Canucks & Beyond
Next entry: Luongo, I'm Pregnant!
Previous entry: Forsberg, Vancouver and a Sick Bag
Accountability: From Bloggers to Sportsnet Television
by Alanah McGinley on 02/12/07 at 12:00 PM ET
Comments (81)
One of my favorite hockey bloggers is J.J. Guerrero, who writes for Canucks Hockey Blog and the official Canucks.com website, and also podcasts with me on The Crazy Canucks. On Saturday he posted about Sportsnet’s decision to use Eklund of HockeyBuzz on their trade deadline show two weeks from now.
“Despite the advances bloggers and the internet have made in the last couple of years, the mainstream media, regardless of format, are still held to a higher standard of accountability; Sportsnet’s approach comes nowhere close to meeting this standard. ”
I’d like to echo everything J.J. says in his post and even take it a step further: Sportsnet is out of their minds with this choice, and they’re throwing their credibility right out the window.
I watched with interest last week as Kukla’s Korner finally posted some information about Eklund and his fake-commenting foolishness. I say “finally” because I knew about Eklund leaving fake comments pretending to be other people since last spring as well. Kukla’s Korner wasn’t the only site that the well-known hockey blogger played games with—I had my own odd experiences with the guy.
Like Paul Kukla, I went to the trouble to track Eklund’s IP address on my former website at the time because strange things seemed to be happening. Also like Paul, I didn’t bother “outing” Eklund’s goofy behavior… but for different reasons. In Paul’s case, he simply wanted the fake comments being put on KK to stop, so he wanted to handle it with Eklund behind the scenes, without drama.
For me, I didn’t bother publishing it because it seemed so crazy, it’s been difficult to understand the motivation for his behavior. Perhaps Eklund isn’t the first blogger to post fake comments using different names—I’ve never done it myself, though I’m computer savvy enough to know it’s a dumbassed idea from the start; and besides, anonymity isn’t my thing—but he’s got to be the first to go to such enormous trouble to maintain the illusion of innocence.
The explanations that Eklund provided to defend himself were pretty bizarre: That he wasn’t leaving the comments, that his IP had been “stolen” to frame him somehow, that people were trying to physically harm him and his family, and so on. (And those are just the public reasons he himself published on Hockey Futures boards, and other places. His private email “explanations” for this stuff are so completely over-the-top, I’ll do him the favor of not publishing those.)*
Why does this matter?
There seems to be this perception that pointing out Eklund’s strange behavior indicates jealousy or something of the sort. I’m not sure I quite understand this accusation, as there are more than a few bloggers doing very well and making a living with their hockey blogging. Through very hard work, Kukla certainly does well (heck, he even keeps me off unemployment), and Eric McErlain has rolled his hockey blogging into some interesting new ventures. Then there’s HockeyFights.com which is very successful, and so on.
So I have no objection to others making a living off their writing, nor do I have any objection to people publishing stuff I completely disagree with. That’s the fun of editorializing sports.
But credibility is a complicated issue, as every hockey blogger knows. Most of the NHL’s teams have been slow to recognize the value of fan-created media, often making it unreasonably difficult to do the jobs that most do for free, for love of the game and the pleasure of their readers. And there are many reasons for that… but one of those reasons is definitely Eklund.
I barely even knew who Eklund was the first time I got rejected for media credentials with the Canucks (early last season), but rumors and comments from friends who knew better—in the mainstream sports media and in the NHL offices themselves—made it clear why bloggers were in a particularly bad spot: Eklund. The feeling was that the lies they could confirm (that he definitely did NOT have the connections back then that he claimed, nor the background in hockey that he insisted he had) made them distrust accountability from hockey bloggers.
I can certainly see their point.
It’s been a very big fight for bloggers to regain that trust from teams, the mainstream media, and the NHL. But it has slowly happened in spite of Mr. Eklund. However, while a few of us have been lucky enough to finally achieve our own press credentials with some teams and the NHL itself, many more excellent amateur writers out there will continue to fight this fight—for creds or simply for basic respect—for a long time. Eklund is one of the reasons for that.**
To return to the opening of this post, Sportsnet has decided that they either want to capitalize on this controversy by generating what is essentially a freak show, or they simply don’t care about credibility in hockey journalism. While hockey bloggers are finally overcoming the stigma of being associated with Mr. Eklund, Sportsnet has decided that it’s worth the risk.
Perhaps it is—I know nothing about broadcasting freak shows, and perhaps there’s a lot of money to be made from the experience. But I do know one thing: Eklund’s performance on Sportsnet will be used to discredit plenty of bloggers in different ways, both in the NHL and the mainstream media. It’s happened before, and it will continue to happen.
The only difference this time is that Sportsnet has decided they want to discredit themselves as well.
___________________________________
*To protect myself from unfounded accusations by Mr. Eklund, this documentation was saved by screenshots using an online, 3rd party stat counter. If Eklund wants to continue to argue that he’s being setup and suggest legal action, I’ll certainly be happy to publish the screen shots of his activities if he wishes. And then I’ll be compelled to print his emails as well, to fully clarify his position.
**To those people who enjoy Mr. Eklund’s website and perhaps even consider themselves his friend, you are free to disagree with me. I’m glad you enjoy his work—everyone is entertained by their own thing. My interest is not in Mr. Eklund, but in the greater exposure of the sport of hockey through blogs. It is simply my experience that Eklund has done a great deal of damage to that potential exposure.
Filed in: | Canucks and Beyond | Permalink
Comments
Thanks, Trini. TSN is going to have most of my attention on deadline day as well. I expect that will be true for many people because of this situation… it’s hard to trust Sportsnet’s judgment as a result.
Posted by Alanah McGinley from British Columbia on 02/12/07 at 02:57 PM ET
What credibility does Sportsnet have? They TWICE reported Sergei Fedorov to be traded, only to pull the news from the newsphere when the realized it never happened. They have a history of reporting things that never ACTUALLY happened, as they tried to scoop the competition…
They already pulled this idiot off of their website, so why go and put him on their show? Well, we know TSN will kick their asses 4-1, at the very least.
Posted by Jes Golbez from Just outside of Hell on 02/12/07 at 03:56 PM ET
I agree with the hatred of Eklund, I’ve visited his site a couple of times and read his rumours...and then had a good laugh. I’m not happy about having to watch eklund on sportsnet (I unfortunatly do not get tsn or the score) Though I must admit, I am hoping he royally screws up on live tv so I can get a good laugh. One thing before I go...please do another round of liveblogging
Posted by Lawson from Surrey on 02/12/07 at 03:59 PM ET
he’s a urine sniffer
Posted by DrW on 02/12/07 at 04:05 PM ET
Personally, I dont like Sportsnet and guys like Roger Millions I consider one of the worst IF NOT the worst hockey related person in the business, plainly put, he sucks.....
Eklund is full of himself.....
