BoxRec

Dixonian wrote:"The truth?"

What in the article above is untrue?

It's more about what is implied, i.e. that the 'British title' is on the line. A British title is on the line, granted. But a very, very shit one.

I think the point Dixonian is making is that there is no critical eye on the releases or whatever that are coming the paper's way. Hardly revelatory but still annoys me (and hardly anyone else, granted).[/quote]

My point is that the article is factually accurate, we can argue about the implication, slant, bias whatever, but that's all opinion and goes for any article.

I also don't think it's the job of a Derbyshire local paper to pour cold water on a local fighters career in the build up to a fight.[/quote]

Dixonian wrote: It's also not the job of a reporter to regurgitate pr guff. Admittedly, this is a really minor example of a much bigger issue. While there are no actual lies in this report there is plenty of insinuation which could mislead readers. On more complex issues I would agree with Galaxy that slants and bias can often be argued dependent on your political/social viewpoint. This is clearly a simple piece of 'can't-be-bothered-to-research-so-I'll-take-them-at-their-word journalism.' Truth is often deeper than an empirical value.

Speaking as a scientist (I am not a scientist, by the way) I never bought that argument that "truth" is deeper than a concept of logic.

Speaking as a scientist (I am not a scientist, by the way) I never bought that argument that "truth" is deeper than a concept of logic.

Tell that to Carl 'The Truth' Williams.

There's a little rosette on the top right hand corner that says trusted source!

Dixonian wrote:

Speaking as a scientist (I am not a scientist, by the way) I never bought that argument that "truth" is deeper than a concept of logic.

Tell that to Carl 'The Truth' Williams.

I'll do that after I have finished explaining the concept of "secrets" to Richard "the secret" Williams

It is poor reporting one or both of two fronts.

1) The EBF mailed in a press release and a journo just dressed it up as a "story". This is depressingly common in the local press.

2) The EBF called up the paper, or someone at the paper saw a flyer and they called the EBF, to get the story. However the story will have been given to a reporter who knows nothing about boxing, and they will just write up whatever the EBF guy tells them without fact-checking.

A paper I used to work for did a piece on "2004 New York heavyweight champion" Wayne Llewellyn. Luckily I edited the page before it went to press and I asked the writer (who knows nothing about boxing) why he put that, and he said because that's what Wayne told him. Not sure how Llewellyn equates fighting in New York once and getting KO'd with being awarded a championship, but the reporter lapped it up nonetheless!

I agree with Ian on this one, i think it is to the detriment of the sport to have two local clubfighters winging for the rafters touted as contesting the 'british title' when it is nothing of the sort.

With the proliferation of titles, it is important more than ever, that reporting in the newspapers is accurate. It may be good for the local promoters, it may be good for the local fighters, but good for the sport as a whole - certainly not.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I agree with Ian on this one, i think it is to the detriment of the sport to have two local clubfighters winging for the rafters touted as contesting the 'british title' when it is nothing of the sort.

With the proliferation of titles, it is important more than ever, that reporting in the newspapers is accurate. It may be good for the local promoters, it may be good for the local fighters, but good for the sport as a whole - certainly not.

Local paper doing what's good for local people to the detriment of the wider world?

What's the world coming to?

Oh right, well that is ok then, so local papers don't need to report the facts, just make it up as they go along, or just repeat verbatim what they are told by a vested interest without checking the facts....really?

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Oh right, well that is ok then, so local papers don't need to report the facts, just make it up as they go along, or just repeat verbatim what they are told by a vested interest without checking the facts....really?

I agree with you mate

Dixonian wrote:News articles like this are depressingly typical of local reportage where dwindling resources mean an increasing reliance on churning out pr guff. There was a book about this issue by Nick... Cohen, I think. He coined the term 'churnalism.' I must agree with Dondada on this. I find it depressing that the publications most relied upon to provide news to local communities are no longer able or willing to undertake basic research in order to provide readers with the truth.

