[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

I don't see how anyone has said that the Washington Times is a beacon of truth, etc. We've simply criticized Nunyo for his inaccuracies and speculated that the Times might now have an edge over the Post in their relations with the Redskins.

The Post is a good paper and Nunyo isn't all that bad, but I think our criticism of Nunyo is valid and our speculation about the Post being on the outs with the Skins is well-founded.

The Skins have had several big tiffs with the Post over the last season or so. For example, the Post railed on the Skins' decision to add seats with partially-obstructed views. That criticism was justified, but it certainly didn't endear the Post to Snyder. The Post's story about the Coles situation angered a lot of people - including Snyder and Coles. Coles' agent reportedly was furious about the article and Coles said in a statement that the article pretty much determined his departure - he wanted out, but he didn't DEMAND getting out until the story broke. The Post's story wasn't even good reporting - it was replete with MAJOR inaccuracies and riddled with speculation.

Finally, the Post has begun to be more skeptical and pessimistic about recent changes to the franchise (from player personnel decisions on down). Again, that doesn't endear the Post to Snyder.

As to your contention that anyone who thinks the article represents "hard-hitting journalism" need not apply to the Columbia school of journalism, I don't think a story has to be "hard-hitting," cynical, Bill O'Reilly type journalism to be interesting, informative or good.

I think people are starting to get tired of journalists, commentators, etc. who make a living TRYING to muck-rake (especially if there's nothing to rake). We want commentators to be fair - deliver the good and the bad without the taint of sensationalistic pessimism (or optimism). You can't give voice to just the critics and say the optimists (i.e. Snyder) shouldn't have their say.

It's good for reporters to report about corruption, misdeeds, etc. but that's not ALL they should report. We went from "whatever the government says" in the 1950s to "the world is a dark place without any hope, everyone is evil, everything sucks" in the 1990s. Hopefully journalism will turn a new leaf in the 21st century.

I for one loved the article. Did I think it was "hard-hitting?" No, but it was still a good read.

In any event, that's my two cents.

Thank you - well said.