Such a fine line. Every day we walk it. The job of the critic: to evaluate as honestly as we can.
Yet we are balancing so much more than our own honesty. We are doing so much more than walking our own fine line. We are also up against outside forces.
The newspaper industry is taking hit after hit after hit. Readers are turning away. Writers are turning to other more lucrative avenues as newspaper sales decline.
Watch how the walk along that line moves. How more dramatic and more negative is needed to sell more - to stay alive longer.
On television, it's a boring show that just praises players on the team that sits in first place in the East. Two guys agreeing is not compelling television.
One national station makes sure to keep their numbers up by employing a bigot. People flock to their screens more during the intermission than during the game just to listen to him, then leave, shaking their heads in disgust.
But hey, we're just giving the people what they want. You come in droves and we give you what you came for. So is that on us? Or is it on them to be the leaders who help us find our better selves?
What's the bottom line?
Everything - and I mean everything - turns on money.
The more money that goes into the paying of the rights, the more money is needed from advertisers. The more the ratings need to be strong, the more salacious the words need to be in order to drive those ratings. The on-ice product is not a control element in this equation. You can only drive the ratings on what you can control.
Now there's a new player in town that has no problem matching the other bigot stride-for-stride.
And like the one before, the new bigot also has a doe-eyed sidekick cringing as he waits for the next lamentable moment. The sidekick is charged with being the counterbalance but never raising too strong a grievance in the face of the powerful, uncontrollable personality in front of him. Don't mess with the egotist. You never played the game, so you just sit back and accept even the non-hockey related garbage I spew.
Yes, watch how the new bigot ramps up his stupidity to fuel audience participation in the worst type of appointment viewing. Watch how he finds his audience through the years to come. I guarantee it.
As Shakespeare said, all the world's a stage and all the men and women merely players and this player is just getting comfortable on his new stage.
Out comes the ridiculous, as one of the most talented players in the NHL and probably the most talented defenceman is singled out for having fun in the warm up, or not having a serious look on his face. Now we are breaking down his warm up for criticism? This is year one, people.
At another station, a half an hour to hold an audience is a long time, so somehow the NHL's best D seems to have a game riddled with mistakes.
The line moves. The walk changes.
In Toronto the panelists decide beforehand: you hammer him and I'll protect him.
Point-point doesn't work. Point-counterpoint works. One guy gets to look smart at the end of the segment. The other guy has to check Twitter at the end of the segment to see how much of an idiot everyone thought he was. The answer? A really big idiot.
The tightrope sways in the wind. The ratings don't look good. We're burning through cash. The bottom line looks bad. Quick someone say something over the top: Create some buzz!
A national controversy brews. Phil Kessel protects his teammate. Oh that rings hollow does it? When he didn't protect his teammate - that rang hollow too. Dammed if he does and damned if he doesn't. But the papers are selling; the people are listening. The numbers are driving higher because the fans have found a reason to watch a Leafs game during the long death scene in yet another lost season? Thank goodness for that Kessel narrative.
What looks strange to you? What seems normal? How is the hockey in all of this? Oh yes. That. The hockey.
You know that thing called hockey that P.K. is doing better than any defenceman in the world. What an entertainer! What a force! He's a better defenceman than when he won the Norris, NHL executives say. He's more reliable with the puck. He makes smarter decisions. Where is the press on that? Where are the rave reviews? It's hard to find any.
Let's go back to Centre Earth, Toronto, P.K.'s hometown. The guy between the benches on game night keeps pointing out these nitpicking moments that don't amount to scratch. Subban logs 30 minutes on the NHL's best defensive team by goals allowed but somehow at ice level the catalyst in the win along with Carey Price once again, did not have a good game. Imagine that. He played half of it in a big win but he wasn't good.
What is the actual problem here overall? I don't even want to go there. I am broken down on that theme. The outcry to even whisper that theme is 100 times worse for me to suggest it than it would be for the ones who dance around it with their provocative veiled nuance. Unless it is blatant, I'm the bad guy for bringing it up. That's how it has always been; that's how it will remain, but let me say this - we are not all as enlightened as you are led to believe.
Perhaps I am just becoming more aware; perhaps it has always been like this. I don't know for sure but I feel the line we are walking on is becoming a tightrope and we all need to get a little more aware that power and money keeps asking good people to work without a safety net.
