Why Do I Continue to Read Peter King?
- Thread starter John Marzano Olympic Hero
- Start date
Nice to see you get recognition for what is really some very excellent work.
"Kudos."
Good lord. I don't think anyone in America would compare Goodell to Abe Lincoln, but leave it to Peter King.
This was A-mazing.
Some of my non-SoSH friends are beginning to understand why I hate Peter King so much, so I think they're ready for PK Bingo.
I've shared and Tweeted this for posterity
Some of my non-SoSH friends are beginning to understand why I hate Peter King so much, so I think they're ready for PK Bingo.
I've shared and Tweeted this for posterity
Peter King has heard your criticisms, and has responded thusly:
In sum, I think King is so tone deaf that he doesn't realize that what he calls his "responsibilities" are, in fact, merely liberties that his position allows him to take advantage of.
A few things.
- In my less-than-expert like knowledge on the subject of journalism, it is not typically the job of a reporter to give their personal views or opinions. That's the job of a columnist. King is, in fact, a columnist, but he would prefer not to say so. I imagine this is because King, as always, wants to have his cake and eat it too: he wants to be viewed as an unbiased, scrupulous, reporter, but also wants to have the free reign of a columnist. All of this is a long-winded way of saying: if Peter King is, in fact, a Reporter, then no, it is not his "job" to report on his "personal opinions." That's exactly what a reporter isn't. Peter King's opinions aren't news that is fit to be reported.
- Also, it's really his "job" to say whatever he wants on twitter? I find that somewhat hard to believe. I'm sure SI simply doesn't care what he says, so long as it doesn't make SI look like racists or something, but a literal reading of King's statement makes it seem like the brass at SI pulled him in, sat him down, and said: "King. There's this thing called Twitter. All the young bucks are using it. Big stuff." And King said, "Ok. So you want me to 'tweet' about football stuff? Injuries and the like?" And the Head Honcho stood up, put his hands on the oak desk, leaned forward, and spoke through clenched teeth: "No, King. We want you to write anything you want. Got it? It's your JOB, King."
- And my favorite: "keeping in mind my SI bosses asked me in 2009 to interact with readers for a few minutes every day". As if "Keeping in contact with my readers" is synonymous with "Talk about stuff that's not related to sports." The two things are far from mutually exclusive.
In sum, I think King is so tone deaf that he doesn't realize that what he calls his "responsibilities" are, in fact, merely liberties that his position allows him to take advantage of.
Leather, I think that you're right for the most part but a few things I mildly disagree with:
1. King is a hyrbid journalist/reporter. He has the contacts and rolodex to be a reporter but he also sprinkles his MMQB columns with his commentary. I think that he needs to be a bit more honest with his readers on this fact. Because if he thinks MMQB is five pages of "facts", then he's completely incorrect. Even if you take out his "10 Things ..." portion, there is a ton of commentary interwoven to what he reports. And for the record, I am fine with this; this is the new mode of journalism, especially on-line journalism. What I'm not fine with are his opinions, but whatever.
2. I think that King has a point about interacting with his readers. Twitter is unlike, say sports radio, where the host (or the Twitee) has the power. I think that his readers just message him whatever is on their heads and King respond, or interacts, with them. Maybe he should be a bit more discriminating when responding to things, but then there will be a vocal group who say that "King only responds to football questions and nothing else." Again, personally I don't give a shit as to what Peter King thinks about Newtown or "Lincoln" or the price of bread, but there are others who do. And they seem to care a lot.
1. King is a hyrbid journalist/reporter. He has the contacts and rolodex to be a reporter but he also sprinkles his MMQB columns with his commentary. I think that he needs to be a bit more honest with his readers on this fact. Because if he thinks MMQB is five pages of "facts", then he's completely incorrect. Even if you take out his "10 Things ..." portion, there is a ton of commentary interwoven to what he reports. And for the record, I am fine with this; this is the new mode of journalism, especially on-line journalism. What I'm not fine with are his opinions, but whatever.
