Another idiotic editorial on MMA

[chillaplata]

or "ultimate fighting" as the "editorial board" listed in the byline insists on calling the sport. (Apparently the sorry excuses for journalists who wrote this drivel were too ashamed or timid to sign their own names.)

The Disturbing Rise of Ultimate Fighting - The Board Blog - NYTimes.com

It's worth reading the comments, though. Not only do the supporters of MMA criticize in scathing detail the glaring and pervasive bias and factual error of the piece, but they nearly all come across as intelligent, well-informed and articulate, in contrast to the editorial's characterization of MMA fans as bloodthirsty yahoos (not to mention the ignorant, illogical and sanctimonious comments written by opponents of MMA).

[aseepish]

Originally Posted by chillaplata

(Apparently the sorry excuses for journalists who wrote this drivel were too ashamed or timid to sign their own names.)

No, they signed their names collectively as the Editorial Board of the New York Times. As editors of what is arguable the best newspaper in America, they represent the pinnacle of their profession.

They are:

Masthead:
ANDREW ROSENTHAL, Editor
CARLA ANNE ROBBINS, Deputy Editor
DAVID SHIPLEY, Deputy Editorial Page Editor and Op-Ed Editor

Editorial Board:
ROBERT B. SEMPLE JR., Associate Editor
ADAM COHEN, Assistant Editor
SERGE SCHMEMANN, Editorial Page Editor, International Herald Tribune
PHILIP M. BOFFEY, Science
MAURA J. CASEY, Connecticut
FRANCIS X. CLINES, National Politics, Congress & Campaign Finance
LAWRENCE DOWNES, Suburban Issues
CAROL GIACOMO, Foreign Affairs
VERLYN KLINKENBORG, Agriculture, Environment & Culture
EDUARDO PORTER, Business
ELEANOR RANDOLPH, New York City & State, Media, Politics & Russia
DOROTHY SAMUELS, Law, Civil Rights & National Affairs
BRENT STAPLES, Education, Race & Culture
DAVID C. UNGER, Foreign Affairs
TERESA TRITCH, Economic Issues & Tax Policy

Of course, it would have been nice if the tool who had actually written the article had put their name to it.

Yeah. It's a re-hash of Senator McCain's criticism of the sport (Circa UFC 3) and some English medical reports from the same era (people who want to ban boxing as well).

Damn fine paper otherwise though.

[chillaplata]

Yeah, it's especially annoying to me, as a faithful New York Times reader, to see the paper lend its credibility to the cause of the know-nothing anti-MMA zealots. We have to remember that despite the explosive growth of the sport, the MMA fanbase is still a pretty small segment of the general population. Most people who read this article know nothing about MMA and therefore have no way of judging just how unfair and wrongheaded are the "arguments" the article advances.

I hope the Times receives and prints letters making the case for MMA. Maybe I'll even try to write one myself if I can summon the energy this weekend...

More generally, I have to admit that I am not a big fan of the Times's editorial page. I love the reporting and the opinion columns, but I find that the editorials -- even though I most often agree with them in substance -- tend to be sanctimonious and platitudinous, not to mention pedestrian in style. To me they come across more as stump speeches full of political boilerplate than as genuine, engaging attempts at persuasive argument.

[Sagacious Lu]

I was extremely disappointed. The NY Times has always been one of my favorite sources for news and usually they do an excellent job. I was amazed that a team of otherwise excellent journalists would condemn the sport in such a baseless and irrational way.

[Britt]

I threw in my two cents on the comments:

As has been correctly and succinctly stated over and over, MMA fighters fight much shorter fights than boxers and suffer far fewer concussive injuries. An MMA fighter who is knocked down and is unable to defend himself can’t get a ten count from a referee and rise to suffer repeated blows to the head for nine more rounds. The cuts they suffer are nearly without exception more dramatic than traumatic.

There is simply no evidence that MMA is any less safe than any other contact sport; in fact, it may be safer. As the New York Times itself noted just yesterday in the article “New Sign of Brain Damage in N.F.L.,” the repeated head trauma suffered by professional football players may lead to dementia and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, which has been found in at least six deceased players. Can we expect a vigorous editorial from the board calling for the banning of the New York Giants and New York Jets from the state? I suspect not, because that would be an unpopular stance, and worse, a premature and foolish one.

I have yet to hear an argument against MMA that amounted to more than than a handwringing concern for some imagined decline in society at large. I’m far more concerned about the decline in proper research and standards of objectivity in newspaper editorials.