Why Do I Continue to Read Peter King?

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
45,196
King's fuckup was reporting his source's educated guess as a fact. He didn't couch it in language like "must have seen" until after this all hit yesterday. He wrote that piece in July with the a declarative statement.
 
Look at his two statements:
 
July 29: There is one other thing I did not write or refer to, and that is the other videotape the NFL and some Ravens officials have seen
 
 
That's a statement of fact. There's nothing modifying it at all and there's nothing to show it was the opinion of the source.
 
Now, look at his latest statement:
 
September 8: The source said league officials had to have seen it.
 
That doesn't mean the same thing as the first statement. It's an opinion of the source.
 
 
His lazy writing did this.
 

TheWizard

lurker
Oct 31, 2013
60
Harry Hooper said:
King is supposed to be on Dale & Holley (+ DeOssie) today. BTW, they are cutting the Commish very little slack.
 
As soon as I saw DeOssie, click.  Guy brings nothing to the table then more meathead talk.
 
Fantastic post by Bruce Allen.  Peter King is a mouthpiece to his sources, not a reporter.  He's a more high profile Nick Carfardo.
 

Byrdbrain

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,588
DrewDawg said:
King's fuckup was reporting his source's educated guess as a fact. He didn't couch it in language like "must have seen" until after this all hit yesterday. He wrote that piece in July with the a declarative statement.
 
 
His lazy writing did this.
This is true assuming his second statement is accurate and not just a way to wiggle out of making the NFL look bad now that they are saying they didn't see the video.
Now it is possible that is the case but I wouldn't say so for sure.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
42,537
PK is the perfect mouthpiece for this situation. The league either lied or played dumb about the video. Meanwhile King either misreported what a source told him or is lying about it now, and is simultaneously trying to hide behind the faulty source situation to distract from the fact that he failed to make an easy call to the shield to ask if they could verify any facts (who in turn probably would have lied or misrepresented the truth). They belong together.
 

leetinsley38

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
709
SF Bay Area
DrewDawg said:
 
 
His lazy writing did this.
It wasn't lazy writing.  As Bruce Allen points out, it was deliberate.  He was already choosing his words very carefully in the second mailbag answer below because of the shitstorm the first article caused.   He was trying to take the heat off he and Goodell by referring to the second tape, assuming (like Goodell) that it would never be released:
 
 
 
There is one other thing I did not write or refer to, and that is the other videotape the NFL and some Ravens officials have seen, from the security camera inside the elevator at the time of the physical altercation between Rice and his fiancée. I have heard reports of what is on the video, but because I could not confirm them and because of the sensitivity of the case, I never speculated on the video in my writing, because I don’t think it is fair in an incendiary case like this one to use something I cannot confirm with more than one person. I cannot say any more, because I did not see the tape. I saw only the damning tape of Rice pulling his unconscious fiancée out of the elevator.
 
When I first read his report from July the subtext seemed to be "if only everyone had seen the second tape (like Goodell did) they would understand why 2 games is fair".  i.e. something else happened in the elevator that at least explain Rice's actions to a degree, if we saw the 2nd tape.  Except then it came out and backfired on him.
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,217
What's interesting about King's initial report is not only does he say that the league has seen the tape, he says that he has "heard reports of what is on the video."  Two points here:
 
- If King had actually heard reports of what is on the video, then obviously his source must have seen the video or spoken with someone who had.  Which of course would have been impossible if nobody at the league or the Ravens had seen the video, as the league now claims.  Was his source also speculating about what was on the tape, rather than recounting?  If so, then King needs to print an additional retraction, clarifying which parts of his initial report were false or based on speculation rather than fact.
- At the risk of violating my own rule of "Never assume King's use of language is intentional rather than incompetent," his use of the plural "reports" and "I could not confirm them" suggests he had heard more than one report of what is on the video.  If he had only one source, why not say, "a report"?
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
13,254
New York City
coremiller said:
What's interesting about King's initial report is not only does he say that the league has seen the tape, he says that he has "heard reports of what is on the video."  Two points here:
 
- If King had actually heard reports of what is on the video, then obviously his source must have seen the video or spoken with someone who had.  Which of course would have been impossible if nobody at the league or the Ravens had seen the video, as the league now claims.  Was his source also speculating about what was on the tape, rather than recounting?  If so, then King needs to print an additional retraction, clarifying which parts of his initial report were false or based on speculation rather than fact.
- At the risk of violating my own rule of "Never assume King's use of language is intentional rather than incompetent," his use of the plural "reports" and "I could not confirm them" suggests he had heard more than one report of what is on the video.  If he had only one source, why not say, "a report"?
 
