“Big Dave’s” Credibility?

By Scott Keith on March 6, 2019

Scott,
I've been entertained by wrestling news, rumors, and outright speculation for awhile now (I reckon I am not alone on that) and I've observed (no pun intended, ok?) what I would classify as a steadily dwindling Internet wrestling community opinion on the veracity of Meltzer's information. Your site mostly does not apply since you have thoughtful writers opining on content already provided, instead of quick-posting whatever bullshit work is out there today on twitter, et. al, as your primary traffic (thank God!)
Having not taken the time to gauge for myself his accuracy (or lack thereof) and not really caring at the end of the day (I love rumors/speculation regardless of their veracity, as I suspect many do) I must nevertheless pose to you the following question – is Dave still a viable source of (accurate) inside information about mainstream Internet wrestling companies? Or should I heed the words of commentators on 4chan's /asp, reddit's /squaredcircle – and similar outlets – that "Big Dave" is largely full of it, getting worked by the promotions, and in turn working his subscribers to keep his brand afloat?
Looking to the future, Is it possible Dave today is worked by promotions to erode his credibility so that they themselves can fill this (very popular space) with their own, ombudsman-like content? I realize JR used to have a "blog" with "inside" info on WWE.com in the late 90s/early 2000s but let's be honest – today this "rumor" and "news" space is filled by third parties who mostly re-hash stuff posted elsewhere, and it's never been easier to monetize and it is hugely popular.

Jesus, I WISH it was easier to monetize! That is definitely not the case, I can assure you. Life was much easier in the boom years of 99-2001 when advertisers would line up begging to give you money, trust me.

Anyway, I've been a subscriber to the Observer for a little more than 20 years now, so I'm not the most objective viewpoint on the subject. I find that the majority of people espousing the opposing viewpoint are people who get their information from all the sites who rip off the Observer, rather than people who are actually reading it for themselves and seeing what was actually written. Probably doesn't help when Dave is engaging all the mouthbreathers on Twitter for hours at a time, too.

Comments are disable in preview.