The Anti-TNA Idiocy Of Justin LaBar And Josh Isenberg

[Zeven_Zion]

They blew the whole thing out of proportion. I have no doubts that something might've happened and this particular guy or gal didn't get what he was promised. Hey, shit happens, you're not the only person out there. What irked me is that they made this one case into something huge, and sold it as if TNA did it to EVERYONE. That alone tells me that they're biased and looking for shit to hurl at TNA. Credibility - Zilch.

As far as Isenberg and LaBar go - I can't stand them. Just two more WWE fans, but in suits and have a "show". They're boring, they offer nothing in terms of entertainment or compelling material, it makes me wonder why they're doing what they're doing. I rarely watch them, and I prefer Mark Madden over them. Yes, the guy who buries TNA. Half the stuff he says is pure diarrhea, but he's a damn good writer and I'll be lying if I don't enjoy his stuff from time to time. See he has this thing called talent. I might think he's ignorant, but he's fun to read. Those guys are both ignorant and boring. Bad combination.

 

[Mr_Ratings]

Obviously were talking two different points here. If CSR's only responsibility is to their own view count, then they should put their show up on their own website. Not on a website that reports all sorts of American Wrestling.

This site is probably the most organized wrestling website around. So Wrestlezone just putting up this one incredibly biased show is a bit of a head scratcher. Why not put a all around show up? Why not put a show up that discusses more than one company? At least put up other biased shows for TNA, ROH, or whatever company they wanna talk about. I mean this is Wrestlezone right? Or is it WWEZone?

So enjoy the little buzzing sound of your point, cause that wasnt what I was getting at. Although you were close

 

[Shotgunchaos44]

As far as the whole TNA email thing on CSR, the best thing they could have done would have been to try and contact TNA to get their side of the story. As someone pointed out on hear though they are not under and duty to do that and were just reading an email. For those who say its fake, why would they fake that email. They have said many times on the show, on Twitter and Facebook that they can't talk much TNA because the advertisers who pay to have their ads run before the show want WWE contact cause that's popular. So why would they waste time faking an email?! Doesn't really make sense.

My other point that comes up when I read this thread is that some don't like the show. I have come to find it very entertaining. It was crappy at first but it really grew on me. I got to meet the Wrestlezone staff that was in Atlanta for Mania and for the Kevin Nash party. It was there I realized that they are more plugged in than a lot of us might think. I knew I didn't think this. But LaBar was the MC of the Nash party that feature Nash, Waltman, Road Dogg and others. I also found out thanks to alcohol making some the guys talk about anything (including the wrestlers) it wasn't an accident that LaBar was with the Nash at the airport the night before Rumble in Boston. Nash or someone in Nash's camp tipped LaBar and WZ off and Nash wanted to create a buzz rather than being a total surprise at the Rumble.

So I realized while I don't always agree with CSR, them being the ones that a name like Kevin Nash lets them help created a buzz or lets them MC/host and be apart of his party in Atlanta, that is more than any of us on here can say. If I remember right the video with NAsh in airport was portrayed as they just waited and finally found him but obviously they including CSR, Nash and WZ were just working us all. Not that I want my favorite website to do that to me but at the same time they have some in. CSR also has had Jerry Lawler, Mick Foley, Jericho and others on the show. These people owuldn't have answered the phone and agreed to do an interview with they didn't feel it was credible or worth it.

Is what those guys do with their show ground breaking or something that nobody else can do, no its not. But these guys gets paid, they have advertisers, WZ is owned by a big company, same one who owns Heyman as you can see if you click on the Crave stuff on home page so obviously a major company feels these guys are worth it. They may not be the best at all times but they put on an entertaining show, get paid, please advertisers, have made wrestling connections it seems and they stand out. They aren't easy to forget. If they were, nobody would have took the time to start and continue this thread.

We all have the right to bash them whenever we feel but to everyone acting like these guys have nothing to offer, I disagree with.

 

[Zeven_Zion]

Obviously were talking two different points here. If CSR's only responsibility is to their own view count, then they should put their show up on their own website. Not on a website that reports all sorts of American Wrestling.

This site is probably the most organized wrestling website around. So Wrestlezone just putting up this one incredibly biased show is a bit of a head scratcher. Why not put a all around show up? Why not put a show up that discusses more than one company? At least put up other biased shows for TNA, ROH, or whatever company they wanna talk about. I mean this is Wrestlezone right? Or is it WWEZone?

So enjoy the little buzzing sound of your point, cause that wasnt what I was getting at. Although you were close

I don't know if you've noticed but WrestleZone is one of the more anti-TNA places out there. Both forums and website. You've got Madden crapping on TNA, you've got all those other editors shitting on it, you've got Chair Shot Reality. The product has flaws, I understand that, but if you can't tolerate TNA's flaws, how the fuck do you cope with WWE?

 

[Rayne]

Obviously were talking two different points here. If CSR's only responsibility is to their own view count, then they should put their show up on their own website. Not on a website that reports all sorts of American Wrestling.

