Dave Meltzer stuff

[Victator]

Meltz is in the wrong here. Even if the texts were doctored or cherry picked (I think they were) as a journalist he was obligated to speak to her if he was going to cover the story.

Can public opinion take the place of legal system without being abused or stripping people of their rights?

 

No it cannot.

[sek69]

I mean, it's pretty difficult for a woman to proceed with a sexual assult case in the best of circumstances (he said she said stuff, statute of limitations, willingness of law enforcement to follow up) and then add the messed up world of wrestling I can see why she would not want to go through the process.

[El-P]

I mean, it's pretty difficult for a woman to proceed with a sexual assult case in the best of circumstances (he said she said stuff, statute of limitations, willingness of law enforcement to follow up) and then add the messed up world of wrestling I can see why she would not want to go through the process.

 

This. It's never, ever, easy to go to the police in the first place. Add in the social pressure, the shitty working 'da business' environement. Doesn't help. So, no blame on her at all.

[Victator]

Well I can put blame on her wanting to form a lynch mob mentality on anyone booking Elgin. That her focus is almost entirely on Elgin and not Orleans raises a lot of questions.

But that does not absolve Meltzer of his journalistic responsibility. He should have interviewed her the second he decided to cover the story.

[sek69]

If Elign was covering for someome who committed a sexual assault (and it seems that is what happened) then fuck him. No sympathy for any negativity that was sent his way.

[dawho5]

I don't think that pushing things to social media because you are scared to go to the police is a viable option. I get that it's going to be tough to get justice. But there is a 100% guarantee that nothing happens to the attacker if this is all you do. Social media can't put a guy away or make him stop doing this kind of thing. And yes, aiming all of that bile at somebody else (in this case an enabler) only serves to make things more murky and harder to deal with.

 

I'm not saying there are easy answers. I just know that what did happen was the wrong way to handle it. Part of the problem with this idea of men within "the wrestling business" getting away with things like this is that it becomes this self-perpetuating issue. Nobody has done anything, so why assume they will? I'm 100% sure every time you go in with a defeatist attitude like that you're going to lose.

 

This is said with no animosity towards the young woman. I think that in a bad situation she made a bad choice. It happens. If the things she had to (and will have to in the future if she continues to be involved) deal with are going to stop it has to start with somebody making a stand. And it's not anyone on the internet that's going to make that happen.

[dr. David Rubio]

 

I don't fully understand the Elgin story or why people are now angry at Dave. Not saying people shouldn't be angry at him. I just haven't seen a good synopsis of the situation.

Elgin probably sexually assaulted a women. Dave called her a liar. He never talked to the women, instead he talked to Elgin and used a tumblr blog as his source.

 

 

Let's get a few things straight. You've already been corrected on the Egin thing (although she has insinuated that Elgin was manipulative towards her). Dave never called her a liar; he stated that, "the text messages released were heavily edit with many things said that were erased." Thirdly, he didn't use tubmlr as a source. All this broke in October/November and he commented on it following that. The tumblr page went live a 3 weeks ago. It was shared on Wreddit and Mo herself replied to a tweet with the link subsequent to that. That's when Dave made the mistake of posting the tumblr link without context or comment.

 

We don't know if he talked to Elgin.

 

He apparently didn't talk to the woman, so you are right there.

[Loss]

I think this really comes from a place, as I've said before, of Dave not thinking it's appropriate to call out wrestlers for doing things that people in the most powerful positions have done without any consequences. Think Vince McMahon. I get that, but by going easy on wrestlers, the end result lets everyone off the hook. It lowers the bar instead of raising it. So therein lies a question -- what's a journalist to do if he doesn't want to hold labor to a tougher standard than management, but he can't nail management to the wall, even though he personally *knows* that the management allegations are true, because he can't get anyone to go on the record? I may be way off on this, but I really think that's where he's coming from.

[Zoo Enthusiast]

I think this really comes from a place, as I've said before, of Dave not thinking it's appropriate to call out wrestlers for doing things that people in the most powerful positions have done without any consequences. Think Vince McMahon. I get that, but by going easy on wrestlers, the end result lets everyone off the hook. It lowers the bar instead of raising it. So therein lies a question -- what's a journalist to do if he doesn't want to hold labor to a tougher standard than management, but he can't nail management to the wall, even though he personally *knows* that the management allegations are true, because he can't get anyone to go on the record? I may be way off on this, but I really think that's where he's coming from.

