Below the belt: Discussing Elliot Worsell's article on the 'grooming' of boxing media
- May 13, 2023
- 4 min read
“Scariest of all, though, an inability or reluctance to question anything, or even think deeply about something, leaves you in the end susceptible to being groomed by people in power. It happens without you knowing and is typically described as either “banter” or “great content”.”- Elliot Worsell, Boxing News
Elliot Worsell has raised concerns about the current formation of boxing journalism being compiled of “grateful fans” with no capability of asking probing questions to boxers and promotors. The inability to ask such questions, Worsell argues, allows these ‘grateful fans’ or “new media” to be ‘susceptible to being groomed by people in power’ and perpetuate whatever information a boxer or promotor chooses.
The result leads to “new media” prioritising “’banter’ or ‘great content’” over asking probing questions into a particular issue within the sport. In doing so, the issue is brushed ‘under the carpet’ and the “new media” are invited back to repeat this same cycle.
In my opinion, to suggest “new media” are diminishing journalism within boxing is an unfair criticism. It appears to be an unnecessary jab at those who carry out their journalistic practises differently.
Worsell’s focus on “new media” reporting on boxing events and being ‘groomed’ by those in powerful positions is particularly unfair.
A lot of “new media” are made up of smaller channels eager to get a few minutes with the fighters or promotors that will give their page the greatest push. The more media present, the greater promotion for the fight night.
This is what it mostly comes down to, the promotion of a fighter or promotional company’s schedule. Of course, when there is a controversy surrounding a fight night or fighter, difficult questions need to be asked.
However, and I’m speaking from experience, sometimes you do not have the time to ask all the questions you have prepared. Media are there to report and promote the show you’re attending and not critique those involved at the first opportunity. Normally I will begin an interview discussing the show at hand, then follow up with any relevant questions I can. Of course, a lack of experience in asking these questions quickly plays a part in this but that doesn’t mean I’m being groomed to perpetuate whatever the interviewee wants me to.
Worsell’s criticism, in my opinion, confuses inexperience with bias and promotion with manipulation.
“New media’s” prioritisation of ‘banter and great content’, over asking probing questions, is Worsell’s second concern.
Whatever you think of people’s journalistic practises, just because they’re carrying out their interview’s differently to you, it doesn’t mean they are wrong. They are still asking questions and providing clarity over difficult situations within boxing. Just because they are rating a particular designer tracksuit for the beginning three minutes of an interview, doesn’t mean the state of boxing journalism is in disarray.
You just don’t like the content, and that’s fine.
I would argue there is now a separation of boxing journalism into two styles. Both styles work in tandem with each other and neither undermines the other.
The first style includes the ‘banter’ that Worsell discussed. This journalistic style does prioritise getting viral clips to boost social media profiles and their audience whilst, at the same time, asking relevant questions about the current state of boxing.
The second is what many would call a ‘traditional journalistic’ approach. A focus on strictly boxing, promoting the upcoming fight night but also asking those probing questions that might ruffle some feathers.
The talk of ‘grooming’ and a ‘reluctance to ask any questions’ leads Worsell’s argument to suggest that the first style isn’t welcome within boxing journalism as it can create a sea of bias and level of self-promotion that can assist in the removal of just criticism.
I disagree, both styles serve an important purpose within the sport and appeal to different audiences. The first appeals more to the social media era where content is primarily focused on short, quick clips that capture both ‘hardcore’ and ‘casual’ boxing fans. The second provides a more in-depth, investigative, and analytical approach to the sport that probably does appeal to the ‘hardcore’ boxing fan more than the casual. Combined, both provide clarity into the intricacies of boxing. Whether that be a breakdown of how fighter X can beat fighter Y or what moment sparked a vicious rivalry between two fighters.
The second style does ask more of the probing questions that Worsell talks about. However, to say the first style have an “inability” or “reluctance” to do so is wrong. When it needs to be done, it will happen.
Promotors and fighters will want to give more time and invite back those with the first style in greater numbers because the prioritisation of ‘great content’ and quick clips are what helps increase the promotion of the fighter, promotor, and fight night.
This is what it comes down to… promotion.
Promotion is what drives the boxing media space. Everyone is serving a purpose to promote our sport, of course you must remain impartial but just because someone’s journalistic practises are different to yours doesn’t mean they are wrong. If their journalistic practise has led them to have more interview time, in my opinion, it’s because the fighter/promotor knows whose platform has the greater reach.
That doesn’t diminish your level of journalism either, it’s just the way it is. Use your time wisely and ask the questions you want.
-
Written by Regan Slaymaker.
Sources:
Elliot Worsell. The Beltline: How the grooming of new media has helped facilitate an abuse of power in boxing. April 7, 2023. Boxing News, https://www.boxingnewsonline.net/the-beltline-how-the-grooming-of-new-media-has-helped-facilitate-an-abuse-of-power-in-boxing/.
Matt Macklin, Andy Clarke, and Rob Tebbutt. Macklin's Take #163 with Rob Tebbutt. May 1, 2023. Macklin's Take - Boxing Podcast,
Comments