This site is probably the most organized wrestling website around. So Wrestlezone just putting up this one incredibly biased show is a bit of a head scratcher. Why not put a all around show up? Why not put a show up that discusses more than one company? At least put up other biased shows for TNA, ROH, or whatever company they wanna talk about. I mean this is Wrestlezone right? Or is it WWEZone?

So enjoy the little buzzing sound of your point, cause that wasnt what I was getting at. Although you were close

Because Wrestlezone isn't a news site. Dirt sheets do not report news. They report opinions and rumors which cause people to spend more time on the website, viewing ads for longer periods of time, enabling them to make a few more cents off of each viewer. You, like so many other smarks on the internet, trick yourself into thinking that dirt sheets provide news.

Wrestlezone does what they do- just like every single other person working in professional wrestling- because they think it will make money, as little as there is in a website that doesn't do gambling or pornography. If you think that you have something that you would like to give to Wrestlezone because you think it will get viewers, MAKE IT!

Wrestlezone is not a news site. That is the big buzzing of the point that has sailed off away from you now. They don't do reporting, they aren't making consumer recommendations on what you should or shouldn't buy, they are talking bullshit on the internet about someone else's bullshit on television.

 

[Mr_Ratings]

Because Wrestlezone isn't a news site. Dirt sheets do not report news. They report opinions and rumors which cause people to spend more time on the website, viewing ads for longer periods of time, enabling them to make a few more cents off of each viewer. You, like so many other smarks on the internet, trick yourself into thinking that dirt sheets provide news.

Wrestlezone does what they do- just like every single other person working in professional wrestling- because they think it will make money, as little as there is in a website that doesn't do gambling or pornography. If you think that you have something that you would like to give to Wrestlezone because you think it will get viewers, MAKE IT!

Wrestlezone is not a news site. That is the big buzzing of the point that has sailed off away from you now. They don't do reporting, they aren't making consumer recommendations on what you should or shouldn't buy, they are talking bullshit on the internet about someone else's bullshit on television.

*waves at the cherished point that youre clinging onto*

Now onto mine ... I never once claimed that it was a news site. The site is called WRESTLEzone. WRESTLE as in WRESTLING as in WWE, TNA, ROH, NJPW, All Japan, Evolve, PWG, AAA, CMLL etc. Which means if the site is going to be called WRESTLEzone than it should accommodate to all WRESTLING fans. Hell at least since its a American WRESTLING site, it should at least appeal to the American wrestling fans. Otherwise its false advertisement right?

Cause right now it sure is looking like WWEZone

 

[Mr_Ratings]

Btw I love how you say make it as if I'm a part of this site. Wrestlezone is owned by this big company right? Why doesnt that big company add more shit to the site?

 

[Rayne]

*waves at the cherished point that youre clinging onto*

Now onto mine ... I never once claimed that it was a news site. The site is called WRESTLEzone. WRESTLE as in WRESTLING as in WWE, TNA, ROH, NJPW, All Japan, Evolve, PWG, AAA, CMLL etc. Which means if the site is going to be called WRESTLEzone than it should accommodate to all WRESTLING fans. Hell at least since its a American WRESTLING site, it should at least appeal to the American wrestling fans. Otherwise its false advertisement right?

Cause right now it sure is looking like WWEZone

How can you wave at something you just aren't seeing? I'm trying to make this as clear as I can for you, but then you say "yeah, I see your point, I'm just arguing as if I don't understand it at all."

Wrestlezone does not have any particular duty to cover anything. You're still hung up on this idea that Wrestlezone has some particular duty to report. It's not false advertisement, another term you clearly don't understand, because they have not promised you a product that does not perform as they claimed it would. You now have this crazy idea- one of those formed when people can't simply say 'shit, I was mistaken' and simply duck out of a conversation- that because someone uses the word 'wrestle' on the internet and does faux reporting that they are now obligated to cover all the ins, outs, and nuances of professional wrestling.

Wrestlezone publishes what they do because they think that material will sell. If you want to talk about what a wrestling dirt sheet SHOULD talk about, nothing is stopping you from making your own, besides your own lack of comprehension about what a dirt sheet actually does.

I can't make this any clearer for you. I simply can't. Either you're still going to be caught up on this idea that Wrestlezone.com has some kind of reporter's duty to even-handed coverage, or you are finally going to get it already and realize that the only reason Wrestlezone exists is because people click on what they post and read it. If you think you know what would be better, you can get a domain name registered for two years and it costs you about $10.

We are now well past that original bizarre point of how LaBar and Isenberg owe it to professional wrestling to be nice to TNA, so I'm going to assume that was conceded en passant.

 

[Mr_Ratings]

How can you wave at something you just aren't seeing? I'm trying to make this as clear as I can for you, but then you say "yeah, I see your point, I'm just arguing as if I don't understand it at all."

Wrestlezone does not have any particular duty to cover anything. You're still hung up on this idea that Wrestlezone has some particular duty to report. It's not false advertisement, another term you clearly don't understand, because they have not promised you a product that does not perform as they claimed it would. You now have this crazy idea- one of those formed when people can't simply say 'shit, I was mistaken' and simply duck out of a conversation- that because someone uses the word 'wrestle' on the internet and does faux reporting that they are now obligated to cover all the ins, outs, and nuances of professional wrestling.