Posted by PuckHound61 on 02/12/07 at 04:18 PM ET
I had a power play in the January 14th, 2007 episode of the Puck Podcast in which I basically took to task Eklund and The Bellowing Moose. I could care less what their information is or how accurate they are/aren’t, what bugs me is the anonymity. If you are going to post things and hope to have credibility, put your name on it. I don’t do the Puck Podcast under the veil of a pseudonym and as a result if any NHL player, coach or GM has a problem with what I say they know how to find me. Also, since I have press credentials with the Kings and Ducks I know that I can’t say ridiculous things on the air because I’ll have to answer for it. Anonymity is the cowards way to do things and as I pointed out in my power play, we’re discussing NHL rumors not the War on Terror. There’s no reason for cloak and dagger crap and Eklund and The Bellowing Moose ruin their credibility by not revealing their identity. Shame on Sportsnet for rewarding him and not demanding proof of his identity, sources and connections.
Posted by Doug Stolhand from Los Angeles, CA on 02/12/07 at 04:43 PM ET
Alanah, I don’t think anyone could have put it better. That’s exactly how I feel.
Posted by Mike Chen on 02/12/07 at 05:01 PM ET
Jes -- Sportsnet has made a few bad choices, for sure. TSN can expect to do very well on deadline day, I’d say.
Lawson -- Liveblogging… must you bring up my own credibility issues on this particular post?! Okay, I will soon… promise. 
DrW -- What an alarming thought.
Puckhound -- I really want to like Sportsnet more. They do try some original things occasionally and they have a few very good reporters. Besides, they are our primary way to access Canucks games. But situations like this don’t help at all.
Doug -- I agree with you that anonymity is problematic, especially when you’re providing information in a mainstream press forum, like Eklund and BM are. But in the case of the Bellowing Moose, I can’t discredit who he says he is so I can at least make the assumption that NBC has verified his credentials in some respect.
But with Mr. Eklund, I can state quite certainly that he has told lies about his qualifications. The fact that he is not held accountable for that (as you are by your relationship with the Ducks and Kings) certainly hasn’t done other bloggers any favors with the NHL for the last couple years.
I’m grateful things are improving, but it’s been a headache.
Mike -- Thanks! I’m glad I spoke for some others as well.
Posted by Alanah McGinley from British Columbia on 02/12/07 at 05:37 PM ET
I’m going to attribute the move to Sportsnet really reaching because they realized that letting Darren Dreger and Scott Morrison go AND signing Nick Kypreos to an extension wasn’t as brilliant as an idea as it seemed through the lens of supreme drunkeness. At least that would seem like the only logical explanation, which seems to be in short supply at Sportsnet.
Posted by Sherry on 02/12/07 at 05:41 PM ET
Doug - The difference between regular anonymity and Eklund anonymity is that Eklund uses his anonymity to stake a reputation on. He can hide behind a fake name, and through any old resume out, and there is no way to check on it.
I use a pseudonym for my own reasons, namely that I do not care to have my hockey blogging life interfere with my regular life. I don’t make any money off of my blog, nor make claims that I stake a reputation on. I offer opinions, stories, and humor, not much more. I have even posted photos of myself on my blog. I don’t really care for the idea of someone calling me up in the middle of the night because I put something on my blog they didn’t care for. Anyone who doesn’t want to read my blog because I use a fake name, I completely understand. For me, I do not find it a cowards way of doing things, I think it has it’s practical applications. Of course, what I do and write is very different from Eklund (thank goodness)
Being a fan blogger is different from doing what Eklund does, and if I were a beat writer, or columnist, or charging money, I would have to drop the pseudonym. I think that’s pretty fair. I think people should be able to know who they give their money to.
Posted by Tapeleg on 02/12/07 at 05:44 PM ET
Sherry -- You could be onto something. In fact, someone was commenting on this blog a couple weeks ago that Dreger has seemed much better since he left Sportsnet. I wonder what that’s about…
Tapeleg -- You’re absolutely right. Anonymity of a fan blogger isn’t an issue. And even anonymity otherwise perhaps, if someone has proven themselves to be honest and above board, or in some other way had their qualifications verified by a trustworthy source.
But none of those standards have been met in Eklund’s case.
In the matter of the Bellowing Moose, I have no personal knowledge, so I can’t say. I’m not crazy about the anonymity, but I am somewhat appeased because I assume that NBC has verified his resume.
Posted by Alanah McGinley from British Columbia on 02/12/07 at 06:17 PM ET
This nonsense of blaming Eklund for bloggers not getting access is hilarious. If that were the case, then how does he get credentialed at arenas all over the country? Why did the NHL credential him for the All-Star game?
The reality is that these blogs that are nothing more than attacking other bloggers do far more harm to the chances of bloggers getting credentialed than Eklund.
Posted by Chris DeGroat on 02/12/07 at 06:55 PM ET
In the case of The Bellowing Moose I believe the anonymity is used to mask the fact that many people are contributing to that blog. Having worked for FOX Sports for many years I know that those types of things are normally collaborative efforts so there is probably no one name or face they could attach to that. What I don’t like about it is that it allows them to say whatever they want and then go into an NHL locker room without fear of confrontation.
Without consequences there is no reason to be accurate in your reporting, and that’s my biggest beef with Eklund and The Bellowing Moose.
Posted by Doug Stolhand from Los Angeles, CA on 02/12/07 at 06:56 PM ET
“If that were the case, then how does he get credentialed at arenas all over the country? Why did the NHL credential him for the All-Star game?”
The answer’s obvious, DeGroat: He used to work for the NHL. Or NHL.com. Or the Hockey News. Or he had nothing to do with hockey after college, making his “own fame in a completely different world until the lockout came.” I don’t know...one of those.
And how do we know this is really the esteemed Chris DeGroat, (paid) defender of all things Eklund? Kukla—bust out that IP detector before Susan and hockey mod show up!
Posted by Greg Wyshynski from Washington, DC on 02/12/07 at 07:20 PM ET
Chris -- I appreciate that you have your point of view, though I’m sorry that you find this to be hilarious. That hasn’t been my experience with this, nor has it been the experience of many others.
And it’s not about bloggers attacking bloggers—it’s about holding bloggers (particularly those with credentials such as myself and many others, including Eklund) to some basic standards, such as honesty. I don’t believe that has happened in Eklund’s case. Nor do a lot of other people, and not just hockey bloggers.
Doug -- That’s a good point about the issue of face-to-face accountability. There are consequences when we’re known, because we can’t make things up—our resumes and our work is subject to verification. It does make for better quality of work ultimately, as well.
Greg -- Thanks for the reminders.
Posted by Alanah McGinley from British Columbia on 02/12/07 at 07:22 PM ET
Bah! I think the majority of commenters here are potentially lying to some degree. You can’t tell me that you won’t watch Sportsnet waiting for Eklund to come on.(He is appearing in flesh isn’t he?) Of course you will! Are you not curious at all? You are human aren’t you? I think this may be more of a publicity stunt by Sportsnet, and it was a damned good one. Like I said before, Hockey Hearsay is not much better than Eklund’s site. Do they have alot of credibility to lose?
I will watch Sportsnet at the Deadline, not because I value Eklund’s opinion, but because I want to see who he is, and of course I wouldn’t mind seeing Kypreos verbally attack him. That’s TV baby! Expect the unexpected.
