The UFC is once again wielding its opponent-crushing power. Apparently, their minions within the realm of media have been deployed to smear Fedor Emelianenko and M-1. If these blogging sycophants do exceedingly well, King Dana might soften his stance against credentialing blogs, effectively allowing these hungry UFC followers a small crumb from the empire's growing pie.
It's quite an interesting theory that's deserving of a super-sized tinfoil hat. Straight newsmen and women have become increasingly rare within the context of mainstream media. I'm not sure if that's good, bad, or neither, but I just see it as reality. The cynics among us certainly aren't surprised that everything in the media isn't called straight down the middle. Why on earth should we as MMA fans expect bloggers and the like to maintain an unbiased posture in every instance, especially when a blog and others within its network claim to be "of, by and for the fans?" Personally, I'd rather an individual explicitly tell me which way they're leaning as opposed to unearthing that bias and then loading it into an equation which estimates how much credence to assign to what this person reports.
Now, there's an argument to be made that certain media shouldn't be elevated to the level of the mainstream (i.e. credentialing) due to their roles as commentators and gatherers of information. As I've alluded to, the mainstream media is stocked full of awful reporting, bias, and sycophants, or that's my view at least. I'm not sure there's such a lofty standard to be achieved. With that said, decent arguments exist against taking certain outlets as seriously as they may wish to be taken. Ultimately, it's a decision for the promotion in question as to who should be credentialed, and, more importantly, it's a question for each and every fan/consumer as to who they trust in terms of MMA coverage. MMA fans are more intelligent than many give them credit for being. Even when one outlet asserts to being unbiased by not taking a specific side in a specific instance, most should be able to see through the smoke screen. Not siding with your enemy's foe does not equate to impartiality. Expressing a preference for an outcome doesn't necessarily equate to rampant "activism." It's imperative to look at an outlet's pattern of behavior. The entire body of work may very well depict a different story than one told based on a snapshot in time.