3 stars plus HH every one but the O

[Mark H.]

17 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Ed Tait and Randy Turner articles the day after a game were great stuff.

Turner had a way with words like none other. 

[deepsixemtoboyd]

8 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Tait is a good writer and always was. He's got a nice job being the Bombers hype man right now but that doesn't diminish how he set himself apart based on his work prior to taking that gig.

I don’t disagree with this take. And to N’s point, “hack” was over the line on my part. I withdraw the use of that word. Poor form!

I do maintain though that being a “dyed in the wool” Bomber fan does not make for objective writing of the kind I am interested in, particularly when looking for a critical evaluation of the home side.

So when it comes to tension between Doug Brown’s take and that of Ed Tait, well, that’s a bit like who’s critical analysis do you trust more when it comes to your government, the official party spokesman (rah! rah!) or the newspaper critic covers the political beat?

Yes, they both offer the chance for guy to make a living but the former tends to be bland and predictable in comparison to the latter. And, so with Tait, he was immeasurably more interesting to me in his former role. BUT, as per N’s critique of this critic, pt taken! please strike my use of the “H“ word from the Hansard! 🙂