Potential reasons why the media is Anti-Pats

I'm not going to go as far as to say the Patriots "get no respect" like Rodney would, as there is a faction of sportswriters, columinsts, etc. who are diehard Pats supporters and truly believe in them (my main man Phill Simms!).

However, there is undeniably an equal if not larger faction of commentators who seem to get off at the notion of putting down the New England Patriots. I'm not going to name names, b/c we know them all, local and national.

I'm curious as to what reasons people can come up with for this illogical and clear anti-Patriots bias present in a decently sized faction of the sporting media. I've recently conjured up one potential theory...

This was really brought to light by the Deion Branch thing, but every former NFL player was suddenly calling out Belichick and the Krafts. It underscored a larger issue - the Branch business was just one example among many of the Patriots way of doing business, a way of doing business that while beneficial to the team and helps maintain their dynasty also has the tendency to piss of players who want to get their (over)payday. NFL commentators - perhaps even more than other sports - is dominated by past-players. These players turned analysts hate the fact that Belichick and gang can replace players so well and so efficiently - the last things athelets want to think of themselves is replaceable and not worth their large salaries. Essentially, the Patriots must piss off these former players, and the only way they can express their distaste is to deride the Pats, continually doubt them, claim that their so-called disloyalty to players will come back and bite them in the rear.

That's the best I can come up with to explain the anti-Pats group. I'd love to hear some other thoughts.

The Anti-Pats thing just is a deep seated dislike of the underdog Pats turned successful Pats. Usually, the underdog gains the respect and admiration of the rest of the league and the general media. Like the 2000 Ravens. Turn around teams like the Bengals, who have yet to actually do anything. Perpetual losers like the Colts.

Why are the Pats different? Sad Sack Franchise that becomes model success story. You think people would love us after a while, but it just hasn't happened.

It has nothing to do with Belichick, and Brady has a squeeky clean image. There just is an irrational dislike of the Pats, kind of a contempt, like we are just not worth talking about.

The Denver game being hyped as 'The team that ended the Patriots Dynasty!'

So according to the media, it is just plain over for us. The least hyped, most uncelebrated, and generally dismissed, Dynasty is now dead.

Sucks to be us, I guess?


I would love for anyone to really explain all the hate for the Pats! And it didn't start with Belichick or Brady or the Superbowl, it just seems to permeate all aspects of media coverage of this team. They didn't like us in 2001, and they don't like us in 2006.

We don't seem to have EARNED any respect in reality. Maybe a few soundbytes from the Pat Kirwin's of the world, but not the average fan, or average media idiot.

I was amazed this morning to listen to Sean Salisbury on WEEI talk like a human beng and make sense. He implied BB did the right thing with Deion, said the Pats would recover nicely. Then asked about a 2-0 team that was a pretender, said that the New Orleans Saints did not have the defense to get them into the playoffs, that the offense was exciting but not enough. I almost ran of Route 128 when I heard that. I've been hearing him and others say how Reggie Bush will turn the Saints around immediately blah blah blah, and now he says that defense if important to get through the playoffs?

There must be some sort of script these guys must follow, or some arty line they must cleave to, or some reason they shrill like banshees at a feeding frenzy (sorry about the mixed metaphor) while on camera.

Sean Salisbury has been one of Brady's biggest supporters since 2002, after that first Superbowl. Sean gets a bad rap by association, and for being a general loudmouth, but he is definitely in Brady's camp.

Which is basically all I care about in media fools. You are either with Brady or not, in my world.

I think it's much simpler than that. In many ways life is a series of popularity contests. The Patriots get dogged by a lot of people b/c those people don't have very good relationships with Belichick.

It's that simple. If a writer or broadcaster or talking head has a good relationship with one coach and a poor or nonexistant relationship with another, which team do you think they're going to talk up?

People tend to look out for their own.

So unless we ever get some of our own former players in prominant media jobs, it probably won't change much.

I think it's because the Pats win without appearing overly dominant. That confuses people who like to see things black and white, i.e. a team is great or terrible. The Pats would get more love if they had the best O or the best D. But the media doesn't recognize that the Pats are great at one thing- and that is winning. Because they win without dominance the media keeps waiting for the other shoe to drop and for the team to start losing.

Well keep waitin', suckas.

5 Rings for Brady!! said:

The Denver game being hyped as 'The team that ended the Patriots Dynasty!'

So according to the media, it is just plain over for us. The least hyped, most uncelebrated, and generally dismissed, Dynasty is now dead

Click to expand...

Right - they wouldn't admit it was a dynasty until they [prematurely] decided it was over (if we win the SB either this year or next, which I think we will, it is a continuation of the dynasty).

Pyper said:

It's that simple. If a writer or broadcaster or talking head has a good relationship with one coach and a poor or nonexistant relationship with another, which team do you think they're going to talk up?

Click to expand...

Fair enough, a very good point.

I just feel that maybe there has to be more to it, though. The anti-New England stuff has been so damn persistent. In some cases, sure it's simple, Borges hates Belichick on a personal level, so he slams the Pats. In a different example, Felger is desperate for attention, so he slams the Pats. I think we see a little of both of those examples when we look at the national media.