Here's my current theory: he heard "reports" from Rice's lawyer and from Rice's agent.  That's why he heard "reports"--two different people (from the same camp) told him.  Neither had actual knowledge of whether the Ravens or NFL saw the tape but both had reasons to intimate that the Ravens/NFL had seen it and found it not to be too terrible.  That also explains why King is toying with the notion of the tape being exculpatory--the defense lawyer and/or agent suggested that it was exculpatory, and King is too willing to take what his sources say on its face value.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
70,820
Oregon
PK needs to be replaced by one of them robot-reporters, to get rid of the sub-human element
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
21,170
Jed Zeppelin said:
PK is the perfect mouthpiece for this situation. The league either lied or played dumb about the video. Meanwhile King either misreported what a source told him or is lying about it now, and is simultaneously trying to hide behind the faulty source situation to distract from the fact that he failed to make an easy call to the shield to ask if they could verify any facts (who in turn probably would have lied or misrepresented the truth). They belong together.
 
If he *had* asked the NFL for comment, the NFL would have: denied or no commented or agreed (the only 3 possibilties).  So when the tape surfaces months later, King would have no choice *now* but to call them flat-out liars (for denying or lying) or dimwitted assholes (for ignoring).  He'd rather chop off his own balls than do that. By not asking at all ("they didn't deny something I didn't ask them"), the option of heroically falling on his sword ("wow, guys, I really let you down") in service of the league remained an option. And now he has exercised that option.
 
OTOH -- I read this and I think that's an awful lot of non-Occam's Machiavelli going on. But OTTH -- King's own writing suggests that he sees himself as one with the League. (I think Occam would suggest that King is a lazy non-reporter, and that the NFL is like a chemical company that will bury its hazaradous waste whenever it can; and say that "mistakes were made" when the stuff comes out of people's kitchen faucets, having made billions in the meanwhile; Goodell treats King like the useful idiot.)
 

dirtynine

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 17, 2002
6,178
Philly
Wait a second - can't King report what his "impeccable" source thinks now? Wouldn't it go a long way to hear if the source does or doesn't think the league is lying?

Of course, if the source is one of the people Olberman named, that would explain why he wouldn't...
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
This could go several places, but since King is king of MSM, it might as well go here.

The past several days have confirmed that the NFL has fatally compromised all of its broadcast partners as sources of news on the NFL. That includes, literally, every major network

Were it not for TMZ and now the Associated Press, we'd have moved on to something else and RR would be the NFL's secret.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
5,691
I just want to take a moment to bask in how awful Peter King is at his job...

There is one other thing I did not write or refer to, and that is the other videotape the NFL and some Ravens officials have seen, from the security camera inside the elevator at the time of the physical altercation between Rice and his fiancée. I have heard reports of what is on the video, but because I could not confirm them and because of the sensitivity of the case, I never speculated on the video in my writing, because I don’t think it is fair in an incendiary case like this one to use something I cannot confirm with more than one person.
Earlier this summer a source I trusted told me he assumed the NFL had seen the damaging video that was released by TMZ on Monday morning of Rice slugging his then-fiancée, Janay Palmer, in an Atlantic City elevator. The source said league officials had to have seen it. This source has been impeccable, and I believed the information. So I wrote that the league had seen the tape. I should have called the NFL for a comment, a lapse in reporting on my part.
Let's see here. In the first quote above he is defending his original piece where he defends Goodell's original two game suspension (not quoted above). He heard about this video and didn't mention it in his original piece "because I don't think it is fair in an incendiary case like this one to use something I cannot confirm with more than one person." Meanwhile in the very same quote he writes that "the NFL and some Ravens officials have seen" this second videotape. Now he comes out and says that he did not confirm with more than one person whether or not the NFL had seen the video all because he trusted his "impeccable" source when his source told him that the NFL "had to have seen it."

On top of being an onerous pig of a man, Peter King truly is a shitty writer.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
5,691
Also, this quote is super douche.
 
I felt my best contribution to the discourse was reporting why Goodell gave Rice only a two-game ban and hefty fine. That is what I did. Should I have joined the chorus of those ripping the decision? Perhaps.
His word choice frames the discussion to minimize and belittle those who would dare to suggest that the original suspension wasn't sufficient.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
21,170
Also, this quote is super douche.

 
 
Quote

I felt my best contribution to the discourse was reporting why Goodell gave Rice only a two-game ban and hefty fine. That is what I did. Should I have joined the chorus of those ripping the decision? Perhaps.
His word choice frames the discussion to minimize and belittle those who would dare to suggest that the original suspension wasn't sufficient.          
 
 

 
Just when I thought I was out.  I know I keep repeating myself, but so does King. EVERY WEEK he offers an opinion on EVERYTHING. "step up your game, professional urinal lickers, 3rd from the left at the Duluth Airport had some spots."
 
