Laziness of Super Bowl coverage

Jeff Pearlman has a little rant about lazy media labeling Manning the story of the Super Bowl.

The Laziness of Super Bowl Coverage | Jeff Pearlman

Is he right?
I think maybe with regard to CBS' coverage - they were all over Manning.
I agree Miller was THE Star of that game. No doubt. Was he ignored?

 

Miller won the MVP. He was not ignored. He's in his mid-20s. He'll get the Ray Lewis/Peyton Manning treatment in 10 years when he plays his last Super Bowl.

 

Seems to me he wrote this with a preconceived premise. Peyton was a big part of this SB but I saw nothing that seemed overwrought. I watched a fair amount of coverage and this idea never entered my mind. And why would Verducci talk to a bullpen catcher after a game? LOL

 

I agree it seems strange that Miller's suspension for trying to cheat a drug test in 2013 has been largely ignored.

You think that would be the case if A-Rod was ever named World Series MVP?

 

"Reggie Jackson hit three home runs . . . but here's what Rick Cerone had to say."

One of them is/was chasing silly sacred numbers. The other isn't. Hence, why anyone cares.

 

I covered 14 Super Bowls and here's one thing I learned real early. When it comes to post-game stories, it's no place for subtlety or thinking outside the box. Do the best you can with the obvious lead stories (MVP, winning and losing quarterbacks, etc.) especially if your outlet's home team isn't in the game. If it is, just skate your wing and do the assignments decided in all those pre-Super Bowl meetings.

 

You want the TV coverage to unpack the life and times of Von Miller in a Super Bowl postgame?

Did Tom Verducci have to do live-time journalism, or did he get 4 or 5 hours to write something for Monday's SI?

Didn't Dan Wetzel write a masterful column on not-MVP Tom Brady sitting at his locker?

 

Just because the Manning storyline is the most obvious one doesn't mean it is the wrong one to focus on. How much attention was paid to Manning before the game? Any coverage of him after the game is just a continuation of that story, and it is a story fans want. Play the hits, not the B-sides.

 

Wetzel's column was the perfect example of taking a real school figures type story -- losing quarterback, and making it an exceptional read. That's as much as can be done in Super postgame writing.

 

I have to say, I was impressed with SI using Miller on their cover this week, considering it will likely be the last time they have a chance to put Manning on the cover in action, but the photo they used absolutely tells the story of the game.
Perlman raises a good point I've heard at many a journo conference when covering big stories, whether they are games, tragedies, or whatever. Look where every other journalist is looking, then turn around and find someone else AKA, Jimmy Breslin's story about JFK's gravedigger.

 

I guess Pearlman is now officially Old Man Ranting. THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE STORY FROM THE SUPER BOWL AND BY MY ARBITRARY MEASURE THE ONE I CHOOSE WASN'T ENOUGH OF ONE!!!!

Personally I've read about eight different stories on Miller, but I haven't gone looking. And if a guy thinks Peyton Manning isn't worth covering, well, that would fall under the category of writing/broadcasting for yourself instead of for your audience.

 

The Herald sent four writers to Super Bowl XXIII (those were the days), the two NFL beat guys, of which I was one, and two columnists. One columnist tried to think outside the box and wrote about Randy Cross! That's why we wound up with no sidebar or column on Joe Montana. Boss wasn't pleased, and I didn't blame him. My Super Bowl motto from then on was "Don't be afraid to grasp the obvious!"