#1 Posted on 25.6.02 1410.17 Reposted on: 25.6.09 1420.21
From the 1wrestling newsline - under the heading "Austin Situation Helping To Hurt WWE Online":
Terra Lycos issued a press release today in conjunction with their "Lycos 50", which determines the 50 most requested searches through their search engine, for the week ending on June 22. In their "Notes of Interest" section, they wrote the following (the number in parenthesis refers to the its rank in the 50). "The WWE (#16), formerly the WWF, continues to generate negative press. While attendance and ratings are down, things went from bad to worse last week with the departure of Stone Cold Steve Austin (#18). Unhappy with story lines written for him, Austin walked out on the WWE two weeks ago. Police were also called to Austin's Texas home last week after the wrestler allegedly assaulted his wife Debra. No charges were filed against Austin, but Web users scurried to find more information on the WWE star, or former star as it stands, making Austin the first male pro wrestler to ever make The Lycos 50." In the past, the WWF and many of their performers were regulars in the Lycos top ten.
Doesn't it bother them to say that many of WWE's performers were regulars in the Top Ten, when the line just before it says that Austin was the first male pro wrestler to make the Top 50? Or does the statement only apply to the female WWE performers (who he doesn't mention explicitly)?
Since last post: 4490 days Last activity: 4424 days
#2 Posted on 25.6.02 1431.23 Reposted on: 25.6.09 1431.35
Originally posted by StephanieDoesn't it bother them to say that many of WWE's performers were regulars in the Top Ten, when the line just before it says that Austin was the first male pro wrestler to make the Top 50? Or does the statement only apply to the female WWE performers (who he doesn't mention explicitly)?
It doesn't sound like yellow journalism as much as sloppy journalism. 1wrestling showcases some of the most mediocre journalism skills in the IWC. Grammatical errors and spelling mistakes abound. Sometimes I find myself reading and re-reading their articles because their writing is so unclear I can't always figure out what they're trying to say on the first go-round.
A slightly off-topic question: Does Scherer still put those god-awful "rhetorical questions" in the Lariat?
Since last post: 4430 days Last activity: 4400 days
#3 Posted on 28.6.02 1348.46 Reposted on: 28.6.09 1349.26
I used to be a big 1wrestling reader back when I didn't know any better. I never understood how they could claim to be unbiased, yet do a recap of a show where their owner was a host. When WCW started dying they were embarrassing in their reviews of shows and the like. I for one am very happy they started with the six pop-ups per screen - it made me search for other, better sites!
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE