If you follow MMA news, then you're probably aware that the UFC card this weekend was entertaining. Cue the keywords: explosive, impressive, pound for pound the best card named UFC 199. Dan Henderson beat Hector Lombard - with his elbow, not with his signature Mack truck fist. Michael Bisping is the new middleweight champion - the winner of a fight that he accepted on short notice after Chris Weidman suffered a neck injury and pulled out of his title rematch against Luke Rockhold. Let me reiterate: Michael Bisping KOed champ Luke Rockhold in the first round of a fight that he took on 17 days notice.
By all rights, new and old fans alike were excited and did as they usually did: log on to Twitter and talk about the night's events. But intermingling with the talk of results and next matches and new champs was another big story - Ariel Helwani, photojournalist Esther Lin, and videographer Casey Leydon were thrown out of the arena and had their press credentials removed before the main event. Ariel is one of the most well-known sports journalists in the MMA community, while Lin and Leydon are also at the top of their professions. Pick one of your favorite pictures of any fighter from any event and there's a very large chance that Lin was behind the camera. Because the group is well-known and well-liked, Twitter blew up quickly with the news of their removal from the building, especially when it was announced that they were also banned for life from future UFC events. The reason? Ariel broke news of Brock Lesnar's return to fighting, as well as reporting on an upcoming McGregor/Diaz fight. Bleacher Report states that Dana White said Helwani can come to any UFC events that he wants to, but will not be given press credentials (which save journalists thousands of dollars in fees) as long as White is in charge.
So why am I writing about this? This is a story that in the last two days has been covered, debated, torn apart, ridiculed. Any opinion you can conjure about the topic has been stated matter of factly, or spoken of quietly in sadness, discussed with vitriol and calmness in both agreement and disapproval. Ariel was a hot topic before 199. Over the years, I've seen people dismiss him as being too loyal to the UFC, for not asking the "tough" questions, for not pushing more and for not covering topics that UFC heads might deem too controversial. On the opposite side, I've seen people criticize him for goading fighters into answering those same questions, calling him negative and uncaring and unprofessional. Of course, it always has been and always will be this way for journalists in general, as they are demanded to cover the news, to give people the breaking stories they want while somehow not being too intrusive or unfeeling. They are told to go after juicy leads and rumors then scolded for jumping over a fence that the public could climb themselves anyway, if they were so inclined. I'm not here to debate whether or not you like Ariel. I admire him very much on both professional and personal levels. He is a kind person, repeatedly winning awards and accolades from his peers as well as fans. But that's not what this is about. You can dislike him, detest him, you can stay up at night thinking of ways to insult him on Twitter. But can fans sit back and say "Yes, I only want to hear news that the heads of MMA want me to hear. I agree that the UFC, Bellator, World Series of Fighting, Invicta, and any other MMA organization should have total control over the news that we as fans receive"? Because I don't feel that way and I hope that you don't, either. I hope that you as a fan would want news reported as stories break, in as accurate of ways as possible, whether head honchos want that news reported or not. I hope that you as a person understand that journalists in any genre are tormented for covering certain stories then tormented for not covering others. I hope you understand that Ariel is not the first or last journalist banned by the UFC for reporting in ways that the UFC did not like. Journalists are perpetually guilty of going too far vs not going far enough. So who decides?
I've started to address this a hundred times since Saturday night. I've had my fair share of ridicule for supporting Ariel, for supporting the UFC, for just being a fan in general. Dana has been wonderful to me - and so has Ariel. Do I know them personally? Do I know everything that happened Saturday night? No. I was not there. I am not a witness. I cannot comment on what happened that night and I cannot comment on the feelings of either party. But what I can address, what I can talk about, is the censoring of journalism by those who run the show.
Saturday night, my mind spun and I thought of giants and monopolies and of hands over our eyes. I thought of Ida Tarbell and Standard Oil. I thought of good man being demeaned and having his livelihood endangered simply because he did his job. I thought of Dave Sholler saying "The promotion believes journalists should seek comment from the UFC before reporting a story" (via Bleacher Report). I thought of a hundred different analogies, scenarios, and events and each one made my stomach hurt. My heart hurt for Ariel because I am a human and have emotions. But it also made me feel dismissed by the organization that I frequently support with PPV purchases, merchandise buys and my voice. I'm already made to feel like a sheep for supporting MMA and especially the UFC. I don't feel comfortable with Ariel's treatment because I don't enjoy being seen as one more mindless fan in a Tapout shirt, spilling beer and not caring who is in the black shorts or the white. MMA fans are often seen as ignorant and uncaring - we need no help in appearing to be lunatics with a taste for blood and no opinion on the next person to climb in the Octagon. In a sport where fans know why we like what we like and have to defend that to those who don't understand, do we need more motivation to be treated like blind cattle? With MMA's battle to expand into states where the sport is currently banned, is it helpful to dismiss journalists reporting accurate stories? In short, in a sport that is heavily scrutinized as being barbaric and undignified, is it helpful to act that way when handling journalists?