Poor JJ got attacked in his post didn’t he? It was a good read! He fired back.
Then again, is the trade deadline show going to be all that great anyways? It seems like most of the deals will go down before then anyway, and all they’ll talk about is where Forsberg is going. Then he won’t go anywhere at all!!! 
Posted by Zanstorm from Smithers on 02/12/07 at 07:34 PM ET
Zanstorm -- You don’t seriously think Eklund will be coming out from behind the curtain, do you? Unless Sportsnet has something planned I don’t know about, I’d bet that he’ll be doing that show from behind a screen or something.
Btw—an update of other material on this issue can be found at Off Wing
Posted by Alanah McGinley from British Columbia on 02/12/07 at 07:57 PM ET
My understanding is that he is doing the show “anonymously” as well, which is really what prompted my original post. If he comes out from behind the curtain, give us his name and show his face, then I will take back what I said. (And I’ll concentrate on razzing Nick Kypreos instead.)
I do hope there is a bit of action on trade deadline day. I’m planning on liveblogging it (sorry for the shameless plug on here, Alanah). I would want something to liveblog about. Drunken babbling without a purpose sucks.
Posted by J.J. on 02/12/07 at 08:13 PM ET
The issue goes beyond hockey blogging. Currently in the USA, there is a storm of controversy over bloggers hired by the John Edwards campaign and their profanity laced anti-
Catholic rantings. *
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006823.htm
Also, there was the controversy last year in which an LA Times columnist frequented his own blog with phony comments…
http://patterico.com/2006/04/20/4467/three-in-one-michael-hiltzik-mikekoshi-and-nofanofcablecos/
I’ve only been to Eklund’s blog a couple times and I find it one of those places that I just really hate about sports blogging. Lots of rumors...no substance. It is not one of the many blogs I have in my feeds...and I’ve deleted it from my bookmarks. It just doesn’t interest me. That is the great thing about blogs...you read ‘em or you don’t.
Alanah’s point about the integrity of bloggers in the media as a whole is what the argument is all about. It’s one thing to remain anonymous and to create a ‘personality’ around your blog (hell, I use a pseudonym!), but its quite another to spew garbage (or filth, in reference to the Edwards bloggers) and expect to be taken seriously. Obviously, Eklund (and the women Edwards has hired) has done a masterful job of both...creating the cult of personality and talking about nothing in the meantime.
All the while, in other blogging communities, people are garnering and gathering more and more credibility along the way with their knowledge and writing. For every Instapundit, there are a thousand morons.
Putting this guy on TV, is just like giving him a URL address...if you don’t want to watch the guy, don’t. There is always TSN. The only way the television industry understands if something is right or wrong with its broadcasts is through viewership (just as hits are the key indicator for a blogger). Turn him off...and move on.
*Alanah...I apologize for mixing politics and hockey!
Posted by GZ Expat on 02/12/07 at 08:45 PM ET
Alanah… just answer this for me. If the NHL and the teams that are credentialing Eklund can get past the inconsistencies in his background stories why can’t you? And if you truly think he is a fraud, then why are you wasting time on your blog posting about him? That’s what doesn’t make sense to me. There’s no reason for you guys to give him the attention that you do if you think so little of him. Because, and I’m sorry if you think otherwise, nothing you guys write on a blog is going to change the popularity of his site.
Posted by Chris DeGroat on 02/12/07 at 10:21 PM ET
If the NHL and the teams that are credentialing Eklund can get past the inconsistencies in his background stories why can’t you?
Mighty big of you to finally confirm this, DeGroat.
Posted by Greg Wyshynski from Washington, DC on 02/12/07 at 10:47 PM ET
Uhh… that is something I have mentioned multiple times in the past. Not sure why you are just picking up on it now…
Posted by Chris DeGroat on 02/12/07 at 11:09 PM ET
Actually.... all your stories, blogs & comments about him are just helping him out. Funny how it works.
I bet he just loves it !
Posted by Eric from Victoria BC on 02/12/07 at 11:39 PM ET
Because, and I’m sorry if you think otherwise, nothing you guys write on a blog is going to change the popularity of his site.
Pardon my french, but that’s a *#$%@& arrogant statement to make.
Posted by J.J. on 02/12/07 at 11:41 PM ET
Yeah, I am predicting that Eklund comes out of the closet...err from anonymity on Sportsnet, haha. Why the hell would he be behind a curtain? That would the cheesiest of moments. But this is what I mean. All will tune in to see what happens and perhaps Sportsnet is going to cash in on it.
Hey DeGroat, why don’t you tell us if Eklund will be behind a curtain or not.
“There’s no reason for you guys to give him the attention that you do if you think so little of him.”
Ah, that’s what overconsumption of alcohol does to a person.
If Eklund was really so big, you wouldn’t even have to defend him. Do you get an extra 75 cents per hour nosing around blogs and defending him?
Posted by Zanstorm from Smithers on 02/12/07 at 11:44 PM ET
JJ It’s not arrogance.. it’s just reality of the difference of demographics. The average hockeybuzz reader isn’t reading all the hockey blogs like you and I. It’s a different type of reader.
Zanstrom I don’t know if he will necessarily be behind a curtain, but he definitely is not going on camera. And the reason I defend him is because I think the Anti-Eklund Crusade™ is amusing. I mean, seriously, how is it not entertaining when someone blames Eklund for their inability to get credentialed? Actually, I’ve got an idea… despite the facts that teams don’t credential bloggers because of Eklund, Eklund has gotten many of his own bloggers credentialed, why don’t you guys call him and ask him to help you out?
Posted by Chris DeGroat on 02/12/07 at 11:54 PM ET
I mean, seriously, how is it not entertaining when someone blames Eklund for their inability to get credentialed?
Actually, it’s like watching paint dry compared to the incomparable amusement that is reading a credentialed member of the hockey media defend his reputation on a blog thread by pretending to be a woman named Susan.
Posted by Greg Wyshynski from Washington, DC on 02/13/07 at 12:18 AM ET
Alanah, I’m of the opinion that Eklund’s stuff is entertaining. I love rumours, but mostly because I love to play GM with every team and analyze all the different scenarios thrown out there and think about whether or not they make any sense to do the deal. To mel, that’s entertainment.
That said, I’m not clear on how the dots connect from Eklunds blog and the bloggers not getting press credentials. AND, I want to know more details. Please e-mail me some more info on this as I had always assumed this related to the fact that the NHL was.. well the NHL and still in the prehistoric marketing age.
Thanks.
Posted by The Chief Canuck from Vancouver on 02/13/07 at 01:37 AM ET
He’s not going on camera??? Dammit! Now I’ll watch TSN instead! LOL!
Honestly, Chris, I don’t want credentials. I am in this for pleasure. I do think Eklund choosing to be anonymous is shady at best. However, his rumors are no more right or wrong than any other media outlet’s. Trade rumors and speculation equate to reading the National Enquirer. It’s entertainment and you can’t believe all that you read.
