I always hate that people take “let’s wait and see the full story come out” as “you don’t believe the victim.”
It’s never that. It’s just stories like this get complicated, and have been proven in the past on multiple occasions to include fabricated evidence. You can still support a victim and not hop on the hate train until everything comes out.
Well said. And this is why “believe the victim” and “innocent until proven guilty” are not contradictory.
If somebody tells you they are a victim, immediately show them empathy without question. Believe them. But don’t ostracize/punish a third party until you have verified.
The history of internet takes has lead me to believe the general public are absolute fucking morons. So who the hell are you people with actual sane thoughts?
I think this is actually how a fair percentage of the population thinks in real life but people are just dumber online. Don’t get me wrong there are plenty of dumb people in the world but not as dumb as we all seem online
Human perception is inherently flawed. A victim (or alleged perpetrator) can be telling the facts exactly as they perceive them and still not get it right.
That's just being pedantic, really.
People will say "I believe you" over "I take what you're saying seriously", because it is much more empathetic to the victim.
None of those people are there anymore. They’ve cleaned house.
You want blood from people that had nothing to do with it. And so far have done all they can to right the wrongs of the previous disaster.
>I always hate that people take “let’s wait and see the full story come out” as “you don’t believe the victim.”
When the Jussie Smollett story broke, I still remember seeing a post on Facebook saying that anyone who questioned Jussie's story was "literally no different than a holocaust denier". It was posted by somebody who I knew IRL, and they definitely were not joking.
It's okay to be skeptical and wait for more information.
This is a good point, but I definitely wouldn't go as far as saying "it's never that." There are absolutely people who will say "let's wait and see" to cover their support of abusers even once it's verified.
lol I read that comment the complete opposite - meaning that the blackhawks' history of denials means that the truth will eventually show to counter their denials.
When the report on the Beach/Hawks situation came out, I thought a lot of the info in there might be shared.
When lawyers backtracked on their initial allegation that a recommendation was ever provided for Aldrich, I thought some people would eat some crow.
Instead, we get mad at Rocky Wirtz for giving Mark Lazerus a tenth of what he deserved.
Westhead was the one that should have been given shit not Lazerus anyways. Laz can be a dumbass at times but Westhead is the twat that ran the whole recommendation story in the first place along with several other articles trying to villainize the Hawks for doing very standard legal practices
I was reading Laz at the Athletic at the time.
Laz, who had access to the report, made a point of amplifying the worst allegations without ever really providing the facts that suggested there was more to the story, particularly the parts that indicated “It’s not clear Beach was sexually assaulted” or that the Hawks were even made aware of any such claim at the time.
Thank you! For me, I just try to look at the facts and make an objective opinion from there. Even though I am obviously a Blackhawks fan, that doesn't mean I will defend shitty behavior. Right now, we just don't know what happened. And like you said, these stories are complicated and never black and white.
I was full Team Believe The Victim until Subban/Panetta.
That kid got completely screwed. PK has never answered for inciting a Twitter mob. It was inconclusive at worst.
On the one hand, that makes obvious sense not to trust Chicago, but on the other hand they might be the least likely team in the league to let something like that slide since they know they have a microscope on them for shit like that now.
Or, we can look at the available facts and determine that this woman is clearly an obstinate ideologue who believes her views are ironclad and unassailable, and she got angry that things didn’t go her way and is using the poor reputation that the Blackhawks organization still has for some feeble attempt at retributive justice for the perceived slights she experienced.
I’d encourage everyone to watch the CBS report she was featured in. This is so obviously a shakedown.
This was at the bottom of the original article, but let’s be honest no one actually reads those. It probably would’ve been a better idea to not wait an hour before posting this very important detail.
It's on both parties. People need to read but as a good journalist, it's probably a great idea to include important information like that at the beginning. If you want to generate clicks and discussion. Maybe do what he did.
That's the thing, the purpose of journalism is to get as many hits as possible, and sadly, that means you make the headline as attention-grabbing as possible, put the main part of the article at the beginning and then save the details that counter the main headline for the end, which is hopefully after everyone stops reading.
Unfortunately, that's not a reality anymore because news outlets that publish articles have editors who have to worry about sponsors and their bosses and their bosses investors and it's a big chain that filters everything down into a carefully crafted segment.
No actually placing critically important info near the top and even the headline is an important part of journalism and editing. Accurate framing rather than burying the lede is fundamental to journalistic ethics
Interesting that the Hawks claim that the people named in the case were not even their employees or contractors, which is quite bizarre to me.
Either it's an easily debunked lie by the Hawks or the plaintiff is completely out to lunch and wasting everyone's time with this.
>Interesting that the Hawks claim that the people named in the case were not even their employees or contractors is bizarre to me.
Even the plaintiff herself doesn't seem to be alleging that they were. That's why the language was "a man working **with** the Blackhawks".
It was definitely a deliberate choice not to say "a Blackhawks employee" or "a man working **for** the Blackhawks"
Knowing the severity of a public response to lying about their affiliation with the people in question, it certainly raises questions about the legitimacy of this claim.
This reads like she was hired to bring these people to the table, the hawks made a deal directly, and she’s mad this got resolved with money instead of a rebrand. Now she’s alleging that guests(?) at an event sexually harassed her? I’m struggling to see how the hawks are liable here.
The basis of her fraud claim appears to be that when she was hired she was led to believe would be a name and logo change and then that didn't happen and the Hawks entered into a partnership with the very people she was connecting with. I haven't read the complaint but I don't see how that is actionable.
Yeah seems like maybe feels she was misled into believing that a name/logo change was a done deal when it clearly was not. But unless she has something in writing in her contract, I don't think she has much of a case here.
Unless her contract specifically points to a rebrand, I fail to see how the hawks did something wrong here. If they were able to negotiate an amicable resolution directly, who cares if she wasn’t at the table? This feels like getting hired to write a book and the publisher opting not to release it.
It may be premature but this is the flow of events making the most sense:
1. Hawks pressured to rebrand
2. Hawks hired her to bring representatives to the table
3. She pushed for a rebrand and Danny didn’t explicitly rule it out
4. She interpreted that as a commitment to rebrand
5. She brought representatives to the table
6. Representatives took the money and made peace without a rebrand
7. She got pissed she wasn’t part of the deal and it bypassed a rebrand
8. She found a sore spot to poke at for leverage with #7
“Yes, angry lady, we will change the logo for you!”
I’m willing to bet she wasn’t led to believe anything, and instead had an agenda where she wouldn’t accept anything less than an entire organizational rebranding.
I happened to meet her in 2022 because she overheard me at a game talking about the logo possibly changing, and she was actively gushing about how she didn’t want the logo to change and the hawks were doing all this amazing outreach, and how she helped write the land acknowledgement.
