Because balls that deflate are worse than balls on the pate?Why do they get to keep the 4th?
Because balls that deflate are worse than balls on the pate?Why do they get to keep the 4th?
Is it possible to retroactively take someone out of the Hall of Fame?
Awesome. Though to be fair, that's less infuriating than most talk radio shows. I'm sure it's almost rhythmically soothing after a while.No wonder he's been reduced to calling into low rent ESPN radio shows like Freddie Coleman's who, if you haven't listened to him, may be the worst radio show host I have ever heard. He basically just says "Freddie Coleman, ESPN Radio" over and over until his show is over
That's some Johnny Cochrane stuff right there. Bravo.Because balls that deflate are worse than balls on the pate?
For the resident lawyers who know about defamation law, is this actionable if untrue? Does "obviously" make it an opinion? Is it even defamatory in the first place?But this is a document that was an advocacy document, allegations, if you will, that were made by the person’s lawyer 13 years ago about an incident that took place 20 years ago and has now surfaced obviously at the behest of that lawyer or his client when Peyton is in the news and arguably receiving lots and lots of positive press.”
Of course. That sounds so much like PK. Basically running them so he can say that he presents both side of the argument but only commenting and talking about how his previous opinion was right and how he believes in Peyton. It's such a cowardly way to be a journalist and such a transparent attempt to seem "fair and balanced" without doing any of thatPK's mailbag is up. He defends the stance he took in MMQB, then runs four emails from readers ... and refuses to acknowledge their points. He just runs them without comment.
The more you know
https://twitter.com/ShaunKingWhy is it that you can only
A.) Post a tweet without context
B.) Post ABOUT a tweet without posting the tweet.
It's literally incomprehensible to you to provide the full picture on any event.
Jesus. That is indeed a fucking mess. Peyton's the big winner in that exchange; King comes off as complete asshole (as does Whitlock).https://twitter.com/ShaunKing
https://twitter.com/WhitlockJason
it its hard to screencap it.. give me a min
I think Jason Whitlock looks much worse in dragging out the race card to defend Manning given that Manning tried to stick a black athlete with responsibility for his actions.jason whitlock and shaun king are making themselves look really bad right now on twitter
Ehhh, Tanier writes:Oh wow, a Deflategate reference! That's so timely and witty!
In topical news, a lengthy BR piece by Mike Tanier advocating skepticism on the Manning reports (often a cover for dismissing the inconvenient or discordant), but then actually puts his typing where his mouth is by diving into the history and evidence. I have my quibbles, but it's a balanced take, overall.
And USA Today's Christine Brennan says this about her overlooked old piece:Healthy skepticism requires us to examine all evidence, even evidence from dubious sources. Fortunately, King didn't offer any new real evidence. He just cut the existing evidence down to its juicy core.
King's version of the Manning-Naughright incident is a blatantly slanted restating of a blatantly slanted document. It's a double-distilled condemnation of Manning, written in feverish longform with some strange tangents about Cam Newton, who was six years old when the events King recounted occurred but climbs aboard to add a veneer of topicality to the story.
King's story is the reason I am writing this essay. It's the reason the Manning-Naughright incident is news. There have been zero new revelations. This story only qualifies as "news" because it was written for a newspaper, and the details are old enough that a generation of readers has never encountered them. It's really debate bait, written by an activist/entrepreneur/journalist who isn't shy about inserting himself into controversial stories.
So she'd not forgotten but moved on. It's a reality many journalists live with. You work hard, give a story or column your best shot, then get on with things. Sometimes you have less impact than you had hoped, perhaps sometimes more. And USA TODAY's average daily circulation back then was a stunning 2.2 million, so it wasn't as if she'd written in obscurity. The episode was, if nothing else, a reminder of the helter-skelter attention spans of the press and American society.
"It's up to people to be interested, care about it, or not care about it," she said. "It's their call. I moved on to the next column the next week and, well, hundreds of columns later, here we are."
So it certainly was not as if she had ignored it, even if the radio talks shows that sought her Monday might have perhaps assumed this was a new tale.
"It was a story hiding in plain sight for basically 20 years," she said. "So I'm fascinated by the turn of events over the last few days."
Yea was coming here to post that it was a really good interview. I encourage everyone to find it and give it a listen.Just finished listening to Shaun King being interviewed by Stephen A. Smith on Mad Dog Radio. He came across very well to me at least. When Smith asked him." What do you say to those who claim your are presenting only one side of the Story?" King replied that the court document he received has about ten different affidavits, including many from Manning's own teammates at the time, that claim Manning was not telling the truth.
And Polian is right about a smear campaign. He just has it backwards as in fact the Mannings were smearing her!