2. I think that King has a point about interacting with his readers. Twitter is unlike, say sports radio, where the host (or the Twitee) has the power. I think that his readers just message him whatever is on their heads and King respond, or interacts, with them. Maybe he should be a bit more discriminating when responding to things, but then there will be a vocal group who say that "King only responds to football questions and nothing else." Again, personally I don't give a shit as to what Peter King thinks about Newtown or "Lincoln" or the price of bread, but there are others who do. And they seem to care a lot.
I don't necessarily disagree. I guess my point isn't that King is doing anything "wrong", it's that his explanation of why he devotes so much effort to non-sports related issues is bullshit.
I read his explanation as saying "I'm a reporter, my job is to report on things, including my personal opinion on a lot of matters."
In other words, he's using his status as a reporter to justify standing on his soapbox about any goddamned thing he wants. It's not that he WANTS to tell you about coffee, oh no, it's his JOB to tell you.
That's self-serving (probably self-delusional) bullshit.
I read his explanation as saying "I'm a reporter, my job is to report on things, including my personal opinion on a lot of matters."
In other words, he's using his status as a reporter to justify standing on his soapbox about any goddamned thing he wants. It's not that he WANTS to tell you about coffee, oh no, it's his JOB to tell you.
That's self-serving (probably self-delusional) bullshit.
Peter King ‏@SI_PeterKing
MMQB2: Playoff folderol ... Wild Card dreaming: Russell Wilson at BobGriff
MMQB2: Playoff folderol ... Wild Card dreaming: Russell Wilson at BobGriff
It's bullshit because he's pulling the "I've got a right to my opinion" bullshit which is, well, bullshit.
People aren't telling him he should stick to football (See what I did there?) because he has no right to his own opinion outside of that area; they're telling him to stick to football because he sucks when he expresses opinions in other areas.
I mean, yeah, he has a right to suck, but the conflation of rights and the good drives me batshit.
People aren't telling him he should stick to football (See what I did there?) because he has no right to his own opinion outside of that area; they're telling him to stick to football because he sucks when he expresses opinions in other areas.
I mean, yeah, he has a right to suck, but the conflation of rights and the good drives me batshit.
If this guy didn't write all his Starbucks, beer nerd, haiku bologna this thread would maybe be 2 pages long. I'll be honest, I've never read more than a paragraph or two of the guy's writing, but I check this thread every Monday. Here's to PK sticking to his guns. He's a glorious trainwreck.
With the caveat that King ultimately (reluctantly, it seems) voted for Peterson over Manning for MVP:
The problem with these supplemental grounds for voting on an MVP is that they are inherently malleable. I am 100% certain that, had Manning stayed on the Colts and led Indy to the same record that Luck has led them to, King et al would be trumpeting the win differential between last year and this year. Likewise, If Peterson happens to go out next year and rush for *only* 1950 yards, will writers say "Well, we can't vote for him this year because he wasn't as good as he was last year."
It's a common debate (we have at least one thread on it), and I don't want to belabor the point, but one of the reasons King irks me as a writer is that this is an opportunity for him to really examine Manning's and Peterson's season beyond a "Well, what a story!" point of view. But he doesn't want to. It's easier to just eyeball the two players' performances and pick one. And, frankly, I don't think either Manning or Peterson are the wrong decision on MVP, I just wish King, of all people, would stop short of conceding that the juicy, but frankly meaningless, aspect of a team's prior performance (a playoff team, no less!), or that a player was injured last year, or that Manning deserves some extra credit for learning a new offense in a shortened preseason (as if other teams didn't have new arrivals). If you want to vote for Manning (or Peterson), fine. But make an argument based on their performance, not something that makes writing about their performance more engaging.
But regardless. Rivers was standing up for his coach in a pretty mild way, and in such a way that makes it clear he'll support the new coach too, and King gives him shit for it. Fine, but, again in these situations, what is he supposed to say? "Norv sucked!"? "I sucked, they fired the wrong guy!"?
