# Ya Think?!?! LOL!!



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

From: Way To Get The Clue, John... 



> The flow of information coming from under the circus tent at One Center Court took an absurd twist this week when the Trail Blazers announced an abrupt change in media policy.
> 
> Requests for all interviews must now run through the team's media relations department. Interviews involving Blazers executives and players are subject to being tape recorded, and a transcript or audio file of the interview will be posted on the Blazers' Web site. Also, in some cases, reporters will be asked to provide a written list of questions before being granted an interview.
> 
> ...


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

lol. it really surprises me that they've taken this long to perform this action. 

I expect it'll make the players think through what they are about to say a little more. people by nature tend to be more bland and cliche when a camera and/or tape recorder is recording their every word. a good interviewer can make you forget that you are talking to a reporter who will publish anything you say, no matter how bad it'll make you or your team look. it's much harder to forget that when you know the tape is rolling. 

as a Blazer fan who cares about winning, this is a good thing. the more bland our players are, the less fans can gripe about "character" crap and the more we can focus on actually winning games. 

as a Blazer fan who enjoys the occasional inside perspective, this is a bad thing though.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

I can see the next Crapzano story now: " Blazers believe earth is round, sun sets in west, and why this makes them satanists!"

It takes a sick mind to spin the most mundane events into something evil.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

I find it funny the Blazers have become so paranoid...understandably so yet I would hate to see them forget that the have no one to blame for their current state but themselves. Poor management all around.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Considering the flow of information and misinformation and slanted information and distorted information coming from under the circus tent at One Center Oregonian the past six (or more) years, I'd say this is long overdue. What took them so long? 

And the angle of providing content for the Blazers' web site is a good one, IMO. Heaven forbid that the Blazers would like to carry their own message. :whatever: 

I for one will be ecstatic if I can listen to the actual interviews for myself without the Oregonian progaganda machine filtering everything for their own tabloid agenda.

:banana:


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

sa1177 said:


> I find it funny the Blazers have become so paranoid...understandably so yet I would hate to see them forget that the have no one to blame for their current state but themselves. Poor management all around.


:laugh:

Trying to further prevent the local media from bending the truth so they can sell papers is not being "paranoid". Holding the local media accountable is a good thing, and it should have happened long ago.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> :laugh:
> 
> Trying to further prevent the local media from bending the truth so they can sell papers is not being "paranoid". Holding the local media accountable is a good thing, and it should have happened long ago.


Or they could have just established a good relationship with the local media in the first place. 

I don't disagree with what they are doing but simply find it funny that they choose to do it now.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Blazer Bert said:


> Considering the flow of information and misinformation and slanted information and distorted information coming from under the circus tent at One Center Oregonian the past six (or more) years, I'd say this is long overdue. What took them so long?
> 
> And the angle of providing content for the Blazers' web site is a good one, IMO. Heaven forbid that the Blazers would like to carry their own message. :whatever:
> 
> ...


repped ya!


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Perhaps the Blazers are doing all this to _protect_ themselves should the franchise be potentially prepared for sale.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Does anyone know if any other NBA team has this kind of media policy in place? I know what the Blazers are doing and I'm not opposed to it, but it seems somewhat extreme and opens them up to a lot of critisism . . . especially if they are the only team in the league that does this.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Didn't take management long to make the 25 point pledge worth about as much as the paper it was printed on:



> 6 To acknowledge and address franchise highs and lows in a clear, straightforward and timely manner.
> 
> 20 To make every player, and our organization as a whole, accessible to the media as they are messengers to you, our fans.


We can make fun of Canzano as much as we want, but he's right on this one. Bad move by management. I really don't know who's making these decisions over there, but it disgusts me. Methinks this has Steve Patterson's handwriting all over it.

-Pop


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

SodaPopinski said:


> Didn't take management long to make the 25 point pledge worth about as much as the paper it was printed on:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I dont see how this change goes against the 25 Point Pledge. Players will still be accessible after every game and at practice, and its not like the Trail Blazers are going to say "no" to every request they get for interviews outside of games and practice. I have no problem with the team wanting to know who their players are talking to and when if its outside of the game/practice media time.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> I dont see how this change goes against the 25 Point Pledge. Players will still be accessible after every game and at practice, and its not like the Trail Blazers are going to say "no" to every request they get for interviews outside of games and practice. I have no problem with the team wanting to know who their players are talking to and when if its outside of the game/practice media time.


It smacks of dishonesty and mistrust. And I wish the organization would just nut up and admit they've made some major mistakes in the past. Blaming the media and trying to hamstring them by making them jump through hoops no other media has to do for a professional sports franchise is bush league, in my opinion.

I'm not saying the media has been saints throughout these down years, but let's be honest. There wouldn't be a story if it wasn't for the extreme mismanagement of the organization from the top down. From a business perspective and from a basketball perspective. Limiting media access and trying to control what the public hears is very "big brother" to me, and I'd like to think I'm a fan of an organization that's above that kind of crap.

-Pop


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

SodaPopinski said:


> It smacks of dishonesty and mistrust. And I wish the organization would just nut up and admit they've made some major mistakes in the past. Blaming the media and trying to hamstring them by making them jump through hoops no other media has to do for a professional sports franchise is bush league, in my opinion.
> 
> I'm not saying the media has been saints throughout these down years, but let's be honest. There wouldn't be a story if it wasn't for the extreme mismanagement of the organization from the top down. From a business perspective and from a basketball perspective. Limiting media access and trying to control what the public hears is very "big brother" to me, and I'd like to think I'm a fan of an organization that's above that kind of crap.
> 
> -Pop


Well you obviously dont read or listen to the interviews anyway, because management has "nutted up" and admitted their mistakes several times.


