Don Cherry fired by Sportsnet

[Highlander]

And speaking of thumbs up, is Ron going to be allowed to skate off with having given the thumbs up to Cherry's comments?  His apology was ... nicely rehearsed.  He not only failed to catch it, he affirmed it.

Like I said earlier, I think they'd have let Cherry himself skate with a half-hearted apology.

People may complain about him getting fired for offensive remarks or PC culture or whatever other made up nonsense but I think the stark reality is he's only losing his job because of a completely unreasonable stubbornness.

Which, you know, I'd grudgingly respect if it was anyone else.

How could he apologize for something he said and meant, that was his freedom to say, that men died so he could say it, no matter how much it antagonizes people.  The real fault is Sportsnet knows Don was a very loose cannon, to say the least. Why he didn't have a censor working with him on each and every episode is a major fault of a huge conglomerate network of companies. Someone at Sportnet F--ked up as well and they should also take responsibility for letting a known "Howard Beale" rant on National TV every week.  As a matter of fact as a one of the angry masses, I demand that Sportsnet fires someone for allowing Don not to be censored........see how it works???

Do you know what Freedom of Expression actually means? Don is more than entitled to his opinions and he is more entitled to say them whenever he wants. The difference is Sportsnet and Rogers also has the "freedom' to fire his dumbass when he says something stupid. Freedom of expression is the freedom to say want you want, it isn't the freedom to be exempt from the consequences of your words.
If Don was just an old man on Twitter and had this opinion, no one would have given him a second glance.But you don't get to go on national television and denigrate other people for something that isn't even true and expect to skate away scot free.

I never said there would not be consequences, there should be, however I ask again, knowing Don as we all know Don, why didn't Sportsnet assign a censor to him?  For any major company, this is a no-brainer.  Don is Don and they know what he is capable of (he did have some strong Howard Beale in him)...so I think some of the responsibility is on them. If he had a no interfere in his contract, then they should not have signed it and let him on the air.  George Cope, I hold you personally responsible for this..please tender your resignation today....not tomorrow.

 

[iwas11in67]

So, like, what are the odds Cherry runs for the head of the Conservative Party next?

That?s not cool CTB.
Are you saying that if you?re a conservative your ideals
are the same as Cherry?s?

If it?s a joke, it?s in poor taste.

That's kinda what I was saying. Very poor taste. Lets go all political with blackface and that hyprocrisy. Anyone voting for blackface ...

 

[L K]

33 years on coaches corner , and to fire him on remembrance day is pretty brutal. I can?t think of anyone else that publicly honoured Canadian veterans on their show as much as he did over the years.

Politically incorrect as he was. I?ll miss him .

38 years...I liked the way he praised the Police, Firefighters, Vets and Armed Forces. Also liked his special tributes to people/kids that passed. He def spoke his mind. Oh well, end of an era. He'll be fine, no doubt.

I liked the way he couldn't be bothered to pronounce the names of players when his job was to commentate on them. 

I'm going to try that next time I work an ER shift and see if I don't get walked out within 5 minutes of the start of my shift.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

So, like, what are the odds Cherry runs for the head of the Conservative Party next?

That?s not cool CTB.
Are you saying that if you?re a conservative your ideals
are the same as Cherry?s?

If it?s a joke, it?s in poor taste.

1) I never claimed that Cherry would win that race, just that I wouldn't be surprised if he ran. It's something that people have speculated about even well before this incident.

2) This outrage over my little joke/comment would hold a lot more weight if the last two heads of the Conservative Party didn't lose their federal elections partially because they were anti-Muslim (Harper) or anti-LGBTQ (Scheer).

 

[Frank E]

And speaking of thumbs up, is Ron going to be allowed to skate off with having given the thumbs up to Cherry's comments?  His apology was ... nicely rehearsed.  He not only failed to catch it, he affirmed it.

Like I said earlier, I think they'd have let Cherry himself skate with a half-hearted apology.

