Reimer Injury

[GhostofPotvin29]

But journalism fun-fact: Tabloid actually refers to the size of paper used, not standards of journalism.

Actually the definition does refer to journalism produced, depending on which dictionary's definition you use, in a 'sensational' or 'lurid' manner.

 

[Kin]

Actually the definition does refer to journalism produced, depending on which dictionary's definition you use, in a 'sensational' or 'lurid' manner.

Indeed, that's how the word's evolved. It's in part because early British newspapers in the tabloid format were the cheaper ones aimed at the masses as opposed to the Times. Like many of these things, there's probably some of that ol' British class system at work.

But there are some fine, fine newspapers who publish in the tabloid format.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Actually the definition does refer to journalism produced, depending on which dictionary's definition you use, in a 'sensational' or 'lurid' manner.

Indeed, that's how the word's evolved. It's in part because early British newspapers in the tabloid format were the cheaper ones aimed at the masses as opposed to the Times. Like many of these things, there's probably some of that ol' British class system at work.

But there are some fine, fine newspapers who publish in the tabloid format.

New York Daily News one?

 

[Kin]

New York Daily News one?

No, but just about any alternative newspaper is printed in the format. I think the Independent in the UK still is as well.

 

[cw]

Anyways, I think the journalist was probably within the bounds of acceptable actions by asking Reimer's mother but, being as it's a crime, probably wouldn't be in hacking a phone.

Unless Reimer's mother was really upset by being asked, and based on the quote she gave I think it's fair to say she wasn't, I think we can respect that she's a grown woman who is capable of making the decision of giving a statement to a reporter by herself.

In terms of journalistic ethics, there's probably no real problem here, but, I can't help but feel like this is tabloid-esque quality journalism here. To me, it's akin to going after the family member of a celebrity to ask for their position on stories that they're not directly involved in. It just kind of left a bad taste in my mouth and, while it may be ethically acceptable, it really doesn't feel right. I mean, he's working for the Star, not TMZ.

Morweena, Manitoba is a little town of about 130. Marlene Reimer seems like a very nice lady and for the lack of a better term, not meant in a derogatory way, a typical Mom. In defamation law, her son is a limited public figure. He gets paid to be a sports celebrity so he's perceived as fair game in the media. Marlene? She is not a sports celebrity and therefore, it's not so clear to me and I'd bet a number in the dwindling classy portion of the media that she's fair game.

The media could argue or debate that. It's a fuzzy area to some extent.

But imagine if that article ticked James off with his mother. Hopefully it didn't but something like it might or risked causing a family rift. Or brought more attention to his concussion history such that it increases the likelihood of him being targeted for that in the playoffs - a fair team and personal concern.

NHL and other pro teams train players on how to deal with the media so they can avoid obvious pitfalls and errors than can upset careers and the team. They don't bring in the players Moms for that training.

A savvy reporter calling up an unsuspecting mom in Tiny Town, Manitoba is flirting with taking advantage like the media has accused hockey agents of doing with the same type of folks.

What's next? Phoning up one of the player's little brothers and sisters? I think most of us would take exception to that which is why it isn't done but it does illustrate that article is getting pretty close to or crossing the line of a player's right to some privacy.

How would Damien Cox feel if I phoned up his mother and chatted her up on how he wrote like he was concussed and then wrote about her response on a blog visited by many Leafs fans, some who followed up and did the same? Damien is as fair game as a limited public figure as James Reimer is in my book. And as much as I may not care for his body of work, I respect his right to privacy with his family and doing something like that would never have occurred to me until this discussion because to me, it really crosses the line, is classless and low. I'll bet a bundle Damien wouldn't like it and neither would his family - who we might project should be more media savvy than Marlene Reimer.

Feschuk is treading on a slippery slope and there isn't a media personality with any class in this town that didn't already know it.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

New York Daily News one?

No, but just about any alternative newspaper is printed in the format. I think the Independent in the UK still is as well.

Must be thinking of another New York paper then.

 

[Kin]

New York Daily News one?

No, but just about any alternative newspaper is printed in the format. I think the Independent in the UK still is as well.

Must be thinking of another New York paper then.

Oh, the Daily News may be in that format for all I know, I just don't know it to be a good paper. The NY Post is a tabloid, I think, but they're NY's version of the Sun.

 

[ZBBM]

Cox: The Leafs seem to want to portray Mrs. Reimer as some kind of hayseed unwittingly entrapped by the nefarious tricks of a reporter practising yellow journalism. The tone of some of the other criticism ? Don Cherry, Mike Milbury ? seemed to suggest Reimer?s mother was in need of protection, the poor dear, the same kind of paternalistic, sexist crap that long kept women out of the Hockey Hall of Fame. Nonsense.

