Dave Meltzer stuff

[hammerva]

Yeah I wouldn't call Meltzer a piece of shit. I would say he is more like the vast majority of wrestling fans. But with a ton more slack and treated more like gospel because of his position in the business. Although that slack is getting smaller and smaller with more non traditional wrestling fans

[Beast]

The hills some of you choose to die on astound me.

 

Dave handled the Elgin story clumsily, but guess what? So did everyone else. The parties involved are all treating it like a black and white story and the truth is likely somewhere in between. And he's stayed away from it for the most part since.

 

Dave compared the n-word to the word "mark" in the context of the wrestling business. A little tone-deaf, especially in 2018? Yep. Do I think Dave is racist? Nope, because I've read his writing and heard him talk wrestling for the past decade-plus so I know what he was trying to get at.

 

Ridiculous.

[Matt D]

The hills some of you choose to die on astound me.

 

Dave handled the Elgin story clumsily, but guess what? So did everyone else. The parties involved are all treating it like a black and white story and the truth is likely somewhere in between. And he's stayed away from it for the most part since.

 

Dave compared the n-word to the word "mark" in the context of the wrestling business. A little tone-deaf, especially in 2018? Yep. Do I think Dave is racist? Nope, because I've read his writing and heard him talk wrestling for the past decade-plus so I know what he was trying to get at.

 

Ridiculous.

At least you are consistent, year after year after year.

[Shining Wiz]

Meltzer is, at best, an ok reporter. He is generally a pretty bad writer (read any Observer), but is ok when professionally edited (see MMAfighting). He's painful to listen to on the radio with his verbal ticks (listen to any radio/pod appearance ever).

 

However, being an "ok reporter" puts you at the pinnacle of wrestling 'journalism'. He has no actual competition, and certainly had none 30-35 years ago when he started writing the Observer. So he's used to being the unquestioned 'authority', and he's a 60 year old dude who has spent his entire adult life obsessing over pro wrestling. The fact he can actually tweet is kind of amazing; the fact he tweets to troll trolls is kind of sad.

 

As for the Elgin deal - I don't think his actual coverage has been that bad all things considered, but linking that tumblr account was just plain stupidity. As for the coverage, he's a wrestling reporter. He reported on the wrestling aspect of it, reprinted the 'press release' from the wrestler in question, and pointed out that he was dumb and handled things badly. People seem hung up on the idea that he never contacted Mo or whatever her name is, but she had put out some pretty detailed tweets, so I'm not sure what the point would be, especially when Meltzer clearly considered it a minor story considering the placement in the Observer and the parties involved. Moral of the story - a pro wrestling 'journalist' is probably not the person best equipped to do some hard hitting journalism on sexual assault issues, and expecting him to be able to do that well is kind of a silly expectation.

[Eduardo]

Dave messed up this week posting Th_BodyElectric's name in the newsletter. That was pretty shitty of Dave.

A few weeks ago, I was in a workshop with a nationally known investigative journalist. She's worked on a lot of different topics, but one thing we were talking about was about immigration. She told a story about how when she first started in the 1980s, while doing a story in El Paso, she printed the name of a person she interviewed who was an undocumented immigrant. A few weeks later, that person ended up being deported and she believes her interview and story was a factor in this happening. Still haunts her.

So we were going over exercises over ways to communicate sensitive information and interviews without revealing a vulnerable person's name. Dave comes off so careless and thoughtless not putting any thought into any of this, and I'm sure he's not going to think twice at all about any valid criticisms he receives about this. I don't care much for Ryan Satin, but fuck, even Satin redacted her name. This is really such a shitty and potentially dangerous thing to do to a survivor.

[NintendoLogic]

I don't see this issue. She's a named party in a civil lawsuit. Her name is a matter of public record at this point.

[KawadaSmile]

I don't think that there's a simmetry here. Even though "technically" her name is a matter of public record, how many go out of their way to look into that? By flat out saying her name on his coverage, Meltzer made it much more possible for her to suffer some kind of retaliation, blowback or all sorts of stupid and dangerous shit.

[Grimmas]

Based on everything we know about Dave, he is someone I would not spend time with and if I was forced to either get really pissed off or have to call out for his words all the time.

 

Piece of shit seems about right. Maybe a little harsh. It's kind of like saying your grandmother isn't racist, it's just the time she was from. I tend to think your grandmother is just racist, whether it's understandable or not.

[sek69]

I truly believe Dave doesn't understand the difference between "it is not technically illegal or wrong to do this" and "this is a dick thing to do if I do this". It's not the first time he's defended something by saying it wasn't wrong of him to do in a legal sense but wasn't cool in a decency sense.

[Fando]

Thinking she wouldn't mind her name printed because she complained for weeks about being referred to as "the woman" (her twitter display now lulz?) and "a fan" etc, sounds like typical Dave logic tbh. Also that it's a defamation case, not sexual assault.

 

Anyway, calling him out for not contacting her for a friggin statement at the beginning is just being clueless about what the WON is or how he regularly summarizes low-level public gossip, and there really was no need for him to put on his investigative reporter hat to handle a messy story that even Bix decided wasn't as fruitful as writing 60,000 words on decades-old Lawler dirt.

