Trading Shots: Was Tim Means right to take aim at the MMA media?

Tim Means

In this week’s Trading Shots, MMAjunkie columnist Ben Fowlkes and retired UFC/WEC fighter Danny Downes look back at Tim Means’ surprising callout of the MMA media after his win at UFC on FOX 15.

* * * *

Fowlkes: Danny, I know the MMA media hater in you was happy to see Tim Means take a shot at us after his submission win over George Sullivan at UFC on FOX 15 on Saturday. As he explained later, he was mostly upset with Bleacher Report, and mostly for labeling him “one-dimensional,” but he also said that if the MMA media wants fighters to get better, it needs to get better at what it does.

After you got done fist-bumping your TV screen in solidarity, Danny, what did you make of Means’ comments? Does he have a point here, or is this just a fighter who wants nicer write-ups?

Downes: Being a man of the people, I’m always happy to see someone take it to the so-called media as you all sit in your ivory towers drinking organic coffee next to your latest purchases from the Apple Store. That said, Means didn’t really invigorate me with rousing rhetoric. His conclusion is correct, but the way he got to it seems flawed.

Sure, anyone who calls him “just a striker” could be seen as not fully analyzing his ability. It’s similar to calling Chris Weidman “just a wrestler.” Both fighters have rounded out their abilities and possess additional skills beyond their original base. But to make a personal slight the jumping point for the attack? Even Al Iaquinta is thinking, “Hey man, you should have thought this one through.”

Now, I don’t think he just wants “nicer write-ups.” I think he wishes media members had a better eye for the sport. A lot of MMA media don’t really understand the sport they cover. You know as well as I do that a lot haven’t even graduated beyond fan boy/girl amateurism. You think Buster Olney is standing around hoping to take a selfie with Yasiel Puig? Say what you will about Keith Olbermann, but I doubt he’s using Twitter to ask athletes when they can go hang out.

I understand that even though writers work at different publications or websites, they’re colleagues. You all deal with the same BS from fighters, promoters and managers, so there’s a certain sense of solidarity among your group. You see each other at all the different events, and if you called someone out, it would make things tense in the professional setting.

If that’s the case, whose job is it to improve the MMA media? In the larger media landscape, you have watchdog groups that focus on highlighting inaccuracies/corruption in reporting. You even have programs like “The Daily Show” or “On the Media” that dedicate time to investigate media ethics and professionalism. Why is there no such mechanism in MMA?

Ronda Rousey and media

Fowlkes: I’ve seen plenty of people over the years who, mostly on social media, have tried to assume that role. Mostly they’re people who’ve never done much actual journalism themselves. Sports media in particular seems to be one of those fields in which the less experience you have doing it, the more certain you are that you know exactly how it should be done.

I think the big problem with talking about the MMA media in this broad sense is that you’re talking about a spectrum that includes people who do it for a handsome living on one end and people who do it for bylines and a pat on the back between college classes on the other, with a lot of other people in between. A site like Bleacher Report has some legit writers covering MMA, including my man Chad Dundas, who has an actual journalism degree and a forthcoming novel from Penguin/Putnam. It also has some writers who are just throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks, and we all know it.

Like you, I think there’s a place for constructive criticism of the MMA media. I also think Means might have stumbled upon a good point after taking all the wrong turns to get there.

“Just don’t write an opinion in the paper,” Means said, presumably while still referring to a website. “Write the facts.”

OK, fine, but 1) Depending on the type of story we’re dealing with, sometimes opinions are the whole point, and 2) The fact is that before this win, Means had zero submission wins in the UFC.

This was his first submission victory since 2011. That’s a fact. He still has four times as many finishes via TKO/KO as he does via submission. There’s another fact. I get it, Means thinks he can do more than people give him credit for. I think we all feel that way sometimes, and people who have to read about themselves “in the paper” feel it even more. But did this critique from Means really tell us anything, other than that Means sometimes reads Bleacher Report and gets mad about it, just like the rest of us?

Downes: I agree that one of the problems with MMA media is that there’s such a broad spectrum of people doing it. The fact that there are many writers who also work for the UFC itself poses a problem. What ever happened to conflicts of interest? If you’re getting paid to create content for the UFC on FOX, UFC magazine or UFC.com, how are we supposed to trust you? Wait…um…

One thing he told us is that media members are almost as sensitive as fighters when it comes to criticism. And as you just pointed out, the only real attempts at criticism come from social media. Is the forum people use to disseminate pictures of their lunch or complain about mundane inconveniences the proper vehicle for true criticism?