Wrestlezone publishes what they do because they think that material will sell. If you want to talk about what a wrestling dirt sheet SHOULD talk about, nothing is stopping you from making your own, besides your own lack of comprehension about what a dirt sheet actually does.

I can't make this any clearer for you. I simply can't. Either you're still going to be caught up on this idea that Wrestlezone.com has some kind of reporter's duty to even-handed coverage, or you are finally going to get it already and realize that the only reason Wrestlezone exists is because people click on what they post and read it. If you think you know what would be better, you can get a domain name registered for two years and it costs you about $10.

We are now well past that original bizarre point of how LaBar and Isenberg owe it to professional wrestling to be nice to TNA, so I'm going to assume that was conceded en passant.

Oy... Basically what you just said is if I were to buy a unopened pack of Marlboro cigs just to find a bunch of Newports in it, that it's not false advertisement because Marlboro didnt promise that there were Marlboro's in it. If I buy Marlboros in the store, then I'm expecting Marlboros in the box. Same as a wrestling website. If I go looking for a wrestling website, and I find Wrestlezone, would I be wrong in expecting all forms of wrestling?

btw I just googled Wrestlezone wrestling news site and heres what came up.

WWE News, WWE Spoilers, WWE Results, and more - Wrestlezone.com
... TNA iMAPCT!, and the rest of the wrestling industry to bring you the all the latest news, ... X-Pac Opens Website; Slams Brian Knobs, Talks Chyna, More ...
News - WrestleZone Forums - Editorials - Videos
www.wrestlezone.com/ - Cached - Similar

If its not a wrestling news site then why oh why is it saying latest wrestling news? lol

 

[Mr_Ratings]

ad·ver·tise·ment/ˈadvərˌtīzmənt/
Noun: A notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event or publicizing a job vacancy.

Product = Wrestlezone

Public medium = Google

Announcement = Bringing the latest news from WWE, TNA, and the REST of the WRESTLING INDUSTRY.

Whens the last time youve seen any results or news from any other wrestling organization on here other than WWE, TNA, or ROH?

Oh and dont count the people who are about to sign or have signed with WWE or TNA from other countries.

I shall bid adieu to you now

 

[Mr_Ratings]

Ok throw in the very occasional evolve and dragon gate results. That doesnt equate to the rest of the industry.

 

[Rayne]

Same as a wrestling website. If I go looking for a wrestling website, and I find Wrestlezone, would I be wrong in expecting all forms of wrestling?

btw I just googled Wrestlezone wrestling news site and heres what came up.

WWE News, WWE Spoilers, WWE Results, and more - Wrestlezone.com
... TNA iMAPCT!, and the rest of the wrestling industry to bring you the all the latest news, ... X-Pac Opens Website; Slams Brian Knobs, Talks Chyna, More ...
News - WrestleZone Forums - Editorials - Videos
www.wrestlezone.com/ - Cached - Similar

If its not a wrestling news site then why oh why is it saying latest wrestling news? lol

Wow, this is painful.

First off, "news" is a very broad term. What you are doing is choosing a very narrow interpretation of "news" and applying it to all other forms of the word. I have news for you- you are very slow on the uptake of a basic concept. I owe no balanced reporting on other instances in which you may have gotten a point quickly because I said 'news'; I have no duty to cover other people's ability to get my point compared to yours because I said "news". I am using a FORM of news; if you want to go to root words, it is "new" for you that the usage of the word "news" (the plural form of "new") is not limited to a very specific form of reporting.

What you are doing is saying "when I think of news, I think of this", and that is a mistake in your interpretation. So, yes, you would be mistaken in this instance by saying "I see this, so am I wrong for expecting this particular meaning of the word?" Any company which does any kind of reporting, real or fake, always makes decisions in how much of which media they choose to cover. So, again, yes, you are completely mistaken in expecting that because someone says 'the rest of the wrestling industry' that they owe you a complete, detailed examination of every shitpot indy league operating in Zimbabwe.

Putting it a bit more on your level- why don't you complain to the Weekly World News that you found evidence that Bat Boy doesn't really exist, and that they owe it to their readers to publish a retraction- after all, they even have News right in the title of their publication! Surely they have a duty to publish all of the News of the World that happens Weekly- after all, they claim that right in their title, don't they? It's gonna blow your mind when you read what those words mean in a dictionary.

Oy... Basically what you just said is if I were to buy a unopened pack of Marlboro cigs just to find a bunch of Newports in it, that it's not false advertisement because Marlboro didnt promise that there were Marlboro's in it. If I buy Marlboros in the store, then I'm expecting Marlboros in the box.

Now, for your ridiculous Marlboro point. This is what is called "brand expectation" in advertising. By displaying the Marlboro brand on a pack of cigarettes (a legally protected trademark, unlike the Wrestlezone website, so this is completely apples and oranges anyways), it is legally established precedent, for a couple of hundred years, that the company selling those cigarettes are selling Marlboro brand cigarettes. That is considered a form of advertising. Now, Marlboro could completely change the formula of their cigarettes to be equivalent to Newports, and sell those as Marlboros and be legally immune, because the only promise Marlboro has made is that the cigarettes in there will be Marlboro brand- they have not promised you that the cigarettes in that pack will be made according to the same formula that Marlboro cigarettes have been made previously.

