Jordan Crawford Dunking on LeBron
In our post from earlier today, regarding TMZ snatching the never-before-seen video of Jordan Crawford dunking on LeBron James, I linked out to Deadspin’s account of how multiple media outlets were given the chance to buy the footage. Daulerio estimated that TMZ paid somewhere between $10K and $50K for the video.
And if you watched the TMZ video, you realized two things:
- Jordan Crawford’s dunk on LeBron was nothing all that special, and The King and his Nike cohorts really goofed in making a big deal out of confiscating the footage.
- Somehow, TMZ paid a ton of money for a crappy video when a much better version was floating around out there, and that version is below, courtesy of Ebaumnation (via SportsbyBrooks).
Higher Quality Video of LeBron Getting Dunked on by Jordan Crawford
The purpose of me posting this is not even really related to the Dunktapegate story itself.
Now that the video is out, the story is pretty much dead, save for the slight tarnish it leaves on LeBron’s rep and increased profile of Jordan Crawford. My purpose in posting is that I find it both surprising and interesting that TMZ made such a big deal out of having the “only” video, and apparently paid so much for it, when the video was out there.
The video at Ebaumnation was just posted today. Did they simply wait until TMZ started promoting their own video to build the impulse for it? Were they waiting in the weeds strategically to make a bigger splash after the initial disappointment of the grainy, hard-to-see TMZ video? Or is this is all just a big meaningless coincidence that simply gives us bloggers something to talk about on a slow sports afternoon?
Who knows, and at the end of the day, I guess, who cares. Readers may not find this angle all that interesting, but I’m sure my fellow bloggers will. If anyone knows the backstory, or finds it online, please step up in the comments.
Have a great evening everyone.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?