"Standing Behind" Loretta Hunt
by bobthewriter on Apr 5, 2009 8:07 PM EDT
Email
PrintPromoted to the front page from the FanPosts by Luke Thomas. I'm late to the party promoting this, but the discussion in the comments was too good to pass up.
Okay, I finally read Loretta Hunt's story over at Sherdog.com, and here's my two cents, from a guy who has worked his entire adult life as a reporter and/or editor for daily newspapers:
If Sherdog.com is "standing behind" Loretta's article, that's a huge sign that Sherdog.com shouldn't be considered a legitimate news outlet, whether they report for ESPN.com or not. Hunt's "story" wouldn't have lasted five minutes in an editorial meeting with anyone with a legitimate journalism background.
You want to report on a possible controversial tactic by a person, company or governmental agency? Then you'd better get someone on the record. You don't rely on anonymous sources. You get a source ON. THE. RECORD. You do it, or you don't have a story. That requires some skill as an interviewer and a reporter. It also means your source has to have a backbone. It's a difference (no insult intended) between a reporter and a blogger. It's a difference between a legitimate media outlet and "hey, look at us, we're important!" Sherdog.com.
I don't care for Dana's language in his now-famous Vlog about Hunt and her sources. But the words Dana used are sadly obscuring the fact that Loretta Hunt did a sloppy, drive-by hitjob on the UFC -- and she's not going to have to apologize for it.
The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.
143 comments
|
18 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Interesting
Well, in defense of bloggers, blogging doesn’t have to be about interviewing at all. And we try to avoid it as much as possible. There’s a functionality in media to reporting we aren’t really interested in reproducing here. We don’t feel the need to do so and it doesn’t fit the model of what we’re producing.
But your point about being on the record is interesting. Do you mind going into that further? Given the repercussions that would likely come with going on the record, is that just something that has to be risked in order to run a story of that magnitude? Also, mind talking a little more about experience? I’m curious.
reply is below. sorry i didn’t drop it in here. my bad.
by bobthewriter on Apr 4, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Completely disagree!
Anonymous sources are cited all the time in investigative journalism at a much higher level than Sherdog and MMA.
Seymour Hersh broke the Abgu Grahib story using anonymous sources.
CIA operative, Valeria Plame, was outed with anonymous sources.
Or how about deep throat.
As a student of history and journalism how can I take your position seriously?
watchkalibrun.com
another example
Selena Roberts of Sports Illustrated used anonymous sources to find the positive steroid test of A-Rod. She is totally a fake reporter.
watchkalibrun.com
haha! si.com is a total blog!
"I’m not going to stop yelling because that would mean, I lost the fight!"-Kenny Powers
by ekc on Apr 5, 2009 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions
You do realize that once again that was an example of a source leading to the information not just them repeating an anonomous story they heard right? There seems to be a lot of confusion here about the difference in using a anonomous source to help research a news story and using an anonomous source as the actual story.
SI.com: One hundred four players tested positive for steroids in the survey testing of 2003. Alex Rodriguez is now the only known name among those 104 players, leading to some speculation that he was somehow “singled out.” Can you explain why we know only of his inclusion on the list?
Roberts: David Epstein and I were working on a profile of Alex — he was a staple of the news this past year, whether because of Madonna or his broken marriage or the Yankees’ dive in the ’08 standings — when we began hearing rumors about steroid use. You hear a lot of things in this business, so we went about our due diligence in nailing down the truth: Was this rumor or real? In a meticulous process, we verified and re-verified our information, because this is a human being here, so you absolutely do not want to be wrong. We made a decision to confront Alex with the evidence we had regarding his positive test, and give him a chance to explain. He chose not to.
SI.com: Had the survey samples from 2003 been destroyed in a timely fashion, as they were supposed to be under the drug testing plan, there would have been no seizure by the federal investigators and thus no physical evidence that led to Rodriguez. Where does the responsibility fall on what seems to be an extraordinary breach of duty?
Roberts: I couldn’t pretend to know what is going through Alex’s head, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he is not only angry at the news, but also at the Players Association executives for not destroying the testing information. Why didn’t they burn the samples and put the results in a wood chipper? They’ve never answered to that issue. Our reporting, I believe, was as revealing of the union as it was of Alex. There are a hundred players on that list who have to wonder: Am I the next to be named?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/selena_roberts/02/08/arod.q-a/index.html
by who me on Apr 5, 2009 9:47 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Am I wrong here in saying that she didn’t have any evidence other than 4 highly placed anonymous sources? That’s still 3 more than 1 Loretta used on the one point in question in this article.
His name is on a list of 104 players that tested positive that has been seized by the federal government. They did have more than just those sources and they went through multiple levels of verification.
by who me on Apr 6, 2009 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
This list has never been released leaked to my understanding. A-Rod just accepted that the anonymous sources were well placed and admitted the use in his apology.
I think the story is more than sound as I’m pretty sure the sources were in different places like the Player’s Union office, the Federal Prosecutors Office, etc. but it still seems like it was the story of’ A-Rod is on the list’. What named source has confirmed this other than A-Rod after the fact?
there is a difference ...
between stories meticulously researched over months (like the A-Rod steroid story or Watergate or Abu Grahib) and what Loretta Hunt did.
and in the instance of Abu Grahib, there was documentation pouring in all over the place in the form of photos, etc.) … an anonymous source can be hugely helpful IF they lead you to an on-the-record source.
by bobthewriter on Apr 5, 2009 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions
You do know that the Deep throat thing was covered in the discussion already? You also should probably of realized that the same exact logic goes for the Abu Grahib and Valeria Plame stories too. It wasn’t the anonomous source that was big it was the anonomous source pointing reporters towards real factual information that they could use to support their case. Hard to call photographs from Abu Grahib an “anonomous source”, that is factual backing for a story. An anonomous source that tells you a story is just gossiping, an anonomous source that tells you where to go to find factual information or people who are willing to go on the record to back up their story is giving you something you can use.
Those were just prominent examples. How many times do you read a political piece that quotes “senior officials” for quotes in prominent political pieces.
Or how about for MMA reporting when MMA Junkie, 5oz of Pain or MMA Weekly, say “a source close to the camp” That is the exact same as an anonymous source, and I don’t see people attacking those news outlets.
watchkalibrun.com
would you consider those sites more news or rumor sites? i’d argue rumors … different animal. i’ll probably come back and go into it, but right now i’m trying to watch the fights, dude! lol
by bobthewriter on Apr 5, 2009 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Here are some more illegitimate journalists for citing unnamed sources in reporting a story
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090405/SPT0102/304050038/1062/SPT
watchkalibrun.com
You are still completly missing the point.
Citing sources, Fox Sports reported this morning that Miller was picked up in a private plane to meet with Arizona athletic director Jim Livengood in Albuquerque, N.M.
They have a picture of the guy getting off the airplane, their source there led them to actual proof. They aren’t breaking any news nor are they accusing anyone of any wrong doing at all they are just pointing out that the guy was there for a meeting and they heard a rumor the deal was for 15 million. This isn’t a researched article uncovering a story it’s just a bit of rumor/fluff news.
from Sam Caplan
A few points of clarification; Hunt’s article did use anonymous sources but she also quoted people such as Ken Pavia and Monte Cox in the story. Even if she had used anonymous sources on an exclusive basis, it still shouldn’t have been an issue. Woodward and Bernstein didn’t reveal the identity of "Deep Throat." Matt Drudge didn’t name a source for the Monica Lewinsky story. The reporting of both stories proved to be fairly accurate.
Furthermore, when Iole reported his story on Randy Couture’s UFC salary, the crux of his story was built around a lone anonymous source. When Iole received criticism he asked people to trust him. I am willing to take Iole at his word that he had a valid source. Why doesn’t he have the same trust for Loretta Hunt?
watchkalibrun.com
Already talked about that in this thread:
If you take out the anonomous source then you take out the actual accusations of wrong doing and just have a statement that the UFC isn’t offering managers special creditentials to get backstage which is a non-issue by comparison.
Having named quotes in the story doesn’t change the fact that she accused them of serious wrongdoing without having any kind of proof or named source to back that specific accusation up with.
As has been pointed out the importance of Deep Throat wasn’t that he was an anonomous source for quotes it’s that he was a research source for Woodward and Bernstein and led them to the hard information that broke the story open. If an anonomous source told Hunt to go talk to someone that could back the story up or provided phisical information then the you have something that goes somewhere.
