I agree with Rogan. Ariel's a dick if its true about the firings.
Edit: 1:27 - For Helwani
Last edited:
The MMA thread
- Thread starter Fortitude
- Start date
I agree with Rogan. Ariel's a dick if its true about the firings.
Edit: 1:27 - For Helwani
I am on Helwani's side IF he didn't know the promo was about to air. If he did know, then I think it's a dick move, since it was a nicely kept secret and the surprise must have been huge for those who didn't read his tweet.
I'd like for them to give coverage to earlier weigh ins online and then do another actual weigh in at the "fake weigh ins" to show how much weight they've put back on.
I reckon it would shock a few people and they'd probably get a bit of shit for it. Weight cutting isn't recommended to the extremes these guys go to. Some of them are putting a lot of weight back on in the space of a couple of hours.
Ariel said MULTIPLE times on his podcast yesterday that there was no discussion, no embargo, no nothing from the UFC and if they had of approached him regarding the Brock Lesnar story he wouldn't have released it.
I don't believe for one second what Joe Rogan is saying.
I don't believe for one second what Joe Rogan is saying.
That UFC threatened to fire people if Helwani went through with the story? I don't see how that makes Helwani a dickhead when he's said multiple times that there is no mole. If they're paranoid enough to fire people then that's on them, he still has to do the job he's paid to do.
Aye, it would definitely be interesting. Maybe they don't want to have the "show" of a weigh in twice though? Bit redundant.
I think he's splitting hairs there, if he is a journalist of any merit, the story needs to be confirmed by multiple sources usually at least one from within the parties involved.
So either someone in Brock's camp or the UFC confirmed the story, just cause they didn't feed him the story in the first place by confirming the story alone, they mole'd.
He also said, he didn't ask them directly if he could release the info cause he knew they would say no.
No. He said he didn't ask them because he knew they would lie. I think.
Its actually both.
He said he's asked in the past and they asked him not to leak the info and they've also flat out denied stories.
The embedded showed the co and main event guys. Faber looked like a zombie on the early cut.
Yeah they showed a couple but the weight from the 2nd live weigh in was their weight from the 1st weight in (where Faber looked ill) they only did the posing on the scales thing for show. If they did 2 weigh ins there'd be a huge difference in some of the fighters.
I would say Rogan's story is probably true because there was no reason for him to just come up with a story about a meeting and broadcast it. It was not something that is already out there and we have only heard Ariel's side of the story. And when he said it, Rogan knew Ariel had got his press credentials back, so again if he was in any doubt about the validity of it, he wouldn't have said it.
In the past on Rogan's podcast, if he doesn't know something he'll come out and say he doesn't know or he'll do the "I can understand both sides of the story" spiel. A meeting between Dana and Helwani would tie in with Dana being pissed and kicking him out of 199, minutes before the main event. Just to be a prick.
Aye but I think Helwani is saying the information he has got from the UFC side over the years has come from different sources for different stories, rather than there just being one mole they can sack to stop Helwani getting info.
Aye, more than likely. As dick a move as it is, firing a bunch of people should lead to the remaining employees being less likely to talk about anything in the future though..
Exactly. He needs their good will to have a job. Going around being a Dick and revealing major information without finding out their feelings about it and then smugly marching around declaring "It's my job" is not the way to do things when you rely on these people's good faith to have a professional. I don't understand what you are so outraged about here? UFC allows Helwani backstage to promote their business, Helwani reveals something they don't like him revealing and they decide it better that he wasn't allowed at their events any more. Both are well within their rights to do so and both are equally shitty for what they did. Helwani was a Dick finstead though so he has nothing to complain about.
On the Joe Rogan podcast, he made a good point: who does leaking the info benefit? Ariel Helwani. That's it. He said it wasn't like Ariel was uncovering some shady shit like Watergate that would never have got out. It was going to be released in a few hours by the UFC themselves and that's what pissed them off.
Going on about "I'm a journalist. It's what I do" is bullshit. You simply wanted to be the 'Big I Am' and get some of the glory that absolutely belonged to the organisation.
Going on about "I'm a journalist. It's what I do" is bullshit. You simply wanted to be the 'Big I Am' and get some of the glory that absolutely belonged to the organisation.
Well yeah, that's the whole point. It benefits Helwani and his employers when Helwani does his job. Who else should it benefit?
