MONTREAL, QC — Following the “The MSM Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks” and its companion piece, “MSM and New Media, Next Steps”, we seemed to be making some progress. There were open discussions, an airing of views and, dare I say, a beginning of a better understanding of issues on both sides. There even seemed to be some enthusiasm for my proposal of a media summit.
It wasn’t exactly the Treaty of Versailles but it was an improvement on tensions that have been described as the battle between the mainstream media (MSM) and bloggers.
Baby steps.
Into this atmosphere of detente stepped Andie Bennett to launch a full-frontal assault. Who is she you say? Bennett delivers sports updates between segments of the Team 990’s drive show hosted by Mitch Melnick. She, along with the under-appreciated Rod Francis, look after all the behind-the-scenes production work for the show. Andie also reports from Canadiens’ games and practises during the season.
You may recall that it was Bennett who attributed the fictitious story of Carey Price going on strike to someone blogging in their parent’s basement in their underwear. In truth, it was Michel Godbout, anchor of the CBC-Montreal news who made the bogus claim. When told of her error on-air, Bennett apologized (presumably to Godbout for confusing him with a blogger in his underpants.)
For those of you outside of Montreal who are saying this reads like “inside baseball”, there is some truth to that, but bear with me. If we are to resolve the current “battle”, it is important to elucidate the attitudes and prejudice that have created the walls that exist presently.
Suffice to say, there was no major foul by Bennett, just an insensitive remark from a person who probably should be doing more to acquaint herself with the new media. A sincere apology (not to Godbout) would have probably ended the matter.
But it appears that Bennett went to the Dan Ellis school of damage control. She was hopping mad and came out swinging on Thursday’s radio show.
She was upset by this quote that appeared in the piece: “It was probably some guy in his parent’s basement tweeting in his underwear.”
Bennett claimed that she was misquoted but failed to provide an alternative version. I invited her to send an audio clip of the segment in question. If necessary, I will be glad to correct the quote. To date, none has been received.
Strangely though, Bennett seemed to confirm the words in a comment to the AllHabs.net website. Bennett wrote, “First of all Rick, the basement in the underwear comment was a joke. I thought that was fairly obvious. Lighten up my friend.”
Are her written words that different from the quote taken from the radio several days earlier? There seems to be a consistent train of thought.
So what was it that pushed her buttons and set off a tirade?
Bennett said, “What I don’t like is that I’m slammed and it implies that I do absolutely nothing and that I bring absolutely nothing to the show. That kind of stuff really bothers me because I work hard to try to be as informed as possible and bring our listeners a different side of things.”
Hmmm. I’m really not sure where she’s coming from but the article never mentioned a word about her contributions to the show. Yet she is complaining that I mischaracterized her position?
Well, that’s a head-scratcher!
Bennett’s comments continued on the website as she addressed me and other readers.
Bennett wrote, “ok this is my last comment on this.” (It wasn’t.) She continued, “Rick, I am bothered not only by you misquoting me but also not giving the gist of the conversation in which is was VERY obvious that I was making a joke referring to the stereotype of bloggers.”
Yes, again with the ‘it was only a joke’ excuse. Remember, Allan Walsh tried that too when he was caught trashing Carey Price via Twitter? Not done there, Walsh slammed residents of this city saying that he “forgot it was Montreal and everyone loses a sense of humor.” It didn’t work for him, and Bennett’s try was no better.
As Bennett had more to say, however, her story started to shift axis.
Bennett wrote, “I did not assume it was a blogger I already knew it was Godbout. It was a joke that is all. I think you were just a teensy bit too sensitive in this case.”
Well, isn’t that interesting. She knew all along it was Godbout. She was just pretending she didn’t understand for laughs and giggles?
But, wait a minute. That doesn’t exactly jive with what was said on-air today, does it?
- Andie Bennett: “You recall this conversation which was so obviously a joke. And I said right after when we were talking…” (Melnick interupts)
- Mitch Melnick: “I mentioned it was Godbout and you apologized immediately.”
- Andie Bennett: “And I apologized immediately.”
- Mitch Melnick: “You figured it was Eklund, the guy from Hockey Buzz.”
