Much ado about nothing

Perhaps it's a bit hypocritical for me to criticize the national media. After all, I do work for a newspaper myself.

But I don't have nearly the platform some of these guys do to promote their own beliefs, and even if I did, I wouldn't turn into one of those shouting heads that dot the ESPN landscape.

There are too many figures in the national media who jump to conclusions, or feel the incessant need to provide instant, historical analysis. And I think it's hurting the average sports fan, and it's hurting the media's own image as a whole.

A few examples:

LeBron James' performance against Detroit in Game 5 of the Eastern Conference Finals was magnificent. Really, it was.

So why can't that be enough? Why does there have to be a round table of alleged experts, who rank how great LeBron's performance was in NBA playoff history? It's 12 hours later! Performances are ultimately ranked by how they hold up over time.

So still using this example, let's say LeBron's Game 5 outburst leads the way to the 2007 NBA title, and three titles in Cleveland in the next five years. Obviously, the historical impact is great.

But if Cleveland fails to make the playoffs the next three years and LeBron bolts for a bigger market, in a purely analytical sense, all this talk may be much ado about nothing.

Another example: Indy driver Danica Patrick had a little run in with a fellow driver. That link to YouTube was the best video I could find that really got into exactly what happened.

What happened between Patrick and Dan Wheldon is just not a big deal. It's not. But again, it's the hot topic on debate-type programming where, if you disagree with a screaming reporter, your opinion is obviously inferior and wrong.

I guess it just really sort of bugs me that so much time is spent on stuff that doesn't really matter. We - the media collectively - ought to put our resources to better use.