People may complain about him getting fired for offensive remarks or PC culture or whatever other made up nonsense but I think the stark reality is he's only losing his job because of a completely unreasonable stubbornness.

Which, you know, I'd grudgingly respect if it was anyone else.

How could he apologize for something he said and meant, that was his freedom to say, that men died so he could say it, no matter how much it antagonizes people.  The real fault is Sportsnet knows Don was a very loose cannon, to say the least. Why he didn't have a censor working with him on each and every episode is a major fault of a huge conglomerate network of companies. Someone at Sportnet F--ked up as well and they should also take responsibility for letting a known "Howard Beale" rant on National TV every week.  As a matter of fact as a one of the angry masses, I demand that Sportsnet fires someone for allowing Don not to be censored........see how it works???

Do you know what Freedom of Expression actually means? Don is more than entitled to his opinions and he is more entitled to say them whenever he wants. The difference is Sportsnet and Rogers also has the "freedom' to fire his dumbass when he says something stupid. Freedom of expression is the freedom to say want you want, it isn't the freedom to be exempt from the consequences of your words.
If Don was just an old man on Twitter and had this opinion, no one would have given him a second glance.But you don't get to go on national television and denigrate other people for something that isn't even true and expect to skate away scot free.

Well, actually, that's not quite true.  But this isn't about freedom of speech, to me anyways.

To me, this is about a company that knowingly hired Don Cherry knowing full well that he has been saying things like this for years, to get eyeballs on their channel on Saturday nights, and the resulting advertising dollars for their owners, and then this company gets on a pretty fking high horse to condemn him when he says something over-the-line, again.  Sportsnet has been complicit in his stuff for years, as has MacLean.

I have no problem with them firing Cherry.  But to me, what makes me puke here is Sportsnet's bullshit statement about inclusiveness and what they stand for, and MacLean's "I didn't catch it" statement.  You didn't catch that, Ron?  You were shocked by the statements were you Sportsnet?  Come on, this is all too rich for me. 

This also has nothing to do with left-wing or right-wing politics, so let's not go there.  Don Cherry put together a pretty lucrative career saying controversial things, and I think it's fitting that his trademark controversial remarks is what lost him a job.  Live by the sword, I guess.

 

[rdowdall]

And speaking of thumbs up, is Ron going to be allowed to skate off with having given the thumbs up to Cherry's comments?  His apology was ... nicely rehearsed.  He not only failed to catch it, he affirmed it.

Like I said earlier, I think they'd have let Cherry himself skate with a half-hearted apology.

People may complain about him getting fired for offensive remarks or PC culture or whatever other made up nonsense but I think the stark reality is he's only losing his job because of a completely unreasonable stubbornness.

Which, you know, I'd grudgingly respect if it was anyone else.

How could he apologize for something he said and meant, that was his freedom to say, that men died so he could say it, no matter how much it antagonizes people.  The real fault is Sportsnet knows Don was a very loose cannon, to say the least. Why he didn't have a censor working with him on each and every episode is a major fault of a huge conglomerate network of companies. Someone at Sportnet F--ked up as well and they should also take responsibility for letting a known "Howard Beale" rant on National TV every week.  As a matter of fact as a one of the angry masses, I demand that Sportsnet fires someone for allowing Don not to be censored........see how it works???

Do you know what Freedom of Expression actually means? Don is more than entitled to his opinions and he is more entitled to say them whenever he wants. The difference is Sportsnet and Rogers also has the "freedom' to fire his dumbass when he says something stupid. Freedom of expression is the freedom to say want you want, it isn't the freedom to be exempt from the consequences of your words.
If Don was just an old man on Twitter and had this opinion, no one would have given him a second glance.But you don't get to go on national television and denigrate other people for something that isn't even true and expect to skate away scot free.

Well, actually, that's not quite true.  But this isn't about freedom of speech, to me anyways.