- Andie Bennett: “Exactly. Exactly. And we had a good laugh about it and it was fine.”
So which is it? She figured it was Eklund or knew all along it was Godbout?
At this point Dan Ellis likely said, ‘Thank goodness for Andie Bennett because they have someone else to talk about in Montreal today.’
Bennett began engaging other readers on the website and without a reply from me, she felt compelled to write a third comment. She returned to a familiar refrain, “…you would realize that the joke had to do with the fact that this is a stereotype!”
Several times, Bennett mentioned that her ‘joke’ related to a defined stereotype of bloggers. You know, the part about the underwear and working in their parent’s basement. Somehow she believed that she was justified in making the slights because she was using a stereotype.
I find this astonishing.
As a female sports reporter, I would have expected that Bennett would be sensitive to the negative power of inappropriate (and unfounded) stereotypes. To pass it off as a joke would indicate a person who is simply out of touch.
Stereotypes are a way of dividing the in-group and the outcasts. Bennett swiftly discredited an entire group of people and firmly affixed the outcast label with her ‘underwear in the basement’ comment.
By placing oneself in the in-group, it is an exercise in promoting self-esteem. Perhaps that’s an issue. It’s interesting to note that Bennett says she stumbled on the article and the All Habs website by googling herself.
When bloggers voiced their complaint about the stereotype, her reply was “I think you were just a teensy bit too sensitive in this case.” Imagine for a minute if the gender roles were reversed and the same words exchanged.
Seemingly exasperated, Bennett wrote in caps, “I WAS NOT SLAMMING BLOGGERS.”
Okay now, everyone repeat after me.
When she associated a bogus story with bloggers, she was not slamming bloggers!
When she made a joke about bloggers in their underwear, she was not slamming bloggers!
When she wrote, “Perhaps that is the difference between bloggers and reporters. We do research,” she was not slamming bloggers!
Brainwashed yet?
For some reason, I’m reminded of the Groucho Marx quote which read “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”
Surprisingly enough, Bennett was not done. She saved a good portion of her arsenal for a fellow female broadcaster, Julie Veilleux, who had taken issue with the hypocrisy of Andie criticizing the blogger community but then using social media tools to solicit funds for a charity bike ride.
Bennett said, “So, not only another woman in this business or wanting to be in this business, which I don’t understand this obsession with women to step on other women to get ahead, but saying that I’m using my Twitter, which is my Twitter, which I opened myself, to tweet about the show and about the fund-raising for this bike ride, and then saying that I’m crapping on bloggers because I made an offhand joke, it just really gets to me.”
I’m sorry but I fail to see how Veilleux’s comments were being used to vault her career ahead. It was an arrogant thing for Bennett to say. From my perspective, Veilleux’s media career is doing quite nicely through hard work of her own.
In addition, isn’t this the pot calling the kettle black? We discussed earlier how self-worth can be promoted by denigrating others via the use of stereotypes.
What about Bennett’s expectation that she should be granted immunity for her blunders by her sisterhood in the business? Flip genders and Bennett would be complaining (and rightly so) about an old boy’s club closing ranks to cover their own.
Bennett concluded by saying. “I don’t like when my name gets thrown around like I’m an anti-blogger because it’s not the case.” We hear you Andie but with all that has been said and written, call us unconvinced.
After her ammunition was spent, Bennett required an off-air pep-talk and pat on the back from TSN’s Pierre McGuire who was waiting for his turn at the mic.
The sole voice of reason throughout the segment was Mitch Melnick.
“I support all forms of new media,” he said. “Because like a lot of listeners and readers and people who are plugged in, a lot of us aren’t getting what we want either from traditional forms of media — the truth. So we understand, and I applaud anybody who is trying to get the word out about anything that they think has some interest.”
Well said.
In short, Bennett got caught unprepared on-air, blamed bloggers using a stereotype, was wrong, and was embarrassed. When her mistakes appeared in print, she lashed out.
She has chosen a career in the public eye. She should expect criticism and react appropriately.
Bennett should have had the professional integrity to say ‘I was wrong.’ That could have been followed with a sincere apology. Everyone would have moved on. Inflaming the situation was not an effective means of using the privilege of her platform.
