The lowdown


So, some Bozo blogger thinks Darren Dreger of TSN might be pulling NHL trade rumours out of his ass and making things up, eh?

Dreger’s inquisitor on a website known as Kings Kool-Aid calls himself “qwisp,” which may or may not be a version of his real name. That doesn’t matter, even though the thought of somebody who might be tapping while using a fake name calling out Dreger rings just a tad goofy.

It’s a witty bit of interpretive scrawl by qwisp, but it goes to show how little this person knows about the challenges facing MSM types like Dreger, who earn their living by gathering information, and the rules of the insider game as they pertain to protecting sources.

The point being pushed by qwisp is Dreger’s item on Vincent Lecavalier and possible interest in him by the Los Angeles Kings is vague and written in a flimsy enough way it could be nothing more than the product of a fertile mind on a slow news day.

Vague and flimsy? Yes. Intentionally so. The product of a fertile mind? Not a chance. What, did Dreger issue an E-3 with this?


Whether it’s a ridiculously connected guy like Dreger or TSN running mate Bob McKenzie or those of us further down the information gathering food chain in the MSM, there are tried-and-true ways of protecting sources and keeping the information pipeline open.

Many of those tricks of the trade — not attributing comments, using unnamed sources and even employing good old-fashioned mis-direction to protect somebody who has given you the drop on something — fly in the face of what old-school types like me learned when getting into the business. But the business has changed. The demand for immediate information is greater than it’s ever been. People want the goods now. If you’re getting your dope from the morning paper, you’re late. You either deliver or you don’t. On top of that, people love rumours. They eat up speculation.

While that opens the door for any kook or clown with a blog template to float all kinds of unsubstantiated rumours, pass off gossip as fact and flat-out make things up, that’s not the case with Dreger. Granted, it can sound that way — “Well, where’s the quote from the GM or the player in question?” — but disguising the fact somebody spilled the beans is essential in making sure they keep talking to you down the road.


Dreger doesn’t need me talking for him, so I won’t, but here’s some of the ways I’ve protected sources. Let’s go on the premise GM X has told me he’s interested in trading Player X because he wants too much money.

— You can be vague, as Dreger was with the Lecavalier item: “The Edmonton Oilers will likely be listening to offers for Player X at the trade deadline and there could be six teams interested, including the Los Angeles Kings . . .”

— You can say it yourself without attribution: “The Edmonton Oilers are looking to trade Player X at the trade deadline . . .”

— You can use an unnamed source: “A source close to the Edmonton Oilers says the team is considering trading Player X because he wants too much money . . .”

— You can ask the question: “Are the Edmonton Oilers contemplating trading Player X at the trade deadline because he wants too much money?” Or, “What’s this I hear about Player X wanting $20 million over four years from the Oilers?”

No matter which of the four ways you frame it, you can follow up by saying, “When asked to confirm the possibility Player X might be traded, GM X declined comment,” or “GM X laughed off suggestions Player X might be traded and said, “We’re not shopping Player X.”

Of course, shopping Player X means actively communicating with other GMs looking for offers, as opposed to being willing to trade Player X if his salary demands don’t change. In that sense, GM X isn’t lying.


The problem is, people with no contacts and no inside information can play loose with all of the above and toss as much stuff against the wall as they want in the hope some will stick.

Not because they’re protecting sources, but because they don’t have one real shred of information. You’ve read it. I’ve read it. There’s 100 screens of the stuff out there on any given day. There’s always some Bozo making stuff up. This qwisp is suggesting maybe Dreger fits in that long-shoed group. I think not. I know not.

For information junkies trying to separate intentional mis-direction or vagueness employed by a reporter to protect a source from bogus rumours with no factual basis, it’s difficult to know what to put much stock in.

In the end, it comes down to credibility. Who wrote it or said it? What’s their record on getting it first and getting it right? How connected are they? Who do they answer to if what they write or say is absolute fantasy?

Whether it’s a MSM guy like Dreger or some Bozo blogger, the same questions should apply.

–Listen to Robin Brownlee every Thursday from 4 to 6 p.m. on Just A Game with Jason Gregor on TEAM 1260.

  • The Menace

    kingsblade wrote:

    @ The Menace:
    Way to respond to a generalization, with a specific example of one guy who doesn’t fit.

    That wasn't meant as a refutation – I wasn't trying to say that your generalization *never* happens. It's just a counter-example to think about it from a different perspective. 🙂

    What the Rameriz example (and Clemens, and McGuire, and A-Rod, and a laundry list of other atheletes!) suggests is that the guys with the biggest *signed* contracts might have bigger motives for cheating compared with guys that may have *potential* to sign contracts.

  • yo

    RB – Would it be fair to ask if you read John Short's comments in the Sun regarding the former Oilers currently playing for the 'Canes'? Any comments regarding the reason for their new-found joy? Short suggests Oiler veteran leadership share blame with coaching and management for the discontent with the Oil on the part of these players. This is the kind of stuff that makes Edmontonians cringe to think our city is undesireable by the hockey world. Even though people such as Gregor pooh pooh it…it makes one wonder.

    Ex-Oilers happier in Carolina


  • Robin Brownlee

    @ yo:
    Not sure about the timing of this item.
    It sounded to me like Short just regurgitated old talk about discontent in the dressing room. And there was discontent — there always is when a team struggles or under-achieves. There has also been a dynamic of having a large group of young players and a second group of veterans. For me, that doesn't translate to a rift or a divided dressing room. I think that was overstated and took on a life of its own outside the room (with fans).

    I've known Short a long time and have a level of respect for his time on the job, but to be honest with you I can say without any doubt that I don't recall seeing him in the dressing room even once last season, so I don't know where he's getting his information.