Deadmarsh Blog - Removed?!?

Howdy! With the Stanley Cup playoffs in the history books, we enter the slowest time of the year for a hockey fan. Luckily, we have baseball to get us through these tough months... unless you are a Rockies fan, when this season will henceforth be known as The Time of Great Drinking. Sigh.

There will likely be very few articles in the Denver Post about the Avalanche in the upcoming months, which might make it easier for Grading Dater to keep up with them, but seeing as how we've already established the next few months will be some sort of vicious bender waiting for hockey to return, I wouldn't count on it. But anyway, on with the show...

When you're an assistant coach for a hockey team,
you give up your right to privacy. Read the constitution! 

Today's entry is a curiosity: a blog entry that no longer exists. The reasons WHY it no longer exists we can only speculate, but it very likely indicates that Dater has stepped over the line of journalistic integrity and ethics once again. Not long after writing a blog in which he flirted with shady journalism by essentially reporting what he was (apparently) told off-the-record about Deadmarsh and Lefebvre returning to the Avalanche coaching staff, Dater posted an article explaining that Adam Deadmarsh had, in fact, stepped down from his position "for personal reasons" and accepted another, behind-the-scenes position with the team (Dater ended up oh-for-two on his "Deadmarsh and Lefebvre set to return" prediction, as this blog indicates that Lefebvre has accepted a head coaching position for the Canadiens' AHL affiliate).

When somebody says that they are doing something for personal reasons, I think 99% of the population realizes that what they're saying is that they do not really want those reasons discussed publicly. That doesn't mean that those 99% of people aren't curious about it and won't gossip and speculate, but it's a pretty safe bet that those people aren't newspaper journalists with the power to completely ruin that person's wishes to remain private just by tapping a few buttons. Adrian Dater IS a newspaper journalist, and even on his blog he has a greater responsibility to the privacy of those he covers than you and I do when we're sitting at the bar discussing hockey rumors and stuff.

Odds and Ends

Hello! Here are a few brief (we can only hope) grades for some recent work found on the Denver Post. Enjoy!

Deadmarsh, Lefebvre looking set to return

Few people remember what
great, great hair this guy had

In this blog, Adrian Dater uses some very odd logic to explain why he believes that Avalanche assistant coaches Adam Deadmarsh and Sylvain Lefebvre will be with the team next season. He begins by explaining that the Avalanche do not allow their assistants to speak to the press, nor do they announce any upcoming coaching changes. "For instance, if an assistant coach is not coming back, they will not release that information publicly." With him so far? He then tells us that when he asked somebody (he doesn't say whom) about Deader and Lefebvre, he was met with silence. His conclusion from that is, oddly enough, that they are coming back... despite the fact that he just wrote that when the Avs say nothing, it usually means a coach isn't coming back.

Confused? You're not the only one. When a few commenters questioned this very issue and raised a couple very good points about it, the response was the tired-out "It's a blog, he can write whatever he wants." Even Dater (or somebody using his name, anyway) himself chimed in, writing "I just love getting lectures on "accountability" from people who don't use their real name." Well, even though a blog can be used to inject some more opinion into things than would be proper in a regular article, a blog is not an excuse for amateurish journalism from a professional journalist, whether he uses his real name or not.

Grab Bag

Hello! Here are a few short (yeah, right) comments on recent Avalanche-related articles and blogs.

Bag skate

In this blog entry, Dater keeps it short, saying that the Avs had a "bag skate" on Monday. Dater included video of this skate... which to me didn't look all that punishing, but unlike just about everybody else who seems to follow this team, I'm not a hockey coach, so if that's the way Sacco runs his practices, fine by me. As I've said before, I like little videos like this included in the blog, I think it's a great use for the All Things Avs blog and I would like to see even more of these behind-the-scenes vids.

All Things Avs posts: Sharks/Avs recap

http://blogs.denverpost.com/avs/2011/02/20/postgame-avs-sharks-the-grim-march-continues/6552/

After a few blog entries that simply reviewed the recent trades the team has made without offering a great deal of insight, Dater had this entry after the Avs got shut out against San Jose.