 

In the meantime, Dave ignoring all the ridiculous shit from having his words twisted ("she doctored the messages"), to clams he created the tumblr himself, to random indy wrestling weirdos calling him a rape apologist every day makes him a piece of shit, I guess.

[Bix]

there really was no need for him to put on his investigative reporter hat to handle a messy story that even Bix decided wasn't as fruitful as writing 60,000 words on decades-old Lawler dirt.

It was a 1700 word story where barely any of the substance had been reported before. Which doesn't really have anything to do with why I elected not to report on any of the Mo stuff (that I knew my editor and the legal team wouldn't feel it was sufficiently reportable.)

[Bix]

The current standard, which is the one that the AP uses, is that if someone even says they've been a victim of a sexual assault, you don't use their real name without permission. It doesn't matter if the name is easy to find, even if it's public record in court documents. It doesn't matter how you feel about the accuser or the case in general. If you're a reporter, you don't publish the name without that person's consent.

 

there really was no need for him to put on his investigative reporter hat to handle a messy story that even Bix decided wasn't as fruitful as writing 60,000 words on decades-old Lawler dirt.

It was a 1700 word story where barely any of the substance had been reported before. Which doesn't really have anything to do with why I elected not to report on any of the Mo stuff (that I knew my editor and the legal team wouldn't feel it was sufficiently reportable.) I had no clue what I would get when I did the Lawler document request, much less that it would prove that Lawler has been lying about the case for decades.

[Victator]

It seems like anyone who would want to retaliate already knows her name and where she lives.

While I understand the logic. It seems shitty its okay to use the accused name in the press, not applicable here since Elgin is sorta famous.

I think a lot of crimes would be better off not being reported on until they are resolved after a through criminal investigation. But I don't know how that would work.

[Strummer]

Meltz was dead on about the mania card. He almost never fails there

[shodate]

He is better than Apter by far apter is a wwe fanboy

[Shining Wiz]

When the victim is openly discussing the issue on their personal twitter, which includes multiple pictures of themselves, albeit under an alias but with no real attempt to hide their identity, doesn't the "don't name the victim" deal go out the window.

 

If someone were to do a televised interview, making no effort to hide their identity other than using their twitter handle, and the only legal proceedings are between the alleged victim and a 3rd party, I can't imagine too many news organizations would have a major issue in using their legal name when reporting on it.

 

Meltzer may have many issues, and many of them involving his attitude towards women, but this specific one may be a bit overblown.

[Victator]

She started a Gofundme and has her name on it. I think you have to use your real name there don't you?

[BrianB]

When the victim is openly discussing the issue on their personal twitter, which includes multiple pictures of themselves, albeit under an alias but with no real attempt to hide their identity, doesn't the "don't name the victim" deal go out the window.

 

If someone were to do a televised interview, making no effort to hide their identity other than using their twitter handle, and the only legal proceedings are between the alleged victim and a 3rd party, I can't imagine too many news organizations would have a major issue in using their legal name when reporting on it.

 

Meltzer may have many issues, and many of them involving his attitude towards women, but this specific one may be a bit overblown.

 

I see this point and it's a legit one. But I wonder if there's a generation gap on it.

[Bix]

When the victim is openly discussing the issue on their personal twitter, which includes multiple pictures of themselves, albeit under an alias but with no real attempt to hide their identity, doesn't the "don't name the victim" deal go out the window.

 

If someone were to do a televised interview, making no effort to hide their identity other than using their twitter handle, and the only legal proceedings are between the alleged victim and a 3rd party, I can't imagine too many news organizations would have a major issue in using their legal name when reporting on it.

 

Meltzer may have many issues, and many of them involving his attitude towards women, but this specific one may be a bit overblown.

I see the argument, but:

 

1. It's not a regular occurrence, but you do see profiles of rape survivors that use a photo but not the real name from time to time.

 

2. Your argument is not Dave's Twitter argument, which was, approximately, that the lawsuit being a defamation case made it a separate issue. Or something like that. But that's not even in the same universe as the AP standard that everyone uses these days.

 

Now, if someone is kidnapped and named in the media, only for it to come out via the criminal case after a rescue that he or she was also raped, that's considered a legitimate exception. The name goes public in the news in legitimate fashion and it becomes unavoidable to discuss plausibly. But if a woman accuses a man of sexual assault and another of covering it up, and the latter sues her for defamation, you still don't run her name without consent.

 

This is well established journalistic ethics. Hell, in 2018 it's probably discussed more online than all but a few topics in that realm, with the mass accepted practice being well known.

[Shining Wiz]

 

When the victim is openly discussing the issue on their personal twitter, which includes multiple pictures of themselves, albeit under an alias but with no real attempt to hide their identity, doesn't the "don't name the victim" deal go out the window.

 

If someone were to do a televised interview, making no effort to hide their identity other than using their twitter handle, and the only legal proceedings are between the alleged victim and a 3rd party, I can't imagine too many news organizations would have a major issue in using their legal name when reporting on it.