She?s a bright, intelligent woman used to giving interviews, and she had the right to offer ?no comment? if she did not wish to be publicly quoted on the injury problems of her son.

She made her choice. Call my mother and ask her about my health and Joan will politely tell the questioner they?d be better to ask her son about such information. Marlene Reimer thought differently.

Cox is arrogant and I often think he's way off base.  But here I have to agree with him.  She's an adult, she's had experience with the media, and she could have just declined the interview.

Now, that consideration is entirely separate from whether the Star guy got any information that is of real medical value, and whether he could have reasonably expected the mother of the player to provide any information that is of real medical value.  IMO I think what he got was an opinion that is only marginally more valuable than any opinion you and I could form given the information that has been publicly disclosed about the nature of his injury.

That, to me, is the ethical concern here.  If you are a reporter calling up an interviewee and looking for worthwhile medical information on a 3rd party who wants (for whatever reason) to keep a condition private, there are only two ways to get it: ask a qualified doc who is willing to make an informed analysis based on publicly disclosed information, in which case what you get is speculation with a gloss of expertise, or you try to reach a person to whom you think the full situation may have been disclosed, in which case you are invading the patient's privacy.  Either way is sketchy in terms of journalistic ethics IF (and this is a big if) you represent the info obtained as being factually equivalent to full disclosure straight from the 3rd party.  Cox misses that boat entirely.

 

[Kin]

A savvy reporter calling up an unsuspecting mom in Tiny Town, Manitoba is flirting with taking advantage like the media has accused hockey agents of doing with the same type of folks.

Does where she lives really matter? Would it be any more ethical if she lived in downtown Montreal or Toronto? I think that's reading something extra into this that I don't personally share. I think she's just as likely to be pretty savvy herself in a small town.

What's next? Phoning up one of the player's little brothers and sisters? I think most of us would take exception to that which is why it isn't done but it does illustrate that article is getting pretty close to or crossing the line of a player's right to some privacy.

For what it's worth, I'd say that the difference between asking a child or minor the question as opposed to an intelligent, competent adult is pretty significant and represents a pretty serious distance from the "line".

I don't know Mrs. Reimer but based on the fact that she seems to have raised a pretty together, decent son I feel ok in assuming that she's capable of taking this question, weighing the consequences and speaking her mind.

How would Damien Cox feel if I phoned up his mother and chatted her up on how he wrote like he was concussed and then wrote about her response on a blog visited by many Leafs fans, some who followed up and did the same?

He addresses this in the piece:

She(Marlene Reimer) made her choice. Call my mother and ask her about my health and Joan will politely tell the questioner they?d be better to ask her son about such information. Marlene Reimer thought differently.

Now, I guess you could say that Cox's opinion above is easy to say, harder in practice but I think about my own mother in that sense and I feel pretty confident that my mother can handle a question from a reporter(well, no, I'm sure of it as she's been interviewed by a reporter before). If one of you called my mother's house and said "That Nik's a real jerk, comment?" then I'd wonder why you were wasting her time but I wouldn't be mortally offended at the notion of it. My mom's a smart lady. If she wants to tell you to go to hell or "no comment" or say that if you think I'm bad now imagine what I was like at 16 then that's really on her. Provided you don't harass her or twist her words or something then it genuinely wouldn't mean a thing to me.

Like I said, provided Feschuk identified himself properly, was professional and polite with her and quoted her accurately I think he's pretty comfortably in the realm of the ethical standards of his profession. I think the real issue here, if I was his editor, would be that he didn't get much for it but ran with it like it was news.

 

[Kin]

Now, that consideration is entirely separate from whether the Star guy got any information that is of real medical value, and whether he could have reasonably expected the mother of the player to provide any information that is of real medical value.  IMO I think what he got was an opinion that is only marginally more value than any opinion you and I could form given the information that has been publicly disclosed about the nature of his injury.

Well, the way I understand it is that the question wasn't about medical specifics but rather was along the lines of "What have you been told?". That's a question just about anyone is qualified to answer. In the context here, where there are some allegations being thrown around that the Leafs are being secretive or hiding the truth then asking someone "is what they're telling you the same as what they're telling us" doesn't require a medical degree. Even if those allegations are bogus, asking someone in the know is a way to get to the bottom of it.

Now that I think of it, I think you could probably make a case that Mrs. Reimer reacted pretty reasonably. It's got to be frustrating to see her son, in his first full season, sidelined with an injury that nobody can really diagnose or put a return date on. Even if the team is being 100% accurate and truthful I can see being upset by that.

Because of that I think that Feschuk may very well be really wrong in framing her answer more as a criticism of the Leafs, which it kind of came off as, and less as a natural reaction to a frustrating situation.

But the question itself? Eh, it's fair.

