Four Reporters, Four Different Views Of FOX's Coverage

Monday, January 21, 2008


It always amazes me when people watching the same game draw two entirely different conclusions on the contest. Normally it's reporters covering different teams that notice certain nuances and rarely reporters on the same beat. That wasn't the case this morning as I was flipping (or clicking rather) through some of Green Bay and New York's coverage of the game.

The publications are the NY Daily News, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal and the Green Bay Press-Gazette. All took stabs at FOX's coverage of last nights Pack loss and both came up with something completely different.

Bob Raismann (NY Daily News): "Neither Joe Buck nor Troy Aikman overplayed the weather angle. In a game contested at such a high level, under miserable conditions, the voices let the pictures take care of that story.

There were other issues to deal with, like Plaxico Burress' matchup with cornerback Al Harris. The plot was visual, with Fox's cameras offering telling replays of the confrontation, which often played on after the whistle, and Aikman making the point - in the second quarter - that the Packer coaching staff "sure should think about" giving Harris some help covering Burress.

OLIVER'S TWIST: Pam Oliver, working Fox's sidelines, tried selling a conspiracy theory in the second quarter."

Bob Wolfley (Milwaukee J-S): "Fox did a good job during the broadcast keeping viewers informed about the temperature and wind chill index during the course of the game. The game started at minus-1 degree with a minus-23 wind chill, and it was minus-4 and minus-24 late in overtime, according to the Fox thermometer."

Warren Gerds (Green Bay P-G): "In the booth, Buck and analyst Troy Aikman let the action play out, rather than say anything cute about the cold.

They had plenty to work with — the battle between Giants receiver Plaxico Burress and Packers defensive back Al Harris, the wowing 90-yard touchdown catch of Packers Donald Driver and the unfolding answers to the main mystery, "How will the quarterbacks perform in the numbing cold?"

Despite the outcome for Green Bay, the viewing was entertaining, perhaps more so when the Fox camera caught three "Bikini Girls" dancing in the stands in their yellow outfits."
Now for a fourth view. I don't mean to pick on you Warren and Bob (NY Post), but the last part of each of your quotes sound like they talked about the Weather a lot. I too didn't think they "overplayed" it, but it did get annoying at some points.

Since I was sans-internet for the game I couldn't really take "notes" on the contest but I don't think it was the weather that was the deciding factor on whether the broadcast was bearable or not. Maybe since Warren and Bob cover the Packers they didn't notice just how in love with Brett Favre FOX was. Look I understand it was possibly his last game, but I think Joe Buck's love of Favre surpassed Jim Nantz' love of Tom Brady during last night's contest. I honestly didn't think that was possible.

I know that you have to take certain angles and story lines during a contest, but Joe Buck was just flat out rooting for Brett Favre. I got the sense that Buck and Aikman truly thought that the Giants couldn't, wouldn't, and shouldn't win that game. I'm actually rather glad they did today.

ELI MANNING = UNSTOPPABLE

20 Comments:

eli manning seems like a nice guy. he also is a talented player. but i
cannot and will not ever 'root' for him based on how he and his father
handled their business during the '04 draft. it was shameful, and
that, sadly, is how i think of eli manning.

Anonymous said...
Jan 21, 2008, 12:34:00 PM  

Sorry, AA, but no announcer-on-athlete manlove approaches Nantz's for Brady's. Well, maybe Madden's for Favre, but certainly not Buck's!

matskralc said...
Jan 21, 2008, 12:38:00 PM  

I agree Mat, but I think it did for one night. I'm just glad that it's not a Favre-Brady Superbowl....I think Joe Buck's head would explode. Waiiiiiit a tic.

Jan 21, 2008, 12:42:00 PM  

I think Phil Simms loves that Patriots and Tom Brady more than Jim Nantz ever will.

Jan 21, 2008, 12:50:00 PM  

It'll be interesting to see Joe Buck's reaction in two weeks, since this is his first crack calling a Pats game this year (only two games could've gone to Fox: Eagles was a Sunday nighter, and Redskins was during baseball, so Kenny Albert got the call).

Willmott said...
Jan 21, 2008, 1:01:00 PM  

That draft thing was all Condon, not Archie. Archie was forced into a difficult situation where he was forced to come to his son's defense.

Anonymous said...
Jan 21, 2008, 1:01:00 PM  

Um....the entire quote from the guy in Milwaukee was about the weather...and you attack him for talking about the weather? In fact, where at all in that guy's quote did he mention that Fox didn't talk about the weather a lot? You're really reaching at things to criticize Farve about.

Anonymous said...
Jan 21, 2008, 1:09:00 PM  

Ummm....Anon....there's two guys named Bob. I was referring to Raismann from the Post. Thanks for reading.

Jan 21, 2008, 1:26:00 PM  

I still don't see it. The second quote is more of a sidebar than anything.

Anonymous said...
Jan 21, 2008, 1:36:00 PM  

I hate Joe Buck no matter what football game he's doing. In fact I hate him no matter what sport he's doing.

B-Sells said...
Jan 21, 2008, 2:57:00 PM  

Actually, watching the game last night I kept thinking of how much love Aikman was giving the Giants.

Tony Romo said...
Jan 21, 2008, 3:09:00 PM  

I agree with tony. I thought Buck and Aikman were kissing Eli's butt. And it made me ill.

Anonymous said...
Jan 21, 2008, 3:12:00 PM  

I'd like to thank the Giants for sparing us two weeks of Favre talk. The Brady talk will be more than enough, thank you.

I actually predicted a Favre Pick 6 to start OT and was so close to being right. :>

odessasteps said...
Jan 21, 2008, 3:48:00 PM  

Did anyone see, right at the top of the broadcast, when Buck was showcasing how you could see his breath and it looked more like he was giving oral to an invisible man? Quite possibly the gayest thing I've ever seen.

GMoney said...
Jan 21, 2008, 3:56:00 PM  

I actually thought Fox's coverage was wonderful compared to CBS's. Nantz and Simms have reached unlistenable status.

Anonymous said...
Jan 21, 2008, 5:34:00 PM  

Joe Buck's Favre-love must've been subtle because I didn't notice it. You notice when CBS bows at Brady's feet.

Anonymous said...
Jan 21, 2008, 6:27:00 PM  

I will say the silence of Buck and Aikman after the Giants kicked the winning field goal was palbable. It was almost like they were at a loss for words on how to handle Farve not going to the Super Bowl. It seems like for at least 30 seconds they said nothing.

Dave said...
Jan 21, 2008, 9:18:00 PM  

>>> I'm just glad that it's not a Favre-Brady Superbowl....I think Joe Buck's head would explode.

And that would be a bad thing?

SpartanDan said...
Jan 21, 2008, 9:40:00 PM  

Actually Raissman is from the NY Daily News. Has a conflict of interest as he's allgedly a sports on tv reporter, yet is a regular panelist on a cable sports station [SNY] he does NOT critique.
Phil Mushnick does better, grouchier stuff for the Post.
And the best of them all is a guy named Best. Newsday's Neil Best.

Anonymous said...
Jan 21, 2008, 11:02:00 PM  

I will say the silence of Buck and Aikman after the Giants kicked the winning field goal was palbable. It was almost like they were at a loss for words on how to handle Farve not going to the Super Bowl. It seems like for at least 30 seconds they said nothing.

or perhaps they were letting the moment speak for itself.

matskralc said...
Jan 22, 2008, 6:48:00 AM  

Post a Comment