Checks and Balances, Volume 1
I listened to the monthly Fair to Flair show this week, and I'll get the requisite gushing and biased stuff out of the way because I'm way more curious in reacting to K Sawyer Paul's points about the F4W/Observer and its faults/successes in how it treats wrestling. I want to be (oh god) fair to the sides I think can seem reactionary, but I also know that there are a lot of completely accurate problems.
Trey goes on to transcribe some of our points from the podcast (this was deep into the second hour, so you know he's interested) and adds fuel to the fire we started.
I feel I should perhaps give a quick memo to everyone who thinks I'm out to discredit Bryan Alvarez or anyone who works in the mainstream-approved corners of the IWC. I'm not. I wish them well, and I know they have their good points, and I don't ever want to hurt someone's ability to make a living. What I am out to do is discredit this notion that we get in terms of content from the "professional" wrestling journalists is what we, the "lesser" wrestling journalist, should emulate, admire, and support, simply because these people have been doing this for a long time. In fact, I think if they should be considered more professional than we are, then we should hold these writers to a higher standard. They should be consistently delivering quality content that makes us happy to be wrestling fans. And while I believe they are certainly capable of doing so, I don't believe they are. I believe they coast on platitudes of longstanding complaints, longheld beliefs, and oft-misunderstood ideas of this art form (if they have ever even considered it as such is unknown to me).
The fact is, The Observer, PWI, and others have held a very high spot in wrestling media for a long, long time. I, for the life of me, have no idea why. Have you read one of their printed magazines or newsletters lately? It makes your goddamn eyes bleed. They pander, patronize, and insult our intelligence, and I honestly don't know who they're targeting or trying to fool.
Their sole value, as far as anyone can defend them to me, is that they are somewhat adequate historians. They are pretty good at telling you what happened, yes, but only if you look at wrestling as a fake sport. Mainstream wrestling reports often miss the important things. Go read Powell's review of Wrestlemania and then compare it with this. You want to tell me you prefer it the first way?
I don't know how to end this rant, other than to say, keep reading. I'll have more on this soon.
