MMA Bloggers, Unite!

(Do you hear the bloggers sing! Singing the song of Angry Men!)

Much has been made of Dana White's rant against Loretta Hunt. The questions of journalistic responsibilities and ethical business practices have been discussed ad nauseam. That didn't stop Charles Jay from penning an MMA writer manifesto for dealing with the UFC's hostile stance towards Internet writing and reporting. (Please read Jay's full story before commenting! Also I didn't want to quote a giant chunk of text but his conclusion is long and I feel I should post as much of it so my points have a reasonable context). 

I don't want to disparage Loretta or any other reporter, but if you are really sharp, you can figure out a way to:

(1) Gain access to the real stars of the sport - not White but the competitors - without having to go through the UFC;

(2) Cover a sport without having to get free passes to shows. Tip: Watch it on TV. You see it better. And have the imagination to come up with angles.

In short, get the job done without rolling over for anyone.

Also, a writer/publisher should be industrious enough to be able to open their readers' eyes to the rest of the mixed martial arts world, letting the UFC know it's NOT the only game in town, even if for all intents and purposes, they are.

When someone declares war on you, as the UFC had, it's impossible to win if you act like Switzerland. In fact, you wind up a little more like Poland, circa 1939.

Look, I'm glad Loretta stands behind her story and I'm sure there is a lot of truth to it. But if she and her colleagues had stuck it up their ass from the beginning, the Dana Whites of the world wouldn't even dream of talking like that.

And you'd have a whole different f***king ballgame

Wow there is a lot there.

I don't want to simplify Jay's argument but it seems to come down to this: We can drive our own traffic by what we choose to write about thus the best way we can combat the UFC's lockout is to take an approach that goes around their roadblocks.

This type of argument is nothing new in media and reporting. How much coverage do you give an event or sport? Should it be reflective of the actual numbers e.g. X amount read about the Columbus Crew compared to Y amount who read about the Buckeyes thus Buckeyes get Y coverage and the Crew get X coverage. Some would say that this logic is perfectly sound and is a proportional reflection of the community interest. Detractors would argue that it is because of the prevalence of Buckeye coverage that it garners such lopsided interest and if the Crew received more coverage more people would be interested. It is a difficult debate for members of the media. Are we playing kingmaker or are we fairly reporting the activity in the community? Talk about a prisoner's dilemma.

When it comes to Jay's rhetoric I do have some concerns. Using language like 'declaration of war' and the hinting at journalistic appeasement is counter productive. If anything that type of language lends credence to supporters of the UFC's policy and the argument that we are in fact out to burn Dana White and the Zuffa brass. That language can easily create the perception that we are competing for our own interests as oppose to the interest of our readers and our mission of providing MMA news, information and opinion to our readers. 

First it should be stated that Jay is not arguing for a blackout of UFC coverage. It seems more that he is in favor of a blackout on coverage regarding UFC executives and staff, including Dana White.

Personally, I disagree with such actions. Covering the institution of the UFC is an important objective for MMA media. If the UFC doesn't wish to comment on our coverage and stories, like Loretta Hunt's story, then it is their prerogative and they will have to deal with their voice not being heard in certain reports. I do understand the argument that our coverage of Dana White has helped establish his position as a celebrity and face of the UFC. However I would counter that with today's media environment, such as video blogs, and White's prominent position on The Ultimate Fighter, he would have been able to establish such a persona with or without our coverage.

Now when it comes to covering UFC fight cards and fighters many in the MMA media are already doing what Jay is articulating. For instance Josh Gross doesn't receive credentials despite being a prominent MMA writer for Sports Illustrated. Yet that hasn't stopped him from writing about the UFC and the same can be said for Sherdog and many other MMA websites (WKR included).

Jay also states that one could argue that internet coverage helped make the UFC, thus the UFC should respect and utilize our coverage. I agree with the conclusion but not the preface. While the internet has provided a forum and community to a niche fan base it didn't yield a revolution in MMA's position within the sporting landscape. It would be more accurate to state that the Internet helped enable the rapid the expansion but it wasn't the catalyst that began the cascade, that was Forrest Griffin and Stephan Bonnar's fight on The Ultimate Fighter season one finale.

There is one final point that is important to discuss. The MMA media is largely based online. Online revenue is directly connected to advertising and thus traffic. Since the UFC is the top promotion with a majority, perhaps a super majority of market share for us too maintain economic solvency we have no choice but to cover the UFC. Ironically this ties into the 'prisoner's dilemma' I discussed earlier.

Still it is an interesting debate within the MMA media and we should continue to ask the question: how do we cover a major institution that publicly devalues our existence and work?