As for Matt Drudge, he’s the Perez Hilton of political reporting, lets not confuse him with a real journalist. It should also be pointed out that Drudge’s story was that Newsweek was sitting on it.
by who me on Apr 5, 2009 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I am familiar with the AP handbook as well but that doesn’t change the fact that reporters routinely report stories using anonymous sources.
The question is for publications when they print or report such stories, they have to be confident in the source and keeping the source’s anonymity. Usually the editors know who the source (s) are and that’s why they sign off on them
Here’s another example of a reporter, reporting a story using only anonymous sources
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1oiQwaqyOY
watchkalibrun.com
here's a better argument ...
The Associated Press recently revised its policy for anonymous sources, so let’s break this down (and I will freely admit their anonymous source policy is much more lenient than any I’ve ever worked under. I personally wouldn’t be comfortable with their policy.):
Transparency is critical to our credibility with the public and our subscribers. Whenever possible, we pursue information on the record. When a newsmaker insists on background or off-the-record ground rules, we must adhere to a strict set of guidelines, enforced by AP news managers. Under AP’s rules, material from anonymous sources may be used only if:
1. The material is information and not opinion or speculation, and is vital to the news report.
2. The information is not available except under the conditions of anonymity imposed by the source. This is the telltale clause. In MOST cases, the information is available through other avenues. It just takes more work by the reporter.
3. The source is reliable, and in a position to have accurate information.
Reporters who intend to use material from anonymous sources must get approval from their news manager before sending the story to the desk. The manager is responsible for vetting the material and making sure it meets AP guidelines. The manager must know the identity of the source, and is obligated, like the reporter, to keep the source’s identity confidential. Only after they are assured that the source material has been vetted should copy editors allow it to be transmitted.
Reporters should proceed with interviews on the assumption they are on the record. If the source wants to set conditions, these should be negotiated at the start of the interview. At the end of the interview, the reporter should try once again to move some or all of the information back on the record. In other words, bust your ass to get the source on the record.
Before agreeing to use anonymous source material, the reporter should ask how the source knows the information is accurate, ensuring that the source has direct knowledge. Reporters may not agree to a source’s request that AP not pursue additional comment or information.
Now watch this … here’s where Hunt really screwed the pooch on her story.
The AP routinely seeks and requires more than one source. Stories should be held while attempts are made to reach additional sources for confirmation or elaboration. In rare cases, one source will be sufficient — when material comes from an authoritative figure whose detail makes it clear and certain that the information is accurate.
We must explain in the story why the source requested anonymity. And, when it’s relevant, we must describe the source’s motive for disclosing the information. If the story hinges on documents, as opposed to interviews, the reporter must describe how the documents were obtained, at least to the extent possible.
The story also must provide attribution that establishes the source’s credibility; simply quoting “a source” is not allowed. We should be as descriptive as possible: “according to top White House aides” or “a senior official in the British Foreign Office.” The description of a source must never be altered without consulting the reporter.
When appropriate, attribution in the lead should read, “The Associated Press has learned,” to be followed by more specific attribution in the next paragraph. This construction must be used only for rock-solid information from reliable sources, or where the AP has obtained authoritative written documentation.
We must not say that a person declined comment when he or she is already quoted anonymously. And we should not attribute information to anonymous sources when it is obvious or well known. We should just state the information as fact.
Stories that use anonymous sources must carry a reporter’s byline. If a reporter other than the bylined staffer contributes anonymous material to a story, that reporter should be given credit as a contributor to the story.
And all complaints and questions about the authenticity or veracity of anonymous material — from inside or outside the AP — must be promptly brought to the news manager’s attention.
Not everyone understands “off the record” or “on background” to mean the same things. Before any interview in which any degree of anonymity is expected, there should be a discussion in which the ground rules are set explicitly.
These are the AP’s definitions:
On the record. The information can be used with no caveats, quoting the source by name.
Off the record. The information cannot be used for publication.
Background. The information can be published but only with the conditions set forth by the source. Generally, the sources do not want their names published but will agree to a description of their position. AP reporters should object vigorously when a source wants to brief a group of reporters on background and try to persuade the source to put the briefing on the record. These background briefings have become routine in many venues, especially with government officials.
Deep background. The information can be used but without attribution. The source does not want to be identified in any way, even on condition of anonymity.
In general, information obtained under any of these circumstances can be pursued with other sources to be placed on the record.
ANONYMOUS SOURCES IN MATERIAL FROM OTHER NEWS SOURCES:
Reports from other news organizations based on anonymous sources require the most careful scrutiny when we consider them for our report.
AP’s basic rules for anonymous-source material apply to pickups as they do in our own reporting: The material must be factual and obtainable no other way. The story must be truly significant and newsworthy. Use of sourced material must be authorized by a manager. The story must be balanced, and comment must be sought.
Further, before picking up such a story we must make a bona fide effort to get it on the record, or, at a minimum, confirm it through our own sources. We shouldn’t hesitate to hold the story if we have any doubts. If the source material is ultimately used, it must be attributed to the originating member and note their description of their sources.
by bobthewriter on Apr 5, 2009 11:24 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
For the record ...
this info comes from the Associated Press Managing Editors’ Web site.
by bobthewriter on Apr 5, 2009 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions
It depends on what the quotes are about, if you are just talking about something that may of happened behind the scenes or a bit about something possible, if you are going to accuse someone or some entity of actual wrong doing it’s something entirely different. There is nothing wrong with anonomous sources or (semi-anonomous ones like “senior officials”) but the issue here isn’t them being used it’s what they are being used for. Look at it this way if you saw a story that said “sources say Fedor to talk with UFC” you would think oh what a interesting rumor but if you saw one that said “sources say Fedor is a crackhead” you would probably want more to go by for an accusation like that.
Oh and I see people attacking Junkie, 5oz and MMA Weekly all the time too. That goes with the territory. Of course no one is going to gripe about an anonomous source over something like a guy getting close to signing a fight or possibly being injured but there would be if they were using an anonomous source to accuse a fighter or his camp of intentional wrong doing.
Luke, no disrespect meant toward bloggers or blogging. As most people realize, journalism as we know it is changing, and blogs are a great way to break news, talk up events, do interviews, etc. But as far as passing off blogging as reportage (which is what Loretta Hunt seems to have done here), there are far fewer standards for a blog post than what should go into an actual news story.
Being on the record: If you don’t have a source, what you have is gossip. Few, if any, legitimate editors or producers will allow information from an anonymous source to be used in a news story. There are exceptions to this: Deep Throat, the inside source who helped bring down Richard Nixon, is perhaps the most famous. But what people don’t realize about Deep Throat is that he provided leads — where to go to GET the information on the record. Once the information is on the record, the anonymous source is moot.
The anonymous source is helpful if his or her information leads to 1) written documentation; or 2) a person who will speak on the record. But an anonymous source should never be the primary source in a news story. One common exception: Breaking news (which Hunt’s story was not) that is time-sensitive can sometimes have an anonymous source. Most media outlets have written guidelines for dealing with anonymous sources.
Hope that wasn’t too long-winded. As for my experience, I started as a sports correspondent for a daily paper when I was 16. Been a reporter and editor at a fair share of newspapers — spent a year on assignment in NYC following 9/11, doing some reportage for a national newspaper chain, won multiple awards for my work in news, sports and commentary.
by bobthewriter on Apr 4, 2009 12:43 PM EDT reply actions 5 recs
what about the fear factor
What are the extenuating circumstances surrounding the on-the-record requirement? What if there is legitimate reason to believe that sources who go on the record will suffer retaliation, potentially tantamount to destroying their careers and businesses?
I think his point is that if that’s the case, and the source won’t go on record, you don’t have a legit story. “Anonymous sources” can be fabricated. I would even suggest that ESPN does it with some regularity.
"I hit [Evensen], and you could just see it in his head. He went, 'Oh, man. We don't have to do this anymore. I'm good. Thanks for having me. I'm going to go home now." -Pat "The Real Techno Viking" Berry
I dunno Bob...
I’ll say one thing. Sports journalism tends to rely a LOT on anonymous sources now. And that goes to the mainstream. “a source within the organization” is used constantly in mainstream sports coverage for news that was given by an anonymous source who doesn’t want to face potential repercussions. The steroid-era baseball stuff has been FULL of anonymous sources being quoted by the mainstream press.
