Internet and dirtsheet reporting

[Guest Dangerous A]

This thread was inspired by something that I read in the Trish interview pinned in this folder. I read the interview and in it, she said the HHH "pep talk" was blown out of proportion and all HHH did was offer up some suggestions. I went and read the posts on the thread and no one hardly brought up the pep talk thing. I found that interesting because of the HHHate situation on the board. Then I put a stink about the bit and there was some interesting things said. My point was that here was a person who is on the inside of things and basically rumor killed and no one on the board said anything about it because it made the rumor less sensational. The counter point was that Trish was probrably looking out for her best interests and wouldn't say anything bad about a man so high up in the company. Another point was she was doing an unauthorized interview and had no reason to bad mouth HHH. Then things came out that Trish and HHH are good friends. (that's news to me)

 

 

With all that, I want to raise some questions about internet and dirt sheet reporting. Where do you draw the line between facts and rumors? There was a point made yesterday that we can't trust what wrestlers say in interviews because they don't want to compromise their positions in the company. Then who do we trust? There are the dirt sheets and their respective websites, but we know we'll never find out who the sources are or were on the stories being reported. I raise another question that what is the motivations of people who give Meltzer and Keller their stuff? What if so and so doesn't like who and who and goes to a dirt sheet the minute one of them slips up and gives them a fabricated story? I subscribe to the Observer. Twice in the last year he's gone back and corrected a headline story and the correction sounded a lot less sensational than the headline. Do you know where you find the correction? In the back of the newsletter in the middle of the muddle that is the WWE news section. Just like a newspaper. The juicy story gets the headline, but if there is a retract or correction, you find it in the back, lost amongst other smaller insignificant things. My point is that Meltzer and Keller are smart and are going to go with the more sensational stuff to push their newsletters. But what are their motives? I generally trust Meltzer because it is how he makes a living and if he pushes to much false stuff, he loses credibility. Same with Keller. But what about websites. I remember a time around 97-99 that there were a ton of sites and I used to frequent all of them cause I didn't know any better. I remember so called "news reporters" posting fantasy booking as news. I started to notice a trend that unless credit was given to the Observer or Torch, that a high percentage of the news bits were bullshit. That's when I smartened up greatly about the internet. But where do you draw that line with the internet? A lot of folks here put a lot of weight into what is reported on 1wrestling. I don't take what they say very seriously at all, for the sheer fact that most of their writers are looking to score a job with WWE and that about half their news bits end up being full of shit. If you give 1wrestling validity, more power to you. But I choose to question their motives and stories more because of credibility issues.

 

 

This post is to try to raise some discussion about internet and dirtsheet reporting. But it also is meant to raise some awareness into questioning the source of our news. In closing, I'll say this- Always question the knowledge that is given to you by people who's sources are questionable at best.

[Guest thebigjig]

The only internet/dirtsheet reporter that I trust is David Meltzer, but that's only to a certain degree. I trust Trish's assessment of the situation above anyone else, only because she is there and she would actually know. I'm not saying that her word is "gospel" so to speak, but I would be more inclined to believe her, then the average smark that posts here. I've also spoken to other wrestlers, those that work in the WWE right now, and those that no longer work for the WWE who basically all say the same thing... basically that the internet is like the National Enquirer. Sometimes you get the truth, sometimes you get complete and utter bullshit, and sometime and most of the time, you get extreme exaggerations.

[Guest TheSmarkzone]

I only read about the HHH pep talk on WWE.com, not the dirtsheets. I don't put any stock in the dirtsheets. Meltzer is pretty reliable and accurate for an outsider...I wouldn't consider the Observer to be a "dirtsheet". It's kinda like comparing the New York Times (Observer) to the National Inquirer (Wrestleboard or Rajah).

 

What pissed me off was the direct quotes that HHH gave WWE.com. He was bashing guys who think that they have good matches but they suck, or guys who think that they are good workers but they suck...look in the mirror, you roided bastard.

[Guest Flyboy]

Damn, DA.... if it's anyone who I respect it's you. Your posts are always good, and you seem cool.

 

Anyhow, when I first received the 'Net.. I learned about the 'dirtsheets' and such. I took everything they said to be true. With isn't (most of the time) the case. I've learned that you take everything you hear, as what? "A grain of salt."

 

Taking Trish's response I believe would be the right thing to do, but we really don't know who to believe do we? Sometimes I read the dirtsheets and think, 'That'll never happen.' And it does. And other times I read them thinking the same thing and it doesn't.

