Why is boxing journalism so poor?

I don't think of the stuff posted on here as journalism. It's just glorified blogging really. That is accurate

I read online articles purely for the latest news, and tend to disregard the opinion pieces, especially when it's clear from their shoddy spelling and grammar that the writers are not competent enough to work in the professional field of sports journalism. Unfortunately, nowadays opinion piece and news seem to go hand in hand. Yea, I would hope that most people could disregard such shoddy pieces but sadly people seem to really buy into the stuff.

Most boxing writers are friction writers!!! I hate all of them and they're becoming worst especially with the innovation of the internet and technology. That is pretty accurate, you would think it would get better since information flows much mroe easily but instead that seems to have lowered the bar.

I read online articles purely for the latest news, and tend to disregard the opinion pieces, especially when it's clear from their shoddy spelling and grammar that the writers are not competent enough to work in the professional field of sports journalism. Unfortunately, nowadays opinion piece and news seem to go hand in hand.

I read more bullshit articles on the subject of boxing then all other sports combined. I see a lot of opinion pieces and not a lot of real journalism, there are some ok writers but as far as I can tell the vast majority are hacks. Maybe I am to old fashioned though as I like to read a story and find my own answer as opposed to being told what to think? Am I wrong? Are people just OK with any hack shaping public opinion on the sport? Or do you really like reading this kind of stuff? (I am not really talking boxinscene writers as most are atleast passable although there are exceptions) Most boxing writers are friction writers!!! I hate all of them and they're becoming worst especially with the innovation of the internet and technology.

I don't think of the stuff posted on here as journalism. It's just glorified blogging really.

Online journalism is instant. It's about getting the "news" (seems to be a lot more gossip than news in boxing journalism recently) out as quickly as possible. Even the New York Times has typos and misspellings on their website. Also, there are no repercussions for being wrong on an independently owned boxing website. If a Times journalist reports on something that isn't true, he will undoubtedly lose his job, and never work for a reputable news outlet again. If some gavone on ESB is wrong about something, nothing happens. I visit boxingscene because of the instant news, even if a lot of stuff is based on rumors. But the bad grammar and numerous typos that are part of every article on here is embarrassing. Its like they don't even proof read it once.

Online journalism is instant. It's about getting the "news" (seems to be a lot more gossip than news in boxing journalism recently) out as quickly as possible. Even the New York Times has typos and misspellings on their website. Also, there are no repercussions for being wrong on an independently owned boxing website. If a Times journalist reports on something that isn't true, he will undoubtedly lose his job, and never work for a reputable news outlet again. If some gavone on ESB is wrong about something, nothing happens.

That's the limits of print media though. The reason they are so good though is they take the time in their articles and actually edit them. For good journalism you have to pay and it isn't as convenient. I kind of like Ring being a little behind though because I'll be reminded of a fight a couple months before that I completely forgot I watched... That is true, The Ring is great for what it is no doubt. The Ring has great editor, that is probably lacking in the articles and writers I am talking about.

The Ring is good but it is all old news by the time it comes out, it is still great though. That's the limits of print media though. The reason they are so good though is they take the time in their articles and actually edit them. For good journalism you have to pay and it isn't as convenient. I kind of like Ring being a little behind though because I'll be reminded of a fight a couple months before that I completely forgot I watched...

except Thomas Hauser and Graham Houston.. both writers are great. I like Graham Houston and Houser is pretty good but his whole thing with HBO gets on my nerves since I find that whole issue overblown.

Subscribe to Ring Magazine. It's worth it's high price tag. The Ring is good but it is all old news by the time it comes out, it is still great though.

every writer has critics..if you havent got one, probably your article isnt being read. i for one think AESOP is biased towards animals over humans.. There is a big difference between opinion pieces and real journalism.

Here in the UK, football is the big sport that all the sport writers cover. Whenever there's a big boxing event (not often) the newspapers tend to get a football writer to cover it, so you end up with someone who knows very little about boxing trying to talk about it as if his opinion is worth something. Maybe something similar happens in the US? There are boxing magazines over here which feature good articles, but the mainstream media is pretty bad for boxing coverage. Probably true that the better writers tend to go to other sports that offer better oppurtunities. Still the level is pretty poor even taking that into account.

every writer has critics..if you havent got one, probably your article isnt being read. i for one think AESOP is biased towards animals over humans..

Subscribe to Ring Magazine. It's worth it's high price tag.