How to get social like Bob McKenzie

Part of what we like doing at Pucks and Recreation is chatting with cool, interesting people in hockey media. Everyone has a story to tell — and not to get too meta here, but that includes the storytellers themselves. We’re always happy when we get a chance to talk shop with our peers and idols, the people who make the media landscape the wonderful place it is.

So we were really, really happy to chat with TSN’s hockey insider and media icon Bob McKenzie.

McKenzie’s track record speaks for itself and his work is required reading/listening/viewing/Twitter stalking for hockey fans. Even better, he’s an absolute joy to talk to, the kind of gracious, open and thoughtful person that makes for an ideal interview guest. We caught up with him a few weeks before the 2016-17 season began to pick his brain on social media, the value of context, Las Vegas expansion and the evolution of hockey reporting. Enjoy!

Introducing Bob McKenzie, a.k.a. Bobby McBoatface

Joe St. Germain: Thank you, first and foremost, for taking the time to do this. Let’s jump right in: I’ve gotta tell you, I was a huge fan over the summer of your Twitter and Bobby Margarita, Bobby McBoatface, I loved it. How was your summer vacation?

Bob McKenzie: It was great, it was a tremendous summer in Ontario. The weather was great, you know, and it was nice to get some downtime and have some fun, but now it’s hard back at it and it’s another season upon us.

JSG: Makes sense. So this is, I think, one of the things I wanted to focus on most: We’ve got guys across hockey — Roberto Luongo, Paul Bissonnette, Tyler Seguin, Phil Kessel, etc. — they’ve been using [Twitter] to give us glimpses into their lives as people, their senses of humor, you know, what they do in their off time. Which I think is nice because NHLers traditionally have a reputation for being safe and predictable. In your mind, do you think that perception is starting to change?

Bob: Yeah I don’t think there’s any question that a player can drastically change the perception of him in the community and the market. Luongo would be a classic case — Luongo was always perceived to be sort of a serious, brooding, introverted guy who people didn’t really know or understand, and maybe didn’t warm up to him as much. Then all of a sudden he obviously embarked on the Twitter thing — and for a while there was some anonymity involved — and people realized that Strombone was actually Roberto Luongo. And he was funny and he was self-deprecating and he provided a completely different dimension than what anybody else could have ever possibly imagined he was all about. Suddenly, he becomes a beloved figure because of the persona that he put out there. So, absolutely.

I think that’s true with Paul Bissonnette, who’s been terrific on Twitter over the years with some really funny stuff. So yeah, it’s a great way for people to do that — and those guys would be the first to tell you too that when you put yourself out there like that, you’re also opening yourself up, because Twitter and social media can be a nasty, dark place at times. So you’ve gotta be able to filter that out or recognize that that all goes with the territory as well.

JSG: Yeah, that makes sense. What I find interesting, as you were describing it: The nice thing, I think, is that it kind of runs the full spectrum of superstar to role player, so to speak. Which I think is really cool, because you sort of see the old perception of like “Oh I really want to know what my favorite player, a superstar player, is up to!” But a guy like Paul Bissonnette who — I mean, I don’t mean to be unkind to him, but he’s not exactly in the same [superstar] caliber — he’s still is able to connect with people in sort of a deeper way. I think that’s really cool.

Bob: Yeah, and I think that’s always been the nature of hockey, too. A lot of the tough guys and guys that are on the so-called lower end of the food chain have been some of the more intriguing possibilities that people automatically gravitate toward. They’re smart, they’re funny, they’ve got insight, and having a platform allows them to show a different dimension than what the public sees during the game or in the strict confines of their job.

JSG: To that end: Do you think the NHL has an opportunity to start doing more to take even greater advantage of this? To start promoting the game’s personalities, team personalities? If so, what do you think they could be doing?