To me, this is about a company that knowingly hired Don Cherry knowing full well that he has been saying things like this for years, to get eyeballs on their channel on Saturday nights, and the resulting advertising dollars for their owners, and then this company gets on a pretty fking high horse to condemn him when he says something over-the-line, again.  Sportsnet has been complicit in his stuff for years, as has MacLean.

I have no problem with them firing Cherry.  But to me, what makes me puke here is Sportsnet's bull#$#% statement about inclusiveness and what they stand for, and MacLean's "I didn't catch it" statement.  You didn't catch that, Ron?  You were shocked by the statements were you Sportsnet?  Come on, this is all too rich for me. 

This also has nothing to do with left-wing or right-wing politics, so let's not go there.  Don Cherry put together a pretty lucrative career saying controversial things, and I think it's fitting that his trademark controversial remarks is what lost him a job.  Live by the sword, I guess.

For Ron MacLean, the guys on the Ottawa Radio this morning tried to offer a bit of an explanation as to why he missed it.  Cherry's rant was near the end of the segment.  Near the end of the segment the producer is probably in MacLean's ear telling him what is coming up, and how much time he has left.  At that point he probably isn't even listening to Cherry as he is focusing on the transition.  So he didn't even know what Cherry had said at that point, and he was just assuming that Don had said something reasonable about people wearing poppies, so he blindly agreed. 

I mean to be fair, Ron has questioned things that Don has said and called him out on some things in his Ron MacLean way.  I'm willing to accept Ron's apology, and I hope he is sincere when he says he will use it to get better.

 

[Highlander]

Ron strikes me as a true nice guy, not a blowhard at all. He is like a lion tamer to Cherry and that is no mean feat.  I give him the benefit of the doubt for sure.

 

[Bender]

You just can't say what you mean anymore.  Politically correct is the only correct, kind of scary actually.

You clearly don't understand it, do you?

Oh, I think I do and maybe more than you can imagine.  I never said I agree with what Don said by the way. I don't.  I also didn't agree with the burning of books either.  What I am defending is the right of Don to say what he thinks, Men died for us to have the "freedom" to speak our minds, to burn our flag if that is what we want to do, not that I personally agree with that either (actually that abhors me).

When men lose the right to speak their minds, to have a controversial opinion to the masses, then we all lose a little bit of our "freedom", and we actually insult the men who died for us. To have the basic right of freedom of speech.  I get what true freedom means Bullfrog.  However when we all have to bend to the masses, when social media dictates what we can say, then we are on a slippery slope.
Politically correct is where we now live, but who dictates the policy of our Politics?

Outside of all his volatility of, his speaking his mind, he did more for our armed forces, police and firefighters than any other single Canadian that I can think of.  To fire him is fine, but it could have been done tomorrow it would have been kinder (see what 35 years of service gets you).  Don was and is a Dinosaur and we all know that they are now extinct. 

See how Social Media bends major companies?  Pretty powerful and when you see how AI is going to change all our lives in the next 10-15 years, watch out. Then you will see what Freedoms we truly have.

Don't Cherry was a sportscaster working for a private company. If I said something similar at a function in front of an audience I would also be fired, except I probably wouldn't be given the benefit of apologizing to keep my job.

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with overstepping the boundaries of the platform he's been given. He can sound off on Twitter or on his own podcast, but he is not representative of a hockey broadcast. If he doesn't have the wherewithal to understand that the way in which he used his platform for that kind speech is crossing the line and doubled down on that then what he gets is fully deserved.

 

[Bender]

And speaking of thumbs up, is Ron going to be allowed to skate off with having given the thumbs up to Cherry's comments?  His apology was ... nicely rehearsed.  He not only failed to catch it, he affirmed it.

Like I said earlier, I think they'd have let Cherry himself skate with a half-hearted apology.

People may complain about him getting fired for offensive remarks or PC culture or whatever other made up nonsense but I think the stark reality is he's only losing his job because of a completely unreasonable stubbornness.

Which, you know, I'd grudgingly respect if it was anyone else.

