Over the last five years of studying journalism, there was one thing I was repeatedly told; any journalist worth their salt should be tuned into the news. The good, the bad, the ugly. Read and listen to as much as you can. Learn from the successes and the failures of others. Think in a critical way about what they’re doing; right and wrong. Know your favourite writers, and your least favourite.
Within my very specific niche, I have tried to pay more attention to the particulars of what I read on a day to day basis. In wrestling, it’s easy to pick up on the vague riff-raff that gets tweeted or blogged about on an hourly basis – heard through the grapevine or posted on a free-site with more established sites cited as an alleged source. Whether it’s news, reviews, gossip or opinion pieces – I always ask; who wrote this? Do they have more articles on this site? Are they any good? What does this person’s presence on the site tell me about the site as a whole? Is this a person worth subscribing to, even if we don’t necessarily agree on everything? In recent years, I feel I have a wider, better understanding of some of the must-reads (and must-avoids) in wrestling journalism. One thing I’m really appreciative of, when it comes to studying journalism, is that it has helped me to appreciate the art in a whole new way. Similar to how I love to think critically about wrestling or movies or games – thinking critically about the way other people write is fascinating to me.
As fascinating as it is to me, however, it’s also quite alienating. Within the weird subculture of pro wrestling, it feels like people who think critically about pro wrestling journalism are a niche within a niche.
Wrestling fans have a love hate relationship with wrestling news coverage. They seem to hate any and all reporters but can’t deny they love the insider gossip.
In my experience, the vast majority of fans paint in very broad strokes when it comes to wrestling journalism. “Dirtsheets don’t know anything. They have no sources. It’s all guess work and they’re wrong more than they’re right.” I’m sure you’ve heard this time and time again. In a sense, I know where this mindset comes from. In my earliest days of internet-savvy wrestling fandom, news gathering involved Googling “wrestling news,” clicking the first one or two results, reading whatever lazy copy-and-paste site came up, and then regurgitating the ill-sourced news to my friends for the remainder of the week. And when the spurious projections didn’t come to fruition? Well it wasn’t my fault! It was the no-good wrestling news media!
Things changed with time, and not just because I was studying journalism. Over the years, as my internet consumption ramped up, I learned that you had to be more discerning in what you believed – or you’d be overwhelmed by a tidal wave of viral nonsense and rumours.
Eventually, I decided to make use of the free trial month offered by F4WOnline – the website of Dave Meltzer’s Wrestling Observer Newsletter, and Bryan Alvarez’ Figure Four Weekly. Four years later – I’m happy to have a subscription with them, albeit on and off. There’s almost too much content to sift through, a bevy of audio in a variety of tones and styles, plenty of news and a nice mix of additional contributors. As well as Meltzer, whose reputation is known, new additions like Bleacher Report’s David Bixenspan have added some new life to the site of late. Contrary to popular belief, in terms of news, the number of hits far outweighs the misses, such as the widely-scoffed at report that Bray Wyatt would face John Cena at Wrestlemania, which broke late last year and no one believed. Unfortunately, the nature of the internet is such that it’s the slip ups (or perceived slip ups) that get the most attention. One such slip up was actually what prompted me to write this article, which I’ve been thinking on for a few months now.
Last weekend, Meltzer reported that – according a source – CM Punk would be at RAW, following his controversial walk-out in January. On the weekend edition of Wrestling Observer Radio, Meltzer noted that while he wasn’t totally convinced, the source in question was 100% certain Punk would be present at the show, and that the source would be someone who would know. Of course, Punk never showed up.
Immediately, there were a lot of ‘told ya so’ narratives being formed on Twitter and elsewhere, that Meltzer had said Punk would 100% be at the show and he was wrong. Which, even if true, is not the end of the world nor some kind of black eye on the man’s 30 year career. Ultimately, Meltzer said on Monday that his source had been lied to. ‘Sources’ and ‘journalists’ are ultimately just synonyms for people, and having been lucky enough to learn from some experienced journalists, I can tell you your sources are just as likely to drop the ball on any given day, as any other people in your life. Journalism involves a difficult balance of breaking news fast, but also breaking it right. Not to mention a balance of protecting your sources but at the same time being held accountable when things go wrong. It doesn’t always go to plan, and while it shouldn’t be brushed off, you also shouldn’t define someone by their last mistake. Regardless, in the age of social media, stories spread like wildfire, and oftentimes details begin to fall off as they gather momentum. In this case – it didn’t matter that Meltzer didn’t seem totally convinced by the notion Punk would be at RAW – by Monday evening, a lot of people were of the belief he reported Punk would be there. Even a sizable amount of people who didn’t hear the report for themselves.
Having listened to and read an awful lot of the content on WrestlingObserver.com, taking into account Meltzer’s track record and knowing the huge names who would vouch for him – it’s obvious to me that the site is still one of the leaders in reliable wrestling news… and just like in mainstream media, even the leaders have misfires from time to time. This article shouldn’t be misconstrued as a claim they’re 100% right, 100% of the time.
The issue I’m looking at expands beyond this one story, and this one site. As I noted earlier – wrestling fans paint in broad strokes and, in general, don’t seem to have any respect for the vast majority of what I would consider reputable news outlets.
I can’t claim to know the reason why, but in my experience, those speaking out against prominent news sites are consistently vague and unspecific in their qualms – or as with the above example – they’ll be presenting a close-but-not-quite-right version of the story. It seems to me that wrestling fans just don’t take enough interest in the places they go for news – and as a result they tar everyone with the same brush. A free site presenting premium news from a usually trusted source is not the same thing as going to the source in question. Most people won’t be in a rush to pay $10 a month for a site that the internet zeitgeist convinces them is a scam, and so the vicious circle will continue; a lazily-run free site will leech off the established giants of wrestling news, while simultaneously tarnishing their reputation, and suffering zero come back.
It’s becoming easier and easier to buy and run a website. It’s not a difficult task to set up a blog, buy URL for a year, get a subscription to PWInsider, and act like you’re the CNN of wrestling. Just like with the mainstream media, a keen eye and higher standards are all you need to filter the nonsense out of your news intake. Sites like the one you’re reading right now – are obviously of a different calibre. It’s evident from the huge amounts of live event coverage, podcasts, columns and interviews that this site is an example of one that’s run by passionate, informed, dedicated people. If you move beyond the perception that all sites are the same and judge them on individual merit, you’ll see the ones worth sticking with.
I’d hope that fans would move past this weird perception of wrestling journalists as snake-oil salesman and realize that some of them do have a clue what they’re doing and deserve your attention.
The National Inquirer is correct on more stories than they get wrong. TMZ breaks more legit, major news than the mainstream media does. Still doesn’t change the general public perception that they are tabloids. Not everyone believes the sheets as gospel. Nor does everyone say they are wrong. Just take any news with a grain of salt and don’t go all in belief or disbelief.
You’re the man now, dog.