Take this very website. When “The Ultimate Fighter” Season 20 began, you wrote about how you didn’t agree with the objectification of the female athletes. Instead of focusing on their skills and abilities, the emphasis was placed on their pretty faces. Yet, when I visit MMAjunkie, I’m met with headlines like this.

Felice Herrig and Paige VanZant

Yes, I know that sex sells and there are probably people who visited the website just to see pictures of Paige VanZant and Felice Herrig in their undergarments, but why appeal to that demographic? Isn’t that just as bad as “easy on the eyes, hard on the face?” I think I know at least one person who would agree with me.

Means’ comments may have been motivated by a perceived slight, but that doesn’t mean there’s nothing behind it. You just said that, ” … some writers who are just throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks, and we all know it.” But do we all know it? People like you may, but I don’t believe the larger MMA audience does. Don’t media members have a duty to get that information out there? It may make for some awkward moments at the food services table, but shouldn’t it be happening more often?

Fowlkes: Now there’s something that a lot of us probably don’t think about it. Because we live in this very specific, very small MMA bubble (and the even smaller bubble of people who care about MMA websites), we assume that everyone has the same general understanding of the MMA media landscape that we do. Then Means calls out Bleacher Report while Luke Rockhold thanks BJPenn.com, and you’re like, wait, it’s possible we’re not all on the same page here.

I know I see a lot of MMA media people doing stuff that, in my view, ranges from unethical to lazy to just plain dumb. I guess I don’t say much (publicly, anyway) because I don’t want to be that guy.

You know the guy. The one who is so busy telling everyone else what they should (and shouldn’t) do that he hardly does anything himself. The guy who thinks that the key to reaching the top is making sure to first bring everyone else down within easy reach. The guy who thinks that being a jerk necessarily makes him edgy or right.

I think that approach sucks, and I don’t think it helps. I think everyone is better served if you channel that energy into writing the kind of stories you’d like to read. That’s tough enough to do that it usually doesn’t leave time for much else (except for complaining about trivial inconveniences on Twitter, natch).

I also think that, especially on the Internet, where we can count every click, the media will always end up molding itself somewhat to the tastes of the fans. If they demonstrate that they’ll click en masse on VanZant-Herrig galleries, then VanZant-Herrig galleries they shall have. I’ve worked for a few different media outlets in this space over the years, and they all operated that way to some extent. (Yes, even you, Cage Potato.)

But one good point that Means did make, even if it was in service of a flawed argument, was when he encouraged media members to come by his gym and see what he can do. Not that we’re obliged to give him too much credit for what he does in training, but at least it would put us face-to-face with the people we’re writing about, which is a good start. At least it would make us accountable to someone, whether that someone has the right reasons for wanting that accountability or not.

Downes: It doesn’t matter if it’s The New York Times or MMAjunkie, revenue concerns do exert influence. That may be an economic reality, but it doesn’t mean a blind eye should be turned. Money is a huge factor in politics, but don’t you want to know which lobbyist group is giving your congressman money? Don’t you also want to know who’s paying the journalist you trust to inform you?

I understand not wanting to be that guy. Think about a police department. Who wants to work for Internal Affairs? Even if you went about it in the most professional, ethical and objective manner, you’d be hated. No matter how responsibly you acted, you’d still be the person who cost someone his or her job or embarrassed them. And sure, it’s easy to say that someone should do it, but there aren’t a lot of volunteers.

At the same time, doesn’t that just go with the territory? If you’re a writer (or any business person), and everyone likes you, aren’t you doing something wrong? Let’s say you were contracted to write one of your lifestyle pieces about Tim Means. Let’s also say that in all your investigation and interviews, you ultimately concluded something deeply negative about him as a person (I’m not saying that would happen, just dealing in hypotheticals).

Would you change your story because he might call you out on a post-fight interview? Of course you wouldn’t. Why? Because that’s what a journalist does. Do you change your fight predictions because you don’t want to hurt someone’s feelings? I hope not.

Regardless of what you think of Means’ comments or how he went about them, he came to the right conclusion. We all need to be better. Now we just have to figure out how we get there.

For more on UFC on FOX 15, check out the UFC Events section of the site.

Ben Fowlkes is MMAjunkie and USA TODAY’s MMA columnist. Danny Downes, a retired UFC and WEC fighter, is an MMAjunkie contributor who also writes for UFC.com and UFC 360. Follow them on Twitter at @benfowlkesMMA and @dannyboydownes.