Snyder Interview

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.

What will be and always is fun to watch is how all of the reporters, press, and fans jump on the band wagon when a losing team starts to win. I hope we can see that happen this year!!

Chargers anyone?

Perhaps the WT will become the Skins primary media outlet? The whole Nunyo/Coles story debacle had to have put a serious dent in Skins/WP relationship.
There was a time when Dan had banned the WT from the premises and starred blankly if they'd ask him a question. I was surprised by the source.

I think we can all agree that Demasio has some serious deficiencies as an objective reporter. I tend to think Maske probably WAS a little too cozy and I think Demasio has sought to balance that by over compensating with negativity. I don't mind negative stories as long as they are accurate. It just seems that Demasio has consistently gone with stories with less than credible information and has been outright wrong on several occasions with regards to facts. Clearly the relationship on the whole with the Post has turned sour and that probably has affected his ability to access information. One issue not mentioned is the presence of Gibbs. Gibbs is notorious for saying anything whatsoever to the press. Gibbs ranks up there with Bush with the ability to talk and say absolutely nothing. The Ryan Clark situation looks like a seminal moment in the relationship.

If I were to speculate I would imagine that when Gibbs came aboard the newest directive for all football personel was to shut your face and let Gibbs do the talking. With the exception of Bugel(who he knew he could trust to say little beyond some meaningless 'guts' type references) nobody else did much talking. Then when they were on the fence whether to keep Clark or maybe an extra o-lineman it was well know among the press corp and eventually it made its way to Demasio as fact so he ran it. I would imagine he had little contact with anybody who really was in on the decision since he knew they were thinking about it so why question it? Once it ran and they had decided to keep Clark I would guess Gibbs went ape s%&* which in turn allowed Synder to be at his best in terms of being a first class asshole. Ever since both the Skins and Demasio/Post feel slighted and now they can't "just get along". This is all just speculation remember.

Demasio will be out as beat writer by this time next year if the relationship doesn't get better. The Post just can't afford to destroy a relationship with a team that is probably one of the most read subjects in the paper.

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

:biggthump

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.

I amend a post I made earlier.

Sports Curmudgeon = Poo Poo Pants

Ramseyfan, nice post.

Snyder uses the phrase "heading in the right direction" four times during the interview.
Sounds like he's trying too hard to convince us or is still trying to convince himself.

Snyder uses the phrase "heading in the right direction" four times during the interview.
Sounds like he's trying too hard to convince us or is still trying to convince himself.

You don't think we ARE headed in the right direction?