| What is sportsmanship?
Catherine Cunningham |
2010-02-22 16:25:39 Society |
|
Recently, the Canadian Woman’s Hockey Team supposedly “lambasted” the Slovakian team in an 18 to 0 blowout. Admittedly, since hockey is not my favourite sport, I would not have paid much attention to the score, or even the game, where it not for the massive amount of media coverage surrounding this particular game.
Not only did major television, print and radio news outlet cover the story, but bloggers pitched in their opinions and comments too. There seems to be two issues that have everyone talking: 1. should woman’s hockey be an Olympic sport, i.e. is the calibre of international teams strong enough and 2. it seems as though the Canadian team acted unsportsmanlike. I’ll let the lobby groups and Olympic powers-that-be debate what sport will be allowed in the Olympics. I was rather taken aback by the kafuffle around the score and claim that the Canadians were unsportsmanlike. I have read articles and listened to debates on whether the Canadian team should have pulled-back their skill level and played a more “gentle” game. Well, no, I don’t think so, since both teams were on the ice to play their best and win the game. To those who say that the Canadian team didn’t show any sportsmanship, well, I say that they did. They respected their opponents and played the best hockey they could. By patronizing the other team, they would have been showing blatant disrespect and THAT is unsportsmanlike behaviour. It would have been worse if the Canadian team let the Slovaks score a goal because the accomplishment would have been worthless. It also would have sent the message that they didn’t deserve to be there, and that’s not the case as they proved their worth by qualifying for the Olympic Games. Not playing their best against the Slovaks would have been a display of arrogance and disrespect and would have likely humiliated the Slovaks far more that a lopsided final score. This is the Olympics, don’t hold back and play your best – everyone is there to win! |
||
| 1 commentaire | ||
| I’m happy to report I’m not an addict
|
2009-06-08 10:46:06 Society |
|
I recently read an article that diagnosed the ten signs of work addiction. While in my pre-parenthood days, I could easily work 60 to 70 hours of week without blinking, things have changed. That whole elusive work-life balance issue never hits you more forcefully than when you have a family to answer to. And yes, I still have the same drive and commitment to working hard, and I love the world of communications and public relations, but I’m happy to declare, according to the book Chained to the Desk, I am not a work addict.
Yes, I have some addict-like habits, like I am often in a rush and skip exercise (numbers 1 and 10), but I wouldn’t say I am “no fun” (number 6) or especially “irritable” (number 8). The authors have identified the 10 most common bad habits that would identify you as being a workaholic, a concept smacks of the late 90’s, for some reason, and seems a little dated. But it goes to prove, even in an economic downturn, the top 10 list concept always works. We want to know, preferably in ten, easily digestible steps, how to tell if our partners love us, if we’re working too much, how to improve our diet, stain our deck or get our in-laws to like us. The concept of Top 10 is such a common communications crutch that there is even a website devoted to the concept at www.toptenz.net. For example, today’s lists include the Top 10 Weirdest Political Parties, 10 Great Live Performances of the 1960’s and 70’s, and Top 10 Bizarre and Unusual Tragedies. Not that these are all attention-getters on their own, but group them together and name them the top 10 in their field/sector/domain/area of interest, and suddenly you have a topic worth debating. So, if I take the 10 top signs of work addiction to heart, I am relieved to know that I am not a work addict (just an occasional “user”?? Don’t get hooked, kids!). And in reading Harvard Business Review's Top 10 mistakes made by poor leaders, it seems pretty clear that being a bad leader and a workaholic are not unrelated (both are impatient, can’t collaborate and don’t have good relationships). So thank you Top 10 lists, and here’s one tip I’ve managed to grasp: it’s important to have good leadership and a healthy work life! |
||
| Aucun commentaire | ||
| I’ll have that with a side of reality, please
|
2009-05-19 09:36:33 Society |
|
 I realize I’m a little late talking about this, but I still haven’t gotten over the so-called “controversy” last week when Fox News reported that *gasp* President Obama likes his hamburgers with Dijon mustard.