Personally, I prefer Spector’s Trade Rumors because he analyzes trade rumors that he hears, and makes good sense out of them. If Eklund would do more of that, rather than just put an ‘e’ rating on them, I might drop by HockeyBuzz more often.
Posted by Zanstorm from Smithers on 02/13/07 at 02:10 AM ET
Rather than address each of the previous commenters, as I usually prefer to do, I’m just going to say my piece here. I’m mildly annoyed, so please forgive me for being curt. I don’t intend to be rude.
GZ Expat’s point about the Los Angeles Times writer who came precariously close to being fired for making up fake comments on his blog last year is damn near this same (at this particular moment) situation with Eklund.
This is not stuff in the distant past, Chris, when Eklund was first starting, creating an online identity and learning the ropes. This is here and now. And pretending to be other people by emails and comments is more than childish foolishness: it is shameful, ridiculous, embarassing and offensive.
If you don’t think that has a negative impact on many bloggers, think again. I have had more than a few conversations with people in both mainstream and with NHL teams (ones that, I can assure you, he is NOT credentialed with) that have been very shy about bloggers and have SPECIFICALLY used Eklund’s name to justify their concern.
Again Chris, you insist on this idea that everyone is out to get Eklund. Well, wherever did you get the idea I give a toss about the success of his website? I am more than happy with all the hockey bloggers that have found success—and Eklund’s is very impressive, I’m sure. But it has NO bearing on my point here, that his utterly unprofessional behavior by way of emails, comments and outright lies regarding his credentials, affects everybody in this industry.
How could it not?
You consider it unprofessional for me (and others) to bring this up in a public forum, but you’re assuming there is a choice. If dealing with it in private did any good at all, do you think this situation would even exist? Eklund has achieved some success, yet instead of enjoying it and setting an example to others, he insists on playing private games with people, then popping his head up acting all confused going “Who, me??”
His conduct is appalling and I’m sick to death of it. Since Sportsnet insists on embracing it, then I felt I had to address these issues.
Perhaps you honestly have no clue about all this stuff he instigates behind the scenes—the guy tells so many stories to justify himself, I can only imagine how he explains it all to you. But let me ask you a question then:
Do you think it’s remotely rational that so many bloggers have such similar observations about Mr. Eklund’s behavior, and yet have never made the same point about other successful bloggers? There are plenty of popular sites, yet they don’t generate this kind of response. Why do you think that is?
Despite Eklund’s Theory of The Universe, the whole world is not conspiring against him. I don’t agree with how other bloggers have handled their issues with Eklund at times, but I DO understand their frustration.
Please do me a favor and at least consider the possibility that something is very wrong with this picture.
Posted by Alanah McGinley from British Columbia on 02/13/07 at 02:13 AM ET
I’m still not connecting the Dots Alanah, although I can see that your very passionate about this fact.
I don’t get why he would logon to other sites and create comments based using more aliases. But whatever, apparently he finds this all amusing.
I definitely think you got thrown a line if an NHL team told you that they are weary of granting press passes to bloggers becuase of ‘Eklund’. I find that excuse a complete load of garbage by the team that gave it too you. It reminds me of an owner in Chicago that still won’t televise home games because he thinks they should show up to the arena first. Basically, the NHL is a marketing nightmare, so their excuses on stuff like that is garbage. They’ll glob onto anything not to change or get with the times.
Anyways, still want to better understand all this. Thanks.
Posted by The Chief Canuck from Vancouver on 02/13/07 at 02:27 AM ET
If we cannot even use sock puppets to increase blog traffic and comments, then we’ll never expand into the American market.
I blame Bettman!
Hey Zanstorm, I’d have to take up a bit of an issue with this:
However, his rumors are no more right or wrong than any other media outlet’s.
I’d say for the most part when TSN (and Sportsnet too) make a comment about an impending trade it is because they have a verifiable inside source. I’d be willing to bet that if you took the Bob Mackenzie’s “predictions” and stacked them next to Eklund’s, the percentages of “right” and “wrong” would be staggering.
Reporters try not to report misinformation on purpose. It is bad for business. Eklund should be scorned because is wrong an amazing amount of times. If Bobby Mac (heh) had the accuracy of Eklund, I don’t think he’d be employed.
Posted by Temujin from Smithers, BC on 02/13/07 at 03:00 AM ET
No, rumors are rumors. Whether they get them from legit sources or not they are still rumors that generally end up being ‘full of shit’ or don’t happen, that’s why, in some ways, they all give about 3 or more destinations for every player that’s maybe or maybe not on the trading block. See the Forsberg sweepstakes for reference. What a stupid gongshow.
You shouldn’t believe everything you hear or read from any source that talks about rumors.
I’m not talking about predictions....
Posted by Zanstorm from Smithers on 02/13/07 at 04:26 AM ET
Some of most basic journalism ethics and standards include the following: truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability. Someone tell me how Sportsnet, in the example of hiring Eklund the Anonymous, meets any of these standards.
Posted by J.J. from Vancouver, BC on 02/13/07 at 11:44 AM ET
JJ, why are you so fixated on the fact that he is anonymous? It doesn’t change the fact that if he isn’t truthful, accurate, objective, impartial, fair, and accountable that he won’t succeed in this business. He has the following that he does have because he has gotten quite a few things right… at least as many things as any other rumor reporter in the world of hockey.
Posted by Chris DeGroat on 02/13/07 at 11:46 AM ET
Chris - Call me old-school but when someone is speaking as a member of the mainstream press, I’d like to know who that person is. Not to mention that the viewing public has a right to know about the people who are, in fact, hired to do this. To quote a Canadian journalistic guideline, “Their role is public and in matters concerning these roles they are accountable to the public.”
CBC, one of the most renowned media institutions in this country, has an entire page on their website on the use of anonymous sources. I won’t claim to be a journalism major, but as a member of the viewing public, am grateful that they set their standards and ethics at a high level. And please don’t come in here and say that “it’s only hockey”. I don’t buy that argument one bit when this standard should be applied by anyone who chooses to be a member of the mainstream press.
Let me flip it around. If he is truthful, object, impartial, fair and accountable as you say he is, why is he insisting on remaining anonymous?
Posted by J.J. from Vancouver, BC on 02/13/07 at 12:23 PM ET
It cannot really be all that difficult to track down who he really is. If he has left comments on your blog, you’re already halfway there. I’d be more entertained by someone tracing his IP address and his domain name and posting his real name than by anything he’ll say on Snet
Anyone with a bit of time and some computer savvy should just reveal his identity and be done with it.
Posted by Temujin from Smithers, BC on 02/13/07 at 12:59 PM ET
Temujin -- I have plenty of certainty about who he is—his name is Dwayne Keith, aka Dwayne Keith Klessel. Larry Brooks at the NY Post published his name initials quite a while back, and I have several other solid confirmations with the same information.
Oddly, Eklund finds it more fun to deny this. Which is his right, I suppose, just more strange behavior.