I think the biggest reason that sports writers, and reporters dislike the Pat's is the Pat's refusal to play the game by the media rules...ie The Pats refuse to stroke the reporters with inside infomation or allow the reporters to make stars out of the players...In essence the Pat's do not attempt to control or spin the media which at least not on an active daily basis and this refusal to play by their rules is maddening to the media.

This refusal to play their game is closly followed by the Pat's not over paying for so called Free agents or superstars....Thus in the small mind of reporters it is impossible for them to comprehend any possibility of the Pat's succeeding for no one else in history has done so in the NFL except as the occasional fluke which then followed the success with falling back into their rightful place as also rans so in a reporter's mind the Pat's are always considered second rate due to their lack of REAL TOP SHELF NFL TALENT.

These two elements of the Pat's operation requires reporters to actually have knowledge of the game of football and limits their information to that which all of the public has access too.

In essence the Pat's business model as it concerns the Press is to devalue their importance and marginalise their impact.

This devaluation of the reporters position as soothsayer and his power to control his own destiny in the sports world by being considered the all important "SOMEONE IN THE KNOW" at least as far as the Pat's are concerned.

This requires reporters to guess rather then know what is going on behind closed doors and makes them vunerable to public scorn such as Mr Jackson of ESPN and his famous quote "The players hate their coach" which came back to haunt him when the Pat's won the SB and BB publicly said "f,,k you when Jackson extended his hand to shake BBs.

Reporters are used to having it their way and for the most part 31 other teams cater to the media....but not the Pat's thus it is important to the media to display its displeasure with the aspect of the Pat's operation.

Of course the Pat's incredible success only increases the Medias desire to see us fail and they are more then glad too help that process in any way they can.

For if we continue to succeed other teams might try to follow our lead and that would be a disaster for the media.

I agree that we need to get former players into media positions, but I just don't buy that Belichick has a whole lot to do with the complete lack of national interest in the Pats.

The media didn't feel like talking about us in 2001, they enjoyed our demise in 2002. They ignored us right thru the playoffs in 2003. 2004 was a good media year up until the Steelers loss, and then we were old news again.

There is just a complete lack of interest across the country. There are plenty of other coaches with less connections than Belichick, and Belichick actually knows a few of the media people pretty well. He seems a lot more open with the TV announcers like Phil Simms, ect. than he does with the local media.

He is also respected as a genius, and is given almost all the credit for what this team does. The media doesn't seem to want to talk about anything BUT Belichick, like in the Colts match-ups. Belichick versus Manning.

It's everybody not named Belichick or Brady that gets ignored. Until they leave the team, and then they are 'irreplaceable' and the key to all our success.

the football played today is all about media friendliness...and pats arent one..they arent necessarliy against the media as a team but they dont have a TO, chad johnson, ray lewis ,bettis etc which can become a story week in and week out,But when the pats win, these media members are forced to find a story and cant. So they would rather have say baltimore winning because they talk all about say billick ,ray lewis etc etc.Same with miami. if miami played well its good for the media because culpepper getts noticed, more interviews more stories...
Plus the media is just tired of the pats talk to be honest and if someone is not a NE fan, he/shee would also feel that the pats just go away, thats just the nature of it...

Patjew said:

I think it's because the Pats win without appearing overly dominant. That confuses people who like to see things black and white, i.e. a team is great or terrible. The Pats would get more love if they had the best O or the best D. But the media doesn't recognize that the Pats are great at one thing- and that is winning. Because they win without dominance the media keeps waiting for the other shoe to drop and for the team to start losing.

Well keep waitin', suckas.

Click to expand...

I think that this is true, especially to the haters out there who say all our success is really do to our kicking game.

But if the Eagles won all those games by 3 points, or the Colts........I think that it would still be different. Remember the credit the Colts got for beating Kansas in the playoffs by three points, when Kansas had a bad call against Priest Holmes that changed the game, and nobody punted the whole damn game? The Colts were INVINCIBLE in the eyes of the media.

Most of the writers are idiots.

I'm sorry, but it's the truth. Just look at the World champion dolphins.

Writer think winning comes from adding the most high priced free agents to your team every year.

Plus they are hero worshipers and root for the loudest flashiest players and coaches.

In addition, all of these factors sell newspapers/draw viewers.

The real answer to winning is not a secret. But it's.......boring.

It's hard work, team work, consistency, budgeting.

Do you think accountants are exciting? How about secret intra company memos and budget meetings?

The writers want BB to say Deions a traitor! I'd like to kick Mangini's ass, ungrateful son of a *****.

Damn, I don't know how we're going to win Sunday, half our team has the flu and Both running backs have groin pulls.

That's why they love Moss and T.O. and Kellen Winslow. Makes their job easier.

Otherwise they'd have to dig up actual football stories, (yawn).

I think it's because fans are over sensitive to negative commentary or stories. Of course, it helps when you read reporters (and listen to commentators) who understand more than one aspect of the game.

Plus every real fan knows defense wins championships and games are won in the trenches.

So who do the writers pick every year?

Peyton Manning and two receivers who together guarantee they'll never have enough money for great O or Defensive lines.