This week’s episode of Talking Sheet did a fantastic job of breaking this whole situation down, I thought. I’d recommend that others who are interested in the murky topic of pro wrestling journalism give it a listen.

 

http://www.sheetsandwich.com/109-wrestling-coverage-problematic-bruce-mitchell-delivers-mike-johnson-fails-cwf-mid-atlantic-brad-stutts-story-questionable-journalistic-integrity-meltzer-satin-elgin/

[Childs]

I think this really comes from a place, as I've said before, of Dave not thinking it's appropriate to call out wrestlers for doing things that people in the most powerful positions have done without any consequences. Think Vince McMahon. I get that, but by going easy on wrestlers, the end result lets everyone off the hook. It lowers the bar instead of raising it. So therein lies a question -- what's a journalist to do if he doesn't want to hold labor to a tougher standard than management, but he can't nail management to the wall, even though he personally *knows* that the management allegations are true, because he can't get anyone to go on the record? I may be way off on this, but I really think that's where he's coming from.

His general lack of clarity also hurts him with stories like this. It becomes hard to tell what he is actually trying to say or whom he has actually interviewed. He needs an editor.

[joeg]

 

 

I don't fully understand the Elgin story or why people are now angry at Dave. Not saying people shouldn't be angry at him. I just haven't seen a good synopsis of the situation.

Elgin probably sexually assaulted a women. Dave called her a liar. He never talked to the women, instead he talked to Elgin and used a tumblr blog as his source.

 

 

Let's get a few things straight. You've already been corrected on the Egin thing (although she has insinuated that Elgin was manipulative towards her). Dave never called her a liar; he stated that, "the text messages released were heavily edit with many things said that were erased." Thirdly, he didn't use tubmlr as a source. All this broke in October/November and he commented on it following that. The tumblr page went live a 3 weeks ago. It was shared on Wreddit and Mo herself replied to a tweet with the link subsequent to that. That's when Dave made the mistake of posting the tumblr link without context or comment.

 

We don't know if he talked to Elgin.

 

He apparently didn't talk to the woman, so you are right there.

 

Read that sentence. Re read that sentence. Then re-read it again. Then re-read it again and again until you understand everything that is wrong with Dave Metlzer's editorial style. If Meltzer's subject and verb aren't even in agreement, and his tense is out of order, how can we agree that his facts are in order? That's what I see as the biggest problem with Metlzer's handling of serious topics. His writing reads like it was written by a 12 year old who just snorted some adderall.

[GSR]

 

I think this really comes from a place, as I've said before, of Dave not thinking it's appropriate to call out wrestlers for doing things that people in the most powerful positions have done without any consequences. Think Vince McMahon. I get that, but by going easy on wrestlers, the end result lets everyone off the hook. It lowers the bar instead of raising it. So therein lies a question -- what's a journalist to do if he doesn't want to hold labor to a tougher standard than management, but he can't nail management to the wall, even though he personally *knows* that the management allegations are true, because he can't get anyone to go on the record? I may be way off on this, but I really think that's where he's coming from.

This week’s episode of Talking Sheet did a fantastic job of breaking this whole situation down, I thought. I’d recommend that others who are interested in the murky topic of pro wrestling journalism give it a listen.

 

http://www.sheetsandwich.com/109-wrestling-coverage-problematic-bruce-mitchell-delivers-mike-johnson-fails-cwf-mid-atlantic-brad-stutts-story-questionable-journalistic-integrity-meltzer-satin-elgin/

 

 

Nah, you're alright. I can only image 'Les Moore' was chomping at the bit and couldn't wait to record his weekly (I presume he'll stick with Talking Shit for a few months and then drop it like he does every year) rag on Dave when all this broke.

[Zoo Enthusiast]

 

 

I think this really comes from a place, as I've said before, of Dave not thinking it's appropriate to call out wrestlers for doing things that people in the most powerful positions have done without any consequences. Think Vince McMahon. I get that, but by going easy on wrestlers, the end result lets everyone off the hook. It lowers the bar instead of raising it. So therein lies a question -- what's a journalist to do if he doesn't want to hold labor to a tougher standard than management, but he can't nail management to the wall, even though he personally *knows* that the management allegations are true, because he can't get anyone to go on the record? I may be way off on this, but I really think that's where he's coming from.