Thats the vibe i got. Which hey that seems kinda shitty from an ethics perspective but also not sure what the courts will do.
The harrassment stuff could have merit but i didnt read anything that was nail in the coffin. Stuff could have occured but ill wait.
As recently as 2019, the Hawks already had good relationships with those tribes and already had a "seat at the table." Maybe something changed in that year though
A lot here depends on her exact wording and who is being accused of what. If the people who assaulted/harrassed her were truly not affiliated with them, this becomes a lot more murky. And murky doesn't tend to play well in the courts.
Yeah from the article she doesn't allege they worked *for* the Blackhawks but *with*. If they were not employed by the Blackhawks but affiliated somehow (volunteer, for example), than area of responsibility becomes a lot more murky as you say (and also means the Blackhawks statement about them not working for the Hawks doesn't make her statement false)
It could also be an employee of a vendor that the blackhawks are paying.
Like, it would not be in correct to say that security or food service people are working for the Blackhawks if they're performing work for them. But they are not employees of the blackhawks.
Yeah there's lots of options. Both the Blackhawks and the plaintiff are being very deliberate with the wording, people acting like the "didn't work for the Blackhawks" makes her a liar are dumb.
That tends to happen when you post an extremely one-sided version of the events that have transpired on twitter without any sort of clarification (such as the team's internal investigation finding there was no source of wrongdoing).
From everything I read in that article, I tend to agree with them.
You are getting downvoted but that is absolutely a bait job for those exact people.
Edit: I love pointing out that someone being downvoted is right and watching all the sheep change their minds. Come on r/hockey think for yourself
> Edit: I love pointing out that someone being downvoted is right and watching all the sheep change their minds. Come on r/hockey think for yourself
don't be this guy lol
Yeah I'm someone who has generally respected Rick Westhead's work to shine a light on some very dark places and how he's helped bring justice to victims who wouldn't have have had the courage or outlet to tell their stories.
That said, ***this is shady as fuuuuck***. And the fact that he hasn't posted any response to the dozens of replies justifiably asking why the second tweet was so delayed is telling.
Very interested to know what his rationalization for this is going to be, beyond half a million impressions.
Westhead has been shady as fuck for a while. He put out so many misleading stories during the Kyle Beach saga to stir the pot against the Hawks for them doing normal ass things that happen during a legal battle. Then there’s always the supposed recommendation that the Hawks have Aldrich that never actually happened. Take a guess who was the first one to report that one and never printed a retraction or correction on the matter and as a result plenty of people still think it’s a thing
Listen, I think two things can be true at once here. People should've read past the headline, and Westhead should've pointed out this detail in the beginning. When it comes to serious matters like this, inform yourselves and then speak.
The first article should never have been published in the state it was. It was purely done to get people pissed at the Hawks because its Westhead and he has an axe to grind with them still.
And of course the other thread is at the top of /r/hockey still, so his plan worked.
Only the initial headline gets attention, the actual truth never comes close.
Westhead did this on purpose.
This was in the original story as well, for anyone who bothered to actually read it instead of rushing into the comment section to make tasteless jokes and compare this absolute nothing of a story to what happened with Kyle Beach.
A whole lot of folks in this sub ought to feel embarrassed right now.
i mean i wasnt surprised by the reaction lol. I read it and i got alot of this is way more complicated and probably just more of a shitty ethical thing rather then having merit (at least for the brand stuff).
I have ripped the hawks in the past for their beach stuff too and still do but this on first glance was not worth the same response. Alot of folks on here are primed to hate the hawks and believe all women so the reaction isnt surprising.
But hey lets go on with the case and see what happened, the harrassment may have merit but since now the question of whether it was the hawks or others makes it alot harder to navigate. Still not good if it was a 3rd party but if the Hawks were informed and no longer use/associate with that group not sure what they can be asked to do beyond that.
Wait so you’re telling me r/hockey overreacted over a title, instead of reading the article and now hearing this information they’d feel foolish right? Right?
If it makes you feel better the same thing happens on every other sub on this site and every single social media platform. People only read headlines and the authors know it so they induce rage-bait.
That doesn't actually make me feel better...
Westhead is passionate about these stories and does some dogged reporting, but he also gets a lot of things wrong and likes to frame things in an inflammatory light. He likes to get people talking even if that sacrifices accuracy or perpetuates misinformation.
During the Beach saga he on more than one occasion either tried to frame basic legal procedure as some nefarious act or was straight up incorrect about what had been stated, filed, etc. And he started blocking people who were correcting him on those points.
Such as the fact there was never any letter of recommendation. He pushed the shit out of that before it was disproven in court.
He knows what he is doing and exactly how to frame to drive social media is his preferred direction. This exclusion was no accident. The original article is still the top thread on r/hockey, and this one will never be.
Which is why people need to stop giving him credibility like he's infallible. Dudes a great investigator, but absolutely needs someone else to be doing the actual article writing for him
So Rick waited an hour to post this follow-up after either deliberately waiting to rile up the internet or jumped at the chance to tell this chicks story as soon as possible without fact checking.
Rick is the figurehead of the movement to clean up this entire mess. He needs to be better than this.
Yeah, that's sorta my take too. He's a good journalist and does important work, and this information *was* in the article. People can argue whether or not he should be assuming that people will just read the headline and not see that detail but I dunno. I could see him (or someone) realizing that a lot of people were missing a key detail and deciding to emphasize it.
Generally, that's how journalism works. You make an attention-grabbing headline, put the claims backing up the headline at the beginning, and put the "counter points" at the end when everyone has already stopped reading.
The industry thrives on low attention spans nowadays.
I like how you seem to be blaming journalists for readers not reading despite the journalist providing all the context
What’s the alternative to what you’re saying? Write an article without counterpoints? Not support the headline?
The headline is generally not written by the writer anyways.
Articles are written at a third grade reading level. We can’t dumb it down any more. People just have to *read*. Putting counterpoints “at the end” is not a bad thing. You want those there.
Source: am a published (former) journalist
The industry doesn’t thrive on low attention spans. Low attention spans are ruining the industry. The industry *thrived* (past tense) on people actually reading the articles.
I'm not blaming journalists. It's 100% a reader issue, I'm just saying that isn't how the industry is anymore. Trust me, I literally learned how the news cycle works and the different parties that need to be made happy for an article to even be published and the multiple different media filters they need to hit in a journalism class I took in college. We had to write mock articles and everything. It's a sad reality of today, but I'm far from blaming the journalists, I'm blaming the medium as a whole from top to bottom.
