|
Post by wabarrett on May 28, 2012 10:52:27 GMT -5
Here's the final word. The majority of the news posted on the "dirtsheet" websites requires a paid subscription to access. Since I'm going to guess that none of you actually pay for subscriptions to these sites, you likely don't even have a clue as to what is being reported in the first place. I'm also going to guess that the majority of you rely on second hand copy and paste sites like Wrestlezone, Bleacher Report, Rajah, amongst others, and assume these sites are reporting accurately, or that they themselves are reporting the news (they aren't). These sites steal news from legitimate sources, often times uncredited, and then either take it totally out of context, of completely twist the original words as they were said or written and turn them into something else completely. This is why I always tell people not to post news from these sites, because they are not primary sources, and they are often times wrong. Thus, when these copy and paste sites post inaccurate news, many of you are unable to distinguish between legitimate news posted on legitimate sites, and the BS crap posted on the sites you frequent, and thus assume that it's all crap, which is a false assumption. So in conclusion 1. I pity anyone who pays to get (likely false) insider wrestling news. 2. Even the 'legitimate' news sources get stuff 100% wrong and just make wild guesses (something we can do ourselves), as proven by PWInsider being wrongwrongwrong this past week about the Revolution promos. p.s. I know you'll respond 'You've already said that, find me more examples!' but you've yet to admit that the 'legitimate' news sites you defend literally made up a story about those promos and passed it off as insider news. I know damn well I'll find more dogs*** from PWInsider down the line, too.
|
|
|
Post by comintogetcha on May 28, 2012 10:54:43 GMT -5
p.p.s. I admitted it like six times already, clearly reading comprehension is not your strong suit. One incorrect piece of speculation does not discredit an entire site.
|
|
|
Post by ICW on May 28, 2012 11:20:12 GMT -5
This is unbelievable.
|
|
|
Post by comintogetcha on May 28, 2012 11:24:08 GMT -5
I know, right? You'd think after 7!!! pages, I'd get more evidence in regards to the lack of trustworthiness of "dirtsheets" other than broken records and crickets chirping, but no.
|
|
scoobypat
Main Eventer
Joined on: Apr 22, 2006 18:39:00 GMT -5
Posts: 2,442
|
Post by scoobypat on May 28, 2012 11:43:29 GMT -5
Taker/Brock was most certainly not a work and it's laughable to think otherwise. There was absolutely zero percent chance that that match was ever going to happen at Wrestlemania due a little thing called Brock's UFC contract. I have to laugh at claiming it was all too convenient. Taker was conducting an interview with Jon Anik (a respected MMA reporter, who has nothing to do with WWE) about his thoughts on MMA and how he thought he could do in MMA as well as Brock Lesnar. To think that Vince McMahon sent Taker to an MMA event to have an angle with a UFC star that occurred during an interview with a commentator from a then entirely independent source in order to create buzz that would be seen by a small amount of people is absolutely absurd. Especially considering White shot down all rumours immediately because Brock was never in a million years going to work Mania that year. you think it's that crazy that vince would send one of his larger stars to stir some controversy with a former employee and internationally known name? really? i don't think brock was in on it or dana, but i think taker was sent there with that in mind. i mean, brock didn't give two craps when he saw taker, taker kept digging at him about 'considering' something. i find it laughable that you'd think that kind of meeting would just 'happen' to go down on camera. no way hosay, haha I think Taker is past the point of doing cheesey cheap feuds like this, or Vinces bidding. If this had been someone else, anyone else, maybe, but Taker does not strike me as the guy who would agree to that. He feuds once a year. Also you say you don't think Brock was in on it? Then that acknowledges some level of actually beef between the two. They clearly had an interaction in reference to something that happened a while back. So the theory is that Taker and Lesnar had legit heat, Vince went "let's exploit this" and sent Taker to a MMA event (of which he's been attending far longer than Lesnar has even been fighting) then they planned perfectly for Lesnar to walk by Taker while a legitimate reporter just so happened to be interviewing him. You know they say, sometimes the simplest answer is the truth... yeah. Two guys don't like each other, saw each other, had words, a camera was coincidentally there... not that wild of a story.
|
|
scoobypat
Main Eventer
Joined on: Apr 22, 2006 18:39:00 GMT -5
Posts: 2,442
|
Post by scoobypat on May 28, 2012 11:46:53 GMT -5
I know, right? You'd think after 7!!! pages, I'd get more evidence in regards to the lack of trustworthiness of "dirtsheets" other than broken records and crickets chirping, but no. You ignore all the evidence people point out in front of you. I just posted a link which said both PWI and PW Torch reported the Booker Batista fight initially as being a work. Also you don't have to pay for the subscriptions to see the news that has been reported word for word, I mean look at WFIGs. Lastly these dirt sheets don't allow any transparency, one day a story is there, then it's vanished. How are we supposed to post links when the sites delete half of their older stories? You're a joke, you want citations but you're okay with anonymous sources in your actual news? How on any plane does that make sense.
|
|
|
Post by comintogetcha on May 28, 2012 12:10:55 GMT -5
I know, right? You'd think after 7!!! pages, I'd get more evidence in regards to the lack of trustworthiness of "dirtsheets" other than broken records and crickets chirping, but no. You ignore all the evidence people point out in front of you. I just posted a link which said both PWI and PW Torch reported the Booker Batista fight initially as being a work. Also you don't have to pay for the subscriptions to see the news that has been reported word for word, I mean look at WFIGs. Lastly these dirt sheets don't allow any transparency, one day a story is there, then it's vanished. How are we supposed to post links when the sites delete half of their older stories? You're a joke, you want citations but you're okay with anonymous sources in your actual news? How on any plane does that make sense. Initial reports of the Booker T / Batista fight was that it was a work. It's Pro-Wrestling, going into it you have to assume that almost everything that happens is a work. It was only later that it came out that it was actually real. Ever read the account of a breaking news story, like on CNN or something? As the story is breaking, there's always mixed reports, many of which later turn out to be incorrect, or exaggerated, that's how the news works. If you're not comfortable with anonymous sources, then you might as well stop paying attention altogether. It's Pro-Wrestling, by the very nature of what the business is and how it works, sources HAVE to be anonymous, lest they get blackballed from the industry. Lots of news sites report using anonymous sources, particularly when reporting on items related to the military or the government, that's just how it goes. I have also never seen an example of a site deleting or editing stories that have already been published, that's just a figment of your imagination.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 16:48:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2012 12:13:19 GMT -5
I don't really understand MaxMoves stance on this whole thing. Are you saying the dirtsheets are never wrong? I don't really know why you would go to such lengths to defend something that has known for being inaccurate. It's like defending the National Enquirer for their stories.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 16:48:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2012 12:19:35 GMT -5
I can't believe this thread is still going. MaxMoves MUST work for one the dirtsheets
|
|
|
Post by comintogetcha on May 28, 2012 12:23:00 GMT -5
I don't really understand MaxMoves stance on this whole thing. Are you saying the dirtsheets are never wrong? I don't really know why you would go to such lengths to defend something that has known for being inaccurate. It's like defending the National Enquirer for their stories. You mean the National Enquirer that first reported on John Edwards having a child with another woman out of wedlock, or the one that first broke the story on Bristol Palin's pregnancy? The Enquirer has been sued for libel numerous times, so they definitely check their sources before publishing anything.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 16:48:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2012 12:32:58 GMT -5
I don't really understand MaxMoves stance on this whole thing. Are you saying the dirtsheets are never wrong? I don't really know why you would go to such lengths to defend something that has known for being inaccurate. It's like defending the National Enquirer for their stories. You mean the National Enquirer that first reported on John Edwards having a child with another woman out of wedlock, or the one that first broke the story on Bristol Palin's pregnancy? The Enquirer has been sued for libel numerous times, so they definitely check their sources before publishing anything. Yeah the same people that are famous for paying sources, which leads to people giving false information for a paycheck(see Elizabeth Smart case) or the same people that hired a model to recreate Whitney Houston's death. I'm glad you brought up a couple of things that they got right as that's the same with wrestling related(and pretty much all news sites) they'll publish false/inaccurate/made up news stories but they'll also have legitimate stories. Sometimes there are legitimate stories but sometimes it's a slow news day. They have to attract readers and get people talking about their website to get traffic and when they do they're likely to make an accusation, that probably has a little bit of truth to it but they embellish it just a little bit to spice things up. In every lie there is a sprinkle of truth. There's really no need to be so upset and defend it for 7 pages if you don't work for them or know someone that works for one. It's no big deal if you do. I don't think anyone is going to shun you because you work for a news website.
|
|
|
Post by jfinnomore on May 28, 2012 12:38:49 GMT -5
Here's the final word. The majority of the news posted on the "dirtsheet" websites requires a paid subscription to access. Since I'm going to guess that none of you actually pay for subscriptions to these sites, you likely don't even have a clue as to what is being reported in the first place. I'm also going to guess that the majority of you rely on second hand copy and paste sites like Wrestlezone, Bleacher Report, Rajah, amongst others, and assume these sites are reporting accurately, or that they themselves are reporting the news (they aren't). These sites steal news from legitimate sources, often times uncredited, and then either take it totally out of context, of completely twist the original words as they were said or written and turn them into something else completely. This is why I always tell people not to post news from these sites, because they are not primary sources, and they are often times wrong. Thus, when these copy and paste sites post inaccurate news, many of you are unable to distinguish between legitimate news posted on legitimate sites, and the BS crap posted on the sites you frequent, and thus assume that it's all crap, which is a false assumption. So in conclusion you pay money to read false insider info and we're the morons? hahaha
|
|
scoobypat
Main Eventer
Joined on: Apr 22, 2006 18:39:00 GMT -5
Posts: 2,442
|
Post by scoobypat on May 28, 2012 12:52:04 GMT -5
You ignore all the evidence people point out in front of you. I just posted a link which said both PWI and PW Torch reported the Booker Batista fight initially as being a work. Also you don't have to pay for the subscriptions to see the news that has been reported word for word, I mean look at WFIGs. Lastly these dirt sheets don't allow any transparency, one day a story is there, then it's vanished. How are we supposed to post links when the sites delete half of their older stories? You're a joke, you want citations but you're okay with anonymous sources in your actual news? How on any plane does that make sense. Initial reports of the Booker T / Batista fight was that it was a work. It's Pro-Wrestling, going into it you have to assume that almost everything that happens is a work. It was only later that it came out that it was actually real. Ever read the account of a breaking news story, like on CNN or something? As the story is breaking, there's always mixed reports, many of which later turn out to be incorrect, or exaggerated, that's how the news works. If you're not comfortable with anonymous sources, then you might as well stop paying attention altogether. It's Pro-Wrestling, by the very nature of what the business is and how it works, sources HAVE to be anonymous, lest they get blackballed from the industry. Lots of news sites report using anonymous sources, particularly when reporting on items related to the military or the government, that's just how it goes. I have also never seen an example of a site deleting or editing stories that have already been published, that's just a figment of your imagination. That's their job though, to not assume, to get the facts and report just the facts. The double standards you're applying are amazing. And sites like CNN report limit information, rarely incorrect. Example, if an explosion was heard in the 700 block of Maple Street they'd report it as that, then amongst further details they'd report if it was a bomb or not. Want empirical evidence of this? Watch the 9/11 footage as it unfolded, initially reported as accidents, initially reported as explosion at Pentagon, only upon further information did they begin to explore the realm of terrorism. And please do not lecture me on how sources work. I went to school and received a degree in journalism, so no, most papers do not use anonymous sources, in fact it's pretty much widely regarded as being the quickest way to be hit with libel charges and be discredited. Dirt sheet writers are lucky that A). no wrestler has seemed particularly interested in pursuing a libel suit, and B). they cater to a market that's not particularly concerned by sources. And as I brought up earlier (a point you curiously avoided) what makes an anonymous source in the wrestling industry suddenly more reliable than the first hand word of a wrestler in a shoot? Do you think these sources aren't people with their own agenda's? People leak information for a reason, it's to get something they want. The trouble with anonymous sources in an ego driven industry is we don't get to see who is providing the information so we cannot judge what filter it's going through. The dirt sheets take what they can get as fact because they don't exactly have the means of fact checking so what they publish could be an entirely biased account passed as fact. Lets say I don't like the top guy, I just start passing you information about him that paints him in a negative light. See that's the other thing with journalism you can have a million different perspectives on the same event, but at least when you see where the information is coming from you can evaluate it's worth. When you're receiving it blindly you either have to take a blind leap and believe or ignore it. Lastly simply because you've never seen these things does not make them figments of peoples imaginations, you are not omnipresent so please stop presenting your self as being some sort of all knowing being. I have to assume you write for these rags with that type of attitude.
|
|