Snyder Interview

[sportscurmudgeon]

Schneed10:

Did I miss something about how Coles thought at one point he was going to be released and would forego his roster bonus but then the story broke and things changed. If there is even a 10% stain of truth in that, then somebody somewhere somehow pondered the possibility of a release - - but then things changed. So, I'm not 100% convinced that Demasio was completely wrong in his story. I am positive he did not have it completely right either.


Ramseyfan:

You have hit the jackpot here. The Skins - and Danny Boy specifically - do not like the tone of the Wash Post's coverage of the team and its actions. It starts with the "obstructed view seats" and goes through to the coverage of the lawsuits to ban people crossing the street to get to Fed Ex and not pay huge parking fees and then on to the not always successful team personnel decisions. So Danny Boy - knowing that he is a prime catch for a media outlet here in Washington on an exclusive interview - goes to the Times and not the Post.

When he does that, he KNOWS AHEAD OF TIME that the Times will do a positive story about him because that is the ONLY way they will get to interview him again on an exclusive basis. If they trash him, they are toast. They know that they are #2 in this market and that in the long run Danny Boy can't make nearly as much money without the Post on his side, so the Times will be "gentle" with the interview and "upbeat" with the story. That is good public relations positioning by Danny Boy; he had that one figured out perfectly.

And that is precisely why each and every detail of the Wash Times story ought not to be considered as gospel truth - without some independent verification. Just as Danny Boy knew the interview would be "gentle", he also knew the kind of image of himself he wanted to project and he probably had a few "messages" he wanted to "get out there". So, some of the stuff in there is no more "objective" and "reality-based" than the stuff on redskins.com. In fact, a part of the interview is stuff that might have appeared on redskins.com had there not been this Times interview.

Never did I say here - or in any other place on Planet Earth - that Bill O'Reilley or anyone who behaves as he does is/was a hard-hitting and objective and truth-seeking journalist. Woodward and Bernstein were back in the 70s; Sy Hersh is and has been for the last 30 years; no one on the Post or the Times sports staff measures up on that scale. No one!

If I look at the "negative stories" that have come out locally about the Redskins in the Post over the past couple of years, I'm not sure I would call them "muckraking". The team's free agency gains and losses are out there for all to see; the lawsuit to allow people to walk to the stadium was public record; the story about the obstructed view seats was sensationalized a bit because of the amount of space it got in the sports section, but it wasn't really muckraking.

You'll know if Danny Boy is serious about "punishing" the Post or if this is just a way for him to use the Times as a way to get some good ink in town, by watching to see if the Post gets fewer press credentials for the Skins games/events this season. Ask Joe Crisp what those are worth to a paper. My guess is that the Post will have as many as they ask for - as will the Times.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

They know that they are #2 in this market and that in the long run Danny Boy can't make nearly as much money without the Post on his side, so the Times will be "gentle" with the interview and "upbeat" with the story. That is good public relations positioning by Danny Boy; he had that one figured out perfectly.

SC,

For the most part I agree with these comments. But, I think the Times asked some "uncomfortable" questions and didn't throw slow balls for Danny to knock out of the park. Certainly it gave Danny a medium to address his critics, but it pointed out a lot of "bad things" about Danny's rule. Danny even admitted in the story that he did a lot of bad things early on in his ownership. I'm not sure how an interviewer could've been much more aggressive or "truth-seeking."

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

And that is precisely why each and every detail of the Wash Times story ought not to be considered as gospel truth - without some independent verification. Just as Danny Boy knew the interview would be "gentle", he also knew the kind of image of himself he wanted to project and he probably had a few "messages" he wanted to "get out there". So, some of the stuff in there is no more "objective" and "reality-based" than the stuff on redskins.com. In fact, a part of the interview is stuff that might have appeared on redskins.com had there not been this Times interview.

Again, I don't think anyone takes the Times as the gospel of truth. We've made a few jokes about the Times (albeit not in this thread) is the past about its inaccurate reporting. Nor do I think that people reading the article took Danny's word at face value - as you yourself noted. But, the article was interesting nonetheless.

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

Woodward and Bernstein were back in the 70s; Sy Hersh is and has been for the last 30 years.

I'm not so sure Sy Hersh or the New Yorker ranks up there with Woodward and Bernstein. This is the guy who said we will invade Iran within a few months. But that's neither here nor there.

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

If I look at the "negative stories" that have come out locally about the Redskins in the Post over the past couple of years, I'm not sure I would call them "muckraking". .

You're right. But, I was talking in general terms about journalism and the growing distaste for pure pessimism.