Steve Cofield -- who seems to be the only credentialed reporter who's willing to ask Dana White a tough question -- asked Dana about Frank Mir's recent comments about wanting to literally kill Brock Lesnar in the Octagon. He got no response from Dana beyond an icy stare. Here's Cofield's commentary on the situation:

It seemed like the perfect platform to explain why he was so upset with Frank Mir's "first death in the Octagon" comments. Dana White had a big audience at Radio City Music Hall and good representation from the New York/New Jersey media.

... So we'd figured let's tee it up for White, he'd probably come up with a good answer about why he thought the "death" comments could be damaging. Instead we found out just how steamed White was about the initial comments (1:25 mark - cleaner version at UFC.com). White gave us an icy glare and then emboldened by the booing crowd of a 1,000-plus at Radio City, smirked and said, "next question."

Here's how The Globe and Mail's Stephen Brunt interpreted Dana's response:

The lesson: Dana White, though a master at playing to any audience, from corporate powerbrokers to the hardest of the UFC hard core, does not like to be embarrassed in public, especially with so much on the line.

Brunt goes on to get a bit philosophical:

There is skill and there can be beauty in boxing, and anyone who has seen Saturday's other headliner, Georges St-Pierre, in action, can't help but see in his grace and agility and balance a lot of the same qualities that caused many a celebrated intellect to swoon over the great boxer/dancers (Ali, Willie Pep, Ray Robinson); and it is human cock-fighting, as is boxing, in that those watching circle round, feeling none of the pain, moved by the bloodletting at a distance, feeding instincts buried deep in the genetic code. But Dana White can't stand up, as politicians are testing the breeze, and say you ought to let us do this because people like to watch it. Behind that silent smile, though, the civilizing facade temporarily pulled down, you couldn't blame him if that was exactly what he was thinking.

Here's Cofield's summation:

White wasn't pleased with the question in such a celebratory/rah-rah environment. That's certainly understandable. He's hard to figure out sometimes. By trying to hide his take on something or bury a story, he simply calls more attention to something that in the end is pretty stupid. Words should not be more impactful than actions. And the talk of "killing" or "destroying" an opponent has a long history in fighting. By shying away from talking out the issues and calming down the morons who would like to use Mir's comments as some anti-MMA crutch, White is only allowing their voice to be heard without a rebuttal.

As you can see from Brunt's free association based on Dana's non-answer which settles on the old "human cockfighting canard" (albeit dressed up in a more nuanced manner), Cofield is exactly right. By refusing to engage in an honest critical dialog with the press, Dana White left the field clear for a traditional sports writer at a major paper in one of the two key markets where the UFC is currently not allowed (Ontario) to muse himself back around to the old John McCain human cockfighting position.

Obviously, Brunt was making a more nuanced argument and wasn't using "human cockfighting" in the original pejorative (or even in an incorrect) manner, but nevertheless, it's definitely not the spin that Dana and Ontario MMA fans want to see out there in the biggest paper in Ontario just at the point when regulation seems like a real possibility.

This is not an isolated situation, rather it is reflective of an almost obsessive and self-defeating desire on the part of the UFC brass to whitewash problems (or airbrush tattoos) rather than address them directly and in a mature manner.