TheLukieBaby
Pro
I notice that as Ariel Helwani has been the subject of a lot hate as of late with a lot of his defenders retorted with a variation of "he's a quality journalist". Whether this is true or not, the deeper presupposition is that such a thing exists, or is even possible, among "MMA journalists".
The existence of serious "MMA Journalism" seems to be an unquestioned assumption. I however feel that there's no evidence for it.
Question 1: Does serious MMA journalism exist?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
OK, fine, let's qualify this. I am not claiming that there haven't been serious journalistic investigations into the subject/industry of MMA. Of course there have been (though not many). The problem however is that it's mostly the business press that carries it out. Bloomberg, WSJ, or Forbes reporters, have provided better, more informed, analysis of the UFC as a business than any MMA journalist ever has. As such, I don't think it falls under what we're talking about.
I'm referring more to the Ariel Helwanis, Karyn Bryants, the people that go to the post fight pressers, etc. Even when good aggregation sites like MMAmania, or Bloody Elbow feature interesting stories, those are generally just links to work done by actual journalistic outfits (like the GSP profile done by the NYtimes).
So the question becomes, what high quality journalism do these people provide on their own? Anyone who's ever watched a post fight presser knows that most of it is just dumb journalists asking even dumber questions (e.g. "Are you disappointed that you lost?"). The only reason people watch these things are for:
-Bonus allocation.
-Future matchups.
-Injury reports.
-To see if anyone was cut from the UFC.
Now, you might say: "BUT Lukie!!! Surely, it's important to report these things. The people want to know! That's serious work!"
To which I say, 1. Don't call me Shirley. 2. There's a difference between a journalist, and a stenographer.
stenographer noun \stə-ˈnä-grə-fər\
Definition of STENOGRAPHER
a person employed chiefly to take and transcribe dictation.
The information is announced by the UFC. Simply repeating what the UFC says doesn't make you a journalist. It makes you an underpaid UFC spokesman.
Though court stenographers may be important, we don't confuse them with being journalists that cover the justice system.
This being the case, one quickly finds that pretty much every piece of "original" MMA journalism, is inane, pointless, superficial, irrelevant, or worse- dishonest.
Only true marks think that even a fraction of the MMA "feuds" are sincere. Journalism done the extent of furthering these storylines is analogous to being the guy who does backstage interviews for the WWE.
Evaluations on how fighter training camps are going, are mostly useless in the hands of MMA journalists. Most of this information comes from biased sources, such as paid coaches, and results in hilarious "reports", such as:
"Chael's coach says he will submit Anderson!!".
Most MMA journalists are technically incompetent, and thus most evaluations or "fight previews", are filled with cliches and platitudes. References to "momentum", and "heart", and "re-vitalized" training, are usually giveaways to this type of fluff piece.
Other stuff, such as video highlights, are produced either by fans themselves, or the UFC.
Question 2: Are there impediments to serious MMA journalism?
Yes. It's not impossible to have serious work done in this field (as the business press has demonstrated). Other sports, though plagued with similar type of faux journalism, also have highly regarded figures that are capable of producing genuine insight.
Part of the blame of course has to go to MMA journalists themselves. Look, MMA, much as we may love it, is still a bit of a niche sport. MMA journalism is even more of a tiny niche. The graduates of Columbias journalism school are in near future going to say to them "I can't wait to do quality work about MMA". As such, the quality of our journalists probably isn't going to be too high.
Most lack the training and sophistication to be able to do stories that involve things like UFC finances. Others don't know when to draw the line between the personal, and the professional. Others simply aren't that good at writing, or at painting complete pictures. Most are probably easily intimidated, as they confuse access, with being able to do good journalism (something that the legendary high stakes journalist I.F. Stone disproved).
As such, it's easy for our journalists to be co-opted, or worse.
Part of the blame however must also go to the UFC.
Now, let's be clear. I don't expect the UFC to act differently. As a business, OF COURSE they will try to create the most friendly media environment possible. I'm merely pointing out HOW they do it.
For starters, Dana uses good old fashioned intimidation, and black listing. Journalists, who don't kiss the ring, often get their credentials revoked. Sometimes, they get called "fukking c*nts". Other times, they get out right fired (like the guy who ghost wrote BJ Penn's book).
It's not all just straight up coercion however. Where as disobedience is punished, loyal service is rewarded. Notice how Dana hired Ariel for the VS stuff they were doing. Do you think he hired him because of his independent truth-telling, or because of how he furthers "story lines", already had corporate backing, and how he already proved his submission by letting himself be berated by Dana?
Remember: Journalism in general is a low paying gig. People often trip over themselves for access. Do you think a lot of the people with access and jobs will trip over themselves? Not likely.
Finally, also consider the nature of the UFC. They haven't gone public, nor are they subject to regulation like other sports leagues. As such, they are very shady about their financials. About their owners being shady, union busting casino moguls. About how one of their owners is a shady middle eastern dictator. Hell, the only reason we know that one of their owners was run out of town by the mob, was because he himself came clean about it!
Considering that the UFC themselves has to be the source for most of the information, prospects for current MMA journalism are bleak.
