|
|
Post by Joe on Jan 10, 2005 19:19:57 GMT -5
The assessment of WWE in the late 1990s would have to be considered fabricated information. The era that he describes as a "walking zombie" and "mirred by Russo" saw the emergence of three of the biggest singles stars in history in Steve Austin, the Rock, and Mick Foley. It also birthed Degeneration X. It would have been more proper to label it, arguably, the biggest boom period in the business' history.
|
|
|
|
Post by Frank Coutinho on Jan 10, 2005 19:26:59 GMT -5
Serious writers like Doris Kearns Goodwin have been put on the firing line for not adding quotations. Others like Mike Barnicle have been fired for using someone elses idea. Scott Keith's book shows that he created false information by not looking further into stories. There is every indication that he used, as fact, what he liked hearing. He writes for a wrestling audience and I think he assumes that the audience could care less if the information is accurate or not. I think he insults the wrestling crowd and their intelligence. The fact is I can read and futhermore I can read between the lines.
|
|
Like Watching Paint Dry
Guest
|
Post by Like Watching Paint Dry on Jan 10, 2005 20:05:08 GMT -5
"First of all, the material in this thread has shown simply that Scott Keith has presented erroneous information on occasion." So a 'little' bit of falsehood is 'ok'? "Authors/journalists with much more responsibility to the truth than a fan writing about pro wrestling have been guilty of the same time and again, no matter how hard they try to ensure that this doesn't happen." Labeling Scott Keith a 'fan' does not change the fact that he profits off of presenting false information. "Show me proof that Scott Keith, himself, created that false information and/or revisionist history as opposed to finding (or being presented) that information in his research and assuming it to be the truth." The material is PUBLISHED UNDER HIS NAME AND RESULTS IN HIM PROFITING FROM THE WORK IT APPEARS IN. Unless he's plagiarizing the false information without proper attribution nothing more needs to be said. "If he didn't and/or you can't, then he (and his editor ) is guilty of poor fact-checking at least, and passing on misinformation at worst; quite possibly some shoddy research as well."Actually at worse he is 'purposely' presenting false information. The shame is that he profits off this erroneous material. "Secondly, 15 or so specific incidents of erroneous information out of two books and several web publications do not qualify as "frequently/often". If his entire body of work were fabricated information, then the "liar and fraud" label would be accurate." Obviously the words 'frequent' and 'often' are relative terms. The Todd Martin book review examined and revealed a laundry list of errors in one specific book. I'd call that 'frequent/often' misrepresentation...or engaging in lying! I'd add the The links I posted weren't an in depth look into the veracity of _ALL_ of Scott Keith's entire collection of books and webpages. The thread: Absolute worst Scott Keith lies or mistakes....not ALL of his mistakes. The content was casual dialogue meant to fit the threads topic, and should not be confused with listing all of his works lies and misrepresentation. "The fact of the matter is that he has seemingly related the truth more often than not, 'Seemingly'? "usually as found by journalists like Meltzer and/or whatever contacts Scott may have in the industry (if any). I realize that when called on his mistakes that he hasn't immediately come out and admitted being wrong (except the baseball-related one, I believe), but that's hardly evidence of fraud." The scope of this thread cannot trace the inner workings of Scott Keith's mind. It does however reveal a pattern of the author relaying false information on specific individuals like Hulk Hogan, whom he coincidentally chooses to relentlessly bash on a personal level. Does presenting false information that is 'conviently' negative toward a person that one bashes on a personal level point in the direction of being intentionally deceitful beyond a shadow of a doubt? No! Yet in terms of a reasonable doubt...I'd say yes! "All in all, the "evidence" in this thread points toward him being a sub-par journalist (I term I don't even find appropriate, but we'll go with it for now) at worst. Anything more borders on witch-hunting, IMO." I'll agree that he is a sub par journalist. "If you don't like his work, fine. But unless you have proof that he willingly fabricates his information, you're just as guilty of making stuff up as you claim he is." That's beyond silly. It is a fact that Scott Keith publishes and profits off of writing erroneous information. This false information amounts to him lying. Whether this is due to him being sloppy, a mental midget or purposely deceitful is irrelevant. The actions are properly labeled. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Ingersoll on Jan 10, 2005 20:44:51 GMT -5
As a reminder, when you look for a book on wrestling, you usually find it in the "sports" section, not the "history" section, no matter whom the author is.
