MMA Off-Topic

[DieHardYankee26]

They did what was within their rights, it's not like they put a restriction on him entering the building. If someone invites you in their house and you do something they don't like, you get kicked out and the door won't be open for you again, that's just life.

But they should be careful IMO. If Rogan's contract runs out and he doesn't resign and Ariel were to stop covering the sport, I'd basically be out and I don't think im the only one. I like fighting but I get almost all of my information from the MMA Hour, I don't scour the web for this stuff and Rogan is both the voice of the sport and I love his fight companions more than commentary when he isn't at the event. Losing these guys would be a big blow to the UFC IMO, ESPN and Fox are promoting UFC because it benefits them, if that isn't the case they won't anymore. Ariel's been around forever.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by DieHardYankee26

They did what was within their rights, it's not like they put a restriction on him entering the building. If someone invites you in their house and you do something they don't like, you get kicked out and the door won't be open for you again, that's just life. But they should be careful IMO. If Rogan's contract runs out and he doesn't resign and Ariel were to stop covering the sport, I'd basically be out and I don't think im the only one. I like fighting but I get almost all of my information from the MMA Hour, I don't scour the web for this stuff and Rogan is both the voice of the sport and I love his fight companions more than commentary when he isn't at the event. Losing these guys would be a big blow to the UFC IMO, ESPN and Fox are promoting UFC because it benefits them, if that isn't the case they won't anymore. Ariel's been around forever.

Really?

No matter what I love the fights foremost. Before I even knew what Sherdog was, I was watching UFC fights. Same with boxing. The press serves as a companion to the fights but I dont need Ariel, Joe, Luke Thomas or any analyst to get excited about a good PPV or Fox card.

Also Ariel doesnt do this strictly for the love of the sport...he doesnt it because he gets paid well.

Thats what was a bit alarming to me about Ariel's speech yesterday. He realized that he needs the UFC more than they need him. If he cant go to press events, he cant get those 5-10 interviews he gets before most events. If he's blacklisted, the UFC can make it so no UFC fighter will appear on the MMA Hour. During his speech, he wasnt saying "I'm still going to report on MMA". He was saying "I hope the UFC changes its mind because I dont know what I'm gonna do if they dont".

Josh Gross has been banned by the UFC for a decade and he still writes about MMA. Shoot, he was ESPN's lead writer for a few years but still couldnt get UFC press credentials. The job is harder for him but he still does it because he loves the sport.

It comes down to this for me:

Ariel knew the UFC was going to be pissed about the Brock leak and he did it anyway because he didnt think the UFC would ban him. He was wrong.

The UFC overreacted and banned him (and two of his colleagues who had nothing to do with the leak). They were wrong.

[jeremym480]

I don't think there's anyone reporter, announcer, fighter or even president/promoter that would make be stop watching fights. I don't watch/listen/follow enough stuff for it to even move the needle with me. The only thing that would make me quit watching is if I lost interest and stopped caring about the sport.

[DJ]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

Really? No matter what I love the fights foremost. Before I even knew what Sherdog was, I was watching UFC fights. Same with boxing. The press serves as a companion to the fights but I dont need Ariel, Joe, Luke Thomas or any analyst to get excited about a good PPV or Fox card. Also Ariel doesnt do this strictly for the love of the sport...he doesnt it because he gets paid well. Thats what was a bit alarming to me about Ariel's speech yesterday. He realized that he needs the UFC more than they need him. If he cant go to press events, he cant get those 5-10 interviews he gets before most events. If he's blacklisted, the UFC can make it so no UFC fighter will appear on the MMA Hour. During his speech, he wasnt saying "I'm still going to report on MMA". He was saying "I hope the UFC changes its mind because I dont know what I'm gonna do if they dont". Josh Gross has been banned by the UFC for a decade and he still writes about MMA. Shoot, he was ESPN's lead writer for a few years but still couldnt get UFC press credentials. The job is harder for him but he still does it because he loves the sport. It comes down to this for me: Ariel knew the UFC was going to be pissed about the Brock leak and he did it anyway because he didnt think the UFC would ban him. He was wrong. The UFC overreacted and banned him (and two of his colleagues who had nothing to do with the leak). They were wrong.

I listened to Ariel's show last night (before I heard the ban had been lifted) and while I think he was justified in breaking both of those stories, I do think he should've had a conversation with the UFC about the two scoops before running with them.

Bert hit it right on the head with his last two statements. Both sides were in the wrong.

