Well this sucks. A few days ago, we posted an ESPN.com report on Manning running walk throughs. Because of the knee wrap and the presence of Dom, we guessed that it was in fact from this week. I contacted Paul Kuharsky from ESPN to confirm that the video was current. Here was my question:
Paul, yesterday, you showed a video of Peyton Manning at a Colts' walk through. Then you said the practice was closed door. Was the footage from yesterday or was it stock? If it was from yesterday, how did you attain it if the practice was closed? If it was stock footage, shouldn't that have been made clear in the report? Was that important footage of Manning moving around well, or was it old video? Could you shed some light and clear up the confusion?
This was his response:
I sent an email to higher ups on this and did not get a reply. I apologize. It's an excellent question. I suspect stock footage and would agree we should have made it clear. Sorry I can't give you more. I'm just a simple blogger in a very big world.
My understanding is Manning was at a practice, not in a practice.Thanks for reading and taking the time to write...
Paul Kuharsky
ESPN.com
First off, thanks to Paul for his response. We all recognize that this wasn't his fault. Of most immediate concern to Colts fans is that this takes away some of the good feeling we had about Manning being available soon. Granted, he didn't say it for sure WASN'T from this week, but he also couldn't confirm it.
What this really calls into question is the editing process at ESPN. The fact that we can't get an answer to clear up their questionable editing is disturbing to say the least.
Demond Sanders: It has to be recent footage, right? Manning has a heavily wrapped left knee which tells me it is post-surgery film. And as you pointed out he is handing off to Dom Rhodes in a #38 jersey. I think he looks pretty good.
Still, I think you make a solid point about the sloppy reporting by ESPN. How did they get video of a closed practice? Weird.
DZ Comments: Slopping editing. The reporting was solid. The reporter isn't to blame for the editing of the story. He clearly shot his stand up piece, and they put it together. It's semantics, but I hate to kill the wrong guy. Kuharsky was stand up about it. The editor is to blame for the confusion.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
The practice wasn't open to the media, so that can't be video of Manning recently. He's only attended the one walk-through, otherwise he's been invisible. And yet, he's handing off to Dom wearing #38. Interesting. It MUST be from before the surgery, right? The knee had been bothering him since February, so it's possible it was bandaged prior to the procedure. Pretty lousy job of showing an old video while proclaiming that Manning is "back practicing."
Further Breaking News: The video is from minicamp 2008. Go to NFL videos, Indianapolis Colts videos, and find the video "Colts on Day 2" from May 19. From 1:09 to 1:14 you can see Peyton clapping, with his left knee bandaged up. It is a black bandage, exactly like the one if the "new video." That video is pre-surgery, guys.
Terrible, terrible job by ESPN.
Yeah, this whole report is now a non-story. Would you have linked to the video if it didn't contain that sliver of footage? I'm betting no. For all we know Manning was limping around the sideline drinking Gatorade. ESPN did this on purpose of course. With all the game film they have lying around they go and use an irrelevant clip from minicamp that just happens to show him with a bandaged knee? Come on now... But here's their loophole. They never actually said the video was current. Furthermore, they said the practice was closed-door. How can they be held responsible for our faulty assumptions? I guess they can't.
When you watch that video there is no way to interpret it other than that the footage was of Manning practicing that day.
If the footage is indeed old, then it is inexcusable.
Oh, I agree. It's wrong, completely. And blatant. But, technically, they are off the hook.
You guys its a sport and we're talking about ESPN. Who cares? What do they owe you? Someone made a mistake in putting together a report with a clip. I doubt it was done intentionally or with malice. You just think too much about it. You are good fans and thats nice but probably have a bit too much free time on your hands. Get a job or get a second shift. Its not worth worrying about. There are starving kids in America. Go volunteer in a soup kitchen instead of tearing up ESPN. You don't like their coverage, don't watch them. Don't read them. Don't cross reference them.
Ok so, sports isn't big in the grand scheme of things and this is a subject you feel is a waste of time and irrelevant inside sports.
So you are commenting on a blog post on a dumb little mistake on a ultimately irrelivant sports story. That makes you one step more pointless, with even more extra time you're wasting.
(and yes I know, by commenting on this I'm a step worse than you. I know and accept that. I waste tons of time and aren't productive towards society, I'm a college student, what do you expect?)
Seriously.
By the way, I work with the poor for a living, idiot. I do this for fun.
What a fool. How do you know what we do in our lives? You don't. And I doubt you volunteer at soup kitchens yourself. I'm pretty sure we all have jobs, don't we? LOL.
Speaking of controversial videos: http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80a38673
1) Sterling Sharpe (who is calling the game) keeps saying "Indianapolis Coats". THAT won't get annoying tonight.
2) What is up with Deion's gray mutton chops? Mid-life crisis, anyone?
3) No mention of The Zombie or Freeney? That's twilight-zone stuff.
Post some kind of name next time, anonymous.
Personally I think it was a big enough deal to mention on a blog about the Colts. I know the video fooled me.
Post a Comment