In a profession littered with cliches and boring responses, it always makes me roll my eyes whenever King goes after someone for saying something that, even if taken 100% literally, is, at best, maybe kind of questionable or silly. Also, would King have gone after Manning if Manning had made a similar quote? I doubt it very much.
Appropos of what, exactly? This is an observation (oh, sorry, "factoid") that could have been made at any time in the previous 3 months. Why now? He was saving this for his last column of the calendar year? Why?
"[In] March 17, 1936, the Pittsburgh area once again found itself underwater in what has become known as the Great St. Patrick’s Day Flood. Once again heavy rains and rapidly melting snow sent the rivers rising. The flood claimed 62 lives, with 500 injured and 135,000 people left homeless. The city suffered millions of dollars in damages to homes, businesses, and industries."
http://www.popularpi...htragedies.aspx
Why do NFL writers concede that Manning's injury last year, and the fact that he's on a new team, work in his favor? I understand it helps the narrative, but when did anything other than a player's actual performance during the season in question form the basis of who the "MVP" is in a given year?
The problem with these supplemental grounds for voting on an MVP is that they are inherently malleable. I am 100% certain that, had Manning stayed on the Colts and led Indy to the same record that Luck has led them to, King et al would be trumpeting the win differential between last year and this year. Likewise, If Peterson happens to go out next year and rush for *only* 1950 yards, will writers say "Well, we can't vote for him this year because he wasn't as good as he was last year."
It's a common debate (we have at least one thread on it), and I don't want to belabor the point, but one of the reasons King irks me as a writer is that this is an opportunity for him to really examine Manning's and Peterson's season beyond a "Well, what a story!" point of view. But he doesn't want to. It's easier to just eyeball the two players' performances and pick one. And, frankly, I don't think either Manning or Peterson are the wrong decision on MVP, I just wish King, of all people, would stop short of conceding that the juicy, but frankly meaningless, aspect of a team's prior performance (a playoff team, no less!), or that a player was injured last year, or that Manning deserves some extra credit for learning a new offense in a shortened preseason (as if other teams didn't have new arrivals). If you want to vote for Manning (or Peterson), fine. But make an argument based on their performance, not something that makes writing about their performance more engaging.
Rivers strikes me as a loudmouth idiot, so I'm not entirely sympathetic toward him here. However: without knowing more of the context of the quote (for instance, what was the question he's responding to?), I think it's fair to say that he's just trying to not kick a guy in the ass on his way out of town. It's also possible he was talking about how the fans received Turner, and that he was questioned and never supported by the press/fans from the get go. Judging from how many "Norvball" jokes I've seen on places like Deadspin and, well, here, I think that may even be a fair point. Maybe Rivers is just saying: "I hope the next guy is supported and not second guessed right away the way Norv was."
But regardless. Rivers was standing up for his coach in a pretty mild way, and in such a way that makes it clear he'll support the new coach too, and King gives him shit for it. Fine, but, again in these situations, what is he supposed to say? "Norv sucked!"? "I sucked, they fired the wrong guy!"?
In a profession littered with cliches and boring responses, it always makes me roll my eyes whenever King goes after someone for saying something that, even if taken 100% literally, is, at best, maybe kind of questionable or silly. Also, would King have gone after Manning if Manning had made a similar quote? I doubt it very much.
Appropos of what, exactly? This is an observation (oh, sorry, "factoid") that could have been made at any time in the previous 3 months. Why now? He was saving this for his last column of the calendar year? Why?
With all due respect to Roberto Clemente (fuck the Steelers):
"[In] March 17, 1936, the Pittsburgh area once again found itself underwater in what has become known as the Great St. Patrick’s Day Flood. Once again heavy rains and rapidly melting snow sent the rivers rising. The flood claimed 62 lives, with 500 injured and 135,000 people left homeless. The city suffered millions of dollars in damages to homes, businesses, and industries."
http://www.popularpi...htragedies.aspx
Travel Notes:
Ok, to summarize: Guy sees that there might be bad weather, re-books for an earlier flight, there are some delays, but he gets to his destination when he needs to be there.
Wow. Fucking riveting.