Looks to me like this isnt uncommon in the pro sports media world:


> a minor league team:
> Special Interview Requests
> In the event that a player is needed outside of practice for an interview or special feature, members of the Media are encouraged to call Julie Wray at 501.529.2103 at least one business day in advance to schedule the appearance. Players’ availability is limited and to ensure that your request is fulfilled, it is best to give 24-hours notice. Any requests made on the day of the interview and/or appearance is subject to the player’s consent and may be denied.





> He declined interview requests through a team spokesman...





> Hornets - “Our players are in demand, whether it’s nationally, in Oklahoma City or back in New Orleans,” Hall says. “Handling the volume of requests on our players is a significant part of the job





> Green Bay Packers - In his new role, Woullard will continue to assist with media relations, including all interview requests from radio stations.





> STL Rams - required that interview requests and topics be submitted for review three days in advance.





> Pistons - Players and coaches are available for interviews at those times, any interview
> lasting longer than five minutes in duration be arranged in advance through the Pistons’ Public Relations Department (any live television pre- or post-game interviews should also be arranged in advance through the PR Department).


I could go on and on and on and on....


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Any company that is worth a damn will run everything through a PR department before letting it go public. Even that isn't enough some times to help keep your companies image squeaky clean.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Well you obviously dont read or listen to the interviews anyway, because management has "nutted up" and admitted their mistakes several times.
> 
> 
> Looks to me like this isnt uncommon in the pro sports media world:
> ...


The Blazers already run all interviews through their PR department..that's not the issue here. The new part of it is that they will now record all interviews themselves and post them on their own website. Most NFL teams already do this but not many NBA teams.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Does anyone know if any other NBA team has this kind of media policy in place? I know what the Blazers are doing and I'm not opposed to it, but it seems somewhat extreme and opens them up to a lot of critisism . . . especially if they are the only team in the league that does this.


The problem with this approach is that it doesn't work. They will realize it eventually.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

doesn't the fact that he used the term 'circus' kind of suggest that he knows why they did this, and just needed to get in a pot-shot for whatever reason?

Thats like saying "I don't understand why that jerk hates me. god, what a schmo"


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

sa1177 said:


> The Blazers already run all interviews through their PR department..that's not the issue here. The new part of it is that they will now record all interviews themselves and post them on their own website. Most NFL teams already do this but not many NBA teams.


Well it was an issue with the person I was responding to... but thanks.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

I don't have a problem with having to go through the team to schedule an interview, but having to let the team preview the questions before-hand and then having oversight rights over all interviews? C'mon - that's ridiculous.

And who's to say the team won't bend the interviews their own way, too? The precedent for that has already been set with the Paul Allen interview that was posted on blazers.com.

To me, it's as if the organization is saying, "Well, the public is not smart enough to view what the media prints/broadcasts with a critical eye, so we'll go ahead and filter everything to our liking so it comes out the way we want it to."

Not to mention it's not a smart move by the organization to alienate itself from the media. As the famous quote goes, *"Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel."*

-Pop


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

What is the problem here?

Seriously?

If the Blazers want to record interviews and then post them on their website for fans to look at later AND as a way to refute what they see as misinformation by Canzano\Quick\whomever...then so what?

I don't see the big deal here...

Now if the Blazers edit some of those interviews...THEN you can question them on why they are doing it...and fairly so IMO...but Canzano is just using this as an opportunity to label\bash the Blazers again...when it really isn't that newsworthy IMO...

and if anyone here doesn't think that Quick\Canzano in particular have shown a tendency to bash the Blazers...then you are not being honest...they most certainly have spun events\comments in a negative manner towards the Blazers...

The Blazers aren't innocent in this matter...they certainly have made mistakes...but they aren't the evil idiots (Three Amigos?) that the Oregonian would have you beleive...

I don't know why John feels the need to be negative and continually attack the Blazers...He is an a-hole IMO, but he won...OK, John? You won....You proved that the pen is a mighty instrument (yet again) and that if you write\post enough negative opinions\stories that you can sway public opinion in that matter...

Why? b\c your the one doing the most talking...We live in a world today where right\wrong...truth\lies don't matter as much as the sensationalism of the moment...Nobody but hard core advocates\fans have the time or the emotional\intellectual investment to investigate...

ABC, CNN, FOX, The Oregonian...these now serve as defacto sources of truth\absolutism to the masses who don't have the time or inclination to delve further into the sources behind such productions\columns\opinions...

_alleged_ has become the new word of the decade IMO...and it now IMPLIES guilt to the majority of the educationally deprived\self involved masses...which, yes...make up a good chunk of Blazer fans as well...

I commend the Blazers for trying to fight it...but they did a lousy job of it...and in the end...the media has succeded in painting them into bigger fools for doing so.... 

I don't see this ending for the Blazers until Canzano or Quick are gone quite frankly....

Yeah firing Pattersen, Nash & Pritchard (what offenses has he committed?)...would help....a new owner would help...but don't kid yourselves....

Sooner or later the new GM...President or Owner would face the same biting criticism and implied wrongdoing from Canzano and Quick...unless they completely rolled over and puckered up to Canzano's behind...

and that is what it has come too...either bend over backwards to make John Happy...and smile as he slaps you in the face from time to time...or fight back....

The problem with the Blazers and namely Pattersen IMO is that...why he chose the right response (to fight back)...but he failed miserably in doing so...He is simply overmatched...


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Unless the Blazers plan to pull an Oregonian and artfully edit the recordings into some kind of fiction, it is the Blazers who are on the side of honesty and accuracy in this scenario. I don't get how that is being spun into the Blazers being evil for wanting to post the whole record. 