It's all about filling the white space: no questions asked.

Nick Davies - it's called Flat Earth News.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Oh right, well that is ok then, so local papers don't need to report the facts, just make it up as they go along, or just repeat verbatim what they are told by a vested interest without checking the facts....really?

Nice try, but that's not what I said.

OK, see if you can follow this?

1) The original article is not in any way factually inaccurate.

2) The remit of local newspapers is to cover local news and promote the area, not to try and "fix" the world of boxing.

3) Combine points 1 and 2, take a deep breath, put it all into context, and have another think.

oliverfennell wrote:It is poor reporting one or both of two fronts.

1) The EBF mailed in a press release and a journo just dressed it up as a "story". This is depressingly common in the local press.

2) The EBF called up the paper, or someone at the paper saw a flyer and they called the EBF, to get the story. However the story will have been given to a reporter who knows nothing about boxing, and they will just write up whatever the EBF guy tells them without fact-checking.

A paper I used to work for did a piece on "2004 New York heavyweight champion" Wayne Llewellyn. Luckily I edited the page before it went to press and I asked the writer (who knows nothing about boxing) why he put that, and he said because that's what Wayne told him. Not sure how Llewellyn equates fighting in New York once and getting KO'd with being awarded a championship, but the reporter lapped it up nonetheless!

The difference between the article that started this debate and your example is massive.
One of them is factually accurate whilst the other contained an outright lie.

Also, and you know this better than anyone, newspapers are written for their readers. How many readers of the Derby Telegraph give a monkeys that an article on a local boxer, although factually accurate, doesnt fit in to how hardcore boxing fans view title belts?

4?

I dont think that makes the Derby Telegraph the new Pravda.

Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:It is poor reporting one or both of two fronts.

1) The EBF mailed in a press release and a journo just dressed it up as a "story". This is depressingly common in the local press.

2) The EBF called up the paper, or someone at the paper saw a flyer and they called the EBF, to get the story. However the story will have been given to a reporter who knows nothing about boxing, and they will just write up whatever the EBF guy tells them without fact-checking.

A paper I used to work for did a piece on "2004 New York heavyweight champion" Wayne Llewellyn. Luckily I edited the page before it went to press and I asked the writer (who knows nothing about boxing) why he put that, and he said because that's what Wayne told him. Not sure how Llewellyn equates fighting in New York once and getting KO'd with being awarded a championship, but the reporter lapped it up nonetheless!

The difference between the article that started this debate and your example is massive.
One of them is factually accurate whilst the other contained an outright lie.

Also, and you know this better than anyone, newspapers are written for their readers. How many readers of the Derby Telegraph give a monkeys that an article on a local boxer, although factually accurate, doesnt fit in to how hardcore boxing fans view title belts?

4?

I dont think that makes the Derby Telegraph the new Pravda.

Even the most casual fan would at least know what "the" British title is, and what the phrasing connotes. To drive home the point about it not being factually inaccurate is kinda pedantic. It's like Cheers Beer in Thailand proudly displaying an award symbol on the can, despite it tasting like utter crap. It was probably a self-awarded award, but by your rationale it is perfectly OK to be labelled as an "award-winning" beer, and nobody has any right to be disappointed when they drink it,

How about these?

There's no copyright in ideas, and it's not factually incorrect to advertise boxing even if unlicensed, but surely they can't just steal the name of a major event??

It depends on the draw, but im tipping Wain. Very good puncher and i think his style suits this.

MachoMan09 wrote:Why does it matter to you, Oliver?

Oliver's point, I think, is it's wrong for one thing to masquerade as (or strongly implying it is) another. This one doesn't particularly matter to me, though it's obvious why they've used the name.

But 'British title' does matter - to me anyway.

Spencer Brown, who runs the EBF, claims that Matchroom took the Prizefigher concept from them, not the other way round.

I doubt Matchroom copied them, but the EBF did do a prizefighter-style tournament about 2006/07 and it was won by Trevor Crewe, who went on to be a 2-2 pro.

MachoMan09 wrote:

dondada wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:Why does it matter to you, Oliver?

Oliver's point, I think, is it's wrong for one thing to masquerade as (or strongly implying it is) another. This one doesn't particularly matter to me, though it's obvious why they've used the name.

But 'British title' does matter - to me anyway.

A the risk of turning this into a philosophical/ethical debate...I don't have a problem with stuff masquerading as other stuff. If the quality is inferior I notice; if the quality has parity I don't notice; if the quality is superior I notice.

The quality is roughly the same in this one! I am suprised Sky and Betfair are not involved...

MachoMan09 wrote:

dondada wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:Why does it matter to you, Oliver?

Oliver's point, I think, is it's wrong for one thing to masquerade as (or strongly implying it is) another. This one doesn't particularly matter to me, though it's obvious why they've used the name.

But 'British title' does matter - to me anyway.

A the risk of turning this into a philosophical/ethical debate...I don't have a problem with stuff masquerading as other stuff. If the quality is inferior I notice; if the quality has parity I don't notice; if the quality is superior I notice.

Caveat emptor, indeed. But you might have a discerning palate - 'new' fans might not...

MachoMan09 wrote:

dondada wrote:Caveat emptor, indeed. But you might have a discerning palate - 'new' fans might not...

I don't think that matters either, be it boxing or absolutely anything else. If I'm given two bottles of wine that to me appear to be labelled up identically, both look the same, taste the same, and have the same effect, why does it matter if a wine expert tastes the two wines and thinks they are very different?

It would matter if one was wine and one pish, sold as wine. The latter should not be allowed, IMO.

dondada wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:

dondada wrote:Caveat emptor, indeed. But you might have a discerning palate - 'new' fans might not...

I don't think that matters either, be it boxing or absolutely anything else. If I'm given two bottles of wine that to me appear to be labelled up identically, both look the same, taste the same, and have the same effect, why does it matter if a wine expert tastes the two wines and thinks they are very different?

It would matter if one was wine and one pish, sold as wine. The latter should not be allowed, IMO.

But, all joking aside, it probably wont be any worse than some of the Heavyweight PF'S. Hearn actively promotes brawls in this format, hence the 2k bonus for an inside the distance win. I only know a few of the lads on this one, but they will come out all gus blazing, guaranteed.

Wake up call wrote:Spencer Brown, who runs the EBF, claims that Matchroom took the Prizefigher concept from them, not the other way round.

I doubt Matchroom copied them, but the EBF did do a prizefighter-style tournament about 2006/07 and it was won by Trevor Crewe, who went on to be a 2-2 pro.

The concept is as old as time, the Greeks and the Romans will have done it, in boxing - there have always been these kind of tournaments.

Fat Git wrote:

Wake up call wrote:Spencer Brown, who runs the EBF, claims that Matchroom took the Prizefigher concept from them, not the other way round.

I doubt Matchroom copied them, but the EBF did do a prizefighter-style tournament about 2006/07 and it was won by Trevor Crewe, who went on to be a 2-2 pro.

The concept is as old as time, the Greeks and the Romans will have done it, in boxing - there have always been these kind of tournaments.

Yes, there were at least two one-night tournaments in the US before Prizefighter was conceived, and it's been a common format in K1, muay Thai and wrestling too. Nothing wrong with somebody else presenting the format, but to name it after something of exactly the same format and of much higher standard is cynical at best, legally dodgy at worst.

OK they're calling them "Prize Fighter" rather than "Prizefighter", but try setting up a burger restaurant called MacDonalds, and see how far you get.

Did anyone read the Froch piece in the Evening Standard a couple of weeks ago? Pretty good, apart from the typos spelling Froch's name wrong and 'Brian McGee'.