Skins vs. The Post
 

Interesting read on this ongoing battle

[url]http://www.washingtonian.com/inwashington/buzz/2005/0506.html[/url]

Re: Skins vs. The Post
 

Personally I say if Danny boy doesn't like the negative stuff being said, put up more wins than loses and stop making stupid FO mistakes.

Re: Skins vs. The Post
 

im not sure which side to take on this matter. i go to redskins news every day. it's my homepage. they have been doing a lot more lately. in fact, i haven't heard much about this matter at all. i guess i just won't read the post anymore.

Re: Skins vs. The Post
 

skins.com has been posting alot of videos lately, definitely worth checking out

Re: Skins vs. The Post
 

If it means more video and interviews with players and coaches...LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!

Re: Skins vs. The Post
 

[QUOTE=CooleyAsCanBe]If it means more video and interviews with players and coaches...LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!![/QUOTE]

Agree. The more news the better.

Re: Skins vs. The Post
 

[QUOTE=mooby]im not sure which side to take on this matter. i go to redskins news every day. it's my homepage. they have been doing a lot more lately. in fact, i haven't heard much about this matter at all. i guess i just won't read the post anymore.[/QUOTE]


i gotta take the redskins side. the post has the right to print and say what they want but they must remember that it is a privilage to be the so-called "main source" for redskins news. they should be as nice to the skins as possible in order to get more interviews with players, coaches etc.... but instead they wrote some negative articles concerning the skins and gibbs and even dan snyder. you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Re: Skins vs. The Post
 

It's about time that skins.com got better anyway. Given the cash that snyder has, he should invest in making the website first-class.

As for the post, I don't like reading their speculative negative stuff, but you can't expect them to do the skins bidding. And the skins haven't won in a long time, so they can't really talk. Once they start winning, the coverage will improve--eveyone know this.

Re: Skins vs. The Post
 

I don't have a problem with them reporting negative new's, if the shoe fit's so be it, but if they are going to create new's to sell papers ala the Gibbs retirement story then good riddance.

I really like what they are doing at redskins.com excellent work, it's about time we strated upgrading to the new millenium.

Re: Skins vs. The Post
 

I agree...I'm all for reporting unbiased news, but untrue news crosses the line!

You almost feel like you right there training with the team watching some of those players work out!

Re: Skins vs. The Post
 

i personaly don't have a problem with them posting negative news but it's obviouse that snyder and gibbs do. the wash. post is shooting itself in the foot, they should have had the "i'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" mentality with snyder.

Re: Skins vs. The Post
 

Plus, the Post is always a step late on breaking news. Where were they when Gibbs was coming back as coach? I read that on CBS Sportsline and the post was so out of touch they even refuted that it was true. With the exception of the occasional Wilbon, Kornheiser columns, the rest of it is crotch rot.

Re: Skins vs. The Post
 

The problem with the Post's coverage is the same problem with most journalism - it's gotten sloppy. News stories are far too speculative. I love the columns, for the most part though.

Re: Skins vs. The Post
 

redskins.com has been a worthless site for a long long time, its good that its finally going to be a useful place to learn about what's happening with the team. Just remember that the team owns the site, sso its not news, its propaganda... I doubt it'll ever post dissenting views, but thats what this place is for... right?

...and ade jimoh is a gauranteed hall of famer. I bet he only gives up 3 total passes this year... that's tough to beat.

Re: Skins vs. The Post
 

There is balance that's needed in everything.......I don't want to read sickening sweet "everything is wonderful" homer type reporting where you need an insulin shot to read the stuff. I do want an HONEST assessment and reporting, but no exaggerating, or negative reports just because you hate Snyder.....that's not journalism..........

Re: Skins vs. The Post
 

So the Skins are pissed because the Post reports the news. They Snyder got pissed when the Post ran the story that Coles was unhappy. Was it not true? It was the news, was it not? Isn't the newspaper's job? And they got pissed when they ran the LaVar story. OMG. The news. Okay, they were wrong to run with the Gibbs thing, however, I don't think he'll coach 5 years, so...whatever.

Anyway...how can you side with the Redskins? They're going to bring us the "unfiltered" news. So, obviously, if they were mad about the LaVar and Coles news being run, they wouldn't have run it. That doesn't seem filtered at all. This is all just a ploy to distract us from the fact that they are looking to work out Freddie Mitchell.