As I read it, the Blazers will be recording and posting the interviews in the hope, no doubt, that it will force guys like Canzano to be more honest in what they write. The team will be able to counter accusation and innuendo with the recorded record. During certain interviews, the team will request questions in advance so guys aren't tricked into making responses that can then be taken out of context, twisted into some unintended meaning, or "interpreted" by the local tabloids into some sensational conclusion that no reasonable person would have surmised by the same statements. No big surprise that guys like Canzano are put off by this.

Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if there are a lot of players who would really appreciate knowing the questions in advance. Some of these guys are just not good at spontaneous interviews. I know I don't like it. Players have managers to screen them from every schmo who wants them to make an appearance someplace. Many players may also appreciate their employer (the Blazers) running a little interference and not making them do interview after interview without proper scheduling and preparation. None of which, IMO, violates the pledge to make players available to the press and the public.

There. That ought to be worth about 2 pesos.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Whoa!! Kmurph! Touche!!!

:clap: 

Now, take a break and have a brewski. You must be thirsty after that.

:cheers:


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Well it was an issue with the person I was responding to... but thanks.


True but every one of your quotes about other sports franchises were about running interviews through their pR departments etc...as if Portland didn't do this. Maybe I just misunderstood you.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

sa1177 said:


> True but every one of your quotes about other sports franchises were about running interviews through their pR departments etc...as if Portland didn't do this. Maybe I just misunderstood you.


My point in posting those was because SodaPop was under the impression that no other pro sports teams made the media request permission for interviews.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> My point in posting those was because SodaPop was under the impression that no other pro sports teams made the media request permission for interviews.


Ahh I see...well access for interviews etc is generally granted by giving media members access to lockeroom areas, postgame areas etc. Formal interviews are always setup by media relations people. So yeh you are right this is the way every team does it. 

Yet every team does not make their own recordings of interviews or require that questsions be submitted for review beforehand.


----------



## letsmakeadeal (Feb 23, 2006)

It was said:
Now if the Blazers edit some of those interviews...THEN you can question them on why they are doing it...and fairly so IMO...but Canzano is just using this as an opportunity to label\bash the Blazers again...when it really isn't that newsworthy IMO.


 thats why its not if they will "its when and they will" "blazer managment is untrustworthy they broke their own pledges numerous times and got caught tryin to surcumvent the leauge fine rules their is reason to distrust this bunch kinda NBA Nazi propaganda machine

the only ones not seeing it for what its worth are the same ones denying blazer fault
i know that rosecolored glases are cool but it just hides the fact that things are really messed up at one center court 

PS:i work in sales at the garden I know.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

SodaPopinski said:


> I don't have a problem with having to go through the team to schedule an interview, but having to let the team preview the questions before-hand and then having oversight rights over all interviews? C'mon - that's ridiculous.
> 
> -Pop


The majority of the people you see interviewed on TV and on the RADIO have been told the questions they are going to be asked, or at least been given the general topic of the questions.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

letsmakeadeal said:


> I
> 
> PS:i work in sales at the garden I know.


Working for a completely different company in a completely different office means you "know"??? :laugh:


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

How in the world could the Blazers get away with editing/falsifying the recordings they post to their site when the reporters will also have everything on tape? The team would be absolutely crucified if they tried something like that. 

Operating in the light of day will keep everyone honest.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Blazer Bert said:


> How in the world could the Blazers get away with editing/falsifying the recordings they post to their site when the reporters will also have everything on tape? The team would be absolutely crucified if they tried something like that.
> 
> Operating in the light of day will keep everyone honest.


:clap:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Bert said:


> How in the world could the Blazers get away with editing/falsifying the recordings they post to their site when the reporters will also have everything on tape? The team would be absolutely crucified if they tried something like that.
> 
> Operating in the light of day will keep everyone honest.



and thats what bugs the writers..they know now that they can't just re-arrange the answers, or take things out of context because they know that the interview will be posted online.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

This is yet another wedge driven between the local media and the local pro sports team. I'm not totally blaming the Blazers here. They have been put on the defensive by Canzano and Quick and this was their response. The motivation is clear. They don't trust the "local media" (primarily Canzano and Quick - notice who is upset by this) to fairly and accurately report news about the team. That distrust may very well be justified, but all this does is make an already adversarial relationship even worse. It smacks of disprespect. This is a public dressing down of the local media and basically says they are too stupid/lazy/dishonest to do their jobs so we're going to do it for them. Perhaps that disrespect is deserved, but this isn't going to make things better. This public announcment humilates the local media - all of them, not just Canzano and Quick. It may make the Blazers brass feel better to land a low blow of their own, but it will come back to haunt them. It just makes the people who have been making your life miserable even more determined to do you harm and will do nothing to stop the rumor mongering that makes up 90% of Canzano's columns. It will just make him even more determined to dish the dirt and undermine your credibility with the public.

This whole hate:hate relationship between the "local media" and the Blazers has gone too far. The sooner they kiss and make up, the better for all. The Blazers should have taken the high road and granted the media MORE access to their players and executives, then people would not feel the need to sneak around and act as "anonymous sources". If you've got nothing to hide, why act so paranoid? I know of nobody who actually likes Canzano or respects him as a journalist, yet he still has a job. Why, because the Blazers keep fanning his flames and giving him material and motivation to attack them. The best policy would be to just ignore him. He'll get bored and move on (hopefully, to another paper in another city). Most of the players and nobody in the front office will give Quick the time of day because they know anything they say will be used against them in the court of public opinion. His "insider" moniker is a joke. The last time we had a local reporter who the players would actually open up to, was Kenny Vance. Why? Because he treated them like fellow humans and wasn't just looking to trip them up and make them look bad.