You don't want to try and win an advertising discussion with me, it's what I do for a living.

We aren't having a debate of opinions around here. This is not an instance where I am trying to sway you to my point of view; you are simply wrong. I am trying to explain to you that you do not understand what this website, or any other professional wrestling dirt sheet does. This is where you aren't getting the idea here, because you are still insisting that just because someone says "news", that they owe you a complete, unbiased, and through review of everything possibly covered under whatever form of "news" they cover. Bid Adieu all you would like, it's probably for the best as you are failing to grasp some extremely basic concepts crucial to having this discussion.

 

[Mr_Ratings]

Wow, this is painful.

First off, "news" is a very broad term. What you are doing is choosing a very narrow interpretation of "news" and applying it to all other forms of the word. I have news for you- you are very slow on the uptake of a basic concept. I owe no balanced reporting on other instances in which you may have gotten a point quickly because I said 'news'; I have no duty to cover other people's ability to get my point compared to yours because I said "news". I am using a FORM of news; if you want to go to root words, it is "new" for you that the usage of the word "news" (the plural form of "new") is not limited to a very specific form of reporting.

What you are doing is saying "when I think of news, I think of this", and that is a mistake in your interpretation. So, yes, you would be mistaken in this instance by saying "I see this, so am I wrong for expecting this particular meaning of the word?" Any company which does any kind of reporting, real or fake, always makes decisions in how much of which media they choose to cover. So, again, yes, you are completely mistaken in expecting that because someone says 'the rest of the wrestling industry' that they owe you a complete, detailed examination of every shitpot indy league operating in Zimbabwe.

Now, for your ridiculous Marlboro point. This is what is called "brand expectation" in advertising. By displaying the Marlboro brand on a pack of cigarettes (a legally protected trademark, unlike the Wrestlezone website, so this is completely apples and oranges anyways), it is legally established precedent, for a couple of hundred years, that the company selling those cigarettes are selling Marlboro brand cigarettes. That is considered a form of advertising. Now, Marlboro could completely change the formula of their cigarettes to be equivalent to Newports, and sell those as Marlboros and be legally immune, because the only promise Marlboro has made is that the cigarettes in there will be Marlboro brand- they have not promised you that the cigarettes in that pack will be made according to the same formula that Marlboro cigarettes have been made previously.

You don't want to try and win an advertising discussion with me, it's what I do for a living.

We aren't having a debate of opinions around here. I am trying to explain to you that you do not understand what this website, or any other professional wrestling dirt sheet does. This is where you aren't getting the idea here, because you are still insisting that just because someone says "news", that they owe you a complete, unbiased, and through review of everything possibly covered under whatever form of "news" they cover. Bid Adieu all you would like, it's probably for the best as you are failing to grasp some extremely basic concepts crucial to having this discussion.

Wow. So I see that youre completely underestimating my level of inteligence. No they dont owe me a complete, unbiased, and through review. You are absolutely right there. But stating that they cover wrestling news from TNA, WWE, and the rest of the industry. I'd think that upon seeing that that one would perhaps tend to believe that they would possibly get some complete, unbiased or multiple biased reviews from all sides of the spectrum.

So now heres your chance to back out and say "You know what? He might be right." But in seeing how thick that egotistical cloud is around you. I dont think thats gonna happen anytime soon

 

[Hazardous]

Wow. So I see that youre completely underestimating my level of inteligence. No they dont owe me a complete, unbiased, and through review. You are absolutely right there. But in stating that they cover wrestling news from TNA, WWE, and the rest of the industry. So I'd think that upon seeing that that one would perhaps tend to believe that they would possibly get some complete, unbiased or multiple biased reviews from all sides of the spectrum.
So now heres your chance to back out and say "You know what? He might be right." But in seeing how thick that egotistical cloud is around you. I dont think thats gonna happen anytime soon

Well since you're pulling out definitions and everything, If this is a WRESTLING website, that's (apparently) supposed to give YOU news on EVERY wrestling company.. Why is WWE in there? It's not Wrestling remember? It's Entertainment. People keep saying that it's too Pro WWE, and Anti TNA. Maybe it's because the no one is taking the time to MAKE pro TNA stuff on the main site. Instead of fighting a loosing battle with Rayne (at least you're willing to go down with the ship) Why don't YOU make a Non bias show for Wrestlezone? People have no problem saying what we got is crap, but how many are willing to try to do better?

 

[Rayne]

Wow. So I see that youre completely underestimating my level of inteligence. No they dont owe me a complete, unbiased, and through review. You are absolutely right there. But in stating that they cover wrestling news from TNA, WWE, and the rest of the industry. So I'd think that upon seeing that that one would perhaps tend to believe that they would possibly get some complete, unbiased or multiple biased reviews from all sides of the spectrum.