 

This week’s episode of Talking Sheet did a fantastic job of breaking this whole situation down, I thought. I’d recommend that others who are interested in the murky topic of pro wrestling journalism give it a listen.http://www.sheetsandwich.com/109-wrestling-coverage-problematic-bruce-mitchell-delivers-mike-johnson-fails-cwf-mid-atlantic-brad-stutts-story-questionable-journalistic-integrity-meltzer-satin-elgin/

Nah, you're alright. I can only image 'Les Moore' was chomping at the bit and couldn't wait to record his weekly (I presume he'll stick with Talking Shit for a few months and then drop it like he does every year) rag on Dave when all this broke.

I thought they were pretty fair on this one. Pretty tough to be anything but critical of Dave for his “coverage” of this story and this episode wasn’t overboard by any means. Certainly not every episode is good but the last couple have been and they haven’t been three hours long.

[Fando]

 

 

 

I don't fully understand the Elgin story or why people are now angry at Dave. Not saying people shouldn't be angry at him. I just haven't seen a good synopsis of the situation.

Elgin probably sexually assaulted a women. Dave called her a liar. He never talked to the women, instead he talked to Elgin and used a tumblr blog as his source.

 

 

Let's get a few things straight. You've already been corrected on the Egin thing (although she has insinuated that Elgin was manipulative towards her). Dave never called her a liar; he stated that, "the text messages released were heavily edit with many things said that were erased." Thirdly, he didn't use tubmlr as a source. All this broke in October/November and he commented on it following that. The tumblr page went live a 3 weeks ago. It was shared on Wreddit and Mo herself replied to a tweet with the link subsequent to that. That's when Dave made the mistake of posting the tumblr link without context or comment.

 

We don't know if he talked to Elgin.

 

He apparently didn't talk to the woman, so you are right there.

 

Read that sentence. Re read that sentence. Then re-read it again. Then re-read it again and again until you understand everything that is wrong with Dave Metlzer's editorial style. If Meltzer's subject and verb aren't even in agreement, and his tense is out of order, how can we agree that his facts are in order? That's what I see as the biggest problem with Metlzer's handling of serious topics. His writing reads like it was written by a 12 year old who just snorted some adderall.

 

 

That's not even Meltzer's error! Like, just don't comment unless you've seen what he actually wrote. This was also on his board, not in the Observer, specifically warning people not to speculate or choose sides.

 

He deserves criticism in this, especially for posting the tumblr link without comment or checking to see if he was spreading private contact info. But the people in this thread often going in on him the hardest always seem to get their info 2nd or 3rd hand and have as many details wrong.

 

 

 

 

[GSR]

 

 

 

I think this really comes from a place, as I've said before, of Dave not thinking it's appropriate to call out wrestlers for doing things that people in the most powerful positions have done without any consequences. Think Vince McMahon. I get that, but by going easy on wrestlers, the end result lets everyone off the hook. It lowers the bar instead of raising it. So therein lies a question -- what's a journalist to do if he doesn't want to hold labor to a tougher standard than management, but he can't nail management to the wall, even though he personally *knows* that the management allegations are true, because he can't get anyone to go on the record? I may be way off on this, but I really think that's where he's coming from.

This week’s episode of Talking Sheet did a fantastic job of breaking this whole situation down, I thought. I’d recommend that others who are interested in the murky topic of pro wrestling journalism give it a listen.http://www.sheetsandwich.com/109-wrestling-coverage-problematic-bruce-mitchell-delivers-mike-johnson-fails-cwf-mid-atlantic-brad-stutts-story-questionable-journalistic-integrity-meltzer-satin-elgin/

Nah, you're alright. I can only image 'Les Moore' was chomping at the bit and couldn't wait to record his weekly (I presume he'll stick with Talking Shit for a few months and then drop it like he does every year) rag on Dave when all this broke.

I thought they were pretty fair on this one. Pretty tough to be anything but critical of Dave for his “coverage” of this story and this episode wasn’t overboard by any means. Certainly not every episode is good but the last couple have been and they haven’t been three hours long.