Posted by Alanah McGinley from British Columbia on 02/13/07 at 01:21 PM ET
JJ.... I still don’t understand what make you think the presence of his real name is going to make a difference in his accountability. He sells himself under the name Eklund therefore the money he makes and could make under the name Eklund and on HockeyBuzz is dependent on ‘Eklund’ being accountable.
Let me ask you this… if he started his blog way back when under the name of “Jim Watson” and still used that fake name today would you be complaining as much? Or is the real issue the name that he does go by is obviously an internet moniker? Because, there are writers and radio personalities all over this country that don’t user their real name. Are they less accountable too?
Posted by Chris DeGroat on 02/13/07 at 05:05 PM ET
He sells himself under the name Eklund therefore the money he makes and could make under the name Eklund and on HockeyBuzz is dependent on ‘Eklund’ being accountable.
Which brings us back to an earlier topic, which is that “Eklund” began collecting money from his readers back when he claimed to have written for NHL.com and The Hockey News, having worked for NHL teams and the NHL itself. He later collected money from his readers while claiming that he actually had nothing to do with hockey after college, making his “own fame in a completely different world until the lockout came.” Perhaps some had no problem with this contradiction; perhaps others just never noticed the shift in storytelling.
There’s a bit of a difference between using a stage name and completely fabricating a work history, if that’s indeed what he’s done.
Posted by Greg Wyshynski from Washington, DC on 02/13/07 at 05:41 PM ET
Chris - You still haven’t answered my question.
As much as you insist that he can be held accountable by remaining anonymous, I insist that he can’t. See, I can’t hold an internet handle and a shadow accountable. Maybe others can, but I can’t. In the mainstream media, that’s not enough. In fact, and especially for someone who is paid to deliver information to the public, I find it irresponsible.
And while others may not use their real name, I don’t see them making as huge an effort to hide and conceal their identity as much as Eklund has. Heck, I haven’t seen anyone deliver the news or provide expert opinion or any of that sort of information from behind the curtain and refuse to step out from behind it. I think that’s a basic question of journalistic integrity.
Eklund himself has said that if he was in our position, that he would be questioning why he would remain anonymous so you can’t blame us for asking, especially now that the numerous inconsistencies in his background have been exposed.
That said - why does he continue to do it and why does major media outlets like Sportsnet continue to allow it?
Posted by J.J. from Vancouver, BC on 02/13/07 at 06:19 PM ET
As much as you insist that he can be held accountable by remaining anonymous, I insist that he can’t. See, I can’t hold an internet handle and a shadow accountable.
How would you go about holding, say, Larry Brooks accountable?
Posted by Chris DeGroat on 02/13/07 at 11:56 PM ET
JJ, if Chris answers your question I’ll be surprised.
My issue with Dwayne Klessel is that he’s tried to pass himself off as something that he’s not--a well-connected industry insider, rather than somebody who’s gotten a couple mediots he knows to get him the occasional press cred.
(Cue Chris DeGroat coming back with the “shouldn’t you be off trying to prove that he wasn’t at the All-Star Game?” line in 5...4...3...2.....)
Dwayne’s not well-connected--I’m better-connected than he is, and I’m not very well-connected at all. Dwayne Klessel’s “hookups” are a couple Philadelphia Inquirer columnists, the Nashville Predators’ PA announcer, and (supposedly) Bob McKenzie from TSN.
He’s cribbed completely made-up rumors from message boards and blogs and tried to pass them off as “inside information”, he’s changed his stories more times than I care to count, and all that his chief sycophant has done is spray nothing but venom in commentboxen and his own blog.
I may not be the most slick at phrasing my commentaries--but at least I’ve been honest and up-front with what I’ve posted, and I’ve refrained from deliberately spreading bald-faced lies...which is far more than can be said for Dwayne Klessel or his employee.
Posted by The Acid Queen from Raleigh, NC on 02/14/07 at 07:24 AM ET
Wow, you’re obsession knows no bounds, does it TAQ? There is no possible way that you or anyone you know could have any idea who his sources are, yet here you are actually claiming to be privy to such information. It’s really sad that you are so obsessed with him that you will completely fabricate lies about him to attempt to discredit him.
And no I won’t answer JJ’s question because it is not my question to answer. Eklund has always been willing to discuss things with the bloggers who are obsessed with him so if JJ wants to know why Eklund chooses to work under the name Eklund, he should contact him.
Posted by Chris DeGroat on 02/14/07 at 08:34 AM ET
“There’s a bit of a difference between using a stage name and completely fabricating a work history, if that’s indeed what he’s done.”
James, despite the inconsistencies, none of the work history was “fabricated”.
Posted by Chris DeGroat on 02/14/07 at 08:38 AM ET
Chris - Let me throw the question back at you—how would you Eklund accountable?
In my post, I talked about two things: credibility and accountability.
Reliable sources or not (and again, I’m not doubting for one bit that he has reliable sources), I’m of the opinion that Eklund himself is not credible, mostly because a lot of his information don’t turn out but also because of his anonymous nature and the inconsistencies in his story. I think anyone can add 2 + 2 and get a pretty shady character considering these.
With regards to his credibility, I’ve chosen to ignore him. As far as I’m concerned, he’s given me bunk so I’ve moved on and no longer frequent his site.
However, as Sportsnet, a major media outlet, has hired him in whatever role they have on trade deadline day, I want to make sure that he - and Sportsnet - are held accountable for the information they give the viewing public on air.
Maybe it’ll be easier for you to understand if I put this in a different context…
Let’s say you are Ryan Smyth and Eklund comes out on Sportsnet and says “Ryan Smyth has just been traded to the Calgary Flames”. If, in fact, you don’t get traded out of Edmonton, how would you hold him to what he said? Consider the impact of what he said on air to your family, do you simply choose to ignore him and move on like you are suggesting? Consider the impact to Oilers fans who just thought that the heart and soul of their had just been traded, do they ignore this?
If I was Ryan Smyth, I’d want to get the bastard fired and off the air. If I was an Oilers fan, I’d be calling for his head as well. That’s getting accountability. I won’t get that if I don’t know who he is. In this hypothetical situation, what’s to stop Sportsnet from firing “Eklund” and hiring “Jim Watson”?
There’s a far greater accountability when someone says something in the mainstream media. There’s journalistic integrity. You don’t get that when the mainstream media is hiding behind a curtain and a fake name.
And about Larry Brooks… didn’t Brian Burke hold him accountable already? Didn’t Mike Bossy?
Posted by J.J. from Vancouver, BC on 02/14/07 at 12:15 PM ET
Let’s say you are Ryan Smyth and Eklund comes out on Sportsnet and says “Ryan Smyth has just been traded to the Calgary Flames”. If, in fact, you don’t get traded out of Edmonton, how would you hold him to what he said?
Once again, how do you hold any journalist who reports something like that accountable? If Eklund does that, he won’t be asked to come on Sportsnet again and it would be very difficult for him to ever get another TV gig. It’s no different than if he posted under his real name. In reality, your argument applies to ANY guest blogger that Sportsnet might have on their network, not just ones that don’t use their real names.
And about Larry Brooks… didn’t Brian Burke hold him accountable already? Didn’t Mike Bossy?