This, at least to me, is a fascinating undertone of what Archie and Peyton tried to pull off that isn't getting the attention it deserves. Archie and Peyton made it a point to mention "a black athlete" or "a group of black athletes" as to who Naughtright was sleeping with in their attempt to smear her. They were very specific in it not just being athletes but black athletes. That speaks to either the Manning's racism (thinking that that makes it more slanderous+makes her look worse that not only was she sleeping with a lot of people but that she was sleeping with a lot of black people) or that they knew that their audience was made up of racists and that this would lower Naughtright even more in those people's eyes.I think Jason Whitlock looks much worse in dragging out the race card to defend Manning given that Manning tried to stick a black athlete with responsibility for his actions.
Yeah, it's a cheap ad-hominem fallacy. I wouldn't have posted Tanier's piece if he hadn't then moved beyond that into a discussion of the subject matter.Ehhh, Tanier writes:
And USA Today's Christine Brennan says this about her overlooked old piece:
Both Tanier and Brennan with the "no new news" slant are overlooking the disintermediation aspect here of what Tanier calls King's "feverish longform" extensively quoting the Plaintiff's filing and the Daily News actually disseminating the full PDF of the Plaintiff's filing. Yes, King built a piece on an old advocacy document, but it's not one that many eyeballs have had a look at previously.
The cynic in me has believed from minute-one that's a major part of what has made SAS so vocal.This, at least to me, is a fascinating undertone of what Archie and Peyton tried to pull off that isn't getting the attention it deserves. Archie and Peyton made it a point to mention "a black athlete" or "a group of black athletes" as to who Naughtright was sleeping with in their attempt to smear her. They were very specific in it not just being athletes but black athletes.
The racist undertones of how the Mannings attempted to control the story are certainly reprehensible and insufficiently covered by the mainstream media. They are also, I feel, the most logical way to connect this "old news" story back to the more recent HGH allegations. Peyton Manning should no longer get the benefit of the doubt simply because he has been such a fine role model in the community or whatever bullshit was said when the HGH story first broke.This, at least to me, is a fascinating undertone of what Archie and Peyton tried to pull off that isn't getting the attention it deserves. Archie and Peyton made it a point to mention "a black athlete" or "a group of black athletes" as to who Naughtright was sleeping with in their attempt to smear her. They were very specific in it not just being athletes but black athletes. That speaks to either the Manning's racism (thinking that that makes it more slanderous+makes her look worse that not only was she sleeping with a lot of people but that she was sleeping with a lot of black people) or that they knew that their audience was made up of racists and that this would lower Naughtright even more in those people's eyes.
I think the answer is that it's a mix of both but I am somewhat shocked (especially due to the fact that there is a pretty healthy sized group of writers/bloggers/journalists willing to turn everything into a racial issue) that such obvious bigotry in this whole story is being swept aside and not brought to the light.
That, and the petty vindictiveness of the Mannings in trashing Naughright in the book. What does it say about them that they not only felt the need to revisit the incident but then proceeded to paint the victim in the worst possible light?This, at least to me, is a fascinating undertone of what Archie and Peyton tried to pull off that isn't getting the attention it deserves. Archie and Peyton made it a point to mention "a black athlete" or "a group of black athletes" as to who Naughtright was sleeping with in their attempt to smear her. They were very specific in it not just being athletes but black athletes. That speaks to either the Manning's racism (thinking that that makes it more slanderous+makes her look worse that not only was she sleeping with a lot of people but that she was sleeping with a lot of black people) or that they knew that their audience was made up of racists and that this would lower Naughtright even more in those people's eyes.
I think the answer is that it's a mix of both but I am somewhat shocked (especially due to the fact that there is a pretty healthy sized group of writers/bloggers/journalists willing to turn everything into a racial issue) that such obvious bigotry in this whole story is being swept aside and not brought to the light.
Tanier's piece was definitely worth posting, just disappointing in parts.Yeah, it's a cheap ad-hominem fallacy. I wouldn't have posted Tanier's piece if he hadn't then moved beyond that into a discussion of the subject matter.
Sometimes he feels he's got to (clap clap) run away.That's it, Peyton's legacy is officially tainted.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is legal standard, not the bar to hold an educated opinion.
And at this moment there is plenty of pages and video that directly points to Manning's guilt on both allegations.
So instead, Dr. Naughright and her backers are the liars, and journalists who dare shine some light become the story.
For the past 20 years, we have heard absolutely nothing but Peyton's side.
It's past time we stop killing the messenger, and let somebody else have the mic.
So if any part of this is proven to be untrue, Pey-Pey has a legal problem, right?