|
Post by eJm on Dec 29, 2007 13:42:31 GMT -5
I've noticed for ages now how, when something from the Observer or any other site crops up, there are always the people who seem to think Dave makes stuff up
It doesn't work that way. Never has and never will. Meltzer doesn't make up random stories so that people view his website. Nor does he sneak around Stamford, Conneticuit making up things about Vince because he feels like it.
Why do newspapers get breaking stories? Because they have sources.
Sources are people who are unnamed who give information out to others for payment. If several sources send the same story, Meltzer publishes it. If a new storyline is happening and 5 people email Meltzer about it, he puts it in. Meltzer, Keller or whoever else gets these sources to tell him what is going on in the company and pay them for their services.
The thing is, though, sources can be, and have been, wrong. Sometimes sources can ovexagurate things and sometimes end up getting people sacked.
Take a recent case in The UK's Daily Mirror. Piers Morgan, then editor, was given some pictures which he was told were of British Soldiers being tortured in Iraq. Instantly, he put them on the front cover of the paper. It turned out, however, that they were shot just outside of London in an old factory. As a result, Piers resigned.
I know what you are thinking 'So why don't they clarify their sources?'. Because 1) Noone outside of us smarks takes a real interest in this news so guys like Meltzer and even WWE.com are our only gateway to this sort of stuff and 2) If you called the WWE asking about backstage behavior, they'd probably hang up on you.
I'm not saying this system is perfect, but places like the Observer only want to get news stories and use sources for these. But since we don't know these sources, Meltzer ends up taking the bane of it. It's just like with any newspaper except they have no real way of clarifying anything.
|
|
Reverend BTY
Hank Scorpio
Christian Troy: God's Gift
Posts: 7,206
|
Post by Reverend BTY on Dec 29, 2007 13:52:34 GMT -5
I just think people like to have something to bitch about. God bless'em, we all need something to complain about. Some just like to complain about wrestling news reporters, of all things.
|
|
|
Post by SassovsHart on Dec 29, 2007 13:57:19 GMT -5
Shouldn't they be more wary of the people they uses as sources though if lots of stories turn out false, or a pattern becomes evident that one particular source is just something with an axe to grind? And the times I actually see certain reporters actually go back and admit one of his sources was wrong, then clarify the story are pretty rare. It seems that with many stories that certain reporters could care less about being reponsible as a journalist, or that they could care less if the story they got is really true or not.
|
|
Reverend BTY
Hank Scorpio
Christian Troy: God's Gift
Posts: 7,206
|
Post by Reverend BTY on Dec 29, 2007 14:03:00 GMT -5
SvH you make a good point. However, I actually don't read too many totally off the wall stories. When there is one that's totally wrong, it's usually just a one time thing. I guess you gotta chalk that up to taking the stories with a grain of salt.
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips on Dec 29, 2007 14:07:53 GMT -5
I've noticed for ages now how, when something from the Observer or any other site crops up, there are always the people who seem to think Dave makes stuff up It doesn't work that way. Never has and never will. Meltzer doesn't make up random stories so that people view his website. Nor does he sneak around Stamford, Conneticuit making up things about Vince because he feels like it. Why do newspapers get breaking stories? Because they have sources. Sources are people who are unnamed who give information out to others for payment. If several sources send the same story, Meltzer publishes it. If a new storyline is happening and 5 people email Meltzer about it, he puts it in. Meltzer, Keller or whoever else gets these sources to tell him what is going on in the company and pay them for their services. The thing is, though, sources can be, and have been, wrong. Sometimes sources can ovexagurate things and sometimes end up getting people sacked. Take a recent case in The UK's Daily Mirror. Piers Morgan, then editor, was given some pictures which he was told were of British Soldiers being tortured in Iraq. Instantly, he put them on the front cover of the paper. It turned out, however, that they were shot just outside of London in an old factory. As a result, Piers resigned. I know what you are thinking 'So why don't they clarify their sources?'. Because 1) Noone outside of us smarks takes a real interest in this news so guys like Meltzer and even WWE.com are our only gateway to this sort of stuff and 2) If you called the WWE asking about backstage behavior, they'd probably hang up on you. I'm not saying this system is perfect, but places like the Observer only want to get news stories and use sources for these. But since we don't know these sources, Meltzer ends up taking the bane of it. It's just like with any newspaper except they have no real way of clarifying anything. Aw, stop ruining our fun and get the hell out of here, Meltzer....
