PFT: LaCanfora to NFLN

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

JLC had his share of drama with the Skins FO and yeah he took things over the top at times I felt. BUT, I find it hard to think the Skins don't share some of the blame in their little tiff with the WP.

The Redskins, as much as I love them, are a major pain for the media to deal with. MAJOR. But if you treat them right, they treat you right. It doesn't mean praising them at all stops, just being respectful. It's hard to explain

[MTK]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

The Redskins, as much as I love them, are a major pain for the media to deal with. MAJOR. But if you treat them right, they treat you right. It doesn't mean praising them at all stops, just being respectful. It's hard to explain

I'm guessing it probably means if you play by their rules it's all good. If you rock the boat at all you're done. Is Karl Swanson still around? I've heard that guy is a major prick.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I'm guessing it probably means if you play by their rules it's all good. If you rock the boat at all you're done. Is Karl Swanson still around? I've heard that guy is a major prick.

He's still there, unless something has changed the past few months that I missed.

But it's like this. We (the media) are admittedly constantly pushing the limits of our relationships with teams, players, coaches, etc. Likewise they with us. So we could, for example, maybe go a little too far with the Washington Wizards as far as what we report. And we'd get a call "Hey, we said that in confidence. We don't appreciate what you did..." Ok, sorry. We apologize, forgive, and move on. With the Skins though, and keep in mind this is from my experience with them from 7 years ago, one mistake and that was it. You were done. There was no opportunity to explain or justify. Once they thought you had wronged them, you were persona non grata. You and I both kind of know that first hand.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

He's still there, unless something has changed the past few months that I missed.

But it's like this. We (the media) are admittedly constantly pushing the limits of our relationships with teams, players, coaches, etc. Likewise they with us. So we could, for example, maybe go a little too far with the Washington Wizards as far as what we report. And we'd get a call "Hey, we said that in confidence. We don't appreciate what you did..." Ok, sorry. We apologize, forgive, and move on. With the Skins though, and keep in mind this is from my experience with them from 7 years ago, one mistake and that was it. You were done. There was no opportunity to explain or justify. Once they thought you had wronged them, you were persona non grata. You and I both kind of know that first hand.

Word to that.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

He's still there, unless something has changed the past few months that I missed.

But it's like this. We (the media) are admittedly constantly pushing the limits of our relationships with teams, players, coaches, etc. Likewise they with us. So we could, for example, maybe go a little too far with the Washington Wizards as far as what we report. And we'd get a call "Hey, we said that in confidence. We don't appreciate what you did..." Ok, sorry. We apologize, forgive, and move on. With the Skins though, and keep in mind this is from my experience with them from 7 years ago, one mistake and that was it. You were done. There was no opportunity to explain or justify. Once they thought you had wronged them, you were persona non grata. You and I both kind of know that first hand.

Any idea why? Did they treat the media this way during the JKC years? 7 years ago would put us right around the whole Spurrier fiasco, and not too far removed from disastrous signings like Carrier, Deion, etc. Possibly this led to a frustration filled, low tolerance approach by Danny and Co? Just my speculation, but I'd love to hear what you know (or at least what you're willing to divulge).

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Any idea why? Did they treat the media this way during the JKC years? 7 years ago would put us right around the whole Spurrier fiasco, and not too far removed from disastrous signings like Carrier, Deion, etc. Possibly this led to a frustration filled, low tolerance approach by Danny and Co? Just my speculation, but I'd love to hear what you know (or at least what you're willing to divulge).

I was pretty involved with them during the final Norv years, the Marty year and the first Spurrier year so I don't exactly know what it was like with JKC. But as I understand it, and from what I've been told, this low tolerance approach had something to do with the Redskins wanting to get more presence on the national stage as cable and Internet was starting to emerge and local sports (what I was working on) was starting to fade away. So whereas under previous regimes were the local guys where the first to get the scoop on many rumors, that was becoming less and less the case. So when we would get information off the record, (we being the local media) in our zeal to get some scoop, we'd often report it. Which is absolutely the wrong thing to do. Off the record is off the record. Ultimately, a balance was struck but at the beginning I know it was pretty tense.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I was pretty involved with them during the final Norv years, the Marty year and the first Spurrier year so I don't exactly know what it was like with JKC. But as I understand it, and from what I've been told, this low tolerance approach had something to do with the Redskins wanting to get more presence on the national stage as cable and Internet was starting to emerge and local sports (what I was working on) was starting to fade away. So whereas under previous regimes were the local guys where the first to get the scoop on many rumors, that was becoming less and less the case. So when we would get information off the record, (we being the local media) in our zeal to get some scoop, we'd often report it. Which is absolutely the wrong thing to do. Off the record is off the record. Ultimately, a balance was struck but at the beginning I know it was pretty tense.

Gotcha. So it's a combination of a bit of poor journalism ethics by some local folks and some thin skin from the, um, Skins.

Am I understanding you correctly that you guys (the local media I mean) felt you were being intentionally bypassed by your sources so they could give the first dibs on leads/stories to the national guys (presumably to gain more favor on the national media stage)?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Gotcha. So it's a combination of a bit of poor journalism ethics by some local folks and some thin skin from the, um, Skins.

Am I understanding you correctly that you guys (the local media I mean) felt you were being intentionally bypassed by your sources so they could give the first dibs on leads/stories to the national guys (presumably to gain more favor on the national media stage)?

Yup, that's pretty much it