opinion, we should be free to be critical of other associated people who similarly do their jobs poorly. Certainly, the journalists themselves think nothing of being critical of the players and management. Why then should we give a free pass to those same folks when they fail to do their job adequately? Frankly, and even after hearing the arguments to the contrary, I just don't believe that privately-held and -uttered criticism of these local writers on a football forum will negatively impact the Lions in any way whatsoever. That's my opinion; others are free to disagree.

On the third point, whether or not a journalist is considered a good writer depends on how we define "good" when it comes to journalism. To many, a writer's approach and perspective are what count. To others, getting one's facts right is absolutely essential for a writer to be considered fully competent. And for me, proper usage and style are very important, as is unambiguous and clear expression. Weakness in that area won't bother many, but it does make a difference to me and others. I don't want to get any more specific about these things, given the general uproar about my original point, but could certainly satisfy the forumer above who suggested that evidence was needed with any criticism. In general, though, I haven't noticed that requirement routinely applied when criticism of players, coaches, certain media persons, etc., has been expressed.

[WestCoastJoe]

If a coach posted here, it would certainly entitle him to the same respect any other poster is entitled to. And that could possibly make it awkward for the site. Would a coach post here? I don't think so. It could be construed as an attempt to control the message, and to stifle some fans desire to vent. If they did post here, I expect it would, just by the nature of human contact, joining a community of sorts, give some protection. This is an unresolved issue ... If the team was doing very poorly, of course there would be criticism, but the tone to the individuals could still be respectful.

Clermont posted here on occasion. But he was one of the most popular Lions ever, hardly subject to criticism.

If anyone goes to watch practice, one will see Beamish, Ullrich, Caravetta, and others talking freely with fans. They live here.

Glen Suitor and Rod Black are more distant. Harder for them to get the protection of a sense of community. This raises all kinds of social media issues. Bullying, et cetera. People are much more likely to be harsh, and even cruel online, never facing their target.

Yeah, there are lots of issues here.

Dean Valli has taken a lot of criticism. How far is too far? Calling for a coach to be fired. How far is too far? Name calling is obviously out. I would say insults are out. And that can be a grey area.

In any case, at least two Mods have expressed the view that South Pender's comments about Mike Beamish were over some perceived line, especially since Beamish is a member who posts here on occasion. Is the line carved in the sand? No. But it seems to me it is kind of like the way anyone judges bullying/teasing or humour/racism. I think it can be recognized.

And since Beamish is a public figure, he is subject to some criticism. How much? Judgment call.

This discussion could have been private. But opinions were requested. And there are some issues involved that deserve consideration.

This is just IMO. As one Mod here ...

[South Pender]

.
In any case, at least two Mods have expressed the view that South Pender's comments about Mike Beamish were over some perceived line, especially since Beamish is a member who posts here on occasion. Is the line carved in the sand? No. But it seems to me it is kind of like the way anyone judges bullying/teasing or humour/racism. I think it can be recognized.

Fine about the issue of not criticizing a fellow forum member, WCJ; I've already acknowledged and agreed with his. I didn't know that Beamish was a forum member. It therefore seems to me that the mods might consider informing the forum members just who in the media are forum members so that such sacred cows can be spared in the future. As for the rest of your comment, my opinions about Beamish were no more bullying than dozens of comments made by forum members about others--Glen Suitor, Rod Black, Valli, etc. I think it's easy to see criticism of someone we like as "insulting," "bullying," "over the line," "harsh," etc., but as fair, even if strong, criticism if we feel similarly negatively about the person!