BJ Bethel says the owner of SEScoops knew exactly how he tried to contact ESPN before his WWE story was published. That directly challenges the outlet’s explanation for firing him—and raises a much bigger question about who approved the article in the first place.
After SEScoops retracted the story and blamed failures in its verification process, Bethel went to Bluesky to dispute the company’s version of events. The outlet claimed ESPN and WWE were not given an appropriate opportunity to respond before publication. Bethel says that is not true.
“This isn’t true. Mike knew when and how I reached for comment the day it was published.”
The “Mike” in that statement is SEScoops owner and editor Mike Reichlin. According to Bethel, Reichlin knew who he had contacted and even acknowledged the outreach before the story went live.
“He said, ‘At least we have someone to reach out to now.’”
That’s a major detail. SEScoops publicly blamed the lack of proper outreach, but Bethel claims the person running the website knew about his attempt to contact ESPN and discussed it with him. Bethel also says Reichlin remained involved once ESPN publicly denied the story. According to Bethel, he was instructed to add ESPN’s response to the article and answer the network’s public relations statement.
“He wanted me to add the tweet text to the story and respond to the ESPN PR tweet. That’s what I did.”
Then Bethel dropped another detail that puts even more pressure on SEScoops management. He claims he could not publish stories or edit them after publication when the ESPN article went live.
“I never had the ability to post stories or edit them after they were posted. I didn’t get that until Tuesday, ironically enough.”
If that is true, Bethel did not push the publish button. Someone with higher access had to review the article, approve it and put it on the website. Bethel also says nobody from SEScoops directly told him he had been fired. He claims he learned about the decision from other people.
“Day later, I find out from friends about this.”
SEScoops presented a much cleaner version of events in its public statement. The outlet admitted the story should never have been published and retracted it completely. The company then blamed the failure on ESPN and WWE not receiving an adequate chance to respond. SEScoops announced Bethel’s departure in the same statement and said an outside partner had reviewed its verification procedures.
“Yesterday we published a report from BJ Bethel on WWE’s relationship with ESPN. We are retracting that story in its entirety.”
“Before a story like this runs, the subject deserves a direct chance to respond, and that step wasn’t taken to the appropriate standard.”
“We’ve parted ways with Mr. Bethel, have had our verification procedures reviewed by an outside partner, and updated our process as a result.”
Bethel’s story claimed ESPN had already decided not to renew its five-year agreement with WWE once the current contract expires. The deal is worth approximately $1.625 billion, making his claim a massive one involving the future of WWE’s premium live events. ESPN directly rejected the central claim. That denial killed the story, but firing Bethel does not erase the editorial failure that allowed it to reach the website.
Reichlin owns and edits SEScoops. He runs the platform that placed its name on the article and pushed it into the wrestling news cycle. If Bethel couldn’t publish or edit stories himself, then management had control over what went live. The article did not publish itself.
Bethel had also faced serious questions about his accuracy before the ESPN disaster. Gail Kim previously accused him of lying about her contact with AEW, yet his work continued making it through SEScoops’ editorial process until ESPN publicly destroyed a story involving a billion-dollar agreement. That is the part SEScoops still has to answer for.
If Reichlin knew how Bethel attempted to contact ESPN, discussed that outreach with him and later instructed him to add ESPN’s response, then the outlet’s public statement leaves out a major piece of the publication process. SEScoops placed the consequences on Bethel, but editors are supposed to stop unverified stories before they reach the public. They approved the article—or, according to Bethel’s account, someone with publishing access did—and the outlet put its name behind it.
Removing Bethel may solve the personnel problem. It does not explain how a story this explosive survived the editorial process, especially when one direct check with ESPN was enough to expose the claim as false.
Do you believe BJ Bethel’s claim that Mike Reichlin knew about his ESPN outreach before the story was published? Let us know who you think should be held responsible in the comments below.