It does? IIRC, "The whole nine yards" has to do with the length of a bolt of cloth, so if you go the "whole 9 yards" it means to use something up entirely; make complete something.
In fact, Peterson did not complete his quest to break Dickerson's record. I wish he had, but he didn't. So, it seems to me that the only thing that the expression "the whole 9 yards" and Peterson coming 9 yards short is that both involve the specific measurement of "9 yards."
[color=#212121 !important]in·ane[/color]
/iˈnān/
[color=#878787 !important]
Adjective[/color]
Silly; stupid; not significant. [color=#878787 !important]
Synonyms[/color]
vacuous - empty - senseless - blank - foolish - vacant
But, other that that, I mean...why? Why is this even significant? Did it shock you? I'm guessing no, because you admit it's "So Patriot Like", and that Brace was "disappointing". So...what? What's the fucking problem?
Also, the thought of King admonishing people for liking Starbucks too much is a real gas. Finally, what the hell difference does it make that they were Parisians? And how did he know?
Ok, to summarize: Guy sees that there might be bad weather, re-books for an earlier flight, there are some delays, but he gets to his destination when he needs to be there.
Wow. Fucking riveting.
It does? IIRC, "The whole nine yards" has to do with the length of a bolt of cloth, so if you go the "whole 9 yards" it means to use something up entirely; make complete something.
In fact, Peterson did not complete his quest to break Dickerson's record. I wish he had, but he didn't. So, it seems to me that the only thing that the expression "the whole 9 yards" and Peterson coming 9 yards short is that both involve the specific measurement of "9 yards."
[color=#212121 !important]in·ane[/color]
/iˈnān/
[color=#878787 !important]
Adjective[/color]
Silly; stupid; not significant. [color=#878787 !important]
Synonyms[/color]
vacuous - empty - senseless - blank - foolish - vacant
Well, for one it's listed under 'things [you] didn't like about week 17', so, I think it's safe to say that you DIDN'T like it.
But, other that that, I mean...why? Why is this even significant? Did it shock you? I'm guessing no, because you admit it's "So Patriot Like", and that Brace was "disappointing". So...what? What's the fucking problem?
Is King a fan of bats or something? The movie only references bats once, at the very end, and it has no significance on the plot. Just a really weird thing to point out; like saying "I really liked 'Goodfellas', particularly the way the main character doesn't like egg noodles and ketchup."
I feel ya, King. It takes so long for the cashier at Starbucks to pick up pre-wrapped biscotti from the little jar and ring it up.
Also, the thought of King admonishing people for liking Starbucks too much is a real gas. Finally, what the hell difference does it make that they were Parisians? And how did he know?
Did he name this part "The End" after the fact that these people died? That seems a little...coarse.
Oh, is that who that was?
I'll give him this one, I had no idea who this woman was, or that she had died. And that anecdote is kind of neat, although I'm not sure it's really what she would want to be remembered for, fucking up a line to a song.
Dude won an Oscar and an Emmy (at age 92!). But what he's really worth being remembered for is that Peter King liked one of his less acclaimed TV shows.
King's memorial to Bradbury, however, tops out at a lukewarm 73.5 degrees; the temperature at which coffee becomes cold and gross.
...such as? Hello?
"Let me fondly recall Don Cornelius by referencing an obscure anecdote about someone else entirely."
I know we're tempted to assume that King knows that we know that Houston was so much more than this, but...judging from his other tributes, I don't think we can afford him that assumption. I think he really believes that this was Houston's greatest contribution to the world. Which is kind of insane.
Dude, you have Larry Hagman and the woman who sang that one song ("Rescue Me") on this list. If you left off Davy Jones, who was probably more famous in his day than maybe 3-4 people you've listed, you'd be a fucking idiot. I also love that King continues to be defensive about having liked the Monkees when he was, what? 11? He's totally afraid people are going to make fun of him.
Now this guy, you maybe could have left off the list.
Jesus, that's just horrible.
"...of which, I have read none of."
