A firestorm erupted in the hockey podcast world after private text messages surfaced, appearing to show the host of “Empty Netters” disparaging the creators of the popular new series, “Heated Rivalry.” The messages, published by an online outlet, allegedly depicted the host calling the show’s creators “losers” and “cowards.”
The texts reportedly criticized “Heated Rivalry” for being overly focused on inclusivity, suggesting it was created to appease a specific online audience. The host also allegedly expressed a refusal to acknowledge the show, even while his own podcast benefited from discussing it.
Ironically, “Empty Netters” had experienced a significant boost in viewership directly linked to their coverage of “Heated Rivalry.” Several of their most-watched videos centered around reactions to and reviews of the series, demonstrating a clear symbiotic relationship.
The revelation ignited immediate backlash from fans of “Heated Rivalry,” who accused “Empty Netters” of hypocrisy. Many pointed to the irony of feigning support for LGBTQ+ inclusion while privately belittling those who were actively creating inclusive content.
The host of “Empty Netters,” Dan Powers, swiftly responded with an 18-minute video addressing the controversy. He vehemently denied the claims, asserting that the texts had been deliberately taken out of context and misrepresented.
Powers explained that the messages were sent *before* he and his brother had even watched “Heated Rivalry,” and were part of a private conversation with another podcaster who was also a fan of the show. He expressed deep disappointment that this individual would orchestrate what he described as an “attack.”
He presented the full text exchange, offering his interpretation of the conversation and attempting to clarify his original intent. Powers insisted his comments were not directed at the creators of “Heated Rivalry” but were a reaction to broader trends within online discourse.
Powers concluded by emphasizing his genuine appreciation for the series and his dismay at the situation. He expressed particular frustration with the outlet that published the texts, questioning how a platform dedicated to the LGBTQ+ community could engage in what he considered harmful and divisive behavior.
He pleaded for understanding, stating his commitment to honesty and authenticity, and fearing the loss of trust resulting from the misconstrued messages. The incident has sparked a wider conversation about authenticity, inclusivity, and the complexities of navigating public perception in the age of social media.