This situation is just another example of the tensions that exist between the MSM and the new media. Afterward, a respected blogger told me that it seemed that Bennett had leaped into the middle of a debate that was well beyond her depth. Maybe so.
It is hoped that a constructive lesson has been learned. Even with all the grenades that have been tossed, as I’ve said before, we are about building bridges.
I extend an invitation to Ms. Bennett, to meet with the All Habs team, giving her an opportunity to speak with a group from the new media. Alternatively, perhaps she would like to make a submission to the All Habs digital magazine about her thoughts on blogging. I hope that she would be the first to sign on for the proposed media summit.
I look forward to hearing from her.
We did manage to extract one compliment from the Team 990 crew on the day (although probably not meant that way.)
“This is not the NY Times,” said Melnick. No Mitch, very proudly, we’re not!
Alright, now where’s Pierre? I need a hug.
This is all somewhat riotous. :)
I think one of the biggest takeaways from this entire debate is that bloggers are anything but dudes toiling away in mom’s basement in their underwear. That stereotype, if it was ever true, died years ago. A fantastic number of bloggers happen to be tremendously smart, witty, analytical and oh – good writers, too.
It’s clear that many bloggers take themselves very seriously and have pride in their work…for the MSM to continually pick on bloggers as a group only highlights their insecurity even more. I could leave it at that and paint the picture that everyone in the MSM is quaking in their boots over the tidal wave of new media, but that’s not true, either. As stated, Melnick has been a reasoned and calm voice of reason during this tempestuous time in the media. Andie is very lucky to be able to learn from him each day, and to her credit, I think she’s doing a good job based on what I hear from her during the afternoon drive show. In my mind, it’s clear that the thoughtfulness and insightfulness of guys like Melnick and Stephen Brunt are rubbing off on Andie. And that’s what makes this situation so disappointing.
The fact is that we ARE listening (for which she, and everyone at 990 should be thankful otherwise they wouldn’t have work). We are also willing and able to call b.s. when we hear it, and we’ll discuss it online. We do it on each other, and we’ll do it to members of the MSM as well. As always, they are invited to join in the discussion. The door is never closed in the “new media”. Mitch mistakenly made the error that everyone is bashing Andie under the veil of anonymity. If, as was intimated, MSM does their research, that comment would never have been made as a great number of blog responses either have names (real names), a picture, and contact info attached to them. Where I think she miscalculated, or underestimated, or whatever we want to call it, is that she would not be able to turn down the volume on a critic’s microphone, or cut them off completely (not that it’s a oft-used tactic of hers, but it is something that happens a lot on 990). In this online venue, everyone’s voice carries the same volume, as it should be in any discussion. It’s a totally different ballgame to have to come defend yourself in a venue/platform where you are not in total and absolute control.
I continue to hold out hope that each side can see eye to eye. The first thing that needs to happen, however, is the dismantling of stereotypes. To say something, and then brush it off as a joke, yet continue to defend the indefensible…didn’t we just go through this with Dan Ellis? Of course, whether out of pressure or out of frustration, Ellis quit twitter. I hope that Andie does not jump ship, because if we want a landscape in which new media and MSM works together, then we need to participate in each other’s worlds without axes to grind.
What Ms. Bennett does by bringing up Julie makes her just as “guilty” of doing what she accuses Julie of doing to her. It sounds more like she is jealous of Julie and a bit insecure in herself.
To me, that’s also what a lot of this whole MSM vs bloggers debate comes down to – jealousy. People are now turning to blogs first for information and it’s having a very negative effect on MSM. Try embracing the social media revolution instead of attacking it.
Rick your efforts in discussing this in a straight-forward way are well appreciated and I think you’ve analyzed the entire situation correctly.
What a lot of these debates boil down to, from MSM v. Bloggers/Non-traditional media or even what happened with Dan Ellis, is a profound lack of respect for what others do and say. Andie Bennett’s comments and subsequent backpedaling show me that she got busted for saying something stupid and now she’s trying to save face in the most wrong possible way.