I'm not surprised King left off Levon Helm. Frankly, I'm relieved.
Well, to be fair, Manning has to win the Superbowl and be MVP for King to be correct. You don't get to make a really bold prediction and then get credit for being almost right (unless you're Bill Simmons).
But yes, he was right about Manning being better than any of us expected. "Kudos" to him for that.
But yes, he was right about Manning being better than any of us expected. "Kudos" to him for that.
I may be misremembering, but the part of his prediction that was especially galling to me was his assertion that Manning had "arguably" his best supporting cast ever. And this is classic Peter King, throwing out a statement like that then neglecting to actually make the argument, because I would've loved to hear how any combination of the Broncos skills players this year match the talent of Harrison/Wayne/Stokely/Clark plus Edge James.
Let's give King some benefit of the doubt and that "BobGriff" is actually a nickname that's in some usage somewhere. But does the average MMQB know that? Or is King using it in an attempt to earn Fonzie Cool Points over those fools who still say RG3?
Exactly who had a "wild card dream" about Washington and the Seahawks meeting each other?
Obama is a Bears fan, but with them out he's likely to switch outward allegiance to the local team ... regardless of who was playing QB ... and, if he has time, likely would have the game on. But King wants us to think that Obama might watch specifically because two African-American QBs will face each other.
You can't possibly be suggesting that when making preseason MVP predictions, King would identify the Broncos as a good team, but when making MVP picks after the season he would trump up Manning's accomplishments by describing the Broncos as a marginal playoff team.
What exactly is a "Bizarro Jerry" team? What he described is just inconsistent performance. If King was trying to make a Seinfeld reference, perhaps "Even Steven" would be more appropriate. He doesn't get the Bizarro concept at all.
None of which is supported by United's flight logs, by the way. I only mention it because of shit like this:
His partner's name was Mary "Bullet" Jones. Would it have killed King to just google the story and drop her name in here? She's a fucking person with a name.
Is it minor? Yes. But it's emblematic of what makes King, like, Bizarro Poz.
The guy thinks Shankapotamus is a verb.
I have a nice headache after reading that. His ability to find such vapid stories to tell is impressive.
Exactly. His premise was: if the Bronco defense is decent, then with Peyton having these all-time great weapons on offense they'll make the Super Bowl. King didn't even have the guts to say it more firmly than - "there's a possibility that [Peyton] could have the best set of skill players he's had in his life." It's not difficult to argue that they're actually the worst set because Peyton was consistently surrounded by many great skill players on the Colts. Regardless, King never bothered to explain why he likes this Bronco cast so much or compare them to the best Colt cast in his eyes. Instead of discussing why he thought the Broncos were a great team, he lazily gave an opinion without attempting to support it as usual.
Picking the Broncos in the preseason wasn't a terrible pick, but it was quite questionable. Yes, he looks good now... in the same way that a Hold 'em player who goes in with a mediocre hand looks good after a lucky flop. How hindered would Peyton be at age 36 by his recovery from neck surgeries? Would he be able to stay healthy? How long would it take for their offense to gel? Obviously, those were serious issues heading into the season. The Patriots, Texans, Ravens, and Steelers were the popular picks in the AFC, and rightfully so, because they didn't have their hopes riding on a single player with significant concerns. King played a flimsy hand with deficient reasoning and got lucky on the flop. Good for him, I guess.
I'd say he looks good in the way that a football pundit looks good when he picks against the chalk and then his choice goes 13-3 and earns home field advantage throughout the playoffs. The Broncos didn't get the #1 seed by having their name pulled out of a hat. They actually won 13 games.
There are so many legitimate things to knock King for. Is it really that hard to just acknowledge that he was more right about Manning and the Broncos than most NFL observers?
Except he might as well have pulled their name out of a hat for all the shrewd insight he put into it.
If someone wants to point out that a bunch of people mocked King for picking the Broncos months ago, and right now the Broncos can be considered the AFC's favorite, that's fine. It's cool that King went against the grain. I don't have a problem with that.
