Why Do I Continue to Read Peter King?
- Thread starter John Marzano Olympic Hero
- Start date
Deadspin chimes in . . . .
http://deadspin.com/has-peter-king-read-his-own-reporting-on-the-ray-rice-f-1631901579
http://deadspin.com/has-peter-king-read-his-own-reporting-on-the-ray-rice-f-1631901579
If this somehow sinks Goddell, PK, and Ray Rice it'll be amazing.
Lies and cover-ups aren't what they used to be now that we're in the internet age.
Lies and cover-ups aren't what they used to be now that we're in the internet age.
Source: "I assume the NFL has seen the video. I mean, they had to have seen it."
King then reports "the NFL has seen the video."
There's your dean of NFL reporting, folks.
King then reports "the NFL has seen the video."
There's your dean of NFL reporting, folks.
I really don't trust Peter King at all and I think that he's full of crap.
Especially since other NFL writers are so bullshit that the NFL lied to them.
EDIT: Because that is a very, very, VERY big mistake for King to make. And I don't think that King is that stupid to make that type of mistake. That's Journalism 101.
Especially since other NFL writers are so bullshit that the NFL lied to them.
EDIT: Because that is a very, very, VERY big mistake for King to make. And I don't think that King is that stupid to make that type of mistake. That's Journalism 101.
How do you get from "I assume the NFL has seen the video" to actually reporting that the NFL has seen the video, and not once ever calling the NFL for comment? I mean, this was the biggest story of the offseason and he reports on someone's assumption?
This will get swept under the rug by MMQB/SI, but it would be grounds for a firing for any lower-level reporter, no?
edit: or he's lying, of course.
This will get swept under the rug by MMQB/SI, but it would be grounds for a firing for any lower-level reporter, no?
edit: or he's lying, of course.
It's BS. He's covering the NFL's ass because right now everyone is pointing to his report as proof that the NFL saw the video. He has to backtrack to protect them. He's truly the absolute worst.
Then he should burn his source. That's the way it goes when you do a source's bidding. Or the source should burn him. "Hey asshole, you turned a throw-away comment into *that*?!"
OR
I dont believe there *was* a source. You don't need a "source" to make the (not a) "conclusion" that the "league must have seen it." That's not even "information," that's just some other guy's opinion. His source for that sort of "information" could have been me. "Dear Mr. King, I love your work. But considering how closely the NFL worked with the cops here, isn't it likely that they must have seen the inside the elevator video, too."
King is the guy who paid for hookers so many times that he forgot what to do when his wife is horny.
OR
I dont believe there *was* a source. You don't need a "source" to make the (not a) "conclusion" that the "league must have seen it." That's not even "information," that's just some other guy's opinion. His source for that sort of "information" could have been me. "Dear Mr. King, I love your work. But considering how closely the NFL worked with the cops here, isn't it likely that they must have seen the inside the elevator video, too."
King is the guy who paid for hookers so many times that he forgot what to do when his wife is horny.
It's very telling that Peter King would take the, "I'm just a moron" approach rather than "The NFL is lying" approach.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's an elevator video of Roger Goodell punching Peter King in the face.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's an elevator video of Roger Goodell punching Peter King in the face.
King is clearly lying. And his mealy-mouthed explanation is simply a placeholder until the NFL gets their story straight.
Once they do, King will bravely report that he's "gotten to the bottom" of this mess and can now reveal the truth about how the Ray Rice fiasco went down.
King simply could not be more compromised.
Once they do, King will bravely report that he's "gotten to the bottom" of this mess and can now reveal the truth about how the Ray Rice fiasco went down.
King simply could not be more compromised.
John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
He prefers to position it as "I was burned by a previously reliable source".
John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
When reached for comment, King said that he "regretted his role in the incident." king added, "I know know how Janay Palmer must have felt, having let a situation get so out of control that someone she respected was left no other choice but to lash out in a way that could harm his career and reputation. And although the Commissioner's actions, like Ray Rice's are inexcusable, its important that we understand the root causes of these things before we rush to judgment about such repected men."
Average Reds said:
But if that's his angle, he fucked it up, because by his own admission, the source didn't really give him any information. "Stans must have known about the payments to Liddy" doesn't make the paper. "Stans *ordered the payments" does.
Maybe SI spun him off as something other than a reward for his greatness.
"We?!" Suddenly he's Joe Fan.