How could he apologize for something he said and meant, that was his freedom to say, that men died so he could say it, no matter how much it antagonizes people.  The real fault is Sportsnet knows Don was a very loose cannon, to say the least. Why he didn't have a censor working with him on each and every episode is a major fault of a huge conglomerate network of companies. Someone at Sportnet F--ked up as well and they should also take responsibility for letting a known "Howard Beale" rant on National TV every week.  As a matter of fact as a one of the angry masses, I demand that Sportsnet fires someone for allowing Don not to be censored........see how it works???

Do you know what Freedom of Expression actually means? Don is more than entitled to his opinions and he is more entitled to say them whenever he wants. The difference is Sportsnet and Rogers also has the "freedom' to fire his dumbass when he says something stupid. Freedom of expression is the freedom to say want you want, it isn't the freedom to be exempt from the consequences of your words.
If Don was just an old man on Twitter and had this opinion, no one would have given him a second glance.But you don't get to go on national television and denigrate other people for something that isn't even true and expect to skate away scot free.

Well, actually, that's not quite true.  But this isn't about freedom of speech, to me anyways.

To me, this is about a company that knowingly hired Don Cherry knowing full well that he has been saying things like this for years, to get eyeballs on their channel on Saturday nights, and the resulting advertising dollars for their owners, and then this company gets on a pretty fking high horse to condemn him when he says something over-the-line, again.  Sportsnet has been complicit in his stuff for years, as has MacLean.

I have no problem with them firing Cherry.  But to me, what makes me puke here is Sportsnet's bull#$#% statement about inclusiveness and what they stand for, and MacLean's "I didn't catch it" statement.  You didn't catch that, Ron?  You were shocked by the statements were you Sportsnet?  Come on, this is all too rich for me. 

This also has nothing to do with left-wing or right-wing politics, so let's not go there.  Don Cherry put together a pretty lucrative career saying controversial things, and I think it's fitting that his trademark controversial remarks is what lost him a job.  Live by the sword, I guess.

There's saying controversial things related to hockey and then there's deriding immigrants/new Canadians or what have you.

I honestly don't recall the last time where he's said something so overt to viewers at home disassociated from hockey.

 

[Kin]

How could he apologize for something he said and meant, that was his freedom to say, that men died so he could say it, no matter how much it antagonizes people.

Insincerely, I suppose. People make insincere apologies all the time to get out of trouble. Heck, I'm sure Sportsnet would have even been ok if he'd given one of those lame "I'm sorry if anyone was offended by what I said, that wasn't my intent" non-apologies.

Point being that it wasn't really violating some sort of ethical norm that ultimately cost Cherry his job, it's that when his employer was getting the crap kicked out of them in the national and even international media, he put his own pride before giving them some cover.

  The real fault is Sportsnet knows Don was a very loose cannon, to say the least. Why he didn't have a censor working with him on each and every episode is a major fault of a huge conglomerate network of companies. Someone at Sportnet F--ked up as well and they should also take responsibility for letting a known "Howard Beale" rant on National TV every week.  As a matter of fact as a one of the angry masses, I demand that Sportsnet fires someone for allowing Don not to be censored........see how it works???

I do see how it works. For anyone out there who doesn't, let me break it down for you. Highlander here is making a demand of a big private media company that doesn't really make sense(how do you censor a live show for content?). Regardless of it making sense though, Highlander is just one person and as a result the big private media company almost certainly won't listen to them.

This is in contrast to what we've seen the last few days where lots and lots and lots of people have expressed an opinion that does make sense. Sportsnet, a private media company looking for as broad an audience as possible, did ultimately decide that their interests were better served moving on from Cherry.

(Although, let's be fair, Coach's Corner was going to end in the fairly near future no matter what. This really just accelerated things)

This is the way private media companies work now. Of course, this is the way private media companies have always worked. I couldn't have gone on TV in the 60's and used my job on a private broadcast to loudly argue for gay marriage. Famously, The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour got cancelled because they wanted Pete Seeger on their show to sing "The Ballad of the Big Muddy" because the Network thought the lyrics could possibly be interpreted as critical of the war in Vietnam and they didn't want to offend people who supported the war. So it's not like some sort of norm towards absolute freedom of expression has changed, all that's changed is which opinions offend a lot of people.

