Peter King: Arbiter of all that is good and just in this world

I always get a kick out lines like this (from Peter King):

Not much has changed in that regard -- except Roethlisberger is off to a good start doing the right things.

Sportswriters like to use that term a lot; "the right things." As if there's a universal agreement on what's right and what's wrong. Well I'm sorry, but what exactly makes Peter King qualified to judge if Roethlisberger is "doing the right things" or not? Or any sportswriter, for that matter? And yet, you'll see that a lot. "So-and-so is doing the right things to repair his image." "So-and-so always says the right things to the media." What in the hell are the right things? To Peter King, donating money to Amnesty International could be "the right thing." To another person, giving to Amnesty International could be donating money to a radical organization. Who's to judge? Certainly not a sportswriter.

If you read King's article today, you can see what he thinks are the right things.

Roethlisberger used to avoid the local press or either talk down to them or give them nothing of himself; now he asks a couple of them for advice.

He never was much of a teacher on the field to the young receivers. "Now he's helping every one of them,'' said wideout Mike Wallace.

He used to avoid the never-ending autograph lines in camp; now, daily, he signs.

In other words, the right things include talking to the press, helping young wideouts and signing autographs. Of course, none of this precludes Roethlisberger from, say, sexual assaulting someone but I guess it's a start.

And here's an example of "the wrong thing," according to King.

Thirteen months ago, I convened five NFL quarterbacks in a room in Lake Tahoe to have a wide-ranging discussion for Sports Illustrated on the state of the position today. But it almost didn't happen the way I wanted it.

The day before we were to sit down in a restaurant overlooking a golf course, Ben Roethlisberger, who had won his second Super Bowl a few months earlier, told me he wasn't going to do it. Didn't want to. Was too busy. I told him he agreed to do it, and he had to keep his word -- months of planning and arm-twisting had gone into it. So Roethlisberger did it, but he wasn't happy about it. He big-dogged the photographer flown in for the occasion. Roethlisberger didn't give his best effort in the roundtable discussion; he was either texting or talking to one of the other quarterbacks or making calls a good third of the time. He left the room first when it was over, and a couple of us just looked at each other and said, in so many words, "What is wrong with that guy?''

Granted, this all makes Roethlisberger look like a humongous douchebag, but really, who gives a flying fuck about any of this except Peter King? Peter, it may be hard to believe, but the average person doesn't care if Roethlisberger gives you the time of day or not.

But here's what I really love about this story; notice how it's from 13 months ago, which was before last season. That means King buried this story for 13 months, only now pulling it out to make Roethlisberger look bad. I guess as long as he was winning Super Bowls, everything was fine and dandy and we could just bury any juicy tidbits about the guy. But as soon as he's accused of sexual assault, all of the stories about what a douchebag he is come out.

I just wish sportswriters would stay away from the moral judgements, and just stick to their supposed areas of expertise. I don't need Peter King telling me what "the right things" are. I don't need them delving into the psyches of certain players, as if they have even the slightest bit of qualification for it. Just report football news, please. Peter, I read your articles because you get inside access that few have and you'll drop nuggets that no one else will. I do not read your articles for your moral grandstanding. Leave that to the guy upstairs, please.