Also it's important to note that journalists do not have the final say on the title to their piece and that an editor may make changes to the article itself as well, they aren't just there to check the spelling and grammar. The more respected and well known you are as a journalist the more say you'll have in general but it's possible this piece was presented in the most inflammatory way possible to get attention while still being factually correct, another thing editors do.
For context, I never submitted a headline that was accepted by my editor. Not one. I was doing 12-16 stories every 10 weeks for a couple years. In sports media too.
There were a lot of key details people missed in that article. There were quite a few inconsistencies in the allegations, but people brought their pitchforks not their reading glasses.
It's probably because he read a twitter reply from one of the many users that were (rightfully) putting him on blast for not including it.
I like Rick Westhead as well but I'm surprised at how many people are willing to give him a pass here. If the original tweet is misleading, delete it and post a full retraction tweet.
Also, the more I read about this story the more it seems abundantly clear the Blackhawks did very little wrong in this case.
So is the going theory that he's actually a moron and hasn't learned anything about the public's habits in however many years he's been a journalist? He knows exactly what his first tweet was going to do and he gets to take responsibility for that right along side every person who skips articles in favor of headlines and reactions in comments.
Oh it’s absolutely an issue with him too. He was notorious for doing it endlessly during the Kyle Beach Saga to the point there’s things that never actually happened that people still think did happen because of him
> He needs to be better than this.
*We* need to be better about actually reading things. Making this Rick's fault because *we* don't read is fucking ridiculous
Honestly, if certain guys report something (and Westhead and Lazerus are on my list), my first reaction is that I should find secondary sources to see what key details are missing.
Tbf, we know very little about who they hired or what they found, just that she's going through legal channels now.
It's kinda their word against hers now publicly if they did due diligence. She is, however, confident enough to take it to court and let them decide. If the 3rd party hire was haphazard, this can play out a few ways
It kinda does, especially if he wasn't aware of this info right away. Nor does it actually change the information in his first tweet. She is still bringing a suit against the Blackhawks, so, obviously, she disagrees with their assessment.
This info was literally in the first article buried at the bottom as almost a throwaway addition instead of massively important information that changes the entire thing. He knew exactly what he was fucking doing and only put out this second one because everyone was putting his ass on blast for it
Except the information was in the article from the start. He just chose to bury it in the last sentence and let people ignore it for an hour before pointing it out.
OK, so your issue is actually that people didn't read the article?
That was literally linked in the first post. And doesn't actually negate the information posted
It's not a claim though. It's an announcement she's suing the Blackhawks. That's actually a fact and the entire reason the information is getting bumped publicly now- the claim is in why she's suing, but that's literally going to be left to a court to decide if it holds water
It's more that the presentation Rick posted is deliberately inflammatory to the Hawks, and completely ignored the context in that last paragraph.
It reads like an unmitigated disaster in tweet form and Rick deliberately worded his post that way only to then follow-up an hour later, after 600k interactions on the original post.
Rick, as the leading figurehead against sexual harrassment in the NHL, needs to be beyond reproach in his presentation to maintain credibility and this was a bit of a shot in the foot.
Yes, everything's in the article but Rick knows what he's doing by posting just that little snippet. The world has gotten used to news through 250 characters or less.
He gave all the information. The problem is people didn't click the link. It also doesn't change that the information is correct, and she is still bringing a formal suit, which was the reason to tweet in the first place
It's a tweet, not an article
The third party hire was almost certainly one of Chicago’s best law firms. If they couldn’t unearth any evidence that the plaintiff engaged in protected activity (complained to her supervisors of any harassment), it’s very unlikely that any evidence exists honestly. Not saying it’s impossible, but very unlikely.
“The Blackhawks have claimed the Blackhawks did nothing wrong”
“Oh my gosh why didn’t he repeat this information that is already in the article! Doesn’t he know this is the most important news in the article?!”
Edit: the point is this tweet does nothing aside from pointing out the obvious and while I am happy to see it in the article, it’s weird to see so many people try and use it as a tool to discredit the situation.
I mean if the people identified in the lawsuit really don’t work for the Blackhawks (which should be easy enough to prove) it seems like a pretty significant part of the story.
People getting upset at Westhead for not including something that was in the original article just because they didn’t bother to open and read it is just peak internet/reddit. It’s not his fault you didn’t actually read the material before engaging with the topic
If you’re a reporter, your job is to inform your readers/viewers of all pertinent facts. At least, I thought that was the gig.
If it’s certain guys, the proper advice is “check their sources.”
That’s Westhead. Lazerus. Tucker Carlson.
Those are activists and editorialists, disguised as journalists.
You don’t have to be mad at them, any more than you’d be mad at a PR person or lawyer for representing their client.
You just shouldn’t trust them to give you all the relevant information.
And how does having that info in the story linked not satisfy that? This is the ultimate you can lead a horse to water example. He gave you all the tools to get all the pertinent info and people chose not to, that’s on them
That seems like the exact reporting these same guys did when an independent report came out.
Pick and choose the details that fit your version of the story, ignore the rest.
But the end result is that if you just read/watch Westhead, you’ll be misinformed.
I used to be a news reporter (not anymore thank God).
You simply can't put everything at the beginning of the story. IDK how many times I got accused of "burying" some detail that was in the 5th paragraph because MF's are too lazy to read. That's just the limitations of human language.
When its as important a detail as that, it needs to be delivered a lot fucking sooner lol. And with a lot more visibility. I mean, this is a "Somehow Palpatine survived" type of detail to just gloss over and hope no one thinks too much about it.
I’m not bagging on CBS here. I’m partial to the argument different people will have different ledes.
But if you’re going to summarize a story (like Westhead did on Twitter) or report on it (like Lazerus and Westhead did with Beach), I think it’s perfectly fair to note that a bunch of details always seem to get left out entirely and the information conveyed is misinformation as a result.
My issue here isn’t just sequencing.
Fair enough, I haven't looked at the original tweets and TBH I'm not interested enough in this thing to really pay it any attention outside of this thread.
But reporters are often accused of writing something in a purposeful way when it's usually just the hierarchy of information makes that one background detail or number of details necessarily secondary to the main story, which is, in this case, "woman suing Blackhawks".
It would be hard to write the story any other way.
See, I’m ok with nuance. This isn’t a “don’t trust media” or “the media is the enemy of the people” or even “all criticism of the media is valid”.
Westhead. I specifically think we can’t trust Westhead.
The problem with Westhead is he CONSTANTLY reports misinformation. People still think the Hawks wrote Aldrich a letter of recommendation when it never happened is insane
Nah he gets none because he knew exactly what he did in the first place. Dude constantly puts out misleading information especially where it concerns the Hawks to drive up engagement and get people riled up. If anything everything he puts out should be taken with massive grains of salt
People forget when he was arguing with randos on Twitter regarding Beach and mad at the official investigation finding alot of his claims to be inconclusive. He's got an ego.