But on the biggest FOOTBALL story of that particular week, he decides not to. It's like Ernie Pyle writing about lousy weather.
 

PBDWake

Member
SoSH Member
May 1, 2008
3,682
Peabody, MA
Steve Dillard said:
<p>

What a touching and heartfelt rememberance of something that just crossed his mind:
 
 
  •  
Did you hear about that time he loaned his car to someone after 9/11? Oh man peter king is such a hero.
 
*edit*
To be clear, I actually think loaning out your car to someone in need after 9/11 actually is a cool thing, but the story you tell is what they needed the car for. Instead, it was just "Some player wives needed a car so I loaned them mine, and they were so grateful they got me a Red White and Blue tie, and I totally wore it on CNN". Once again, the story is how awesome Peter King is.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
21,170
The AP report came before 6 p.m. Wednesday, and Goodell cancelled an appearance in Charlotte at an event featuring Carolina Panthers owner and Goodell loyalist Jerry Richardson. League officials then hunkered down in the NFL’s Park Avenue offices until after 11 p.m. plotting strategy and planning for the investigative handoff to Mueller.
 
 
http://mmqb.si.com/2014/09/11/roger-goodell-ray-rice-video/
 
His inside sources remain intact enough to let him know about "the hunkering."
But Peter King still has no opinions. Just a lot of "if this happens......then that could happen".
 

gryoung

Member
SoSH Member
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.
 
And you're surprised by a lack of solid investigative reporting by these two (or three) chucklepants? 
 

dirtynine

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 17, 2002
6,178
Philly
 
 
League officials then hunkered down in the NFL’s Park Avenue offices until after 11 p.m. plotting strategy and planning for the investigative handoff to Mueller.
 
How does he know any of this? Did he call to confirm, or just take a source's word for it?
 

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
9,741
Ha. It certainly doesn't require a call when your source is Goodell's secretary saying, "Okay, here's what we want you to say."
 
He's a caricature at this point.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
27,236
Steve Dillard said:
What a touching and heartfelt rememberance of something that just crossed his mind:
 
 


  •  
The irony is that he posted it on 9/10.
 

jschip1

lurker
Jul 16, 2005
468
drleather2001 said:
The irony is that he posted it on 9/10.
 
It actually looks like he posted it at 12:07 am on 9/11, which means that he waited up to post just minutes after the clock struck 9/11 giving him essentially no time to "just realize it."
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
27,236
Ya, ok, but he doesn't get much credit for jumping on now that it's 100% to do so.

Simmons has had years to lay into King.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
13,254
New York City
drleather2001 said:
Ya, ok, but he doesn't get much credit for jumping on now that it's 100% to do so.

Simmons has had years to lay into King.
Are you done kind of hipster king hater? "Yeah I hated him before it was cool. I first hatred him when he bragged about the Bengals telling him their draft board"
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
27,236
Shelterdog said:
Are you done kind of hipster king hater? "Yeah I hated him before it was cool. I first hatred him when he bragged about the Bengals telling him their draft board"
 

No.  Simmons wants to claim the high ground without having to stick his neck out.   Acting all outraged, at this point in time, after never saying peep, only goes to suggest that Simmons is an opportunist looking to feel good about himself.  He's the guy who hides during the fight and then shows up at the end only after it's clear that his side is going to win, and then makes fun of the losers.  
 
It's exactly the sort of thing Peter King would do; wait until public opinion is in and your industry colleagues have signed off on it, and only then speak with the "courage" of your convictions.
 
Since when has Simmons ever given a damn about the ethics of sports journalism?  Mr. World Wide Leader himself?   I don't support King on this at all, but Simmons calling out King is like Pot meet Kettle.  The roles could easily have been reversed, if this was an NBA scandal instead of an NFL one.
 
 
 

gmogmo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
739
Hingham, Ma
drleather2001 said:
 
  I don't support King on this at all, but Simmons calling out King is like Pot meet Kettle.  The roles could easily have been reversed, if this was an NBA scandal instead of an NFL one.

 
 

Exactly....where was Simmons to rip NBA for how they handled Jason Kidd, Sullinger, Ty Lawson, etc
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
20,665
I was just coming in here to post the same thing. Screw it, I will too ...
 

 
Just a couple of guys enjoying some overrated chili and spaghetti, while trying to keep clean!
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,395
Yoknapatawpha County
John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
I was just coming in here to post the same thing. Screw it, I will too ...
 

 
Just a couple of guys enjoying some overrated chili and spaghetti, while trying to keep clean!
"Bibs! Thanks, waiter. Hey, you hear about 9/11? It was 13 years ago. Roger, look at you! Hold on, we need a pic."
"Totally."
 

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
9,741
It's just so clear that these guys have zero interest in doing anything more than reveling in just how sweet they have it. 
 
