Toronto Star reporter Christopher Hutsul, the reporter who wrote a piece on Eklund for yesterday's paper, sent me a note responding to my Monday post that took his article to task:
My apologies for not attributing the "who is eklund and why is he blogging" quote to your site... I was under the impression that that very phrase was somewhat ubiquitous. Thanks for calling me on it.As for your your other comments, I really didn't mean to discredit Eklund's dissenting bloggers by not including direct quotes. For the sake of efficiency, I attempted to summarize some of the sentiments expressed by Eklund's non-believers. Besides that, I didn't want to tap into the sense of "vendetta" that Eklund's rival bloggers seem to have. Tensions really seem to run high in this lot... so it didn't seem to be appropriate to voice the opinions of those with vested interests, professional jealousy, and/or good old fashioned bones to pick.
As I said to Hutsul in an email response, apology accepted. And it's to his credit that he responded at all, something many reporters (but not all) wouldn't ever think of doing.
In the end, it wouldn't have been terribly hard to edit this piece. Just embed a few links to folks who have debunked Eklund and there wouldn't have been a problem. If you're concerned about anonymity, just follow up with the blogger by email to confirm an identity.
As always, click here for my ever-expanding Eklund file.