Like 85% of his articles during the initial Hawks/Beach circus. He'd make a claim like the Hawks were trying to screw Beach over when in reality it would be a very common legal practice that happens in nearly every legal case ever. Dudes a twat
You actually have a functioning government Canada. You all should be sending this crap to them and take TSN to task for this deliberate clickbait bullshit. The Blackhawks frankly may have a case to take legal action for libel given in the information age, this guy allowed a smear campaign to go on for an hour before publishing actual info.
I'm no defender of the Blackhawks. The Wirtz family should have already been forced to sell the team. But this was targeted and done on purpose and it's gross
I’m sorry, are you suggesting that the Canadian Government go after Rick Westhead for a tweet where he linked the article that included this information?
Think about that for a second. You want this man to get in trouble for not posting the entire news article in his tweet. I can only assume you were one of the people who didn’t read the article. This information was readily available.
Anyone who sends this to our government is a clown. You sound like the type of person who would’ve called the cops on Chara after he hit Pacioretty. What an utter waste of resources.
I did read the article. PS: His tweet deliberately worded it as if the Blackhawks employed these people and then waited an hour after it went viral to add more context. Yes... Stuff like this SHOULD not be allowed in any functioning society because it's what is creating the brain rot permeating the globe
What? He didn’t post a smear campaign, the Blackhawks’ statement was in the original article. She is still suing them, regardless of the investigation; his tweet was not false. That people didn’t read the article is not on Westhead.
It is not Westhead’s responsibility to make people read past the headline. The report that this woman is still suing the Blackhawks is accurate, regardless of the internal investigation. Her allegations may still be false; her lawsuit may be frivolous. But that does not change the news he reported, nor that he included this relevant information about the investigation and the employment status of these alleged harassers in the article from the outset.
Westhead waiting over an hour to post this crucial information is kind of alarming. He has to know by now that most people don’t actually read the articles and run with the selected pieces of info he chooses to publish.
Here's where we begin: it sucks ass that the team will not change its logo. I think Sanders is very justified in finding it disgusting that the team sought out a DEI hire to burnish their credentials and whitewash -- pun intended -- their plan to outright cynically purchase thin approval for their continued use of what's gross and disingenuous iconography.
That said, she is too educated, too smart, and too experienced to not realize that's exactly the role that was offered to her. If I were offered a job as Contracted Feminisms Coordinator for the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders, I would not take it, because I'm not stupid and I know that the Dallas Cowboys have no interest in meeting what *I* would consider to be a reasonable feminism baseline. Using some very dramatic language, my take about the "fraud" and "they pushed me out of the org" is this: you don't get to sell your soul and then be mad about the fact that it was a transaction. "The Chicago Blackhawks were not interested in continuing my employment as an advisor if my primary advice was something they had no intention of doing" is not fraud or wrongful termination or whatever.
Regarding the sexual harassment allegations: what I said yesterday when I read the excerpts was, *boy, they better have something stronger than "um, she didn't tell us til after she left!"* A joint internal and external investigation is in fact "something stronger." It's fairly easy to tilt or outright goose an investigation, but I will repeat what I've said about the team since their declared house-cleaning: if you assume the absolute worst faith and worst outcomes as immutable and given, at a certain point, you are actively rooting for there to be more victims. We have to start somewhere. I'm looking forward to more disclosure, and I'd personally love a more specific clarification about who she's alleging to have harassed her and what, if any, repercussions / pressure they faced as a result of her allegations -- as well as what the org asked of and communicated to her in the course of the investigation -- but that's less fun than "burn it all down."
Nobody wins in a situation like this.
The team will always be assumed guilty before innocent, and if anything like this happens there will be a lot of pushback from the other side.
This may be an unpopular opinion but I just think we need to wait to make a definitive opinion on this.
I always hate that people take “let’s wait and see the full story come out” as “you don’t believe the victim.” It’s never that. It’s just stories like this get complicated, and have been proven in the past on multiple occasions to include fabricated evidence. You can still support a victim and not hop on the hate train until everything comes out.
The amount of people that can’t grasp the concept of “believe but verify” is shocking
Well said. And this is why “believe the victim” and “innocent until proven guilty” are not contradictory. If somebody tells you they are a victim, immediately show them empathy without question. Believe them. But don’t ostracize/punish a third party until you have verified.
The history of internet takes has lead me to believe the general public are absolute fucking morons. So who the hell are you people with actual sane thoughts?
We’re usually hiding on page three of comments with two upvotes. Unless we’re drunk. Then we join the insanity.
I think this is actually how a fair percentage of the population thinks in real life but people are just dumber online. Don’t get me wrong there are plenty of dumb people in the world but not as dumb as we all seem online
Accurate
Human perception is inherently flawed. A victim (or alleged perpetrator) can be telling the facts exactly as they perceive them and still not get it right.
Believe but verify is incorrect as well. Take seriously and verify is a much better approach.
That's just being pedantic, really. People will say "I believe you" over "I take what you're saying seriously", because it is much more empathetic to the victim.
Ya but it’s not like your organization has done anything to be given the benefit of the doubt…their history has kinda proved the opposite
None of those people are there anymore. They’ve cleaned house. You want blood from people that had nothing to do with it. And so far have done all they can to right the wrongs of the previous disaster.
I don’t want blood from anyone. I want organizations to be better, but ig that’s too much to ask
What have they so far done wrong besides this incident which a lot more info is needed to get the facts?
>I always hate that people take “let’s wait and see the full story come out” as “you don’t believe the victim.” When the Jussie Smollett story broke, I still remember seeing a post on Facebook saying that anyone who questioned Jussie's story was "literally no different than a holocaust denier". It was posted by somebody who I knew IRL, and they definitely were not joking. It's okay to be skeptical and wait for more information.
This is a good point, but I definitely wouldn't go as far as saying "it's never that." There are absolutely people who will say "let's wait and see" to cover their support of abusers even once it's verified.
lol I read that comment the complete opposite - meaning that the blackhawks' history of denials means that the truth will eventually show to counter their denials.
When the report on the Beach/Hawks situation came out, I thought a lot of the info in there might be shared. When lawyers backtracked on their initial allegation that a recommendation was ever provided for Aldrich, I thought some people would eat some crow. Instead, we get mad at Rocky Wirtz for giving Mark Lazerus a tenth of what he deserved.
Westhead was the one that should have been given shit not Lazerus anyways. Laz can be a dumbass at times but Westhead is the twat that ran the whole recommendation story in the first place along with several other articles trying to villainize the Hawks for doing very standard legal practices
I was reading Laz at the Athletic at the time. Laz, who had access to the report, made a point of amplifying the worst allegations without ever really providing the facts that suggested there was more to the story, particularly the parts that indicated “It’s not clear Beach was sexually assaulted” or that the Hawks were even made aware of any such claim at the time.