 

[L K]

Forgive me if I'm a step or two behind as I haven't followed this story all that closely but did they ever come out and say whether it was whiplash or "concussion-like" symptoms? If not, does that mean that there is no way to tell? Is that valid medically, where they're unable to conclusively diagnose whiplash? What causes concussion like symptoms if not a concussion?

A similar injury happened to a friend of mine who plays professionally and they legitimately couldn't tell whether the symptoms were stemming from whiplash or a concussion.

I know this doesn't answer much but it appears, at least as of a few years ago, even medical professionals struggled to separate the two.

It's one of those functional definitions that doesn't really have a bearing on outcome or treatment.

Whiplash is defined as trauma induced by flexion and/or extension of the cervical spin.
Concussions are a little more slippery to define.  The ANA refers to blunt force trauma to the head that may or may not involve loss of consciousness.  Other definitions go to a more scientific/hard number approach using concussion tests or the Glasgow Coma scale (usually around a 13 out of 15 traumatic brain injury) to define it. 

As for "concussion like" being a medical term, unless I'm being obtuse, I've never seen it used in medical literature that wasn't designed for general public consumption.  I guess it could be described as something if they don't know if whiplash or a strict PCS (post concussion syndrome) is the cause, but it's all just playing with words anyway.  Unless he is suffering from persistent side-effects like headaches (you could give him a beta-blocker like propanolol to try and help with it), most of the treatment is "wait it out".

One of the few things that might differentiate whiplash and concussion would be if there is other soft tissue/joint injury to the neck as that could be something that would point to the start/stop injury to his neck as the cause and lead to a diagnosis of whiplash.  But if Reimer was suffering from something like that, my guess is word of physio or other neck specialist appointments would have come up by now rather than a simple "keep him off the ice and he leaves after 30 minutes of practice every now and then" type of approach.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Now that I think of it, I think you could probably make a case that Mrs. Reimer reacted pretty reasonably. It's got to be frustrating to see her son, in his first full season, sidelined with an injury that nobody can really diagnose or put a return date on. Even if the team is being 100% accurate and truthful I can see being upset by that.

Because of that I think that Feschuk may very well be really wrong in framing her answer more as a criticism of the Leafs, which it kind of came off as, and less as a natural reaction to a frustrating situation.

But the question itself? Eh, it's fair.

So you could argue he kind of manipulated a mother's basic instinct to worry for her children into trying to pressure the Leafs into releasing info that he believes is being withheld, or into a criticism of the Leafs?

 

[Kin]

So you could argue he kind of manipulated a mother's basic instinct to worry for her children into trying to pressure the Leafs into releasing info that he believes is being withheld, or into a criticism of the Leafs?

I confess, until just now I'd only read bits and pieces of Feschuk's article. Reading the whole thing it's tough to argue that anything so nefarious went on. She expressed her frustration but he also said that she wasn't questioning the medical care Reimer was receiving.

More to the point, some legitimate information came out of it if that really is the first point where people learned that Reimer had multiple concussions as a junior(or that he named his puppy Optimus) and I think that's newsworthy to one extent or another.

Like I said, it strikes me overall as kind of a useless piece. "Mom is frustrated by Son's slow recovery from concussion" is probably the most honest headline I think you could write and one that I don't think is terribly interesting.

 

[L K]

That, to me, is the ethical concern here.  If you are a reporter calling up an interviewee and looking for worthwhile medical information on a 3rd party who wants (for whatever reason) to keep a condition private, there are only two ways to get it: ask a qualified doc who is willing to make an informed analysis based on publicly disclosed information, in which case what you get is speculation with a gloss of expertise

Which is all well and good, except that any medical expert worth an iota of his license would keep his mouth shut on back-seat diagnosing without seeing any of Reimer's lab results and without having a conversation with him to assess his status.  Beyond the fact that he very clearly was injured by contact to his head, there isn't much more to say other than, he isn't well enough to play hockey.  Whether he can't play because of headaches, vertigo, nausea, or any of the sequellae of post-concussion syndrome, it doesn't really matter.  You can't timeline recovery.  General numbers would have most people recovered from a concussion within a week, another large chunk within a month, and very few taking more than a few months.  Then you have the outliers that are like Lombardi who take more than a year to get better, and the even more unfortunate who never really recover.

But in the end, any word from a medical profession based on the lack of information (it's not our right to that information, Reimer owns his medical records.  He consents to Burke and the Leafs having the information by being a part of the organization and no-one else is entitled to it.  In fact, that's laid out pretty clearly in the Canada Health Act.  So the media can go play with themselves over their little entitlement act.

Cox is just like the other drone voices of whiny idiocy in the media.  If they don't get what they want and someone criticizes them, they all coddle each other because the media never does anything wrong, EVER.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

So, in the end Reimer has 'concussion-like symptoms', and Feschuk writes a 'reporter-like' piece.