 

 

I just don't find the guy objective in the slightest and for some reason he seems to have an irrational and obsessive dislike of Dave. I think it was only earlier in the week that I saw a response from someone I follow who corrected him on a tweet he'd put out about why doesn't Dave report on exaggerated New Japan attendance numbers. They linked him something proving that he had, and all 'Les' could do was say something along the lines of "Oh, I wasn't aware of that, glad you've bought it to my attention" Imagine if it was the other way around? Don't get me started on hiding behind a nom de plume either. I've not listened to anything involving him since he ruined an episode of Between the Sheets with his Meltzer agenda and don't intend to ever again. It's bad enough when I occasionally come across him on Twitter!

[Zoo Enthusiast]

 

 

 

 

I think this really comes from a place, as I've said before, of Dave not thinking it's appropriate to call out wrestlers for doing things that people in the most powerful positions have done without any consequences. Think Vince McMahon. I get that, but by going easy on wrestlers, the end result lets everyone off the hook. It lowers the bar instead of raising it. So therein lies a question -- what's a journalist to do if he doesn't want to hold labor to a tougher standard than management, but he can't nail management to the wall, even though he personally *knows* that the management allegations are true, because he can't get anyone to go on the record? I may be way off on this, but I really think that's where he's coming from.

 

This week’s episode of Talking Sheet did a fantastic job of breaking this whole situation down, I thought. I’d recommend that others who are interested in the murky topic of pro wrestling journalism give it a listen.http://www.sheetsandwich.com/109-wrestling-coverage-problematic-bruce-mitchell-delivers-mike-johnson-fails-cwf-mid-atlantic-brad-stutts-story-questionable-journalistic-integrity-meltzer-satin-elgin/

Nah, you're alright. I can only image 'Les Moore' was chomping at the bit and couldn't wait to record his weekly (I presume he'll stick with Talking Shit for a few months and then drop it like he does every year) rag on Dave when all this broke.

I thought they were pretty fair on this one. Pretty tough to be anything but critical of Dave for his “coverage” of this story and this episode wasn’t overboard by any means. Certainly not every episode is good but the last couple have been and they haven’t been three hours long.

I just don't find the guy objectional in the slightest and for some reason he seems to have an irrational and obsessive dislike of Dave. I think it was only earlier in the week that I saw a response from someone I follow who corrected him on a tweet he'd put out about why doesn't Dave report on exaggerated New Japan attendance numbers. They linked him something proving that he had, and all 'Les' could do was say something along the lines of "Oh, I wasn't aware of that, glad you've bought it to my attention" Imagine if it was the other way around? Don't get me started on hiding behind a nom de plume either. I've not listened to anything involving him since he ruined an episode of Between the Sheets with his Meltzer agenda and don't intend to ever again. It's bad enough when I occasionally come across him on Twitter!

Gotcha. I’m not on Twitter so I fortunately don’t encounter a lot of these things.

[dr. David Rubio]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't fully understand the Elgin story or why people are now angry at Dave. Not saying people shouldn't be angry at him. I just haven't seen a good synopsis of the situation.

Elgin probably sexually assaulted a women. Dave called her a liar. He never talked to the women, instead he talked to Elgin and used a tumblr blog as his source.

Let's get a few things straight. You've already been corrected on the Egin thing (although she has insinuated that Elgin was manipulative towards her). Dave never called her a liar; he stated that, "the text messages released were heavily edit with many things said that were erased." Thirdly, he didn't use tubmlr as a source. All this broke in October/November and he commented on it following that. The tumblr page went live a 3 weeks ago. It was shared on Wreddit and Mo herself replied to a tweet with the link subsequent to that. That's when Dave made the mistake of posting the tumblr link without context or comment.

 

We don't know if he talked to Elgin.

 

He apparently didn't talk to the woman, so you are right there.

Read that sentence. Re read that sentence. Then re-read it again. Then re-read it again and again until you understand everything that is wrong with Dave Metlzer's editorial style. If Meltzer's subject and verb aren't even in agreement, and his tense is out of order, how can we agree that his facts are in order? That's what I see as the biggest problem with Metlzer's handling of serious topics. His writing reads like it was written by a 12 year old who just snorted some adderall.

Your qualms about his writing style shouldn't allow for the facts of the matter to be conflated, which is why I posted. I've read what he's written in the Observer. I've had no difficulty understanding him on this or past "serious topics." You are taking issue with his post on a message board, which is fair enough since my above post was intended to correct a forum post with an accuracy ratio of 1:4. But I don't think a forum or twitter post is indicative of a an "editorial style". His tact or judgment on commenting in such venues? Sure.