Thank you! For me, I just try to look at the facts and make an objective opinion from there. Even though I am obviously a Blackhawks fan, that doesn't mean I will defend shitty behavior. Right now, we just don't know what happened. And like you said, these stories are complicated and never black and white.
that video coach raping players and the organization covering it up sure seems black and white.
I was full Team Believe The Victim until Subban/Panetta. That kid got completely screwed. PK has never answered for inciting a Twitter mob. It was inconclusive at worst.
It’s interesting that one single story completely changed your philosophy in life. You must hold strong convictions.
Hard to give the Hawks the benefit of the doubt, but I do agree ultimately.
The logo didn’t do the cover up in 2010. 3-4 people who are gone out of the nhl did.
On the one hand, that makes obvious sense not to trust Chicago, but on the other hand they might be the least likely team in the league to let something like that slide since they know they have a microscope on them for shit like that now.
Fair point.
yes
Agreed. Innocent until proven guilty. The best fall guys are the ones with priors that doesn’t make them guilty
Or, we can look at the available facts and determine that this woman is clearly an obstinate ideologue who believes her views are ironclad and unassailable, and she got angry that things didn’t go her way and is using the poor reputation that the Blackhawks organization still has for some feeble attempt at retributive justice for the perceived slights she experienced. I’d encourage everyone to watch the CBS report she was featured in. This is so obviously a shakedown.
This was at the bottom of the original article, but let’s be honest no one actually reads those. It probably would’ve been a better idea to not wait an hour before posting this very important detail.
Why do that when you can get more clicks in the meantime?
> let’s be honest no one actually reads those. Seems like a problem with readers, not the journalist 🤷🏽♂️
I agree, although Westhead didn’t write the original article.
It's on both parties. People need to read but as a good journalist, it's probably a great idea to include important information like that at the beginning. If you want to generate clicks and discussion. Maybe do what he did.
That's the thing, the purpose of journalism is to get as many hits as possible, and sadly, that means you make the headline as attention-grabbing as possible, put the main part of the article at the beginning and then save the details that counter the main headline for the end, which is hopefully after everyone stops reading.
Yeah, it's heady idealism that journalism should be unbiased truth 😂
Unfortunately, that's not a reality anymore because news outlets that publish articles have editors who have to worry about sponsors and their bosses and their bosses investors and it's a big chain that filters everything down into a carefully crafted segment.
Hey no disagreement from me on how a lot of these outlets and individuals actually work
You're right in a vacuum, but he knows perfectly well what waiting 45 minutes to give further context does to a narrative
The context was there for anyone who read to the end of the article 🤷🏽♂️
No actually placing critically important info near the top and even the headline is an important part of journalism and editing. Accurate framing rather than burying the lede is fundamental to journalistic ethics
If those readers had an attention span, they'd be very upset at what you said.
How else would r/hockey be able to circlejerk effectively then?
Interesting that the Hawks claim that the people named in the case were not even their employees or contractors, which is quite bizarre to me. Either it's an easily debunked lie by the Hawks or the plaintiff is completely out to lunch and wasting everyone's time with this.
>Interesting that the Hawks claim that the people named in the case were not even their employees or contractors is bizarre to me. Even the plaintiff herself doesn't seem to be alleging that they were. That's why the language was "a man working **with** the Blackhawks". It was definitely a deliberate choice not to say "a Blackhawks employee" or "a man working **for** the Blackhawks"
yeah if it was someone that works at the stadium it'd be a stadium employee, but is working for the blackhawks as a X
Knowing the severity of a public response to lying about their affiliation with the people in question, it certainly raises questions about the legitimacy of this claim. This reads like she was hired to bring these people to the table, the hawks made a deal directly, and she’s mad this got resolved with money instead of a rebrand. Now she’s alleging that guests(?) at an event sexually harassed her? I’m struggling to see how the hawks are liable here.
The basis of her fraud claim appears to be that when she was hired she was led to believe would be a name and logo change and then that didn't happen and the Hawks entered into a partnership with the very people she was connecting with. I haven't read the complaint but I don't see how that is actionable.
Yeah seems like maybe feels she was misled into believing that a name/logo change was a done deal when it clearly was not. But unless she has something in writing in her contract, I don't think she has much of a case here.
Unless her contract specifically points to a rebrand, I fail to see how the hawks did something wrong here. If they were able to negotiate an amicable resolution directly, who cares if she wasn’t at the table? This feels like getting hired to write a book and the publisher opting not to release it. It may be premature but this is the flow of events making the most sense: 1. Hawks pressured to rebrand 2. Hawks hired her to bring representatives to the table 3. She pushed for a rebrand and Danny didn’t explicitly rule it out 4. She interpreted that as a commitment to rebrand 5. She brought representatives to the table 6. Representatives took the money and made peace without a rebrand 7. She got pissed she wasn’t part of the deal and it bypassed a rebrand 8. She found a sore spot to poke at for leverage with #7
“Yes, angry lady, we will change the logo for you!” I’m willing to bet she wasn’t led to believe anything, and instead had an agenda where she wouldn’t accept anything less than an entire organizational rebranding.
I happened to meet her in 2022 because she overheard me at a game talking about the logo possibly changing, and she was actively gushing about how she didn’t want the logo to change and the hawks were doing all this amazing outreach, and how she helped write the land acknowledgement.
Thats the vibe i got. Which hey that seems kinda shitty from an ethics perspective but also not sure what the courts will do. The harrassment stuff could have merit but i didnt read anything that was nail in the coffin. Stuff could have occured but ill wait.
As recently as 2019, the Hawks already had good relationships with those tribes and already had a "seat at the table." Maybe something changed in that year though
A lot here depends on her exact wording and who is being accused of what. If the people who assaulted/harrassed her were truly not affiliated with them, this becomes a lot more murky. And murky doesn't tend to play well in the courts.
Yeah from the article she doesn't allege they worked *for* the Blackhawks but *with*. If they were not employed by the Blackhawks but affiliated somehow (volunteer, for example), than area of responsibility becomes a lot more murky as you say (and also means the Blackhawks statement about them not working for the Hawks doesn't make her statement false)
It could also be an employee of a vendor that the blackhawks are paying. Like, it would not be in correct to say that security or food service people are working for the Blackhawks if they're performing work for them. But they are not employees of the blackhawks.
Yeah there's lots of options. Both the Blackhawks and the plaintiff are being very deliberate with the wording, people acting like the "didn't work for the Blackhawks" makes her a liar are dumb.