And that is the problem here. What you think is wrong, and just because you believe something doesn't make it right. I'm not underestimating your level of intelligence, because right after you express that you understand that you aren't promised a certain level of coverage, you wonder why you aren't getting that certain level of coverage. If anything, I'm overestimating your level of intelligence, because I'm still holding out hope that eventually you are going to figure out that the word "news" is essentially meaningless, and makes no implicit guarantees to the reader, no matter what a dictionary might tell you.

This isn't some battle where you can say "you have a big ego, but I'll show you". You are, quite literally, factually, and in every non-quantum usage of the word, wrong. You are mistaken and I am a fool for trying to convince you of how you are mistaken, because you are a fool who does not understand the meanings of the words he is using and insists he understands them anyways.

And, again, this originally started with a discussion about how CSR, because they spoke their opinions on the internet, owed people a balanced review of their reporting on because they were a "critics show", and has now moved to some meta debate about what the word "news" actually means and implies. The point about CSR not owing TNA anything in their 'reporting' is definitely well made, but you're doing that silly internet thing where you move a discussion into ridiculous meta issues so that you can forget you were bizarrely wrong in the first place.

 

[TheHitMark-SirJoseOle]

Wow, this is painful.

First off, "news" is a very broad term. What you are doing is choosing a very narrow interpretation of "news" and applying it to all other forms of the word. I have news for you- you are very slow on the uptake of a basic concept. I owe no balanced reporting on other instances in which you may have gotten a point quickly because I said 'news'; I have no duty to cover other people's ability to get my point compared to yours because I said "news". I am using a FORM of news; if you want to go to root words, it is "new" for you that the usage of the word "news" (the plural form of "new") is not limited to a very specific form of reporting.

I am not going to go to war with you on analogies or this that and the other thing, but this is what I am going to say to tell you my argument on the matter, and at the risk of repeating myself here we go:

- LaBar and Isenberg's Video Was Linked On The Main News Page Of WrestleZone. Period.

- They made a claim a fan was being screwed out of a service by TNA but there is no proof this fan even exists, not saying there could not be a potential for this to be true since it does not sound far fetched. However why mention something like this on your show unless you're willing to back it up? I construe this as them reporting something, even if they are not traditionally news reporters, they are acting like it in this case, and their material is put in the news section. Like I said before it's an observation. Think about it this way, if a thread is made in the wrong section of this forum, it's either deleted or promptly moved to a more appropriate section. Why should WrestleZone's main page not be any different, why do they not format their site to reflect this in the case of Chair Shot Reality? They have an editorials link it should go there in theory. On the main page it should not be under Latest WWE and TNA news if it's not news. I mean you said it yourself CSR is not news, so why put it in that category in the first place like WrestleZone's main page does?

- And again I am not saying that they are necessarily liars but how should I feel about the case they are making when they are not showing me proof at all? I mean you have to think about the nature of this issue, if two wrestling fans have proof that TNA/Impact Wrestling is dicking them around, I understand that they are not bound by law to representing facts here. But at the same time I think it would be a courtesy that they go and inform the wrestling news world and present this information to every wrestling site they could. After all if TNA/Impact Wrestling is really screwing their fans over why not get the story out there?

Again, just observations of mine but it's not like I am bitching about a booking decision or a creative direction, I am not getting all up in arms about backstage bullshit I have no idea of like a lot of other idiots on these forums do. I am merely disagreeing with how two wrestling fans are presenting their show here on WrestleZone by saying something and not having any proof to back it up.

So again another word to the wise here, you can call me out on not having a social life, you can disagree with my points and you can think of every name in the book. Like one other poster said to me on these forums I am getting so much shit because of my attitude, but you know what that's fine, I really don't care. All I can say though is that not many who roam these boards and post are any better than I am, we all have some sort of investment in the professional wrestling product. I am willing to dish out and take anything that a poster wants to talk to me about on this board. Again I have repeated these points but will stand by them as my argument for this case.

If that sounds adversarial to most so be it, but again if these two were true wrestling fans and don't want to see other fans get ripped off by a company like Impact Wrestling you'd think they would actually go the right way of saying something. Because like it or not, this was a piss poor attempt at news reporting, and if Helen Keller were alive even she'd able to see, hear and read that.

You keep making this claim, but why would they lie? what would they have to gain?

If you want to make the argument that it was irresponsible to read out that e-mail without proof I'll listen, but your version of events requires a massive conspiracy based on the idea that everyone involved has some kind of irrational hatred of TNA as a company.

I still don't feel where I am making a claim of a conspiracy, I am just saying that Isenberg and LaBar don't have me convinced, if it came off that way I apologize. See the points I wrote above to Rayne and you'll hopefully get where I am coming from. Not to say that you're not capable of understanding my points, but I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt that I did not present my points as well as I could have.

 

[Mr_Ratings]

My point is if people are looking for a wrestling website through Google, Yahoo or whatever. And they see "Wrestlezone covering the latest wrestling news from WWE, TNA, and the whole world of professional wrestling"... Then theyre gonna expect just that. Theyre going to expect equality amongst the wrestling companies. Not Bias.

Its like Fox News claiming that they offer all sides of the stories. When in reality Fox News is the most biased news channel on cable tv.