Bob: Well, I don’t know specifically what the NHL should be doing or has been doing. I’m sure they’ve been doing a lot — their social media presence is high, and I think they want to capitalize on the fact that they do have personalities and colorful guys and good people. I think hockey’s always done that to some degree. And people are gonna say “Oh, well, yeah, but the culture is so restrictive” — and it is, but you know what? In some ways it’s good that it is. I realize that you don’t want to constrict people so much that they show no emotion, but a lot of the values that are at the core of hockey culture are not bad values, you know? It’s team ahead of individual. It’s easy for everybody on social media, fans and media alike, to say “Oh, everybody needs to to celebrate their individualism” — and that’s true, and we do like it, but building a hockey team is also about subjugating individuality for the good of the team. And I think there’s a common sense level where it doesn’t need to carry over to some ridiculous degree … but a lot of those values of tamping down things for the team can be of benefit to a hockey team, so it cuts both ways.

Breaking down what’s breaking

JSG: While we’re sort of still on the subject of Twitter, I’ve gotta tell you: For my money, you are still THE guy for breaking news in the NHL. Which, again, I don’t say to shamelessly flatter as much as I’d love to, but: We’ve for a while now been in a world where, absent definitive news or concrete news on things, we’ve started to see things like Podium Watch during the lockout or the tracking of private jets during Mike Babcock’s coaching decision start to fill the void, I guess you would say. So I’m curious what you think on sort of that balance: Is the push to sort of gather and disseminate information having more of a deleterious effect on the news cycle, or is just that eagerness and speculation part of the fun?

Bob: Well, yes. First off, thanks for the kind words … You know, it’s a very competitive thing because there’s so many people, beat writers, I mean, even the agents who represent the players now have become their own news-breaking entities on Twitter. And teams themselves more than ever want to guard whatever information they’ve got because they want to make as big a splash as they can on their Twitter and their social media and on their website. So everybody’s in competition, and there’s a lot of really good people — hockey writers and websites, you name it, networks — so there’s never been more people breaking news and being on top of things.

I think a lot of the news-breaking stuff gets overblown a little, too, because a lot of times when you break something, five minutes later there’s a release on it anyway, so that’s sort of … the old scoops, in the old days, if you had something — if you were a newspaper reporter, and your paper came out that morning with a scoop in it, nobody could top that scoop until the next day.

JSG: Right.

Bob: So you got to really bask in the glory of your victory. Now a lot of these are pretty hollow victories because, you know, two minutes after you report something the release comes out and it’s quickly forgotten. So you — as somebody who wants to know what’s going on, as a reporter and wants to tell people what’s going on — I think you need to find a lot more layers of information. You need to tell people WHY things are happening, not just that they happen. It’s not enough just to say “So and so got traded.” Why is he being traded? And give some sort of assessment of it. So I think, information and entertainment, those things never go out of style, and a lot of really fun things have happened on Twitter.

But a lot of stuff, I mean … the other hard part of this job in terms of breaking news is now, whether it’s a contract negotiation or a potential trade or a potential signing, a lot of us end up doing play-by-play. And they were never really meant to be done play-by-play in real time. Now, it’s fascinating for a fan to be able to have that kind of access, to know that the negotiation is going well or it’s not going well, or it looks like it’s gonna get done. But if you report that and it it doesn’t get done, people are saying “You told me it was almost done” — well, yeah, but we’re also now reporting things in real time. And in real time, you know, things go south, and things that look like they were done don’t get done. Suddenly, people might say “Well, you look foolish because you said it was on its way to being done.” Well, it WAS on its way to being done. And that happened with me with Mike Babcock. Mike Babcock wasn’t coming to Toronto. I basically said that because at that point in time he wasn’t coming to Toronto — he changed his mind. When you’re doing these things in real time, after the fact you can be judged kind of harshly because not everything goes exactly the way it looks like it’s going to go during the negotiation or during a situation where there’s a lot of choice involved.

Yes, and?

JSG: Yeah, that makes sense. It’s interesting: I wanna circle back on what you said real quick on explaining why things are important, because I think a lot of times, even in my experience as a consumer of news of ANY kind, I think context is something where it’s like “OK, I get that this is an important story, but I would really love to understand why.” I think that’s a really big thing.

