Stupid Media Narratives, Ctd.

Rich Hammond (LAKi): The Key Three, June 6

[P]erhaps now fans and media types can take a deep breath and stop talking about the Kings’ “record-setting’’ run, about championship parade routes and whose name will be on the Stanley Cup. […] Those who were printing invitations to the coronation […] must have quickly forgotten the first two games of this series, the games in which the New Jersey Devils […] were one decent break away from winning each game. That’s why Darryl Sutter scoffed and brayed last night when asked about the Kings’ difficulty in completing a sweep. It’s sort of like asking a basketball player about missing three out of four midcourt shots.

[…] Some of the talk now, most likely, will be about how the Kings are perfect on the road. That, again, misses the point. […] The bottom line remains the same […]: the Kings need to win one more game.

My favorite part of all of this is how the talking heads (no, not those Talking Heads) whip themselves up in a frenzy with their own made-up narratives (“destiny” “inevitability” “unbeatable” “historic”), and then wheel around and mock their own made-up story like it betrayed them (e.g. “The cup was the Kings’ for the taking and they couldn’t finish”). As I have said more than once, it’s a win-win for them. They set their little plot in motion, and then if it doesn’t work out, then that’s the story. They did the same thing with Shane Doan American Hero, the wily veteran of character who at last will get his shot at the Cup (like they had seen that Lanny McDonald ad too many times). And then, when he craps out in a spectacular firestorm of idiocy, they’re flailing around to make that fit their dopey story-line, and their irritation at having to scramble to do this is palpable.


  4 comments for “Stupid Media Narratives, Ctd.

  1. okto
    June 7, 2012 at 7:27 PM

    i like richs perspective. it has a touch of sanity. must be because he isnt a kings fan.

  2. Saronoff
    June 7, 2012 at 7:39 PM

    I’m annoyed at the entire “anyone could have won the first two games” stuff. The Kings found a way to win those games. That’s meaningful; further they dominated that OT period in game 2 after playing a so-so game. Then, while Jersey had some chances in game 3, the Kings flat out beat them.

    • June 7, 2012 at 7:45 PM

      I agree with you. Mainly, you can’t be in the “anyone can win” position if you aren’t already doing about a million things right. It’s in the same vein as “you can’t score if you don’t shoot.” 

    • Uni
      June 9, 2012 at 11:33 AM

      For that matter I thought Game 4 was an “anyone can win” game since I felt the Kings had the better chances but could not take it to OT, the home of “anyone can win hockey,” as it’s understood.  So if they did win it,  would NJ have been swept in an “anyone can win it” series? 

      Now that I type this, the phrase “anyone can win” almost sounds a little redundant, because if “only one could win” they wouldn’t even play the games…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.