The Journal de Montréal strikes again, and this time, it is Michael Hage who pays the price.
While the 18-year-old prospect from the Montreal Canadiens has just delivered an electrifying performance with five points (a goal and four assists) in a 10-6 victory for the University of Michigan against Penn State, the daily chose to emphasize his differential of -4.
A questionable editorial choice, which seems to betray an increasingly obvious trend in the Journal: an anti-Canadian editorial line.
Yes, Hage was on the ice for five of the six opposing goals. But is that really what we should remember from a match where he largely contributed to his team’s overwhelming victory?
For a first-year NCAA player, his ability to assert himself offensively against older, experienced opponents is a feat in itself.
But rather than highlighting his efforts and his key role in the victory, the Journal preferred to emphasize the negative points, as if the overall performance of the team did not matter.
Was it really worth taking down one of the only bright prospects this year? With eight goals and 16 points in just 11 games, Hage already ranks among the top scorers in the NCAA, a competitive and demanding league. However, rather than celebrating his rise, the Journal seems to be looking for the little beast.
An approach which, for many supporters, resembles a disguised vendetta against the Canadian.
The question arises: why such a fixation on the negative? The Canadiens may not have an inspiring team this year, but Hage represents one of the few lights of hope for the future.
So why bother putting out this flame? It seems that for certain media, free criticism comes before recognition of talent.
The supporters are not fooled. Many online comments denounce this unjustified attack on Hage.
“Give the kid a break.”
“Five points in a match, and we criticize him? It’s ridiculous. »
“Le Journal de Montréal, always ready to hit the CH. »
Michael Hage, for his part, seems to be doing well despite the media pressure. At just 18 years old, he already demonstrates impressive composure and maturity.
Let’s hope that the Canadian continues to believe in his potential, despite the criticism coming from all sides. As for the Journal, perhaps it should think about the impact of its words on young players who are just waiting to prove themselves.
Because at the end of the day, the real shame is not a differential of -4, but the lack of nuance in their analysis.
A little seriousness please.
