2012 Eklund Rumor Hit Percentage ?
View Single Post
02-28-2012, 02:02 PM
Hockey's Future Staff
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Originally Posted by
Yet, this site still has him pegged as a "credible source" and even has "Eklund" and "HockeyBuzz" titles for threads. It's amazing what a little $ will do. I wouldn't have a problem with it if HFB would just be upfront with us about the situation.
I don't know anymore than you do about the internals of that situation, but I don't think money was exchanged to place Eklund as a credible source. I think it was more proof of identity/verification. Frankly, I think he had one of his media buddies vouch for him.
As for the Eklund/HockeyBuzz tags for threads, that was done in direct response to people saying they didn't want to read those threads/wanted to avoid them, so it was dictated that they would be marked appropriately so that people could avoid them if they chose to.
To clarify my above posts a bit: I don't think Eklund makes up most of the things he reports. That is to say, I don't think he sits at home and intentionally publishes lies. I think in part, he looks at situations and makes "educated" (using the term loosely) guesses about what situations might result in player movement and what players might be good fits for other teams etc. I think he might start with a nugget of truth (guy unhappy with his coach/playing time) and then pads it out a bit to make a story (if he's dealt, here's some teams that would likely be interested). I also think that he operates as basically a pipeline without a filter (either knowingly or not, although I'm going to assume he knows).
I remember when the Valerie Plame/CIA/Yellowcake uranium thing was going on in the States (if you're unaware of the reference, don't worry about it). Anyway, there was a reporter, Robert Novak (he has since passed away) who ran with the story of Plame being a CIA analyst, basically publicly revealing it in his column.
Now the criticism at the time for Novak was that he ran with every story, regardless of the source, regardless of the quality, regardless of how true it was (or wasn't). Anything someone mentioned to him that seemed juicy was printed. There was no filter, no verification, no double-checking. If it crossed his radar, it made it to print. This is pretty dangerous journalism. It's real live by the sword kind of thing. It allowed Novak to break a number of stories but it also led to him being manipulated a bit as a pawn in the Washington political scene.
I think this is how Eklund operates (obviously to a smaller, less important scale). Which explains the instances where he's "copying" rumours off message boards or what have you. He simply reports everything, not caring about whether it's coming from a good source or it's true. There's no self-moderation.
I saw Spector's name mentioned earlier in this thread and he operates in a similar fashion, but with one key difference: almost everything Spector/Lyle Richardson posts is sourced back to a beat writer or columnist somewhere. Spector's Hockey is just an aggregate.
Spector's Hockey operates as a clearinghouse of the rumours published in newspapers/mainstream media columns etc across the country.
Eklund operates as a clearinghouse of that same spectrum, but also anything else he comes across. To me, that's the huge difference between the two.
Last edited by Kevin Forbes: 02-28-2012 at
View Public Profile
Kevin Forbes's albums
Find More Posts by Kevin Forbes