And there is a lot to be said for the fact that the UFC created this situation where no one can go on the record because they will have their access cut off and for an agent or manager that is death in this sport. I’m not saying Loretta was right or wrong, simply saying that a) it’s not as rare as you’re making it sound for a mainstream sports outlet to publish something with an anonymous source and B) the UFC does bear some responsibility in creating an environment where no one can go on the record for fear of having their career more or less ended,.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
http://CurseOfRonKarkovice.blogspot.com/
by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 4, 2009 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually, in most places it is pretty rare. Saying ESPN does it doesn’t give a lot of credence IMO … because they are a huge mixture of news and commentary. And with an animal like ESPN, sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference. There would have to be extreme circumstance before I’d even consider it. This isn’t one of those times.
I'm just curious
maybe I missed it but is your background in editing sports specifically because it’s not just ESPN (as a matter of fact I’m curious why you acted like I specifically said ESPN when I never mentioned them)
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
http://CurseOfRonKarkovice.blogspot.com/
by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 4, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Hit post earlier than I meant...
what I’m getting at is that you seem to have assumed I meant ESPN because I said “mainstream” but really I was thinking more of print journalism…specifically stick and ball sports coverage. Local sports stories do, quite often, have the anonymous source situation. Chicago Sun-Times have used it for Cubs/Bears talk…NYT does it with Yankee stuff on a regular basis…etc.
I prefer the old NYT policy on these sources of:
a last resort when the story is of compelling public interest and the information is not available any other way.
It’s clear that this situation with the management access was not something Loretta cooked up as (much like Nate said) Gross and Meltzer have both said they heard the same thing. And a lot of people who are anti-loretta are ignoring that she did cover both sides of the story including specifically saying that fighters could still use their credentials to get management backstage.
God I wish I wasn’t spending so much time defending Loretta Hunt today…
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
http://CurseOfRonKarkovice.blogspot.com/
by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 4, 2009 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions
i think ...
the first thing i thought of when you said mainstream was Ed Werter going "sources close to the (insert team here) … i’ve actually got a long-term background in sportswriting and editing for daily newspapers. MOST of the time, directly using anonymous sources in a news/sports story is simply lazy reporting.
Here are my guidelines when teaching new sports reporters: 1) For a gamer (simply covering an event), report what happened first. Sidebar (no more than 400 words) with quotes from both sides; 2) Features (1,500-2,000 words), multiple sources (ideally five to six); 3) Controversy? All bases must be covered. CYA. Any info gleaned from an anonymous source must be corroborated by an on-the-record source or documentation. AT LEAST three sources. If there’s no way around using an anon. source, come see me.
Loretta Hunt had no compelling reason to run that story using anonymous sources to make her charges. She could have (and should have) waited until she got someone on the record. Using the old NYT standard you posted, I would say 1) the story wasn’t of compelling public interest and 2) the information was available another way.
My example would be this: Mr. Agent/Manager, do you have any correspondence between you and Zuffa that revokes or denies you a backstage credential?
If the answer is yes, I’d ask for a copy, then redact the name of the agent and fighter from the letter and publish the relevant information (a letter or e-mail like that from Zuffa likely exists if the company is barring agents from obtaining backstage credentials, and there is probably more than one).
If there’s not such a correspondence, or if I can’t get my hands on it, I keep working on it.
by bobthewriter on Apr 4, 2009 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Interesting...
I certainly see what you’re saying. I just DO personally thing this was of compelling public interest as it’s not like there haven’t been other stories of Zuffa taking certain liberties with fighter rights.
Regardless…I get what you’re saying and I’m glad to get the insight of someone beyond just a simple blogger such as I.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
http://CurseOfRonKarkovice.blogspot.com/
by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 4, 2009 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions
don't be modest :-)
you guys aren’t doing simple blogging here. whatever the hell you call it, you’re creating a very interesting news/blog/feature/multimedia hybrid … it’s quite compelling, as i’m sure you guys are aware. lol
thanks Bob
that’s flattering!
"the spirit of your average dumbass with more overblown rhetoric" OR "the self-appointed savior of MMA"
thanks an excellent point
I don’t doubt that Loretta wrote and Sherdog published this story prematurely. But that’s what happens when you declare war on a major media outlet in your vertical.
"the spirit of your average dumbass with more overblown rhetoric" OR "the self-appointed savior of MMA"
Sy Hersh?
The New Yorker’s legendary Seymour Hersh has written exposes using anonymous sources. He has been vindicated in almost every instance.
Of course other reporters such as Judy Miller and Robert Novack have misused anonymous sources and created serious legal difficulties for themselves and others.
I agree that having no on the record sources is a red flag that a story might be problematic, but when you have a powerful entity that refuses to speak to the media about negative stories AND you have a large group of intimidated sources who depend on said powerful entity then it can be reasonable to go to print with such a story.
The fact that Josh Gross and Dave Meltzer have both come out since Hunt’s story and confirmed that they have heard the same thing from fighter managers and agents lends credence to her story in my opinion.
The stupid part is that Dana’s explanation, sans the obscenities and bullying would have been a perfectly good response (via email) from a UFC PR person to give to Loretta in the first place and could have avoided much of the trouble.
"the spirit of your average dumbass with more overblown rhetoric" OR "the self-appointed savior of MMA"
by Kid Nate on Apr 4, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
but did Hersh use ONLY anonymous sources? (not being smart-alecky … i don’t know, and i’m admitting my ignorance.) i’d also argue that the New Yorker is a different animal than a daily newspaper or a blog that’s updated multiple times a day. its publication cycle is longer, and it has a better chance to get things nailed down … i can’t speak with any accuracy on a magazine’s rules about anonymous sources.
and i’m not saying her story is inaccurate, either. i’m saying the reporting was shoddy. in most newsrooms across the country, you have to get sources — usually multiple ones — on the record. i’ll come back with a few examples, but my wife is pushing me out the door to lunch. heh. back in a bit.
No...and neither did Loretta...
again I’m sounding like I’m defending her more than I want. but she cited several sources in addition to the anonymous sources.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
http://CurseOfRonKarkovice.blogspot.com/
by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 4, 2009 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Although...
Maybe I misread your comment. She cited anonymous sources on certain aspects which are different from the ones where the sources were on the record…so this point from me may be…um…pointless?
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
http://CurseOfRonKarkovice.blogspot.com/
by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 4, 2009 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions
you said it. :-)
seriously … if you’re going to bring that kind of charge, the source should have a name. there should be some sort of accountability for the reporter here. i’m not saying Loretta Hunt is making anything up. i’m saying she jumped the gun and didn’t do her job properly.
but that’s a key that’s wrong with journalists these days: in the rush to be first, you forget that it’s more important to be right — and to do the job the right way.
Well...
at the same time it’s journalists meeting public demand. Not that it’s right but you have to get the news out fast in today’s world or you die. It’s why newspapers are suffering so badly. Why wait til tomorrow morning to find out what I can find out in an hour. An hour? Why wait an hour if I can wait 30 minutes at this site. 30 minutes? Why wait 30 minutes? This site just ran it in 10….
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
http://CurseOfRonKarkovice.blogspot.com/
by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 4, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions
sure ...
but there are a lot of papers out there who AREN’T failing … mid- to small-market papers are doing fairly well. and the good ones have embraced online immediacy and multimedia, and incorporated stronger features/analysis into the print product instead of focusing on breaking news in the print product.
of course, don’t get me started on why papers are REALLY failing: they’re owned mainly by corporations these days, and they have to answer to stockholders instead of readers. (I’ve got a far longer essay on this, but it’s really got no place on this board.)
I'd be interested to read...
if you ever DO go into it somewhere.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
http://CurseOfRonKarkovice.blogspot.com/
by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 4, 2009 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions
no he didn't
that’s a good point.
"the spirit of your average dumbass with more overblown rhetoric" OR "the self-appointed savior of MMA"
I love me some Seymour Hersh. He broke My Lai, for Christ’s sake.
by Derek Suboticki on Apr 4, 2009 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Jay Glazer?
Pretty sure he has broken some pretty big NFL stories using anonymous sources. Then Chris Mortenson steals them.
The source of Mort's "breaking news"
Is stealing them from Schefter, Glazer, or making them up and later taking them down because they’re unsubstantiated bullshit.
"I hit [Evensen], and you could just see it in his head. He went, 'Oh, man. We don't have to do this anymore. I'm good. Thanks for having me. I'm going to go home now." -Pat "The Real Techno Viking" Berry
Has Dana blinded everybody!??! Its all in her article. Sure, she quoted some people anonymously, but Loretta did name sources. A direct quote from her article:
"Agent Ken Pavia, who has 55 athletes on his roster, said a cornerman is a crucial role that most managers or agents leave up to the pros.