Up to this point, Dater had done a reasonably good job with his assessments of the two big trades over the weekend: he seemed to understand the reasoning behind the Anderson trade (they were not going to re-sign him anyway, might as well flip him for somebody they might be able to hold on to and develop) and kept his remarks largely in the "boy, things sure happen fast!" neighborhood. And his comments on the Stewart/Shattenkirk-Johnson trade were equally balanced: Dater worries that giving up Stewart is a mistake, but he also knows that Johnson is exactly the sort of player he's been saying the Avs need all along, and you've got to give up talent to get talent. Again, up to this point, he'd been OK, and those blog entries together receive a C+ grade.

But all it took was one game to end all that. This blog entry is a return to the mopey, pessimistic, sky-is-falling attitude that pervades Dater's work... if it had stopped there, then it would have been merely bad. However, this blog entry also offers an example of one of the prime reasons Adrian Dater should be removed from the Avalanche beat: his clearly-stated bias towards certain players and against others.

Dater starts with a variation of his "I'm not one to (blank), but...," this time saying, "I'm not going to start second-guessing the Stewart-Johnson deal tonight, after one game." I have my doubts, but let's take him at his word on that, and move on...

Next, he digs into the Anderson trade. Remember, he was pretty shruggy about this one up to this point, but that was before Anderson stood on his head for Ottawa that night and sent him all into a tizzy.

But I still want to second-guess the Craig Anderson deal some. I still can’t believe Anderson is gone. He was so great last year, and now he’s gone, traded for a guy who has been terrible all year in Ottawa. Can’t believe that’s all that came of Anderson, after a first year in which he literally carried the team into the playoffs, playing 71 games.

So, you can't believe it. OK. Rub your eyes, take a deep breath, and get back to work. Guess what? Anderson was terrible all year in Denver, too... so what's your point? One good game in Ottawa and he's a Vezina candidate?

Oh, and do you have any idea what the word "literally" means, Dater? This is one thing I can't stand for, is when a person who is PAID TO USE THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE treats it like this. "Literally" is a word, it has a meaning. Learn it.

So many fans seem to think he “quit” on the team this year. Does anybody have any evidence of that? I sure can’t find any. 

Well, there were all those times he half-assed a save attempt, where he played like he didn't really care. He didn't look like the same goalie he did in the first half of last season, and even his biggest fans would admit it. Ironically, the Ottawa game Dater is talking about that convinces him that Anderson should have been the Avs Goalie Of The Future is all the proof some of us need to show that Anderson's play this season was the result of giving up on the team... in his first game in Ottawa (a team with pretty bad defense, themselves) he performed like he hadn't for Colorado all year. Looks like pretty convincing evidence to me that he might have been holding something back with the Avs. Good riddance to him.

Sorry, but I’m an Anderson guy. I think this: I think Anderson DID feel less wanted this year, after the Avs didn’t give the time of day to his agent toward talks on a new contract.

Two problems with this one. First, it came to light right after this that the Avs DID, in fact, offer Anderson a very nice contract and a substantial raise, and he turned them down. Glaring mistakes like this are why real reporters routinely include something called "fact gathering" as part of their work.

The big problem here, though, is:  "I'm an Anderson guy." How often do we see a professional journalist proclaim the guys he likes and doesn't like the way Dater does? It's just ridiculous... journalism is all about being free from bias on the subject you are covering, and what bias you cannot rid yourself, you do your best to mask and keep out of your stories. Not only does Dater fail to make an attempt to keep his personal bias about the Avalanche out of his writing, he pretty much flaunts it. Frankly, I can't believe he hasn't been fired for this sort of thing. He should be.

Then he had a couple of bad games, and suddenly he was in a rotation basis with Peter Budaj. That’s where I split with the coaching decisions from there on the goaltending. I still think Anderson needed another bunch of games to play by himself before he started to be in a platoon position with a guy who has NEVER proven himself as a No. 1.

 
AD, he had more than "a couple of bad games." He was under .500, and his backup had better stats than he did. This is the problem with bias in reporting... it makes you unable to discern (and thereby report) report the truth. Bias is poison to journalism.