Nobody is saying Helwani is performing some great act of selflessness by tweeting this stuff. He's just doing what he's paid to do.
I agree. People are too busy comparing his journalism to football journalism. It not the same.
He took away the UFCs opportunity to wow the crowd just so he could announce it a few hours earlier. He took away from the event.
Not at all. Helwani has a right to cover UFC without being banned from their events as there was no existing deal about him not publishing the latest MMA news (in this case the Lesnar fight). To take the position that the UFC is correct is to essentially take the authoritarian anti-free speech, free press position which I'm sure no one would be comfortable with. And in the end, we can take the reversal of the "lifetime ban" within a whopping 48 hours as evidence of the UFC acknowledging they were wrong, and by extension anyone else who argued in their favor in this thread as wrong as well.
It is the same - the problem is you are not grasping the ethic of journalism trumping the right of the UFC to do their internal marketing. Anyone who covers UFC and who has ITK sources can publish info about upcoming fights, just like any football journo can, and you can apply the same concept across the board to all sport.
He can still cover them. He is given the privilege of backstage access that allows him this information in the first place from the UFC, something he has the right to as much as I do (Which I don't get afforded as I don't benefit the company). They have all the right in the world to ban him if they feel that his appearance at their events and sub sequent leaks are counter productive to their business.
Your getting this completely wrong here. Backing Helwani is backing the idea that no information should be protected or private, which is just as scary a thought I imagine. Remember, these deals he keeps leaking are multi million dollar, private business contracts and negotiations. Saying a business has no right to protect information like that from journalists is a scary way of thinking. It's like somebody walking around Pepsi'so offices and then leaking to the world all of their secrets. Of course Pepsi won't want them in their offices any more.
Besides, it's not even like UFC were holding the information. They just wanted the chance to release it themselves. Something they have more right to do then Helwani does to release it.
Your last point is just full of fallacy. A business being worried about the peer pressure caused by their decision and potential hits on them does not affect the right and wrong ofor the situation. This is actually a worrying thing you are suggesting. Basically, as long as you can peer pressure somebody into changing their mind, the fact that they are right or wrong means nothing at all.
You're presuming he got his information because he was backstage (whatever that means) when he could've easily got it like most journos do - through text message or phone call. At the end of the day, the UFC reversed their position because they know they made a mistake that would continue to dog them for a long time and send a chilling message to the journos who cover them. Fortunately, they realized their mistake quickly and corrected it.
If he got it through message then this ban won't affect him at all and he shouldn't worry about it. He clearly gets most of his info from backstage.
It sends the message that if you are a Dick to the UFC they will cut you off. Journalists are too self entitled and this whole situation just shows their self entitlement. A private company allows you access to their company and you repay that by leaking information without running it by them. I'm sure all the journalists are so hard done by here.
UFC changed their minds because they were afraid of the backlash. That's pretty obvious here. Now we live in a world where a journalist has the power to bend a billion dollar company to his whims because they fear how people may react to it. This is the world you are fighting for mate, one where the fighting promotion that has entertained you for years is afraid of a journalist.
No it's really not.
This isn't about him being unable to express an opinion or being pro UFC in his articles, or covering up fixed fights under the Zuffa banner. It's about releasing information that the UFC wanted to use as part of the product they sell (the PPV), a couple of hours before it would have been released anyway.
I understand journalism and ethics just fine but the UFC is run differently to other sports. In fact they're not even a sport, they're an organisation.
I hate to use this example but imagine if a journalist leaked the winners of a WWE PPV event, who will be thrown of the top of the cage or that Steph McMahon is carrying the Rock's baby. The journalist has not only weakened the PPV offering but they've taken some of the shock/reveal/enjoyment away from fans. The WWE would be well within their right to ban them from future shows. The situation at the weekend was similar. It's no accident that the UFC is structured similar to the WWE. They want this sort of control at all levels of the organisation.
The promo was a big deal, hence the $10m outlay and holding of on the announcement until the event. Ariel and the rest of the media need to understand that by breaking that kind of news ahead of schedule for the sake of hits, they're taking away from both the fans and the sport. But at the same time, the UFC should be working with them to prevent leaks.
