To wit, in order to either "mitigate" (Ramos' reference) or otherwise water down the impact of the francophone-leaning newspapers, the English-language newspapers interviewed celebrities and politicians (Federalist politicians) about Richard's career. The English-language papers were out to "counterbalance" (Ramos, p. 430) the effect of the francophone emphasis on Richard as a cultural giant -- and they did so by interviewing "apolitical athletes."
It wasn't that the English-speaking media were overtly trying to play down Richard's impact on the Canadian sporting and social scene, it is just that they were coming from a place that was anti-separatist and they did not want to raise Richard's legacy higher than simply a great hockey player who skated with a vicious abandon and made all of Canada proud.
On page 430 the authors point out that the Quebec newspapers were not only celebrating Richard as an hero for French-speaking citizens -- left on the sidelines while much of the glory for Canada is based on English-speaking institutions -- but they were in effect the good old days of Canadian hockey before the "influx of European and American players." There was a double whammy in that kind of coverage of course; we miss our greatest athlete and greatest hope for French-speaking Canada, but we also miss the days when hockey wasn't watered down with franchises in such odd places as the American desert (Phoenix) and of all places, Los Angeles (Kings and Ducks). The fuss that Quebec media made over the death of Richard in a way was also linked to the anger many Canadians (not just the francophone community) felt when Wayne Gretzky fled to Los Angeles for the big, big money, after marrying of all people, an American.
On pages 427 and 428 the authors point to another of the aspects of Richard's legacy that allowed the two factions -- English language newspapers and French language newspapers -- to face off just like hockey players do on the ice. The anger aspect of Richard's career and the aftermath during the days...
There is no doubt that Richard was hostile on the ice. Hockey players are supposed to be hard-nosed, aggressive and even violent. And Richard was the very epitome of that style of play. But he also had a seriously violent temper. That's not an opinion by the authors -- it is a fact of reality, and anyone can research Richard's career in objective publications and learn the truth about his terrible temper.
Indeed, several English language newspapers "touched upon this" subject, which in journalism is only fair -- good writers cover the good, the bad, and the ugly of a person's life when he or she has passed on. But while the English language media reflected on Richard's temper "the French Quebec media virtually ignored the issue" (p. 427). Sportswriter Damien Cox, a columnist for the Toronto Star said that Richard definitely had "a dark side." In fact, Richard had "a vicious temper that combined with the relentless on-ice assaults of enemy players to produce a long series of ugly incidents…" (p. 427).
Could it be that each time Richard viciously, ruthlessly attacked a player on the other team, the frustrated francophone community watching the game on TV or in person actually vicariously were venting their own anger at the English-speaking power structure? It seems very likely that indeed was the case. Just like the situation in the U.S. when Jackie Robinson first broke into the Major Leagues. He would steal home in a game and many of the white players and whites in the stands would be furious at Robinson's audacity, but the African-Americans in the stands loved every second of it and were proud of their icon.
Works Cited
Ramos, Howard, and Gosine, Kevin. (2002). "The Rocket": Newspaper Coverage of the Death
Of a Quebec Cultural Icon, A Canadian Hockey Player. In M. Conrad and A. Finkel (Eds.),
National And Society: Readings Post-Confederation Canadian History (pp. 416-431). New
York: Pearson Longman, 2004.
