The media myths and Alan Eagleson

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN -- Toronto Sun Never let it be said that we in the media are not observers of the painfully obvious.
So it has been for much of the past week regarding the fate of the disgraced Alan Eagleson, once Canada's "Mr. Hockey."
Thus far, according to my own paper, other media, radio talk shows, etc. it has been noted, among other things, that:
a) Rich and powerful people tend to get treated more deferentially by our courts than the poor and powerless.
b) The rich and powerful have rich and powerful friends who remain loyal to them even when that may be ill-advised.
c) Not everyone in the Hockey Hall of Fame is a saint.
d) Early parole has corrupted our justice system.
To which most folks would no doubt respond, "Gee ... really?"
There has also been much venting of media spleen in Canada about such side issues as why wasn't Eagleson led from a Toronto court in handcuffs and why did 30 powerful friends including a former prime minister, one retired and one recently deceased Supreme Court justice, one media baron (Paul Godfrey), several prominent Canadian journalists including our own Doug Fisher and George Gross, among others, write letters to the court in support of Eagleson?
I suspect at least some of this media outrage stems from a collective guilt we all share about how we let such a huge story get away from us for so long, only to have it broken in 1990 by Russ Conway, a reporter with the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune in Massachusetts, who was nominated for a Pulitzer.
But let's not have myth overtake reality. Many Canadian journalists contributed to this story, among them our own Wayne Parrish, Al Strachan, Christie Blatchford (while at the Globe) the CBC's Bruce Dowbiggin, and others.
So let's dispense with silly notions, as some have suggested, of dark conspiracies by powerful people to keep this story out of the media. Godfrey never did that at the Sun: a) because he wouldn't; b) because it would be stupid to attempt it, and he's not stupid; and c) because it would never work anyway - you could never keep something like that a secret.
Another myth is that if this had been a "news" story as opposed to sports, it would have been broken earlier because news journalists are more serious than sports reporters.
This is false, not only because this was a news story as well as sports, but because it was sports reporters, or those working in sports, who broke what stories there were.
The real reasons why we in the Canadian media fell down on the job - and we all did - are more subtle and complex.
First, nailing Eagleson was a tough job, made more difficult by Canada's stricter libel laws, compared to the U.S.
Second, U.S. authorities seemed far more enthusiastic about pursuing the case than Canadians, a boon to reporters there.
Third, investigating anyone powerful (and Eagleson was most powerful in Canada) has a chilling effect on any reporter or editor - a concern not that the story will be spiked if obtained, but that obtaining it will be hard and stressful.
And let's not kid the troops. The fact the person they're probing may be a friend of their boss would weigh on the mind of any journalist to some extent. (Godfrey, for example, once held a dinner for Eagleson at Sutton Place. And yes, at another Sun function, I may have said "Hello" to Eagleson, which, for the conspiracy buffs, no doubt makes me a part of the imagined great coverup here at the Sun as well.)
The point is the best journalists are not deterred by such things. But for the lesser ones, it's easier to gripe privately to colleagues whilst having a beer, that such a story would be spiked if pursued, rather than going out and getting it.
It is valid to argue, as has been done in some media quarters this week, that what with economic downturns, downsizing, etc., few Canadian media outlets would have been willing to assign a senior reporter to work this story for months on end.
But again, how many knowledgeable reporters went to their papers, stations, etc. during the Eagleson era and said something like: "Dammit, there's a scandal here and we need to pursue it. How about freeing me up for a few months so I can see what's there?" Any informed reporter who did this, seriously, on the Eagleson story, after doing some spade work on his/her own, and was turned down, has a right to wax indignant today. But for all those who didn't, well, c'mon now.
There has also been much flagellating of a previous generation of reporters by the current crop - suggestions they failed to go after Eagleson years ago because of cronyism, etc. (Then again, I recall some tough reporters getting weepy-eyed in 1994 when Bruce McNall went down.)
Besides, all this fails to acknowledge that journalism, sports, politics and society are today far more adversarial than 25 years ago when this story began. Hindsight is 20-20. The fact is we were all to blame. Me too.
Finally, much media angst has been expressed about the 18-month sentence (six months in jail) Eagleson received in his plea bargain. But when you look at what he's been convicted of - as opposed to all that people may believe he's done - it's a normal sentence.
And, yes, yes, we're far too lenient on all criminals, both white collar and violent. Gee ... really?

SLAM! Sports Search Help CANOE