[Grimmas]

Saying Dave didn't call her a liar is rather odd. He didn't use those words, but posting that tumblr and what he said about the texts and emails is calling her a liar.

 

By the way Dave, there is no context that makes telling a person that is reporting an assault to you to shut up or suck my dick good.

 

The claim that we shouldn't trust her because she didn't go to the police? If you believe that, I don't know what world you live in.

[SPS]

Saying Dave didn't call her a liar is rather odd. He didn't use those words, but posting that tumblr and what he said about the texts and emails is calling her a liar.

Is it calling someone a liar to present another persons claims? or is this because as some have been making the argument Dave has given other sides the chance to explain but not her directly?

 

 

By the way Dave, there is no context that makes telling a person that is reporting an assault to you to shut up or suck my dick good.

 

I do agree with this as no matter who or what you believe it did show how sleazy and horrible Elgin was being that in a situation like this that is what he chose to say.

 

 

The claim that we shouldn't trust her because she didn't go to the police? If you believe that, I don't know what world you live in.

 

I'm trying to keep the facts and statements straight in all this, who has said this? Also as I talked in my response yesterday which nobody addressed is now that this has been released to the public and there are those outside Dave and Mike Johnson etc. who've given her the chance to give her side, why does she not go to police now and file a report? if this Orleans guy has attacked her then why not do whatever she can to get this guy charged since mostly what she described as her worries about backlash from those in the business have already taken place?

[dawho5]

I never said anything about not trusting her claims. I fully believe her. I said that the way she handled the problem was wrong and would not lead to a solution. And please believe me when I say that this is a problem that needs solving sooner rather than later.

[Grimmas]

"if this Orleans guy has attacked her then why not do whatever she can to get this guy charged since mostly what she described as her worries about backlash from those in the business have already taken place?"

 

Again, what world do you live in?

[SPS]

"if this Orleans guy has attacked her then why not do whatever she can to get this guy charged since mostly what she described as her worries about backlash from those in the business have already taken place?"

 

Again, what world do you live in?

 

One where there is a legal system in place for crimes regarding sexual assault. I don't understand how she was comfortable enough to finally stand up and announce this stuff publicly and take the backlash from those in the wrestling business that she said was her biggest concern, yet does not want to file a report and get this guy charged which is what he deserves for what she said he did.

 

Even if she believes that there is no guarantee or little chance of getting him on trial or convicted, how would going through with it be of any detriment at this point to her? The critical or ignorant people out there are already going to say since she didn't file charges that she's a liar and if she pushes through with it and it doesn't come to a trial then they'll be saying the same thing so you're not gonna convince those people over either way in this scenario.

 

But if she does file the report and he is charged and gets convicted then not only would those critics not have anything other than outright denial, she could also get this guy put away and keep others from potentially falling victim and showing others they can report and file charges against anyone also guilty of this.

 

There is no cases I'm aware of where someone who files a legitimate report faces any legal risk doing so and it goes back to what I've said of if people in her situation are only willing to present their side of the truth in the court of public opinion then there is nothing that can be done with this except mudslinging and speculation.

 

Everyone who was at risk of falling victim to these scumbags are still going to be at risk and every scumbag who is committing these crimes are still going to be able to keep doing what they are doing and even more so if they have the power to keep people quiet or counter their claims in social media and in the public eye.

 

Public opinion is not a reliable way to gauge the truth, it can be swayed, influenced and abused as easily as to say something publicly. If it comes to that then who could ever trust anyone around them?

[Grimmas]

Sorry, I'm not going to continue this conversation. You clearly have no idea how awful the justice system is with regards to sexual assaults.

[Victator]

If she filed legal charges, the people she is accusing have a chance to clear their name.

I think Orleans is guilty since he has made no attempt to defend himself and Elgin is an asshole but has done nothing illegal. She has some grudge at Elgin beyond whatever happened here.

[SPS]

Sorry, I'm not going to continue this conversation. You clearly have no idea how awful the justice system is with regards to sexual assaults.

 

No need to apologize to me, I'm just trying to understand this as much as I can but you come off as a bit condescending with your responses. I haven't asked anything in a disrespectful or mocking way and you've just given one sentence answers without any information given your disdainful comments regarding the legal system.