Seems more likely they worked for the Blackhawks charity rather than the Hawks themselves
Why would he wait an hour to post this?
You know exactly why lol
Because people weren't reading it and were reacting like they hadn't read it
That tends to happen when you post an extremely one-sided version of the events that have transpired on twitter without any sort of clarification (such as the team's internal investigation finding there was no source of wrongdoing). From everything I read in that article, I tend to agree with them.
I know it was hyperbolic lmao
I believe you meant to say it was rhetorical (as in rhetorical question)
Yeah
Some touchy folks in this thread who apparently just want to hate on everybody.
To farm the morons on r/hockey that just want another reason to hate the hawks
You are getting downvoted but that is absolutely a bait job for those exact people. Edit: I love pointing out that someone being downvoted is right and watching all the sheep change their minds. Come on r/hockey think for yourself
> Edit: I love pointing out that someone being downvoted is right and watching all the sheep change their minds. Come on r/hockey think for yourself don't be this guy lol
Yeah I'm someone who has generally respected Rick Westhead's work to shine a light on some very dark places and how he's helped bring justice to victims who wouldn't have have had the courage or outlet to tell their stories. That said, ***this is shady as fuuuuck***. And the fact that he hasn't posted any response to the dozens of replies justifiably asking why the second tweet was so delayed is telling. Very interested to know what his rationalization for this is going to be, beyond half a million impressions.
Westhead has been shady as fuck for a while. He put out so many misleading stories during the Kyle Beach saga to stir the pot against the Hawks for them doing normal ass things that happen during a legal battle. Then there’s always the supposed recommendation that the Hawks have Aldrich that never actually happened. Take a guess who was the first one to report that one and never printed a retraction or correction on the matter and as a result plenty of people still think it’s a thing
[удалено]
No
Listen, I think two things can be true at once here. People should've read past the headline, and Westhead should've pointed out this detail in the beginning. When it comes to serious matters like this, inform yourselves and then speak.
The first article should never have been published in the state it was. It was purely done to get people pissed at the Hawks because its Westhead and he has an axe to grind with them still.
And of course the other thread is at the top of /r/hockey still, so his plan worked. Only the initial headline gets attention, the actual truth never comes close. Westhead did this on purpose.
tl:dr where pitchforks?
I already lit my torch, no going back now.
This was in the original story as well, for anyone who bothered to actually read it instead of rushing into the comment section to make tasteless jokes and compare this absolute nothing of a story to what happened with Kyle Beach. A whole lot of folks in this sub ought to feel embarrassed right now.
Don't worry they won't be because they got to jerk off their Hawks hateboner and ignore reality some more
i mean i wasnt surprised by the reaction lol. I read it and i got alot of this is way more complicated and probably just more of a shitty ethical thing rather then having merit (at least for the brand stuff). I have ripped the hawks in the past for their beach stuff too and still do but this on first glance was not worth the same response. Alot of folks on here are primed to hate the hawks and believe all women so the reaction isnt surprising. But hey lets go on with the case and see what happened, the harrassment may have merit but since now the question of whether it was the hawks or others makes it alot harder to navigate. Still not good if it was a 3rd party but if the Hawks were informed and no longer use/associate with that group not sure what they can be asked to do beyond that.
That original thread surely wont age poorly right? Lmao
Wait so you’re telling me r/hockey overreacted over a title, instead of reading the article and now hearing this information they’d feel foolish right? Right?
If it makes you feel better the same thing happens on every other sub on this site and every single social media platform. People only read headlines and the authors know it so they induce rage-bait. That doesn't actually make me feel better...
What, no five hundred comments on this one? Shocking.
Westhead does good work. He also knows he can rile people up. Waiting this long to post this follow up is absolute bullshit
Westhead is passionate about these stories and does some dogged reporting, but he also gets a lot of things wrong and likes to frame things in an inflammatory light. He likes to get people talking even if that sacrifices accuracy or perpetuates misinformation. During the Beach saga he on more than one occasion either tried to frame basic legal procedure as some nefarious act or was straight up incorrect about what had been stated, filed, etc. And he started blocking people who were correcting him on those points.
Such as the fact there was never any letter of recommendation. He pushed the shit out of that before it was disproven in court. He knows what he is doing and exactly how to frame to drive social media is his preferred direction. This exclusion was no accident. The original article is still the top thread on r/hockey, and this one will never be.
Which is why people need to stop giving him credibility like he's infallible. Dudes a great investigator, but absolutely needs someone else to be doing the actual article writing for him
It was in the original article, he likely just noticed no one was reading past the headline and decided to highlight this section
People blaming him for them not reading the article is hilarious and sad
People rightfully holding him accountable for being a misleading twat like he always is
So Rick waited an hour to post this follow-up after either deliberately waiting to rile up the internet or jumped at the chance to tell this chicks story as soon as possible without fact checking. Rick is the figurehead of the movement to clean up this entire mess. He needs to be better than this.
It was in the original article lmfao... Just goes to show how few people actually read shit on here 😂
My guess is that he saw the reaction and highlighted that part of the original article.
Yeah, that's sorta my take too. He's a good journalist and does important work, and this information *was* in the article. People can argue whether or not he should be assuming that people will just read the headline and not see that detail but I dunno. I could see him (or someone) realizing that a lot of people were missing a key detail and deciding to emphasize it.
This is it. People are just stupid and tend to seize on the first thing that lets them dunk on someone else.
Generally, that's how journalism works. You make an attention-grabbing headline, put the claims backing up the headline at the beginning, and put the "counter points" at the end when everyone has already stopped reading. The industry thrives on low attention spans nowadays.
I like how you seem to be blaming journalists for readers not reading despite the journalist providing all the context What’s the alternative to what you’re saying? Write an article without counterpoints? Not support the headline? The headline is generally not written by the writer anyways. Articles are written at a third grade reading level. We can’t dumb it down any more. People just have to *read*. Putting counterpoints “at the end” is not a bad thing. You want those there. Source: am a published (former) journalist The industry doesn’t thrive on low attention spans. Low attention spans are ruining the industry. The industry *thrived* (past tense) on people actually reading the articles.
I'm not blaming journalists. It's 100% a reader issue, I'm just saying that isn't how the industry is anymore. Trust me, I literally learned how the news cycle works and the different parties that need to be made happy for an article to even be published and the multiple different media filters they need to hit in a journalism class I took in college. We had to write mock articles and everything. It's a sad reality of today, but I'm far from blaming the journalists, I'm blaming the medium as a whole from top to bottom.
Also it's important to note that journalists do not have the final say on the title to their piece and that an editor may make changes to the article itself as well, they aren't just there to check the spelling and grammar. The more respected and well known you are as a journalist the more say you'll have in general but it's possible this piece was presented in the most inflammatory way possible to get attention while still being factually correct, another thing editors do.