Box_O_Rocks said:

I think it's because fans are over sensitive to negative commentary or stories. Of course, it helps when you read reporters (and listen to commentators) who understand more than one aspect of the game.

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with positive or negative, it is just a complete lack of interest. I used to watch every national media show and all the ESPN, Fox, and other cable shows. The Pats got less air time than all other teams, during the height of their superbowl runs. I would tape record everything that was said about the Pats, and I would get next to nothing, just a couple minutes once in a while. I'm no longer local to Boston, so I'm talking about national media.

You have got to be kidding me if you haven't noticed the way the Pats have been overlooked and shown a lack of interest during this superbowl dynasty.

I mean, some things are just a fact. The fact is that we get a shorter stick when it comes to media coverage than any other remotely successful team. Nothing but tired cliches about coaching and system and then quickly on to the more 'interesting' teams.

It's not about negative, its about zero interest.

5 Rings for Brady!! said:

It has nothing to do with positive or negative, it is just a complete lack of interest. I used to watch every national media show and all the ESPN, Fox, and other cable shows. The Pats got less air time than all other teams, during the height of their superbowl runs. I would tape record everything that was said about the Pats, and I would get next to nothing, just a couple minutes once in a while. I'm no longer local to Boston, so I'm talking about national media.

You have got to be kidding me if you haven't noticed the way the Pats have been overlooked and shown a lack of interest during this superbowl dynasty.

I mean, some things are just a fact. The fact is that we get a shorter stick when it comes to media coverage than any other remotely successful team. Nothing but tired cliches about coaching and system and then quickly on to the more 'interesting' teams.

It's not about negative, its about zero interest.

Click to expand...

Then we're even, with the internet I have zero interest in the punditry.

Box_O_Rocks said:

Then we're even, with the internet I have zero interest in the punditry.

Click to expand...

Dittos.
I read sites like this which index me to Reiss' blog and I get to read some interesting thoughtful analysis. The noise is worth puting up with. I watch ZERO TV pundrity with the exception of Patriots All Access and the show with Smerlas & DeOssie which I regard as amusing entertainment.

I think the answer to the question is twofold

1. The Pats annually beat the media's darling Colts in big games. (Question to the national media: How many SB rings are on Peyton's fingers in all those commercials he's in this year? Cut that meat, indeed!)

2. Two words: Tuck Rule.

Plus, the team had been a joke for the longest time in the area of 30+ years. The old Pats ruined Marino's only good chance of going to the Super Bowl in 1985. Old habits die hard. Heck, Madden only started picking the Pats to win after they beat the Eagles in the Super Bowl (not that I give credence to anything that comes out of that windbag's mouth, but other people do).

I usually just laugh when the likes of Shannon Sharpe and Jimmy Johnson pick against the Pats. If we, as fans, feel the disrespect, imagine being a player! Just let the pundits give the Pats all the locker room material.

BradyManny2344 said:

I'm not going to go as far as to say the Patriots "get no respect" like Rodney would, as there is a faction of sportswriters, columinsts, etc. who are diehard Pats supporters and truly believe in them (my main man Phill Simms!).

However, there is undeniably an equal if not larger faction of commentators who seem to get off at the notion of putting down the New England Patriots. I'm not going to name names, b/c we know them all, local and national.

I'm curious as to what reasons people can come up with for this illogical and clear anti-Patriots bias present in a decently sized faction of the sporting media. I've recently conjured up one potential theory...

This was really brought to light by the Deion Branch thing, but every former NFL player was suddenly calling out Belichick and the Krafts. It underscored a larger issue - the Branch business was just one example among many of the Patriots way of doing business, a way of doing business that while beneficial to the team and helps maintain their dynasty also has the tendency to piss of players who want to get their (over)payday. NFL commentators - perhaps even more than other sports - is dominated by past-players. These players turned analysts hate the fact that Belichick and gang can replace players so well and so efficiently - the last things athelets want to think of themselves is replaceable and not worth their large salaries. Essentially, the Patriots must piss off these former players, and the only way they can express their distaste is to deride the Pats, continually doubt them, claim that their so-called disloyalty to players will come back and bite them in the rear.

That's the best I can come up with to explain the anti-Pats group. I'd love to hear some other thoughts.

Click to expand...

I think you guys are just a bunch of whiners who like to talk about how everyone hates the Pats. For every media member you mention who says something bad about about them, there are ten more who think they are one of the best teams in the league. My theory is you are insecure about this year's Patriots team so you are trying to rationalize to yourselves that they are great by getting all over the few members of the media who say negative things about them. Just shut up and watch football. I could care less what Mike Golic has to say.

I'm Ron Borges? said:

I think you guys are just a bunch of whiners who like to talk about how everyone hates the Pats. For every media member you mention who says something bad about about them, there are ten more who think they are one of the best teams in the league. My theory is you are insecure about this year's Patriots team so you are trying to rationalize to yourselves that they are great by getting all over the few members of the media who say negative things about them. Just shut up and watch football. I could care less what Mike Golic has to say.

Click to expand...

Hey Ron, how ya doin'?

How's Koren Robinson doing these days? Terrel, Kenyatta Walker?