Promoted 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.