Bob: Yeah and again, sometimes it’s hard to say precisely why. I mean, the P.K. Subban trade was a classic case of that. I mean, all I could tell people was, “Listen, we knew that there was a chance that P.K. Subban could be traded.” And yet, when we said that — and even when Marc Bergevin, to some degree said it at the draft, that he’s listening to offers — that doesn’t mean he’s planning to trade him … he could have shut that right down. But he didn’t shut it down, because he knew he was contemplating trading P.K. Subban. And yet … even when we reported “a P.K. Subban trade is not likely, but it’s certainly not out of the question,” there was a huge backlash. Because a lot of times with people now — people who aren’t necessarily reporters but are on Twitter, and guys who are big with information — they end up wanting a reinforcement of their own values or beliefs. There were so many people who said “I love P.K. Subban, he’s one of the best defensemen in the National Hockey League, the Montreal Canadiens can’t possibly trade him, I think this is a terrible idea” — you can’t confuse your opinions or your view of what you think they should do with what’s actually happening and what they might do. And a lot of people do that as well, and that sort of creates a runaway train on social media as well.

JSG: Oh yeah, I’ve seen that happen a lot … God, trade deadline deals especially, it’s like “Oh, this doesn’t make sense to ME — I don’t know anything about what’s going on there, but it doesn’t make sense to ME.”

Bob: Yeah, and then the next step is those people say “Therefore: it can’t happen. This will never happen.” Well, you know, you’re not the barometer of what’s actually going to happen, you’re the barometer of your own views on it and what you think should happen, and there’s a wide gulf between the two. And I try to deal more in the reality of what could happen and why it might happen.

There’s no “I” in TSN

JSG: I’ve got one question my editor-in-chief wanted me to ask you. So: A few years back, speaking of Roberto Luongo, you scooped Darren Dreger on the deal and less than a month later he was at TSN. So how does it feel to know you guys are officially the Golden State Warriors of hockey media and how much do you lord that over him still?

Bob: [Laughs] I don’t know about that — I don’t lord anything over Darren because there were lots of times he beat me on some big stories. I remember when Joe Thornton was traded from the Boston Bruins to the San Jose Sharks, that one stung. So yeah, he has lots of victories — and same for all of us within the business, it doesn’t matter who you work for. You win some, you lose some, there’s plenty of news to go around for everybody. But I always knew and respected Darren in terms of the job he did. I knew that he was a real hard guy to compete against, so when we had the opportunity to expand our roster and we needed somebody it was a logical choice for us to try to get him. It’s great to have him and Pierre LeBrun as fellow insiders on TSN Hockey.

JSG: I find it coincidental that Pierre LeBrun sounds like LeBron — I feel like it really reinforces the basketball narrative here, which is fantastic.

Bob: [Laughs]

JSG: Alright I’ve got one last thing for you before I let you go. Just want to talk real quick about Las Vegas. As you might have heard, they’re getting an NHL team. There’s been a lot of doubts — I feel like more doubts than anything expressed about whether or not a team will be able to succeed there. From what you’ve seen, from what you’ve heard … How valid are those doubts? Are they valid or are they overblown?

Bob: I think they’re probably overblown. There’s only one equation for me as to the viability of any NHL franchise, and it doesn’t matter what market it’s in — outside obviously of the Torontos, Montreals, Vancouver, New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago and what have you. That equation is: Do you have an owner with very deep pockets, lots of money, who’s fully committed long-term and has the financial wherewithal to sustain losses? Because it doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about Florida or Carolina or Arizona, San Jose, even at times St. Louis has had a spotty history. Chicago, before Patrick Kane and Jonathan Toews showed up, was a ghost town in terms of hockey. Pittsburgh even … You know, the list goes on and on of even good hockey cities where the team was in dire straits, financially or otherwise, and it really comes back to “Do you have an owner who’s got a lot of money and is fully committed to this?”

And as long as you do, then that franchise is viable. But the minute that owner doesn’t have the money or doesn’t have the will to lose money, then it gets called into question. And my attitude going in is that Bill Foley looks like a guy who’s got lots of money and looks like he’s fully committed to the project, but obviously the telltale sign on a franchise like Las Vegas won’t be now, it’ll be three, five, seven, 10 years down the road. You’ve gotta go through the ups and downs of good seasons, bad seasons, and the novelty wears off and then you see how fully committed the fans are and how fully committed the owner is.

JSG: Awesome. That makes sense to me. Well that is all I had for you — thank you so much, Bob, for taking the time to do this. Honestly, this was tremendous. Much appreciated!

Bob: OK great, appreciate it, thanks.