BillThompson Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 Recently a bunch of people were perturbed when the WON's NXT report, written by I believe, Josh Nason, stated something along the lines of, "Then they showed Regal with a big black guy. He may be someone from the indies, I have no idea." People took Nason and the WON as a whole to task for presenting themselves as journalists and then not bothering to do a modicum of research. My main beef was that this is a service that people pay for, and when called out on shoddy research and work Nason's response boiled down to, "No one's forcing you to read." Stuff like this makes Meltzer, and really hurts people like Alan, Bix, and Farmer who are much better than what boils down to WONFW journalists these days. And to those people this is yet another reason why, despite your good work, I can't justify giving WON my money every month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.S. Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 Recently a bunch of people were perturbed when the WON's NXT report, written by I believe, Josh Nason, stated something along the lines of, "Then they showed Regal with a big black guy. He may be someone from the indies, I have no idea." People took Nason and the WON as a whole to task for presenting themselves as journalists and then not bothering to do a modicum of research. My main beef was that this is a service that people pay for, and when called out on shoddy research and work Nason's response boiled down to, "No one's forcing you to read." Stuff like this makes Meltzer, and really hurts people like Alan, Bix, and Farmer who are much better than what boils down to WONFW journalists these days. And to those people this is yet another reason why, despite your good work, I can't justify giving WON my money every month. WON has always been weak as hell, though, when it comes to website reviews and columns. The main draw are the newsletters and (I'm assuming) audio. With that said, I haven't been a subscriber in years either. But the shitty website wouldn't make or break my decision either way. Edit: Or am I misunderstanding, and this review was in the actual newsletter? If so, I agree with you. BTW, the review sounds incredibly lazy. I didn't even see the episode and I was able to correctly guess that it was Uhaa Nation when a friend of mine told me about the show but didn't recognize who it was. "Big black guy" - what a fucking joke! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Ewiak Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 OK, if Nason really didn't do the research, that's on him, but couldn't that line had been a joke referring to the fact the never give Uhaa a name on that episode of NXT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 Debra was never with Jeff Jarrett. And I don't see how "bouncing" from one guy to another makes her a crazy woman. She had different relationships. Ok. And ? Like everyone, basically. Like everyone is correct (or at least what more people want). A woman is a slut, while a guy is a stud. It's always the same, and since guys are the ones tossing people in buckets, it will never change. Sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 OK, if Nason really didn't do the research, that's on him, but couldn't that line had been a joke referring to the fact the never give Uhaa a name on that episode of NXT? Didn't read it, first I heard of this "controversy"......but it clearly seems like an in joke on the fact that they debuted Uhaa with no name....and to anybody who didn't know him (which let's be honest....he's not a huge name outside of hardcore pockets of fans)..... And, anyone who subscribes to WO/F4W.....should be listening to the audio shows....reading the Observer......and should at least know him from that It was a joke. But you know.....sarcasm and the internet and all....it gets lost in translation sometimes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillThompson Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 It wasn't a joke though. Nason went through three stages. The first was getting called out for his lack of research and correcting the article and including in the update, "We apologize for the previous mistake, it has been corrected." When people told him that there wasn't a mistake, just lazy research he then told people to not bother reading if it really bothered them that much. When readers kept on him he then started up with the "Guys, it was a joke, and you all fell for it" rhetoric, which was very obviously a narrative he created to try and save face. It's a simple issue; if you are a journalist for a product that people pay to read, then do your research and make sure the people get their money's worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dooley Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 It wasn't a joke though. Nason went through three stages. The first was getting called out for his lack of research and correcting the article and including in the update, "We apologize for the previous mistake, it has been corrected." When people told him that there wasn't a mistake, just lazy research he then told people to not bother reading if it really bothered them that much. When readers kept on him he then started up with the "Guys, it was a joke, and you all fell for it" rhetoric, which was very obviously a narrative he created to try and save face. It's a simple issue; if you are a journalist for a product that people pay to read, then do your research and make sure the people get their money's worth. Would Nason get paid though? If not, that falls on the WON for not getting more capable people. If he's just doing it for fun, hard to place the "journalist" tag on him and hold him to a standard. That's basically a fan review. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillThompson Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 I believe he is paid, though I could be wrong on that. If he's not paid, then it falls on whatever editors WON does pay as that is something they should catch and rectify. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradhindsight Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 Not knowing their editorial process, perhaps he was really going for the joke (since they didn't call him by name) and then one of their editors saw the uproar and changed it and noted an apology, not knowing the intent and not reaching out to Nason first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 Josh Nason's Twitter account says "Content & Digital Strategy at@PixelMEDIA & @WONF4W", which I presume means he's being paid for his services. Nason seems to be an MMA fan first, WWE fan a distant second and other pro wrestling a very distant third, so I wouldn't be too surprised if he wasn't that familiar with Uhaa Nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillThompson Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 Not being familiar with him is fine, but in this day and age a quick Google search would tell you everything you need to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 The Austin stuff always strikes me as kind of odd. On one hand you have people who try to use him as the trump card to win arguments with anyone who has issues with Hunter's constant fellating of Floyd, and on the other you can probably make the case that as bad as what Austin did, it wouldn't crack the top 25 of worst stuff done by someone in wrestling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 It wasn't a joke though. Nason went through three stages. The first was getting called out for his lack of research and correcting the article and including in the update, "We apologize for the previous mistake, it has been corrected." When people told him that there wasn't a mistake, just lazy research he then told people to not bother reading if it really bothered them that much. When readers kept on him he then started up with the "Guys, it was a joke, and you all fell for it" rhetoric, which was very obviously a narrative he created to try and save face. It's a simple issue; if you are a journalist for a product that people pay to read, then do your research and make sure the people get their money's worth. Ok then..... Like I said, didn't read it, don't read the board, don't read anything by Nason........don't care. But, it would have been a good 'in joke' and on the nose because WWE literally debuted Uhaa without a name.......and it was talked about, and written about on the damn website quite a bit So maybe this Nason character is just a shoddy ponce I find it funny though that people think something like that lowers Dave's standing as a journalist, or "that's why I don't subscribe". Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillThompson Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 It wasn't a joke though. Nason went through three stages. The first was getting called out for his lack of research and correcting the article and including in the update, "We apologize for the previous mistake, it has been corrected." When people told him that there wasn't a mistake, just lazy research he then told people to not bother reading if it really bothered them that much. When readers kept on him he then started up with the "Guys, it was a joke, and you all fell for it" rhetoric, which was very obviously a narrative he created to try and save face. It's a simple issue; if you are a journalist for a product that people pay to read, then do your research and make sure the people get their money's worth. Ok then..... Like I said, didn't read it, don't read the board, don't read anything by Nason........don't care. But, it would have been a good 'in joke' and on the nose because WWE literally debuted Uhaa without a name.......and it was talked about, and written about on the damn website quite a bit So maybe this Nason character is just a shoddy ponce I find it funny though that people think something like that lowers Dave's standing as a journalist, or "that's why I don't subscribe". Really? Didn't say it lowers Dave's standing as a journalist, although Nason, along with many others under Dave's employ, make me really question Dave's eye for fellow journalistic talent. As for the not subscribing part, why should people spend money on a journalism based product that doesn't bother to do adequate journalistic research? It's not like this is free content, it's something that should ascribe to a certain quality because customers are paying to read said content. It's no different than a newspaper or any other reporting venture in that regard; if the journalism being offered is of a subpar nature then people shouldn't subscribe and give their hard earned money to a subpar product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 It's been a running joke for years anyone on the WO site other than Dave or Bryan (and recently Semp) is pretty horrible, That's why the so called "front page rule" is in effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.S. Posted May 13, 2015 Report Share Posted May 13, 2015 I believe he is paid, though I could be wrong on that. If he's not paid, then it falls on whatever editors WON does pay as that is something they should catch and rectify. WON editors? This is Dave "Run-on Sentence" Meltzer we're talking about. If he's not edited, why some random show reviewer get that royal treatment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted May 13, 2015 Report Share Posted May 13, 2015 They actually do have editors, but I'm sure they collapse from exhaustion once they finish the Dave portions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Jackson Posted May 13, 2015 Report Share Posted May 13, 2015 If the Observer has an editor they should look for another calling in life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted May 13, 2015 Report Share Posted May 13, 2015 It wasn't a joke though. Nason went through three stages. The first was getting called out for his lack of research and correcting the article and including in the update, "We apologize for the previous mistake, it has been corrected." When people told him that there wasn't a mistake, just lazy research he then told people to not bother reading if it really bothered them that much. When readers kept on him he then started up with the "Guys, it was a joke, and you all fell for it" rhetoric, which was very obviously a narrative he created to try and save face. It's a simple issue; if you are a journalist for a product that people pay to read, then do your research and make sure the people get their money's worth. Ok then..... Like I said, didn't read it, don't read the board, don't read anything by Nason........don't care. But, it would have been a good 'in joke' and on the nose because WWE literally debuted Uhaa without a name.......and it was talked about, and written about on the damn website quite a bit So maybe this Nason character is just a shoddy ponce I find it funny though that people think something like that lowers Dave's standing as a journalist, or "that's why I don't subscribe". Really? Didn't say it lowers Dave's standing as a journalist, although Nason, along with many others under Dave's employ, make me really question Dave's eye for fellow journalistic talent. As for the not subscribing part, why should people spend money on a journalism based product that doesn't bother to do adequate journalistic research? It's not like this is free content, it's something that should ascribe to a certain quality because customers are paying to read said content. It's no different than a newspaper or any other reporting venture in that regard; if the journalism being offered is of a subpar nature then people shouldn't subscribe and give their hard earned money to a subpar product. I subscribe for the audio content and the Observer. That's worth my $9.99 right there I've subscribed to many magazines over the years, ranging from SLAM to Rolling Stone to The Economist. I don't read every single article in every single issue. I used to subscribe to The New York Post......there was lots of stuff in there I skipped, but I liked sports coverage and some of the tabloid wackiness and it made for a good easy read on the train. When I read The Times or WSJ I don't read every article......I skip stuff I'm not interested in I assume everyone is this way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted May 13, 2015 Report Share Posted May 13, 2015 The Observer, WO Radio, Bryan & Vinny (& Craig), and Lance Storm shows are worth my $9.99 IMO. Even the daily WOL shows aren't too bad now that they pulled the reins in on the creepy callers who fap over women's indy wrestling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilTLL Posted May 13, 2015 Report Share Posted May 13, 2015 If the Observer has an editor they should look for another calling in life Yeah, I refuse to believe this person exists. Or if they do, perhaps their work just gets ignored week after week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted May 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2015 Dave has said he'd love having an editor but he doesn't see anyone willing to stay up all through the night on Tuesday evenings from 10pm-5am when the WON usually is completed. I at least give him credit for printing a correction. He didn't fully own what he did, but it's a step that, albeit small, some writers wouldn't take at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammerva Posted May 14, 2015 Report Share Posted May 14, 2015 Don't know if I have ever heard Meltzer start a show by answering a question in complete laughter. And to nobody surprise it had to do with TNA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted May 15, 2015 Report Share Posted May 15, 2015 Newest mailbag show starts with someone sending in a question about Tom Magee and mentions a WWF December 1988 dark match with Arn Anderson that was aired internationally in which Anderson made him look good. The asker claimed to have seen this match. I wasn't aware that any record of such a match had been found. Dave didn't really confirm or deny it either, just went into his normal Magee talking points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSR Posted May 15, 2015 Report Share Posted May 15, 2015 Newest mailbag show starts with someone sending in a question about Tom Magee and mentions a WWF December 1988 dark match with Arn Anderson that was aired internationally in which Anderson made him look good. The asker claimed to have seen this match. I wasn't aware that any record of such a match had been found. Dave didn't really confirm or deny it either, just went into his normal Magee talking points. There's some talk about this in the Village Green Preservation Society. I'm of the opinion that it never took place and was just a typo on someone's list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.