Positive Rogers coverage?

[TheHammer]

I was listening to the Dean Blundell show this morning (I do listen sometimes for his interviews) and he had on some dude from a sports website who is a regular participant in the infamous Buffalo Bills tailgate. He also went to the Argos tailgate on the 23rd. He was asked to compare the two, and while he fully admitted that the Bills tailgate is larger and more boisterous (i.e. dangerous), he did say that the Argos tailgate was a lot of fun and he would go again and he would recommend others to go as well. When the price of beers was discussed, Blundell and his producer said that the price was great. What impressed me about the interview is not just the good things the interviewee said, but the fact that Blundell was not trying to coerce not-so-favourable answers out of him (example: he didn't ask anything like 'do you believe that Argos games are missing that 'prime time' feel like the NFL has?). The funniest part of the interview was when he was asked if there were any fights in the stands and the interview mentioned one fight he saw. Blundell and his producer said you know a sport has hit the big time when there are fights in the stands (sounds sarcastic but trust me it wasn't... and he obviously hasn't been to many games here in the Hammer). Blundell even admitted that RC was a horrible place to watch a game and that BMO seems much better. It was all handled respectfully and what seemed like without bias. A far cry from the twitter war that erupted between CFL fans and Blundell over his views of the CFL.

Also noticed Tim and Sid giving more talk of the CFL. Wondering if maybe CFL is starting to turn a corner in TO, and Rogers needs to hitch on to the ride a bit?

[Downtownfan]

I dunno. While I was shocked at this, http://www.sportsnet.ca/football/cfl/feels-like-go-argonauts-game-now/ being on the Sportsnet page, I remain unconvinced. I have just seen way too many examples of obvious, horrible, bias for a few moments to wash away. It will take years of sustained, positive coverage (I mean simply unbiased) for me to think otherwise, which I doubt will happen.

[PullTogether73]

I agree that Rogers has a way to go before I will trust them to provide unbiased CFL/Argonauts coverage.
But it has to start somewhere/sometime.
Maybe this is it.
I remain hopeful, but doubtful for now.

[Neely2005]

I've heard that Blundell was spoken to after his last CFL incident. Rogers doesn't like negative publicity and Blundells last incident generated a couple of headlines.

[Will]

I've heard that Blundell was spoken to after his last CFL incident. Rogers doesn't like negative publicity and Blundells last incident generated a couple of headlines.

Where did you hear this?

[Neely2005]

Where did you hear this?

I have friends that work / worked at Rogers.

I think that I posted it previously but earlier this year Rogers also sent an Email to all of their employees offering them a presale on Argonauts Season Tickets.

[PullTogether73]

Rogers doesn't like negative publicity

Sadly, they are very good at generating it.

[R.J]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/football/cfl/tailgating-toronto-new-age-argos/

What the heck is going on over at Rogers ?

[Ron]

The Argos are no longer tenants where they weren't wanted so no reason to be so bitchy anymore.

[PullTogether73]

The Argos are no longer tenants where they weren't wanted so no reason to be so bitchy anymore.

Yes, but I have never heard of the landlord following the activities of those unwanted tenants after they leave.
Something seems to be changing at Rogers.
I suspect they are reconsidering their "alienation" strategy wrt the Argos and CFL.

[ArgoGabe22]

They heard Marshall Ferguson's rant?

[Ron]

Yes, but I have never heard of the landlord following the activities of those unwanted tenants after they leave.
Something seems to be changing at Rogers.
I suspect they are reconsidering their "alienation" strategy wrt the Argos and CFL.

The landlords aren't following them. Argos make news and sportsnet now just reports it. Rogers brass doesn't give a crap about the Argos other than the money they make off them so no reason to be dicks anymore. That's all.

It's not like Sportsnet did zero stories on the Argos for the last 5 years even when the brass hated the club even being at RC.

[PullTogether73]

What money does Rogers make off of the Argos?

[Qman]

They heard Marshall Ferguson's rant?

or all the cfl fans switching to Bell and Telus

[Downtownfan]

I think that for most of the last two decades (and as long as Rogers has owned them), the Jays have been 2nd to the CFL in terms of viewership, which is all that Rogers cares about. Now, for the first time in years, the Jays have been getting better ratings than the CFL (at least this year and last), so perhaps they don't feel as threatened.

