Last
week, as it was announced that noted scribe Thomas Hauser would take a
consultant role with HBO Sports (of whom he had been a vocal critic), plenty
was said about the inherent conflict of interest that would soon exist, most
notably from Kevin Iole of Yahoo! Sports: yahoo.com/most-ardent-critic
Then
I was sent this from Dan Rafael's chat on ESPN.com:
Richard (London UK): Your thoughts on Tom Hauser being hired
by HBO as a consultant, and do you share Kevin Iole's view that
it is a "dark day for boxing journalism"?
Dan Rafael (1:50 PM)
I will preface this by saying that Tom
is a friend of mine and we have known each other for years. I have the utmost
respect for him personally and professionally. However, if he is going to work
for HBO, even only as a consultant in which he has a direct influence by the
nature of his role in which fights HBO buys or doesnt buy, his credibility as a
writer covering those events he was involved with making is shot. You can't
have it both ways. And that says nothing of what he might write about
competitor Showtime. It's a terrible situation and I have to agree with Kevin.
Here
are my thoughts: honestly, I agree with Kevin on certain points. If I were
Hauser, I'd think long and hard about continuing his role writing about boxing-
or, at the very least, on anything pertaining to HBO (which, as Iole points
out, would be very difficult, given the network’s influence on the business). At
the same time, if there was anyone who should've been given this post, it was
Hauser who, more than any writer, chronicled the failure of the Ross
Greenburg-era, ultimately foreshadowing its demise. Honestly, I'd rather have a
guy like Hauser (who pointed out HBO’s problems more than writers who allowed Rome
to burn while having their annual “Breakfasts with Ross,” giving taciturn
endorsements of the incumbent regime time and time again while clamming up) giving
his two cents. In any business where consultants are brought in, conflicts of
interest are bound to arise. That's the real world. Everyone has some sort of
conflict of interest to deal with (me included. It is what it is). Let's see
how Hauser manages this in the future.
But
really, I wonder if Iole’s sole problem is with who got this position.
As
for Rafael, he's certainly entitled to his opinion. But based on the fact that
he was campaigning for an HBO management job through much of 2011, in essence, he
was covering the very same people whose job he was coveting. Many in the
business strongly believed it influenced what he wrote at times - and now,
theoretically covering people in the positions he vied for, is Rafael really in any better or worse a position
to monitor HBO than Hauser? If you read Iole's piece, much of it could pertain
to Rafael's role with EPIX (but again, I'm not knocking the hustle. Rafael has
every right to take that gig as far as I'm concerned. But should he really be
the guy pointing the fingers at anyone else, regarding conflict of interest?).
Before
we call this the downfall of boxing journalism in the western civilization, why
don't we just sit back and observe exactly what influence Hauser has at HBO,
what his role will be and how he covers boxing/HBO in the future. Even more, how
about just covering boxing and the sport’s issues instead of trying to play
media watchdog (What do they say about pointing fingers? Three always come
right back at you)? That stuff should be left to disgruntled and clueless
bloggers who don't know any better.
