Brady's knee makes World News Tonight

[Patslifer]

NO buddy, it's the fact that the most knowledgeable doctor in the country said the exact opposite. Just like last year when all the lies came out about the Pats filming the Rams walk-through.

So did you believe those lies too?

Do you believe this story as well?

No. Also, speculating on a sports injury that has required three additional surgeries for an infection is a lot different than the rams fiasco.

Also, why are you getting so mad about this? The news is a tv program that makes it's money from advertisers. Of course they are going to speculate on an injury to Tom Brady. What they are doing is working, look at all the exposure they are getting. My point was: why get angry at the nonsense? This board takes the whole "woe is us, how could they" thing way to far.

Think about it. Every other thread is about how ( insert writer, news program, player, NFL ) is an IDIOT, and they are reporting fake facts because they HATE is.

 

[Patslifer]

Good riddance. Don't hurry back.

.......

 

[DaBruinz]

Has Boston/New England ever had a bigger star than Tom Brady? Even at their peak, I don't think Bird, Ted Williams, Bobby Orr provided this kind of spectacle. Maybe Rocky Marciano. I guess it's more of a commentary on the media, but Brady is second to none I can think of.

Curt Schilling, Pedro Martinez, and Manny Ramirez.

 

[DaBruinz]

OH-MY-GODDDDDDDDDDDDD!!!!! HOW DARE THEY!!!??? It's ob the headline worked. This site is very funny. If anyone says anything that CERTAIN pats fans don't want to believe could be true, out come the insult and the denial.

Its called hypocracy. That is the issue. Peyton Manning is every bit the star that Brady is, yet not a word was mentioned about Manning having staph infection.

What's funny is you continue to be here posting garbage.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

has boston/new england ever had a bigger star than tom brady? Even at their peak, i don't think bird, ted williams, bobby orr provided this kind of spectacle. Maybe rocky marciano. I guess it's more of a commentary on the media, but brady is second to none i can think of.

jfk

............

 

[Patslifer]

Its called hypocracy. That is the issue. Peyton Manning is every bit the star that Brady is, yet not a word was mentioned about Manning having staph infection.

What's funny is you continue to be here posting garbage.

Peyton Manning isn't dating the worlds most famous super model. Manning does not hang out in New York and around LA. Brady is much bigger of a star than Manning, and thats why his knee was reported on around the globe. You're such a crybaby, what are you going to write a letter to abc whining about their reporting? I'm right and thats a fact. We don't want to hear anything negative about the pats, so when the news reported the pos of Brady having suffered a major set back, people like you go on the defensive and start hurling insults to try and deflect the issue.

Also, Mannings injury was not as serious as Bradys, and it was reported on. Manning is simply not the star that Brady is, so no one cared.

 

[Wildo7]

Curt Schilling, Pedro Martinez, and Manny Ramirez.

Ummmm no. Manny has gotten the closest in recent weeks, but he's still not even close.

 

[Wildo7]

No. Also, speculating on a sports injury that has required three additional surgeries for an infection is a lot different than the rams fiasco.

Also, why are you getting so mad about this? The news is a tv program that makes it's money from advertisers. Of course they are going to speculate on an injury to Tom Brady. What they are doing is working, look at all the exposure they are getting. My point was: why get angry at the nonsense? This board takes the whole "woe is us, how could they" thing way to far.

Think about it. Every other thread is about how ( insert writer, news program, player, NFL ) is an IDIOT, and they are reporting fake facts because they HATE is.

Being content with the sensationalized media is the first step towards idiocy. If you were 1/10th as critical of the media as you are of the Pats, you might end up actually providing something of value to this board.

 

[Patslifer]

Curt Schilling, Pedro Martinez, and Manny Ramirez.

No. The second Brady started dating Giselle, he became a world wide celeb. Aside from JFK ( which you stated) there is no bigger NE icon.

Random 15 year old women in Brazil have no idea who Pedro is, but they know who Brady is.

 

[Wildo7]

jfk

............

Well that's true, but I meant in the sports realm. I guess if you're going outside of that Ben Affleck (gasp) would be another example.

