Toggle sidebar

Hammond is blogging again mother****ers!!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Captain Mittens*
  • Start date Start date
Winger23 said:
While I think any extra coverage this gives the kings is good, and while he's a good journalist, hes not even a kings fan let alone a hockey fan. Not a fan of his to be honest.
Click to expand...

He's not paid to be a cheerleader. He does a good job of covering the Kings and has done so for many years, well before he was hired by the team. You're not a fan of his because he's not a Kings fan? That's pretty juvenile.
 
Winger23 said:
While I think any extra coverage this gives the kings is good, and while he's a good journalist, hes not even a kings fan let alone a hockey fan. Not a fan of his to be honest.
Click to expand...

Why does a reporter have to be a fan of the team s/he's covering? If anything you want them to be as neutral as possible. Otherwise, you get inherently biased coverage.

Please explain why being a Kings fan is a requirement.

FYI: Rich is a hockey fan, contrary to popular belief.
 
Ziggy Stardust said:
He's not paid to be a cheerleader. He does a good job of covering the Kings and has done so for many years, well before he was hired by the team. You're not a fan of his because he's not a Kings fan? That's pretty juvenile.
Click to expand...

Where did I say he had to be a cheerleader. So sick of people calling out others who don't share the same view on something. I would prefer it being someone who has passion for the game, not just for the kings. But I guess I'll continue to be juvenile on my opinions.
 
FrozenRoyalty said:
Why does a reporter have to be a fan of the team s/he's covering? If anything you want them to be as neutral as possible. Otherwise, you get inherently biased coverage.

Please explain why being a Kings fan is a requirement.

FYI: Rich is a hockey fan, contrary to popular belief.
Click to expand...

I would have to go back and find it in his blog while he worked for the kings. I'm pretty sure he admitted he was not a fan of the sport before accepting the job. Not that he hated it, just wasn't into it. Maybe its changed I dunno, just my personal opinion that I like reading things that are invested in the subject they are writing about. I have nothing against him as he was always professional in what he did, just not my style.
 
Winger23 said:
I would have to go back and find it in his blog while he worked for the kings. I'm pretty sure he admitted he was not a fan of the sport before accepting the job. Not that he hated it, just wasn't into it. Maybe its changed I dunno, just my personal opinion that I like reading things that are invested in the subject they are writing about. I have nothing against him as he was always professional in what he did, just not my style.
Click to expand...

I've known Rich for a long time. I know for a fact that he is a hockey fan and he was long before he took the Kings job.

Don't confuse not writing as a fan with whether or not that person is a fan or not. As one learned hockey writer once said, "You have to love this game to cover it."

I'm not about to say that I'm a good hockey writer. Nevertheless, like Rich, I don't write as a fan, either. I do that to maintain credibility, objectivity and journalistic standards.
 
I'm excited that Rich Hammond is blogging again. He is an excellent writer. However, it did bother me a bit that he wasn't a Kings fan when he wrote for the Insider. This is the best of both worlds now. I get Jon's enthusiasm for the the Kings on LAKingsInsider and I get to read Rich again on his new blog. It's win-win for me.
 
Gentle Ben Kenobi said:
Quattro gets a pass for being the Kings of the Stanley Cup pictures thread

But , I could also see how Ron's post could have been misconstrued.

As you guys can tell by my like of an avatar, I am a very reasonable person who is very easy to get a long with an that i am able to diffuse any situation.
Click to expand...

So your a divorce lawyer by day ?
 
Ziggy Stardust said:
He's not paid to be a cheerleader. He does a good job of covering the Kings and has done so for many years, well before he was hired by the team. You're not a fan of his because he's not a Kings fan? That's pretty juvenile.
Click to expand...

FrozenRoyalty said:
Why does a reporter have to be a fan of the team s/he's covering? If anything you want them to be as neutral as possible. Otherwise, you get inherently biased coverage.

Please explain why being a Kings fan is a requirement.

FYI: Rich is a hockey fan, contrary to popular belief.
Click to expand...

This was a discussion that goes way back, should the beat reporters cover the team with a positive spin or with reality, Dr Buss tried to get Mud, spencer and the others fron the "Herald " to always be positive because he thought it would help draw in the casual fan and build the base, but those 16005 that were the base could see the ******** through the trees , Mud wrote that winning would build the team base better and faster lol, and look at us now
 
I was always critical of the Hammond blog once he became employed by the Kings, but I don't think I claimed that he was being censored.

