98.5 FM, a station popular with sports and news fans in Quebec, seems to be home to a strange fauna of grumpy monocles.
While all of Quebec is ignited by the recent exploits of the Montreal Canadiens, Yanick Bouchard, sports manager on Patrick Lagacé’s show, took the liberty of cooling the collective enthusiasm with a comment that exudes caution, even negativity.
“I don’t know if “Jell-O” is taken for real…” he said, in reference to the Habs team, which has just won an impressive tenth victory in thirteen games.
This 5-3 victory against Utah propelled the Canadians to within two points of a playoff spot, a feat that even the most optimistic would not have predicted at the start of the season.
But why does Bouchard, like other monuncles at 98.5 FM, feel this urgent need to play killjoy?
Why is he playing blind who has lost his sight in the face of the incredible success of the team of the hour in the NHL?
Yanick Bouchard perfectly illustrates the problem that plagues certain segments of traditional sports radio: a blatant delay on the news and an inability to capture the essence of the present moment.
Not only does he seem out of sync repeating yesterday’s news that everyone has already seen on the web, but his analysis shows that he has also lost sight of what is happening… literally in front of him.
How can we have doubts about the Montreal Canadiens at the moment?
It is not just a lack of vision, it is a willful blindness to a reality that all of Quebec celebrates.
If Bouchard struggles to see what is happening today, how can we imagine that he will be able to interpret what could happen tomorrow?
Supporters deserve better than skeptical monuncles who spend their time dampening collective enthusiasm.
Sports radio should be a space to galvanize hope, not to dampen passions by broadcasting outdated and disconnected analyses.
This lack of foresight about the successes of today’s CH is not only an error: it is a betrayal of those who seek to thrill for their team.
Tomorrow, if CH continues its momentum, what will Bouchard say?
Is it a posture to appear “more objective” or simply a chronic incapacity to savor a moment of collective joy?
The listeners do not hide their exasperation.
On social networks, many describe this attitude as “disconnected”, accusing Bouchard of not understanding the importance that hockey represents for Quebec culture.
Obviously, no one is asking Yanick Bouchard to turn into a cheerleader for the CH. But is there really any reason to have reservations when a team that was considered a rebuilding team puts on such a spectacle?
What the public wants is to vibrate, to dream, and, above all, to believe. In a province where winters are long and sporting victories are rare, the Montreal Canadiens represent a burst of hope.
All the renowned analysts, including some at RDS and TVA Sports, have highlighted the club’s incredible progress.
Martin St-Louis seems to have instilled a playing philosophy that works, and young players like Cole Caufield and Nick Suzuki are shining on the ice.
However, at 98.5 FM, the time has come for excessive caution, even gratuitous pessimism.
It might be time for the monuncles at 98.5 FM to realize that their role is not only to criticize, but also to accompany listeners in their sporting joys.
Sometimes you have to put aside cold analyzes and embrace the raw emotion that makes fans’ hearts beat.
After all, what is sport if not a source of wonder and comfort in an often difficult world?
The Montreal Canadiens, the team of the hour in the NHL, deserve to celebrate their success without restraint.
And if the “Jell-O” isn’t quite set yet, as Bouchard suggests, what does it matter?
The important thing is that it is taking shape, and that this shape inspires renewed pride for hockey in Montreal.
Basically, Bouchard wanted to protect Patrick Lagacé.
Let us remember that Lagacé was never afraid to provoke and defend clear-cut positions. But in the recent past, his outspokenness has ended up tarnishing his reputation with some listeners.
Everyone remembers his sharp remarks about the Montreal Canadiens where he criticized the team for the health system.
Patrick Lagacé used a bold and scathing comparison between the CH and the Quebec health system, which did not fail to provoke a reaction.
In a striking column, he affirmed that the CH, like the health system, suffered from a glaring lack of vision and ineffective leadership.
He declared that the Habs organization, like the health network, was “dysfunctional, cluttered by bureaucracy and incapable of delivering results that met expectations.”
He pushed the analogy further by asserting that the Canadian, with its mediocre performance at the time, reflected the state of a health system which seemed incapable of reforming itself despite warnings and criticism.
“Two major institutions in the province, two symbols of pride which, unfortunately, only disappoint year after year,” he wrote, sparking an outcry among CH supporters and health professionals.
This comparison caused a lot of ink to be spilled, with some judging that it exaggerated the problems of the CH while caricaturing the complex reality of the health system.
Lagacé hit a wall of public opposition, especially with the CH which is on fire. Bouchard, to thank him for having chosen him instead of Louis Jean to play sports alongside him, decided to protect him.
Louis Jean, more competent and more popular than Bouchard, has been associated with a more polarizing public image since his own controversies at TVA Sports with Renaud Lavoie.
For Lagacé, the choice of Bouchard represented a safer path, a way to avoid rekindling the flames of controversy.
However, this bet seems to have had the opposite effect. Yanick Bouchard, described by many as “odorless, colorless and tasteless,” struggles to captivate the audience.
Listeners, who appreciate passionate and authentic voices, miss the energy and charisma that Louis Jean could have brought.
Bouchard, by seeking to protect Lagacé by doubting the CH, seems rather to accentuate the perception of a program which plays too much on caution.
This strategic choice proves the extent to which Lagacé has become vulnerable to criticism. In trying to shelter himself from the media storms, he opted for a collaboration which, although low risk, sorely lacks momentum.
Meanwhile, Louis Jean picks up the crumbs at Cogeco.
The conclusion is self-evident: by choosing to play the caution card, Patrick Lagacé risks losing what has made him successful: his ability to surprise, provoke debate and captivate attention.
As for Louis Jean, his absence from the airwaves is a reminder that, in the media world, the fear of taking risks can extinguish the most vibrant voices.
What if the real winning bet was to reintegrate a figure like Louis Jean into everyday life?
The audience, judging by the reactions, already seems to have decided.