"With the multiplicity of disciplines the fighters must be schooled in, their striking coach, their ground coach are needed in the corner," said Pavia, who was among those denied."
She directly quoted Ken Pavia as one of the managers who the UFC contacted denying credentials for, she directly quoted many other sources from the athletic commissions as well.
I have no idea why there is all this scepticism and criticism of Lorettas piece. I thought it was well put together and whilst sure, having some anonymous sources isnt ideal, I can understand why that would be there request and there were enough sources named to satisfy me.
We’re holding Loretta Hunt to unrealistically high standards are we not?
by GeeDub on Apr 5, 2009 1:06 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
And further to her actually quoting Ken Pavia, Sherdogs follow up article confirms that she directly quoted Ken Pavia:
“Ken Pavia is one agent recently denied access by the UFC. He spoke on the record in the article about why managers should be allowed backstage and why they should not have to apply as cornermen to be there.”
So again, even if you completely write off the anonymous sources, you still have the exact same story. All this talk about the article being based on anonymous sources is just plain false.
Why is quoting 1 manager not sufficient and why should Sherdog not be considered legitimate for backing Loretta?
by GeeDub on Apr 5, 2009 1:25 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
If you take out the anonomous source then you take out the actual accusations of wrong doing and just have a statement that the UFC isn’t offering managers special creditentials to get backstage which is a non-issue by comparison.
by who me on Apr 5, 2009 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well, that pretty much nails it.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
I disagree. Refusing manager(s) UFC issued credentials is the important issue as far as I am concerned. The opinion of managers who feel the UFC would prefer they werent around doesnt mean much to me at all. Many of them would have felt a bit of conflict between themselves and the UFC in the past anyways, just look at the Fitch situation. So thats not news to me, or not the important news anyway.
Pavias confirmation of his credentials being pulled is important, imo, as it allows us to ask more questions. “Did the UFC always issue managers credentials in the past?” “Why did the UFC pull Pavias cred?” “How many others are there”? “Will more managers have their creds pulled?” …..etc.
As well as that, it gives the UFC something factual that they can refute if they disagree with Pavia, something I noticed Dana did not do in his little outburst.
Dana said they didn’t ever give out special manager credentials. Here is what Dana told CindyO on the UG thread:
OK… just touched base w/DW. He said there has never been a “managers pass” granting managers/agents backstage access on fight night. He knows that on occasion his staff has let non-credentialed people borrow one of the extra generic passes/credentials they keep on hand in case one is lost, forgotten or damaged in order to get backstage, and sometimes the borrower has been a manager.
Since certain managers now feel a sense of entitlement because someone tried to look out for them from time to time, DW will make sure there is no confusion in the future. If they’re not credentialed by a fighter not only will there be zero chance of them gaining backstage access, they will be required to buy there own arena ticket — something else Zuffa has never had to provide, but did. This will reduce the headaches of “expectation(s),” create consistency and eliminate the need of having to revisit this issue again in the future.
I kinda got the impression that he didn’t realize the extra generic/staff passes were being handed out on a regular basis and the “entitlement” floored him. If people on his staff were “hooking” some folks up like this and it contributed to this problem, the easiest/best solution was to be consistent… hence his current stance.
Managers acting like they always got this non-existent pass because they were entitled to backstage access by virtue of their title alone left him scratching his head like, “WTF?” He doesn’t even come close to believing Loretta’s claim that a bunch of managers contacted her to gripe because the one on record source she offered wouldn’t even back up her story.
Keith Kizer was interviewed and said if a manager is licensed in his state and the fighter wants him in the locker room, he or the manager could contact him and he would sorta mediate. If he couldn’t resolve it with his individual authority then the manager could take it before the panel of five commissioners to resolve the problem of access. Obviously, none of these guys considered this to be an option. It’s not like Keith made it up when Loretta contacted him for comment. Not sure why they didn’t go THAT route because in order to even be inside the arenas from this point forward they have to have a credential or a ticket like everyone else.
http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/mma.cfm?go=forum.posts&forum=1&thread=1441018&page=9
by who me on Apr 6, 2009 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The 2 points that dont add up here to me are this from Hunt:
However, the promotions have the discretion to assign walk-around credentials to managers, agents and other parties not affiliated with the regulatory body, something promotions have done with little fuss over the years — until now.
and this from the athletic commissions:
Kizer and Lembo, whose respective commissions handle the bulk of the big-money boxing events in the U.S., said backstage entourages can get out of hand, but they’ve never heard of a boxing promoter denying a manager or an agent a backstage credential.
Add to that the comments of Erimoros who posted below:
I have been in the MMA industry for over 13 years and have attended UFc since UFC 5 and on, and the number of credentials received by each fighter has always been largely negotiable. For example I have a collection of credentials going as I said all the way back to UFC five yet I have never been one of the corner men for the fighters.
It seems that generally speaking, its been pretty standard procedure for managers to get credentials for fights. And pretty standard procedure for quite some time.
Amazed that Dana didnt know about it considering he seems to micro manage everything to do with the UFC.
Oh well, if Dana is telling the truth, we will be seeing a lot more of this story as zero managers will be allowed backstage and thats sure to ruffle feathers of more than 2/5 anonymous managers.
It still seems odd though that 2 of the managers Hunt spoke to said that the UFC contacted them informing them that they would no longer be given credentials.
Oh well, the shits about to hit the Fan if the CindyO / Dana info is accurate.
by GeeDub on Apr 6, 2009 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
There probably is a story here but it is a real mess at this point. Beyond the whole anonomous source issue there is an issue of why managers wouldn’t go to Kizer with this if they feel it is a big deal (he has offered to mediate). We as fans are out of the loop (obviously) but it appears that so is everyone else involved in this.
What erks me is that I have absolutly no faith in MMA journalism to keep me informed or to keep the UFC in check, I feel like I am counting on the Weekly World News to get my serious MMA investigative reporting. There is lots of good writing out there but when it comes to getting in deep with stuff like this it just becomes a circus.
I agree that there may in fact be a story, but that we just don’t know enough at this point.
P.S.
“anonymous” & “irks”
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
Apology accepted.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
I'm not sure Ken Pavia was actually qouted properly by Loretta Hunt.
I can’t decide from his response in this thread on the UG: http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/mma.cfm?go=forum.posts&thread=1441018&page=1
Here is what he said in his response on the UG:
More accuartely I was not given a managers pass. I was given tickets to the event by the UFC for the event where the polcy was changed. In subsequent events I have either been given corner passes or fighter tickets.
So was he quoted properly or not according to his response on the UG? Somebody let me know because to me it sounds like his response to this on the UG is totally different to what Loretta Hunt has him saying.
What he is saying does not disagree with what Hunt published. A amanger pass is a different thing from a corner pass (which you get from your fighter) and from fighter tickets which are merely free tickets to the show provided to the fighter by the organization and do not get you access to anything. The manager pass allows full access and still leaves your fighter with three corner passes. This is effectively the same thing reported by Hunt.
Did you read the whole thread?
Cause at one point in the discussion it seems to come out that he admitted to CindyO that he wasn’t denied access to anything and he didn’t think Loretta Hunt had written that he was denied access. Of course I’m half asleep and having trouble following it.
Blinded everyone? Yea that must be it (man I wish we you could see me rolling my eyes).
Here is what you are missing, it’s not that there are named people quoted in the article it’s that the ones who are actually accusing the UFC of doing this for nefarous means are anonomous. No one is questioning whether they are doing it or not because even the UFC says they are, the issue is why. Here is the actual part of the article that cause all the issue:
Outraged managers and agents said the silent treatment speaks to a greater issue that Zuffa is trying to keep hidden behind closed locker room doors.
"They’re divisively trying to split management and fighters," said one representative. "They’re trying to de-power the managers and agents to create a wedge between them. They give locker room bonuses and say, ‘This is from Dana [White] and the UFC — nobody else.’ They’re telling fighters they can go directly to them. They’re telling fighters they’ll be doing sponsorships themselves in the near future that will put the managers and agents out of business. They’re trying to minimize the managers’ and agents’ role in the fighter’s life so they can better control salaries."
If these allegations hold validity, how would a promotion be allowed to prevent a fighter from protecting his business interests no matter where he is?
In both boxing and MMA, a majority of statutes allow athletic commissions to license managers and agents, which essentially gives these representatives the right to handle the fighter’s earnings. However, the promotions have the discretion to assign walk-around credentials to managers, agents and other parties not affiliated with the regulatory body, something promotions have done with little fuss over the years — until now.