 

It's really how gulliable you are, I suppose. Don't believe all that you hear/read, but I wouldn't throw EVERYTHING you hear/read out of the window.

[Guest AlwaysPissedOff]

Well, since I do some of the news for the site, I get the "pleasure" of checking out a lot of sites(I know it doesn't seem that way, but a lot of times Meltzer is about the only one, except for probably Keller, that I could take as the truth) and more often than not, I see a dazzling array of bullshit that quite a few people take as the gospel. I, like many other net newbies back in the day, used to believe a LOT of what some of these minor sites used to spew before I learned otherwise and began to cross-check it with the more respectable stuff like the WO or the Torch.

 

Really, there are maybe like 3 guys who I would trust as far as the news goes.

[Guest jester]

I don't think that the dirt sheets or WWE official line can be 100% trusted. Both undoubtedly exaggerate, obfuscate, omit details, and put out untruths from time to time (whether intentional or not). Othertimes, they're right on the money (whether intentional or not).

 

All statements issued by anybody should be questioned on the basis of

 

1. Does this statement inflame my emotions rather than get me thinking?

2. Who benefits from my believing this?

3. Are there any other sources saying the same thing?

4. What is the agenda of the people reporting this?

 

Question everything! Trust no-one!

 

I will say though that WWE needs to work the Internet better, that's for sure, because like it or not, stuff will get out. They shouldn't bow and beg for everything on the IWC, but they should be a lot more cordial and go on the initiative. Show some ruthless aggression (everybody take a drink).

 

 

jester

[Guest converge241]

sometimes you have to break down wrestling as three realities and then suspend your disbelief accordingly:

 

1) the real world - we have no access to. what the performers are really saying/thinking

2) the "smart" world - the curtains raised a little but you dont know for fact whats true or not, the curtain may be pulled back a little but your still seeing some magic, or being worked a little.

3) the "mark" world - whats on your TV, in the arenas..no explanation needed.

 

personally sometimes I feel 2 and 3 are opposite sides of the same coin. I just suspend my disbelief and enjoy both. Face it anyone can say "Oh the original plan was for Brock to fight this person and that person in a TLC match (or something)" and it could be complete bullshit but a lot of people will say "oh wow, I wish they did that" or "that would have been dumb" and its not like a sheet or a site is committing libel or anything. And sources could always be themsleves or someone else specualting.

[Guest Brian]

Well, I'd be more willing to trust a Meltzer or Keller exerpt than an interview because they leave the individuals unnamed for that direct purpose, that they can report without having to worry about someone's situation. I especially trust Meltzer because of what he's said about working with the WWE and running the newsletter, and that actually taking a booking position would comprimise how he looks at the product and such, and how he would never do both. I respect that. I respect that both guys do it for a living, and os they have to put out as much stuff that at least correlates with the truth as possible. Sometimes, I notice with the Torch, if Keller has something unconfirmed he'll bring it up as a rumor or reference it at a later date in a story.

 

Ther are just too many sites posting too much bullshit nowadays. A lot of crappy newsboards, and even 1Wrestling has lost a lot of credibility.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

I've never read Meltzer or Keller, simply because it doesn't concern me. However, I used to go to internet news sites for wrestling news, and the majority of it is guess-work at best, attributed to nameless individuals. Sometimes it's worth a laugh, and its harmless so I have no problem with it, however when people start believing these "'net insiders" over actual wrestlers, that's a huge problem. If you can't trust the workers at a company, you're basically saying you don't trust the company. And if you don't trust a company, why are you giving them your business?

 

Even if these "insiders" were legitimate, they want to stay anonymous for a reason. Not because they'd be fired for "revealing the truth", but because they'd be fired for exaggerating the "truth" for their own personal grudges. The "insiders" don't give a damn about anything other than manipulating the fans for their OWN backstage politics, which is why I've made it a point not to believe any anonymous source, regardless of who it's from.

 

Remember, we live in a capitalist society. Everyone's out to make money at someone else's expense - it's just a matter of who you want to see stepped on.

[Guest redbaron51]

I personaly think that insiders like Meltzer and other people with the dirt sheets, should f*** off because I think they are ruining what the current product has. A simple handshake/hug and if a person like Meltzer or Rajahwwf gets it it'll be like "Wrestler A and Wrestler B looks like they are teaming up in the near future" and completly exaggerate the whole situation, as smarks look in and then start to bitch about it, and this gives them hits to their websites to make money.

 

No I think they have done damage to the ratings and storylines now, that if they were not there, WWF would be in the 5 range, wCw maybe possibly still be around.