|
|
|
Post by ghettooverlord on Dec 29, 2007 14:11:28 GMT -5
I've noticed for ages now how, when something from the Observer or any other site crops up, there are always the people who seem to think Dave makes stuff up It doesn't work that way. Never has and never will. Meltzer doesn't make up random stories so that people view his website. Nor does he sneak around Stamford, Conneticuit making up things about Vince because he feels like it. Why do newspapers get breaking stories? Because they have sources. Sources are people who are unnamed who give information out to others for payment. If several sources send the same story, Meltzer publishes it. If a new storyline is happening and 5 people email Meltzer about it, he puts it in. Meltzer, Keller or whoever else gets these sources to tell him what is going on in the company and pay them for their services. The thing is, though, sources can be, and have been, wrong. Sometimes sources can ovexagurate things and sometimes end up getting people sacked. Take a recent case in The UK's Daily Mirror. Piers Morgan, then editor, was given some pictures which he was told were of British Soldiers being tortured in Iraq. Instantly, he put them on the front cover of the paper. It turned out, however, that they were shot just outside of London in an old factory. As a result, Piers resigned. I know what you are thinking 'So why don't they clarify their sources?'. Because 1) Noone outside of us smarks takes a real interest in this news so guys like Meltzer and even WWE.com are our only gateway to this sort of stuff and 2) If you called the WWE asking about backstage behavior, they'd probably hang up on you. I'm not saying this system is perfect, but places like the Observer only want to get news stories and use sources for these. But since we don't know these sources, Meltzer ends up taking the bane of it. It's just like with any newspaper except they have no real way of clarifying anything. [Post stating "Observe THIS, brother!" followed by a threadbreak.]
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Dec 29, 2007 14:19:34 GMT -5
I doubt Meltzer or Keller or any so-called Wrestling Journalists do anything else besides take the sources at their word. There's no fact-checking or anything else that resembles good reporting outside of things like ratings numbers. They publish rumors that may turn out to eventually be true, but many of them are false.
Sorry, but I find the idea of saying Meltzer or any of his ilk are like reputable newspapers to be incredibly silly. Now, if you compared it to the National Enquirer or Star or any other tabloid, then you'd have something.
|
|
|
Post by Just "Dan" is Fine, Thank You on Dec 29, 2007 14:28:02 GMT -5
We don't know if he has sources or not. We do know that he has no accountability, and the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. He hasn't proven squat.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Dec 29, 2007 18:03:53 GMT -5
I think a lot of it has to do with things being taken out of proportion. When I think of a story, I try to picture the story, and cut the severity in it by half. Because most internet stories are blown out of proportion, and that's the main issue.
I actually feel a lot of people think Melzer is right with a lot of things, because when something is reported, sometimes it will said to be smark bait. Well, what that's saying is, Melzer is never wrong, he just makes stuff up sometimes and is right the other times. He can never just be wrong.
Plus like, I hate it when news is reported (and I hate this in the regular media as well) there is a bias. Bryan Alverez, I know he helped write one of the Wrestlecrap books (and somebody actually said that as a response to me when I critisized him), but he's just a wrestling pundit, he's not a journalist because he reports news and puts his point of view in. So, when it's read, people end up assuming his point of view might be true, when he's just blowing it out of proportion.
But I think that's the biggest problem. And like, with Alverez, when he reports news, he puts his opinion in with it. That's bullshit. I mean, damn, make a separate piece, just say what the news item is, and comment on it at a later time. I mean, if you're going to do commentary on it, that's fine. No problem. People can have opinions. But, you gotta keep em separated, like the song says.
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Dec 29, 2007 18:14:41 GMT -5
I think a lot of it has to do with things being taken out of proportion. When I think of a story, I try to picture the story, and cut the severity in it by half. Because most internet stories are blown out of proportion, and that's the main issue. I actually feel a lot of people think Melzer is right with a lot of things, because when something is reported, sometimes it will said to be smark bait. Well, what that's saying is, Melzer is never wrong, he just makes stuff up sometimes and is right the other times. He can never just be wrong. Plus like, I hate it when news is reported (and I hate this in the regular media as well) there is a bias. Bryan Alverez, I know he helped write one of the Wrestlecrap books (and somebody actually said that as a response to me when I critisized him), but he's just a wrestling pundit, he's not a journalist because he reports news and puts his point of view in. So, when it's read, people end up assuming his point of view might be true, when he's just blowing it out of proportion. But I think that's the biggest problem. And like, with Alverez, when he reports news, he puts his opinion in with it. That's bullcrap. I mean, damn, make a separate piece, just say what the news item is, and comment on it at a later time. I mean, if you're going to do commentary on it, that's fine. No problem. People can have opinions. But, you gotta keep em separated, like the song says. Agreed with Alvarez. His news seems to have such a pretentious and patronising tone that comes across from his opinions. From the stuff that gets pasted on here I lose count of the amount of 'because, you know' word combinations I read. He reports the news, then gives it a 'because, you know, Vince is out of touch with modern entertainment' or something. Really grates with me. Infact a concrete example is apparently Vince being deeply upset that the Major Brothers weren't really related...'because, you know, it's not as if Vince hasn't got a leprecahn for a son'. Firstly I found the story in itself difficult to believe, but does he ever stop to think that Vince has a pretty educated mind to form his opinions and so if he thinks something it's with very good reason? That's just one example that grates. Giving the opinions with news though is just a major annoyance. If he has a particular opinion of Vince, or HHH, or Steph, or anyone, it will come across in his news, and then others will start to believe it, which leads to massive misconceptions being formed.
