Wait, Hockey Buzz has an editorial policy?

Today, in Kings blogging news, Matt Barry, Kings blogger for Hockey Buzz, has left that esteemed organization and is now blogging from his own site. There are only two reasons I know what Hockey Buzz is. One is that Matt Barry is a Kings blogger and I enjoy his writing. The other is that Hockey Buzz is famous for peddling trade rumors that are by reputation the gold standard for wild inaccuracy. Click on the link below to read Barry’s repost of the post which he says Hockey Buzz deleted and which in turn caused Barry to leave.

In the comments section of that post, someone posted a response (by someone at Hockey Buzz) to Barry’s indignation. This is that comment, with my comments on that comment.

Big Mouth Barry | Bruce Boudreau = FAIL

I will explain exactly why the blog in question got deleted.

We have an editorial policy that was put in place a year ago. Most of the bloggers on this site have zero problems following the rules, which mostly come down to common sense and common courtesy.

Their editorial policy doesn’t appear to give a shit if what its writers write is actually true. Something along the lines of “Say only true things” might be good. Truth, after all, is a common courtesy directed at the reader.

There are only a few who have ever had blogs deleted and just two who are serial offenders of the editorial policy (and, if fact made such a policy necessary in the first place).

You wouldn’t even have an editorial policy if it weren’t for Matt Barry and some unnamed guy pissing you off? That’s pathetic. Also, you should probably name the thing after him.

Specific to the HockeyBuzz editorial policy, there are three reasons why the blog got deleted:

1) No-trolling rule: Writing an Anaheim burial blog — within minutes of the team being eliminated– is a clear-cut violation of a rule we have about no taunting/trolling blogs. The end of the blog in question made obvious what the writer’s intent was: Taunting a just-eliminated team about raising a regular-season banner next season is what a message board troll does, not what HB pays bloggers to do.

You can’t troll your own blog.

2) Insufficient content: The body of the blog had zero content about the LA Kings

The LA Kings are rivals of the Anaheim Ducks. That makes whatever happens to the Ducks relevant to Kings fans and of course to Kings bloggers. To say nothing of the fact that the outcome of that particular game was of huge importance to Kings fans, since it determined whether or not the Kings were going to play their biggest rivals in a playoff series for the first time.

and contained zero information that couldn’t be found in 10 seconds on hockeydb.com by searching the coaching portion of Boudreau and then doing a cut-and-paste.

“Doing a cut-and-paste” sounds suspiciously like stealingYou can’t go to someone else’s site and cut-and-paste their content into your site. But I guess, in the war on rudeness, anything goes.

If the main part of the blog had been, say, an analysis of where Boudreau specifically got outcoached in this series and in past playoffs (line matchups, mid-game adjustments, etc) then it would have had some sort of substance to it.

It also would have been a different post with a different point. But I understand: all Hockey Buzz posts that “have no substance” shall be deleted as a matter of policy. Check.

3) Repeat offenses: Had the blogger not just written a blatant troll-the-Habs blog a few days earlier right after they got eliminated — which was let slide — this one might have been left up with a reminder of the editorial policy.

I’m not familiar with the phrase “might have been left up with a.”

It was pretty mild trolling, but trolling nonetheless. Quite frankly, the mistake on this side was to be lenient on the previous blog, not to delete the new one.

I guess there is no rule against illiteracy in the Hockey Buzz editorial policy. It also sounds like their editorial policy caused them to delete the “mild” post while leaving up the post that actually offended them (it appears from Matt’s re-post that the reason for this is that the previous post, the one actually in violation of the Hockey Buzz Morals Clause, is the one with lots and lots of hits; wouldn’t want to delete THAT).

I guess the editorial policy has a “make-up call” provision.

It’s remarkable to me that Hockey Buzz has any rules at all requiring its content to be “substantial,” that they have any special interest in detailed analysis, or editorial balance, or common sense, or common courtesy. I thought their entire reason for existence was to court controversy by making shit up and/or infuriating people with reaction-inciting sports-fan diatribe, thus driving massive blog-traffic.

I guess the point of having a blog policy that pays lip-service to propriety (etc.) is that they — the Hockey Buzz Arbiters of Blog Etiquette — can mete out justice at their own selective whim. Because they couldn’t possibly apply those standards across the board without deleting their entire archive and firing everyone.

 
  • Jorgen

    Ha! Love reading your stuff Quisp

  • http://twitter.com/HoldThePoint Player X

    “There are only a few who have ever had blogs deleted and just two who are serial offenders of the editorial policy (and, if fact made such a policy necessary in the first place).”

    Innuendo- cheap.

    “3) Repeat offenses: Had the blogger not just written a blatant troll-the-Habs blog a few days earlier right after they got eliminated — which was let slide — this one might have been left up with a reminder of the editorial policy.”

    So they let the first one go, the Montreal post, which to Barry must seem like a tacit endorsement of content. Secretly, they disliked the first one, but didn’t mention it: Passive-aggression.

    When the second post appears about Anaheim, and they don’t like it, either, they now react as if it were a repeat offense. Guilt By Accumulation. “No convictions your honor, I’m 19 and 0.”

    Who knows if there was communication in the past regarding post like the 2 in question, but HB admits that there was no communication regarding content between the posting of the Montreal article and the writing of the Anaheim article. The fact that HB links the two, by content and form, means they recognize the two as part of a pattern, probably part of a series Barry intended as certain teams die off from being eliminated. So, when they do not object to one, but do object to the second even though both are seen as much the same, they land themselves between being glaringly inconsistent or just downright hypocritical.

    The silliness peaks, though, when at the end HB says, “It was pretty mild trolling, but trolling nonetheless. Quite frankly, the mistake on this side was to be lenient on the previous blog, not to delete the new one.” So, the actual offense was “mild trolling,” mitigated by their own failure to police content and form according to their not-so-obvious subjective rules about “mild trolling.”

    Plus, I hate false magnanimity like that, as if to say, “gee, we make mistakes too, and in fairness we are willing to admit them,” when clearly the true motive is to ingratiate themselves to the reader, or anyone else judging their behavior.

  • http://web.me.com/kakitadoug/geekblog/Blog/Blog.html DougS

    I’ve not been a fan of Barry’s, but part of that was that I don’t see how you could willingly associate yourself with Eklund and retain the shred of self-respect that you need for people to take you seriously.

    Matt Barry will be much better off without Hockey Buzz. Hockey Buzz will not be better off without him; it will still be a pile of refuse.