Now, if you're one of those who will dismiss it by saying "But it's only a blog!" consider this: yes, a blog writer is different than a journalist and is subject to different ethical boundaries (if any)... but when a blog writer IS a journalist, it creates a major problem, and this is a perfect example of it. It is a conflict of interest to get paid as a journalist to cover the Avalanche, and then spew out ill-informed and completely personal opinions on the same subject, ESPECIALLY on the same website.

And why take a dig at Budaj here? Budaj did his job as the Avalanche backup this season. Anderson failed, spectacularly, in his job as the starter... but what does Dater do? Defends Anderson, attacks Budaj. Recall just a bit ago when I said that bias poisons journalism? There's the evidence of it, right there... no hockey mind or journalist would ever suggest that the problem with a team is its backup goaltender.

After bitching about this for another few paragraphs, Dater then returns, as you knew he would, to second-guess the Johnson-Stewart deal for a while. Big surprise, right?

Dater does get one thing right in this blog entry, and this is it:

I was wrong.

He's wrong about a lot of stuff, folks, but that hasn't stopped him yet.

Grade: F

Postscript: The comments section produced an interesting exchange. 

Vamjl: 

Why are you so quick to cut Andy all the slack in the world and just as quick to throw Budaj under the bus and back over him? 

Jimbo (me):

I agree... Dater goes out of his way here to make excuses for Anderson, but when it comes time to discuss Budaj Dater dismisses him with one sentence.

Whether Budaj hs proved he can be a #1 goalie or not, he DID prove to the coaches and the Avs that he gave them a better chance to win than Anderson this season, and that says it all... if Budaj's as bad as Dater says and the Avs STILL went with him, then we've just learned everything we need to know about what Andy brought to the team... if Dater put his massive bias aside for a bit he might be able to give a better analysis on the goaltending situation, but he'd rather be the writer with an edge than the writer with the insightful commentary and analysis. 

"Adrian:" 

Jimbo,
Congrats on the most idiotic post of the 100 comments so far. Bravo!
How many games has Budaj won lately, I wonder? Oh, and Anderson won 13 games this year, and Budaj 12 so far. So there goes your statement about giving them the best chance to win.

Jimbo (me): 

How is my comment idiotic? I said that the coaches and the Avs had pretty clearly stated that Budaj gave them the best chance to win, as evidenced by his increased workload as the season went along. Prove me wrong... go ahead. Show everybody what an idiot I am, or admit what a petty, unprofessional writer YOU are. 

I thought I made a pretty good point, don't you? After being given a very heavy workload to start the season, and then again after he returned from his knee injury, Anderson eventually fell into a platoon situation with Budaj, and then near the end it seemed he might actually be headed towards a backup role. They ultimately traded Anderson away, of course, and on top of all that, Sacco actually said at one point "Right now [Budaj] gives us a chance to win"... the clear implication being that Anderson did not.

That sure seems like a lot of compelling evidence to back up my statement that the Avs' decisions (and statements) about the goaltending told us a lot about what they really thought of Anderson as the season went on. Dater apparently doesn't like reasoning that follows a linear path, however, as it clogs up his frothy-bias machine and he has to spend the rest of the night getting it running again. So instead of responding to the argument, Dater throws out some facts that don't really support his point (or damage mine), and lashes out, calling my post "idiotic." Classy.

Now, it was pointed out that it might not have been Dater himself posting as "Adrian," and I responded that if this was the case I apologized to the real Dater... but frankly, I have little doubt it was Dater who wrote that comment. All it does is show how thin both his knowledge of the game AND his skin really are.

All Things Avs blog: Dater tells his readers to "Grow Up." Readers take advice, switch to hockey coverage written by adults.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/avs/2011/02/11/peter-forsberg-on-ice-here-in-columbus/6453/

After the obligatory Video Of Forsberg Practicing, and some quick (and as it turns out, accurate) speculation that Forsberg would play against Columbus and that Foote would miss yet another Jackets home game with an injury, Dater goes back to the well to respond to the comments posted after his previous blog entry regarding Anderson leaving the team for personal reasons. 