While I understand the motivation and diagree with the action, what I really question is the timing. Shouldn't the front office be focusing on the upcoming draft and possible off season moves, rather than wasting their time sparring with the local media? Are any of the players even in town right now? Nash and Prichard have been off scouting in Europe. There isn't even anyone around to interview these days. So, why announce a policy limiting/controlling interviews when there isn't anyone around to interview? I really think it was just backlash against Canzano and Quick, and while it may seem justified it just makes the Blazers look petty by stooping to their level. And all it really accomplised was to give Canzano yet another reason to ridicule the Blazers in his column. If not for this announcement, he would have had to revert to one of his tear jerker stories expoiting some poor sick person just to remind us just how insignificant sports really are in the whole grand scheme of things - just what I want to read in the sports section. If the Blazers would just leave Canzano alone and stop giving him fodder for his gossip column, he'd run out of material and self-destruct within two weeks.

BNM


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

sa1177 said:


> Or they could have just established a good relationship with the local media in the first place.
> 
> I don't disagree with what they are doing but simply find it funny that they choose to do it now.


I'm find it funny that they didn't do this long. long, long time ago. But the funniest thing I've read in a long time is Canzona whining about this. I mean him of all people. Big surprise.

I've followed the Blazers through the Oregonian, and at one time through the Journal, since 74 and I've never seen such unprofessional journalism as I've seen from the sports department of the Oregonian the last few years. It is sad that the Blazers have had to resort to this, but it's the same type of sad as having to make flu/cold medicine prescriptions instead of across the counter because of the meth epidemic. You don't blame the people fighting it for having to go to such extremes, you blame the meth epidemic.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Shouldn't the front office be focusing on the upcoming draft and possible off season moves, rather than wasting their time sparring with the local media?


YOu know...Canzano stated this as well and I find this assumption ridiculous....

This is Steve Pattersen doing this (or initiating it)...not Pritchard or Nash...and to act\imply that this is hampering draft preperation is shortsighted....Come on now...surely you don't think Pritchard or Nash for that matter are neglecting their draft prep duties for this now do you?


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

> Shouldn't the front office be focusing on the upcoming draft and possible off season moves, rather than wasting their time sparring with the local media?


Give me a break! I doubt it took more than an hour to come up with this new requirement. Do you think Patterson, Nash, and Pritchard sit down and type out the media releases etc. themselves? NO, they have people that do that stuff for them. You are crazy if you think all Patterson is focusing on right now is the draft, he has a business to run, and there are many aspects of that business that need to be taken care of on a daily basis. He cant put every meeting etc. on hold for weeks so he can focus on the draft. Thats Nash and Pritchard's job anyway.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Give me a break! I doubt it took more than an hour to come up with this new requirement. Do you think Patterson, Nash, and Pritchard sit down and type out the media releases etc. themselves? NO, they have people that do that stuff for them. You are crazy if you think all Patterson is focusing on right now is the draft, he has a business to run, and there are many aspects of that business that need to be taken care of on a daily basis. He cant put every meeting etc. on hold for weeks so he can focus on the draft. Thats Nash and Pritchard's job anyway.


It's easy to blame the "three amigos" (+ pritchard who canzano 'likes') when they're lumped together by canzano AS the "three amigos".

ignoring logic and fact, I can see that it's easy to blame Patterson for not being gung-ho about the drarft. I mean he is 100% responsible for it.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Give me a break! I doubt it took more than an hour to come up with this new requirement. Do you think Patterson, Nash, and Pritchard sit down and type out the media releases etc. themselves? NO, they have people that do that stuff for them. You are crazy if you think all Patterson is focusing on right now is the draft, he has a business to run, and there are many aspects of that business that need to be taken care of on a daily basis. He cant put every meeting etc. on hold for weeks so he can focus on the draft. Thats Nash and Pritchard's job anyway.


Geez, give *ME* a break. It was one sentence out of a very long post. Still, I do think Steve Patterson spends way too much time sparring back and forth with the media (Canzano and Quick). Any time he spends on Canzano is a waste and counterproductive, and that was one of my main points - ignore Canzano and he'll go away, keep fanning is flames and he'll just keep bashing you in his meaningless little gosip column.

And yes, Nash and Pritchard have been off in Europe scouting Bargnani and others, but that doesn't mean Patterson is not involved in the draft. Someone has to be scheduling workouts and culling the list of possible draft prospects to bring in for workouts while Nash and Pritchard are off in Europe.

No, spending an hour drafting a media policy won't adversely affect the Blazers draft, but why spend any time at all on a turd like Canzano? It's a waste of time, accomplishes nothing and makes you look just as petty as Canzano. If you wrestle with a pig, even if you come out on top and think you've won still you end up covered with mud and smelling like a pig. Ignore him! He's a hack and everyone knows it. Giving him any attention at all is beneath you and not worth the time and effort.

BNM


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

never wrestle in the mud with a pig.

you both get dirty, and the pig likes it.

hopefully this new policy will be the end of the mud-wrestling.

It seems that the blazers have tried to cut out canzano, but haven't been able to. So now they're catching him at his own game. They'll hold him accountable, much like he likes to think he's holding them accountable.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Kmurph said:


> Come on now...surely you don't think Pritchard or Nash for that matter are neglecting their draft prep duties for this now do you?


Did I say that? No, I did not. We all know they've been off in Europe scouting. See my response to B&B. Any time spent worrying about Canzano is time wasted. Going to the trouble of re-writing team policy and making a public statement because of him makes him look more important than he really is and makes you look petty and vindictive. 

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

SMiLE said:


> It seems that the blazers have tried to cut out canzano, but haven't been able to. So now they're catching him at his own game. They'll hold him accountable, much like he likes to think he's holding them accountable.


