Oregonian hires outsider to examine relationship with Blazers

[SF_Express]

Former Mercury News sports editor Craig Lancaster is the guy. He's going to write an independent story that's going to be independently edited, too:

http://www.truehoop.com/portland-trail-blazers-48974-craig-lancaster-describes-his-oregonian-story.html

 

[statrat]

That should be an interesting piece. Things have been ugly between both sides. Canzano basically despises the Blazer's management and throws a hissy fit every time something doesn't go his way. The note in the piece about John not being a very happy person rings pretty true. I've met him a few times and he's the type of writer who, if he can't find any smoke to lead to a fire, will toss a smoke bomb and start screamin "Fire!" at the top of his lungs. Couple that with the fact that Blazers management has notoriously thin skin and things have all gone south in Portland. I'll be interested to read Lancaster's piece when it comes out.

 

[tyler durden 71351]

I was just reading the blog posting about the deal and wanted to see what the SportsJournalists.commers had to say about it...that's an interesting situation to say the least.

 

[slipshod]

This goes back a very long time and stems from people who aren't there anymore...at the Blazers or The Oregonian. ... Relations went sour when Allen bought the team, then brought in Whitsitt and fired Rick Adelman. Geoff Petrie quit in the knick of time. Blazers adopted an arrogant ``we don't need you'' approach to the media and The Oregonian adopted a ``we don't like you'' attitude toward the franchise. Then came the legal problems and, after a bit of winning with Rasheed Wallace and the rest, the team went south. While I think The Oregonian is correct in this process, especially since the NBA is the only game in town, that franchise has so many problems it should try to get along with everybody.

 

[awriter]

That should be an interesting piece. Things have been ugly between both sides. Canzano basically despises the Blazer's management and throws a hissy fit every time something doesn't go his way. The note in the piece about John not being a very happy person rings pretty true. I've met him a few times and he's the type of writer who, if he can't find any smoke to lead to a fire, will toss a smoke bomb and start screamin "Fire!" at the top of his lungs. Couple that with the fact that Blazers management has notoriously thin skin and things have all gone south in Portland. I'll be interested to read Lancaster's piece when it comes out.

The Blazers' problems with the media started long before Canzano and Steve Patterson got their jobs. I don't agree with everything he writes, but Canzano is an excellent reporter who in many ways approaches his job like a beat writer. He's exposed several Blazer follies, so -- go figure -- management hates him. And no, I'm not John.

 

[Starman]

This whole episode is predicated on the assumption there are two equally meritorious sides to the story.

Absurd.

 

[Tom Petty]

That should be an interesting piece. Things have been ugly between both sides. Canzano basically despises the Blazer's management and throws a hissy fit every time something doesn't go his way. The note in the piece about John not being a very happy person rings pretty true. I've met him a few times and he's the type of writer who, if he can't find any smoke to lead to a fire, will toss a smoke bomb and start screamin "Fire!" at the top of his lungs. Couple that with the fact that Blazers management has notoriously thin skin and things have all gone south in Portland. I'll be interested to read Lancaster's piece when it comes out.

met john, met many people who've met john, never heard him described that way. either the 15 people i've spoke with are wrong, or you are.

 

[awriter]

That should be an interesting piece. Things have been ugly between both sides. Canzano basically despises the Blazer's management and throws a hissy fit every time something doesn't go his way. The note in the piece about John not being a very happy person rings pretty true. I've met him a few times and he's the type of writer who, if he can't find any smoke to lead to a fire, will toss a smoke bomb and start screamin "Fire!" at the top of his lungs. Couple that with the fact that Blazers management has notoriously thin skin and things have all gone south in Portland. I'll be interested to read Lancaster's piece when it comes out.

met john, met many people who've met john, never heard him described that way. either the 15 people i've spoke with are wrong, or you are.

Tom, the 15 people you spoke with are right.

 

[212areacode]

The dude is one hell of a columnist (he reports). Don't know him personally, but I've seen him work and go out of my way to read him. He's a real pro; not surprised the Trailblazers can't stand him being around.

 

[Starman]

For 25 years, the Portland Trail Blazers were nearly a model franchise in the NBA. Won the title in 1977, remained serious contenders for most of the following two decades, and had a nearly unbelievable streak of consecutive sellouts (over 1,500 straight games, IIRC).

At some point, the team's management decided to begin concentrating on acquiring every borderline psychotic punk thug in the NBA, a pursuit at which they were quite successful. Resulting in, first, a catastrophically dysfunctional team on the court, and further, a spectacularly repugnant team in terms of general conduct in civilized society.

The fanbase, pushed beyond endurance, finally responded by stampeding to the exits. While for 20-25 years in a row, tickets were impossible to get, now they are impossible to give away. The team plays in front of some of the smallest crowds in the NBA.

Any coverage of the team which did not prominently feature all of these facts as context, would be delusional. There is no need for the Oregonian to be "objective."