So nothing's actually changed in terms of freedom of expression. In fact, what with cable channels and loosening broadcast standards we're almost certainly more free to express whatever opinions we want on TV. Problem is, the private media companies who run TV channels are also free to not let us on the air if they're paying the bills.

And that's really the rub here. It used to be a pretty conservative position to say that a private company like Sportsnet got to decide what happened on their channel on the basis of their own private interest. That's what happened here. Sportsnet looked at Cherry, weighed the customers he brought in(mostly older) vs. the customers he could cost them
(young, probably more diverse), and decided to move on. Right or wrong in a business sense? Not my bailiwick. But I know Sportsnet is getting killed on the NHL deal and antagonizing younger viewers is the last thing they need.

So what's the problem? Private company does something, almost certainly to protect profits. That's Conservative with a capital C, no?

Well, there are a lot of people out there right now who realize that the ground underneath their feet are shifting. That the institutions that used to protect them and their ideas are now responding to the interests and desires of other people. More people, in fact. Because that's how the marketplace works. Those people are angry and confused. Didn't private industry used to reflect my views? Didn't I used to be in the majority? Those people don't like their views being isolated, their views being the ones that get TV shows cancelled. Happy enough for years to inflict it on others, bitter and loud when they get a taste.

And disturbingly, some of them have turned to ideas that aren't liberal or conservative. Private Companies aren't allowed to censor their employees, they say, broadcast and tech companies should be forced to allow me or my proxies to say  whatever I want on their platform regardless of how it affects them.

There's a word for views like that. Totalitarian. And the rise of those views, well, that bothers me. Because if we're going to talk about what our veterans fought and died for, stopping the spread of that sort of ideology is pretty near the top of the list.

 

[Kin]

To me, this is about a company that knowingly hired Don Cherry knowing full well that he has been saying things like this for years, to get eyeballs on their channel on Saturday nights, and the resulting advertising dollars for their owners, and then this company gets on a pretty fking high horse to condemn him when he says something over-the-line, again.  Sportsnet has been complicit in his stuff for years, as has MacLean.

Right? And since when under capitalism do people get treated so harshly by the whims of their bosses? What, just because Cherry is potentially less profitable to Sportsnet after this(maybe even net unprofitable) he's all of a sudden treated with disdain? Despite being treated well while it was in his bosses' interest to do so? And then, to further the insult, the bosses will make statements looking to distance themselves further from their once profitable employee in a manner that suits their own interests? Again, I ask, since when is this considered fair practice under capitalism?

If only there were some economist who could make the case that workers will be treated unfairly, exploited even in some cases, unless they own the means of production instead of a largely unproductive ruling class.

But who? He'd probably have to be German and with a short last name, maybe with a punchy x in there to appeal to the kids. He'd have to be able to write lot of quotable lines that someone could put in their sig line, that sort of thing...

 

[Zee]

The online Cherry defence force keeps using the Trudeau blackface as reason why Cherry shouldn?t have been canned. I mean, if Trudeau worked for Sportsnet I?m sure he would have been fired for the blackface. I don?t get the narrative at all.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

https://twitter.com/RoyalCdnLegion/status/1193999991557312515

Read the replies. In an unsurprising twist Don Cherry fans have now turned on... The Royal Canadian Legion.

 

[bustaheims]

How could he apologize for something he said and meant, that was his freedom to say, that men died so he could say it, no matter how much it antagonizes people.  The real fault is Sportsnet knows Don was a very loose cannon, to say the least. Why he didn't have a censor working with him on each and every episode is a major fault of a huge conglomerate network of companies. Someone at Sportnet F--ked up as well and they should also take responsibility for letting a known "Howard Beale" rant on National TV every week.  As a matter of fact as a one of the angry masses, I demand that Sportsnet fires someone for allowing Don not to be censored........see how it works???