Look, it may take a day, a week or several weeks. But we all know where this will eventually end ...
"Mistakes were made."
"Mistakes were made."
He is covering for them but it's possible he's not lying. He is a lazy POS who should be fired, though. I think it is likely the source told him about it, he took their word and assumed they saw the tape, and then got back to reviewing IPAs. Did King seek confirmation or a second source? It's more likely to believe he did none of those things.cromulence said:
He probably figured he could play the "reliable source got one wrong" card. But he forgot the part where the source was supposed to have given him real information. He admitted in his mea culpa that he didn't call the league for confirmation (likely denial).ifmanis5 said:
Average Reds said:
And even that's not even true since the source said they "must have seen". That's clearly an opinion. And King didn't report it as such.
A source gave an opinion, albeit one he appeared very sure on. King reported that as fact. King fucked up.
Or this card.joe dokes said:
I agree with AR, this is has got 'mistakes were made' all over it. He'll throw everybody under the bus then finally do a false humility 'I, the Great Peter King, should have known better.' Ultimately this is why King wanted no part of this story from the beginning. Will McDonough would have called BS on the NFL's handling of this early and often. King just waits for Goodell to speak and say ditto. Kings's not reporter enough to cover the Rice story and we see why today.
Coming from the high grand poobah of sports journalists, this is just so, so rich.
"No one from the league has ever knocked down my report to me" is awful. Just fucking awful. Is that how reporting works, Pete? Report rumor in a passive-aggressive way, saying you're only sort of reporting it, but not really reporting it, and then wait to see if anyone disagrees?
Can we get Poynter to do a webinar on that?
"How To Passive-Aggressively Troll for Information"
Peter King, long-time NFL beat reporter, will guide you through the ins and outs of uncovering information without actually having to make a phone call or send an email. This includes exploration of tactics such as:
• Report someone's opinion as fact in a well-read internet venue, then wait
• Wonder aloud whether something might be true or not (with special guest Nick Cafardo), then wait
• Speculate about someone's character, and then see if they send you an angry email (this involves waiting to see what happens)
• Make stuff up, attribute it to a "source," then wait
• Do absolutely nothing, allow other people to scoop you, then wait for a league official to slip you the information they would rather have out there
• And more!
With these tips and more, you, too, can become a highly paid vessel of a major sporting league, with TV appearances, an apartment in Manhattan, and access to every microbrew and Starbucks coffee flavor the world has ever made.
Register now!
"No one from the league has ever knocked down my report to me" is awful. Just fucking awful. Is that how reporting works, Pete? Report rumor in a passive-aggressive way, saying you're only sort of reporting it, but not really reporting it, and then wait to see if anyone disagrees?
Can we get Poynter to do a webinar on that?
"How To Passive-Aggressively Troll for Information"
Peter King, long-time NFL beat reporter, will guide you through the ins and outs of uncovering information without actually having to make a phone call or send an email. This includes exploration of tactics such as:
• Report someone's opinion as fact in a well-read internet venue, then wait
• Wonder aloud whether something might be true or not (with special guest Nick Cafardo), then wait
• Speculate about someone's character, and then see if they send you an angry email (this involves waiting to see what happens)
• Make stuff up, attribute it to a "source," then wait
• Do absolutely nothing, allow other people to scoop you, then wait for a league official to slip you the information they would rather have out there
• And more!
With these tips and more, you, too, can become a highly paid vessel of a major sporting league, with TV appearances, an apartment in Manhattan, and access to every microbrew and Starbucks coffee flavor the world has ever made.
Register now!
MyDaughterLovesTomGordon said:
I honestly can't believe this. He wants the NFL to report on him! He also hopes that one day, some young, enterprising individual will figure out the whole story and, somehow, disseminate it to the public at large.
He's probably standing in a line at Starbucks right now saying "Can you believe this Ray rice stuff? golly gee, I wish there were some reporters in this business."
So, King is trying to play the ambiguities. In his July 29 piece, he said this:
What was his purpose here? His piece was responding to those who thought the suspension was too light. King suggested four games would have been more to his taste, but the quote above was directly responsive to mailbag comments critical of him for not going after Goddell harder. He was clearly trying to imply that if we all could only have heard what he heard was only the tape, we would look more favorably on the league's decision.