 

[Patslifer]

Being content with the sensationalized media is the first step towards idiocy. If you were 1/10th as critical of the media as you are of the Pats, you might end up actually providing something of value to this board.

I'm not content with it, but "it is what it is". Media and news is on demand now. People are blogging, texting and setting up websites all over the place. It comes with the times my man. My point is that you should not get upset over it, because the media is only going to get worse.

I work in the world of media, and no ratings are bad ratings. When an ae pitches a buy to a company, that company is concerned with three things:

Demographics
Impressions
And persons reached vs cost per commerical, ad, whatever.


Companies like ESPN don't hate Boston. Boston is one of the richest and most active sports markets in the world. They have taken the bad guy approach to reaching us. Before, they kissed our butts all day long. Infact, pretty much every company on the globe considers the Boston market a very lucrative and important market to be in. We are the fifth richest state in America based on yearly income, and we are very smart also.

 

[Wildo7]

I'm not content with it, but "it is what it is". Media and news is on demand now. People are blogging, texting and setting up websites all over the place. It comes with the times my man. My point is that you should not get upset over it, because the media is only going to get worse.

I work in the world of media, and no ratings are bad ratings. When an ae pitches a buy to a company, that company is concerned with three things:

Demographics
Impressions
And persons reached vs cost per commerical, ad, whatever.

Well that's a pretty mentally lazy and cynical attitude to have. The media is only "going to get worse" because people such as yourself allow them to.

And unless you are a football coach dealing with injuries you can't control, "it is what it is" doesn't cut it for anyone with a brain.

 

[Patslifer]

Well that's a pretty mentally lazy and cynical attitude to have. The media is only "going to get worse" because people such as yourself allow them to.

And unless you are a football coach dealing with injuries you can't control, "it is what it is" doesn't cut it for anyone with a brain.

You're missing the point. The media is going to get worse, because everyone and their brother can be in the media now. We all have a platform to say whatever we want via youtube, the web, blogging - etc. How are you going to police that?

Also, you are acting as if poeple were simply making things up out of thin air. Brady had three procedures on his knee, and one of the setbacks to that can be career ending. Thats not going to be the case, but at the time of the report, it was a real issue.

The news was speculating on what may happen, just like they speculate on pretty much every crime or story that they bring to the nation. The reason it upsets you is because you don't want to have to believe that Brady might really have suffered a setback, and you are simply deflecting the issue. Thats a natural reaction to a serious issue, and you likley did the same when spygate happened. Not a big deal, but that's the truth.

 

[Wildo7]

Companies like ESPN don't hate Boston. Boston is one of the richest and most active sports markets in the world. They have taken the bad guy approach to reaching us. Before, they kissed our butts all day long. Infact, pretty much every company on the globe considers the Boston market a very lucrative and important market to be in. We are the fifth richest state in America based on yearly income, and we are very smart also.

ESPN and co., will do whatever it takes to sensationalize and drum up controversy because they think the public are just a mindless group of consumers with ADD that value contrived drama as much as they do the actual sports they cover. Belichick has refused to take part in this charade because he doesn't want to create the cartoon character they like to paint coaches as. He doesn't rant and rave and spread gossip and soundbites, so they label him as "boring and arrogant." They sure as hell aren't going to allow anyone in the sports world to refuse to play their game without sending out a warning shot to others by raking him over the coals. They did the same thing with Roger Maris among others, and as you said, it's only going to get worse. That is of course, if people allow it by resigning themselves to it.

 

[Wildo7]

You're missing the point. The media is going to get worse, because everyone and their brother can be in the media now. We all have a platform to say whatever we want via youtube, the web, blogging - etc. How are you going to police that?

Also, you are acting as if poeple were simply making things up out of thin air. Brady had three procedures on his knee, and one of the setbacks to that can be career ending. Thats not going to be the case, but at the time of the report, it was a real issue.

The news was speculating on what may happen, just like they speculate on pretty much every crime or story that they bring to the nation. The reason it upsets you is because you don't want to have to believe that Brady might really have suffered a setback, and you are simply deflecting the issue. Thats a natural reaction to a serious issue, and you likley did the same when spygate happened. Not a big deal, but that's the truth.