Of course, if one casts their minds back to 2010, the Jays were completely in the dumper, as a team, an organization, and certainly as a sports property. They were getting less than 10k, a game at points in the season, their ratings were much less than the CFL, and they were a disaster on the field (no playoff for 20 years!) and in their organization, losing tens of millions a year. Of course, no one remembers that, or talks about that now. But they will ALWAYS bring up any troubles the CFL had in the pat, in virtually every article, especially in the Star.

Eventually, the Jays will stink again, and we will see how that affects their ratings.

[Neely2005]

What money does Rogers make off of the Argos?

Through MLSE managing BMO Field.

[Will]

I think that for most of the last two decades (and as long as Rogers has owned them), the Jays have been 2nd to the CFL in terms of viewership, which is all that Rogers cares about. Now, for the first time in years, the Jays have been getting better ratings than the CFL (at least this year and last), so perhaps they don't feel as threatened.

Of course, if one casts their minds back to 2010, the Jays were completely in the dumper, as a team, an organization, and certainly as a sports property. They were getting less than 10k, a game at points in the season, their ratings were much less than the CFL, and they were a disaster on the field (no playoff for 20 years!) and in their organization, losing tens of millions a year. Of course, no one remembers that, or talks about that now. But they will ALWAYS bring up any troubles the CFL had in the pat, in virtually every article, especially in the Star.

Eventually, the Jays will stink again, and we will see how that affects their ratings.

Very good points.

The Blue Jays actually fluked out in 2010 because the team was not nearly as bad as they were expected to be, and it didn't precipitate a long rebuild (at least to the extent of Houston) and by 2012-2013 the rebrand helped significantly.

[paulwoods13]

But they will ALWAYS bring up any troubles the CFL had in the pat, in virtually every article, especially in the Star.


Can you cite a recent article or two where this was the case, from any source (not just the Star)? I just did a Google web search for "Canadian Football League woes" and came up with a few stories from 2014. Same search in Google news turned up nothing remotely negative or about past woes in the first few pages of results, all of which were recently published.

[AngeloV]

Can you cite a recent article or two where this was the case, from any source (not just the Star)? I just did a Google web search for "Canadian Football League woes" and came up with a few stories from 2014. Same search in Google news turned up nothing remotely negative or about past woes in the first few pages of results, all of which were recently published.

I agree that the Star doesn't have negative articles on the Argos. Only problem with them is the lack of coverage.

[ArgoGabe22]

No actual article from any papers is ever really negative except maybe the one Simmons wrote a few years back. It's usually off Twitter or radio where attention seekers just try stirring it up.

[Downtownfan]

Can you cite a recent article or two where this was the case, from any source (not just the Star)? I just did a Google web search for "Canadian Football League woes" and came up with a few stories from 2014. Same search in Google news turned up nothing remotely negative or about past woes in the first few pages of results, all of which were recently published.

Paul, I really respect you and your work, and understand that you are in a particular position to defend the Star. But there have been a few articles that needlessly go over the past, or generate unnecessary provocation about the Argos. Here is one, by Sean Fitz-Gerald, which I actually wrote to him about, as it was so needlessly provocative, speaking only about the very few people for whom sharing a stadium is an issue: https://www.thestar.com/sports/2016/06/18/toronto-turf-war-has-reds-fans-seeing-blue.html Not about the past, though it uses tweets (!) as a basis for its reporting. When you can get your name in the paper for being a troll, that's a new level of trolling success.

OK, if that's not about the past, how about this one, which was supposed to be on tailgating, but was really about an incident in 2001? There are actually only two paragraphs at the very end of the piece about the new tailgating-- the rest is on an incident in 2001, which wasn't even tailgating. https://www.thestar.com/sports/argos/2016/06/10/argonauts-tailgate-experiment-takes-flight-saturday.html One would have thought, based on the title, that the article would have been about the new tailgating experience at BMO-- but no, 90% of the piece was on something that happened 15 years ago, and was incredibly minor. But hey, its always important to dredge something like this up, right?