But now his piece has the league in trouble, because they want to deny they saw the tape. So, again it's more ambiguities. What pisses me off most about today's "addendum" is that while he claims he wants to get to the bottom of this, he passively tries to undermine his own source by saying the league is probably right.
He's trying to imply here that the league is probably telling the truth.
What an absolute piece of shit. He's too stupid to recognize that he's not even a reporter any more, but the story itself. Worse, he's so embedded that he doesn't even seem to have the ability to look in the mirror and do his job.
At the absolute minimum, the call right now should be for him to state, in no uncertain terms, what the source supposedly told him back in July was on the tape. If the source said, "it shows that Rice was not entirely at fault," then that source is due no protection and should be revealed. If the source told him that the tape showed what it actually does show, then we know (1) that King is a bad human being, in addition to being compromised, and (2) that someone really had seen the tape. The only reason King claimed in July for not saying what the source said was on the tape is "sensitivity," not that he had been told on background. We're past that. Why people are not calling for King to reveal exactly what the source told him in July is a mystery.
What was his purpose here? His piece was responding to those who thought the suspension was too light. King suggested four games would have been more to his taste, but the quote above was directly responsive to mailbag comments critical of him for not going after Goddell harder. He was clearly trying to imply that if we all could only have heard what he heard was only the tape, we would look more favorably on the league's decision.
But now his piece has the league in trouble, because they want to deny they saw the tape. So, again it's more ambiguities. What pisses me off most about today's "addendum" is that while he claims he wants to get to the bottom of this, he passively tries to undermine his own source by saying the league is probably right.
He's trying to imply here that the league is probably telling the truth.
What an absolute piece of shit. He's too stupid to recognize that he's not even a reporter any more, but the story itself. Worse, he's so embedded that he doesn't even seem to have the ability to look in the mirror and do his job.
At the absolute minimum, the call right now should be for him to state, in no uncertain terms, what the source supposedly told him back in July was on the tape. If the source said, "it shows that Rice was not entirely at fault," then that source is due no protection and should be revealed. If the source told him that the tape showed what it actually does show, then we know (1) that King is a bad human being, in addition to being compromised, and (2) that someone really had seen the tape. The only reason King claimed in July for not saying what the source said was on the tape is "sensitivity," not that he had been told on background. We're past that. Why people are not calling for King to reveal exactly what the source told him in July is a mystery.
I suspect his original source was someoone like a Jeff Fischer of Dimitrofor another of his buddies who said "I know how these things work and they would have looked at the tape so Trust me if it's only two games they had a reason.". In other words he was doing some crappy reporting of speculation and he got nailed .
Shelterdog said:
It could be somebody in the know like those coaches/executives, but my money is on the Ginger Haired Bozo himself as King's and the other Baghdad Bob reporters sources. Who else could the following characteristics be attributed to?
1) Influential enough to have viewed the video contents & have credibility as a source to NFL writers
2) Incompetent enough to render an initial 2 game suspension.
3) Consumed/obsessed with ensuring the NFL's initial suspension is viewed as acceptable within the national NFL reporter base
4) Arrogant enough to assume the video would never leak
This has Goodell's stink all over it. I could be wrong though.
I'd bet anything that Goodell knew TMZ had the video and asked them to wait to show it until he could change the rules (conveniently last week) and now rice is suspended. I think the NFL saw the tape, I think King is covering for them.
Goodell and Mark Emmert come from the same parents?
Goodell and Mark Emmert come from the same parents?
Let's not go overboard. King was passing along maliciously false information designed to blame the victim of a horrible attack.Byrdbrain said:
His original report said his source told him the NFL office saw the video and now he is couching it by saying well my source assumed the NFL saw it but maybe they didn't and I didn't ask them if they saw it so bad job by me.
There were details that were put in there that were meant to convey that "she asked for it" and that is obviously disgusting.
There were details that were put in there that were meant to convey that "she asked for it" and that is obviously disgusting.
I don't know. I think he is expressing skepticism regarding the NFL saying they had not seen the tape. I think he wrote his statement very carefully in order to convey what he was really thinking.
He says:
1) He has an "impeccable" source who told him the NFL "had to have" seen the tape---so he trusts his source.
2) He cannot refute the NFL's claim "with certainty"--- I read that as he can't PROVE they are lying, but they're lying.
3) They didn't deny his report that they had seen the tape when he wrote that they did --- it seems unlikely to him that somebody would not have corrected him on this matter if his report was in fact wrong.
