By George Fallar 
On Saturday, December 6, Larry Brooks (@NYP_Brooksie) posted an opinion piece on the NY Post website, a noted bastion of journalistic ethics and snappy headlines.
In it, the hockey business Sergeant Schultz of the tri-state area encourages the NJ Devils to throw their season to be in the hunt for a draft pick.
He also has something to say about the Arizona Coyotes.
The Entire Thing
Rather than post a link to the Brooks piece, thus encouraging his click farming tactics, here’s the pertinent information in it’s entirety:
Remember how a few short weeks ago Andrew Barroway was on the verge of gaining majority control of the Coyotes, the news first reported by The Post?
Not so fast, for now comes word from a plugged-in source that the deal appears to be falling apart, with Barroway seemingly on the verge of backing out.Slap Shots has been told the current ownership has directed GM Don Maloney to shed payroll … which would mean stripping the club with the league’s third-lowest payroll into a bare-bones operation.
Who could be going in addition to Keith Yandle (at $5.2 million per season through next year)? Not Shane Doan? Not Oliver Ekman-Larsson?
The equally pertinent question, though, is which will come first: the end of the NHL’s financial problems in the desert or the end of Coyotes?
Actually, it’s not so much a pertinent question as a rhetorical one.
Hilarious.
Coyotes Chime In
Since I’m pressed for time and amped up on cold medicine, I’ll use a lazy technique like “professional” bloggerista @wyshynski and refute Brooks’ drivel with tweets from the Coyotes and another reporter with a better reputation for getting things correct by doing the work:
@NYP_Brooksie FYI…IceArizona has not directed Don Maloney to shed payroll. That is completely inaccurate.
— Rich Nairn (@RichNairn9) December 6, 2014
Two #Coyotes sources refute @NYP_Brooksie report that Andrew Barroway may back out of deal & GM Maloney has been instructed to shed payroll. — Craig Morgan (@cmorganfoxaz) December 6, 2014
#Coyotes source on @NYP_Brooksie report: “That is completely inaccurate. IceArizona has never directed Don Maloney to shed payroll…”
— Craig Morgan (@cmorganfoxaz) December 6, 2014
#Coyotes source on @NYP_Brooksie report: “Barroway remains on the agenda for the upcoming NHL BOG meetings & the deal remains on track.” — Craig Morgan (@cmorganfoxaz) December 6, 2014
Am told the budget #Coyotes GM Don Maloney received in June remains the one he is operating under today. No changes, no edicts from mgmt.
— Craig Morgan (@cmorganfoxaz) December 6, 2014
Again, the Andrew Barroway deal is on the NHL BOG agenda next week, but it will not be voted upon. This is just a progress update. — Craig Morgan (@cmorganfoxaz) December 6, 2014
Parrots Chime In For Clicks
Then Yahoo guy Wyshynski knocks out a quick cut and paste piece for Puck Daddy that parrots the Brooks drivel, but completely dismisses the actual Coyotes source to side with an unnamed “plug in”.
Makes sense only if there’s at least a hint of an agenda that’s leaning against the Coyotes.
It’s also not much work. I did it here (yesterday) in ten minutes on my way out the door to a hockey game.
The difference is I don’t have the gravitas with hockey readers that Greg does, thus I have less of a responsibility to add value and/or information before publishing something.
The Puck Daddy conclusion was this:
The Post has had good information on Barroway in the past. The idea that he’d back out of this deal isn’t sunny news for the Coyotes. But neither was the fact that the ownership group needed him to sign on to begin with.
The conclusions reached ignore a qualified source (Nairn) with the Coyotes in favor of an unnamed “plugged in source”. The second half of the conclusion (“needed him to sign”) isn’t based on ANY facts presented anywhere and, in fact, is the direct opposite of what principals involved in the deal have publicly stated.
In a civil Twitter exchange that followed, this snippet:
@gfallar I still can’t figure out why you’re bent about a post that presented both sides of the issue.
— Greg Wyshynski (@wyshynski) December 7, 2014
Let me try to explain without a 140 character restriction, Greg.
What’s The Big Deal?
The big deal is that the usual suspects with Quebec/Seattle/Winnipeg/Glendale negative agendas will pick up the “plugged in source” story and redistribute it ad nauseum until it becomes “fact”. Most will ignore the denials completely instead of including them in a piece and THEN ignoring them.
I understand that, typically, a blogger isn’t held to the same journalistic integrity standards as a “real reporter”. While I buy neither the argument nor the integrity of most reporters, that’s the current state of media. Waiting to publish something until information is verified by more than one source is a good place to start.
However, if you get paid to distribute information, you do have a personal responsibility to ensure it’s as close to correct as possible because it has a real world effect on real people and real wallets.
You’re wrong, and you should be embarrassed.
Take that to the bank and get bent, Brooks. You too, Wyshynski.
Comments are closed.