Go look at his Twitter feed. Dude hasn't stopped talking about it since it happened a week ago. He consistently tags Dana White in his posts and has even done an interview with another website about it.
He hasn't tagged Dana, he was responding to someone else who asked Dana a question. Most of his tweets have been either responding to people or retweeting other journalists supporting him. In the grander scheme of things he actually hasn't tweeted that much about it. Since Saturday (when it happened) his twitter is equal parts this subjects and others really.
As for Dana White saying he lied and snuck in...it's basically he says, she says. Just because White wrote this on Twitter doesn't mean it's true, just like the writer's rebuttal doesn't mean everything he says is true.
OK fair enough, we don't know. But the fact other journalists and writers have chimed in and said how ridiculously it is to say someone was able to "sneak in" to one of these events leads me to believe him on this. That and what would he have lied about ? He's really under no obligation to reveal what he's going to write about, so I'm unsure what he could have lied about.
And yes, his question was justified, but just not in this situation. There was a long-ass thread about this when it first happened and I sided with the thought that the question to Aldo was fine, but to expect a real, thoughtful answer to it in front of Dana White is laughable. No way that was going to happen. Waste of time.
First if this was the wrong situation to ask the questions, I'm curious to know when it would be OK. Is solely because Dana White was present that makes it the wrong conditions to ask the question (nevermind the fact DW is almost always present at press events) ? Secondly, yea it's unlikely Aldo was going to say anything to incendiary with Dana over his shoulder, so what ? Aldo gives his non answer, Dana keeps his fucking mouth shut, and the writer has a weak quote by Aldo to include in his article. The onus isn't on the journalist to be on eggshells when to ask a questions, it's the CEO of multimillion dollar professional sports league to be able to act with some semblance of professionalism.
By the way, this totally isn't about UFC vs. all the media, the way the writer expects it to be. No one is REQUIRED to cover the sport a certain way. Some journalists only want to discuss PEDs and fighter pay, others only want to talk about the athletes and the fights. It doesn't mean one side is only willing to ask "hard questions" while the others are "shills."
The media can cover the sport anyway they please, but when the UFC has a history of actively bully and limiting specific media members for what they write or what they ask then yes it's absolutely an example of the UFC pursuing an adverse stance to media members who don't agree with them.
There's a time and a place for certain questions, and for this guy, he chose the wrong time and the wrong place. It happens, but at this point he should just let it go. He may think he's one of the "real journalists," but unless does things with a wiser approach, he's not ever going to be in a position where he can ask any "hard questions."
Again why is this the wrong time and wrong place ? Who decides that ? Dana ? The UFC ? So the press event 3 months before the fight is a no, what about the press week prior to the fight ? The press event immediately after the fight ?
As for your Roger Goodell comparison...come on, man. The UFC isn't the NFL, NHL, NBA or MLB and it's never going to be. I understand the reasons why and I'm fine with that. You should be too.
So just because the UFC isn't in the top 5 of sports they what ? Shouldn't be held accountable for this kind of behavior ? This has nothing to do with total revenue, popularity, or whatever does prevent the UFC to be considered in the top 5 sports, it's simply professionalism or lack of. If the UFC wants to be considered the upper echelon of professional sports (and the absolutely do) and covered appropriately, they (Dana) must act accordingly.