Posting on the name Eklund doesn’t make him immune to the same legal repercussions that anyone faces.
Posted by Chris DeGroat on 02/14/07 at 12:22 PM ET
Point a finger and you have three pointing back at you. To actually go off on a witch hunt for the elusive Eklund because you can’t get a press pass is silly. Sure the guys is a wanker, so be it. Does he give the Blogging community a black eye.. no, you do it yourself. This site itself is a good example of poorly written fluff. Unless you have the skills to write a decent commentary, which it seems you and most the other hockey bloggers can’t, I’d suggest you be happy your ability to get this far… now on someone else’s coat tails it seems. One thing Eklund does have, is originality, unlike the rest of you with your overly polite, you linked to me… I gotta link back mentality. Blog away Alannah, just don’t expect to get credentials for something you don’t deserve.
Posted by Hodge on 02/14/07 at 12:32 PM ET
Hodge - I think you missed the part where this is about accountability in the mainstream media.
Posted by J.J. from Vancouver, BC on 02/14/07 at 12:47 PM ET
Hodge -- Thank you for your comments. I already do have press credentials, though whether I deserve them or not is another issue. Apparently you disagree.
I write what I enjoy, people come here who like it, and if they don’t, then they don’t read. Same as Eklund and I have no ill will towards his success. He can write what he likes.
But I do object to his representing me (as a hockey blogger), as he has chosen to do with the hockey writers’ associations, etc. Because unlike Eklund, I have never lied on my resume. As someone prominent in this field, he does not make bloggers look very responsible throughout the mainstream press (Sportsnet aside) when he does this.
If I lied about my work history, I’d expect to be held publicly accountable as well.
Posted by Alanah McGinley from British Columbia on 02/14/07 at 12:53 PM ET
I’m sorry, but I don’t believe for one second that many of you bloggers aren’t just jealous of his success. If you weren’t, there’s no reason why you would still be making an issue out of inconsistencies in his background stories from YEARS AGO. Seriously, it’s quite sad that people are still blogging about this.
Posted by Chris DeGroat on 02/14/07 at 12:56 PM ET
Chris - You have absolutely no idea who we are or what we do so please do yourself a favor and don’t throw around sh!t like that. I could care less about his success. I can guarantee you that. I can guarantee you that other hockey bloggers such as Eric McErlain, Paul Kukla and James Mirtle don’t give a sh!t either, and as much as they’ve posted on this story as well, I dare you to insinuate that they’ve done so because they’re jealous of Eklund’s success.
The reason we are bringing up the inconsistencies in his past is because this is an important piece of Eklund’s background. Whoever he is, he was either lying when he told people that he worked for the NHL and two other teams and then charged people $10 to gain access to “insider” information; or he is lying now when he says his post-college background had nothing to do with hockey and are charging people $10 (or whatever it is) for the same “insider” information.
James, despite the inconsistencies, none of the work history was “fabricated”.
Chris, this is a question you don’t need Eklund in order to answer - which one of those backgrounds is the real one because it certainly can’t be both?
BTW… I don’t know what’s sadder - us still blogging about it or his followers having to have to defend him everywhere he goes. ‘Nuff said on that point.
Posted by J.J. from Vancouver, BC on 02/14/07 at 02:25 PM ET
PS. Before we get too far off the point here, the point of this post and mine is accountability in the mainstream media.
Once again, how do you hold any journalist who reports something like that accountable? If Eklund does that, he won’t be asked to come on Sportsnet again and it would be very difficult for him to ever get another TV gig.
My response was in that same post:
In this hypothetical situation, what’s to stop Sportsnet from firing “Eklund” and hiring “Jim Watson”?
If you didn’t understand the question, let me rephrase - if “Eklund” has thus far remained anonymous and hidden, how do we know for a fact that “Jim Watson” wasn’t “Eklund” to begin with?
Posted by J.J. from Vancouver, BC on 02/14/07 at 02:31 PM ET
I’m sorry, but I don’t believe for one second that many of you bloggers aren’t just jealous of his success.
Thank you, I accept your surrender.
That said:
I don’t care if I get umpty-ump pageviews in my blog. People will read or not read what I write, as they will. They will comment or not comment, as they will. I don’t care if I get a credential from the Hurricanes or not--I don’t consider myself a “journalist”. I’m just somebody who believes in right and wrong and believes that when somebody is doing wrong, something should be said. Dwayne Klessel is doing wrong and has been doing wrong for three years now, and until he decides to finally come clean and stop trying to act like something he’s not, I’ll keep saying something.
And by the way, if your boss is as well-connected as he claims to be then he can easily find out who I am and even where I live. It’s not exactly a huge secret.
Posted by The Acid Queen from Raleigh, NC on 02/14/07 at 02:36 PM ET
First of all, let’s not pretend that I’m the first person to throw out that jealousy may be the motivation of their obsession. Many people have responded to various Eklund related blogs pointing this out and the word ‘petty’ is used often. Personally, I think there is some truth to it because nothing else I’m aware of could explain why someone would actually keep spreadsheets to track Eklund. Seriously, that’s borderline stalking.
YOU may be more focused on accountability, but the majority of anti-Eklund bloggers out there are out there for the sole purpose of attacking him… even to the point where some of them (The Acid Queen) will completely fabricate lies regarding Eklund to further their cause. As she just posted, she isn’t interested in finding out the truth about Eklund and publicly admits she’s just out to get him. So again, why wouldn’t I come to the conclusion that she is jealous of his success?
Regarding your question, if Eklund did what you suggested on Sportsnet and then they were willing to hire him back under his real name then the integrity in question here isn’t Eklund’s, it is Sportsnets.
JJ, you seem like a reasonable person… much more so than the rest of the bloggers posting in these comments… why don’t you email Eklund and ask to talk with him. Don’t you think that if you are going to write about the man he at the very least deserves to hear your criticisms first hand? You’re talking a lot about accountability but your actions don’t suggest that you’re being accountable for your comments about him. All it takes to live up to your own expectations for Eklund is to send him an email.
Posted by Chris DeGroat on 02/14/07 at 02:44 PM ET
Chris, this is a question you don’t need Eklund in order to answer - which one of those backgrounds is the real one because it certainly can’t be both?
J.J., Chris didn’t get around to answering this in his response, so allow me to help:
A. Eklund has addressed these questions many times before (though none of us can remember where).
B. Going into detail here would put all of Eklund’s many sources at risk for exposure.
C. Your question is motivated out of petty jealously and will therefore be ignored.
D. If Sportsnet and the NHL don’t have a problem with these inconsistencies, then neither should you.
It’s usually one of these. Sometimes a combination of a few. I’m actually working on an Eklund MadLib that I hope to have completed before the postseason…
Posted by Greg Wyshynski from Washington, DC on 02/14/07 at 03:55 PM ET
As she just posted, she isn’t interested in finding out the truth about Eklund and publicly admits she’s just out to get him.
