Dave Meltzer stuff

[Brady]

93 WCW had some ridiculously good matches and some horrible angles/stars (Shockmaster, Maxx Payne, White Castle of Fear, Davey Boy Smith looking like Violet Beauregarde). I will have to read through those to see how suicidal Dave can make me.

[iamthedoctor]

 

 

He gets worse into '93. It's a drag to read.....

To be fair though, from what I remember 1993 wasn't a great year for WCW.

 

I know, but nothing good to say with Vader, Flair, the Blonds, Windham, Steamboat on the cards.....? To be fair, there's a lot of times when wrestling looks worse or better at the time than looking at it some time later

 

 

Going from memory loved that TV belt tournament they did and the debut of Scorpio. Slamboree was a interesting concept doing those Legend matches, Bulldog coming in, Rude/Rhodes feuding over the US belt.

[GSR]

 

 

 

He gets worse into '93. It's a drag to read.....

To be fair though, from what I remember 1993 wasn't a great year for WCW.

I know, but nothing good to say with Vader, Flair, the Blonds, Windham, Steamboat on the cards.....? To be fair, there's a lot of times when wrestling looks worse or better at the time than looking at it some time later

Flair, Vader and pre-amnesia angle Cactus were the exceptions I thought of when writing that. Elsewhere I just associate 1993 WCW with the likes of the Cole Twins, Ice Train, Charlie Norris, The Equalizer, the Kongs, Shockmaster, Wrecking Crew etc.

[WingedEagle]

There was plenty of good to be found in 1993 WCW if you're cherry picking. But on a week to week basis its not hard to see why that TV was excruciating.

[Lee]

 

 

 

I don't know the answer to that question. Possibly? I think it's a testament to Dave's credibility that he is held to a higher standard. He's kept his integrity covering professional wrestling for 30 years. Think about all that entails and how admirable that is. So when something like this happens, it stands out a lot more than it would if he had a track record of this sort of thing.

 

For those who scoff at this because it's just wrestling, remember that Dave has covered rapes, murders, Congressional hearings, sex scandals, drug-related deaths, domestic violence, suicide and far more -- and in many cases involving people who knew very well on a personal level.

 

Exactly. So taking a one-off kayfabe commentary gig would suddenly invalidate that and impugn his credibility? It's ludicrous.

 

 

It really isn't ludicrous to say a reporter would harm his credibility by taking a paying promotional gig for a company he covers. Again, this is really basic ethical stuff in journalism. What if Dave took the job and then a wrestler died or was seriously injured on 1/4 because of some promotional negligence by NJPW? You'd have the most respected reporter in wrestling suddenly unfit to cover a major story on the second biggest wrestling promotion in the world. Is that scenario unlikely? Sure, but those are the kinds of instances we guard against by not creating the appearance of conflict.

 

Now, Dave didn't pursue the job, so this is all theoretical. And it's certainly not anything to get heated about. But as someone who has to deal with these kinds of issues in everyday life, I find the line here to be clear.

 

 

It's more like a media member playing themselves in a quick movie cameo. It doesn't mean they can't ever mention the media conglomerate that produced the film without cynicism and suspicion.

 

Agreed. Roger Ebert appeared was in the movie Abby Singer, but his life's work doesn't become devalued or lose credibility because of it, otherwise you're suggesting that anyone who does anything from wrestling to film to TV to music suddenly can't have a credible opinion when critiquing it. It's not like Dave would have been under the employ or New Japan, or would have remained under the employ of Jarrett either.

 

Then again, I can't believe people are still wasting part of their Christmas holiday worrying so deeply about something which isn't even happening.

[C.S.]

Agreed. Roger Ebert appeared was in the movie Abby Singer, but his life's work doesn't become devalued or lose credibility because of it, otherwise you're suggesting that anyone who does anything from wrestling to film to TV to music suddenly can't have a credible opinion when critiquing it. It's not like Dave would have been under the employ or New Japan, or would have remained under the employ of Jarrett either.

Then again, I can't believe people are still wasting part of their Christmas holiday worrying so deeply about something which isn't even happening.

 

Also, Ebert wrote "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" and worked with (and presumably had a friendship with) its director, Russ Meyer.

 

Did it compromise his career as a critic? Not one bit IMO.

 

In any case, Ebert never pretended to be "unbiased." He always said he had an opinion - about movies, politics, religion, etc. - and brought that to all of his reviews.

 

Meltzer really isn't any different.

 

Besides, if you want to go down this rabbit hole, you can argue with Meltzer has already been influenced by his admiration of and/or friendship with Ric Flair and others. Ditto for Keller and X-Pac, etc. They may be reporters, but they're also editorialists, and everything they write reflects their own personal opinions. That's the nature of the beast. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem comes in when people start to take their word as gospel - e.g. Meltzer rated this match five stars, so it must be!