There is no "objectivity" to be achieved here. Ownership and management are ****ups. It is what it is.

 

[Tom Petty]

good post starman. right on the money.

 

[statrat]

The dude is one hell of a columnist (he reports). Don't know him personally, but I've seen him work and go out of my way to read him. He's a real pro; not surprised the Trailblazers can't stand him being around.

The fact that he does actually reporting for his columns is one of things that I like about him. However lately his columns seem to have turned into either finding a sick a kid to write about or finding a way to take pot shots at Blazer's management whenever he can, and then complain when he gets blowback. The Blazers management team is about as paranoid as the Nixon administration, and he does his best to get the bottom of every story. I just think he could do it without trying to turn a stripper into a sympathetic character (which he tried to do a few weeks ago).
I think John is a solid reporter, he keeps digging until he gets answers. He just should not expect himself to be endeared to Blazers management. If anyone on the Oregonian staff has the right to have a beef with the Blazers its Jason Quick, the Blazers beat writer.
Maybe its that I'm fairly young and not to incredibly jaded yet, but many times it seems like John is trying to poke a Cobra so it will bite him, and then be able to write a column about it.
Hopefully though his recent trek to South America will give him fresh ideas, because when he gets away from his personal war with Steve Patterson he really is a bang up columnist who does a great job featuring local teams and individuals that fly under the national radar (see his coverage of the University of Portland women's soccer team last year and his recent feature on new Blazers guard Sergio Rodriguez).
Maybe I've just gotten the wrong read on him from the few conversations I've had with him, I talked to him at a few press conferences when I was in Portland, but I've never had lunch with him or anything. He's a bulldog reporter and I respect him for that.

 

[luckyducky]

That should be an interesting piece. Things have been ugly between both sides. Canzano basically despises the Blazer's management and throws a hissy fit every time something doesn't go his way. The note in the piece about John not being a very happy person rings pretty true. I've met him a few times and he's the type of writer who, if he can't find any smoke to lead to a fire, will toss a smoke bomb and start screamin "Fire!" at the top of his lungs. Couple that with the fact that Blazers management has notoriously thin skin and things have all gone south in Portland. I'll be interested to read Lancaster's piece when it comes out.

met john, met many people who've met john, never heard him described that way. either the 15 people i've spoke with are wrong, or you are.

Tom, for once we agree on something.

John's a great columnist and an all-around great guy. He's done a respectable job dealing with the Blazers since he got to town - and he always remembers that there's more to Portland than those jailbirds.

 

[Fletch_F._Fletch]

The story came out today and ran on page 2 of the sports section (in fact, it was the entire page). After reading it I think the only thing that was accomplished was that Canzano ended up taking a couple punches, which will only please the Blazers. I'm really stunned that the Oregonian would put itself in a position to have its star columnist's credibility undermined within its own pages. There were two areas in the story which did just that:

On one, there was a dispute about an e-mail exchange in which Canzano told a Blazers official, Art Sasse, "I hear your house is on the market," when Sasse called Canzano to task on a few points. The two disputed in the story about how that event unfolded, but in the end Sasse produced the original e-mail exchange that showed his version of the story was accurate. When presented with the contradictory information, Canzano apparently stood by his version of the story and offered a conspiracy theory suggestion that it was too convenient that Sasse produced the e-mail exchange, then questioned why Sasse didn't include an e-mail Canzano wrote providing evidence that backed up whatever Sasse was contesting.

In the same section of the story, the Oregonian editor, Peter Bhatia, says in one breath that readers are lucky to have Canzano, but in the next he says, "I think there have been times he's gone farther than I'd be comfortable with. He called Art Sasse a 'henchman.' He made fun of his hairdo. I thought that was too much."

The story also says that Canzano has become a target of the Blazers because he won't back down to a sacred cow, which I completely agree with. I have a ton of respect for John, and he's written some stuff that takes guts to write. But he does toe the line pretty damn close, and there have been a couple times that I felt his determination to pursue whatever is at the heart of what's going on has pushed him over that line. But he's an incredibly good reporter, and I think most of the Blazers' concerns about him are simply their fear of what he might dig up, because his pen is a much mightier sword as a columnist with a popular blog who is more free than a beat writer to communicate what he digs up. And he's not afraid to write what he knows (see last week's column on Darius Miles for a prime example).

 

[Tom Petty]

i would bet canzano's resume is free of dust. the oregonian needs canzano much more than he needs them.

 

[statrat]

Link to the story:
http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/sports/1162628711221490.xml&coll=7&thispage=1

 

[lantaur]

Fine story, but what the hell does it accomplish? Perhaps trying to soothe the Blazers feelings that the paper is trying to be straight with them, I guess. I'm not sure fans really give a damn.

 

[statrat]

Fine story, but what the hell does it accomplish? Perhaps trying to soothe the Blazers feelings that the paper is trying to be straight with them, I guess. I'm not sure fans really give a damn.