 

[ZBBM]

Now, that consideration is entirely separate from whether the Star guy got any information that is of real medical value, and whether he could have reasonably expected the mother of the player to provide any information that is of real medical value.  IMO I think what he got was an opinion that is only marginally more value than any opinion you and I could form given the information that has been publicly disclosed about the nature of his injury.

Well, the way I understand it is that the question wasn't about medical specifics but rather was along the lines of "What have you been told?". That's a question just about anyone is qualified to answer. In the context here, where there are some allegations being thrown around that the Leafs are being secretive or hiding the truth then asking someone "is what they're telling you the same as what they're telling us" doesn't require a medical degree. Even if those allegations are bogus, asking someone in the know is a way to get to the bottom of it.

Now that I think of it, I think you could probably make a case that Mrs. Reimer reacted pretty reasonably. It's got to be frustrating to see her son, in his first full season, sidelined with an injury that nobody can really diagnose or put a return date on. Even if the team is being 100% accurate and truthful I can see being upset by that.

Because of that I think that Feschuk may very well be really wrong in framing her answer more as a criticism of the Leafs, which it kind of came off as, and less as a natural reaction to a frustrating situation.

But the question itself? Eh, it's fair.

I don't know how he framed the question but the intent of the interview was to find out medical information about a patient that chose not to disclose it.  (Whether Reimer was told by MLSE not to talk about it is irrelevant to the point at hand.)  Triangulating from the opinion of a family member is the same difference.

I actually have no problem with a reporter talking to anyone about these issues so long as the ensuing story states clearly that what is being reported is someone's opinion, not fact.  I personally think that Marlene Reimer's opinion about her son's injury is not much more newsworthy than if the Star showed up at a bar with a bunch of us and asked us to parse whiplash-vs-concussion.

 

[ZBBM]

Which is all well and good, except that any medical expert worth an iota of his license would keep his mouth shut on back-seat diagnosing without seeing any of Reimer's lab results and without having a conversation with him to assess his status. 

I completely agree. 

Yet the fact remains there are qualified medical people who are willing, with greater or lesser caveats depending on how much chutzpah they have, to make backseat diagnoses.  And such opinions are, as I said above, speculation with a gloss of expertise.  That's not worth a lot, but it's worth more than asking a nonexpert his/her opinion.

And it doesn't cost the docs their medical license, although as I say it makes me not respect them. 

 

[Kin]

I personally think that Marlene Reimer's opinion about her son's injury is not much more newsworthy than if the Star showed up at a bar with a bunch of us and asked us to parse whiplash-vs-concussion.

Maybe. But like I said, I didn't know about the previous concussion history and that does go a way to explaining the lengthy recovery time.

 

[L K]

Which is all well and good, except that any medical expert worth an iota of his license would keep his mouth shut on back-seat diagnosing without seeing any of Reimer's lab results and without having a conversation with him to assess his status. 

I completely agree. 

Yet the fact remains there are qualified medical people who are willing, with greater or lesser caveats depending on how much chutzpah they have, to make backseat diagnoses.  And such opinions are, as I said above, speculation with a gloss of expertise.  That's not worth a lot, but it's worth more than asking a nonexpert his/her opinion.

And it doesn't cost the docs their medical license, although as I say it makes me not respect them.

No, it doesn't cost them a licence, but it does make them a media attention-whore. But to be honest there are instances where an outside medical opinion piece isn't entirely bad.  A few Cardiologists (in Toronto and London specifically) were contacted when Gustavsson had his heart ablation.  They didn't speak about Gustavsson himself, but explained the procedure, the recovery time, and the general long-term outcome post-ablation.  It provided more information to the general public, and that is fine.  The difference between that and this however is that one would be making things up out of thing air (the Reimer situation where he isn't making appearances to even give a casual observe insight into his condition) and the other was a document and acknowledged condition/procedure.

 

[Bender]

I personally think that Marlene Reimer's opinion about her son's injury is not much more newsworthy than if the Star showed up at a bar with a bunch of us and asked us to parse whiplash-vs-concussion.

Maybe. But like I said, I didn't know about the previous concussion history and that does go a way to explaining the lengthy recovery time.

At the same time there was a quote in the piece that I think was a bit of an indiscretion. She said something along the lines of "If they're calling it concussion-like symptoms, how is it not a concussion?"

I can see how being in RW's position or BB's position, in a town as hockey mad as we are, that having everyone and his brother calling you about the rumor that Reimer has a concussion when they've said time and time again that they don't entirely know what it is has got to be extremely aggrevating. The fact that the quote came from his mother would probably easily mislead people into thinking she's has a credible opinion on concussion diagnosis.

I can see why Wilson and Burke would take a few jabs at the media over this, and I think media people would be crazy not to see it coming.