|
|
|
Post by mysterydriver on Dec 29, 2007 18:15:59 GMT -5
One thing the "sources" have an advantage in is corrupting the truth.
Perception is power.
Look at Triple H. So many stories about him "holding" people down have led to people hating him and believing any story. Heck, Gerweck.net came up with a lame "Triple H changed his mind and that's the only reason Hardy won." story that I posted last night.
All the sources have to do is say, "So & so has a bad attitude. So &so is willing to improve." and it causes different feelings towards them. Sure, some wrestlers have built in fans (like CM Punk) who refuse to believe bad stories and defend the wrestler but other wrestlers who may not can look bad this way.
|
|
|
Post by Mongo & Pepe: Back in Black on Dec 29, 2007 18:19:34 GMT -5
I think a lot of it has to do with things being taken out of proportion. When I think of a story, I try to picture the story, and cut the severity in it by half. Because most internet stories are blown out of proportion, and that's the main issue. I actually feel a lot of people think Melzer is right with a lot of things, because when something is reported, sometimes it will said to be smark bait. Well, what that's saying is, Melzer is never wrong, he just makes stuff up sometimes and is right the other times. He can never just be wrong. Plus like, I hate it when news is reported (and I hate this in the regular media as well) there is a bias. Bryan Alverez, I know he helped write one of the Wrestlecrap books (and somebody actually said that as a response to me when I critisized him), but he's just a wrestling pundit, he's not a journalist because he reports news and puts his point of view in. So, when it's read, people end up assuming his point of view might be true, when he's just blowing it out of proportion. But I think that's the biggest problem. And like, with Alverez, when he reports news, he puts his opinion in with it. That's bullcrap. I mean, damn, make a separate piece, just say what the news item is, and comment on it at a later time. I mean, if you're going to do commentary on it, that's fine. No problem. People can have opinions. But, you gotta keep em separated, like the song says. That's Alvarez's whole gimmick though, giving his opinion. He's somewhat affiliated with Meltzer. They both report pretty much the same news. People buy Meltzer's newsletter for the news. They buy Alvarez's for his opinion on the news.
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Dec 29, 2007 18:22:36 GMT -5
Another thing on the argument against newz:
Often it will be reported in a particular way to suit the stance, agenda or the opinion of the guy that is writing it. That's why people can get annoyed, because perhaps it isn't that the news is always wrong as such, just the way in which it is written makes it diffcult to believe.
Like Jeff getting the win because HHH wants his shot at Wrestlemania. Maybe it didn't happen like that just because HHH decided, and what HHH wants, HHH gets. (As if it would be that simple in a major company like WWE anyway). Maybe it was decided that Jeff goes over to sustain his push, keep momentum going, and give him a big win over an established star, and HHH held discussions with management and bookers and decided it would harm Jeff's crediblity if he were to lose when he was expected - where as a win could make fans think 'whoa, Jeff's now the real deal'. That's just as likely to have happened, but it was reported in such a lazy way just to further the 'HHH gets what he wants constantly' line that they have created.
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Dec 29, 2007 18:46:00 GMT -5
I think a lot of Alvarez appeal is his funny/humourous writing. As for as his news reporting goes, he's been wrong on so many things it has actually become a running joke over at f4w.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 29, 2007 19:28:07 GMT -5
When all your sources are "anonymous," people are going to stop trusting what you say. When you're reporting on rumors that may not ever be substantiated, it makes it even worse. When something different turns out happening, well, you get the idea.
What he does isn't comparable to real journalism. In any reputable newspaper, anonymous sources aren't used unless they have no other option and they always have someone on the record in stories. Meltzer doesn't, so people don't trust him. It will happen for anyone if they try to report rumors without sources like he does. People take gossip with a grain of salt, and what he's doing essentially equates to glorified gossip.
And no, sources for newspapers aren't paid, at least not at an paper I've worked at. Doing so would undermine anything they said.
|
|
|
Post by salsashark on Dec 29, 2007 21:12:38 GMT -5
The incredible vagueness also really puts me off. These sources tend to give us no-shit alternatives (A story a few days ago mentioned Cena's return as being "either a surprised or advertised." WHOA REALLY?!?!?!) to information that sounds suspect to begin with. They are absolutely nothing like real newspapers because there is no sense of journalistic credibility. All are small paragraphs of heresay, and when I hear about results that are supposed to turn out one way that go the other, credibility is worsened even further.