There is nothing wrong with the UFC not credenitaling managers or agents, hell it’s sort of surprising if they did to start with. The issue is the accusation that they are trying to separate the fighers from their managers for the purpose of controlling salaries, that is a very serious accusation to make and for something like that you better have something concrete to stand on before making it and that is where she 100% relied on an anomomous source. A quote by Ken Pavia that says it’s important for a fighter to have professional cornermen isn’t a on the record source accusing the UFC of trying to drive a wedge between fighters and management it’s just a quote about the importance of cornermen and tha athletic commission quotes actually back up what Dana White said not the “anonomous sources”.
Having named quotes in the story doesn’t change the fact that she accused them of serious wrongdoing without having any kind of proof or named source to back that specific accusation up with. Dana White didn’t blind anyone but I wonder if you opinion of Dana White caused you to miss the actual point.
I said blinded because it seemed as though the whole article was being discredited because there were no sources on the record. Ken Pavia is on the record. The opinion of a fighters manager that they are trying to split management and fighters isnt the big issue for me, as thats just an opinion.
I want to know whether or not managers are now being refused managers passes by the UFC where in the past they had been issued them. I am happy to form my own opinions based on the facts. From mattman73s post above, Pavia says
“More accuartely I was not given a managers pass. I was given tickets to the event by the UFC for the event where the policy was changed.”
So he confirms that there has been a policy change and that he was not issued a managers pass. That is the crux of the issue for me, not his opinion, or other opinions on why the UFC has revoked managers passes for some.
The UG thread is a odd one and obviously there was a lot of PMing going on behind the scenes but Pav does state that he wasn’t denied access. There is a real big difference between denying access and just not giving out special managers credentials. Yes there could be a real story here but instead of digging for something solid she ran with speculation. The accusations of wrong doing are what got everyone talking and is what is at issue. They could just be trying to clear out the backstage area so it isn’t so hectic for all we know, heck we really aren’t getting clear answers on what the UFC policy is now or was before but the big important issue the article brought up was the idea of the UFC trying to put a wedge between managers and fighters and that was unsubstanciated.
If Loretta Hunt had just written an article saying that managers weren’t getting special credentials anymore and had left out all the speculation and anonomous source stuff then there wouldn’t of been that rant or all of this discussion about the story, heck it wouldn’t of even been a blip on the radar.
The anonymous managers opinions themselves would still be considered speculation even if they were to be named, which is why I dont feel that their anonymity is such a big issue. I mean, if we assume Ken Pavia said that he felt the UFC was driving a wedge between him and his fighters, what more would that give us? Pavia telling us that the UFC will no longer be issuing him backstage credentials is far more important in my eyes…….and he is on the record saying that.
For me, the story was interesting because it confirmed with named sources that
1) At the very least 1 agents credentials were no longer being issued (plus more in all likelihood) and
2) According the athletic commissions, this is a very unusual practice.
Kizer and Lembo, whose respective commissions handle the bulk of the big-money boxing events in the U.S., said backstage entourages can get out of hand, but they’ve never heard of a boxing promoter denying a manager or an agent a backstage credential.
You combine those points with the admitted dislike Dana has for many managers and people can form their own opinions as to why they are being banned. Maybe its due to heavy traffic backstage, but as Hunt concluded in her piece, this isnt a blanket policy so perhaps there is some attempt by the UFC to interfere with particular managers ability to manage his fighter(s) on fight night. We are all free to form our own opinions based on the facts presented in Hunts article.
I guess I just dont put the same level of importance on the anonymous sections of the article as you do. If Pavia was anonymous and nobody was on the record confirming that the UFC were no longer issuing some managers credentials, sure, I’d be critical, but I only see anonymously quoting an opinion as a relatively minor issue given the content of the rest of the article.
but I only see anonymously quoting an opinion as a relatively minor issue given the content of the rest of the article.
That anonymous ‘opinion’ though is an accusation leveled at the UFC. That is what Hunts story is really about. As who me said, the lack of credentials wasnt/isnt the issue, so having an on the record source for that is moot.
Its like saying the government is raising taxes to fund a war against China or someone. You then get someone on the record confirming that the government is raising the taxes, but says nothing else. Yet you only have an anonymous source telling you that they are doing it for a war. You have proof of the what, but not of the why.
The thing is the UFC is saying it never issued special manager credentials, some guys apparently got generic credentials from UFC staff but the UFC says there were never special manager credentials. Look at what White told CindyO on the UG thread. Is there more to this? Who knows because the reporter didn’t dig till she found proof she just went with anonomous accusations.
No manager has been denied access, it’s not like guys have been banned it’s that they don’t get special credentials just for being managers. Heck Ken Pavia has flat out stated that he has never been denied access he just didn’t get a special managers pass. Yes there could be a story if someone actually tried to dig in and look for one but it’s the claims of actual wrongdoing that is the issue here. Not giving out special passes isn’t the real issue it’s the reason behind why.
Pavia seemed to be pretty clear on that UG thread saying that he was never banned from the event just that he was no longer being credentialled by the UFC since “the policy changed” and is now either going backstage if he can get the commission credentials or getting regular tickets from the UFC.
There is always gonna be speculation surrounding why. The UFC is never gonna admit they are tryna ‘sabotage’ the fighter/manager relationship, nor do I necessarily think they are. There is certainly some evidence that suggests that it is possible though. Any further investigating isnt gonna lead anywhere. You might get a manager to go on the record accusing the UFC of being ‘out to get’ managers. But thats a pretty trivial achievement, coz then what? Dana again recounts how he had to pay for his own tickets and never went backstage when he was managing Tito and the whole issue dies. It leads nowhere.
Thats why I still disagree…..the main issue for me, and Im sure for the fighters and their managers is the simple fact that the managers are now generally not gonna get credentials, if CindyOs posts are accurate. The entire 2nd half of Hunts post details many of the responsibilities and issues that may arise due to this without any suggestion or care for the reasons why it is happening…..just the potential impact it may have. Thats what I care about. Sure, there are some news grabbing, sensational stories that you can pull outta the article, but they dont interest me, nor do I feel they are of any real significance.
There is apparently some confusion here about credentials. There are nor have there ever been special credentials for managers, not are there special credentials for cornermen. There are just fighter credentials and press credentials. The UFC, just like every other MAM promotion and boxing promotion has always provided managers with the same credentials as the fighters. The case now however is that certain people who were personally notified are no longer being provided with those credentials, while everyone else still is. I for example am already credentialed for the Montreal show. A more telling point is that friends and family members for many fighters are also still be credentialed so an argument about clearing out the backstage really doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. I for example am not a manager nor am I a fighter or cornerman but I have credentials if the concern was about people being around backstage then certainly I would have been denied my credentials, but that is not the case. The case is instead that individuals with whom Dana has a problem are being specifically excluded. Personally I don’t think its a nice thing to do, and i think the motivations are obvious to all of us int he business but ultimately its his show and really he has the right to exclude individuals that he does not want to see backstage if he wants to. I think its unprofessional and certainly uncouth but its his show after all. I have in the many years that I have been in the business seen credentials pulled and people ejected from backstage or the arena entirely (and in all honestly have done so myself) simply because the individual or individuals upset the promoter, Dana is simply doing so preemptively. Don’t get me wrong I am not a fan of Dana’s at all, and I think that his motivations for doing this are more calculated than those of the promoters who have thrown people from backstage. And while I have never seen people specifically excluded before hand I have seen people excluded.
LOL..No thanks I already make a decent living. Besides its not like it would make a difference after all I’m just another anonymous source myself and wouldn’t put my name to an article like that on a bet. Which is most likely why I still get credentials..,,call survival instincts or cowardice, doesn’t matter the real point is no one is going on record about this or anything else Dana does. Let’s face it the only reason this article got noticed is because Dana went on the record with his rant. This isn’t the worst thing Dana has done nore is it the first time he has acted maliciously to those he perceives as enemies to his purposes. The fact of the matter is that he holds the keys to the kingdom for those who truly want to make it in this industry, so aside from having to issue hte occasional apology he can pretty much do what he wants.
Oh I understand why you won’t go on record, although your story is different than the one in the article, it’s just that you have done a much better job of explaining the credential situation and what is actually going on through a random blog post reply than she did with a “researched news report”.
To be honest any credit for details and specificity belongs to you guys because to be honest we take certain things for granted, like how credentials work and how we get them and forget that such details aren’t exactly common knowledge, but reading the blog here I was reminded of what details needed better explaining. Its highly likely that Hunt suffers from the same sort of problem since she goes to many shows and is familiar with how credentials work. I am however not defending her, because I’m not a journalist its not really my job to know my readers and know what should be explained to them, while it is hers.