Please show me where I said this, and please show me what lies I have supposedly fabricated (and provide proof that they’re lies). Put your answer right here:
______________________________
Posted by The Acid Queen from Raleigh, NC on 02/14/07 at 11:01 PM ET
Answer to question #1:
“until he decides to finally come clean and stop trying to act like something he’s not, I’ll keep saying something.”
Answer to question #2:
Dwayne’s not well-connected--I’m better-connected than he is, and I’m not very well-connected at all. Dwayne Klessel’s “hookups” are a couple Philadelphia Inquirer columnists, the Nashville Predators’ PA announcer, and (supposedly) Bob McKenzie from TSN.
Answer to question #2, again
Claiming that Eklund wasn’t at the Finals.
Posted by Chris DeGroat on 02/14/07 at 11:07 PM ET
Chris - I’ve read his new bio. I’ve also read his old one. Please tell me you see the difference.
I’ll make it easier for you - and anyone else who is following along - look at who he said he was three years ago, and then compare it to who he says he is now, more specifically what he says in the last paragraph. The inconsistency doesn’t get any clearer than that.
Again, which one is the correct bio?
Posted by J.J. from Vancouver, BC on 02/15/07 at 11:17 AM ET
I already answered your question. If you want any more information than that be a man and contact him yourself.
Posted by Chris DeGroat on 02/15/07 at 11:19 AM ET
Okay, so the correct bio is the new one then?
Posted by J.J. from Vancouver, BC on 02/15/07 at 11:45 AM ET
I’m looking forward to all of your blogs telling Eklund ‘nice job’ for getting the Forsberg trade…
Posted by Chris DeGroat on 02/15/07 at 07:56 PM ET
Chris DeGroat: are you kidding? hockeybuzz wasn’t available when the trade was announced on TSN - and anyone who saw it when it became available and then returned saw the timestamp on the front changed. His audience is owed an apology or real explanation for that, and no one owes him any kudos.
Posted by Random on 02/15/07 at 08:03 PM ET
The timestamp never changed and lying through your teeth about it makes you worse than what you people claim he is.
Not that it would matter, anyway, becuase Eklund first reported that it was about to go down at 3:29 ET…
Posted by Chris DeGroat on 02/15/07 at 08:08 PM ET
Of course, everyone’s lying but you. I have an agenda too I suppose, because I care oh so much.
The fact is, he had a time later than 7:09 for the trade on the front before, and now it’s 7:09.
I would have taken a screenshot, but you would have said it was Photoshopped, I can see the routine already. If you don’t want to believe anything, that’s your choice.
The fact is even though I know your comment was flamebait, I had to respond, it was too obnoxious. Everyone in the world reports a trade’s coming, most have the Preds as one of the teams, and now we’re supposed to thank him for repeating what we’ve already heard.
Well then from me to him: thank you Eklund and please add ventriloquist dummy to your title since all I’m hearing is someone else’s voice.
Posted by Random on 02/15/07 at 08:23 PM ET
Whether you want to admit it or not, Eklund was not only the first person to report this deal he was the first to report the Predators as a likely destination. It’s really quite pathetic that you can’t give the guy credit.
And Paul… be sure to add this to one of your Eklund spreadsheets.
Posted by Chris DeGroat on 02/15/07 at 08:29 PM ET
Does he want a gold star for that?
Anyone can put together a list of 70 players, 10 possible destination teams each, say some of these guys will be traded by Feb. 27th, and get one right. Some people enjoy it; some people don’t. That’s fair. I don’t and it doesn’t change my mind on the whole Sportsnet thing.
If you want any more information than that be a man and contact him yourself.
First of all, this is funny considering that the reason we are even having this conversation is because someone is not man enough to put a name and face behind what he writes.
To be honest, I’m not interested much in outing him right now. The inconsistencies in his bio have already come to light and I wouldn’t be surprised if more inconsistencies come out later. I’ll let that run its course.
If anything, I’m more inclined to email Sportsnet and ask them about the whole accountability thing. I’d still like to believe that the mainstream media would be more accountable and more responsible to its viewers than what they’ve shown so far in this case.
Posted by J.J. on 02/15/07 at 09:29 PM ET
I guess I was wrong about you, JJ. You aren’t more reasonable than the other bloggers. You’re no different. Good luck in your attempts to get him off sportsnet.
Posted by Chris DeGroat on 02/15/07 at 09:41 PM ET
Anyone can put together a list of 70 players, 10 possible destination teams each, say some of these guys will be traded by Feb. 27th, and get one right.
Before anyone gets too wound up about this, let me say again that I don’t doubt that Eklund has his share of reliable sources.
Posted by J.J. on 02/15/07 at 09:43 PM ET
I guess I was wrong about you, JJ. You aren’t more reasonable than the other bloggers. You’re no different. Good luck in your attempts to get him off sportsnet.
Chris - Am I not reasonable because I want to make sure that my mainstream media broadcaster is adhering to journalistic guidelines and ethics? Where did I say I wanted him off Sportsnet?
Posted by J.J. on 02/15/07 at 09:53 PM ET
I’m looking forward to all of your blogs telling Eklund ‘nice job’ for getting the Forsberg trade…
Wow, in the excitement about the Forsberg trade, you completely forgot to answer JJ’s question about which one of Eklund’s bios was the false one. Whoopsie…
As for the “scoop,” it crashed like a wave tonight. The Fourth Period had it fairly early, and was linked at the top of the HF Boards thread on the trade. TSN was right there as well. I’m not sure anyone can claim ownership of this one unless you’re watching 20 computers and 10 TVs at the same time. Nashville had become the frontrunner days ago...kudos for Poile for having the balls to make the call.
Now that the excitement’s died down, care to another crack at JJ’s question, DeGroat?
Posted by Greg Wyshynski from Washington, DC on 02/15/07 at 10:28 PM ET
Hmmmm.... I’m feeling a lot better already.
Source: HFBoards
Posted by J.J. on 02/15/07 at 11:14 PM ET
Answer to question #1:
“until he decides to finally come clean and stop trying to act like something he’s not, I’ll keep saying something.”
And what does this prove--especially since you took it out of its context, which is that I believe that Dwayne is hiding behind a wall of fabrications?
Answer to question #2:
Dwayne’s not well-connected--I’m better-connected than he is, and I’m not very well-connected at all. Dwayne Klessel’s “hookups” are a couple Philadelphia Inquirer columnists, the Nashville Predators’ PA announcer, and (supposedly) Bob McKenzie from TSN.
Saying something that I believe to be true is not a lie--especially when no proof is offered to lead me to change my mind. Unlike you, I’m actually willing to listen to what somebody else has to say.
Answer to question #2, again
Claiming that Eklund wasn’t at the Finals.
And I retconned that when it was verified to me by somebody who is not Eklund or you that I was incorrect. In any case, what I said was that I didn’t believe that he was here--how is that a lie?
Until you offer some substantive proof to back up what you’re saying, don’t expect me to believe that you’re anything other than a deranged fanboi who’s totally and completely unwilling to answer direct questions from the audience and conveniently ignores anything that puts the lie to his own statements and assertions.
