Chantal Machabée saved an unfortunate situation yesterday.
A new tense sequence marked the already fragile relationship between Martin St-Louis and journalist Simon-Olivier Lorange of La Presse last night, which got all of Quebec talking.
During the pre-match press briefing, the head coach of the Montreal Canadiens almost completely lost his calm after a question from Lorange.
Fortunately, Chantal Machabée, CH communications manager, intervened in time to defuse the situation before it degenerated into a real verbal altercation.
@rds.ca Martin St-Louis visibly irritated when asked about Cayden Primeau ???????? #GoHabsGo ♬ original sound – RDS
Chantal interrupted the session. With a professional and assured gesture, she ended the press briefing, allowing St-Louis to leave the premises before the situation completely escaped her control.
This episode is far from being a first between the two men. Last October 22, St-Louis had already displayed icy contempt towards Lorange, claiming to have already answered his question, when that was not the case.
This will be remembered as one of the most tense moments between Martin St-Louis and journalist Simon-Olivier Lorange.
During a press briefing held after a humiliating 7-2 home defeat, Lorange tried to get clear answers on the reasons behind the Montreal Canadiens' repeated catastrophic departures.
St-Louis, already visibly irritated by the performance of its team, immediately displayed a defensive attitude.
Lorange, seeking to understand why these bad starts seemed to become a constant, formulated a direct question: why did the CH seem incapable of adequately preparing for the start of the match?
St. Louis’ response? A cold contempt. Rather than start the discussion or take some responsibility, he cut it short with a simple:
“I already explained it. »
The problem ? He hadn't done it. This reply was a pure and simple leak, which left Lorange – and all the journalists present – without a response.
When Lorange insisted, pointing out that this worrying trend deserved a more in-depth explanation, St-Louis was content with a curt and condescending:
« OK. »
This sequence deserves to be rewatched because it was so awkward.
This “OK” quickly became emblematic of the arrogance displayed by the coach. Instead of responding to the legitimate expectations of journalists and supporters, he chose to dismiss the criticism out of hand.
This exchange marked a turning point in the relationship between St-Louis and Lorange, laying the foundations for persistent tension.
These incidents show that a divide is developing between Martin St-Louis and the Montreal media. If criticism from journalists is an integral part of their role, the arrogance and contempt displayed by the coach risk creating a toxic climate, harmful to the image of the Montreal Canadiens.
In a market where every word is scrutinized, St-Louis will have to learn to navigate with more diplomacy and professionalism, otherwise the tensions will build up until they become unmanageable.
Since then, tensions have only increased. St-Louis, known for his outspokenness and spontaneity, seems to have a well-defined target when it comes to responding sharply to the media: Simon-Olivier Lorange.
Unlike more influential media figures like Renaud Lavoie, who benefit from much more cordial treatment, Lorange regularly finds himself at the center of the coach's outbursts of anger.
Chantal Machabée arranged for St-Louis to finally answer a question from Lorange yesterday after the match.
Lorange asked about the development and consistency of Juraj Slafkovsky, a legitimate topic considering Slaf was named the first star of the game.
Lorange wanted to know what St-Louis was going to do to ensure that Slafkovsky maintains a certain consistency, he who is playing better and better.
St-Louis, visibly already irritated, initially responded in a curt and condescending manner, placing much of the responsibility on the player himself:
“Trust is with the player. I can help, but that's on him. I can't skate for him. »
The tone gradually rose, and the tension in the room was palpable. Just when St. Louis seemed on the verge of completely going off the rails, he calmed down and finally responded.
He did it for Chantal Machabée.
To make matters worse, thinking Lorange's question, a chair creaked on the floor, which added to the immense tension in the press room.
Here is the sequence:
This last episode leaves no doubt: St-Louis has a specific problem with Simon-Olivier Lorange. Several observers note that the coach chooses his targets carefully.
He would never allow himself such a tone with media figures like Renaud Lavoie, perceived as more favorable to CH.
With Lorange, whom he seems to deeply despise, St-Louis does not hesitate to publicly display his annoyance.
By doing this, he knew full well that social networks, often ready to criticize journalists, would turn against Lorange.
Indeed, the comments poured in, some questioning the relevance of the question asked, others personally attacking the journalist.
Chantal Machabée's intervention was beneficial. By ending the press briefing just before the explosion, she prevented the already strained relationship between St. Louis and Lorange from suffering an even greater blow.
And subsequently, by convincing St-Louis to answer the question after the match, she not only protected the coach's reputation, but also preserved a certain dignity in the exchanges between CH and the media.
If St-Louis gained a respite thanks to Machabée, this conflict dynamic with Lorange continues to pose a problem.
In a market where the relationship between the organization and the media is crucial, these repeated episodes risk tarnishing the image of the coach and, by extension, that of the Montreal Canadiens.
St-Louis, who refuses to bow to what he perceives as unfair criticism, seems unaware that each outburst fuels a perception of fragility in his leadership.
In Montreal, a coach incapable of handling media pressure quickly ends up losing the trust, not only of journalists, but also of fans.
For Lorange, these public altercations are not without consequences. Despite his professionalism, he finds himself playing the role of scapegoat in a context where the pressure on the CH is reaching new heights.
This incident, although barely controlled, illustrates a recurring problem in the management of public relations at the CH.
St. Louis must find a more respectful and constructive way to respond to criticism, even those it considers unwarranted.
As for Simon-Olivier Lorange, it is clear that he will continue to ask difficult questions, despite the obvious risks that this entails.
But for how much longer before another chicanery breaks out? Montreal has not finished following this soap opera.