Is it just me or what is so out of line with the quote? Somewhat distasteful to express it publicly, but owner or executive is happy with unions, agents, or managers. It’s just one more level of “employee” that they have to keep happy and provide a financial cut.
Also this quote from a Dana’s loyal media seems to have Dana admitting to do what he was “accused of”:
Zinkin also represents UFC light heavyweight Chuck Liddell, though Liddell does not fight for AKA. White said he has been "beefing with Zinkin for years" and said he had to call Liddell, one of his closest friends, and tell him to get Zinkin to back off.
According to White, Liddell said Zinkin represented him on sponsorships and he would negotiate his own deals with the UFC.
Interesting article. I don’t know much about journalism, so I can’t really speak to any of this, but as a reader none of it struck me as particularly out of the ordinary or shoddy. I suspect that may tell us several things: 1) I don’t know shit about journalism, 2) Zuffa has hardly created a situation where sticking your neck out will get you anything you’re looking for (I cite the Fitch and Huerta fiascoes) so needing to rely on anonymous sources would be par for the course, and 3) how much the line between actual journalism and mere rumors often times gets blurred in the MMA community. This maybe true of other groups too, but I’m wondering if in ‘we’ don’t always make the distinction clear.
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito on Belfort at Affliction:DOR
"With the multiplicity of disciplines the fighters must be schooled in, their striking coach, their ground coach are needed in the corner," said Pavia, who was among those denied. "Their training partner is in the locker room with them, helping them warm up, to break a sweat, to grapple, to pummel, whatever. Often, a full-service fighter will have all three in his corner, which pushes the manager or agent out."
The fighters get three inalienable credentials from the commission, not the promoter, that they can use as they please. Sounds to me like Pavia’s just pissed about getting bumped down the list.
But the whole crux of Lorettas piece was that the UFC used to credential the managers themselves, not through the commission, and that some managers, including Pavia, had been contacted by the UFC and told that the UFC would no longer credential them. Yes, he is pissed, thats what the article is about isnt it? Thats the big issue, that the UFC is restricting access for fighter managers.
Danas inadequate response was that the fighters have always got ‘so many credentials’, which is true…..3 from the commission plus whatever the UFC issues them…….. and yes, the managers could still get credentialled using commission credentials, nobody is denying that. Not me, not Dana, not Loretta Hunt. But generally, from Lorettas report, a trainer, a standup coach and a grappling coach get those credentials.
Regardless of whether you agree with Bob’s opinions or not (I tend to agree with most of what he’s saying), this is some quality stuff. Thanks Bob.
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
I’m glad there is a diary about the real issue: the clash of Zuffa’s awful media relations strategy with the sorry state of MMA punditry and journalism. I don’t feel good about either side.
Part of the problem is that the MMA community is extremely inbred at its core. Who knows the true nature of the vendetta between the UFC and Sherdog. Who knows all of the conflicts of interest underlying the various websites and news outlets MMA fans must rely on for information about the sport. Full disclosure regarding the UWC is one of the reasons I’ve gravitated towards Bloody Elbow.
Evidence that MMA is inbred from Luke’s radio show:
Luke, who is affiliated with Sherdog and the UWC talks about a Sherdog story where Ken Pavia is the only source. Then he interviews War Machine, one of Pavia’s fighters who is next fighting in the UWC.
I'm inbred, sure
But the restrictions are not so stringent. A) It’s mostly me who is inbred and b) everyone is still free to criticize. Everyone on staff is free to blast Sherdog if they feel that’s the right thing to do. And I aired what I thought were some oversights by Sherdog in running that story on MMA Nation. If they get rid of me for it, then that’s a decision that I have to live with. Is my opinion unbiased? Of course not, but I’m not towing anyone’s line for career preservation.
I thought the 6 degrees of Pavia on your show was funny, but I’m not concerned about you being inbred, because you’ve adhered to full disclosure. I’m more concerned about the conflicts of interest and relationships that we don’t get full disclosure on. Most MMA journalists are upfront when they pick a fighter, who they have a relationship with, to win a fight. But the sames types of disclosures rarely occur when the business side of MMA is discussed.
Yeah...
so everyone knows I had a discussion with Luke when he started writing for Sherdog where it was stated that his involvement there has no impact on everyone else’s work for this site.
Also it’s fair to say that working in the DC area means that plugging the UWC is more than a personally beneficial situation for Luke (or at least I assume so) but is rather promoting the biggest local show.
That being said, yeah…MMA is very inbred.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
http://CurseOfRonKarkovice.blogspot.com/
by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 5, 2009 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the word y’all are looking for is “incestuous.”
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
I guess BE doesn't want to go to war with Sherdog
And also doesn’t want to come across like a UFC mouthpiece either, but I would think that the above is important enough to be cleaned up and front paged.
If bob or someone else could gather the main points discussed in the comments section (without which the post is less illuminating) and clean it up into a decent articel it would be worth front paging.
The reason why is that if the MMA media want the UFC to change their media policy in the long term – the media should also clean itself up.
The main difference between tabloids and newspapers is exactly what is talked about here – the quality of journalism.
Sherdog cannot act like a tabloid and expect to be treated like a mainstream newspaper.
(Although I must admit, acting like a tabloid is good for readership)
If Gross and Hunt think they are journalists that is the biggest slap in the face to that profession…
All you have to do is look up the documentary they were involved in regarding Matt Lindland.
Not once do they mention that Lindland was given title shots in the UFC and lost – Not once do they mention that Lindland made 6 figures for the banned little “t-shirt” he decided to wear.
I guess they didnt mention these facts because it would totally diffuse their silly accusations.
They want Zuffa to clean up its act? Zuffa is a business. These idiots are claiming to be “Journalists”. This is a complete joke.
by mmalogic on Apr 5, 2009 2:02 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I love it when you post
because you’re so clear about your position that it is quite refreshing. I’m not being sarcastic. Its nice to have someone post who is clearly on one side of the fence, not sitting on the fence like most of us.
A very good article about a very interesting subject and a very interesting debate. One thing I do like about getting my MMA news from around here is that I know what I am getting and no one tries to pretend that it is anything eles. The people writing the content here try to keep it real and grounded and that is very much respected.
As far as the current state of MMA journalism goes I think that there really isn’t a state of journalism at all. It’s websites preaching to the hardcore fans. We are all so used to seeing annomous sources and thrown together information presented that it doesn’t even register anymore. Most sites are more TMZ than CNN and while there is nothing wrong with that there is a problem when people stop recognizing it. Look you could run about any story you wanted written any way you want to write it and about guarantee that your going to get a even split between people who will believe anything bad about the UFC that is written and people who won’t ever believe anything bad about the UFC that is written and that really is a very significant part of the audience for all web based MMA news. It’s just not about informing the world it’s about those juicy tid bits for the hardcore fans. In the real world it’s getting harder to tell the pundits from the journalist, in the internet MMA community it’s damn near impossible, but then a lot of the people going to those sites don’t care about that distinction anyway.
While the sport is no longer in it’s infancy it’s still a toddler and these are the kinds of growing pains that are just part of that.
Deep Throat anyone? I feel I need to point out, though I don’t know if anyone’s mentioned it already as I don’t have time to read all posts, but, didn’t an anonymous source brought forth by two reporters from the NY Times bring down a U.S. president?
Anyone want to attack Woodward and Bernsteins integrity?
Yes that was brought us and talked about and the guy who wrote the article put that point to rest already:
But what people don’t realize about Deep Throat is that he provided leads — where to go to GET the information on the record. Once the information is on the record, the anonymous source is moot.
Thanks ...
somebody actually read that whole thing. LOL
Reading is fundamental ...
as it was pointed out earlier, i addressed Mark “Deep Throat” Felt’s role in Watergate. when you have an anonymous source, the best thing that person can do for you is point you toward on-the-record sources and/or documentation … which is what Deep Throat did.
and for the record, Woodward and Bernstein were reporters for the Washington Post. Woodward rose to the highest editorial post at the paper, mostly from his work on the Watergate scandal. :-)
Woodward has also sold some pretty shitty books since then.
by Derek Suboticki on Apr 5, 2009 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions
that "heh" ...
was supposed to go here. damn, i’m tired.
2 of 5 agents had a problem...a minority.
I am going to post something I said on another forum:
One thing that we see in MMA writing that is generally not seen in mainstream journalism is the constant use of anonamous sources. With no name attached, it is pretty hard to refute an accusation.