My beef was that the Kings fed him what they wanted in order to set the agenda on certain players during the Terry Murray years. I think many people on here considered Hammond to be gospel and stopped using their eyes when watching the team play, instead relying on "Hammond said" to support any argument.

The blog became a PR tool once the Kings took over. Doesn't mean he was censored per se, but information he was given was provided for a specific reason.

Rosen has stepped in with the team coming off of the '12 Cup. There haven't been any controversies and no "liked" players to start crapping on so the fans don't care as much when they are let go. He is blogging for them in an era where it's tough to question management because there isn't anything to question them about except, what, Rob Blake?!? Rosen is the perfect guy for a Kings blog that is run by the Kings.

I'm glad Hammond is back covering the Kings without any possible conflict of interest issues hanging over him. My beef was never with Hammond specifically--aside from the fact that he should never be on television--but rather how many here on HF just ate up what the Kings were feeding him without remembering the fact that he was employed by the Kings and was the organizations mouthpiece.
 
BigKing said:
I was always critical of the Hammond blog once he became employed by the Kings, but I don't think I claimed that he was being censored.

My beef was that the Kings fed him what they wanted in order to set the agenda on certain players during the Terry Murray years. I think many people on here considered Hammond to be gospel and stopped using their eyes when watching the team play, instead relying on "Hammond said" to support any argument.

The blog became a PR tool once the Kings took over. Doesn't mean he was censored per se, but information he was given was provided for a specific reason.

Rosen has stepped in with the team coming off of the '12 Cup. There haven't been any controversies and no "liked" players to start crapping on so the fans don't care as much when they are let go. He is blogging for them in an era where it's tough to question management because there isn't anything to question them about except, what, Rob Blake?!? Rosen is the perfect guy for a Kings blog that is run by the Kings.

I'm glad Hammond is back covering the Kings without any possible conflict of interest issues hanging over him. My beef was never with Hammond specifically--aside from the fact that he should never be on television--but rather how many here on HF just ate up what the Kings were feeding him without remembering the fact that he was employed by the Kings and was the organizations mouthpiece.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.

People might not agree but he was meh IMO when he was employed by the kings.
 
King'sPawn said:
I agree. Hammond is much stronger technically, but can't feign enthusiasm. So, he looks and sounds awkward in presentation. He treats it as strictly reporting, which I appreciate. If I was stuck on TV/radio, I would do the same thing, only worse.

Rosen... You know he's a fan, and he projects the appropriate enthusiasm and energy in his words and mannerisms. However, I think his technical writing suffers from his energy. Plus, I like being able to brag how the Kings blogger is better at play-by-play than Brian Hayward.
Click to expand...
Heck...even Dan Moriarty was better than Hayward...
 
BigKing said:
I was always critical of the Hammond blog once he became employed by the Kings, but I don't think I claimed that he was being censored.

My beef was that the Kings fed him what they wanted in order to set the agenda on certain players during the Terry Murray years. I think many people on here considered Hammond to be gospel and stopped using their eyes when watching the team play, instead relying on "Hammond said" to support any argument.

The blog became a PR tool once the Kings took over. Doesn't mean he was censored per se, but information he was given was provided for a specific reason.

Rosen has stepped in with the team coming off of the '12 Cup. There haven't been any controversies and no "liked" players to start crapping on so the fans don't care as much when they are let go. He is blogging for them in an era where it's tough to question management because there isn't anything to question them about except, what, Rob Blake?!? Rosen is the perfect guy for a Kings blog that is run by the Kings.

I'm glad Hammond is back covering the Kings without any possible conflict of interest issues hanging over him. My beef was never with Hammond specifically--aside from the fact that he should never be on television--but rather how many here on HF just ate up what the Kings were feeding him without remembering the fact that he was employed by the Kings and was the organizations mouthpiece.
Click to expand...

Rich had complete editorial control. He was not censored, nor was he given information selectively. He actually got the same access that the LA Times reporters had. Same goes for Jon Rosen now.

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? I'm guessing that the answer is no.
 
Never understood the lovefest for Hammond.....and the way that his 'followers' drooled over him like a bunch of groupies was beyond embarrassing. Watching him on TV would make me cringe every time.

Rosen is head and shoulders better than Bich.
 
FrozenRoyalty said:
Rich had complete editorial control. He was not censored, nor was he given information selectively. He actually got the same access that the LA Times reporters had. Same goes for Jon Rosen now.

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? I'm guessing that the answer is no.
Click to expand...

The point, Gann, is that Hammond reached a larger portion of the Kings fan base--at least the actively online fan base--than the Time's reporters since he was online with daily updates and, ultimately, employed by the Kings.

