1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

San Francisco Chronicle refuses to cover MMA and UFC and UFC President bashes em

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by blog415, Aug 11, 2010.

  1. Walter_Sobchak

    Walter_Sobchak Active Member

    Thank you, Bruce, for pointing this out.
    I don't ever remember seeing MMA coverage in the Globe before this week. Don't expect to see much after this week, except maybe the results buried on D8 or in the rail of notes. But this week, the Globe has done an exceptional job. They will have four staffers tonight at the Garden. As will the Herald. When it's in your neck of the woods, you cover it.

    For a supposed group of professional and educated journalists, the amount of ignorance and stereotyping in this thread is staggering.
  2. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    Re: San Francisco Chronicle refuses to cover MMA and UFC and UFC President bashe

    Four staffers? Ridiculous.
  3. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    Re: San Francisco Chronicle refuses to cover MMA and UFC and UFC President bashe

    No shit. That's two, if not three, too many.
  4. Walter_Sobchak

    Walter_Sobchak Active Member

    Why, exactly, is that ridiculous?

    One of the things the Globe and Herald do well is cover big events when they come locally. When the NCAA East Regionals were in town, both papers gave wall-to-wall coverage. Boston is far from a hotbed of college hoops.

    When the Deutsche Bank rolls through next week, the coverage will be massive. It's not as if readers are always clamoring for PGA articles in New England.

    The Sox are on the road, Pats have the weekend off. Currently, the UFC is the only show in town. And people act like it should be treated like the local horseshoes competition.
  5. StaggerLee

    StaggerLee Well-Known Member

    Chron should have definitely covered the event, but keep in mind this is a different situation.

    UFC has been in Bay Area before (Vegas aside, it's probably been in Cali more than any other state), it's NEVER been in Boston. It's a big event for Boston, because of the historical aspect of the event.
  6. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    What makes it historical? There's been 118 of the damn things. It's just another card that gets extra hyped. The thing is worth two stories at most and if that. Boston really ain't Podunk
  7. StaggerLee

    StaggerLee Well-Known Member

    Um, that's what makes it historical. There's actually been 158 UFC cards total and this is the first one in Boston.

    New York is UFC's next target. They've held an event there once before, but not since 1995. On a radio show a while back, Dana White said they were very close to having the state lift the ban.
  8. blog415

    blog415 Member

  9. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    First time in Boston. So? It's not like the UFC went to Dubuque the first time. And you prove my point: more attraction than sport.
  10. Piotr Rasputin

    Piotr Rasputin New Member

    That was the first time in the Bay Area, but UFC did have an event in Sacramento.


    I forgot about the cheesy titles they give these things. Putting aside the question that if The Ultimate Fighting Championship is SOOOO "Ultimate!!!" then why are they having one every few weeks? (and I wonder how long the market will continue to bear that many events), those titles are hilarious. I wonder if the people covering them have newsroom debates:

    "It's UFC 123! We gotta cover it!"

    "OK, fine. Go to it."

    "But do I call it . . .UFC 123, or its proper name of 'UFC 123: Ed Hardy Affliction Tapout'?
  11. Elliotte Friedman

    Elliotte Friedman Moderator Staff Member

    Personal shots are not necessary. Bruce, I agree with your position on the issue (see my previous posts) but there is no need for the debate to devolve.
  12. Fair point, Elliotte. Apologies, Dooley.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page