However, I'm not going to give him much credit when the little he said about the Broncos was stupid and he discussed his bus more in depth. I get that King is nitpicked quite a bit when there are juicier morsels to go after and I'm in that realm here, so I don't want to belabor this. But based on what he did say, I think it's fair to point out that there were valid reasons to mock King for his pick and there's not much to suggest that he wasn't simply lucky. Maybe if he'd shared his reasoning better, he'd look like Nostrapotamus.
He tries to have it both ways. In picking Manning to win the MVP before the season began he goes overboard in describing how good the Broncos are (calling them Manning's best supporting cast ever!) and then after the season is over, he tries to build up Manning's accomplishments by going overboard in describing how bad the Broncos were without Manning (calling them a marginal playoff team that Peyton has lifted to dominance).
It's the main criticism of King. His writing is all hyperbole and bullshit written to (1) build up cliched "stories," (2) to justify his opinion of his heroes or (3) both. Did you know how hard Player X worked or how motivated he was or how special he is? If not, let me tell you a story about the time I talked to him.
Also the other main criticism of King is that he's fat.
It's the main criticism of King. His writing is all hyperbole and bullshit written to (1) build up cliched "stories," (2) to justify his opinion of his heroes or (3) both. Did you know how hard Player X worked or how motivated he was or how special he is? If not, let me tell you a story about the time I talked to him.
Also the other main criticism of King is that he's fat.
I do think he deserves credit for being pro-Broncos in September. As much as I am loathe to admit it, he was right on that count.
And I'm not going to shit on him (much!) for mealy-mouthing the reasons he liked/likes Manning for MVP now, as opposed to his reasons in September. That's sort of beside the point; Manning is a legitimate candidate for MVP, no matter your reasons why. Sure, some reasons or better than others, but the whole "Quality of the supporting staff" argument is inherently subjective anyway, so it's basically just window dressing. Sure, King is a somewhat duplicitous blowhard on that count, but every fucking NFL writer these days pulls out bullshit arguments like that to buttress any statistical/objective argument that they may have for "their guy." The fact that the "narrative" may have now eclipsed actual performance in NFL voters' decision-making is another issue entirely, and King doesn't deserve credit for going along with it, but he's just doing what everyone else does.
If Peter King stuck to writing about football, about 92% of my complaints about him would go away. A stupid side-argument (the quality of last year's Broncos) about why Manning is an MVP candidate (when he objectively is one) is at least on point, and presents at least something for an NFL fan to chew on. Its the fact that an equally-long, truly inane, story about a colleague's flight being delayed sits in the same column is what's fucking stupid about Peter King.
And I'm not going to shit on him (much!) for mealy-mouthing the reasons he liked/likes Manning for MVP now, as opposed to his reasons in September. That's sort of beside the point; Manning is a legitimate candidate for MVP, no matter your reasons why. Sure, some reasons or better than others, but the whole "Quality of the supporting staff" argument is inherently subjective anyway, so it's basically just window dressing. Sure, King is a somewhat duplicitous blowhard on that count, but every fucking NFL writer these days pulls out bullshit arguments like that to buttress any statistical/objective argument that they may have for "their guy." The fact that the "narrative" may have now eclipsed actual performance in NFL voters' decision-making is another issue entirely, and King doesn't deserve credit for going along with it, but he's just doing what everyone else does.
If Peter King stuck to writing about football, about 92% of my complaints about him would go away. A stupid side-argument (the quality of last year's Broncos) about why Manning is an MVP candidate (when he objectively is one) is at least on point, and presents at least something for an NFL fan to chew on. Its the fact that an equally-long, truly inane, story about a colleague's flight being delayed sits in the same column is what's fucking stupid about Peter King.
It's also not to crazy to argue that this Broncos team could be his best supporting cast. The Denver D is probably better than any Colts' D during the Manning era. On the offensive side; Demarius Thomas is elite. Erik Decker is a nice complement to Thomas. McGahee was having a very nice season before getting hurt and they hardly missed a beat with Moreno taking over. There is an argument there which is exactly what he was saying.