[...TG]

 

Did it compromise his career as a critic? Not one bit IMO.

 

In any case, Ebert never pretended to be "unbiased." He always said he had an opinion - about movies, politics, religion, etc. - and brought that to all of his reviews.

 

Meltzer really isn't any different.

 

Besides, if you want to go down this rabbit hole, you can argue with Meltzer has already been influenced by his admiration of and/or friendship with Ric Flair and others. Ditto for Keller and X-Pac, etc. They may be reporters, but they're also editorialists, and everything they write reflects their own personal opinions. That's the nature of the beast. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem comes in when people start to take their word as gospel - e.g. Meltzer rated this match five stars, so it must be!

 

The problem with the Ebert comparison is that Ebert was 100% a critic, not in any sense a journalist/reporter. Dave sees himself as primarily a reporter, and that's where the (potential) conflicts are relevant.

 

The real issue here is that the "smart" wrestling community (or whatever you want to call it) relies on Dave far too much. We need more independent reporters covering the wrestling scene - outside of Dave and Keller, who can we rely on for accurate, in-depth coverage of the wrestling industry?

[Childs]

I really don't want to push this argument forward, but it's driving me crazy the way some of you are framing the discussion.

 

I don't think anyone here is saying Dave would have undercut his entire reputation by taking an announcing gig for New Japan. I know that was never my argument. I made the much narrower point that taking the job would have undercut his ability to cover the most important show of the year for the second biggest wrestling company in the world. And that would've struck me as an odd decision for a veteran, respected reporter.

 

Using the Ebert parallel, I don't think the Chicago Sun-Times would have been cool with him taking a significant supporting role in a film and then reviewing that film. Ebert was a little different because he was a pure critic, but I still don't think that's a line he would've crossed. I can't find any evidence that he reviewed Abby Singer, for example.

 

Do you all honestly think that if A.O. Scott of the New York Times took a role in the next Captain America movie, the Times would be totally cool with him reviewing that film and writing about its business performance? That's crazy talk. It's just not accepted practice in the profession.

 

Of course, anyone who writes criticism has favorites. But there's a significant distance between that and having a financial relationship with the people you cover. I'm actually surprised that's a controversial point. But admittedly, I live inside the journalism bubble. So it's illuminating to read alternate views.

[C.S.]

The problem with the Ebert comparison is that Ebert was 100% a critic, not in any sense a journalist/reporter. Dave sees himself as primarily a reporter, and that's where the (potential) conflicts are relevant.

 

The real issue here is that the "smart" wrestling community (or whatever you want to call it) relies on Dave far too much. We need more independent reporters covering the wrestling scene - outside of Dave and Keller, who can we rely on for accurate, in-depth coverage of the wrestling industry?

 

Meltzer may call himself a reporter, but he could call himself the Easter Bunny and it wouldn't change the fact that he's also a critic - just like Ebert. Meltzer's five-star reviews are one of the most famous things about him.

 

Using the Ebert parallel, I don't think the Chicago Sun-Times would have been cool with him taking a significant supporting role in a film and then reviewing that film. Ebert was a little different because he was a pure critic, but I still don't think that's a line he would've crossed. I can't find any evidence that he reviewed Abby Singer, for example.

 

Do you all honestly think that if A.O. Scott of the New York Times took a role in the next Captain America movie, the Times would be totally cool with him reviewing that film and writing about its business performance? That's crazy talk. It's just not accepted practice in the profession.

 

Ebert was the screenwriter for a movie. He may not have acted in it, but I'd argue that screenwriting is every bit as important a contribution (even if Hollywood and the public don't see it that way, because Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie sell more tabloids). However, I'm not sure if "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" pre-dates Ebert's association with the Chicago Sun-Times. It very well might. But either way, I don't think it ever compromised his credibility as a critic.

 

With that said, I can see the merits of your A.O. Scott comparison too.

[BillThompson]

The Ebert comparison is a million miles off. Ebert was never a reporter, ever. He never broke news, he never reported any any of the goings on within the industry he covered. He was 100% a critic, where bias and subjectivity are the standard. Even then he moderated himself and kept his distance from films/subjects that he believed would put him in a compromising position. Meltzer is a journalist who also happens to be a critic. He offers opinions, but the bulk of his work is reporting on and breaking news, as well as offering critical business analysis.

 

There's a world of difference between the two, to the point where I can't fathom why the original argument was made.

[sek69]

One could argue Ebert's reviews could make or break a movie the way Dave's can for a wrestling show. There's a lot of people who consider Ebert's opinion of movies even more gospel than the most ardent Dave fan.

 

Again, as stated before, this is all much ado about nothing.

[Sidebottom]

What about Harry Knowles then? He was somebody who would find and leak info as a pseudo journo, who studios would specifically leak info out to (as have most promotions to Meltzer). He of course would go on to be involved with many films and even produce.

