Throughout the defeats and incomprehensible decisions of Martin St-Louis, one observation emerges: the journalists covering the Montreal Canadiens seem increasingly incapable of asking the difficult questions.
Just like Justin Trudeau facing Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago, they prefer to avoid confrontation, taking refuge in a complacency that borders on submission.
The parallel between these two dynamics is disturbing, revealing a deep unease in the relationship between the powerful and those who are supposed to hold them accountable.
According to journalist Rafael Jacobs, during a private dinner at Mar-a-Lago, Justin Trudeau told Donald Trump that the Canadian economy could not survive the tariffs imposed by the United States.
Trump, true to his provocative style, would have responded, half-serious, half-sarcastic:
“If Canada can’t survive without cheating the United States out of $100 billion, then it should become the 51st state. »
This anecdote, revealing the power dynamic between the two men, perfectly illustrates how a leader can bend before a dominant figure to preserve his comfort and avoid a confrontation.
And in the world of hockey, this submission finds a chilling echo among the journalists covering the Canadian.
At the Bell Centre, the equivalent of Mar-a-Lago, Martin St-Louis reigns as undisputed master. No matter the disappointing performances, the questionable tactical decisions, or the absurd use of his finite veterans, journalists seem incapable of asking a single question that could offend the head coach.
A blatant example? In the loss to the Bruins, St. Louis left Suzuki and Caufield on the bench, preferring veterans like Josh Anderson and Brendan Gallagher to play with an extra forward.
An inexplicable decision in the midst of reconstruction, which left supporters stunned. However, not a journalist dared to ask St. Louis why the two star players were warming the bench in a critical situation.
Just like Trudeau facing Trump, the Canadian journalists seem to adopt a posture of total submission.
They accept St. Louis’ vague explanations without flinching, just as Trudeau accepted Trump’s provocations. In both cases, it is an abdication of responsibility:
Justin Trudeau, rather than defending Canada’s economic autonomy, would have admitted total dependence on the United States, thus exposing a strategic weakness.
The Canadian journalists, rather than asking incisive questions and confronting St-Louis on his decisions, are content to transcribe his words as absolute truths.
Rafael Jacobs describes the scene between Trudeau and Trump as a moment of “embarrassing submission,” and that’s exactly how CH supporters feel about the current media coverage.
This attitude of journalists only reinforces the feeling that Martin St-Louis benefits from an untouchable status.
Despite a contract until 2027, despite decisions that sabotage the reconstruction, and despite a team in free fall, no one dares to question his leadership.
Just like Trudeau facing Trump, journalists seem paralyzed by fear of repercussions, preferring to maintain the status quo.
These people don’t want confrontation. They would rather protect their access and privileges than do their job.
The parallel is clear: just as Trudeau should have stood up to Trump to defend Canada’s interests, the Canadian’s journalists must stop bowing to St-Louis and the organization.
Their role is to ask tough questions, demand accountability, and reflect the concerns of supporters. By refusing to do so, they become complicit in the team’s decline.
If Justin Trudeau accepted humiliation to avoid an economic crisis, what is the excuse of the Canadian journalists?
Are they too close to the organization to see things objectively, or are they simply afraid of losing their access privileges?
Canadian fans, like Canadian citizens, deserve better than public or media figures who buckle under pressure.
If Trudeau and the Canadian journalists continue on this path, they risk losing the trust of Quebecers.
It is time for CH journalists to remember their mission: to inform, analyze, and ask the difficult questions.
Otherwise, they will become, in their own way, the “51st journalists”, entirely subordinate to the power they are supposed to monitor.
Sad.
