2012 Eklund Rumor Hit Percentage ?
View Single Post
02-28-2012, 12:16 PM
Hockey's Future Staff
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Originally Posted by
well a lot of his rumors are saying certain teams are interested in certain players which could easily be true and we just don't know.
That's exactly the point. We could never know. So it's impossible to say if his reports are credible or reliable or anywhere close to being true. Because everything he reports has to stand on its own.
To compare him to Bob McKenzie (which is a disservice to McKenzie), but if you'll allow: we know McKenzie, we read him in The Hockey News, we watch him on television, we read his articles online and his tweets, he has even participated on these boards. We know about his sons playing hockey, we've seen him interviewing GMs and coaches and players. This all adds up.
The likelihood of McKenzie reporting falsehoods or making things up is extremely low, if not for pure ethics alone, then at least because someone in his 25-30 years of work would have blown the house of cards over. The time he has put in and continues to put in establishes credibility.
Now let's look at Eklund. What do we know? Well, we don't really know his name (officially). We don't really know his background (depending on what version of his biography you've read, he's written best-selling books, worked for two, maybe three NHL teams, etc.). We've never "seen" him (shadowy figure in the rafters at Sportsnet while Darren Millard and Bill Watters ate pizza notwithstanding). He appeared pretty much out of no where and so we have no idea of his contacts, his connections, anything. Sure, we know from past reporting that he's buddies with Tim Pannacio and a few other guys, but that's never been presented by him. It's only been things dug up by real journalists actually doing the work. He presents his readers with nothing of himself and expects them to believe what he says. Where's the credibility?
The idea of anonymity on the Internet flies almost directly in the face of credibility and ethics when it comes to reporting and journalism. There's a reason why my articles are written under my name, why I post here under my name, why I tweet under my name, etc. etc. In a way, it's branding, but more importantly it's trust too. Bob McKenzie is presenting his true self, his true name and from that truth comes the reasonably expectation that everything that goes along with that starting truth is likely to be true. That's a standard I try to follow myself.
Eklund doesn't provide any of that truth, which to me is the initial nugget of my problem with him. There are real writers, real journalists doing better work than him, providing more credible rumour and reporting, under their own name. But this "anonymous hockey blogger" crap continues.
I once read that "your name is the only thing you've got." Which sticks with me. If I screw up, if I report things that aren't true or make up a story, that's my name attached to it. I can't duck that. But if Eklund does, it doesn't matter as much to Dwight Keith Klessel.
Last edited by Kevin Forbes: 02-28-2012 at
View Public Profile
Kevin Forbes's albums
Find More Posts by Kevin Forbes