Canzano accountable? Bwah, hah, hah... This new policy will have absolutely no affect on what Canzano writes or how he operates. He's a gossip columnist and a rumor monger. When was the last time you read a real quote from an identifiable source in his column? He's not a reporter, he's the Oregonian's bald Rona Barrett. Everything he writes is speculation, fabrication and innuendo and always comes from his supposed "unnamed, anonymous sources". What, are the Blazers going to do, start requesting all anonymous interviews be scheduled in advance and recorded by the team? All this did was give Canzano more fodder for his anti-Blazer crusade - and offend and inconvenience any REAL journalists who might like to interview one of the Blazers players or coaches.

An unintended side-affect will be limiting Blazers coverage in the national media. Do you think Sports Illustrated is going to want to do a feature on one of the Blazers players or coaches when they have to jump through the same Mickey Mouse hoops as Canzano and Quick only to have their interview appear on the Blazers web site before it appears in print in the magazine?

It's a stupid policy that does nothing to stop the idiots from writing what they want and makes real journalists jump through hoops to cover your team.

BNM


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Boob-No-More said:


> Canzano accountable? Bwah, hah, hah... This new policy will have absolutely no affect on what Canzano writes or how he operates. He's a gossip columnist and a rumor monger. When was the last time you read a real quote from an identifiable source in his column? He's not a reporter, he's the Oregonian's bald Rona Barrett. Everything he writes is speculation, fabrication and innuendo and always comes from his supposed "unnamed, anonymous sources". What, are the Blazers going to do, start requesting all anonymous interviews be scheduled in advance and recorded by the team? All this did was give Canzano more fodder for his anti-Blazer crusade - and offend and inconvenience any REAL journalists who might like to interview one of the Blazers players or coaches.
> 
> An unintended side-affect will be limiting Blazers coverage in the national media. Do you think Sports Illustrated is going to want to do a feature on one of the Blazers players or coaches when they have to jump through the same Mickey Mouse hoops as Canzano and Quick only to have their interview appear on the Blazers web site before it appears in print in the magazine?
> 
> ...


As has been stated in this thread, other major sports teams have similar policys. I'm sure there is an agreement that the interview cant be posted on the website until after its been printed.

I agree with you about Canzano, he's a bum... I just disagree with your thoughts on Patterson wasting time on this.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

it also affects quick.

but I think it holds him accountable in that he can no longer talk about an interview he did, and be purposely vague about it (just read his blog, he's purposely vague all the time).

It just makes it harder for him to BS his way through something, thats all.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Boob-No-More said:


> Canzano accountable? Bwah, hah, hah... This new policy will have absolutely no affect on what Canzano writes or how he operates. He's a gossip columnist and a rumor monger. When was the last time you read a real quote from an identifiable source in his column? He's not a reporter, he's the Oregonian's bald Rona Barrett. Everything he writes is speculation, fabrication and innuendo and always comes from his supposed "unnamed, anonymous sources". What, are the Blazers going to do, start requesting all anonymous interviews be scheduled in advance and recorded by the team? All this did was give Canzano more fodder for his anti-Blazer crusade - and offend and inconvenience any REAL journalists who might like to interview one of the Blazers players or coaches.
> BNM


Good one!

:cheers:


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Shouldn't the front office be focusing on the upcoming draft and possible off season moves, rather than wasting their time sparring with the local media?


Who are you refering to here then?

Who is generally recognized as the "Front Office"? 

Pattersen, Nash & Pritchard......

and don't get so uptight....I agree with the majority of your points...specifically regarding Pattersen...but I disagree with the assumption that this somehow causes a loss of focus on the draft....

Pritchard is in charge of the draft...the scheduling or prospects...the scouting etc...and judging from what I have heard from him already...he has it WELL under control....But of course, Canzano would never say that, now would he?


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

I think we can all agree this policy was targeted at Canzano and Quick - and that's why I think it is a waste of time. It won't magically turn them into respestable journalists. They will continue with their petty vendetas. All it does is justify and legitimize their agenda. As such, it's counterproductive and a waste of time. Bascially saying you don't trust the local media is also disrepectful to *all* members of the local media - and that includes radio and TV as well as print media. Why offend and make more difficult the lives of those who do you no harm?

I used to think Dwight Jaynes was the worst sports columnist in the world - then we got Canzano. Now, Jaynes doesn't look so bad. I remember celebrating when Jaynes was fired by the Oregonian. He was followed by a series of short-lived nobodies, and then Canzano blew into town urging us all to forget the Blazers and become Laker fans (talk about not knowing your audience). At this point, I'd welcome Dwight Jaynes back to the Oregonian with open arms if it meant Canzano was gone.

And, boy has our local media really gone down hill lately. The decline of the local media has been marching in lock-step with the decline of the Blazers. I'm not sure which is the cause and which is the effect. In addition to Canzano and Quick in print, the local afternoon show on 1080 is unlistenable. Gone are the days of guys like Mychael Thompson, Kermit Washington and Kenny Vance who actually new a little bit about what goes on in the NBA and now we have some guy whose name I can never remember and some big doofus who wouldn't have made it past 10th grade if he wasn't a big fatty who could play on the offensive line. And to top it off, they have to bring in Canzano every stinking evening to rehash his worthless column on the air. Why would I want to hear what I don't want to read?

