By now, you've probably heard of or seen the video of UFC President Dana White on TSN in Canada talking about his vlogs, the spat with Loretta Hunt and how/when the UFC credentials media. There are a host of problems with the interview (although on the whole, the interviewer is quite good), most notably White's insistence that in the video blog where he excoriates Hunt that he didn't "cross the line", which is appalling to any sentient being with half a sense of decency or shame. You can interpret that how you like (and I'm certain some will suggest he's only referring to his attacks on Hunt, not using homophobic slurs, but that only further supports my point), but if there was ever any question about whether White's apology was damage control or remorse, let the debate formally end here.
I'm also confounded about White's comment that years ago when there was no new media and viral technology available to everyone, whatever the press said about you wasn't able to be challenged. This is so off the mark one hardly knows where to begin. For starters, White and the UFC had the opportunity to inject themselves directly into Hunt's article had they responded to her requests, a very common practice in public relations. Second, that there was some notion of inevitability to White's vlog, that he had to respond in the manner that he did is so patently absurd and outrageous is doesn't merit any further comment. Third, White decries the rise of new media yet embraces the technology for his own ends. And while anyone and everyone should feel free to use modern forms of media, an already celebrated figure with a dedicated fan following circumventing traditional forms of outreach is in no position to castigate ordinary if intrepid new media members for similarly using technology. This blog exists precisely because there was virtually no one and nowhere to talk about MMA. While Sherdog and MMA Weekly existed, it was not as if there was some form of hiring bonanza where anyone with a crayon and napkin could submit a resume and get a byline. And as for the esteemed "real media" that the UFC seems to adore? Were they interested in MMA? Let's just say they had better things to do like covering local high school women's basketball games or reporting which horse came in seventh at last year's Kentucky Derby.
Whether the UFC likes it or not, the people who run sites like this and others took it upon themselves to work as hard and professionally as possible to create something new - not because we wanted free tickets or to jock sniff Chuck Liddell, but because MMA actually needed media exposure and no one else seemed willing or interested in doing it. We believed if MMA was to be taken seriously, it needed serious writers doing serious work, something that was in short supply just a few short years ago. And the result? The "real media" has slowly but surely woken up. Aside from Sherdog's relationship with ESPN, I believe there was something about the second largest English language media outlet on the planet teaming up with some randoms to produce the most visible rankings in the entire sport. What the "real media" realized was that "fake media" was ahead of the curve on MMA and actually producing professional, high quality work that was not only worthy of coverage, but was good for their financial bottom line.
But the other culprit here is the media that is credentialed by the UFC; the alleged "real media", whatever such a clumsy moniker is intended to mean. For our purposes, let's just use it to mean those credentialed by the UFC. The reality about the "real media" is this: I cannot tell you how many conversations I've had with members of the "real media" who incessantly tell me this site and others should be credentialed by the UFC. Yet, the only one to my knowledge to go on record with this belief is Josh Gross (I believe Steve Cofield may have as well). As for the rest of you: seriously, grow a pair, will you?
White insists that the "real media" actually does criticize him, but they do so "professionally". If by "professionally" he means watered down, ham-fisted superficial wrist slapping, then we are in agreement. The reality is that either through incompetence or intimidation, a solid majority of those in vaunted positions in the "real media" cannot seem to put themselves in the position to offer honest commentary or reporting. And candid commentary or reporting does not mean attacking White or being wholly against his efforts, but it does involve addressing his successes as well as his faults to their fullest extent. But maybe I shouldn't blame them. When the President of the company and face of the sport you follow doesn't believe he crossed the line in trying to shakedown a reporter by using homophobic and misogynistic slurs in a widely distributed video blog, is it any wonder the "real media" only offers "professional" criticism?
The incontrovertible truth is that the "real media" is slowly bleeding into "fake media" and that with time, they're going to completely merge, thereby putting the UFC in a very awkward position. Do not listen to those who tell you to ignore your lying eyes and that what looks like the media and acts like the media isn't actually the media. We and others are part of the media, no matter who accepts that reality. The "real media" has already figured out that the new or "fake media" is who they say they are. One can only hope the UFC eventually agrees.
p.s. The reality is the UFC does on occasion credential blogs: just ask Cage Writer and Sports by Brooks (two VERY good blogs, it should be noted). So, their anti-blog, anti-new media stance? Not as iron clad as they'd have you believe.
p.p.s. Does the "real media" include radio hosts paid to attend UFC shows?