I haven't speculated either way as to how Brady is doing, because speculating is stupid. If people like you didn't eat it up, there wouldn't be such a market place for gossip hounds. That's how you "police it," by rejecting it as an intelligent consumer.

 

[Patslifer]

ESPN and co., will do whatever it takes to sensationalize and drum up controversy because they think the public are just a mindless group of cinsumers with ADD that value contrived drama as much as they do the actual sports they cover. Belichick has refused to take part in this charade because he doesn't want to create the cartoon character they like to paint coaches as. Because he doesn't rant and rave and spread gossip and soundbites, they label him as "boring and arrogant." They sure as hell aren't going to allow anyone in the sports world to refuse to play their game without sending out a warning shot to others by raking him over the coals. They did the same thing with Roger Maris among others, and as you said, it's only going to get worse. That is of course, if people allow it by resigning themselves to it.

Everything that you said is true, but that is what comes with an on-demand society. I know you want to crusade on the issue, but as long as we have free speech, and a news company can "report what they heard from a source" nothing will change.

ESPN knows they can use the negative approach they use to get NE fans to tun in to their network, because we have to watch the games and highlights they carry. Where else are you going to get it?

 

[Patslifer]

I haven't speculated either way as to how Brady is doing, because speculating is stupid. If people like you didn't eat it up, there wouldn't be such a market place for gossip hounds. That's how you "police it," by rejecting it as an intelligent consumer.

I don't eat anything up. I merley pointed out why the news did what they did. Also, you are much more of an intelligent consumer than the norm. I would speculate that the posters on this board are x5 - x10 times smarter than your average consumer when it comes to sports. A highly educated person does not always look at sports coverage like we do. Do you know how many times I have dealt with high level CEO's and CFO's in different market who mention things they heard on ESPN when we talk sports?

The "norm" is Joe the water cooler sports talker, who tunes into ESPN for his highlights and reads the web for his coverage. You're 50 times more informed than most people when it comes to this stuff.

 

[Wildo7]

Everything that you said is true, but that is what comes with an on-demand society. I know you want to crusade on the issue, but as long as we have free speech, and a news company can "report what they heard from a source" nothing with change.

ESPN knows the can use the negative approach they use to get NE fans to tun in to their network, because we have to watch the games and highlights they carry. Where else are you going to get it?

I try to avoid ESPN as much as possible, and I agree that as far as they are concerned an angry audience is as good as a happy one as long as both tune in. But you seem to be crusading against those who have a problem with it, which is twice as bad as those who complain and still tune in.

In an "on demand" society, the only speech they provide is one that actually satisfies an actual demand.

 

[Wildo7]

I don't eat anything up. I merley pointed out why the news did what they did. Also, you are much more of an intelligent consumer than the norm. I would speculate that the posters on this board are x5 - x10 times smarter than your average consumer when it comes to sports. A highly educated person does not always look at sports coverage like we do. Do you know how many times I have dealt with high level CEO's and CFO's in different market who mention things they heard on ESPN when we talk sports?

The "norm" is Joe the water cooler sports talker, who tunes into ESPN for his highlights and reads the web for his coverage.

Then it comes down to whether you have the cynical attitude that the average consumer's intelligence level can't be elevated or the optimistic one that it can. I see no harm in the latter as the realistic outcome is likely dictated by which one we choose.

 

[Patslifer]

Then it comes down to whether you have the cynical attitude that the average consumer's intelligence level can't be elevated or the optimistic one that it can. I see no harm in the latter as the realistic outcome is likely dictated by which one we choose.

I don't have an attitude on the issue, I'm just used to it from working in the world of media. I believe that the average consumers attitude can be elevated, but since people are going to let their bias float in to any issue, I don't think we could achieve what you are pitching on a national scale.

Think about it....Joe the media director is not going to worry about pc reporting....he going to do the best that he can to achieve his objective of providing content that consumers will respond to. In their eyes they are reporting on a story based on facts ( and their objective is to report those facts in a way that will draw the most traffic to their outlet). It's the power of the dollar my man, it will never change.