All of the information the Kings provide is, by definition, selective as they choose what to give to Hammond, Rosen et al. What happened here though is that the blog took off and, for the first time, Kings fans had some pretty dedicated coverage which, for all of my "complaining", is not a bad thing whatsoever.

The problem was that this new, more immense coverage led to blind subscription to the Hammond Gospel. "But Hammond said this" and "Hammond said that". Well, just because Hammond (The Kings) said "X", doesn't mean it is right. Outside of sharing news, the whole point of this message board is discourse on a variety of topics surrounding the LA Kings. During the height of the Hammond era, you couldn't have a contrarian opinion around here because the blog held all of the answers and was infallible to many. The Kings could of lost a game 3-2 and some on here would of thought they won 3-2 if the blog said so after the game, even if they watched said game with their own eyes.

I'm not questioning Hammond's integrity and I fully understand, appreciate and commend you for backing a fellow journalist that you have known personally for some time; however, my opinion of the blog at its peak will not change with the only evidence I need having come from living through the Cult of Hammond on this board.
 
BigKing said:
The point, Gann, is that Hammond reached a larger portion of the Kings fan base--at least the actively online fan base--than the Time's reporters since he was online with daily updates and, ultimately, employed by the Kings.

All of the information the Kings provide is, by definition, selective as they choose what to give to Hammond, Rosen et al. What happened here though is that the blog took off and, for the first time, Kings fans had some pretty dedicated coverage which, for all of my "complaining", is not a bad thing whatsoever.

The problem was that this new, more immense coverage led to blind subscription to the Hammond Gospel. "But Hammond said this" and "Hammond said that". Well, just because Hammond (The Kings) said "X", doesn't mean it is right. Outside of sharing news, the whole point of this message board is discourse on a variety of topics surrounding the LA Kings. During the height of the Hammond era, you couldn't have a contrarian opinion around here because the blog held all of the answers and was infallible to many. The Kings could of lost a game 3-2 and some on here would of thought they won 3-2 if the blog said so after the game, even if they watched said game with their own eyes.

I'm not questioning Hammond's integrity and I fully understand, appreciate and commend you for backing a fellow journalist that you have known personally for some time; however, my opinion of the blog at its peak will not change with the only evidence I need having come from living through the Cult of Hammond on this board.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to the following that Rich had. I was only referring to the claim that 1) The Kings only gave HIM carefully selected information, and; 2) By obvious implication, that his coverage became inherently biased or compromised because of that.

Regarding point #2...that's the implication I got from your comment. If you're not saying that, perhaps you should clarify, especially given that a lot of people claim he was nothing more than a shill for the Kings/AEG.

If anything, Rich (along with the LA Times reporters) had MORE access to information and was fed more information by the Kings than the rest of the media (yes, they usually leave the rest of the media out when it comes to the big stories when they break...we hear about it after they do).

BTW: more evidence that he was independent and strived to maintain his journalistic integrity is the fact that he resigned after the NHL forced the Kings to remove his interview with Kevin Westgarth about the lockout from the Kings' web site.
 
BigKing said:
The point, Gann, is that Hammond reached a larger portion of the Kings fan base--at least the actively online fan base--than the Time's reporters since he was online with daily updates and, ultimately, employed by the Kings.

All of the information the Kings provide is, by definition, selective as they choose what to give to Hammond, Rosen et al. What happened here though is that the blog took off and, for the first time, Kings fans had some pretty dedicated coverage which, for all of my "complaining", is not a bad thing whatsoever.

The problem was that this new, more immense coverage led to blind subscription to the Hammond Gospel. "But Hammond said this" and "Hammond said that". Well, just because Hammond (The Kings) said "X", doesn't mean it is right. Outside of sharing news, the whole point of this message board is discourse on a variety of topics surrounding the LA Kings. During the height of the Hammond era, you couldn't have a contrarian opinion around here because the blog held all of the answers and was infallible to many. The Kings could of lost a game 3-2 and some on here would of thought they won 3-2 if the blog said so after the game, even if they watched said game with their own eyes.

I'm not questioning Hammond's integrity and I fully understand, appreciate and commend you for backing a fellow journalist that you have known personally for some time; however, my opinion of the blog at its peak will not change with the only evidence I need having come from living through the Cult of Hammond on this board.
Click to expand...

BTW: By saying that the Kings gave Hammond information on a selective basis is very deceiving, based on your definition, given the fact that every sports team (pro, college) provides information the same way. It's not like the Kings are doing anything differently from anyone else in that regard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom