twitter google

Journalists misquoting bloggers

There’s been a shitload of MMA coverage from the mainstream media on account of EliteXC, most of it absolutely terrible. I generally don’t waste my time trying to correct all the stupidity going on or the ignorance being shown … Luke at BloodyElbow has that racket taken care of. But there’s a new trend going on where clueless mainstream writers are trying to gain credibility for their dumb ass arguments by ‘quoting’ blogs, which seems pretty funny to me in an ironic kind of way.

This is all well and good until a site gets mis-quoted, as the New York Times misquoted MMA Junkie:

“Way to go ‘Dirty Dan’ Miragliotta!” read one post on “What were your instructions? If Kimbo doesn’t get knocked out, make sure he wins the fight?”

Another added, “This is the beginning of the end of M.M.A.”

Now for those of you who read, you know that quote doesn’t sound much like Dann or any of the other monkeys he has writing in the background. If Fightlinker is the sloppy butter handjob of fight sites, MMA Junkie is a clinical genital examination. It’s dry like sandpaper, and the guys go out of their way to state the facts and only the facts.

Of course, there’s a simple explanation: the guy who wrote the New York Times article is a fucking moron. He referenced a COMMENT on MMA Junkie, not a post. In general there’s no such thing as bad publicity, but it must be annoying to be misquoted like this. Especially when you’re busting your ass trying to build an empire based around being respectable, and they print the single most retarded and ignorant comment on your site.

  • ninjitsu says:

    Shit, fuck, cunt!

    I hope I get quoted!

  • ninjitsu says:

    Of course, quoting FL comments wouldn’t be much different from FL posts.. :S

  • I think it would be funny if the New York Times quoted anything from FL comments or actual posts.

    I guess the Times still doesn’t do fact checking.

  • S. Jennum says:

    This is the same New York Times that had one reporter, Jayson Blair doing all his “reporting” from a Starbucks in Brooklyn while claiming to be all over the country; and another, Judith Miller, who swallowed everything the Bush administration had to say about WMD’s hook, line, and sinker, playing an instrumental role in helping build support in a bullshit war. Misquoting an MMA blogger is small-time in their sceme of things.

  • Gong says:

    Don’t forget, they also thought that the Lawler-Smith fight was a ‘dull affair.’ That boggles the mind more than anything.

  • garth says:

    it’s a problem that goes beyond the NYT and really gets into “old media” in general. they still, at an editorial level, don’t have a grasp of what a blog is at all. so if it’s written on the page, it must be the story.
    some papers are starting to get it, so it’s something that will eventually go away. but the NYT is FAR from the only culprit, and the two staff you quoted, jennum, are two out of a WHOLE LOT of reporters, staff writers, and op-ed people

  • S. Jennum says:

    True, Garth, but the NYT, even though it has diminished over the years, is still the lead dog in the newspaper business. You’re right about it being industry-wide, but when the NYT effs up it effs up it carries on a bigger scale than anything else.

  • #1 Jackal says:

    what kind of standards can you expect from a state that doesnt allow mma.

  • Yourdumb says:

    This blog is full of some really dumb shit. How is it misquoting when they say it is a post? Guess what this is… a post. I’m posting here. It was accurate, and you’re stupid. This fightlinker shit is the fucking bane of the internet

  • Gavin says:

    Yourdumb you FAIL. This is a comment, or in this case a “Response.” We are commenting (or responding) to FL’s POST. That’s how blogs work. Welcome to 2.0.

  • DJH says:

    It’s hilarious how huffy bloggers get when everyone in the world who isn’t a blogger doesn’t use the blog-approved terminology.

    NYT correctly quoted something on the site. They did not attribute it to a specific author, just the site. And it was on the site. “Post” is not a well-defined or meaningful term.

  • Yeah, like Fox news attributed some user created comments on the Obama website to Obama’s campaign. It’s incorrect sourcing, plain and simple. They’re journalists … if they can’t even get that right, then what’s their point?