NYDN drops Manning bombshell

You're not a columnist. You're a reporter who writes long.

 

I still can't believe how shittily that was written.

 

Disappointed Neutral Courner wasn't the OP.

 

Further, WTF is this nonsense doing in a serious piece of journalism?

For me, it was like reading proof that the first Apollo moon landing was really a fictional tale filmed in a Hollywood studio designed to dupe us all. That flag, planted in the moon, seemingly blowing in the wind, was a ruse after all. Maybe B.o.B. was right on this one fact.

Is anyone at the NYDN editing this for content? Anyone? I can't see - and don't much care - why King thought it wise to include a few sentences about some rapper's flat earth/fake moon landing theory, but what could any editor have thought useful about its inclusion in a story meant to expose Manning? What?

 

I actually had never heard of this case, so I was interested in the story. But Ho Lee Fuk was that terrible.

 

Can't wait to read their expose on the unfolding 1919 Black Sox Scandal.

 

Exactly. I could barely get through his overly dramatic full-of-himself build up, and then when he finally got there, it turns out it's the same incident from 20 years ago that we already knew about and discussed 13 years ago.

 

I thought the teabagging was widely known, but I never knew about the depositions and how the Mannings attacked Naughtright in such a gross manner.

 

I've heard a lot about this case over the years. The new stuff, to me, is the details of how blatantly he (allegedly) did put his actual junk on her face, and the dogwhistle stuff from Archie and Tennessee suggesting, hey, don't you want to blame some black guys instead? There is also some witness depositions and the letter from the former teammate. So it's not without new information. It's just presented so poorly, through the lens of King's personal discovery, that the NYDN should be ashamed of themselves with regards to the editing process. I'm all for non-traditional journalists doing investigative work. Sometimes it's totally necessary. Flint is a great example. But I don't need to read 800 words on your angst in the airport, dude. I certainly don't need your hipster lines about B.o.B's stupid flat earth theories in a sexual assault piece. The allegation that South Florida College just did away with this trainer because of this controversy, without anything to back it up, is also a huge hole in this story. King has some good stuff, but the presentation is a train wreck, and all about King for way too long. That is fitting considering the author is all about his own cult of personality, but if you're the NYDN, maybe lift a finger and do a little restructuring and ask for more reporting. Getting these court documents could have been the beginning, not the end, of telling a very important story with regards to Manning's legacy & personal reputation.

 

Peyton Manning teabags chicks.

 

Remember when people (like me) tried (poorly) to writ like Gary Smith?

This reads like bad Wright Thompson, and others who know when the reporting is part of the story.

 

Someone else probably knows more about this than I do, but was Manning's defense really that he was mooning another student and this woman's face just happened upon his testicles by accident?