Is there now a trust gap with Peter King?

I don't think it's unfair to say SI is in a period of quiet desperation, financially.
They had nothing to lose by rolling the dice with King.
The site has its moments, but best with player-written content as opposed to King's drivel.

 

Worth repeating...

 

But there are plenty of other top football writers hauling water for the league.... I almost got ill reading this one:

http://bills.buffalonews.com/2014/09/19/nfl-executives-insist-roger-goodells-job-safe-despite-crisis-chaos/

 

I personally can't stand King's writing style. His voice sounds like that of a middle schooler at times. The other week he was talking about Ra'shede Hageman and I laughed when I read: " It’s amusing that more than a few mock drafts pegged Hageman as a potential Patriot. He is so not their type of player."
OMG, BECKY WOULD NEVER GO TO THE DANCE WITH HIM!!!
Also, it was from his 10 Things I Think I Think, which by the name alone is enough to make me never read it.

 

Peter King is hardly alone in any of that. All the top names pass on the self-serving thoughts and rumor-mongering of their sources, unchecked, because it's scoopy.

 

He also has no incentive to produce good writing stylistically.

 

King is not alone, no, in the use of anonymous sources.

Journalism is addicted to them at point. They are no longer used in moderation. It is a problem and it has created an industry-wide trust gap. It is a Watergate mindset for shit that has nothing to do with something as far-reaching as Watergate, and further does not involve sources as sound as Deep Throat was. I've seen anonymous sources extemporize in print, for God's sake. I've seen reporters stop even citing a source, and just going with "I'm told..." It hurts the medium. It should stop.

What if Peter King had to go without anonymous sources for a month? What would he do? He'd fucking manage, as would the rest of them. They're not made to.

 

We're not on twitter but .... This.

Anonymous sources should be an important part of what we do, but it's become far too prevalent (and I say this as someone who uses them but only sporadically). I saw the other day where someone tweeted (and I'm paraphrasing) "Source: out of work goaltender to sign with NHL team." The player was not notable. The team was not notable. And yet it was sourced anyway.

We have gotten away from making the people we cover accountable by allowing them to hide behind anonymity for the smallest things. It's gotten absurd. Even the best reporters out there are using sources for even the smallest incremental news. It's pointless, then we get all pissed off when the sources lie to us or give us misinformation. What's their incentive to not fuck with us if they know they are protected?
The truth is, with so many more outlets now than there were even a decade ago, we need them far more than they need us. It's why even as Pat Forde chides the Florida State media for not causing enough of a ruckus with Jameis Winston, the truth is they're trying to go along to get along. Most local media outlets (regardless of market size) are becoming marginalized because teams/schools/etc. are going to folks that have the widest reach and/or are rights holders for the respective sport, conference, etc.
So to keep pace we cut corners. The overuse of "sourcing" is one way to do it. We need to keep pace. The use of the word "source" gives us the feel and look of an insider. But it's gone too far, and it's not coming back. For all the outrage from the Schefter's of the world over the Rice video (and I have respect for Schefter) is he going to stop using sources? Is anyone? Nope.

 

"Peep Show Mop Boy . . . Mop Boy . . . spill, in Aisle Four!"

 

In politics, sometimes the White House will insist that reporters refer to a source as something like "a top administration official". But this is just because they don't want to be quoted on the record. We know it's actually a top official, speaking on behalf of the administration.

But, too many anonymous sources aren't even identified in a way that we can decide how much credence to give to what they are saying.

This guy is right:

That could, literally, mean anybody. It could be the guy who parks his car at the league office. It could be the guy at Dunkin Donuts who really gained some valuable insights into Goodell’s mindset when he went with the bearclaw over the cruller. Or yea, maybe it could be one of Goodell’s lackeys or yes-men in the NFL offices.

If you can't even give me an idea of how plugged in the person is, I'm not interested in hearing what they have to say.

 

The unnamed sources are of course a big and vexing issue. But the reality is these guys' jobs are on the line every day, and if you want the info you have to protect them.

The bigger issue with this is: Peter King in all probability lied. He reported that the NFL had seen the tape, then when the heat got too hot for the league, he came up with some garble about how he had mis-heard his source, in the exact same incorrect way that Mort, Schefter and everyone else apparently mis-heard their sources.

He has never explained that. Nobody has ever explained by all those people made the exact same mistake about what they heard from the league source, even as the later AP report blew the league's version to smithereens.