On the media ban

I haven’t posted anything on the media mess going on in Kamloops. To my knowledge nothing quite like this has ever happened in the WHL. I’ve been waiting to hear the whole story before commenting myself. With the situation coming to a resolution at Tuesday’s meeting, I think we’ve got pretty much all the information we’re going to get.

I don’t know how much Everett fans know about the situation. I probably don’t know a whole lot more myself. But here’s an effort at presenting the story. First, my best attempt at providing a timeline of the pertinent events:

– 2007. The Kamloops Blazers are bought by a group headed by B.C. businessman Tom Gagliardi and including former Blazers greats Mark Recchi, Shane Doan, Jarome Iginla and Darryl Sydor. Their goal is to restore a once-great franchise to its former prominence following years of mediocrity.

– 2007-10. Kamloops’ fortunes don’t change, with the Blazers faring no better than .500 in their first three seasons under new ownership. Kamloops is swept in the first round of the playoffs all three years.

– Dec. 21, 2010. The Blazers continue to hover toward the bottom of the Western Conference during the first half of this season, and Kamloops Daily News sports editor Gregg Drinnan, who also serves as the Blazers beat writer, writes a column that doesn’t paint the Blazers in a positive light.

– Dec. 22, 2010. Blazers general manager Craig Bonner delivers a three-page letter to Drinnan, informing Drinnan he would no longer have access to Blazers players, coaches or staff. The Daily News later reported that the letter cited ongoing “negative reporting” as the reason for the ban, though the Daily News said the letter did not provide any specific examples. The ban was only on Drinnan, not other reporters from the Daily News.

– Jan. 4, 2011. The Daily News prints an editorial putting its full support behind Drinnan and calling for an end to the ban, which violates the WHL’s media policy.

– Jan. 5, 2011. The Daily News reports that WHL commissioner Ron Robison will meet with representatives from both the Blazers and the Daily News to discuss the ban. The meeting is tentatively scheduled for Jan. 11.

– Jan, 6, 2011. Kamloops broadcaster Jon Keen posts a story on his blog, which includes some quotes from Recchi justifying the ban. In the comments section of the blog post Keen suggests there’s more to Drinnan’s transgressions than what has been reported publicly.

– Jan. 4-11, 2011. The story becomes national news in Canada, with the media almost unanimously backing Drinnan in the conflict. Meanwhile, there’s no further comment from Blazers management or the WHL.

– Jan. 11, 2011. Drinnan defends himself in his own blog from the comments by Recchi (no direct link, scan down to the end of his Jan. 11 post titled, “Your Tuesday morning feast …”).

– Jan. 11, 2011. Robison, the Blazers and the Daily News meet for two hours in Kamloops. Afterward, the ban on Drinnan is lifted without conditions. Robison acknowledges the Blazers violated the league’s media policy, but there’s no mention of any sanctions against the Blazers.

So what to make of all this?

I don’t get.

I was hoping that eventually there would be a more-detailed account of the issues the Blazers had with Drinnan, and that there was something beyond just not liking what Drinnan wrote that prompted the ban. However, there was little else in the way of tangible complaints that was reported following the meeting. All that was mentioned was the lack of coverage of a press conference earlier in the season, and the lack of reporting on announcements such as player signings and scheduling of special events. Robison was quoted as saying: “The issue was not surrounding the factual nature of the reporting. It was more to ensure the Blazers received what we consider to be similar coverage to what we receive in other WHL markets in terms of coverage of media conferences, dealing with certain subjects of a more positive nature as opposed to reporting on other issues.” This appears to be the gist of the Blazers’ problems with Drinnan.

First of all, let me just say that claiming Drinnan doesn’t provide enough coverage of anything WHL related is absurd. Drinnan is by far the best source of WHL-related content that exists today. His tireless efforts at compiling all the league’s news on his blog — something he chooses to do, he doesn’t have to this — is a tremendous service to both the league and its fans. The Blazers, as far as I know, have not been exempted from this reporting. Drinnan does more to get the league’s story out — more completely and to more people — than anyone else. From a PR standpoint I think he’s is one of the best things the league has going for it.

As for the “negative reporting,” I must admit that I don’t read everything Drinnan writes about the Blazers. However, I read some of it, and what I’ve seen doesn’t seem to be all that different — either in tone or in volume — from what I see coming from other papers that cover WHL teams on a full-time basis.

This sets a dangerous precedent. As far as we know the Blazers didn’t suffer any consequences for instituting the ban and violating the league’s media policy. If that’s the case, what’s to prevent another team from banning a media member should that member say something the team objects to? What’s to prevent the fans from being left out in the cold again? And what’s to prevent another public uproar and another headache for the league?

I understand there’s a sentiment to protect the players, most of whom are teenagers, from undue criticism. I get that. And I understand that every venture, whether in sports or business or government or whatever, wants to be painted in a positive light.

However, I think it’s important to remember the value of an independent press. It’s important to the public, which wants to get its information as accurately and objectively as possible so it can reach informed conclusions. Sometimes that requires pointing out when all is not well.

And an independent press is important to those being reported on, too. It’s how a subject gains credibility. Without the presence of an independent third party providing scrutiny, one that is not compromised and one that does not have an agenda, will said subject’s words ever be fully trusted? When there’s legitimate positive news to be delivered, will it be considered genuine by the public if all that’s been delivered previously is positive spin?

I don’t think anyone came out of this a winner. Not Drinnan, not the Blazers, not the league, not the media, and most importantly, not the fans. I think we all came out a little worse off becuse of this mess, and that’s a damn shame.