4) "I was surprised to see the claim" that they had not seen the tape --- he could have phrased this many ways, but the one he chose, particularly the word "claim,"
reads to me as if he doesn't believe them. "They claim they haven't seen the tape" to me implies doubt as opposed to, for example, "They made a strong assertion that they never saw the tape."
He says:
1) He has an "impeccable" source who told him the NFL "had to have" seen the tape---so he trusts his source.
2) He cannot refute the NFL's claim "with certainty"--- I read that as he can't PROVE they are lying, but they're lying.
3) They didn't deny his report that they had seen the tape when he wrote that they did --- it seems unlikely to him that somebody would not have corrected him on this matter if his report was in fact wrong.
4) "I was surprised to see the claim" that they had not seen the tape --- he could have phrased this many ways, but the one he chose, particularly the word "claim,"
reads to me as if he doesn't believe them. "They claim they haven't seen the tape" to me implies doubt as opposed to, for example, "They made a strong assertion that they never saw the tape."
Sure is a lot of detail and nuance in who saw it, based on an informed source's "they must have seen it."
Nice work by King with this bit today, "Tom Brady and the Patriots are alone in last place of the AFC East for the first time since Brady took over as the team’s starting quarterback in 2001. This great and powerful defense was gashed for 191 rushing yards at Miami on Sunday and shut out in the second half."
How can a defense be shut out?
How can a defense be shut out?
snowmanny said:
If King's writing about football is any indication, he's not a good enough writer to consistently accurately convey whatever it was he was really thinking.
Harry Hooper said:
Exhibit A.
snowmanny said:
If that's true -- and it may be true and just be a product of King's poor communication skills -- then it's especially gallling from someone who expresses an unambiguous opinion on everything from the barista to the beer to the hotel coffee to the crying airplane baby's parents' parenting skills. But he won't come out and say "I don't believe the NFL here"? He is completely blind to how journalistically emasculated this makes him look.
His first report was right up his alley. "Phew!! I got someone to tell me that Roger had good reason for the slap on the wrist (even if I have to parse the source's words a bit oddly)" The reason he didn't ask for confirmation from the NFL was the same reason why the dog now brings you your slippers *before* you ask. He's trained well and knows you'll give him a treat. (that, and why put the league in a potentially compromising position when he can write the story anyway).
At first I thought the NFL was sick of him and was just hanging him out to dry. But King wasn't the only one reporting "the NFL saw the tape" back in the beginning.
One thing I'm fairly certain about.....*someone* among the group of burned reporters is going to leak names of sources and of who knew and saw what when.
Amidst all the mea culpas King is spouting, notably he won't talk about what his source ever told him about the contents of the video nor will he indicate what the source is saying today.
According to TMZ, "someone" from the NFL went to the hotel and viewed the in-elevator tape before the two-game suspension.
So King and other NFL reporters may have heard this from their "source."
I love a good cover up!
http://www.tmz.com/2014/09/08/ray-rice-elevator-knockout-fiancee-takes-crushing-punch-video/
So King and other NFL reporters may have heard this from their "source."
I love a good cover up!
We need one of the MMQB advertisers or "marketing partners" to pressure SI. Otherwise they are condoning the coverup of a DV incident. Come on Allagash, step forward!
Bruce Allen of BSMW with a pretty thorough takedown of Peter King: http://www.bostonsportsmedia.com/2014/09/peter-king-needs-to-turn-the-finger-wag-on-himself-for-once?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BostonSportsMediaWatch+%28Boston+Sports+Media+Watch%29
King is supposed to be on Dale & Holley (+ DeOssie) today. BTW, they are cutting the Commish very little slack.
Heard Holley straight-up defending King yesterday, though. Essentially said: "He had an impeccable source. No one from the league ever contradicted his report. He did his job. What else is he supposed to do?"
Disappointing, to say the least, from a guy who used to be at the Globe.
Disappointing, to say the least, from a guy who used to be at the Globe.
Harry Hooper said:
Never mind, after about 5 minutes they're off asking Peter about last weekend's games.
And it's over = completely wasted opportunity all around!
Oops, it's getting worse. They've launched into criticizing the Ravens for being too chummy with Rice right after Peter got the velvet glove treatment from them. Dale has invented his own fictional narrative that Rice completely misrepresented to the Ravens what happened in the elevator.