Please Fire Peter King

If you don't know who he is, Peter King is (somehow) the head NFL writer for Sports Illustrated. I included the parenthetical for two reasons...

1. Peter King writes at a 3rd grade level.
2. Peter King is a buffoon.

Yet, somehow, King gets first dibs on anything NFL related. And he typically proceeds to butcher the subject matter with incoherent gibberish.

His most recent attempt at journalism was in the aftermath of a US Judge ending the NFL lockout earlier this week. An appeal of the decision is likely, and one of the determining factors in that appeal is whether or not the lockout constitutes "irreparable harm" to the players. In ending the lockout, Judge Nelson believed it did. Here's how King explains how the NFL will contend otherwise...

One legal expert said Monday night he would be surprised if both Nelson and the appeals court denied the stay. His reasoning was that the league would argue that irreparable harm couldn't be done to players in April and May if they were in limbo, and free agency, if it began in June, would still give the estimated 495 free-agent players time to find employment for the 2011 season.

Compare that to a similar explanation by SI's resident legal expert Michael McCann

Judge Nelson was convinced that players would suffer irreparable harm -- meaning a harm that cannot be adequately remedied by money damages, including even trebled damages in antitrust lawsuits -- if they lost the 2011 season. The players argued, to Judge Nelson's satisfaction, that by sitting out one season, players' skills would diminish and careers would be shortened. She also highlighted how unrestricted free agents are in "contractual limbo" and that 2011 rookies would be unfairly harmed by a lockout since they could not play in the NFL or college in 2011, and then they would return in 2012 and compete against next year's rookies, who would have benefited by playing the 2011 college football season.

Now, which one of those more clearly explains the situation? If you said King, congratulations! You're a moron. Yet, for some reason - name recognition, I can only assume - King's article is highlighted on the homepage at si.com and McCann's is buried. It would seem to me, as an unbiased consumer, that you would want to call more attention to the more informative option. But I need to remind myself that journalism today is less about informing and more about page views. Disappointing...