But clearly you've already made up your minds and nothing I can suggest will alter this. I don't have the desire to continue in a debate where the man I'm supposedly defending has in fact already been convicted. Nor do I have the level of obsession necessary to pour over every minute detail of a man's work and perform my own research in order to prove or disprove these claims. If I did, I'd have my own book deal.
On that note, I look forward to reading yours. With proper footnotes, quotations, and attributations. Oh, and no typos.
Until then, be sure to sweep up the ashes when you're done burning the man at the stake. I'll be over here with the rest of the fans who are still capable of discerning entertainment from black-and-white, clear-cut fact.
|
|
Like Watching Paint Dry
Guest
|
Post by Like Watching Paint Dry on Jan 11, 2005 6:45:12 GMT -5
"As a reminder, when you look for a book on wrestling, you usually find it in the "sports" section, not the "history" section, no matter whom the author is." As a further reminder....this doesn't divest a NON-FICTION book from the responsibility of presenting accurate information. "But clearly you've already made up your minds and nothing I can suggest will alter this." Lies are lies. It's that simple. "I don't have the desire to continue in a debate where the man I'm supposedly defending has in fact already been convicted." This isn't a court so the word 'convicted' seems a bit out of place. I'd prefer the word 'exposed' as it relates to Scott Keith profiting off of his publication of false information. "Nor do I have the level of obsession necessary to pour over every minute detail of a man's work and perform my own research in order to prove or disprove these claims. If I did, I'd have my own book deal." I suspect were you to delve further into Scott Keith's work you'd find little to defend. "On that note, I look forward to reading yours. With proper footnotes, quotations, and attributations. Oh, and no typos." Like yourself, I have no time or interest in writing a pro wrestling book. I'm just a reader who expects non-fiction books to be...non-fiction. I also don't like seeing innocent readers looking for an accurate chronicle of pro wrestling mislead by a charlatan. If anyone reading this thread becomes more aware and scrutunizes Scott Keith's work a bit closer in the future...my purpose for posting is well served. "Until then, be sure to sweep up the ashes when you're done burning the man at the stake. I'll be over here with the rest of the fans who are still capable of discerning entertainment from black-and-white, clear-cut fact." While you're sweeping, I'll be standing with the group who expect published information in _ANY GENRE_ of non-fiction to have at least a semblance of accuracy and respect for truth. Needless to say such a standard would exclude Scott Keith's penchant for inventing stories, spreading malicious rumors and profiting off of false information. I'll close standing behind the statement with which I entered this thread: "I don't think very highly of Scott Keith or is writings. He has a notorious reputation for 'inventing' stories and misrepresenting facts. Many fans over the years have become innocent victims of his misinformation."  |
|
|
|
Post by Mark 138 on Jan 11, 2005 9:22:21 GMT -5
What concerns me is the readership that is the victim of trusting Keith as a responsible truthful author. The people who will go around thinking Buddy Rogers beat Lou Thesz for the WWWF title, the NWA 'took' Georgia from Ole and 'gave' it to Jim Crockett, Hulk Hogan worked only twice a month during the Hulkamania era, Ray Stevens was the master of the People's Knee Drop and loads of other nonsense that they will credit to the writings of Scott Keith, whom they believe to be a credible source. I know I'm stumbling into this written discussion like a child walking into the middle of a movie(although it does not surprise me to see Mr. Paint Dry using the 'quote' all over the place and arguing with yet another person), but are these things really written in Scott Keith's book? Or are these overblown examples to illustrate the absurdity of his writing? If the above examples are in fact actually written and passed off as factual in Mr. Keith's book then I will have to agree with Mr. Paint here, which is something of which I doubted the possibility until this point in time. Anyone who cannot be bothered to make sure glaring factual errors like those do not appear in his book is lazy and clearly not letting the truth get in the way of what he sees as a good story. I've been passing on this book for a while and it looks like I'll keep on walking some more. modified to contain the direct quote from Mr. Paint Dry's post, because I know he likes the quote button so much.  |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Ingersoll on Jan 11, 2005 10:21:19 GMT -5