And as for me being “not interested in the truth”, I suggest you take a look at the comment I left in response to this post of yours from last June:
http://www.checkingline.com/2006/07/04/five-minute-bullshit-major-part-1
I’m still waiting for you to man up and admit you were wrong, kiddo.
Posted by The Acid Queen from Raleigh, NC on 02/16/07 at 05:55 AM ET
Great Post Alanah, I don’t think anyone could sum this whole thing up and better than that.
I was the one who wrote about Dreger being better since the move to TSN and I stand by that. He’s on less panel discussions and doesn’t have to speak on the fly as much as he did at Sportsnet. Maybe the fact that TSN lets him to his job the way he wants to without sitting him beside a Kypreos had a lot to do with this change.
It’s hard to distinguish the one smart monkey in a room full of 999 other hacks.
Keep up the great work.
Posted by James Gunner on 02/16/07 at 03:35 PM ET
I stumbled on to this discussion while doing a search for Dwayne Keith Kessels. I have become a little obsessed lately and using my work breaks to do some reading. I am not a blogger. I post a lot of comments on various sorts of message boards but I have never run a blog. In a lot of ways, I don’t have problem with most bloggers who want to maintain anonymity up to a point. If your running a site, and not charging money (or just asking a for little bit of $ here and there to pay for the broadband (a lot music fan sites do that)) then that’s fine but there does come a point where the public has a right to know about things especially if people make certain claims about themselves. That point, in my mind, came a long time ago with Eklund.
I do not find Eklund to be as bad as the rest of you and I do visit the site regularly though more to try get info on Ottawa. But quite honestly that’s a moot point. The real issue to me is what can be expected from people who choose to be public figures.
What bothers me more is how many members of the media are in on this and happy to oblige Eklund in his desire to remain anonymous. Sportsnet does not have what I would call journalists working there. They are entertainers more than anything. But there are alot of newspaper journalists who I am fairly certain know who he is and I know in Ottawa the Sun writers have had him on their radio show The Press Box and I would bet that they know. BTW, I like the Sun writers.
That to me is not acceptable and I have actually started sending emails to various newspaper editors and writers asking them to do a story on this. Its nice that the New York Post did one.... but, well to be honest I do not put much trust in their reliability and personally I think it will take just one major newspaper to do the story on it and then its good by anonymity. I would encourage everyone to start writing. I thought I would reprint one of my recent emails to give you my perspective.
I read your article on trade day coverage and I enjoyed it alot. Particularly your comments on Eklund, who I must confess has become a bee in my bonet. I guess what bothers me is that the media allows this guy to continue to be “anonymous” when he has become a very public figure. I am hoping you might consider doing a story at least on that angle if not one that reveals his identity.
Eklund has become a major player in the hockey media world but no one, outside of the many journalist who are “in the know” as to his identity, has information on who he is and his background. I believe such information is vital to hockey fans who would like to be able to judge his credibility and determine any possible axes he may have to grind.
Currently he charges the public for access to some parts of his website, claims to have lots of NHL connections, reportedly gets press credentials from the NHL, appears regularly on radio and as you know all too well appeared on Sportsnet’s NHL trade deadline show. Eklund has, by his on choice, become a very public figure with regards to the NHL and I believe the public has a right to know who is so that we can decide how much stock should be placed on his opinions.
For the life of me, I do not understand why not a single journalist has written an article that at least attempts to reveal his identity. From what he himself has written, it seems that many journalists know who he really is. When Primary Colours was published in the United States it was a cause celeb to reveal the “anonymous” author’s identity - I remember there was at least one full episode of Larry King dedicated to this. Yet Eklund has been going strong for about 2 years and not a peep from the journalists about the identity of this guy.
There were some important journalistic reasons to keep Deep Throat’s identity a secret but I cannot fathom why the identity of someone who chose and continues to choose to do public commentary should be kept secret. Personally, I think sports journalists have a responsibility to reveal his identity.
I am well aware that there has been a lot of talk on the net on this guy’s identity but why is the sports media not outing him?… In fact it appears that so many sports journalist know who he is and agree to keep it secret.
Cheers
Jodey
I got a response back (the first one to write back in fact) saying that he had a name but could not confirm it.... I am guessing that its just a matter of time until Mr. Eklund is out in the open.
Sorry for going on and on.... and btw, I can’t for the life of me how to break this post in paragraphs.
Posted by ottawasensfan on 03/01/07 at 03:09 PM ET
Oh oh.... I left my real first name in there.... I guess people are half way to discovering a the identify of an anonymous hockey poster 
Posted by ottawasensfan on 03/01/07 at 03:11 PM ET
please stop slandering me, it makes me mad sussy
Posted by dwayne from philadelphia on 07/27/07 at 09:55 PM ET
Please explain how Eklund’s IP address is tied to him personally?
When I used dial-up, my IP address would change every time I signed on. Now, as a broadband user my IP address stays the same BUT I can/have changed it at will. (it’s not that hard)
But I can’t pick the new IP address...I only get one that’s newly available.
Posted by Noway from Ontario on 08/01/07 at 04:42 PM ET
This is how I understand it from what I have seen on other message boards (though I stand to be corrected). I am assuming Dwayne uses a broadband connection. If someone doesn’t change their IP address (and my broadband connection doesn’t let me even when I try to do just that), and they log on to a message board such as this, under different user names, the administrator of the site can see that the different user names are coming from the same IP address and I find it unlikely, that different people are using Dwayne’s computer to post on here.
If he would drop the anonymous schtick, admit that he lied when he said he had worked for 2 NHL teams in the past, and stop the self promotion self/self adulation that is on his site, I would give the guy a chance. As it stands, he is an easy target I love to beat up on.
cheers
Posted by ottawasensfan on 08/02/07 at 08:36 AM ET
Add a Comment
Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.
Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.
Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.
Most Recent Blog Posts
Wellwood Returning to Vancouver
In Defense of Dany Heatley (sort of)
Sedin’s Agent Not Optimistic About a Vancouver Deal, but is Anyone?
Mike Keenan Joins the Canucks?
GM Place Keeps its Name; Disaster Averted
What’s Trevor Linden Been Up To?
About Canucks & Beyond
Alanah McGinley has been blogging hockey since 2003, sharing opinions, rants and not-so-deep thoughts with anyone who will listen. In addition to writing Canucks & Beyond and helping manage Kukla’s Korner, Alanah is one of the founders and co-hosts of The Crazy Canucks Podcast, as featured at Canucks.com.
She has contributed pieces to FoxSports.com and the New York Times Slapshot blog, as well as other stray destinations in cyberspace.
Email:
Alanah’s Twitter: Not really hockey-ish. [LINK]
Other Canucks Blogs
Wow Alahah good post. For me personally I’m drawn to blogs and sites based on “quality”. Unfortunately Eklund’s site does not fit into that category. He’s like the enquirer of sports blogs. Pure sensationalistic crap. Plus the guy can barely string a proper sentence together. It’s really a shame that Sportsnet decided to buy into his trash. I’ll be watching TSN on deadline day.
Posted by Trini from VanC on 02/12/07 at 02:16 PM ET