The UFC prefers for journalists to seek comment from the organization before reporting news. Certainly, accuracy should be a point of concern and no topic should be reported as true when the journalist has no confirmation, but where is the line drawn? Where do journalists report a breaking story and when do they put on the brakes and report what they're told to report? It seems to me that no one is satisfied when it comes to journalists doing their jobs. They cannot win. They are in constant danger of having their jobs taken if they don't report what they're instructed to report yet they are worthless in their profession if they do not cover the hard stories, the secret stories, the stories nobody wants them to know yet everybody wants to hear. Sure, this is niche event here in the MMA community but it stretches out to encompass journalism as a whole. How can journalists do their jobs if they are required to satisfy the opinion of those around them? Ariel has well mastered being friends with many MMA professionals, whether they be fighters, managers, or event promoters. If a journalist at the top of their game is in danger of being silenced, what happens to the rest of the journalists waiting in the wings to do their reporting? An example was made Saturday night. Ariel did not report a story inaccurately; he reported it before the UFC could and in a different way than the promotion found acceptable. Is this how news works? In a world where news outlets are accused of bias, of lies, of filters, why should journalists hold back facts? Why should a journalist force loyalty to any one group in charge? This is the topic of importance. This is why you should care about this weekend's events. This is why whether or not you like Ariel, you should care how he was silenced when he did his job. It is not his duty to be liked. It is not his duty to please others. He has not reported maliciously; he has not reported with ill intent. He simply reported. That, to me, is the problem here. The responsibility of a journalist is to inform the people - not to satisfy the boss.
Saturday night, my mind spun and I thought of giants and monopolies and of hands over our eyes. I thought of Ida Tarbell and Standard Oil. I thought of good man being demeaned and having his livelihood endangered simply because he did his job. I thought of Dave Sholler saying "The promotion believes journalists should seek comment from the UFC before reporting a story" (via Bleacher Report). I thought of a hundred different analogies, scenarios, and events and each one made my stomach hurt. My heart hurt for Ariel because I am a human and have emotions. But it also made me feel dismissed by the organization that I frequently support with PPV purchases, merchandise buys and my voice. I'm already made to feel like a sheep for supporting MMA and especially the UFC. I don't feel comfortable with Ariel's treatment because I don't enjoy being seen as one more mindless fan in a Tapout shirt, spilling beer and not caring who is in the black shorts or the white. MMA fans are often seen as ignorant and uncaring - we need no help in appearing to be lunatics with a taste for blood and no opinion on the next person to climb in the Octagon. In a sport where fans know why we like what we like and have to defend that to those who don't understand, do we need more motivation to be treated like blind cattle? With MMA's battle to expand into states where the sport is currently banned, is it helpful to dismiss journalists reporting accurate stories? In short, in a sport that is heavily scrutinized as being barbaric and undignified, is it helpful to act that way when handling journalists?
The UFC prefers for journalists to seek comment from the organization before reporting news. Certainly, accuracy should be a point of concern and no topic should be reported as true when the journalist has no confirmation, but where is the line drawn? Where do journalists report a breaking story and when do they put on the brakes and report what they're told to report? It seems to me that no one is satisfied when it comes to journalists doing their jobs. They cannot win. They are in constant danger of having their jobs taken if they don't report what they're instructed to report yet they are worthless in their profession if they do not cover the hard stories, the secret stories, the stories nobody wants them to know yet everybody wants to hear. Sure, this is niche event here in the MMA community but it stretches out to encompass journalism as a whole. How can journalists do their jobs if they are required to satisfy the opinion of those around them? Ariel has well mastered being friends with many MMA professionals, whether they be fighters, managers, or event promoters. If a journalist at the top of their game is in danger of being silenced, what happens to the rest of the journalists waiting in the wings to do their reporting? An example was made Saturday night. Ariel did not report a story inaccurately; he reported it before the UFC could and in a different way than the promotion found acceptable. Is this how news works? In a world where news outlets are accused of bias, of lies, of filters, why should journalists hold back facts? Why should a journalist force loyalty to any one group in charge? This is the topic of importance. This is why you should care about this weekend's events. This is why whether or not you like Ariel, you should care how he was silenced when he did his job. It is not his duty to be liked. It is not his duty to please others. He has not reported maliciously; he has not reported with ill intent. He simply reported. That, to me, is the problem here. The responsibility of a journalist is to inform the people - not to satisfy the boss.