[jasontoddwhitt]

Let me preface this by saying that I have worked in the media.

Number one rule of journalism is you don't sit on a story. If you have multiple credible sources who can confirm the story, then you run it. There is a problem with journalists who look for just one source before running with a story, but Ariel doesn't sound like that kind of journalist. If I'm in his position, I run the story....both of them. He's not obligated to run the story by UFC, because UFC will either lie and say it's not true (which goes against the multiple sources who confirmed the story) or they will tell you to sit on the story (which goes against rule #1).

If UFC is so worried about a leak, then they need to look internally, not blast the journalist for doing his job.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by jasontoddwhitt

Let me preface this by saying that I have worked in the media. Number one rule of journalism is you don't sit on a story. If you have multiple credible sources who can confirm the story, then you run it. There is a problem with journalists who look for just one source before running with a story, but Ariel doesn't sound like that kind of journalist. If I'm in his position, I run the story....both of them. He's not obligated to run the story by UFC, because UFC will either lie and say it's not true (which goes against the multiple sources who confirmed the story) or they will tell you to sit on the story (which goes against rule #1). If UFC is so worried about a leak, then they need to look internally, not blast the journalist for doing his job.

But dont you have an obligation to check with the people involved in the story? For example, Ariel's sources couldve been Paul Heyman (who is a close friend of Lesnar) and a WWE employee (who would know because they granted Lesnar the right to fight at 200).

Neither one of those sources is directly involved with the story but both of them would be considered "credible." If you are trying to protect a relationsip that benefits you, wouldnt you want to give the UFC the oppurtunity to comment?

If they say "no comment", you report no comment. If they say "its a lie", you report it like ESPN did and say that its rumored but the UFC is denying it.

If they ask you to park it, you refuse but at least you've given the UFC a chance to respond.

[The JareBear]

I definitely understand why UFC did it, and they were well within their rights to do so. Knowing that he was previously cashing Zuffa checks definitely shed a different light on the whole situation as well.

I think he's a good guy but he just really likes to stir the pot and then fall back on "freedom of press" whenever someone takes issue.

Even though I can't blame the UFC really, I just felt sad for the guy, I've been there before, kinda.

Glad he was reinstated. Though I'm sure there will be future "tussles" as well. The rumor that he was slammed against a wall and choked by a Dana bodyguard at UFC 172 is awful, if it's true.

Bottom line is if you don't extend a company like UFC common courtesy eventually they will bite you.

A lot of people have a lot of really nice things to say about Kevin Ferguson. Rest in peace.

[DJ]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

But dont you have an obligation to check with the people involved in the story? For example, Ariel's sources couldve been Paul Heyman (who is a close friend of Lesnar) and a WWE employee (who would know because they granted Lesnar the right to fight at 200). Neither one of those sources is directly involved with the story but both of them would be considered "credible." If you are trying to protect a relationsip that benefits you, wouldnt you want to give the UFC the oppurtunity to comment? If they say "no comment", you report no comment. If they say "its a lie", you report it like ESPN did and say that its rumored but the UFC is denying it. If they ask you to park it, you refuse but at least you've given the UFC a chance to respond.

The fact that Ariel was in the same building as the UFC brass makes the situation worse. All he had to do was ask for a comment. He had the news 3 hours before anyone else, so it's not like he was missing breaking the news if he took 5-10 min. to talk to UFC PR and/or Dana and see what they had to say. If UFC refused comment (which they would have) you put that in the story and the backlash from the UFC is dulled, because you at least extended them a courtesy to respond to the news.

I didn't realize he didn't check with UFC originally. You've got to give the organization a chance to confirm/deny. I don't care about past history, when they are in the same building, you ask.

Ariel seems like a good guy and has a lot of passion, but he has done some things that I can see where if I'm Lorenzo or Dana, I'm not a fan of his work. Ariel can spin that paycheck story however he wants, but at the end of the day he was paid by Zuffa. You can't get paid by them and then scoop them on stories or have leading questions on interviews and expect no repercussions.

I'm not defending the bullying policies of the UFC with the media. That is 100% wrong and needs to stop. If UFC wants to be treated like a real sport, then they need a thicker skin with what is put out in the media.

If the UFC wants to break its own news, they have every right to do so. They may want to look at stronger embargo with fighters/managers when it comes to fight contracts, because those are likley the sources Ariel gets his news from. I highly doubt someone at Zuffa is feeding Ariel stories.

Hopefully both sides learn lessons from this situation.