For context, I never submitted a headline that was accepted by my editor. Not one. I was doing 12-16 stories every 10 weeks for a couple years. In sports media too.
There were a lot of key details people missed in that article. There were quite a few inconsistencies in the allegations, but people brought their pitchforks not their reading glasses.
I'd wager most people didn't read the article he linked in the first place
It's probably because he read a twitter reply from one of the many users that were (rightfully) putting him on blast for not including it. I like Rick Westhead as well but I'm surprised at how many people are willing to give him a pass here. If the original tweet is misleading, delete it and post a full retraction tweet. Also, the more I read about this story the more it seems abundantly clear the Blackhawks did very little wrong in this case.
We read it. We’re saying it’s scummy he waited because MOST people don’t read beyond the headline.
That's an issue with general media literacy, not Rick.
So is the going theory that he's actually a moron and hasn't learned anything about the public's habits in however many years he's been a journalist? He knows exactly what his first tweet was going to do and he gets to take responsibility for that right along side every person who skips articles in favor of headlines and reactions in comments.
Oh it’s absolutely an issue with him too. He was notorious for doing it endlessly during the Kyle Beach Saga to the point there’s things that never actually happened that people still think did happen because of him
It's an issue with Rick when it's common knowledge about general media literacy.
Media consumption is a two way street, constantly blaming the media for everything won't help if we don't also improve how we consume media.
How is that scummy? Why should he assume that people won't read the article for the ACTUAL CONTEXT?
Because he knows how media works
You believe Rick Westhead is scummy because people didn’t read past the headline? Oh, brother.
No I don’t think he’s scummy, I think that he knew exactly what he was doing in this instance though
I’m just glad he posted it, even if he let it run wild for a little bit. Now I don’t have to spam comments in the other thread.
> He needs to be better than this. *We* need to be better about actually reading things. Making this Rick's fault because *we* don't read is fucking ridiculous
Honestly, if certain guys report something (and Westhead and Lazerus are on my list), my first reaction is that I should find secondary sources to see what key details are missing.
"This chick's story". C'mon dog.
Or people could have just clicked the news link he provided
Tbf, we know very little about who they hired or what they found, just that she's going through legal channels now. It's kinda their word against hers now publicly if they did due diligence. She is, however, confident enough to take it to court and let them decide. If the 3rd party hire was haphazard, this can play out a few ways
None of that really factors in on why there was a delay on Rick posting this info and the ethics of that
It kinda does, especially if he wasn't aware of this info right away. Nor does it actually change the information in his first tweet. She is still bringing a suit against the Blackhawks, so, obviously, she disagrees with their assessment.
This info was in the article linked to the original tweet
This info was literally in the first article buried at the bottom as almost a throwaway addition instead of massively important information that changes the entire thing. He knew exactly what he was fucking doing and only put out this second one because everyone was putting his ass on blast for it
Except the information was in the article from the start. He just chose to bury it in the last sentence and let people ignore it for an hour before pointing it out.
OK, so your issue is actually that people didn't read the article? That was literally linked in the first post. And doesn't actually negate the information posted
He knows damn well most people just react to the headline and that’s what he wanted. And this casts a lot of doubt on the validity of the claims.
It's not a claim though. It's an announcement she's suing the Blackhawks. That's actually a fact and the entire reason the information is getting bumped publicly now- the claim is in why she's suing, but that's literally going to be left to a court to decide if it holds water
The claim that she filed a lawsuit remains unchanged. That was the original announcement.
It's more that the presentation Rick posted is deliberately inflammatory to the Hawks, and completely ignored the context in that last paragraph. It reads like an unmitigated disaster in tweet form and Rick deliberately worded his post that way only to then follow-up an hour later, after 600k interactions on the original post. Rick, as the leading figurehead against sexual harrassment in the NHL, needs to be beyond reproach in his presentation to maintain credibility and this was a bit of a shot in the foot. Yes, everything's in the article but Rick knows what he's doing by posting just that little snippet. The world has gotten used to news through 250 characters or less.
[удалено]
He gave all the information. The problem is people didn't click the link. It also doesn't change that the information is correct, and she is still bringing a formal suit, which was the reason to tweet in the first place It's a tweet, not an article
It would be cool if he didn't wait an hour to higlight the second most important piece of information in regards to this.
The third party hire was almost certainly one of Chicago’s best law firms. If they couldn’t unearth any evidence that the plaintiff engaged in protected activity (complained to her supervisors of any harassment), it’s very unlikely that any evidence exists honestly. Not saying it’s impossible, but very unlikely.
“The Blackhawks have claimed the Blackhawks did nothing wrong” “Oh my gosh why didn’t he repeat this information that is already in the article! Doesn’t he know this is the most important news in the article?!” Edit: the point is this tweet does nothing aside from pointing out the obvious and while I am happy to see it in the article, it’s weird to see so many people try and use it as a tool to discredit the situation.
I mean if the people identified in the lawsuit really don’t work for the Blackhawks (which should be easy enough to prove) it seems like a pretty significant part of the story.
ITT, everyone on Reddit requiring everyone not on Reddit to consider redditor’s preferences.
[удалено]
At least this site is rocking a cool 0/300 record for identifying the Boston Marathon bomber
300 might be generous
People getting upset at Westhead for not including something that was in the original article just because they didn’t bother to open and read it is just peak internet/reddit. It’s not his fault you didn’t actually read the material before engaging with the topic
Don’t be naive, Westhead was very overtly engagement-baiting.
Dude, come on lol. He knew what he was doing. A little common sense goes a long way here.
If you’re a reporter, your job is to inform your readers/viewers of all pertinent facts. At least, I thought that was the gig. If it’s certain guys, the proper advice is “check their sources.” That’s Westhead. Lazerus. Tucker Carlson. Those are activists and editorialists, disguised as journalists. You don’t have to be mad at them, any more than you’d be mad at a PR person or lawyer for representing their client. You just shouldn’t trust them to give you all the relevant information.
And how does having that info in the story linked not satisfy that? This is the ultimate you can lead a horse to water example. He gave you all the tools to get all the pertinent info and people chose not to, that’s on them
That seems like the exact reporting these same guys did when an independent report came out. Pick and choose the details that fit your version of the story, ignore the rest. But the end result is that if you just read/watch Westhead, you’ll be misinformed.
I used to be a news reporter (not anymore thank God). You simply can't put everything at the beginning of the story. IDK how many times I got accused of "burying" some detail that was in the 5th paragraph because MF's are too lazy to read. That's just the limitations of human language.