So, it should be someone else's responsibility to make sure he doesn't say something offensive? Whatever happened to personal accountability?

Also, all having a censor does is hide the problem rather than addressing it. It doesn't enforce any consequences for crossing the line.

 

[Kin]

The online Cherry defence force keeps using the Trudeau blackface as reason why Cherry shouldn?t have been canned. I mean, if Trudeau worked for Sportsnet I?m sure he would have been fired for the blackface. I don?t get the narrative at all.

Well, it's not really an argument being made in good faith. Whataboutisms aren't meant to be serious, thoughtful points. The aim is to distract and change the subject.

 

[Bender]

And I think at the end of the day the idea that he thinks more people should wear a poppy probably isn't that controversial, and people acting like there isn't an undercurrent here need to give their heads a shake.

I don't think there will be any pushback if he said something along the lines of "Remembrance Day is a day to remember our fallen soldiers who fought for the rights and freedoms we all enjoy. Show how much you care. Wear a poppy"

The "you people" "milk and honey" and "small town" and all that is what's wrong, not the poppy sentiment in and of itself, and even the Canadian Legion agrees!

 

[ZBBM]

To me, this is about a company that knowingly hired Don Cherry knowing full well that he has been saying things like this for years, to get eyeballs on their channel on Saturday nights, and the resulting advertising dollars for their owners, and then this company gets on a pretty fking high horse to condemn him when he says something over-the-line, again.  Sportsnet has been complicit in his stuff for years, as has MacLean.

Right? And since when under capitalism do people get treated so harshly by the whims of their bosses? What, just because Cherry is potentially less profitable to Sportsnet after this(maybe even net unprofitable) he's all of a sudden treated with disdain? Despite being treated well while it was in his bosses' interest to do so? And then, to further the insult, the bosses will make statements looking to distance themselves further from their once profitable employee in a manner that suits their own interests? Again, I ask, since when is this considered fair practice under capitalism?

If only there were some economist who could make the case that workers will be treated unfairly, exploited even in some cases, unless they own the means of production instead of a largely unproductive ruling class.

But who? He'd probably have to be German and with a short last name, maybe with a punchy x in there to appeal to the kids. He'd have to be able to write lot of quotable lines that someone could put in their sig line, that sort of thing...

Groucho?

 

[iwas11in67]

The online Cherry defence force keeps using the Trudeau blackface as reason why Cherry shouldn?t have been canned. I mean, if Trudeau worked for Sportsnet I?m sure he would have been fired for the blackface. I don?t get the narrative at all.

Well, it's not really an argument being made in good faith. Whataboutisms aren't meant to be serious, thoughtful points. The aim is to distract and change the subject.

I'm not distracting or changing the subject. It's a valid point that certain people get the teflon treatment and others don't.

 

[Kin]

I'm not distracting or changing the subject. It's a valid point that certain people get the teflon treatment and others don't.

Yes. It really is unfair how Cherry got fired after this, his very first time offending people.

 

[louisstamos]

The online Cherry defence force keeps using the Trudeau blackface as reason why Cherry shouldn?t have been canned. I mean, if Trudeau worked for Sportsnet I?m sure he would have been fired for the blackface. I don?t get the narrative at all.

Well, it's not really an argument being made in good faith. Whataboutisms aren't meant to be serious, thoughtful points. The aim is to distract and change the subject.

I'm not distracting or changing the subject. It's a valid point that certain people get the teflon treatment and others don't.

It's because context matters?

I guarantee you that if Trudeau wore blackface a week before the election, and his explanation was "I don't see what the big deal is," he probably wouldn't have been re-elected.

It was bad, but it was something that happened 20 years ago and he apologized.  Some people decided to forgive him, others no.

What Cherry did was bad, but he did it 3 days ago, and was given the opportunity to apologize *and refused*.  Therein lies the differences and why it's a bit of a strawman.