What we need is not a new media access policy from the Blazers. We need a media enema. Unfortunately, disrespecting the local media, treating them like they are incompetent (even when some of them are) and making their jobs harder and redundant, isn't going to attract any new talent to Portland. Like I said a few posts back, the Blazer should be doing everything they can to make their players (well, certain players not named Darius anyway) and coaches MORE available to the media. Martell Webster is a walking, talking PR department's dream come true. This kid is incredibly likeable and articulate. He says and does the right things. Turn him loose on the local media and you'll start seeing a lot more positive stories in the local papers. Why do we have to read that great article about his childhood in a Seattle area paper? Sebastian Telfair also has the potential to be a media darling. He loves the attention and has a million dollar smile. He actually seems to enjoy talking to both the press and the fans. Viktor, with his huslte and work ethic is also fast becoming a fan favorite, Get him some English lessons and/or a translator. Steve Blake is an intelligent player the fans would love to hear more from. Rather than limit the media acess to these guys, you should turn them loose on the media every chance you get. The Blazers went to all this trouble to get players with good character and *NOW* they decide to limit access to the media. Yeah, that makes sense.

BNM


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> *As has been stated in this thread, other teams have similar policys*. I'm sure there is an agreement that the interview cant be posted on the website until after its been printed.
> 
> I agree with you about Canzano, he's a bum... I just disagree with your thoughts on Patterson wasting time on this.


Actually they don't....very few if any NBA teams have the policy of recording all interviews themselves. It's somewhat common in the NFL but not the NBA.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

"big fatty"

hahahah....zing!


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

sa1177 said:


> Actually they don't....very few if any NBA teams have the policy of recording all interviews themselves. It's somewhat common in the NFL but not the NBA.


"teams"... as in other major sports teams. 

Just curious, how do you know if other NBA teams do or do not require a copy of the interview?


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> "teams"... as in other major sports teams.
> 
> Just curious, how do you know if other NBA teams do or do not require a copy of the interview?


On of my good friends is Brian Fachini former assistant head of Blazers PR and former Director of Spurs PR, I asked him when we had a discussion about this the other day.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

SMiLE said:


> it also affects quick.
> 
> but I think it holds him accountable in that he can no longer talk about an interview he did, and be purposely vague about it (just read his blog, he's purposely vague all the time).
> 
> It just makes it harder for him to BS his way through something, thats all.


Ya, I agree. A good example is last year when some players said we needed to get some other players in here. You know Quick had to of prime the pump asking them that, it wasn't the player just coming out and saying that of their own accord and this will show that or it'll show it was just the player. But what it'll really show is how they operate and that is what Canzona doesn't want the public to see and why this was a excellent idea.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

I am not a Canzano fan (not as much of a hater as others), but doesn't Canzano win in a way on this issue. A beat writer is a small market city had enough power and influnece to make a multi-million dollar organization change their press poilcy to that extreme. For good or bad, Canzano has had an affect on the Blazer organization, which is more than a lot of other beat writers can say.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I am not a Canzano fan (not as much of a hater as others), but doesn't Canzano win in a way on this issue. A beat writer is a small market city had enough power and influnece to make a multi-million dollar organization change their press poilcy to that extreme. For good or bad, Canzano has had an affect on the Blazer organization, which is more than a lot of other beat writers can say.


That's like saying a change in the law because of a serial rapist means the serial rapist had some type of victory.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

mgb said:


> That's like saying a change in the law because of a serial rapist means the serial rapist had some type of victory.


Any press for Canzano is good press...attracts new readership.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mgb said:


> That's like saying a change in the law because of a serial rapist means the serial rapist had some type of victory.



Good point. Although some say that the heighten security and more restrictive society that has been generated by the terrorist is a victory for the terrorists . . .I guess that doesn't really translate over to new laws generated by serial rapist . . .

I could still see Canzano laughing with his buddies on all the turmoil he has caused the Blazer organization . . . but I'm hoping more that he is cussing and throwing thing all around his office because of this new policy.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Well one thing is they haven't said anything about Canzano in regard with this change, it's just a general dealing with the media change. Of course anyone that follows the Blazers like we do know right off why they are doing it and of course Canzano jumps all over it but that is just par for the course for him.

The last thing I'd want the Blazers to do is kiss up to Canzano and the Oregonian. That would mean that type of tactics work and they shouldn't be allowed to. Just like my Cowboys signing TO, that says the BS he did is ok and it'll come back to bite you sooner or later, this player or another. I mean when does it end? If they tried to make Canzano happy then he owns them.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Or what will happen if they don't?...It doesn't say what kind of ramifications there will be if somehow they don't get it tape recorded or transcripted...

I think this has a lot to do with the Miles interview at the restaurant with Jason Quick where he spilled a whole lot of beans mostly directed toward management.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Boob-No-More said:


> I think we can all agree this policy was targeted at Canzano and Quick - and that's why I think it is a waste of time. It won't magically turn them into respestable journalists. They will continue with their petty vendetas. All it does is justify and legitimize their agenda. As such, it's counterproductive and a waste of time. Bascially saying you don't trust the local media is also disrepectful to *all* members of the local media - and that includes radio and TV as well as print media. Why offend and make more difficult the lives of those who do you no harm?
> 
> I used to think Dwight Jaynes was the worst sports columnist in the world - then we got Canzano. Now, Jaynes doesn't look so bad. I remember celebrating when Jaynes was fired by the Oregonian. He was followed by a series of short-lived nobodies, and then Canzano blew into town urging us all to forget the Blazers and become Laker fans (talk about not knowing your audience). At this point, I'd welcome Dwight Jaynes back to the Oregonian with open arms if it meant Canzano was gone.
> 
> ...



The thing that made Vance so knowledgeable about the inner-goings of the Blazers was that he had a solid rapport with the players, unlike a lot of the media guys that are around now...

He had a good enough working relationship with some of the players that they even had dinner at each others houses when he wrote stories and is still in contact with them today.

