Why is boxing journalism so bad?

Historically however, Boxing journalism has been very good. Many great writers and journalists have covered the sport, most notably Norman Mailer.

These days the quality has dropped substantially, and with the honourable exception of Thomas Hauser, most of the pundits I see are crap. Steve Bunce is a good journalist too, he's done the sport proud in Britain.

 

Rafael has the ESPN line of thought, which makes ESPN equally horrible in most of their articles for all sports.

 

Journalism is something of a lost art IMO, I think favoritism and corporate and political "sponsorship" of various mouthpieces has hurt the practice somewhat. Paper newspapers are mostly dying across the States at least, everything is moving to the internet now. Easily digested, poorly articulated, and always slanted.

As for boxing in particular... I don't know why. I think part of it is that most of the press really just don't know boxing. They've graduated from university with a degree in journalism or communications but they haven't spent the time that the fanbase has reading the books, watching the matches, spending time on primary sources.... Internet journalism is not going to improve either, when you consider that every article they write is going to be written with one goal in mind: hit generation. There are a lot of ways to generate internet traffic, and sometimes they conflict with being a valid journalist.

 

Bunce is a biased twit, like most Brit journalists (I'm a Brit myself!). 99 percent of the British journalists are biased in favour of U.K fighters and Bunce is not shy obout making stuff up.

 

On the internet there is a distinct lack of editorial standards. No one checks the facts.

 

dan is far better then bunce.brits just hate dan because he slags haye

 

Half of the time, they don't check the grammar.

 

:deal can't lisen to bunce sometimes, he is so biased about british fighters - i can only guess that he has to be cause he must know what he says is total bull**** sometimes.

 

The other presenter of Setanta was/is a biased ******* too, they are so anti Klitschko..they don't even try and hide it.

A non biased pundit would be great.

 

I agree Dan is much better.:good

 

For me, the worst thing about boxing journalism in the US at least is that it is filled with old farts like Burt Sugar who constantly push the idea that boxing is no good anymore, that it was only good in the past. These nostalgia merchants are really bad for the sport, because they are basically telling people that boxing today isn't worth watching.

Nostalgia can be good for a sport up to a point -- think of baseball and how it uses the past to promote the present -- but when it goes too far it can be deadly. Of course, another problem is that print media outlets are having a very hard time today, and those that are still going don't view boxing as a viable sport because it doesn't have a big enough fanbase.

That leaves the Net and blogs, and the quality there is all over the place, from very good to awful.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJWJ1Uesb-0&feature=related[/ame]

three ****s.

 

http://www.maxboxing.com/
http://queensberry-rules.com/
http://www.secondsout.com/home
http://thecruelestsport.com/
http://www.ringtv.com/
http://www.badlefthook.com/
all examples of good boxing journalism

 

When bunce was on Setanta he'd lick upto a certain boxer in the studio then slate them the next week or claim hopkins was done before he fought pavlik then the week after he claimed he knew hopkins could do it...

A Agree with the biased journalists we have, they have the public over here thinking the Klitchkos are running from haye :S