But it doesn't have to be that way forever. The first step, as with any problem, is acknowledging that the problem exists.
The existence of serious "MMA Journalism" seems to be an unquestioned assumption. I however feel that there's no evidence for it.
Question 1: Does serious MMA journalism exist?
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
OK, fine, let's qualify this. I am not claiming that there haven't been serious journalistic investigations into the subject/industry of MMA. Of course there have been (though not many). The problem however is that it's mostly the business press that carries it out. Bloomberg, WSJ, or Forbes reporters, have provided better, more informed, analysis of the UFC as a business than any MMA journalist ever has. As such, I don't think it falls under what we're talking about.
I'm referring more to the Ariel Helwanis, Karyn Bryants, the people that go to the post fight pressers, etc. Even when good aggregation sites like MMAmania, or Bloody Elbow feature interesting stories, those are generally just links to work done by actual journalistic outfits (like the GSP profile done by the NYtimes).
So the question becomes, what high quality journalism do these people provide on their own? Anyone who's ever watched a post fight presser knows that most of it is just dumb journalists asking even dumber questions (e.g. "Are you disappointed that you lost?"). The only reason people watch these things are for:
-Bonus allocation.
-Future matchups.
-Injury reports.
-To see if anyone was cut from the UFC.
Now, you might say: "BUT Lukie!!! Surely, it's important to report these things. The people want to know! That's serious work!"
To which I say, 1. Don't call me Shirley. 2. There's a difference between a journalist, and a stenographer.
stenographer noun \stə-ˈnä-grə-fər\
Definition of STENOGRAPHER
a person employed chiefly to take and transcribe dictation.
The information is announced by the UFC. Simply repeating what the UFC says doesn't make you a journalist. It makes you an underpaid UFC spokesman.
Though court stenographers may be important, we don't confuse them with being journalists that cover the justice system.
This being the case, one quickly finds that pretty much every piece of "original" MMA journalism, is inane, pointless, superficial, irrelevant, or worse- dishonest.
Only true marks think that even a fraction of the MMA "feuds" are sincere. Journalism done the extent of furthering these storylines is analogous to being the guy who does backstage interviews for the WWE.
Evaluations on how fighter training camps are going, are mostly useless in the hands of MMA journalists. Most of this information comes from biased sources, such as paid coaches, and results in hilarious "reports", such as:
"Chael's coach says he will submit Anderson!!".
Most MMA journalists are technically incompetent, and thus most evaluations or "fight previews", are filled with cliches and platitudes. References to "momentum", and "heart", and "re-vitalized" training, are usually giveaways to this type of fluff piece.
Other stuff, such as video highlights, are produced either by fans themselves, or the UFC.
Question 2: Are there impediments to serious MMA journalism?
Yes. It's not impossible to have serious work done in this field (as the business press has demonstrated). Other sports, though plagued with similar type of faux journalism, also have highly regarded figures that are capable of producing genuine insight.
Part of the blame of course has to go to MMA journalists themselves. Look, MMA, much as we may love it, is still a bit of a niche sport. MMA journalism is even more of a tiny niche. The graduates of Columbias journalism school are in near future going to say to them "I can't wait to do quality work about MMA". As such, the quality of our journalists probably isn't going to be too high.
Most lack the training and sophistication to be able to do stories that involve things like UFC finances. Others don't know when to draw the line between the personal, and the professional. Others simply aren't that good at writing, or at painting complete pictures. Most are probably easily intimidated, as they confuse access, with being able to do good journalism (something that the legendary high stakes journalist I.F. Stone disproved).
As such, it's easy for our journalists to be co-opted, or worse.
Part of the blame however must also go to the UFC.
Now, let's be clear. I don't expect the UFC to act differently. As a business, OF COURSE they will try to create the most friendly media environment possible. I'm merely pointing out HOW they do it.
For starters, Dana uses good old fashioned intimidation, and black listing. Journalists, who don't kiss the ring, often get their credentials revoked. Sometimes, they get called "fukking c*nts". Other times, they get out right fired (like the guy who ghost wrote BJ Penn's book).
It's not all just straight up coercion however. Where as disobedience is punished, loyal service is rewarded. Notice how Dana hired Ariel for the VS stuff they were doing. Do you think he hired him because of his independent truth-telling, or because of how he furthers "story lines", already had corporate backing, and how he already proved his submission by letting himself be berated by Dana?
Remember: Journalism in general is a low paying gig. People often trip over themselves for access. Do you think a lot of the people with access and jobs will trip over themselves? Not likely.
Finally, also consider the nature of the UFC. They haven't gone public, nor are they subject to regulation like other sports leagues. As such, they are very shady about their financials. About their owners being shady, union busting casino moguls. About how one of their owners is a shady middle eastern dictator. Hell, the only reason we know that one of their owners was run out of town by the mob, was because he himself came clean about it!
Considering that the UFC themselves has to be the source for most of the information, prospects for current MMA journalism are bleak.
But it doesn't have to be that way forever. The first step, as with any problem, is acknowledging that the problem exists.