Vance had the capability of being able to call up Bob Whitsitt whenever he chose to find out what the real deal was...Instead Canzano and Quick have to make up stuff that is somehow hinted their way from unanonymous sources who are keyed in at 'One Center Court'


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> I think we can all agree this policy was targeted at Canzano and Quick - and that's why I think it is a waste of time. It won't magically turn them into respestable journalists. They will continue with their petty vendetas. All it does is justify and legitimize their agenda.


I agree this move was because of the tactics of QuickCrap, and I also agree that _"It won't magically turn them into respestable journalists"_... but the next time anyone pulls a quote out of context for purposes of turning the truth on it's head, tape will exist to reveal the dishonesty. 

Sure JC is ticked... this move largely pulls back the curtain on his act alla the Wizard of Oz, and gives fans a more direct/better way to access the info about their favorite players/team. I'm sure JC has some fans who he can whine to right now, but maybe those fans can start TiVo-ing Days of our Lives for their gossip fix. I think most Blazer fans will largely appreciate how all the coverage will change. This move forces Portland media types to hold their spin in check and stay with the facts. I also would guess that we'll enjoy hearing the complete interviews from the source much more then reading cherry picked quotes from those telling stories.

STOMP


----------



## NBAGOD (Aug 26, 2004)

I don't see how this is remotely practical. Most interviews and quotes aren't elaborate sit down sessions...they're quick pow wows before/after practices and games around the practice floor and locker room. There's no way every conversation can be pre-approved and recorded.


----------



## NBAGOD (Aug 26, 2004)

> I think most Blazer fans will largely appreciate how all the coverage will change.


Unfortunately the coverage will only change when the underlying subject does. 21 wins, unhappy stars, bottom of the league attendance and revenue, financial problems, pleas for public subsidies, incompetent management, etc, etc doesn't make for lots of positive news. Reality bites.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

NBAGOD said:


> I don't see how this is remotely practical. Most interviews and quotes aren't elaborate sit down sessions...they're quick pow wows before/after practices and games around the practice floor and locker room. There's no way every conversation can be pre-approved and recorded.


 That is a good point. Rather than this move having the effect of giving more access to the fan about the interivew via the website, maybe this move in fact is going to restrict fans from having more access to the players. For example, JQ is at practice and after practice asks Zbo "how's the leg feeling" and Zbo's response is "sorry, I can't answer questions without the question being pre-submitted and the answer being recorded."

Does this move further isolate the players from the fans?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

NBAGOD said:


> Unfortunately the coverage will only change when the underlying subject does. 21 wins, unhappy stars, bottom of the league attendance and revenue, financial problems, pleas for public subsidies, incompetent management, etc, etc doesn't make for lots of positive news. Reality bites.


of course the coverage had the same negative tone when the team was winning and the RG was selling out. While I agree that Portland's reality today does bite, I really like this proactive approach of handling the gossip mongers from spinning bleep out of nothing comments. I think it effectively changes the way they'll be able to operate from here on out... I also think recordings of the actual interview makes the written press far less influential.

STOMP


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

So I'm curious..if this is all about honesty and truth and those gosh darn lovable guys in the front office, why has only Soda brought up the infamous Paul Allen interview that WAS edited on Blazers.com?

Dang'd if you do, dang'd if you don't.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

zagsfan20 said:


> The thing that made Vance so knowledgeable about the inner-goings of the Blazers was that he had a solid rapport with the players, unlike a lot of the media guys that are around now...


Yep, he liked the players and they liked him. He treated them with respect and kindness and they returned the favor. Kenny wasn't just a "Trailblazer Inside", he was *the* "NBA Insider". Superstars from other teams would actually seek Kenny out when they were in town just to see how he was doing. Now the home team players won't even give the local media the time of day. It's a two way streeet and players are human, too. You want them to talk to you, treat them with respect and courtesy. Jason Quick calling himself the insider is a joke. Most of the Blazer players won't even talk to him unless they have an agenda they want to see in print.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

STOMP said:


> I agree this move was because of the tactics of QuickCrap, and I also agree that _"It won't magically turn them into respestable journalists"_... but the next time anyone pulls a quote out of context for purposes of turning the truth on it's head, tape will exist to reveal the dishonesty.


As I said, this won't affect what Canzano writes one little bit. The only quotes he ever publishes are from his supposed "anonymous sources". When you're nothing but a rumor mongerer you can write whateverthehell you want and attribute it to "anonymous sources" or "a source close to the team" (see Vescey, Peter).

As the beat writer assigned to cover the team, it *will* affect Jason Quick, and perhaps that was their goal. But is also inconveniences all the legit local and national writers, TV and radio sports reporters just trying to do their jobs.



STOMP said:


> This move forces Portland media types to hold their spin in check and stay with the facts.


Yeah, right. Let's just see how "factual" Canzano's column becomes as a result of this new policy. His whole column is based on innuendo, fabrication and gossip from "unnamed sources close to the team". He has always used the "anonymous source" crutch to advance his personal agenda and cover for his own laziness and incompetence. This just gives him a legitimate excuse to do so - and whine about it to no end in the process. He not only gets to continue his rumor mongering and personal anti-Blazers hate campaign, now he gets to throw in conspiracy theories, too.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Does this move further isolate the players from the fans?


Yes, it does. It also eliminates spontaneous respsonses from the players. Post game interviews will be scripted. Gee, I wonder if they'll have two scripts - one for when the Blazrs win, and one for when they lose? Will each player get their own script, or will it be one generic script that they will all share? Will they have to memorize the answers, or can they just read directly from the script? Spur of the moment, heat of the battle comments are usually the only ones worth reading. They're the only ones where we get any insight about what the players are actually thinking and feeling. Now all we'll get is the "we gave 110%, but came up short" canned cliche's. No more:

"Both teams played hard."

"As long as somebody 'CTC,' at the end of the day I'm with them. For all you that don't know what CTC means, that's 'Cut the Check. I just go out there and play. Again, somebody just 'CTC."

