A few days ago, renowned American journalist Keith Idec sparked a heated confrontation on social media, directly attacking the famous boxing news website BoxingScene.com. The reason? A “breaking news” story published on the website without crediting Idec, who claims to have broken the scoop first. Such clashes are extremely common in the world of boxing specialist journalism, but do they still make sense today?
Let’s begin with a straightforward account of the events. Keith Idec, who currently writes for Uncrowned.com, YahooSports, and BoxingNewsED, but who was, ironically, a cornerstone of BoxingScene for years, published an exclusive article last Friday. He revealed a sensational last-minute change in the judging panel for Usyk vs. Fury.
Fernando Barbosa, who was supposed to be one of the three judges, withdrew from the assignment two days before the major event, officially due to health issues. As Idec highlighted in his piece, this twist resolved a potential conflict of interest since Barbosa works as a commentator for ESPN, a network contractually tied to Bob Arum’s Top Rank, Fury’s co-promoter.
The news was also reported by BoxingScene in a brief article authored by Matt Christie, which did not cite direct sources for the information presented. The subsequent promotion of the piece on social platform X, labeled as “BREAKING NEWS,” infuriated Keith Idec to the point of posting the following message (later deleted):
“And now Boxingscene, which I helped build into what it WAS with my own two hands, isn’t crediting me for breaking news. Not an oversight, a pattern. I give zero Fs anymore about friendship, professional courtesy, etc. This will get VERY ugly if people don’t start acting right.”
As mentioned at the start, those who regularly follow the major names in international boxing journalism know that such feuds are far from rare. In fact, the same journalist often finds themselves playing the role of accuser or accused. For instance, the well-known Dan Rafael, who in the past has fiercely criticized colleagues for “stealing” his news without crediting him, was this time subtly jabbed by Idec, who remarked: “This information sounds familiar. Almost as if we saw it somewhere else. Last night, if memory serves. Hmm.”
The purpose of this article is not to determine whether Keith Idec was right or wrong to lose his temper. I lack the time, resources, and inclination to conduct a forensic analysis of the publication times of the various articles online and how one outlet or another might have independently obtained the information. However, I find myself increasingly questioning whether this obsession with being first to a scoop still has any relevance as we approach 2025.
I approached the question from two different perspectives: that of an amateur writer, passionately managing the site I founded a few months ago without any financial return, and that of a devoted fan who has followed everything related to the world of boxing with insatiable curiosity for nearly twenty years. Changing the angle of reasoning, however, didn’t affect my answer: negative, in both cases.
As a budding writer, I can say that the pride of offering my readers an exclusive piece of news is a feeling that has always remained light-years away from me, for two fundamental reasons. The first is that I don’t have the kind of network or contacts that would allow me to get my hands on a juicy story before anyone else. The second, much more subjective reason, is that I “hate” writing news.
Since launching the ambitious project called BoxePunch, I have experienced immense satisfaction in creating most of the content it contains: deep dives, historical accounts, opinion pieces, interviews, analyses, predictions…
Day after day, I sit at my computer to compose my work with the excitement of a child, except when it comes to reporting a simple sports news item without critique. In that case, I write out of duty rather than pleasure, and it’s no coincidence that the “newsflash” section of this site is updated less frequently than the others.
However, if I shed my “hobby journalist” hat and return to my long-standing role as a fan, I still struggle to grasp the importance of verifying who was the first to uncover the latest piece of public interest. Naturally, as an avid enthusiast, I’m very interested in daily news, but I almost never care about who delivers it.
It’s a whole different story when I come across a well-curated interview, a brilliant piece on boxing history, or an original and insightful fight analysis. In those cases, I immediately look up the author’s name and commit it to memory to keep an eye on their future publications, knowing I’ll enjoy them.
The obsession with being credited for breaking news seems to me like a relic of old-school journalism—when print media dominated and scooping the competition had a huge impact on sales. But in the 21st century, in the age of digital journalism, where users can browse through dozens of sources in seconds with just a few clicks, who really cares about the chronological order in which Person A, B, or C reported a fact?
I discovered Keith Idec’s talent and the exceptional quality of his work during his time at BoxingScene. I did so thanks to the clarity of his writing, his fluent style, and his depth of analysis. Since then, I’ve devoured his articles and will continue to do so regardless of the outlet for which he writes. I certainly never have and never will extend the same attention to someone whose sole merit is breaking a story a few minutes before others.
Being the first requires good connections (and sometimes a few compromises). Being the best requires talent, creativity, expertise, and knowledge. And the latter qualities, in my view, are far more worthy of admiration.