Can you believe it! My job is to write about football and hang out with a guy who makes $44 million a year! I love my life!
 
Can you believe it! My job is to run a football league and sit around and bullshit and the worst thing I have to worry about is whose expense account to use! I love my life!
 
Then, when something like Rice happens, they spend all their energy just hoping it will go away so they can go back to fucking around and doing nothing important whatsoever. 
 
Which I sort of get. But just admit it. And, on the very rare occasion when the world comes knocking on your door, maybe have enough balls to seize the opportunity instead of just giving the whole world the finger. 
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,395
Yoknapatawpha County
MyDaughterLovesTomGordon said:
It's just so clear that these guys have zero interest in doing anything more than reveling in just how sweet they have it. 
 
Can you believe it! My job is to write about football and hang out with a guy who makes $44 million a year! I love my life!
 
Can you believe it! My job is to run a football league and sit around and bullshit and the worst thing I have to worry about is whose expense account to use! I love my life!
 
Then, when something like Rice happens, they spend all their energy just hoping it will go away so they can go back to fucking around and doing nothing important whatsoever. 
 
Which I sort of get. But just admit it. And, on the very rare occasion when the world comes knocking on your door, maybe have enough balls to seize the opportunity instead of just giving the whole world the finger. 
It's like an even shittier, middle-aged version of Entourage.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
27,236
 

This goes to Drew Magary's point on Deadspin that the NFL, and America in general, has become far more obsessed with image than substance.
 
Has the NFL's reputation had a worse week?  Perhaps not.
 
Has the NFL, as a provider of professional football, had a worse week?  Javon Belcher, Jerry Brown, Pat Tillman all dying were all worse.  Darryl Stingley's incident, too (although that is outside of King's 30 year window). 

 
I mean, for christ's sake, he can't tell the difference anymore.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
45,196
So, Peter King, the "preeminent" NFL writer, has no opinion on AP outside of that tweet?
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
20,665
drleather2001 said:
 

This goes to Drew Magary's point on Deadspin that the NFL, and America in general, has become far more obsessed with image than substance.
 
Has the NFL's reputation had a worse week?  Perhaps not.
 
Has the NFL, as a provider of professional football, had a worse week?  Javon Belcher, Jerry Brown, Pat Tillman all dying were all worse.  Darryl Stingley's incident, too (although that is outside of King's 30 year window). 
 
I mean, for christ's sake, he can't tell the difference anymore.
I'm not in the habit of defending King but he's right, this has probably been the worst week ever for the NFL and it's not even close.

The other examples you listed were bad, no doubt but I'd say they were more sad. And it's debatable whether the NFL directly caused any of those tragedies.

The NFL fucked the Rice thing up and the shot they're getting is bad. Not only for the NFLs perception but it's just bad for business. No one is talking about the games at all. Felger and Mazz tried a few times and people just wanted to talk about how shitty the league is.

I think that the juxtaposition you made with Magary's column and King's tweet is wrong here.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
29,412
DrewDawg said:
So, Peter King, the "preeminent" NFL writer, has no opinion on AP outside of that tweet?
 
What a week, I thought you were referencing the AP's reporting on the video.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
5,691
August 12, 1978 Darryl Stingley was paralyzed during a preseason game on a hit from Jack Tatum.
 
John Marzano Olympic Hero said:
I'm not in the habit of defending King but he's right, this has probably been the worst week ever for the NFL and it's not even close.

The other examples you listed were bad, no doubt but I'd say they were more sad. And it's debatable whether the NFL directly caused any of those tragedies.

The NFL fucked the Rice thing up and the shot they're getting is bad. Not only for the NFLs perception but it's just bad for business. No one is talking about the games at all. Felger and Mazz tried a few times and people just wanted to talk about how shitty the league is.

I think that the juxtaposition you made with Magary's column and King's tweet is wrong here.
What about that guy who died of heat exhaustion in Vikings training camp a couple years back? At least I think it was the Vikings.

In any case by your logic, was Ray Rice's punching his fiance caused by the NFL?
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
27,236
JMOH is right. I was trying to draw a distinction between something being bad on the basis of image and bad for what should matter: the game itself and the players on the field.

This is bad for the NFL as a going concern. It's not nearly as bad for the game of football itself.

My criticism of King is that he no longer makes that distinction, between the business and the game. He's conflated "good for the NFL" with "good for football" for years, and therein lies a big part of the overall problem with how the NFL is covered in the press.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
Apr 12, 2001
20,665
In any case by your logic, was Ray Rice's punching his fiance caused by the NFL?
 
 
 
Right. That's true. But the cover-up and the Goodell bullshit is. People are angry about Ray Rice, no doubt, but I think people are more upset up the cover up and the way the NFL handled it.