We have no clue who Loretta was talking to, it could have been DeWayne Zinkin, who has had a bad relationship with Dana ever since he held up the UFC for more money prior to the Sherk/Hughes title fight.
Is this many agents or one in particular? We don’t really know since there are no names attached. Right or wrong, plenty of folks spin things their own way.
One thing I did find interesting in that article is that it almost sounded like the agent was complaining about backstage bonuses. I would assume that agents get a portion of ALL fight related income, but maybe he only gets a share of the contracted income and loses out on those bonuses. I can’t think of any other reason to complain about his client making more money.
The remark made it sound like he felt that the UFC used the giving of bonuses to attempt to get the fighters closer to them. They have been paying out these kinds of bonuses ever since the company became profitable, these are nothing new. Are they arbitrary? Sure, but it is still extra income so why bitch about it?
+++++++++++++++
Hunt based her article on two manager/agents. She said " Of five separate fighter representatives and their firms that spoke to Sherdog.com, two said they were told that credentials would no longer be doled out to them shortly after UFC 94 on Jan. 31."
So of the people that she talked to, a minority had a problem with credentials. I would have liked to have seen a peice that had comments from those that have not had issues. Some have, some have not. Why not write about the differences in policy?
That would have been a more accurate article.
As someone who has not had problems with credentials I can assure you that though I have not had problems it does not mean that the actions taken against individuals doesn’t have an impact . Those who have been effectively frozen out are an example to everyone else. Alot of managers (most I would wager) would not ask their fighter for a corner man credential for several reasons. To admit to your fighter that you are suddenly incapable of even managing to get your own backstage credentials while he can plainly see other managers with credentials would instantly make the manager seem ineffective at their job. It also could ignite a fight between your fighter and the organization (which is a cardinal sin, managers fight with the organizations not fighters) and would quickly shorten the career of most up an coming fighters.
As far as bonuses are concerned, yes the manager being present is sort of a big deal since generally the bonuses are much larger than the actual money contracted for the fight and the manager is generally entitled to the same percentage of that money as he is of all other profits. The manager does not lose out on his percentage of the bonus however if the organization gives the money to the fighter privaely and encourages him to keep the amount between them this will drive a wedge between the fighter and athlete.
Just a quick note in response to the earlier statement where it was stated that Dana White asserted that the UFC has only ever given 3 credentials to each fighter. This statement is patently false. I have been in the MMA industry for over 13 years and have attended UFc since UFC 5 and on, and the number of credentials received by each fighter has always been largely negotiable. For example I have a collection of credentials going as I said all the way back to UFC five yet I have never been one of the corner men for the fighters. The crux of the story for those of us who regularly get credentials is that these specific individuals (of which I am not one) are being told that even should a fighter request a credential for this specific person it will not be provided, instead they will have to give up one of their corner man credentials. More importantly is the understanding by those of use who get credentials, that if you request for one of these people you will get no extra credentials at all, just the three that you are guaranteed.
by Erimoros on Apr 5, 2009 10:17 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I realize that my post doesn’t directly address the points raised about Hunt’s article, but I simply felt the need to point out a lie when I see it. Also if the UFC has always only given three credentials then why would it be notifying individuals that they can no longer get credentials for their managers. As someone in the business I can say without a doubt that there is a great deal of truth to Hunt’s story and the tactics and intentions of Dana. I can also say that I can’t off the top of my head think of a single person whose livelihood depends on the UFC who would really be naive enough to go on the record about these tactics. The consequences for such naivete are extreme and will in the end likely make such a person impotent in the business, because regardless of how good you are as a manager if the UFC suddenly stops taking your calls your fighters will have to look elsewhere for representation.
But as I said these points do not directly address the subject as to whether or not Loretta Hunt is a good journalist. As far as that is concerned Bob is correct in the assumption that there is information around to be gotten (whether anyone with such information would surrender it however is another story alotogether) and the behaviour isn’t likely to stop so Loretta might have been successful at getting someone on the record about the intentions of the UFC if she waited until the next show and then spoke to one of these excluded people who on that particular night would be more agitated, emotional and likely to say something (that they will undoubtedly regret the next day).
Is there something worth looking into here, yea it seems like it but really at this time all she had was that the UFC has changed something, not the why behind the move. Perhaps she should of wrote an editorial and made it clear that she was just presenting opinion instead of a news article and kept digging for something solid to back it up.
I’m sorry, but this is getting ridiculous. I hear firsthand from members of this staff how they don’t want to get themselves involved with this sort of gossip news, yet this gets promoted to the front page. When 3 relatively large MMA promotions are holding events in a 3 day span, how something like this deserves to be on the front page is bad and sensational journalism. It’s a dead point. We hold celebrities and people in power on such a impossible level of regard. Dana White, president of the UFC which no matter how you shake it is a sport marketed towards a certain demographic, said something stupid. That being said, what he did say is something people in said demographic say on a daily basis. Does that make it right? No. Does that affect his job, which at the end of the day is the only thing we should care about, at all? No. So what’s the big deal. If any of you have never called someone a fag or a girl, or anyone for that matter, then feel free to sit around attacking White. But I am just so tired of celebrities getting grief for everything they say. Drop the story and move on to things that pertain to Mixed Martial Arts, not the ignorant words of some people associated with it.
Actually, this article and much of the commentary is principally concerned with Loretta’s article, whether Sherdog should have stood by this article, and a discussion on a few points regarding some tenets of journalism (namely the use of anonymous sources), rather than what Dana said in his vlog.
It’s hardly ridiculous and it’s produced a vibrant and very interesting discussion. I’m glad it got fronted.
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito on Belfort at Affliction:DOR
Um you do know this doesn’t have anything to do with White’s rant right? This is a disussion of the journalism behind the Loretta Hunt article. Did you even read it, because your reply here makes no sense at all in the context of what is being discussed here. There has nothing to do with demographics or Dana White rants or curse words or celebrities at all in this, way to completly miss the point and make yourself look lost. Perhaps it would be better if you actually read what you were replying to before you comment on it.
by who me on Apr 6, 2009 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
My stance is the issue altogether should be dropped. Posting this is simply drudging things up again, as it ended up doing that here. It’s not as if this is the first time there has been shoddy or dubious reporting on behalf of Sherdog, and this is simply an attempt to parlay the Dana incident into a commentary on their said reporting. That’s where I have the problem.
"Josh Gross and Dave Meltzer knew ..."
The fact that Josh Gross and Dave Meltzer knew about the credential rumors are a point against Loretta, not a point in her favor. The first two clearly didn’t run anything with it because there wasn’t enough to actually build a story that met minimum journalistic standards. Loretta chose the opposite route. There’s a reason Josh and Meltzer are among the most respected MMA journalists and Loretta always seems to be in the middle of some controversy.
Another point to ponder: Journalists nearly always rally around one of their own when their profession is under seige. Have you not noticed that even though everyone condemned Dana’s words, hardly any MMA journalist, aside from Gross, has defended Loretta’s column? There’s got to be something to that.
BloodyElbow did the same thing...
Remember the UFC show at the army base and how it was set but wasn’t confirmed. BE sighted an anonymous source at the base.
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2008/9/24/620835/bloodyelbow-com-exclusive
This...
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
http://CurseOfRonKarkovice.blogspot.com/
by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 6, 2009 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions
and we were proven correct on that story
"the spirit of your average dumbass with more overblown rhetoric" OR "the self-appointed savior of MMA"
It’s not the same thing at all, that is a breaking story posted on a blog not something that was portrayed as a professional investigative news report.
by who me on Apr 6, 2009 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
A little surprised
Bob, I work for a paper that has strict policies on anonymous sources — so much so that I’ve had to attribute something to the Associated Press even when I’ve had it corroborated elsewhere. In other words, we’re often stricter than AP.
That said, I’m a little surprised by what I’d consider some blanket statements here about the use of anonymous sources, particularly as it pertains to this story. My take may be colored a bit by the fact that I had a long conversation with Loretta Hunt last week and came away impressed with her professionalism in pursuing the story. She worked it from several angles and had a mix of named and unnamed sources.
Several times in this discussion, the talk has shifted to the named sources in Hunt’s story. When that happens, you and others proclaim it to be a non-story. That may very well be true, though Dana White’s response to it might indicate otherwise. But in any case, isn’t that a rather different claim than the ones you’re making about anonymous sources?