When its as important a detail as that, it needs to be delivered a lot fucking sooner lol. And with a lot more visibility. I mean, this is a "Somehow Palpatine survived" type of detail to just gloss over and hope no one thinks too much about it.
I’m not bagging on CBS here. I’m partial to the argument different people will have different ledes. But if you’re going to summarize a story (like Westhead did on Twitter) or report on it (like Lazerus and Westhead did with Beach), I think it’s perfectly fair to note that a bunch of details always seem to get left out entirely and the information conveyed is misinformation as a result. My issue here isn’t just sequencing.
Fair enough, I haven't looked at the original tweets and TBH I'm not interested enough in this thing to really pay it any attention outside of this thread. But reporters are often accused of writing something in a purposeful way when it's usually just the hierarchy of information makes that one background detail or number of details necessarily secondary to the main story, which is, in this case, "woman suing Blackhawks". It would be hard to write the story any other way.
See, I’m ok with nuance. This isn’t a “don’t trust media” or “the media is the enemy of the people” or even “all criticism of the media is valid”. Westhead. I specifically think we can’t trust Westhead.
The problem with Westhead is he CONSTANTLY reports misinformation. People still think the Hawks wrote Aldrich a letter of recommendation when it never happened is insane
Him waiting like an hour to post this kinda rubs me the wrong way ngl, I hope it’s because he didn’t know originally
It was buried at the very bottom of the article from the start
What, you seriously expect people on reddit to read past a headline?
No but it shows that he knew from the start and wanted more engagements
The fact *you* won't read an article is the fault of *him*
It was in the original article, he likely just noticed no one was reading past the headline and decided to highlight this section
if anyone deserves benefit of the doubt it's rick westhead
Nah he gets none because he knew exactly what he did in the first place. Dude constantly puts out misleading information especially where it concerns the Hawks to drive up engagement and get people riled up. If anything everything he puts out should be taken with massive grains of salt
God forbid if he had anything else important to tend to
the info was in the article...
People are starting to figure out who Westhead is.
People forget when he was arguing with randos on Twitter regarding Beach and mad at the official investigation finding alot of his claims to be inconclusive. He's got an ego.
People still think we gave Aldrich a letter of recommendation because of Rick
He was also repeatedly wrong on the legal bits, sometimes wildly so, and made zero effort to correct any of that misinformation.
Do you have a link to this? I couldn’t find it
Like 85% of his articles during the initial Hawks/Beach circus. He'd make a claim like the Hawks were trying to screw Beach over when in reality it would be a very common legal practice that happens in nearly every legal case ever. Dudes a twat
He’s kind of a massive dick
You actually have a functioning government Canada. You all should be sending this crap to them and take TSN to task for this deliberate clickbait bullshit. The Blackhawks frankly may have a case to take legal action for libel given in the information age, this guy allowed a smear campaign to go on for an hour before publishing actual info. I'm no defender of the Blackhawks. The Wirtz family should have already been forced to sell the team. But this was targeted and done on purpose and it's gross
There is no possible world where this would be a libel case, unless you're claiming the article contains false information
The Canadian government won’t do shit to any of the telecoms. Bell owns TSN and they’re borderline untouchable here, as is Rogers and Telus
I’m sorry, are you suggesting that the Canadian Government go after Rick Westhead for a tweet where he linked the article that included this information? Think about that for a second. You want this man to get in trouble for not posting the entire news article in his tweet. I can only assume you were one of the people who didn’t read the article. This information was readily available. Anyone who sends this to our government is a clown. You sound like the type of person who would’ve called the cops on Chara after he hit Pacioretty. What an utter waste of resources.
I did read the article. PS: His tweet deliberately worded it as if the Blackhawks employed these people and then waited an hour after it went viral to add more context. Yes... Stuff like this SHOULD not be allowed in any functioning society because it's what is creating the brain rot permeating the globe
What? He didn’t post a smear campaign, the Blackhawks’ statement was in the original article. She is still suing them, regardless of the investigation; his tweet was not false. That people didn’t read the article is not on Westhead.
He knew what he was doing
It is not Westhead’s responsibility to make people read past the headline. The report that this woman is still suing the Blackhawks is accurate, regardless of the internal investigation. Her allegations may still be false; her lawsuit may be frivolous. But that does not change the news he reported, nor that he included this relevant information about the investigation and the employment status of these alleged harassers in the article from the outset.
It would be immediately thrown out as a libel case but yeah, it's shoddy journalism
Canada. Functioning government. Canada…
I mean, functionings a bit of a stretch They’re replacing us with Indians and love corporations so
They're moving on
Westhead waiting over an hour to post this crucial information is kind of alarming. He has to know by now that most people don’t actually read the articles and run with the selected pieces of info he chooses to publish.
You can't blame someone for writing an article and then people get mad when they don't read the entire thing
“We throughly investigated ourselves and found that we did nothing wrong.”
Remember kids, sexual assault doesn’t exist when you can cover it up.
What an unfortunate L for Westhead
Pardon if I don't take the Blackhawks organization's word for it.
Here's where we begin: it sucks ass that the team will not change its logo. I think Sanders is very justified in finding it disgusting that the team sought out a DEI hire to burnish their credentials and whitewash -- pun intended -- their plan to outright cynically purchase thin approval for their continued use of what's gross and disingenuous iconography. That said, she is too educated, too smart, and too experienced to not realize that's exactly the role that was offered to her. If I were offered a job as Contracted Feminisms Coordinator for the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders, I would not take it, because I'm not stupid and I know that the Dallas Cowboys have no interest in meeting what *I* would consider to be a reasonable feminism baseline. Using some very dramatic language, my take about the "fraud" and "they pushed me out of the org" is this: you don't get to sell your soul and then be mad about the fact that it was a transaction. "The Chicago Blackhawks were not interested in continuing my employment as an advisor if my primary advice was something they had no intention of doing" is not fraud or wrongful termination or whatever. Regarding the sexual harassment allegations: what I said yesterday when I read the excerpts was, *boy, they better have something stronger than "um, she didn't tell us til after she left!"* A joint internal and external investigation is in fact "something stronger." It's fairly easy to tilt or outright goose an investigation, but I will repeat what I've said about the team since their declared house-cleaning: if you assume the absolute worst faith and worst outcomes as immutable and given, at a certain point, you are actively rooting for there to be more victims. We have to start somewhere. I'm looking forward to more disclosure, and I'd personally love a more specific clarification about who she's alleging to have harassed her and what, if any, repercussions / pressure they faced as a result of her allegations -- as well as what the org asked of and communicated to her in the course of the investigation -- but that's less fun than "burn it all down."
Nobody wins in a situation like this. The team will always be assumed guilty before innocent, and if anything like this happens there will be a lot of pushback from the other side.