Sickened by the idea of the CBC’s new show While The Men Watch, Myra McIntosh wrote this post for HTTN on Tuesday. Yesterday, she listened to the first episode of the show. Here are her thoughts.
The Goods and The Bads of While The Men Watch
- By Myra McIntosh
After my first post on the CBC’s While the Men Watch, I had an attack of conscience. I put out some strong opinions on the ladies without listening to what they had to say. What if they knew as much about hockey as any die-hard fan? What if they presented the rules in such a format where even someone who had never watched a game would understand?
Would this show make the drunk, yappy woman who sits behind me at the game actually shut her mouth and pay attention? Only one way to find out: I listened to the show during Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Final. Here’s what I thought.
Where it was good
1. They didn’t take themselves too seriously
The hosts were lighthearted. Yeah, it’s the Stanley Cup Final but too many sports journalists are all business and no fun. I enjoy a bit of humour every once in awhile.
2. Celebrity look alikes
One of the funniest things they did was their celebrity look alikes. Here are some good ones they chose.
Adam Larsson and Ellen DeGeneres
Darryl Sutter and Sam The Eagle from The Muppets (striking resemblance)
Zach Parise and Fred Savage. Ok, they were grasping on this one but like any female who watched The Wonder Years growing up, I have a soft spot for Fred Savage.
Sonny was the only male voice in the broadcast and he was by far the highlight. Without him, there would’ve been no relevant hockey information. Without him, the ladies wouldn’t have known how much time was left in the period.
He answered all sorts of queries such as ‘Who gets the random sticks off the ice?’ with tons of patience.
Well done Sonny. Give this guy a raise!
4. They DID attract some viewers
Some women reported that they were actually watching the game with their husbands for the first time ever. While I feel bad for these women (and their spouses!), I suppose getting more people to watch hockey is always a positive.
Where it was not good
1. They hardly talked about the game
I was expecting the hosts to explain or break down the game for all the ‘new’ hockey fans watching/listening but it just did not happen.
Coming back to Sonny, he tried really hard to get them back to the game by interrupting with pieces of important information such as when Matt Greene left for the Kings’ dressing room, but these efforts were fleeting at best. Like me, he was probably interested in what was happening on the ice, not about who their chosen Game Boyfriends were. (You read that right, they had Game Boyfriends)
2. They don’t like hockey
They were not interested in the game and I’m not sure they understand the importance of the series. Roughly 5 minutes into the first period, one of the ladies said, “OK, I am sorry. This game is boring.” No idea why they’re hosting a show about hockey when they find the game boring.
They were also opposed to overtime saying, “Men love overtime and I cannot understand it.” All they wanted to do was be home and in bed by 10:00pm.
Also, when the game was tied in the third period, instead of being glued and allowing new viewers to experience intense, quality hockey, they engaged in a game of “Would You Rather.”
3. They did no homework, whatsoever
OK, the hosts were honest about their lack of hockey knowledge. Still, they claimed they hosted this show during Vancouver’s run to the Final last year. Could’ve fooled me. I would’ve assumed they had never watched a hockey game in their lives.
Sure, you might not know the difference between a shot and a chance or even a cross check and a trip, but they also had no clue about how many times the Kings and Devils played each other during the regular season. I mean, did they read anything at all about the series before jumping into this broadcast? Anything??
People work very hard and earn the right to be involved in sports journalism and to me, this broadcast makes a mockery of them.
Having watched games in bars or at friend’s houses, I’ve endured my share of drunk women yapping away during the game. You know, the ones who talk about everything except the game itself.
That’s exactly what this show was, except I don’t think they were fueled by alcohol. Furthermore, they’re being paid to do this for the rest of the Stanley Cup Final on a taxpayer funded network that supports and thrives off its hockey broadcasts.
That’s right, you and I are paying two people who know nothing about hockey to sit there and talk about hockey.
And no, I’m not talking about P.J. Stock and Glenn Healy.
Twitter was on fire.If you’re looking for some insight on what others thought of the show, here are some gems.