Snyder Interview

[sportscurmudgeon]

Let me see here. The Washington Times gets to do an interview with Danny Boy Snyder on an exclusive basis and writes a positive story. Everyone here takes that to mean that the Washington Times is the beacon of truth, justice and the American Way while the Post is part of an Evil Empire.

Folks, if Woodward and Bernstien had rolled over and gone paws-up for the Nixon Administration after the Watergate break-in just as the Times did with Danny Boy, Nixon would have finished out his presidency. If you think that article is hard-hitting investigative journalism, I don't suggest you enrol as a journalism major at Columbia! Let me say only that the interviewer/author probably needed a breath mint after that session...

I don't think Nunyo Demasio is particularly good as a beat reporter; I find his writing style dull; he's not nearly as good as Mark Maske was. But the scuttlebut is that the new sports editor at the Post thought that Maske was "getting a bit too cozy" with the Redskins and so he made the switch. Now Maske does general NFL beat reporting and not just the Skins. I have no idea if that actually was the case, but that is what is out there on the wire. So Demasio's "marching orders" are to remain at arm's length from the team and to be an objective reporter. That tends to motivate him to have some negative stuff in his stories - wouldn't want the boss to think he was getting too chummy with "the story" causing Demasio to be reassigned to covering DC United.

And by the way, Demasio was a lot closer to "right" than "wrong" about the Coles story. Until he broke it, everyone here on The Warpath was 100% convinced that Coles' foot would be better and he would be the Skins' #1 WR and catch 90-100 balls for the Skins next year. You may not like the outcome of Demasio's reporting there because it guaranteed that the end of the Coles/Redskins relatinship would be acrimonious and not something where compromise was likely to happen, but you can't say he didn't do a reporter's job in getting to the bottom of the story.

I'd be willing to wager that Joe Crisp would have gone with that story had he had the story back in early February. Of course Joe Crisp would have written better prose, but nonetheless, he would have run the story and run it hard!

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

Let me see here. The Washington Times gets to do an interview with Danny Boy Snyder on an exclusive basis and writes a positive story. Everyone here takes that to mean that the Washington Times is the beacon of truth, justice and the American Way while the Post is part of an Evil Empire.

Folks, if Woodward and Bernstien had rolled over and gone paws-up for the Nixon Administration after the Watergate break-in just as the Times did with Danny Boy, Nixon would have finished out his presidency. If you think that article is hard-hitting investigative journalism, I don't suggest you enrol as a journalism major at Columbia! Let me say only that the interviewer/author probably needed a breath mint after that session...

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.

[MTK]

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.

Couldn't have said it any better

[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.