I know I said I was done, but I think I've finally figured out the problem here... As a further reminder....this doesn't divest a NON-FICTION book from the responsibility of presenting accurate information. Which doesn't change the fact that it's a "non-fiction" book about pro wrestling. I quoted Keith's own introduction where he states that getting the whole, unembellished truth out of these people is frankly impossible. Even information put forth by Dave Meltzer -- generally regarded as being gospel among the "smart" community -- has to be viewed under that light. No information we, as fans, get is first-hand and unfiltered. We're lucky if the unfiltered stuff we supposedly get is as good as second-hand. You're not going to find anyone who disagrees with the fact that non-fiction should be non-fiction. But the point I'm arguing is that any book about pro wrestling other than an autobiography (and sometimes not even then) cannot be non-fiction due to the very nature of the subject and the manner in which the truth is jealously guarded and/or distorted by the truth-holders themselves. Any information Scott Keith wrote regarding backstage, off-camera events cannot be dismissed just because someone else has written something different, because there's no proof that the other person's sources are any more valid and/or honest than his. Contradticions and errors he wrote about things that DO have official documentation, like who beat whom for what title when, I cannot defend (nor have I tried to, I believe; my apologies if I have appeared to). WHY the title changed hands cannot be accurately proven one way or the other in most cases. Being a fan of wrestling (after a certain point) means having to suspend your disbelief and be entertained in spite of the fact that you know EVERYTHING in front of you is a carefully constructed fantasy (well... constructed, at any rate). Anyone looking for an accurate and unbiased history of the "sport" (for lack of a better term) is ASKING to be lied to, no matter what the source, because they are essentially ignoring that necessary suspension. You call them innocent, I call them naïve. In "Tonight...", Scott Keith told his readers this, in so many words, right up front, quoted again because you like to ignore it: He never claimed that what he was writing was the absolute truth (although he did say that "it all happened to the best of my or anyone's knowledge"). He just said that this version is not the "official" version because the "official" version is 99% spin. You're approaching this argument treating pro wrestling like any other subject. I'm saying that it's a special case, in the same class as stage magicians and (more importantly) circuses, where the whole truth is not what a real fan wants. So you say you don't like Keith's stuff because he lies and makes stuff up. Fine. Just as you stand by your original statement, so to do I stand by mine: "[H]e entertains me. At the end of the day, that's all that matters to me." |
|
Like Watching Paint Dry
Guest
|
Post by Like Watching Paint Dry on Jan 11, 2005 20:33:16 GMT -5
As I said at the outset Chris, we have different standards with regards to truth in published form. You seem to hold the view that pro wrestling is a 'special' type of genre where it's 'ok' for a non-fiction book to present false information. I clearly don't agree. Regardless of the topic, when I read a NON FICTION book, I expect an accurate chronicle of the topic. I feel this is the very least any 'author' offering a non fiction book owes to his/her readership. This is just as true for me whether the topic involves politics, sports, music, history, philosophy or even (gasp) PRO WRESTLING. That readers get lost in the mix is not a good or acceptable thing IMO, and outweighs any entertainment value I may get from reading the author's opinion. Since you aren't willing to do any additional research into Keith's material, and since I have no desire to present/search for additional falsehoods in his work, this thread will likely just continue to spin in a circle around this issue ad infinitum should we continue the dialogue.  I suspect that's not the most productive use of either of our time....even when that time is budgeted to something like interacting on a board dedicated to a fantasy pro wrestling game...one I thank you for creating and allowing me to participate on!  |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Ingersoll on Jan 11, 2005 22:22:12 GMT -5
Since you aren't willing to do any additional research into Keith's material, and since I have no desire to present/search for additional falsehoods in his work, this thread will likely just continue to spin in a circle around this issue ad infinitum should we continue the dialogue. Yeah, that's basically the decision I reached too. Good debate, even if nothing was settled. Ok people, show's over! Nothing more to see...  |
|