So are the NFL, NBA, the Premier League, ATP Tennis etc. Journalists cover them all the time, frequently reporting news because its what journalists do - and this is no different. It would be different if Helwani was a part time Zuffa employee who used his non-Zuffa activities to break an inside scoop about an upcoming event. In that case, he could be fired on the spot since his contract would surely stipulate what he can and can't do and the UFC would be operating around a clear contractual framework as opposed to doing what they did this weekend, which was basically berate him and have their goons lead up out of the arena.
Helwani has every UFC fighter, manager, and insider on his phone and can easily get his information without lingering about backstage.
And secondly, he wasn't a dick to the UFC - the UFC were incompetent in keeping their important marketing information close-hold and wound up getting scooped by an MMA journalist. Helwani doesn't work for them and is under no obligation to pretend like he works in their marketing department.
And they are under no obligation to allow him access to their events. Simple really
The problem with the "UFC is an organisation, not a sport" argument is that they're trying to position MMA as an increasingly mainstream sport with them at the top. If you're going to do that then you have to behave like MMA is a mainstream sport, which in this case means treating journalists in the same way other mainstream sports do.
Journalists announce NFL draft picks all the time, don't they?
Journalists announce NFL draft picks all the time, don't they?
Indeed. The pro-Helwani argument says he should do exactly the job he's paid to do. The anti-Helwani argument says he should stop doing the job he's paid to do and instead do the UFC a big favour for no apparent reason.
Can you imagine what MMAFighting.com would say if he told them he had these scoops before everyone else but randomly decided to help the UFC out by doing what they want instead?
No. The anti Helwani camp says there is nothing wrong with the UFC banning a reporter from their events.
They have the right to do so certainly. At which point they get headlines like "UFC risks mainstream credibility by banning reporter". Which is the exactly the reaction they will inevitably get for exercising that right in such a ridiculous way. At which point they realise they have to treat MMA journalists the same way journalists in other sports are treated.
Journalists have been banned by other sports companies. Remember, UFC is private unlike other sports associations. They can act more like a private business then other sports associations as a result.
Yeah I agree, but I imagine the UFC want the best of both worlds. Real fights supported by larger then life promotion. They are well placed and structured in such a way that they probably could pull it.
They just need to plug the leak and find a way of getting the media to support it.
Well Dana and the UFC have done plenty for Helwani to get him to where he is. Helwani should have expected a messy break up.
And what about when "just doing my job" comes at the detriment to the entertainment for the fans. Because that's what happened on Saturday.
@Raoul seems to have a bone to pick with the UFC. Which is strange as they are the reason he gets to watch the best against the best and why most of the talent are competing against each other.
What on earth does that have to with the issue we are discussing ?
It was purely an ego trip for Helwani. Why else would he do it? He's like the nosey aunt who tells you what you're getting for your birthday because she has to be the conduit through which information flows.
People like good surprises. This was a good surprise for lots of UFC fans. Helwani had no reason to reveal it other than to show he's ITK. He's a dick for doing it.
This isn't like football, where a reporter will be outside the ground because a press conference has been called, and they'll be like "We understand Player X is going to be signing today." This was supposed to be a 'wtf' moment, but in a good way. And Helwani just couldn't wait to steal the thunder.
The UFC reinstating him is their business. I never commented on whether they were wrong or right about that decision. I focused on Helwani and his reason for doing what he did.
People like good surprises. This was a good surprise for lots of UFC fans. Helwani had no reason to reveal it other than to show he's ITK. He's a dick for doing it.
This isn't like football, where a reporter will be outside the ground because a press conference has been called, and they'll be like "We understand Player X is going to be signing today." This was supposed to be a 'wtf' moment, but in a good way. And Helwani just couldn't wait to steal the thunder.
The UFC reinstating him is their business. I never commented on whether they were wrong or right about that decision. I focused on Helwani and his reason for doing what he did.
This has nothing to do with what actually transpired. This is fundamentally a question of whether journalists can cover a sport without getting attacked by the organization they are covering. Its really no different than Football in this regard. Just go over to the Twitter thread where Di Marzio is talking about Aubamayang moving to City. Let's hope this doesn't ruin City's plans of unveiling him to their fans and in the process giving Di Marzio a life time ban from their grounds.
Nothing. Just seems like you always have something bad to say about the company.
Because of the pressure being forced upon them by people like you who are morally outraged by what they did. This isn't a good thing. The leading MMA company being brought to their knees by a reporter. A clear shift in power has happened towards the sleaziest profession in the industry.Well obviously they disagree with you since they have done an abrupt about face.