Safe to say we’ll all be a lot happier when we can yell about players performance on the ice rather than shouting with one another over whose dick is bigger and more important.
The Groucho remark is pitch perfect. Andie can say what she wants about her intent but it’s pretty clear in her words and actions.
The best part about her over the top response to Julie is that she has taken an instance which had NOTHING to do with gender and tried to use it to do exactly what she accuses Julie of doing! She is trying to keep down a fellow woman! But no, she’s no hypocrite.
Imagine a male had made her comments about female sports reporters and tried to play it off as ‘sorry ladies, don’t be so sensitive!’ The outcry from Andie would be deafening and rightfully so.
At the end of the day, she should just take it as a learning experience and apply the lesson rather than, as you noted, taking the Dan Ellis slash and burn approach.
Well said as usual. I actually had a comment all typed out and ready to be submitted outlining something close to what was said above (I even had the Dan Ellis comparison in there!) I decided to not post it only because I felt that Andie was taking things in the wrong fashion and was in fact the one who seemed over-sensitive. Her on air comments confirmed that by the way.
The part that I think she may be missing altogether is this. When she initially made the comment of the blogger in his underwear (and I was listening to that show) she did NOT know who it was. Mitch told her who it was and then as Rick wrote, she then apologized.
As Rick questions above. Who is the apology for and why? To me, as the listener, I felt the apology was for mistakenly referring to Godbout as potentially and unaccredited media type (aka possible blogger) who for painting him in that stereotype that the MSM find so funny amongst themselves.
I’ll agree, it’s pretty funny how Eklund may think he’s CNN’s breaking news desk and although he gets a lot of page hits, I don’t EVER listen to his garbage. It’s fine and your right to discredit those that deserve it. However, you should be level-handed. If you want to make fun of a blogger because they put out bad info then you should (continue) to make fun of a MSM member who does the same (aka Godbout). Instead, all of a sudden my interpretation of the event was a retraction and apology to Godbout by Bennett simply because he has a press pass?! Yes Rick you nailed it… it’s an old-boys club that protects its own at all costs.
Andie, the stereotypical “insult” really didn’t bother in the least. Your immediate 180 after realizing it was Godbout, now that really irked me. I’ve had the chance to listen to you on Mitch’s show for awhile and I’ve heard you become more assertive in voicing your opinions and I applaud you for that.
Look back at what you said and in what context you said it. Reread your comments and look at things from the alternate perspective. I can understand that you were upset at first and our natural reaction is to defend ourselves. You took it further by lashing out as well (research comment – which was unjustified and incorrect). People are not commenting as they are to gang up on you. Obviously, many of us got the same impression from hearing what we did and as such, you need to understand that what you say is not always what you mean. I’m willing to give you the benefit of doubt that you didn’t mean for everything to be construed the way it was, I hope you’re willing to understand how I heard all of it and that you saying, “you know what, I can see how you thought this and I apologize, considering my position I should choose my words more carefully.”
That’s all it would’ve / would take.
“you know what, I can see how you thought this and I apologize, considering my position I should choose my words more carefully.”
That’s all it would’ve / would take.
This is what my beef with the Toronto Sun boiled down to: just man up and admit you are wrong and aplogise like a grown up.
I’m disappointed that Andie, who I quite like as a radio journalist, wasn’t able to handle this situation with more poise.
I especially don’t understand why she would lash out at Julie and like other commenters have said, do exactly what she accuses Julie of doing. Of all people, Julie? She’s knowledgeable and a great writer, and I’m sure that Andie has encountered lots of women who might actually deserve that criticism. Julie isn’t one of them.
I hope we can put this issue to rest, sooner rather than later.
It is because of people like Ms. Bennett that I rank most members of the MSM right down there with lawyers and used car salesmen. Is journalistic integrity an endangered species? I agree with Pension Plan Puppets and everyone else who believes that Bennett should act like an adult and take responsibility for the words that she chose to use. Her just “a joke” excuse is lame and juvenile. Her “lighten up” remark is downright infuriating, and is something else for which she should apologize. If this is too much to ask, perhaps she is out of her realm. Hey, the journalistic world needs traffic spotters, too.
Comments are closed.