 

[Mr_Ratings]

Well since you're pulling out definitions and everything, If this is a WRESTLING website, that's (apparently) supposed to give YOU news on EVERY wrestling company.. Why is WWE in there? It's not Wrestling remember? It's Entertainment. People keep saying that it's too Pro WWE, and Anti TNA. Maybe it's because the no one is taking the time to MAKE pro TNA stuff on the main site. Instead of fighting a loosing battle with Rayne (at least you're willing to go down with the ship) Why don't YOU make a Non bias show for Wrestlezone? People have no problem saying what we got is crap, but how many are willing to try to do better?

Perhaps because I have a job? And doing a dirt sheet type of show isnt my thing. But I like watching it as long as there is equality in the dirt spreading. And dont be a sucker to the system. WWE is wrestling.

 

[Rayne]

I am not going to go to war with you on analogies or this that and the other thing, but this is what I am going to say to tell you my argument on the matter, and at the risk of repeating myself here we go:

- LaBar and Isenberg's Video Was Linked On The Main News Page Of WrestleZone

- They made a claim a fan was being screwed out of a service by TNA but there is no proof this fan even exists, not saying there could not be a potential for this to be true since it does not sound far fetched. However why mention something like this on your show unless you're willing to back it up? I construe this as them reporting something, even if they are not traditionally news reporters, they are acting like it in this case, and their material is put in the news section. Like I said before it's an observation.

The Weekly World News does "news reporting". They aren't well known for being factual. You can be plenty upset with CSR for not providing proof of their accusations, but they don't have any obligations that a traditional journalist does. They are not trying for journalistic integrity. In most businesses, lack of reporting integrity is a bad thing, but it's profitable in professional wrestling.

The "News" section is meaningless; the issue is that the way this website uses "News" is not how you believe the word should be used. That's a whole different issue.

- And again I am not saying that they are necessarily liars but how should I feel about the case they are making when they are not showing me proof at all? I mean you have to think about the nature of this issue, if two wrestling fans have proof that TNA/Impact Wrestling is dicking them around, I understand that they are not bound by law to representing facts here. But at the same time I think it would be a courtesy that they go and inform the wrestling news world and present this information to every wrestling site they could. After all if TNA/Impact Wrestling is really screwing their fans over why not get the story out there?

Because you think that CSR has some kind of duty to report. They don't. They can, and do, completely make shit up. They don't make a profit from informing the wrestling world; Wrestlezone makes its money from people viewing the advertisements on page load. Having people click on your yellow journalism gets far more page views than hard hitting reporting with integrity. It's not about news reporting, it's about getting people to watch.

Igain, just observations of mine but it's not like I am bitching about a booking decision or a creative direction, I am not getting all up in arms about backstage bullshit I have no idea of like a lot of other idiots on these forums do. I am merely disagreeing with how two wrestling fans are presenting their show here on WrestleZone by saying something and not having any proof to back it up.

If that sounds adversarial to most so be it, but again if these two were true wrestling fans and don't want to see other fans get ripped off by a company like Impact Wrestling you'd think they would actually go the right way of saying something. Because like it or not, this was a piss poor attempt at news reporting, and if Helen Keller were alive even she'd able to see, hear and read that.

If you're disagreeing with how they present it, that's your own separate issue. You can make your own video show if you think it would be more popular. It's not news reporting, and CSR has never made any claim that it was.

Professional wrestling works on people being able to convince themselves that something they should know is fake is real. That spirit is alive and well in this thread.

 

[Hazardous]

- They made a claim a fan was being screwed out of a service by TNA but there is no proof this fan even exists, not saying there could not be a potential for this to be true since it does not sound far fetched. However why mention something like this on your show unless you're willing to back it up?

- And again I am not saying that they are necessarily liars but how should I feel about the case they are making when they are not showing me proof at all? I mean you have to think about the nature of this issue, if two wrestling fans have proof that TNA/Impact Wrestling is dicking them around, I understand that they are not bound by law to representing facts here. But at the same time I think it would be a courtesy that they go and inform the wrestling news world and present this information to every wrestling site they could. After all if TNA/Impact Wrestling is really screwing their fans over why not get the story out there?

How is it you expect them to PROVE it? If they showed the email on screen, you'd say it was fake. What do you expect? Do you want them to give this guys name, and address? Have him on the show? Probably would say he was an actor, hired to say those things. How do you expect them to prove it? Further more, I see little reason they SHOULD. People get screwed over. It happens. If someone were to make a thread tomorrow saying they were that person in the Email, how many people do you think would say he's lying? Would you tell him that? I mentioned earlier how the WWE ripped me off years ago.. If it happened today, and sent an Email to CSR (wouldnt waste the time) There would probably be talk of how I was faking it too. Someone sent them an email, and they read it. It's simple. Email CSR, or tweet them, or facebook them. See if they read your's too. I just see no reason, and you have failed to convince me, that this email was not Legit.

 

[Rayne]

My point is if people are looking for a wrestling website through Google, Yahoo or whatever. And they see "Wrestlezone covering the latest wrestling news from WWE, TNA, and the whole world of professional wrestling"... Then theyre gonna expect just that. Theyre going to expect equality amongst the wrestling companies. Not Bias.

