Fight Hype Essentially Admits They Blew The "Koncz Is Fired" Story

As someone who has worked in sports media, I can tell you that you're only as good as your credibility allows you to be. That is, if you end up shooting your credibility in the foot, your reputation can be permanently stained and diminished.

Such was the case recently in the whole New York Daily News debacle with the fake Manny Pacquiao email that supposedly contained information from Pacquiao's side about what would happen if Pacquiao tested positive for PED's. That email has never been produced, and the unfortunate story written about it by usually-dependable scribe Tim Smith seemed to strain his relationship with Team Pacquiao. It also seemed to leave many boxing fans such as myself shaking their heads that Smith and the Daily News could be taken in by such a tale. Journalism 101 says you always double- and triple-check your stories before you pass them off as legitimate.

Anyhow, that brings us to the "Fight Hype" website. As I have opined before here, "Fight Hype" seems to me like a Floyd Mayweather, Jr. public relations center. I'm not saying that it is that, but based upon what I have read on that site, that is the impression that I have gotten from much of their material.

Now, if you were interested in pumping up the reputation of Floyd Mayweather, you might also be interested in diminishing the reputation of the man who replaced Mayweather at the top of the boxing world, Manny Pacquiao. If you wanted to do this, how might you go about the task?

You might want to play up stories about supposed "drama" in Team Pacquiao. You may interview Team Pacquiao figures and write headlines highlighting possible conflicts within Team Pacquiao.

And, sometimes, you might unfortunately rush a headline or story you end up having to change and regret writing later. Ask Tim Smith about this.

Such was the case for "Fight Hype" this past week.

On July 18, 2011, Ben Thompson wrote a piece that included the following headline:

"MICHAEL KONCZ FIRED BY MANNY PACQUIAO"

That headline has since been changed to the following:

"MICHAEL KONCZ FIRED BY MANNY PACQUIAO

This content is protected

"

Here's the link to the story. I have no idea if the story itself has been changed in the last few days, or only the headline has been changed:

Link: http://bit.ly/rrSNQM

Now, why was the "Fight Hype" headline changed?

Here's why:

Link: http://bit.ly/oUNobX

According to...wait for it..."Fight Hype," Michael Koncz has "regained" his position as a key Pacquiao adviser.

Thus, "Fight Hype" contradicts the previous "Fight Hype" story/headline that Koncz had been supposedly fired.

The problem for "Fight Hype" is that they should have gotten the story straight before they wrote the first incorrect headline. That way, they wouldn't have had to change the headline and they wouldn't have to deal with the potential lost credibility that comes with getting a story wrong, or at the very least, writing a headline that gives a false impression of what apparently had happened/was happening.

Once credibility is lost, it's hard to get it back.

Now, here's another problem with the current "Fight Hype" story: If Manny Pacquiao said that Koncz had never been 'fired,' then Koncz did not "regain" his position. To "regain" something, you had to have lost it first.

What Thompson may have meant to write is that Koncz retained his position as a key Pacquiao adviser. Koncz was apparently never gone, and he has kept his spot, according to this new information.

Tim Smith learned a valuable lesson that many journalists have learned before him: Never let what sounds like a good story become a story you write about until you have verified the facts.

It seems in this latest "Koncz (not) fired" debacle, Ben Thomspon and "Fight Hype" may be treading that same road that Tim Smith walked not so long ago.

And, as always: Reader Beware. Just because you might want to believe something you may be reading, that doesn't make it true. Know your sources, and their histories.

 

Doesn't matter, because Ariza isn't calling the shots. Nor is Tim James. They might want Koncz gone, but they're not the ones making the call.

Again, that's the problem with "Fight Hype's" story: They may have good sources in Team Pac, but if those sources aren't Pacquiao himself and Pacquiao is doing the hiring and firing, then "Fight Hype" can't run with a story. Or, should I say, they shouldn't run with a story. Because then you end up with egg on your face, as they did here.

Pacquiao is the boss. Pacquiao said Koncz was never fired.

Reading the Ariza/Fight Hype interview, it's pretty clear to me why it was written. I hadn't read it before. I'm not going to say it's "damage control," but, well, hmm.

Anyways, the article does not say that Koncz was fired. Which makes sense, because, as "Fight Hype" apparently confirmed today, he never was fired. Regardless of who wrote what and what person -- who didn't have the ability to make the decision, apparently -- claimed he was fired.

So, it looks like "Fight Hype" gets the Tim Smith Stained Credibility Award. Not surprisingly, in my opinion, both incidents occurred regarding pieces that seemed intended to make Team Pacquiao look bad.

Anyhow, if I were Ben Thompson, I wouldn't talk too much about other writers putting my site down. I think I've read some stuff by Ben about Dan Rafael, and there he is laughing as Ariza disses Marley. I would tell Ben this: Be who you are, Ben; I don't think it's too confusing what you're presenting, and you have an audience. If you're going to be Floyd's mouthpiece -- which some feel is Fight Hype's role -- then go for it. Don't try to hide behind the entire "I'm a professional writer" spiel because you got your site into Google News. If that's the standard, we're all in a lot of trouble.

Now, if Ben worked before as a sports media member and I'm missing something (I have no idea what his background is), then I apologize in advance. But using the "I'm in Google News and I got a press pass" standard, in the era of blogs, isn't going to necessarily get you a lot of supposed "one-upsmanship" on the same fans you may be criticizing for saying your site is pro-Floyd.