"I sometimes black out."

Those guys may be jerks, but they were quotable and memorable. I may not like what they say, but I want to hear what they are really thinking, not some filtered, watered-down, scripted, pre-approved, homogenized canned responses to generic, pre-submitted, sanatized questions.

It also handcuffs the legitimate media personel that are just trying to do their jobs and cover our team. A better policy would have been: Don't talk to John Canzano or Jason Quick - EVER. That would have eliminated the problem and not penalized everyone else in the process.

BNM


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> As I said, this won't affect what Canzano writes one little bit. The only quotes he ever publishes are from his supposed "anonymous sources". When you're nothing but a rumor mongerer you can write whateverthehell you want and attribute it to "anonymous sources" or "a source close to the team" (see Vescey, Peter).
> 
> As the beat writer assigned to cover the team, it *will* affect Jason Quick, and perhaps that was their goal. But is also inconveniences all the legit local and national writers, TV and radio sports reporters just trying to do their jobs.
> 
> Yeah, right. Let's just see how "factual" Canzano's column becomes as a result of this new policy. His whole column is based on innuendo, fabrication and gossip from "unnamed sources close to the team". He has always used the "anonymous source" crutch to advance his personal agenda and cover for his own laziness and incompetence. This just gives him a legitimate excuse to do so - and whine about it to no end in the process. He not only gets to continue his rumor mongering and personal anti-Blazers hate campaign, now he gets to throw in conspiracy theories, too.


BNB, you're a new poster here (welcome btw  ), but least you think we're truely disagreeing, you're pretty much singing the same rant I've been humming right here for at least the last 5 years. I don't think anything will make Canzano a respectful journalist, but I think this is a good step to marginalize his relevance. I'm sure he'll still be stirring the pot with his bleep, thats his bread and butter, I just don't think fans will care nearly as much. There is a new media outlet in town for Blazer fans to get their insights from, and it will be straight from the source. This latest arrangement may not be perfect, but I prefer guarded comments from the players over isolated quotes run through the *O's* gossip blender. 

STOMP


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

STOMP said:


> BNB, you're a new poster here (welcome btw  ), but least you think we're truely disagreeing, you're pretty much singing the same rant I've been humming right here for at least the last 5 years. I don't think anything will make Canzano a respectful journalist, but I think this is a good step to marginalize his relevance. I'm sure he'll still be stirring the pot with his bleep, thats his bread and butter, I just don't think fans will care nearly as much. There is a new media outlet in town for Blazer fans to get their insights from, and it will be straight from the source. This latest arrangement may not be perfect, but I prefer guarded comments from the players over isolated quotes run through the *O's* gossip blender.
> 
> STOMP


As much as Canzano sucks you have to remember that he is essentially writing a opinion column. He is not paid to be the Blazers beat writer. That is JQ's job. Thus of course Canzano will do whatever he can to write controversial oppinions/thoughts on the matter. 

It's the frequency and minority of the topics that get to me.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

STOMP said:


> BNB, you're a new poster here (welcome btw  ), but least you think we're truely disagreeing, you're pretty much singing the same rant I've been humming right here for at least the last 5 years. I don't think anything will make Canzano a respectful journalist, but I think this is a good step to marginalize his relevance.STOMP


STOMP,

Thanks for the welcome. I don't mind disagreement. If we all agreed on everything, there would be little to discuss. As you said, we seem to be saying much the same thing. However, I disagree that this new policy is the best way to marginalize Canzano. I think ignoring him is a much better approach. He's like a bratty litle kid who misbehaves just to get attention, and the Blazers are rewarding him by giving him the attention he craves. Changing team policy because of him makes him think he's more poweful than he really is and just legitimizes his innuendo and rumor mongering. Now he can say, "See, I told you they were hiding something and don't want the local media telling the public what's really going on at One Center Court". The Blazers public display of paranoia makes it look, to the casual reader, like Canzano was right all along. We know better, but it sure gives him an opportunity to say he was right and they are scared of the "truth".

BNM


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> I disagree that this new policy is the best way to marginalize Canzano. I think ignoring him is a much better approach. He's like a bratty litle kid who misbehaves just to get attention, and the Blazers are rewarding him by giving him the attention he craves. Changing team policy because of him makes him think he's more poweful than he really is and just legitimizes his innuendo and rumor mongering. Now he can say, "See, I told you they were hiding something and don't want the local media telling the public what's really going on at One Center Court". The Blazers public display of paranoia makes it look, to the casual reader, like Canzano was right all along. We know better, but it sure gives him an opportunity to say he was right and they are scared of the "truth".


hey I'm sure that _some_ fans will believe/consider JC's latest spin that this shows that he's hot on the trail of the truth, but over time I think that a far greater amount of fans will come to enjoy being able to access audio feeds of the actual interview(s) that he and other writers will be pulling their quotes from. Why pay to get your quotes cherry picked and triple filtered when you can hear them fresh from the source in their entirety for free? 

That readily available feeds will exist for Blazer fans to access should make the truth much harder to spin for the gossip mongers like JC. It sort of reminds me of when Martin Luther translated the bible from the Latin to German allowing everyday German citizens to see what a sham the church was making of their religion. Losing a stranglehold on the information forced the church to reform their approach/tactics in many ways. 

Power to the people!

STOMP


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Regardless of the spin, PR, or whatever, one thing is clear: If the interviews are podcast so I can listen to them -- I WIN!! And writers lose. Sorry writers.

Being against this move is like someone complaining when video stores opened up that now you'd have access to lots of movies instead of settling for the limited fare that was offered on TV.

Who on here isn't going to enjoy listening to more interviews? 

:banana:


----------

