It’s Complicated: Does the Sports Media Truly Hate the NFL’s Oakland Raiders?


(This article is a detour from the typical discourse in sports writing, but I will appreciate any thorough reading and discussion.)

Over the past two years, I have written a number of articles that questioned the motivations of the sports media, especially its coverage of the Oakland Raiders, because I was discontent with the line of questions in the wake of the Spygate scandal with the New England Patriots.

I waited and waited and waited for all the facts to come to light, because I gave the benefit of the doubt that maybe, just maybe, new revelations would arise.

Yet, no one asked the question that I wanted answered.

If the Patriots stole signals during games in the 2001-2002 postseason on the road in Pittsburgh and on the road in the Super Bowl, why then should be believe that the Patriots would not steal signals on their turf in Foxboro against the Raiders in the same postseason?

That postseason of course included the infamous Tuck Rule Game.


Sins of our Patriots

In retrospect, I must wonder if the sports media was complicit in the cover-up of New England's dirty deeds. 

For instance, the insistence by some in the sports media (ex, Tony Kornheiser) that Spygate would only matter if one could identify a single pivotal play that would detrimentally impugn the success of the Patriots, begs the question (in my mind) as to whether the sports media knew the truth. 

Yet, the desire was to create enough misdirection that eventually people would be exasperated by the story all together.

I have since called the Patriots Super Bowl win that year The Super Bowl Hustle, because (in my view) the Patriots would intentionally keep it close in order to see the opponent's arsenal of plays before "magical" drives for touchdowns. 

Aside from the two drives in regulation for a TD and FG by New ...

About the Author