Re: Skins vs. The Post
 

the post is trash,self righteos judges the lot of them.i've been a subscriber for too many years and that's about to stop, it's not just sports , it's everything. they are very negative.i always get the feeling they are gloating over every misstep or problem the redskins have.yea i want trueth, but not from one who seems to enjoy the problems of others. the redskins have become just another slice of beef to them.nobody messures up to their standards,not even them

Re: Skins vs. The Post
 

The problem the Skins (Gibbs & Danny) have is that they are probing into our dailey running of a team. They probably made the Coles situation worse and embarrassed Laver and the Skins in that situation. The Skins are like most of us they do not want air their dirty laundry in public. The Post was doing what they were supposed to do as journalist in uncovering stories. Now the Skins want to be that source for information and may be more inclined to post the storie first. I think that is a smart move to be proactive than to be reactive to a situation that may arise in the future kind of not making it news when the post runs the story.

Re: Skins vs. The Post
 

If something is news, report it, whether it is negative or positive. The problem is that the Post has gotten into a habit of creating negative stories out of speculation (Gibbs retiring early), or reporting stories that both sides don't want made public just yet (the Coles fiasco...both the Skins and Coles's agent were not happy about that getting out when it did). An opinion column is one thing, but to try to make news, or "get the scoop" before all the info is confirmed is just wrong. I side with the Redskins on this and love all the new video and other enhancements on Redskins.com.
At least we all now know why Gibbs has been doing so many press conferences, and why they hired Larry Michael.

Re: Skins vs. The Post
 

I can't say I'll ever consider skins.com a "real" news source considering it has at least a perceived conflict of interest. Just about anything I read on there seems fluffy and lacking. I don't think they use it to spread disinformation(except maybe around draft time but that is forgiveable) but it is not really very forthcoming with news. As for the post; I have no problem with them doing real reporting and not bowing to the skins on stories but unfortunately they're skins coverage has suffered greatly since Nunyo took the reigns on coverage. I actually believe he is just executing his marching orders to be more agressive with the skins since apparently the post editors felt Maske had gotten too cozy but I think they have started sacrificing honest, truthful and vetted reporting in the name of bombastic and entertaining reporting. The whole issue with Coles is obviously the best example. I honestly believe he'd still be a skin had the post not gotten involved before it had the story straight. Now the team and the fans suffer because they reported a story knowing only half the details.

Re: Skins vs. The Post
 

The Post is there to report the news good or bad. The redskins are there to promote themselves and anything they say will only be in their own best interests.

If the skins had the pats record over the past 4 years I doubt the folks at redskins park would be so touchy about negative news.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; the redskins are so heavily mortgaged against the goodwill of the fans & the community that they better do something soon or this goodwill will evaporate and so will the $.

Re: Skins vs. The Post
 

wolfeskins:

If the Post had taken your advice about how to behave back in the 1970s, Watergate would never have been a big deal. They weren't nice to the President at the time so they could continue to get interviews; they went out and found out what the news was and reported it. That is what newspapers are supposed to do. That's what made Woodward and Bernstein famous. Until then, they were a pair of low-level hacks covering the Metro beat and hoping to find a scoop on something about the local transit system. YAWN !!!

Richard Nixon tried to cut off the Post's sources and he even put some of the Post folks on his "enemies list". You see where that got him, right? I don't know if Danny Boy was old enough in 1972 to appreciate what they did then and what they can still do today if the opportunity presents itself.

Neither side in this mess is acting particularly professionally but there is an old adage that Danny Boy really ought to consider:

Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel and paper by the boxcar-full.

Re: Skins vs. The Post
 

[QUOTE=sportscurmudgeon]wolfeskins:

If the Post had taken your advice about how to behave back in the 1970s, Watergate would never have been a big deal. They weren't nice to the President at the time so they could continue to get interviews; they went out and found out what the news was and reported it. That is what newspapers are supposed to do. That's what made Woodward and Bernstein famous. Until then, they were a pair of low-level hacks covering the Metro beat and hoping to find a scoop on something about the local transit system. YAWN !!!

Neither side in this mess is acting particularly professionally but there is an old adage that Danny Boy really ought to consider:

Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel and paper by the boxcar-full.[/QUOTE]

But today's media is different than in the 70's there's no longer REAL journalism it's more like sensationalism because with the internet and all the news available online newspapers today are in a fight for their lives, subscriptions keep going down and down........so they fudge the facts and bend the truth, or create a controversey to sell papers...........

Re: Skins vs. The Post
 

monk81:

That is precisely what the Nixon Administration and the Nixon apologists accused the Post - - and the NY Times too - - of doing back in the 1970s. The Internet has changed the technology and the breadth of news and views available to everyone, but people who do not like what papers write about them still use the same rejoinders...