Its like Fox News claiming that they offer all sides of the stories. When in reality Fox News is the most biased news channel on cable tv.

And people being unable to match up their expectations with reality is one of the oldest stories in history. Fox News says they offer fair and balanced reporting, but the devil is in the details.

THAT'S the point I'm trying to get across to you. You're off in should-land, and I'm trying to explain the way the world actually works.

 

[Kenny Powers]

The main reason Josh and Justin are so biased is because they get paid money from advertisers to be on CSR. They get paid to talk about the #1 wrestling or sports entertainment company WWE. They do comment on news involving TNA, ROH, and some MMA news, but its mainly their take on what is going on in WWE. Mark Madden also has some negative comments about pretty much every wrestling company.

Is what they are commenting on news? No, its just tabloids and opinions. That is pretty much the majority of shows you will find on the internet. Especially wrestling shows. I know they aren't fans of TNA, but I doubt they would make up a story about a fan not receiving his on Demand package from TNA. Maybe the fan fabricated the story. There are problems all the time with customer service in all companies. Some complain that TNA shop didn't send them the right package or the package arrived too late in the mail.

I have never had a problem with buying merchandise online with TNA. I have no idea if anyone on here has or has had a problem with the TNA on Demand site offering free service for the Victory Road PPV. I don't see a really big deal with this, but if you want you can always round up a bunch of satisfied TNA customers and have them email Justin or Josh. Maybe they will talk about it on their show. I usually just watch their show to hear Mark Madden's comments or to see an interview.

I bet they have some choice words for the Wrestlezone forums. I could care less either way. Some of you guys are giving these two way too much credit and power then they deserve.

 

[TheHitMark-SirJoseOle]

How is it you expect them to PROVE it? If they showed the email on screen, you'd say it was fake. What do you expect? Do you want them to give this guys name, and address? Have him on the show? Probably would say he was an actor, hired to say those things. How do you expect them to prove it? Further more, I see little reason they SHOULD. People get screwed over. It happens. If someone were to make a thread tomorrow saying they were that person in the Email, how many people do you think would say he's lying? Would you tell him that? I mentioned earlier how the WWE ripped me off years ago.. If it happened today, and sent an Email to CSR (wouldnt waste the time) There would probably be talk of how I was faking it too. Someone sent them an email, and they read it. It's simple. Email CSR, or tweet them, or facebook them. See if they read your's too. I just see no reason, and you have failed to convince me, that this email was not Legit.

Again, break the story to other news outlets in the wrestling scene. I am sure 1Wrestling.Com could be a good place to start, if there's that much evidence to prove Impact Wrestling has been delinquent then I am sure a site like that would be more than glad to inform wrestling fans of possible customer service issues with Impact Wrestling.

As far as the matter at hand goes, I am not trying to convince you of anything for one thing, I just stated an observation that I see no proof of what they are saying, so why should I automatically believe it. I wanted to spark some conversation and interaction on the topic and I succeeded in that, I got people talking about the subject. Never once did I say that the e-mail was not legit, I merely asked "Where's the proof?" BIGGGGGG difference, comprende?

The Weekly World News does "news reporting". They aren't well known for being factual. You can be plenty upset with CSR for not providing proof of their accusations, but they don't have any obligations that a traditional journalist does. They are not trying for journalistic integrity. In most businesses, lack of reporting integrity is a bad thing, but it's profitable in professional wrestling.

Yes, but maybe I'm of a different mindset, but information like this in regards to a customer service issue, I personally and I have faith that most TRUE wrestling fans would report something like this a lot better than LaBar and Isenberg had. I think it's fair to raise an issue with them "reporting" something when they are not even reporters in the first place, and if I want to take exception to them not supporting their claim with proof, I can. After all they have a home here on WrestleZone, it's not like they are just posting videos on YouTube, they have a wrestling site as a platform.

The "News" section is meaningless; the issue is that the way this website uses "News" is not how you believe the word should be used. That's a whole different issue.

Because you think that CSR has some kind of duty to report. They don't. They can, and do, completely make shit up. They don't make a profit from informing the wrestling world; Wrestlezone makes its money from people viewing the advertisements on page load. Having people click on your yellow journalism gets far more page views than hard hitting reporting with integrity. It's not about news reporting, it's about getting people to watch.

If you're disagreeing with how they present it, that's your own separate issue. You can make your own video show if you think it would be more popular. It's not news reporting, and CSR has never made any claim that it was.

Again, people enjoy editorials all the time, I know I sure do, that's where the CSR stuff belongs and not in the news section my opinion at least. I am sure viewers of the site are intelligent enough to find the appropriate sections here on WrestleZone.

Professional wrestling works on people being able to convince themselves that something they should know is fake is real. That spirit is alive and well in this thread.

That's the thing, we are not talking about a storyline here, we are not talking about booking decisions. We are talking about two individuals that are implying the business practices of a wrestling company are being substandard. Therefore don't dare say that my criticisms are necessarily a separate issue I feel they work rather well within the context of what we're discussing.

