Ivor Shapiro provoked an online furor of discussion over his column on 'we wuz robbed' journalism that he felt occurred after Canada's loss to the U.S. in the semifinals at the London Olympics. Here, he responds to his critics and gives some examples of journalism that went beyond rah-rah in the wake of the game. 

 

By Ivor Shapiro

As an update to his earlier post: 'We wuz robbed' journalism not enough after Olympic soccer drama

As a breathtakingly bronze-tinged dust settles over the brief but keenly-contested Twitter shoot-out that followed what some considered my foul challenge on rah-rah sports reporting, the ref's attention should be drawn to some strong shots on goal by Canadian and other reporters. In the critical 12-24 hour period after the final whistle, the Toronto Star's Chantaie Allick, for instance, provided some historical context

[node:ad]

But the more exemplary even-handed, rigorous reporting was done by U.S. reporters. Both The New York Times and Newsday contributed nuanced, contextualized solo runs from midfield.       

While my piece was about reporting, not commentary, I should also point out that not all columnists wore the we-wuz-robbed jersey on the morning after. The Ottawa Citizen's Andrew Potter, for example, blasted a "plea for execution instead of excuses" into the box. 

Thanks for keeping me on the ball, Bethany Horne, Paul McLeod, Ruth Davenport and contrarian.ca. And that is my final soccer metaphor for today. I will now shed my pointy-headed curmudgeon's helmet, quit journalism for a moment, unabashedly wave the red-and-white and sign any petition going to nominate Christine Sinclair to the Order of Canada and John Herdsman for honorary Canuck citizenship. – Ivor Shapiro.