Now, I know that everyone has slow news days – heck, sometimes we in the PR business count on them to get coverage for a somewhat soft story. But is the fact that the President of the United States likes his mustard “a little spicy”, in his words, really worthy of broadcast coverage? The explicit implication in the coverage by Fox “journalist” Sean Hannity is that the President isn’t terribly patriotic to prefer some kind of fancy, imported mustard to good ol’ American mustard, and he’s not really the man of the people he claims to be, is he? If this hard-hitting investigative “journalist” had dug any further, he might have discovered something even more scandalous, like the President likes coffee (not grown in the US) or vanilla (also imported) ice cream. Let’s conveniently forget that the largest selling brand of mustard in the US is the so-called snobbish Grey Poupon label which is in fact, made by Kraft, about as American a company as they come. No, the President likes that hoity-toity type mustard, and that clearly makes him not fit to rule. Good thing Fox exposed this early in his mandate! As for me, I’m still looking for the Dijon ketchup the Barenaked Ladies sing about in “If I Had a Million Dollars”. I’m not a world leader or anything, so maybe I can get away with it. |
||
| Aucun commentaire | ||
| Les faiseurs d’opinion
Elaine Mayrand |
2009-05-12 15:53:59 Société |
|
Au quotidien, comme un peu tout le monde, je m’intéresse à la couverture de presse entourant les « scandales » dans les affaires municipales de Montréal. Au cours des dernières semaines, et en particulier, au cours des derniers jours, nous assistons à un exemple assez intéressant de l’impact que peuvent avoir les médias (un média, La Presse, surtout dans ce cas-ci) lorsqu’ils s’investissent d’une mission…
Loin de remettre en question la pertinence du rôle d’information des médias auprès du grand public, voire même son rôle de chien de garde des institutions, il me semble que cette saga est un bel exemple du flou qui existe autour des limites du 4e pouvoir… Faire enquête et rapporter des faits, voilà qui ne devrait pas, en soi, porter à controverse. Par contre, quand la nouvelle est alimentée au quotidien (et même plusieurs fois par jour via les médias en ligne), quand le journaliste d’enquête est l’invité du talk-show dominical pour commenter sa « quête » et donner son opinion, n’est-on pas déjà moins dans les faits… et plus proche du spectacle? Quand les chroniqueurs font eux-mêmes le tour des entrevues radios et « deviennent » la nouvelle, n’est-on pas moins dans les faits? Vous me direz qu’il n’y a rien de nouveau à voir un média demander la tête d’un politicien et faire ensuite produire un sondage qui confirme, bien évidemment, que la confiance du grand public envers ce politicien a été ébranlée. Par ailleurs, au cours des dernières semaines, il me semble qu’on a un peu forcé la dose et dépassé depuis longtemps le besoin d’information du citoyen. Le plus gros des scandales, visité, revisité et détaillé pendant plusieurs jours peu devenir banal… En fait, le citoyen risque (si ce n’est déjà fait) d’atteindre la saturation et de développer une allergie sévère envers toute question relative à la politique municipale, alors même qu’une campagne électorale devra se mettre en branle dans les prochains mois. À terme, la saga pourrait bien alimenter la passivité des citoyens, celle-là même qui est déplorée et combattue au quotidien par les médias faiseurs d’opinion… |
||
| Aucun commentaire | ||
| Le prix de la transparence
Elaine Mayrand |
2009-02-27 11:40:27 Société |
|
Au cours des dernières semaines, j’ai eu l’occasion de lire ou d’entendre dans les médias les commentaires de quelques porte-parole d’organismes de levée de fonds. Sans exception, ceux que j’ai entendu expliquaient leur plan « B », l’obligation de réduire leurs attentes, les diminutions pressenties de la part des grands contributeurs, comme des particuliers.
Aucune dissonance, me direz-vous, par rapport au bruit ambiant fait de réalisme…et de pessimisme. En fait, on semble prendre pour acquis que le réflexe (premier ?) des contributeurs (et en particulier des entreprises) en période de récession sera de couper de manière significative dans leurs contributions. J’imagine que chacune de ces organisations dispose d’un historique qui le démontre et, évidemment, on ne peut que saluer la prévoyance et la saine gestion… Par ailleurs, ce qui m’interpelle c’est que dans aucun des messages que j’ai pu entendre ou lire on ne réitérait les besoins de l’organisation, ni la confiance envers les contributeurs fidèles… D’entrée de jeu, on légitimait le retrait ou la diminution de la contribution; bravo pour la compréhension! Mais ce faisant, n’est-on pas en train de se tirer un peu dans les pattes, en « déculpabilisant » un peu trop vite le contributeur, petit ou grand? Est-ce que les organisations de levées de fonds ne vont pas payer le prix de cette transparence ? Il me semble qu’il y a un risque à présenter déjà les déboires des Caisse de dépôt et autres grands joueurs comme une excellente raison de ne pas donner pour le cancer ou les sans-abri cette année… Tous n’auront pas l’obligation de réduire leurs contributions… du moins pas en 2009. Est-ce que des messages plus porteurs ont été livrés, mais n’ont pas été retenus, parce qu’en contradiction par rapport au bruit ambiant ? C’est possible : quand on cherche une mauvaise nouvelle, on ne trouve pas autre chose. |
||
| Aucun commentaire | ||
