October 31, 2005
Eklund, Ad Infinatum
Our old pal Eklund is getting some more ink and pixels today, as Christopher Hutsul of the Toronto Star examines the record of the anonymous one with furrowed brow:
What we do know about Eklund — a pseudonym inspired by former Philadelpia Flyer forward Pelle Eklund — is that he's reached nearly mythical status in the online hockey community, and he's parlayed that profile into a blossoming career in the mainstream media. It's a cross-over that raises interesting questions about the ethics of anonymous blogging, the use of unnamed sources, and the journalistic standards to which the public at large holds the media.
If we take Eklund at his word, he's an American hockey fan who's written a best-selling book, worked briefly for an NHL team, and remains in contact with a handful of high-level hockey people. Many bloggers don't buy that, and have accused him of being a computer geek who's simply acting out delusions of being a hockey insider. If that's the case, he's played us, the audience, and the mainstream media, brilliantly.
Eklund's rise to notoriety began at the lockout's depths. While the mainstream media scrambled to keep on top of the convoluted workings of the labour standoff, Eklund carried himself like an authority. His posts began with sentences like: "I just got off the phone with a player from the Calgary Flames, who told me . . ." His reports didn't always prove accurate — some Eklund dissidents will tell you that he was almost never right, and have devoted themselves to debunking him.
That last line is a real howler. Here we have Eklund, a completely anonymous source, and Hutsul has no problem linking to his Web site and quoting from an Eklund bio I punched some holes in a few weeks ago (one Eklund updated after the fact). Yet nowhere in the piece do we hear from any of the legion of bloggers -- readily identifiable as far as I can see -- who have criticized Eklund since he surfaced.
In short, he's helping to perpetuate Eklund's influence, and ignoring the folks with actual identities who called him on the carpet so often before.
And by ommitting any dissenting voices on Eklund (not one solitary quote), he sends the message that the folks who have spent time debunking him are the ones without credibility. Thanks a lot pal.
I have to give him some credit though, because unlike other mainstream media folks who have covered Eklund (subscription required), Hutsul actually expresses some doubt that this is all a good idea:
Eklund's practices didn't bother me during the lockout. I took his comments with a grain of salt, as I would with any independent blog. He was a fleeting point of interest on the Internet. I saw him as a novelty, never a journalist. What did it matter anyway? After all, it was only hockey.
I realized I'd underestimated Eklund — and the influence of the blogosphere — when I heard his name on a Vancouver sports radio station. The host was talking about a trade rumour posted on Eklund's site. Apparently, it didn't matter whether Eklund was legitimate or full of crap. He'd transcended the blogosphere, and had become a mainstream media informant.
I was stunned.
Join the club.
How, I wondered, could the mainstream media justify the ongoing use an anonymous reporter, relying on anonymous sources?
As Hutsul discovered after interviewing a Rogers SportsNet exec who once worked at his paper, they simply can't. In this case, it's all about the eyeballs, and who cares if Eklund shovels some more BS in the process. That should tell you all you need to know about this story.
POSTSCRIPT: I couldn't help but notice this passage:
A common question in hockey blogs is, "Who is Eklund and why is he blogging?"
Actually, what Hutsul doesn't tell his readers is that's exactly how I posed the question, word for word, back in February.
Hey Chris, I'm waiting for my check.
As always, feel free to peruse our Eklund file.
UPDATE: The Acid Queen delivers Eklund another body blow. Thanks to Chris Young for the link.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.ericmcerlain.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/5295
Maybe Eklund will have less time to write now that hes a backup for the Lightning.
http://www.nhl.com/scores/htmlreports/20052006/ES020163.HTM
I almost asked the Sportsnet guys how they feel about having Eklund as a part of their team but I chickened out.
Posted by:
at October 31, 2005 02:36 PM
I really think that if Hutsul wants to, as you say, pose the exact same question as you did, he should at least reference your site. It's not really fair to think that just because it's 'only a blog,' that proper attribution is unnecessary.
One of the best things that can come from things like the Toronto Star's foray into hockey blogging with The Hockey page is to give blogs some sort of credibility and status with the mainstream media.
Unfortunately, people like Eklund, who don't attempt to uphold any standards of accuracy, are only going to further marginalize bloggers in the minds of 'traditional journalists.'
Posted by:
at October 31, 2005 04:56 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in,
.
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
12:24 PM
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.ericmcerlain.com/offwingopinion/nav-commenters.gif)