[paulwoods13]

Paul, I really respect you and your work, and understand that you are in a particular position to defend the Star. But there have been a few articles that needlessly go over the past, or generate unnecessary provocation about the Argos. Here is one, by Sean Fitz-Gerald, which I actually wrote to him about, as it was so needlessly provocative, speaking only about the very few people for whom sharing a stadium is an issue: https://www.thestar.com/sports/2016/06/18/toronto-turf-war-has-reds-fans-seeing-blue.html Not about the past, though it uses tweets (!) as a basis for its reporting. When you can get your name in the paper for being a troll, that's a new level of trolling success.

OK, if that's not about the past, how about this one, which was supposed to be on tailgating, but was really about an incident in 2001? There are actually only two paragraphs at the very end of the piece about the new tailgating-- the rest is on an incident in 2001, which wasn't even tailgating. https://www.thestar.com/sports/argos/2016/06/10/argonauts-tailgate-experiment-takes-flight-saturday.html One would have thought, based on the title, that the article would have been about the new tailgating experience at BMO-- but no, 90% of the piece was on something that happened 15 years ago, and was incredibly minor. But hey, its always important to dredge something like this up, right?

First of all, thanks for your kind words but to be clear, I am not speaking on behalf of the Star in this forum. I am speaking as an opinionated Argo fan who happens to have some experience in (and yes, some well-defined and certainly arguable points of view about) the news media.

I don't agree the first article "bring(s) up any troubles the CFL had in the past." It is about the present and happens to include comments from someone with whom many of us do not agree. That's a much different issue than your original complaint.

The second article does indeed dwell on the past; it's factual that the wet t-shirt thing was proposed 15 years ago, and it's relevant context for what the team is now (thankfully) doing, but a reasonable case can be made that the story is too heavily weighted to "past troubles." So I will give you that one. Some distance from "ALWAYS," but presumably that was hyperbole and you know it is not actually done always.

[Qman]

I agree that the Star doesn't have negative articles on the Argos. Only problem with them is the lack of coverage.

again, still can't understand why the star doesn't cost-share put edwards & milton on the argos beat as well. its seems to to tag team coverage with staff people and O'leary (at least integrate O'leary with all of Edwards coverage) You have all these resources that are in the star network. The 3rd down nation is owned by the star/metroland .. or integrate it with the star's website. They own all this CFL content. Especially when money is so tight in newspaper biz and online is the future. its not costing you anything, you OWN it already.

Frank at the sun is doing an awesome job with Argos this season.

[AngeloV]

again, still can't understand why the star doesn't cost-share put edwards & milton on the argos beat as well. its seems to to tag team coverage with staff people and O'leary (at least integrate O'leary with all of Edwards coverage) You have all these resources that are in the star network. The 3rd down nation is owned by the star/metroland .. or integrate it with the star's website. They own all this CFL content. Especially when money is so tight in newspaper biz and online is the future. its not costing you anything, you OWN it already.

Frank at the sun is doing an awesome job with Argos this season.

That is a great idea about Milton and Edwards.

Admittedly, I have been the biggest critic of Frank, but I really do appreciate the work being done.

[Downtownfan]

"Some distance from "ALWAYS," but presumably that was hyperbole and you know it is not actually done always."

Hello Paul: Yes, that was hyperbole on my part-- which I should certainly tone down. Point taken.

And please understand that I should not have said that you were defending the Star, but should have said that as a journalist, you will defend your profession, which is completely understandable, and frankly, to be expected.

[paulwoods13]

And please understand that I should not have said that you were defending the Star, but should have said that as a journalist, you will defend your profession, which is completely understandable, and frankly, to be expected.

Thanks, DTF. Again for the record, while I do (tediously often, admittedly) try to explain how journalism works (or at least is supposed to work) if I see commentary that seems ignorant or wrong on that subject, I have in the past been quite critical of journalists who do not (IMO) meet the necessary standards of the profession. I have limited such criticism on this forum over the past two years because I realized it might appear I was speaking for my employer, and in this context (a CFL fans forum) I am most definitely not. Also because it might appear unfair to take pot-shots at competitors behind the veil of a "username." Thus, for instance, I have said little about Frank Z recently. Not nothing, I acknowledge, but little -- and much less than I might say if not employed in the same industry and working for a competitor.

[marcwagz]

if rogers doesnt host a "lol argos only 12k" article after last night, I will assume they have turned the page.