Also not addressed here — UFC had ample opportunity to respond. They did not do so. They may have reason to do so, and I’m trying to find out what it is. But when one party doesn’t respond, reporting becomes that much more difficult.
That leaves us with a potentially interesting question. Why would Sherdog not be worth UFC’s time in responding to questions but then suddenly be worth Dana’s time when he’s doing his video log? I don’t know. I don’t know if the question is anything more than academic, and maybe people are just sick of reading about it. Sherdog seems to be doing just fine without UFC’s cooperation, and maybe both parties will remain content to leave it that way.
But then I’m not sure blanket statements on anonymous sources can apply to this situation. You have a well-established news organization in Sherdog that feeds its content to the largest sports organization on the planet in ESPN. When they report on the largest MMA organization in the world in UFC, they do so without cooperation, and they claim (a claim that might be worth disputing or investigating) that some of their sources have to remain anonymous because they fear reprisal.
So I don’t have a lot of answers. It’s an interesting ethics debate.
But in the long run, I think most readers here and in the world at large would rather read about the fights than an arcane discussion of journalism ethics, so I should probably get back to work on this week’s Strikeforce piece.
by Beau Dure on Apr 6, 2009 10:03 AM EDT reply actions 4 recs
thanks for commenting Beau!
That’s Beau Dure from USA Today everyone. Glad to have your professional, and non-anonymous perspective on this issue.
"the spirit of your average dumbass with more overblown rhetoric" OR "the self-appointed savior of MMA"
It’s actually very interesting to me that it’s turned into a pretty good debate about the ethics of journalism. Now, I’ve never met Hunt, so I can’t speak to her professionalism or lack thereof … but I think what makes me throw out a “blanket statement” is a couple of things: whether you like old media or not, generally we’re pretty transparent about how we go about the business of gathering and reporting news.
I’ve reported or edited for five daily newspapers in my career — three mid-sized dailies and two majors — and I’ve never had to rely on an anonymous source. I don’t think I’ve worked for an editor who would allow one. I’ve had offers, sure … but I either talked that source into speaking on the record or found the information some other way. When reporters have come to me wanting to use an anonymous source, I’ve almost always been able to help them avoid it and find other ways to get information on the record … so maybe I’m a little maniacal about anonymous sources. So my personal experience certainly colors my view, too.
I think there’s a huge difference in the story Hunt did and an in-depth piece of investigative journalism. Yes she had a mix of sources in her story, but IIRC (and I may not, I’m doing this from memory, and that’s a faulty thing) … her sources spoke to different aspects of the UFC’s policies … I could be wrong. The impression I got from her story was “I don’t have enough on the record, but here’s the leap I couldn’t make without relying on an unnamed person.” I think my suspicion was/is — and this is simply because I’ve caught (and fired) a couple of reporters who did this — she re-used her previously cited sources to “make” her story. I have no proof of this, but it was/is my suspicion, and that’s probably what worked me up in the first place. I grow old and cynical. Oh well. As long as it’s not old and senile.
by bobthewriter on Apr 6, 2009 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions
Transparency is indeed good — I’m always trying to work into my stories whether I got a quote from an exclusive interview, a conference call or a video posted on an official site. (Some of that is 21st century economic and Internet reality — when my paper isn’t going to send me to El Salvador to cover a World Cup qualifier and U.S. Soccer is going to post video from the press conference and some mixed-zone interviews, I don’t mind using the quotes as long as I don’t give the impression that I was there.)
I thought Sherdog’s follow-up statement was an attempt at transparency. What struck me was that they gave a lot of detail about the reporting involved and, IIRC, didn’t complain once about White’s language.
I could see sitting on the story a little longer, but I’m not sure what else Hunt would’ve gotten. That might be the whole story. Or perhaps there’s more we don’t know. It it’s important and gets people talking, then we should see some follow-up.
I’m trying to fight off cynicism as I grow a little older, but I think senility will catch me at some point.
by Beau Dure on Apr 6, 2009 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
the bad part is that we’ll never know if sitting on the story a little longer could have helped. sometimes one shot is all you get, and if you pull the trigger too early, you miss.
by bobthewriter on Apr 6, 2009 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions
’Hunt’s “story” wouldn’t have lasted five minutes in an editorial meeting with anyone with a legitimate journalism background.’
Somebody hasn’t been paying attention for years. Have you forgotten the run-up to the Iraq war? I’m gonna go out on a limb and claim that the people at the New York Times have a legitimate journalism background, and yet they published unsourced story after unsourced story.
We don’t need to rehash all of that, if only because the politics are out of scope, but the fact is that bloggers aren’t any worse than the big league writers in this regard: if the story seems juicy enough, most people will publish unsourced articles.
Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones
“Most” but not “all” … and it’s like the old saying: What is popular is not always right. What is right is not always popular.
Personally, I’d rather be right. I think Hunt had (hell, may HAVE) something really good here. But I’m less inclined to believe an anonymous source. I’d have rather had her sit on the story for a week or two longer and possibly come up with something on the record about this.
Here’s a small anecdote: I had a guy who wanted to be an anonymous source for a story about the controversial practices of a local h.s. football coach. The coach was a god in the community, but he was pulling some pretty shady stuff … some things that only this guy knew about, but wouldn’t say on the record. I sat on the story because I couldn’t get the info any other (legal) way. I continued to sit on it until my source was ready to talk on the record. When he did, it resulted in a series of stories that ultimately resulted in the coach being fired, criminal charges being brought and eventually having his teaching credential pulled.
by bobthewriter on Apr 6, 2009 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions
I get what you’re saying – I guess what I’m disagreeing with is the insinuation – no matter how tame or unintentional – that this is a failing of “bloggers” that “journalists” wouldn’t have made. Loretta didn’t screw this up because she’s a blogger – she screwed this up because she’s an idiot.
People keep confusing the medium with the message on this one – publishing something on the internet doesn’t make you an idiot. Publishing something on the internet makes it easier for others to see, verify and announce to the world that you’re an idiot – and that’s something I think is a valuable feature of “blogging” – not a bug.
I’m not suggesting that you’re making a direct link between blogging and bad journalistic practices, but what you’ve written – and the way you’ve phrased it – above certainly points that way. And we have well over a hundred and fifty years of archives of “journalists” screwing the pooch on these issues – and no decline in the rate at which they pooch-screw. :-)
Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones
by jemaleddin on Apr 6, 2009 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
No, no ...
I tried to take pains to say that I wasn’t insulting bloggers at all. (look in my first reply in the comments thread.) I think Loretta Hunt screwed up here by not waiting to get someone on the record. If I were her editor, I’d have held it until she had something on the record. End of story, as far as I’m concerned. I’m not trying to throw stones at bloggers. I’ve got a glass house of my own.
Do I think bloggers screw up? Hell yes. But so do journalists. I’ve had some of my own (more than I’d like to admit) get in the paper. So I definitely wasn’t casting any stones at bloggers.
And the fact that you needed a follow-up comment to make that clear sorta proves my point about your initial post, no? :-P
Again: not here to disagree, just clarify. I think you and I would see eye to eye all day. Cheers!
Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones
Hi Bob.
Been very interesting getting a professionals insight into journalism. Something Ive never really given too much thought to before.
The main reason I am less critical of Hunt than many others appears to be based around the intention of the article. The article itself was entitled “Some Managers, Agents Lose Backstage Pass” and the vast majority of the text related to detailing managers roles backstage and giving information on the specifics of the credentialling process. Sources were named and valid information was given relating to these points, the core of the article in my opinion.
Much of the discussion here seems to speak as though the article was entitled “Manager accuses UFC of driving wedge in fighter relationship” with the anonymous source being the backbone of the article. I just dont understand how the several sentences that related to the ‘driving a wedge’ accusation is seen to be the focus of the entire article? Hunt herself questions the very validity of the anonymous sources opinion right after the quote.
From your experience, does the significance of the information provided by an anonymous source have much of a bearing on whether or not that information can be quoted anonymously in a piece??
Loretta didn’t screw this up because she’s a blogger – she screwed this up because she’s an idiot.
Bless you, good sir.
by Derek Suboticki on Apr 6, 2009 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions
She had Ken Pavia on the record.
End of thread.
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on Apr 6, 2009 7:09 PM EDT reply actions
not exactly ...
when he’s speaking to a different aspect of the story than the anonymous sources. but thanks for playing.
Please consider reading the other comments before wasting our time by repeating a point that has already been discussed to death. Also, please keep that idiotic “end of thread” crap out of our comment threads. Thanks.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bloody Elbow
Related FanShots on Bloody Elbow
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