Yes I know what it is, but am not going to report it because, geez, it’s personal. Not everybody has to know every little thing in this world. People speculating on this blog that it’s for this reason or that reason, or making up spurious accusations what it might be, I have two words to say:
Grow up. 

It’s not a big deal, and he’ll be back soon. Making up stuff about what might be wrong with him is going to eventually lead me down the path of blocking all commenters. I know it’s just a couple bad apples kind of thing, but knock it off.

It seems that Dater knows he has once again crosses the loosely-drawn but critically important line between reporter and fan. This time, it caused some trouble, and he handled it poorly. If Dater was really interested in the concept of the public "not knowing every little thing in this world," one would think he'd realize that this includes the public not really needing to know that Dater knows what's going on but is nobly refusing to report it.

I read a lot of those comments about Anderson, and many of them were indeed ridiculous (he's hurt, he's about to be traded, he has a drug problem, etc.). But Dater should realize that if he taunts people with the "I know something you don't know" childishness, people will often react in kind... and when they do, the smart thing is to not dignify them with a response. Dater, though, does the opposite: he keeps the ball rolling, because it gives him another opportunity to explain that he does, in fact, know what's going on, and you do not. His message to his readers who commented on something that he himself commented on first: "Grow up." If ever somebody should listen to his own advice, it's Dater here.

Perhaps the most troubling about this blog entry is that there were a handful of people, including myself, who called him on this one. I believe I wrote something to the effect of, "The next time you have a secret that you don't want anybody to know about, try this: Don't tell anybody that you know a secret." That comment, along with all other comments critical of Dater, were deleted from the comments section.

Now, I do not know if Dater himself deleted those comments, or if it was somebody else at the Post. But, with Dater having already threatened in that very blog entry that he might resort to blocking commenters, it doesn't look good. The question of ethics on a discussion board is a murky one, but generally speaking, unless a comment is harassing somebody, or using threatening or vulgar speech, it is allowed. The Post has every right to control their comment section the way they see fit, and I'm not going to call it "censorship," but it's certainly telling that comments questioning Dater's professionalism or ethics (journalistic ethics, that is) were removed.

Grade: D Another video of Forsberg skating, which are always nice to see. I do appreciate Dater's efforts putting stuff like this on the blog, you can't really get it anywhere else. But the gear change to rehash the Anderson thing, putting all the blame on the people who really just followed his gossipy lead, and the deletion of comments critical of Dater's handling of the situation, drags this effort down quickly.

All Things Avs blog: Dater has a secret! He will not tell you his secret, so don't ask him to reveal his secret! It's Dater's little secret and nobody will know!

http://blogs.denverpost.com/avs/2011/02/10/craig-anderson-returns-to-denver-for-personal-reasons/6449/

In this blog entry, Dater gets off to a good, informative start with the first paragraph: Anderson leaving the team for personal reasons, Grahame and Holos called up. This sort of quickie insider info is exactly the way a blog like this should be used. High five, Dater!

But then, things go downhill as Dater adopts his "I know something you don't know" voice, and steps across the line separating reporter and gossip columist:

I’m not going to speculate the reason why Anderson is taking a leave, even though I believe I have an idea. He’s not hurt and I believe this is only going to be a day-to-day thing. He wasn’t going to start tomorrow anyway. So let’s not make a big deal of it.

Even pro athletes deserve a little privacy. And like I said, I’m not positive what it is, so for now that’s the reason he’s gone – personal.

As soon as you say something like "I'm not even going to speculate," you've just sort of opened the door to speculation, and when you say "let's not make a big deal of it," you're coaxing a certain type of person to make a big deal of it. Reporting that Anderson had left the team for personal reasons and leaving it at that would have summed it up nicely, thank you very much... but Dater, in his eagerness to demonstrate that he has both Insider Information and that he respects people's privacy, feels the need to re-state it so that he, rather than Anderson or the team, is the focus.


Grade: C- A good start, kinda lousy finish. Some silly comments about Anderson's absence resulted from this entry, which could have largely been avoided with an objective and professional reporting of it in the first place.