LaBar and Isenberg are mentioning something and not ponying up the proof for it. Again if we are talking about the next major heel turn or a shocking title change, who gives a shit? But when we're talking about them stating that Impact Wrestling is screwing customers over, I feel that this is something most fans should inquire about.

 

[Rayne]

Yes, but maybe I'm of a different mindset, but information like this in regards to a customer service issue, I personally and I have faith that most TRUE wrestling fans would report something like this a lot better than LaBar and Isenberg had. I think it's fair to raise an issue with them "reporting" something when they are not even reporters in the first place, and if I want to take exception to them not supporting their claim with proof, I can. After all they have a home here on WrestleZone, it's not like they are just posting videos on YouTube, they have a wrestling site as a platform.

There are two types of people that pay attention to professional wrestling. There are those who give the money, and those who take the money. There is no such thing as a "true wrestling fan". Dirt sheets are just as much a part of the business as a storyline is; bitching about the truthfulness of a storyline is just as silly as bitching about the truthfulness of a dirt sheet.

All that a dirt sheet is is an extension of professional wrestling's "now you see it now you don't" act into the internet age. It's the same exact con that's been going on for decades, the only difference is now that it's on the internet too. Just like any good con game, there's the stuff that they tell you is pretend, and there's the stuff that's pretend that they let you convince yourself is real.

Again, people enjoy editorials all the time, I know I sure do, that's where the CSR stuff belongs and not in the news section my opinion at least. I am sure viewers of the site are intelligent enough to find the appropriate sections here on WrestleZone.

The difference between editorials and news on this site boils down to this, and ONLY this- there is one tab where people tell you that this is my opinion, and another tab where people tell you their opinions but call it news.

News reporting with integrity isn't something that happens in the business of professional wrestling, because the people who make the money off the business have based there entire business off of blurring the line between truth and reality.

That's the thing, we are not talking about a storyline here, we are not talking about booking decisions. We are talking about two individuals that are implying the business practices of a wrestling company are being substandard. Therefore don't dare say that my criticisms are necessarily a separate issue I feel they work rather well within the context of what we're discussing.

LaBar and Isenberg are mentioning something and not ponying up the proof for it. Again if we are talking about the next major heel turn or a shocking title change, who gives a shit? But when we're talking about them stating that Impact Wrestling is screwing customers over, I feel that this is something most fans should inquire about.

And if they're completely lying about it, and TNA could prove that, it would be either slander or libel. (Slander is spoken, libel is printed, and since video is technically both spoken and printed I have no idea which would apply.) However, and this is back to the would-could-should of the world, how on earth would TNA possibly prove that a fan DIDN'T complain to them about not receiving service?

You can be upset with LaBar and Isenberg over that, but don't say it's because they're presenting themselves as news. Don't say it's because they aren't "true wrestling fans", whatever that is. It's because they are bloodsucking ticks who will say anything to get a few more clicks on their videos. THAT is a legitimate criticism.

 

[TheHitMark-SirJoseOle]

There are two types of people that pay attention to professional wrestling. There are those who give the money, and those who take the money. There is no such thing as a "true wrestling fan". Dirt sheets are just as much a part of the business as a storyline is; bitching about the truthfulness of a storyline is just as silly as bitching about the truthfulness of a dirt sheet.

So what do you define yourself as then? You don't consider yourself a true wrestling fan, explain...please.

All that a dirt sheet is is an extension of professional wrestling's "now you see it now you don't" act into the internet age. It's the same exact con that's been going on for decades, the only difference is now that it's on the internet too. Just like any good con game, there's the stuff that they tell you is pretend, and there's the stuff that's pretend that they let you convince yourself is real.

Right, but they are bringing something up about TNA's business practices and saying that the company's breaking promises. Again I stand by my right as a fan to have issue with that. Plain and simple.

The difference between editorials and news on this site boils down to this, and ONLY this- there is one tab where people tell you that this is my opinion, and another tab where people tell you their opinions but call it news.

News reporting with integrity isn't something that happens in the business of professional wrestling, because the people who make the money off the business have based there entire business off of blurring the line between truth and reality.

Ok, I can meet you half way on that, but it doesn't change how I feel about the tactics of LaBar and Isenberg, no way no how and in my view they were still presenting themselves as reporting "something"...so therefore I'm chocking them up into the category of news reporting in this instance.

And if they're completely lying about it, and TNA could prove that, it would be either slander or libel. (Slander is spoken, libel is printed, and since video is technically both spoken and printed I have no idea which would apply.) However, and this is back to the would-could-should of the world, how on earth would TNA possibly prove that a fan DIDN'T complain to them about not receiving service?

Again, I stand by what I said, Isenberg and LaBar if this issue was really important to them would go and send this information to other outlets, instead they choose to use their show to bring this up.

You can be upset with LaBar and Isenberg over that, but don't say it's because they're presenting themselves as news. Don't say it's because they aren't "true wrestling fans", whatever that is. It's because they are bloodsucking ticks who will say anything to get a few more clicks on their videos. THAT is a legitimate criticism.

Fair enough but I stand my ground on what I said. And if they can say TNA are breaking promises, well I can say that they aren't true wrestling fans...period.