My only wish is that some day a REAL good wrestling journalist will come along who writes really interesting stories in an intelligent style, AND manages to report real-life happenings in the shadows of the wrestling world while maintaining a sense of credibility. I doubt this will come true.
|
|
|
Post by TRUTH TELLER on Dec 30, 2007 2:21:57 GMT -5
The incredible vagueness also really puts me off. These sources tend to give us no-crap alternatives (A story a few days ago mentioned Cena's return as being "either a surprised or advertised." WHOA REALLY?!?!?!) to information that sounds suspect to begin with. They are absolutely nothing like real newspapers because there is no sense of journalistic credibility. All are small paragraphs of heresay, and when I hear about results that are supposed to turn out one way that go the other, credibility is worsened even further. My only wish is that some day a REAL good wrestling journalist will come along who writes really interesting stories in an intelligent style, AND manages to report real-life happenings in the shadows of the wrestling world while maintaining a sense of credibility. I doubt this will come true. I agree with you at heart, but I really think the nature of the business makes having true journalism with named sources almost impossible. WWE is structured in such a way that any one wrestler who falls out of favor for whatever reason can be demoted and punished in multiple ways. Pro wrestling, especially in WWE, is a dictatorship, and as such any information we do get, second-hand through Meltzer is done so secretly because the ramifications of coming forward would be disastrous for that individual’s career. WWE, unlike say acting and writing, has no Union to protect certain interests, and if Vince or whomever in positions of power feel like burying someone for speaking of backstage politics, rumors, booking, etc., he can absolutely do so with no repercussions. WWE has created an environment where people whom hold complaints or concerns (whether you agree with them or not) HAVE to secretly leak them to these reporters (because there is no one else) to get their viewpoints out. Now, I think a lot of times, these “sources” are spreading THEIR own views of certain events, likely to present their own plight in a better light, but the fact remains that a source coming forward is an impossibility because it’d be career suicide. That all said, for that, I don’t blame Meltzer or Alvarez. Because as someone stated earlier, WWE refuses to completely come clean on this kind of dirt themselves, (and maybe rightfully so) so more underhanded sneaky approaches are needed. The fact is, WWE is entertainment like they proudly boast, and as in all other forms of entertainment, there’s always going to be a certain level of sensationalistic journalism, reporting sketchy tabloid-style rumors. It happens everywhere. This however doesn’t mean there’s not ever a shred of truth to these rumors. With a few very obvious exceptions, I think there’s a grain of truth to most of the stories. Whether it just is something overheard that was then eventually discarded or forgotten about by those who said it. That’s how gossip works. It’s not like there’s someone clung to the ceiling with a tape recorder. These things are probably overheard by “wrestler A” like the way you might overhear someone in management in your office talking about who deserves a promotion. You hear that info, and tell someone. Now whether or not that promotion actually happens is out of that person who overheard its hands, as it may never transpire for any number of reasons. This however doesn’t mean that the person didn’t overhear that conversation. It’s just gossip. Wrestling is no different. Sometimes I think people here (not everyone) don’t want to accept certain rumors as MAYBE being true because it destroys the pristine view they have of their certain favorite wrestlers. I know I’d be upset if every report I ever heard painted my favorite entertainer as being a conniving, manipulative jackass. I think in that case I too might be upset and in denial. But then I might think to myself that although not everything being said is true (that’d be absurd), the fact it keeps coming up over years and years of reporting is perhaps because some of it might be based on reality. Or at least the perception of those who are around that person. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Dick Foley on Dec 30, 2007 2:49:39 GMT -5
Does anyone trust Meltzer's rating system? What about his views on UFC?
|
|
|
Post by Loki on Dec 30, 2007 6:21:46 GMT -5
What kills any credibility in news sites is the constant use of vague expressions like: "sources reported that..." "apparently" "X is said to..." "likely" "maybe" etc
The vast majority of news are just a bunch of stereotyped factoids twisted and bent in different ways to fit a possible future event.
The sad part is many many fans fall every time for that kind of crap and even base their judgment of a wrestler on what they've read online.
The Triple H-ate is the biggest example of the "Pavlov's dog" effect, but it works for WWE's "fixation on hosses" and tons of other things.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Dec 30, 2007 6:38:10 GMT -5
What kills any credibility in news sites is the constant use of vague expressions like: "sources reported that..." "apparently" "X is said to..." "likely" "maybe" etc Not saying I disagree, but hey, it's worked for the entertainment industry for this long.
|
|