Boxing Media: A Touch of Balance

Boxing Media: A Touch of Balance

One article by Eliott Worsell in Boxing News might not quite have started a full-blown Civil War in the world of boxing media, but it has most certainly opened a deep chasm of debate.

A little bit of ageism, snobbery, resentment, lack of acceptance, and understanding from both sides of the argument have moved much of the debate away from the context of Worsell’s piece from a few weeks ago in boxing’s long-standing and still respected trade paper.

The pen and paper brigade from a time long forgotten is seemingly at war with the new kids in the modern-day press row armed with their pesky video cameras in the new digital clickbait era.

Worsell is an incredibly talented writer and a much-welcomed one in a sport that lacks quality journalism and proper scrutiny. This was kind of the point Worsell was trying to make in his article from last month. And this applies to the written form as well as the video offerings.

But despite the hostilities, the old and the new breed of journalists can live quite comfortably side by side in an age that is dominated by the number of clicks an outlet can gather. Some of the ways those clicks are earned aren’t always to my taste. Much of it, in truth, is distinctly irritating. Or worse. But I get it. I don’t have to watch those that irritate. Most of the time, I don’t.

The over-saturation of raw, brutally honest interviews doing the rounds on the old YouTube is tiresome. And very much predictable. There are other words to sell your work. I see exclusive, far too many times every single day. An exclusive should be exactly that and not one of the twenty-odd interviews that very same fighter will do in the allocated time.

There are plenty of good outlets out there, with some excellent insightful interviews and well-produced content. Not all of them are happy just to be there. Some of them are actually very good at what they do, which gets lost somewhat in the tsunami of criticism that often comes their way. But equally, some of them are not.

Somebody once told me to find a niche and don’t just follow what everyone else does. Too many in the world of boxing media do just that. The same robotic questions get rolled out multiple times during the obligatory and formulaic media days. Some stand out because they are different. And they actually excel at their craft. Others offer very little. As in everything else in life, pick your poison.

Scattered amongst the boxing media powerhouses are the smaller independents who have spent thousands of pounds, with little chance of a return on their investment, travelling the length and breadth of the country, building their brand. And more crucially, for the love of the sport. They should be commended and not ridiculed. There are some real hidden gems out there if you manoeuvre yourself down a few of boxing’s side roads.

On the whole, YouTube outlets do a lot of good for the sport and cover the sport in a way the old-style journalists don’t and never did. Even now, when the big boys rock into town, they are there largely for the main event only. The YouTube channels cover the sport in its entirety. They are an important piece in the jigsaw for its survival, especially when the newspapers, who back in the day were pivotal to the sport getting some much-needed publicity, have now largely turned their backs on the sport. Without the YouTube brigade, where would the sport actually be?

But Worsell is on the money when he talks about a lack of serious reporting and not getting to the truth of the matter, specifically if you are on over-friendly terms with a promoter you are supposed to be grilling on failed drug tests for example. The fear of losing that gold standard access for pushing too hard must be a thought. It just has to be. As someone told me at a recent show:

“If I say what I know or ask certain questions, I’ll be banned.” An understandable dilemma when you need that access to do your job. If you do your job in a way many demand or expect, your access will be limited. The size of your reach will get you a seat at the table. How you play will determine how long you stay there. Feeding off scraps isn’t good for your revenue stream. However, the bigger outlets have far less of an excuse than those who are much lower down the food chain.

Some do argue that they will and do ask the tough questions, but when the promoter sends the interviewer down a different path with his answer to an admittedly good leading question, or in simple terms, a cocktail of bullshit, a skilled interviewer will get his interview back on course. But too many are just not skilled enough or unwilling to do so. The said interview then just becomes a platform for a promoter to air his often baseless and misleading rhetoric. The interviewer and their outlet unwittingly become just a mouthpiece for propaganda that rolls off the tongue unchallenged. Sadly, some oblige too willingly in the deceit. They, of course, serve a purpose to each other. It might, on the surface, lead you to believe the subject is being subjected to an interview of much depth and scrutiny. In truth, they are not. Don’t be blinded. Not everything is as it seems in boxing. Too often, it is anything but.

If you ask a question about a controversial issue in the sport, then outlets should do their due diligence and come prepared with the required follow-up questions. If you dare breach a taboo subject, do it properly. It isn’t that difficult. The person at the other end of the microphone usually sticks to the same old predictable script. It’s not that hard to anticipate what answers are coming your way. Fair and serious reporting, which is what Worsell craves, as we all should, shouldn’t be that hard to achieve. I share Worsell’s frustration that we don’t get it anywhere near enough. And I understand why we don’t.

Worsell has been harshly critiqued for his article, as was Thomas Hauser, for daring to have an opinion on Anthony Joshua. The opinions on both shouldn’t be dismissed because they are uncomfortable to some. Both Worsell and Hauser had justification for what they wrote. The venom in the criticism of Worsell, in many ways, justifies his article.