[BillThompson]

And within the industry Knowles is viewed as a joke whose opinions and news are completely biased towards who has given him favors and who hasn't. That's why what Dave was considering was potentially damaging and not something many of us wanted to see him do.

[Sean Liska]

Yeah, I have a ton of respect for Dave so it drives me a little nutty when people try to hold him to the same low standard as mainstream sports journalism or Harry Knowles.

[funkdoc]

i wonder if this discussion would have blown up the way it did without gamergate happening...definitely notice a hyper-sensitivity to this kind of stuff as part of the fallout there. not that that's a bad thing, necessarily.

 

i've seen these debates extend to the idea of journalists developing any kind of relationship at all with the people they cover, but the actual journalists i've seen discuss this wrt gamergate have said that's just not practical. the same seems to be true here, since we all know & don't care about meltzer's friendships with brian pillman or jim ross or paul heyman.

 

basically i think i'm with childs on this.

[Loss]

I don't think this discussion has "blown up". The thing that bothers me about this thread is the idea that people who disagree with Dave considering this are somehow emotionally wrecked about it, or that we've allowed it to consume us during the holiday season. It's possible to strongly criticize someone for something and not be obsessed with it. That type of othering isn't something I care for very much. Are the people defending Dave "worked up" over the criticism? Of course not. So why frame those who see it the opposite way like that?

[Zoo Enthusiast]

i wonder if this discussion would have blown up the way it did without gamergate happening...definitely notice a hyper-sensitivity to this kind of stuff as part of the fallout there. not that that's a bad thing, necessarily.

 

i've seen these debates extend to the idea of journalists developing any kind of relationship at all with the people they cover, but the actual journalists i've seen discuss this wrt gamergate have said that's just not practical. the same seems to be true here, since we all know & don't care about meltzer's friendships with brian pillman or jim ross or paul heyman.

 

basically i think i'm with childs on this.

I don't know what a gamergate is.

[goc]

This is one of the better "Dave breaks down terrible angles" moments:

 

For those of you lucky enough to not see the most flawed PPV angle in history, it went something like this. The heels, mad because Sting & Smith didn't show up for a pep rally, went to a mysterious island where Sting & Smith were doing charity work. It's bad enough when wrestling people and other celebrities use charities simply to promote themselves in a positive light as a reaction to negative publicity, but at least in those cases they do donate time and/or effort to charity. In this case, the "charity work" consisted of playing volleyball with some child actors. Parker assured the rest of the heels that he had a plan that would keep Sting & Smith from appearing at Beach Blast. Little did he know that plan would only keep viewers from buying the show. It wound up with a dwarf wearing an eye patch swimming with a shark fin putting a bomb on a boat that Sting & Smith used to get to Gilligan's Island. Two very young girls saw the dwarf. The heels then took a boat ride to Gilligan's Island, and the only thing positive about that is that they didn't let Harley drive the boat. After a confrontation where the heels demanded the faces retire and the kids acted like they were going to cry if the faces would retire, one of the little kids told Sting about the funny man who was hanging around the boat. As Sting went to check, somehow one of the little girls told Smith about a ticking noise, and Einstein himself started sprinting down the beach, which was a sight in itself, and knocked Sting out of harms way just seconds before the bomb exploded and the boat blew up.

[Blazer]

Love the nod, "at least they didn't let Harley drive." LOL

[S.L.L.]

i wonder if this discussion would have blown up the way it did without gamergate happening...definitely notice a hyper-sensitivity to this kind of stuff as part of the fallout there. not that that's a bad thing, necessarily.

I don't think the things that led Gamergate to blow up and the things that led this to blow up are the same things.

[Brady]

Seems like nonsense to me. Been a subscriber since the 90s and as long as Dave continues to be miserable/informative and limits my exposure to Bryan, I don't care if he wears the Bunny outfit for a night.

[funkdoc]

SLL: i just mean that the emphasis on GAMES JOURNALISM in that whole mess may have gotten internet folks to notice these issues in other fields.

 

that said, i forgot that most of this forum probably wouldn't be familiar with it all anyway haha

[Johnny Sorrow]

What the fuck is Gamergate? Was Nixon involved?

[Bix]

What the fuck is Gamergate? Was Nixon involved?

 

You don't want to know. If by some chance you do, Wikipedia has by far the best overall explanation.

[S.L.L.]

SLL: i just mean that the emphasis on GAMES JOURNALISM in that whole mess may have gotten internet folks to notice these issues in other fields.

 

that said, i forgot that most of this forum probably wouldn't be familiar with it all anyway haha

Yeah, issues of journalistic integrity interested people before Gamergate, and will continue to interest them afterwords. And who are the most vocal critics of what Dave considered doing? Actual journalist Childs, politically attuned Dylan, various other very smart people...people who didn't need something like Gamergate to wake them up to issues of ethics in journalism.