[Guest Brian]

Blaming dirtsheets for WCW and WWE's failings. That's pretty low.

[Guest Razor Roman]

Personally, I just enjoy reading the stuff.

 

I hardly ever trust anything... and besides, it doesn't really affect me either way if it is true or false. I enjoy watching wrestling, and I enjoy seeing what may or may not go on behind the scenes. If I found out today that HHH had lobbied for Jericho to retain the title at WrestleMania so he could get over better, my world would not come to an end.

[Guest redbaron51]

it might be low, but it can be an answer to how many storylines bombed because of guys like Meltzer...

[Guest Flyboy]

Erm, how?

 

Does reading about upcoming angles turn viewers off? Probably not. It's the WWE current shitty product.

 

Hell, if Meltzer an angle that sounded.. you know.. actually good, people would probably turn in to check it out whether or not the angle was played out or not.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

I think the websites/dirtsheets get into a really bad habit, which I like to call "piling on". This can be seen currently with HHH. These "journalists" get a sniff of what the basic internet feeling is towards a wrestler, and if it's highly negative, then they ride that wave of negativity by publishing as many stories about said wrestler as possible. Some of this HHH stuff might be bang on, but a lot of it I fear is either exagerrated or just plain fabricated. Consider that in 2001, The Undertaker was the big bad guy on the net due to the perception that he got pushed ahead of Chris&Chris after WM-X7, and that he was "holding down" the WCW guys when the Invasion started. As a result, almost every day you got a "news" story with an anti-Undertaker slant. But since HHH returned and all the hate got focused on him, no one talks about the Undertaker anymore. Did he suddenly stop doing all these things he was accused of? Or were the "Undertaker had X demoted to OVW" stories just crap? I think the latter is more likely. That's basically the problem I have with the net writers. Once no one cares about HHH and everyone has moved onto some new enemy, I'm sure the same thing will happen.

[Guest Dangerous A]

Perception is another X-factor when looking at internet and dirtsheets.

 

I'll use the Trish interview as an example.

 

Trish's perception of the HHH pep talk was "He's offering up some suggestions to some people who may or may not be using their time constructively."

 

Wrestler Anonymous's perception of the HHH pep talk was "Who the fuck is this bastard to tell me what to do with my time, he's hardly been to some of these house shows. Whatever."

 

One persons perception of a situation may be completely different than anothers.

 

Another thing to point out is what if someone hears or sees something and takes it out of context. The fly on the wall syndrome, but they only hear part of the conversation. Or more importantly, hear what they want to hear. Another thing to think about is is the source spicing up the news so it'll actually get used? Meltzer and Keller, while I think are very credible, aren't going to be putting boring shit on their newsletter. They want dirt. Dirt sells.

 

But they are fairly credible. I agree with the accessment someone made earlier that the Observer and Torch are like the New York Daily News and places like 1wrestling and Rajah and such are the Enquirer or Star magazines.

[Guest SuperTonyJaymz]

Im not a avid reader of the dirtsheets...call me cornette, but I kinda like Kayfabe.

[Guest goodolemr]

Come on people, let’s get serious here for a moment.

 

When the head writer, who just happens to also be the boss’ daughter, is dating a wrestler, that is news and it would be insane for it not to be reported.

 

That relationship is impacting the product and other people’s careers. If Triple H wants to have that relationship, then he’ll have to take all that goes with it, including the heat from the dirtsheets.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Well it all depends on who thinks who is credible. I remember when I first got the net in '95. Logically I just typed in www.prowrestling.com and up came the IWZ page. Hahahaha, if there was one page that WAS NOT credible it was Internet Wrestling Zone, but at the time I didn't know any better, IWZ was my first exposure from being a mark to becoming a smark. They did report a few credible reports but it was mostly just gossip for hits. Now we jump ahead to today and it is obvious how some "news"boards are just garbage looking for as many hits as possible. The question is, when does personal bias take over what you WANT to believe and forget about what the most LOGICAL explanation/reasoning is.....when I read "news" I try to take it as a grain of salt at first, I may tell a friend or two at work that it is an interesting report, but by now we all know better then to believe a lot of stuff "reported" So I guess the layout for dirtsheets are just to take it with a grain of salt and wait for things to REALLY pan out. Don't take everything like it is 100% fact just because it may happen to help with an argument for or against a wrestler you like/hate.....that is my best advice I guess......(No Smackdown for me till Saturday, for baseball...and this did NOT come from a dirtsheet)~!!!

[Guest Your Olympic Hero1]

I use TWNP News for news. Always reliable.