Friedman Interviews Jack Eichel

[K-9]

13 minutes ago, Weave said:

It is unreasonable for you to expect a reporter to report to you the sources he wasn’t able to use.

Not unreasonable in the least. Not only is it reasonable to expect that here, it’s SOP for reporters to do it. It is blatantly obvious that Friedman did not seek the opinion of Dr. Cappuccino to balance the story, otherwise, like every good reporter everywhere, he would have informed his audience that the attempt was made and Cappuccino declined. Standard. A glaring and damning omission and strong evidence the story was purposely slanted. 

It’s perfectly reasonable to expect reporters to adhere to common, time honored journalistic principles. 

[Weave]

42 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Not unreasonable in the least. Not only is it reasonable to expect that here, it’s SOP for reporters to do it. It is blatantly obvious that Friedman did not seek the opinion of Dr. Cappuccino to balance the story, otherwise, like every good reporter everywhere, he would have informed his audience that the attempt was made and Cappuccino declined. Standard. A glaring and damning omission and strong evidence the story was purposely slanted. 

It’s perfectly reasonable to expect reporters to adhere to common, time honored journalistic principles. 

WTF reporters publish who they don’t interview?  You’re reaching .

[K-9]

5 minutes ago, Weave said:

WTF reporters publish who they don’t interview?  You’re reaching .

Right, I'm reaching. If you've never seen a report where the reporter stated that he attempted to reach another principle in the story, but was unsuccessful or the invitation to comment was declined, what can I say? Friedman simply didn't do his job as is SOP in the business.  I think we are done here. 

Edited November 6, 2021 by K-9

[dudacek]

I know I’m not going to change your mind, but think conflating the fact Friedman interviewed a pro-ADR doctor with providing biased coverage is like conflating someone interviewing Gary Bettman, or even the POTUS, and suggesting that amounts to biased coverage.

He had an opportunity to explain to people what this “experimental” procedure was to people who weren’t familIar with it and why Jack wanted it. He never endorsed it, or failed to say that Sabres doctors disagreed.

[K-9]

11 hours ago, dudacek said:

I know I’m not going to change your mind, but think conflating the fact Friedman interviewed a pro-ADR doctor with providing biased coverage is like conflating someone interviewing Gary Bettman, or even the POTUS, and suggesting that amounts to biased coverage.

He had an opportunity to explain to people what this “experimental” procedure was to people who weren’t familIar with it and why Jack wanted it. He never endorsed it, or failed to say that Sabres doctors disagreed.

I can be persuaded to change my mind on any number of things but in this case you’re right, there is no way I’m gonna change my view on Friedman as it relates to his reporting on the Eichel saga in general and his piece with Prusmack in particular. That was done for no other reason than to respond to KA’s assertion that the Sabres were “in control.” It had been over two months since the snafu between Eichel and the team came to light and the timing of it all, directly on the heels of KA’s statement and Fish’s response to it, is just too convenient to be a coincidence. 

But you know, perhaps I’m being too hard on Friedman for holding him to higher journalistic standards. He’s really nothing more than a hockey gossip columnist, so perhaps those standards don’t apply to the same degree. 

Edited November 7, 2021 by K-9

[dudacek]

11 hours ago, dudacek said:

I know I’m not going to change your mind, but think conflating the fact Friedman interviewed a pro-ADR doctor with providing biased coverage is like conflating someone interviewing Gary Bettman, or even the POTUS, and suggesting that amounts to biased coverage.

He had an opportunity to explain to people what this “experimental” procedure was to people who weren’t familIar with it and why Jack wanted it. He never endorsed it, or failed to say that Sabres doctors disagreed.

@K-9 that was not meant to imply you’re inflexible, just to make clear I was sharing my opinion, rather than debating yours. I disagree with your conclusion, but I get where you’re coming from and I’ve found the give and take worthwhile.

[K-9]

3 hours ago, dudacek said:

@K-9 that was not meant to imply you’re inflexible, just to make clear I was sharing my opinion, rather than debating yours. I disagree with your conclusion, but I get where you’re coming from and I’ve found the give and take worthwhile.

No worries. I appreciate the give and take. It’s all good. 🍺

[Stoner]

Friedman: Young man, do you think a firm's sole responsibility is to its shareholders?

Jack: Do ya like apples?