As part of my on-going campaign to convince you to never blindly trust Ian Kennedy I present to you me going on a rant and trying to dissect a section of an article to show why he is terrible at his job.
In a recent article he wrote for The Hockey News he says:
[Manon] Rhéaume was asked about the reported trade that will send Hilary Knight to Detroit, followed by questions on the signing of Britta Curl-Salemme, and finally on accusations that Detroit got an early start and may have tampered with signed players.
Technically this sentence is factually correct. HOWEVER, it is also misleading, because he was the one asking Rhéaume about "accusations that Detroit got an early start and may have tampered with signed players." (Typically a journalist wouldn't frame their own question as something that just happened.)
And it was a hell of a loaded question too:
My question is actually for Manon...obviously you got out of the gates really fast with your signings, but there was a lot of reports, including from a couple of general managers and agents to me, that they felt Detroit got off to a head start.
And I'm hoping you could address that. Just to speak what happened on your side so that people might know when you began, how those early conversations happened, and whether or not you adhered to the timelines as prescribed by the league.
He's following his usual clickbait playbook move of: Hear a rumor from a source, frame the rumor as evidence of a fact, accuse the target.
It's a general media availability session and yet he's out here acting like he's an investigative journalist about to crack a case by asking a highly esteemed woman in the hockey world, who only just recently took this job, to provide evidence that she didn't break league rules.
Rhéaume Denies Allegations Of Early Start And Tampering
What a dramatic sub header for an article! I bet he was feeling extra full of himself there.
Prior to the start of Phase One of the PWHL's expansion player distribution process, multiple PWHL general managers and agents contacted The Hockey News to report that their players were already being talked to by PWHL Detroit.
Okay, if that's true who said it? How many is multiple? Do you mean multiple GMs? Multiple agents? 1 GM and 1 agent? What does being "talked to" mean? Were they just contacting them to share their contact info? Were they starting negotiations early? Why are these people contacting The Hockey News instead of reporting it directly to the league? Did you ever go to school for journalism, Ian?
All of those signings were completely within the PWHL's rules, unless those negotiations began, as alleged, prior to June 1.
As usual, technically accurate, but highly leading in the way it's written. It's like writing, "The defendant did nothing wrong, unless of course she is actually a 'liar, liar, pants on fire' as certain younger family members have alleged."
You could just as easily say, "As long as the negotiations for those signings began after the start date of June 1st, they would all be in accordance with the PWHL's rules."
Rhéaume denied that her team started early, and said she was in constant communication with the PWHL to ensure she and PWHL Detroit were adhering to rules, which she admitted at times were complex.
Once again, technically true, also highly leading.
Times like this are when you real need to have your textual analysis hat on, because the bias is clear. He could just as easily have written, "Rhéaume denied that her team started early, and said she was in constant communication with the PWHL to ensure she and PWHL Detroit were adhering to rules, due to the complexity of the expansion process."
And all of this bit is just trying to drum up drama with leading phrases and speculation, because he doesn't actually quote her response until the end:
"I was probably the one that bugged the league the most about like making sure that we understood the rules very well and that we were following them, Rhéaume said when asked about the perception and reports.
"The rules were complicated, a lot of like even agents were questioning the rules," Rhéaume continued. "Our staff we were reading it and I would go back to the league a lot to have clarification because that's important to us to follow the rules. I always believe you do it the right way and that's how you're going to have some success."
Which essentially is her denying all that build up.
So the whole section here doesn't actually answer anything, it just stirs up a bunch of shit.
And this is exactly why Kennedy is a SHIT journalist! He is never actually interested in learning and presenting FACTS. He is only ever interested in presenting sensationalism.
Let's say an agent told him that a client of theirs had been contacted early by Detroit. Did he contact the player to confirm that report and to clarify what was said? Did he contact the league and ask them to corroborate Rhéaume's story after her statement? Who knows!
And that's how he gets away with it!
Every source of his is always confidential. He won't say what was said, when it was said, or by whom. So no one can check his work. And if his source is someone saying something publicly, he won't try to confirm its veracity. After all, when no one can corroborate what you write, can anything you write ever be wrong?
This whole section of the article is essentially just "BREAKING NEWS - Person A says Person B cheated! Person B says that they didn't! Please like, share, and subscribe for more in-depth coverage like this."
And I guess the whole point of this long-winded late night rant is just this:
When reading the news, whether it be hockey reporting or international affairs or what have you, ALWAYS be dissecting what is being said. Just because someone calls something news doesn't make it fact. Question everything. What is being said? How is it being said? Who is saying it? Why is it being said? What is the evidence to back up what is being said? Is that evidence credible? And so on.
...that and just that Ian Kennedy is fucking TERRIBLE at his job and you should always assume he's up to something.
2087
kianamaiart
stormborns
areudirty
dededos
tangentwithtanner
romaincrisis
