Canzano found another cancer kid for his award-bait article...

From what I understand, he won both those awards for articles like this, not articles about sports. So this point of yours actually seems to support the idea that he "needs" these types of things to write about to further his career.

Whether it's wrong for him to do it, or exploitation, is a lot less clear. Many people enjoy reading human interest stories, the subjects like the exposure (none of them seem like unwilling participants) and Canzano obviously likes to write them. I'm not sure I see a victim.

I don't particularly like Canzano as a writer, but I don't think he's doing anything unethical.

 

RFT!! (Repped For Truth!)

 

Actually, the awards are based on a series of 5 articles, not one article as a stand-alone.

Here are the 5 articles for the 2008 reward (yes, Katie Schearer was one of them). The other 4 have nothing to do with cancer, or another "victim" that Canzano supposedly exploits.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/oregonianextra/2009/04/john_canzanos_awardwinning_spo.html

 

If you get "life sucks" out of the Katie Schearer article, then that's seems more like a personal issue to you. I found it to be a bit awe-inspiring that someone who was in such a dark place could still get the same joy out of the Blazers as I get. That article reminded me to enjoy the little things, and that all of the Blazermaniacs out there come from very different backgrounds and life circumstances.

For Schearer, I read it as the Blazers being her "escape" from he own reality, and I'm glad she wanted to share that escape with her fellow fans. I guess I'm just not naive enough to still treat sports as some sort of idyllic playground where bad things never happen, or when they do, the hero always prevails. Isn't that what Disney Movies are for.

 

Yeah, but you just said it yourself.... she used the Blazers as an "escape". Do you think the Blazers would still be an escape if there was a constant reminder around the Rose Garden or on the broadcasts about her condition? Speaking from personal experience, after I found out my dad had a tumor six centimeters in diameter in his left lung, the last thing I wanted to hear about on television or in the movies was cancer. It pretty much fucked up my summer and it was hard not to fall into depression. Cancer is everywhere. It's constantly in plot lines on TV, and it's pretty hard not to let it get to you when a loved one is dealing with it, so why would I want to hear about cancer when I'm following my favorite sports team?

 

The thing I don't get is why JC doesn't just once and for all switch over to the living section and follow his muse.

 

Chuck Culpepper was the same damn way. Can't the Oregonian find a decent opinion columnist who wants to talk about sports? Is that so much to ask?

 

Because he's good at his job. Look, he's an idiot that likes to stir the pot and not very knowledgeable about the NBA, or any professional sport really. But, he creates controversy and people talk about him.