 

Meltzer may have many issues, and many of them involving his attitude towards women, but this specific one may be a bit overblown.

I see the argument, but:

1. It's not a regular occurrence, but you do see profiles of rape survivors that use a photo but not the real name from time to time.

2. Your argument is not Dave's Twitter argument, which was, approximately, that the lawsuit being a defamation case made it a separate issue. Or something like that. But that's not even in the same universe as the AP standard that everyone uses these days.

Now, if someone is kidnapped and named in the media, only for it to come out via the criminal case after a rescue that he or she was also raped, that's considered a legitimate exception. The name goes public in the news in legitimate fashion and it becomes unavoidable to discuss plausibly. But if a woman accuses a man of sexual assault and another of covering it up, and the latter sues her for defamation, you still don't run her name without consent.

This is well established journalistic ethics. Hell, in 2018 it's probably discussed more online than all but a few topics in that realm, with the mass accepted practice being well known.

Meltzer’s argument may be the wrong one, but that doesn’t change my point. And this isn’t someone who happens to have a profile pic, but anonymous otherwise. This is a person who makes no attempt to be anonymous, save for the twitter handle, and openly discussed with people figuring out her real name and Facebook page (which I have not seen, but I assume discipusses these issues openly as well?), not having a problem with that at the time, AND being upset with Meltzer referring to her as “the woman” in previous ‘reports’.

 

I’m not saying Meltzer handled this correctly at all, but it’s not like he outed a totally anonymous victim here, regardless of the whether his stated reasons are the right ones or not.

[Bix]

 

 

When the victim is openly discussing the issue on their personal twitter, which includes multiple pictures of themselves, albeit under an alias but with no real attempt to hide their identity, doesn't the "don't name the victim" deal go out the window.

 

If someone were to do a televised interview, making no effort to hide their identity other than using their twitter handle, and the only legal proceedings are between the alleged victim and a 3rd party, I can't imagine too many news organizations would have a major issue in using their legal name when reporting on it.

 

Meltzer may have many issues, and many of them involving his attitude towards women, but this specific one may be a bit overblown.

I see the argument, but:

1. It's not a regular occurrence, but you do see profiles of rape survivors that use a photo but not the real name from time to time.

2. Your argument is not Dave's Twitter argument, which was, approximately, that the lawsuit being a defamation case made it a separate issue. Or something like that. But that's not even in the same universe as the AP standard that everyone uses these days.

Now, if someone is kidnapped and named in the media, only for it to come out via the criminal case after a rescue that he or she was also raped, that's considered a legitimate exception. The name goes public in the news in legitimate fashion and it becomes unavoidable to discuss plausibly. But if a woman accuses a man of sexual assault and another of covering it up, and the latter sues her for defamation, you still don't run her name without consent.

This is well established journalistic ethics. Hell, in 2018 it's probably discussed more online than all but a few topics in that realm, with the mass accepted practice being well known.

Meltzers argument may be the wrong one, but that doesnt change my point. And this isnt someone who happens to have a profile pic, but anonymous otherwise. This is a person who makes no attempt to be anonymous, save for the twitter handle, and openly discussed with people figuring out her real name and Facebook page (which I have not seen, but I assume discipusses these issues openly as well?), not having a problem with that at the time, AND being upset with Meltzer referring to her as the woman in previous reports.

 

Im not saying Meltzer handled this correctly at all, but its not like he outed a totally anonymous victim here, regardless of the whether his stated reasons are the right ones or not.

Her Facebook doesn't have her real name and it should be self evident why someone would take issue with almost exclusively being called "the woman."

[Shining Wiz]

He referred to her twitter handle, then referred to her as the woman thereafter, since he either didn’t know/didn’t want to use her name. What should he have referred to her as? Not being confrontational, just an actual question.

 

I could see calling her the alleged victim or accuser if the story was about the assault, but Elgin hasn’t been accused of any assault, so I can see trying to avoid confusion on that front.

[Fando]

She wanted him to name her as "Mo"

Really.

 

https://twitter.com/Th_BodyElectric/status/966826142614343680

 

https://twitter.com/Th_BodyElectric/status/966901928595636224

[Migs]

He referred to her twitter handle, then referred to her as the woman thereafter, since he either didn’t know/didn’t want to use her name. What should he have referred to her as? Not being confrontational, just an actual question.

 

I could see calling her the alleged victim or accuser if the story was about the assault, but Elgin hasn’t been accused of any assault, so I can see trying to avoid confusion on that front.

 

It's pretty common in these situations to use a fake name, even if it's one created by the writer. "Jenna (not her real name)" or something. It protects the person's identity without stripping their humanity.

[Bix]

He referred to her twitter handle, then referred to her as the woman thereafter, since he either didnt know/didnt want to use her name. What should he have referred to her as? Not being confrontational, just an actual question.

 

I could see calling her the alleged victim or accuser if the story was about the assault, but Elgin hasnt been accused of any assault, so I can see trying to avoid confusion on that front.

Mo or "Mo," like everyone else was. She outright said in the PWP interview what she preferred to be called.