Peter King (again)

I know Peter at least slightly, and I don't think he would ever "make up" anything. The thread is about him throwing "reportedly" in front of something he found on a blog, which turned out not to be true. Very bad, but not the same thing as making it up. At all.

 

PK tries to explain...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/post/peter-king-explains-fake-news-item/2011/05/17/AFTTTq5G_blog.html#pagebreak

 

I'd like to know how saying "told Sirius Radio" is trying to pass it off as his own?

If he made a mistake about where it was said, then fine, but it doesn't appear to me like he's trying to pass anything off on his own.

King is great about attribution. Count me among the neverending list of beat writers who has been mentioned in his column, sometimes for something as meaningless as an obscure stat that we found.

A lot of the criticisms for PK are valid, but he goes above and beyond when it comes to attribution.

 

No way!!

 

OK, that's a little different than what I thought it was.

 

Mine was for a stupid, obscure stat that I stumbled ass backwards into.

 

I was the little kid that King stole the Tejada foul ball from in Arizona.

 

this. spot on.

 

King answers in column today:

Strange story Monday that I referred to in the column, the one about Washington owner Dan Snyder being on a radio show and saying the Steelers were trying to trade up with Washington into the middle of the first round of the April 28 draft. All parties denied this ever happened, and the story is apparently not true.

While trolling for notes for Monday's column, I saw this one online, from a veteran Steeler reporter, and assumed it was true, particularly after it got some traction over the weekend on Twitter.

Some of you have wondered why I didn't name the source of the report, Jim Wexell, in my note Monday. If a reporter sources a radio show in a tweet or news story, I source the radio show, not the reporter who (I assume) either heard the radio show or saw quotes from it. And I assumed this one was factual. The fact that it apparently was not is now going to add another layer of checking to what I do before I report something. What goes in my column is my responsibility, regardless of the source of the information.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/05/17/mail/index.html#ixzz1MdaETSrw

 

When you're crediting Scout.com for anything other than recruiting (and barely even then), it's time to retire.

 

Unrelated to original problem in this thread...

But did anyone see his note bitching about the refueling charges when he returned his rental car? What an asshole. Rental companies clearly explain when you rent a car that they will fuck you on fuel if you don't do one of two things:

1. Return it full.
2. Buy a full tank in advance.

If you don't do one of these two things, yes, they nail your ass with awful gas fees. All you have to do is pay the slightest bit of attention/not be a lazy ass and you don't have to worry about it.

 

It's especially bad because someone asked him about it. When that happens, you politely say, "No, I did not fill it up. Let me go do that." Simple.