no one appreciates those who take shortcuts
I’ve blogged about this before, but now the issue has died considerably and it’s prime time to re-visit.
Eklund is no longer listed as a blogger on Sportsnet.ca. His final column appears to be done on December 13, 2006. This could possibly be the beginning of the end for the guy known as Eklund and I couldn’t be more relieved.
As I posted before, it bothers me that someone from questionable origins can rise so quickly and effectively into the world of hockey journalism with an anonymous identity and a shoddy track record. If the real world behaves like that, did I really want to be a part of that world?
However, with his removal from Sportsnet (where he wasn’t paid and it was only on a ‘test drive’ basis), maybe just maybe things are returning to normal once again. Attention is once again on the action on the ice versus the often flamboyant stylings of a blogger behind a firewall.
I discussed journalistic ethics and anonymity privately with Eklund way back when in one of his chat rooms, where I challenged him to prove anything that he was saying. Eventually, I grew tired of the ordeal and withdrew myself from commenting on him directly, though throughout it, a sense of something wrong brewed underneath. So to bring this chapter to a close (during my previous blog, futur.frandt.com I struggled constantly with both my jealously and my curiousity in the Eklund world), here’s a number of highlights from other bloggers and journalists covering the world of Eklund.
Hockey Rants blog – February 1st, 2005 is when we start. The Eklund mythos is just taking off as the season comes closer and closer to cancellation. Jes Golbez looks at it and sees some cracks in the facade. This post also has links to previous commentary on the issue.
Ordinary Least Square – Fast forward to February 9th, 2005, Dubi breaks down piece by piece ever claim made by Eklund. This is disputed by the blogger in the comments.
SportsFan Magazine – Also on February 9th, Greg Wyshynski looks overall at the whole thing from an objective standpoint. A really great overview of Eklund to date.
Teal Sunglasses – February 19th, 2005 = Chuqui goes after Eklund for a missed statement in one his posts.
Then there’s some time, the CBA is signed, hockey is back until: October 31st, 2005. Eklund has signed on with Sportsnet and the Toronto Star weighs in:
Hockey blogger’s rise fascinating, scary – Christopher Hutsul looks at how something like this could have happened.
The Toronto Star Weblog also talks about Eklund on that same day.
Meatriarchy responded with their own salvo at the Star, blasting them for attacking a blogger, basically coming to the conclusion that ‘real journalists’ shouldn’t bother themselves with bloggers.
And so, that’s what I’ll end this tale on. Blogging doesn’t mean journalism, though the two are close. The story of Eklund is an interesting case, but an anamolity, considering the circumstances from which it arose.
Anyway, this is just something I’ve been kicking around, having all these links that accurately describe the controversy. That was the real story with Eklund, not the lockout or the rumours, but the fans and how they believed him and his whole little cyclone. Unfortunately, he missed covering that story…
Were you saying that I said journalists should bother with bloggers or that the star said it?
Comment by The Meatriarchy — 18.1.2006 @ 13:57
the conclusion that I came away with from your post was that journalists shouldn’t attack bloggers, when they themselves don’t even stand the reasons that they attack the bloggers.
looking further at that, it’s quite easy to see where I came from with my statement of ‘real journalists shouldn’t bother themselves with bloggers’. That’s not to say that one is above the other (fuel for a different fire that I don’t want to jump into at the moment), just saying it’s a waste for an established member of the media like the Star to use time and ink on the blog community. It’s laughable to attack someone else when you yourself can’t stand by the standards you judge others by.
that being said, I think Hutsul’s whole spiel on journalistic ethics was not to do about revealing identities of sources as much as it was to do about whether or not those sources exist. As much as anyone would want to crap on the mass media establishment, a questionable persona like Eklund would not be able to rise like he did through traditional methods. The anonymity and reach of the Internet gave him a platform that simply would not have been possible any other way.
Comment by forbes — 18.1.2006 @ 17:01