« Addressing the notion of Kimbo Slice as a boxer | Home | Another round of Kimbo Slice talk »
MMA blogger blowback to The New York Times
By Zach Arnold | June 3, 2008
Message sent. Will it be received?
More NYT anger. Another dose here.
Topics: Media, MMA, Zach Arnold | 8 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
ooh. burn. or whatever.
Really, Stupp complains about the semantics of the difference between a “post” and “comment”…I’m not quite sure what kind of message this sends. Be more careful of your wording?
It’s actually a pretty big message Kev. The only reason I say this is because blogs and any websites with comments go through a lot of trouble distinguishing the websites or author’s comments from those posted by its readers.
In terms of terminology in the blogging world “post” and “comment” are very different and most people in the industry understand that but this author obviously did not.
As a journalist of one of the worlds biggest newspapers and websites he should have been careful enough to distinguish that those were thoughts of two MMAJunkie.com readers, not the website or its authors.
Dann did a superb job in clearing that up in his post but this writer should have done a little homework on common vocab used in blogging or, at the very least, made it clear that the comments were from the sites readers.
You and Dann are wrong. Post is a generic term, which means anything that is put up: craigslist ads, message board threads, and blog comments included. Check netlingo if you don’t believe me. The specific term here is “entry”, as in “blog entry”. If Dann feels the ned to clarify, more power to him, but if this is blowback then this is the most pedantic type of blowback.
In a way, I agree with Kev, but in a way, I understand MMAjunkie’s standpoint as well. I know if I wrote something and a reader comment was quoted and sourced to wherever I wrote for I’d be a bit concerned. The way it was sourced in the article can read like it was a statement from the MMAjunkie.com writers and not just a frustrated reader. This is largely an issue of semantics, but still an issue I can understand.
So, MMAJunkie I can understand, the rest of the articles, I really have to ask, what the fuck are you (addressed to MMA fans in general with no ill intent, really) expecting from main stream media? MMA is still, in the eyes of people outside of the internet and the gambling world, a new sport that is picking up steam and the press is feeling pressured to comment on. There are pro sports writers still that can’t properly comment on sports like basketball, hockey, football, soccer, etc. How is this anything new?
“Calling out” the New York Times because you know more about a sport than them is fucking ridiculous, petty and childish. It reminds me of those really dumb “Truth” anti-smoking ads from a few years ago where some hipster kids would be shown yelling about how evil the tobacco industry is in front of unmarked “Toabacco Headquarters” buildings and act like there was some giant moral victory. That wasn’t a moral victory and telling the NYT that they are dumb for not knowing about obscure MMA event X or knowing what a ‘Hall of Fame’ knockout looks like just blows my mind.
Well said by Kev and Dave I saw that yesterday and thought it seemed to be a case of hubris for MMAJunkie. Childish works quite well for me too.
Well, no wonder journalism has been allowed gone to hell in the states. People are willing to accept poorly researched, misleading garbage. As if it’s not a paid sports writers job to actually make clear, informed articles on the sports he’s working on. Shame on us for expecting quality journalism from paid journalists.
How is it that poorly researched? Do we really expect a sports writer commenting on a sport they don’t know too well to go and know the entire history, or even a large chunk of it?
Exactly how many New York Times articles on MMA are there, and is this something they expect to be covering regularly? Part of the whole journalism thing is when you have to cover something you aren’t all that familiar with to try to make yourself as familiar as you can be and when commenting to come off in a somewhat authoritative voice. If the writer came off as sheepish and unsure the internet would just go off on rants about how disrespectful and pathetic he was, anyway.
Until MMA becomes bigger, don’t expect big things from the big names in the media. Them even discussing MMA is a huge step in the right direction.
Plus, when it comes to “Journalistic Integrity,” as much as I love MMA, it shouldn’t be the biggest concern to journalists to do a still fringe sport justice as much as covering other, more important issues better.
As MMA becomes more popular, more accepted and so on the coverage will of course become better. The fact that the Times even took the time and space to cover that event and take an active interest in the sport is a good thing. Expecting them overnight to know the history of fighters that even a lot of hardcore fans aren’t completely clear on is just typical internet BS.
I think we can all agree that the author, when writing something negative of this nature, could have email the site to confirm that the wording was correct.
I understand anything can be considered posted like I “posted a comment” just like I “posted a story” but WordPress, the most common blogging software, refers to entries as “posts” and user-submitted thoughts as “comments”. That is mainly why a lot of the community refers to things in the way they do even though the terms are rather ambiguous.