I agree. Canzano got kicked in the shins, and I wouldn't imagine the Blazers PR guy is too happy with his portrayal in the story. I would guess the O will be running reader reaction in the near future, I'll be interested to see how that breaks down.

 

[Alma]

Let me give just a small example of the kind of just slightly irresponsible journalism John Canzano practices in his latest column:

"Owner Paul Allen missed Saturday's game, and that became a subject of conversation in the arena. Bronchitis, officials said. And Allen was reported to have watched the game at home, via some sort of satellite setup. A team insider said Allen even phoned in afterward."

1. Somehow, I doubt "the arena" cared much. How does a columnist sitting on press row judge that anyhow? Does he stalk the rafters? Interview people? "Excuse me sir, did you know Paul Allen wasn’t here? Now that you do, can you talk about it for a minute?" I mean, the size of the cheerleaders' breasts probably came up, too. It's just a clunky way of trying to inject an embattled figure into the story.

2. Notice the tone here. It's disbelieving all the way through.

These are small things, but when you're working with paranoids, is it really useful to prick at them with this nonsense?

Reading the story, sorry, but I side with the Blazers. Not so much because their hands are clean, but because the Oregonian dirtied its digits. Journalists should really care less what flunkies and punks populate the PR staff of the "the team." Journalists should care about retrieving, reporting and analyzing the information in a way that is blameless, totally open, and as humble as possible. Completely above the board. The time is swiftly approaching when it's not just the truth because some anonymous source says it's so. The time has already come when far more damaging truths (the nonsense of ESPN's talking heads and the "right-wing" media) gain as much traction as objective reporting.

Truth is up for grabs. And the "journalists" let it happen. For the benefit of a few columnists getting a radio show, or a beat reporter getting a blog, or ATH, jobs will be slashed by the hundreds. Don't any of you understand that? The best thing journalism had for the last 40-50 years was its sobreity laced with wit. When the actual skill and style went out of writing - when you didn't have to pick your spots anymore, and you could just throw your ego and juvenile emotions around in whichever directions you pleased because it resonated with "the people" - that's the attention began to be lost. It's at a point where the "how" of journalism pales in comparison to the "what" - that it's become a tool of whoever most skilled at consolidating information delivery. And we know who that is. Bottom line: If a guy is going to talk about the column he wrote on the radio, why read the column during the week? Why not listen to the radio show - which is no benefit to the newspaper - and hear the same thing? With the added bonus of instant feedback through your cell phone. A lot easier than a letter to the sports editor, I assure you.
This is what going through the wide, easy gate has wrought for print journalism.

The workout leak is a Clintonesque, the-blinds-were-on-the-oustide kind of junk that forces the public to lose trust in the media, much less the organization.

And Canzano's conspiracy theory is hilarious. Hilarious! Caught right in the act, he stands by his story, talks about his recollection and generally sounds like a Reagan boob. You mean to tell me that guy has credibility after that? When you know, sure as I breathe, he'd skewer somebody else for that kind of worthless defense. The columnist is a prime example of a journalist who's swallowed the worm whole and become drunk on his thoroughly average, bluntly dull writing skills, on his ability to bray to multiple media sources whatever random opinion occurs to him that day.

And I especially love how one poster refers to it as Canzano being thrown under the bus. How rich, that we start tossing around the organized crime terms when a columnist is blatantly caught being a mean-spirted, hardheaded ass and called on it.
I applaud the story, and I hope it is used as an example of how journalists can make their lives a lot harder than necessary. Make NO mistake: It is up the newspaper to be the more mature participant in any relationship. Any relationship at all. The minute journalists - especially columnists - forget the power of professionalism and, more importantly, grace, journalists lose.

If the Blazers are Lebanon, then the Oregonian is Israel. And like Israel, I expect the most from the Oregonian.

Some story about some workout is meaningless in the larger picture of strong working relationships.

Or maybe I'm just being stupid, wanting peace like that.

 

[Alma]

212,

Conflict doesn't have a lot of variations. People might die in Israel and Lebanon, but the issues aren't parcticularly different. It's name-calling and marking territory.

You can look at this situation as minor and trivial; that's the standard journalism response. None of it ever matters. But I can you tell that two Chronicles reporters were jailed because the public trust in journalists has eroded, and because these men, however diligent, used illegal government leaks to craft their story and hunt down their prey. Live by bended rules - die by them.

Same thing here. The relationship is strained. Far as I can tell, a strained relationship benefits the one person who could care less, because he mouths off regardless: Canzano. He still has a radio show. A column. A voice. The smallest penalty he'll ever receive for doing and saying whatever he wants is this piece, while readers suffer a closed organization, and other writers - not just the Oregonian - suffer a paranoid staff made more paranoid by an egoist.

Yes, there is such a thing as a tough column. That's the one you write to say you were wrong. In this culture, where columnists throw tantrums, file from a thousand miles away, spend half their time on the air and generally act like ghosts around the office, a scathing piece is hardly difficult. It's as easy as skewering a movie.