Negative media coverage of the Redskins

[Drift Reality]

The front page of the ESPN.com Web site has a picture of Joe Gibbs with the caption, "Speaking Gibberish." (not very complimentary in and of itself)

Basically, the coverage of the Redskins includes the following messages:

1. The offensive line - with focus on their poor performance last year: "Old system created headaches for offense."

2. Gibbs' inadequate starting quarterback: "Now only if his new quarterback would respond to standing upright," and "Brunell having another shaky camp."

3. Dan Snyder's meddlesome ownership approach: "Stick to the plan, Dan."

Not the most complimentary coverage.

I was amazed to see this type of tone, considering Gibbs' re-hiring. Gibbs is one of the most celebrated and well respected figured in the NFL. It blows my mind that the coverage doesn't focus more on him.

I've got to say, there must be something deeper going on here (beyond Pastabelly's lame resentment towards the Redskins). I wonder if there was some sort of bad blood between Snyder Communications and the Walt Disney Company, which owns ABC, which in turn owns ESPN.

[SKINSnCANES]

we talk about this all the time, Snyder is going to get picked on until we win some. If we start making the playoffs everyyear again, and Snyder keeps to his ways, then they will just talk about him like Jerry Jones, where hes willing to pay to win and does.

[Drift Reality]

What I'm saying is that I think there is something deeper here. I can understand the one article that focuses on Snyder - but what I can't understand is the criticizm of Brunell, the focus on the offensive line problems last year, and the lead caption that takes Gibbs name and puts it into the word "Gibberish."

ESPN has very savvy editors, they wouldn't be using a term like "Gibberish" without knowing full well the negative connotation that it has.

[illdefined]

its an interesting theory. i'd love to know any media relationship Snyder and co. have with ABC/Disney/ESPN. conspiracies do exist.

[Drift Reality]

I work in media, and we see things like this all the time. It never ceases to amaze me how much the media is driven by the personalities of a handful of people at the top.

The thing that amazes me is that Snyder Communications was a friggin' communications firm. To think that the Redskins are getting such consistently negative publicity tells me that there must be some underlying situation here.

[Drift Reality]

Even more interesting - did you know that the Hearst Corporation (yes, William Randolph Hearst's company) owns 20% of ESPN?

I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see some bad blood between Hearst and Snyder - possibly over the sale of the Skins?

Remember - Snyder outbid John Kent Cooke to purchase the Skins. I wonder if there are any relations between the Cooke family (JKC was a noted socialite) and the Hearst family, which may be currently leading to the negative press of the Skins?

[MTK]

I believe it has something to do with the front office not leaking info to Lenny P. to his satisfaction, there was some sort of riff between him and Vinny C., I forget the details maybe someone else can clarify.

[Hogskin]

I read that piece yesterday on another site, and it had Len P.'s name on it. So it does not surprise me. He has never been one to hide his extreme biases. The entire article was pure bull crap. I don't know why he has an ax to grind with the Redskins, but he definitely does.

[BDBohnzie]

Snyder sold his company when he bought the Redskins (or so I thought)...what would his former company have to do with his relationship with the current media?

like it was stated before, until the Skins start having winning seasons, the media will be all over him. he's trying to be a Steinbrenner/Jones type owner, yet has been unsuccessful to this point.

i wouldn't put a second thought into "Speaking Gibberish"...someone on the espn.com writing team was trying to be clever...nothing more.

reading the O-Line article, it points out all the faults from last year, which anyone with half a brain could see that they had no guidance or vision. Third from last paragraph states, "Arguably one of the finest line mentors in the recent history of the game, Bugel came to know the Washington personnel during his consulting stint, and he has put some of that knowledge into action. More important, he has restored order, implemented ideas that are steeped in fundamentals and brought sanity and soundness to the dazed unit."

Typical Pastabelly...wait until the end to declare the Skins have done something correct, and surround it with past faults.

The Skins have been someone's NFC East pick ever since Snyder took over, and it has not panned out yet. Credit that to why the media doesn't think much of the Skins.

The other article about Brunell, and Pastabelly's 5 course meal, i mean 5 observations, are just that...observations...you can't trust him as far as you can throw him, and Don Vito, I mean Pastabelly is too big to be lifting.

[JoeGibbsIsBack]

I'd say there's something going on too. Notice how ESPN visited all the other high profile camp sites this week but skipped right on by Washington. There's more to this than ESPN is leading us to believe.

[Drift Reality]

Originally Posted by BDBohnzie

Snyder sold his company when he bought the Redskins (or so I thought)...what would his former company have to do with his relationship with the current media?

I wouldn't entirely agree with the assumption that just because someone no longer has a relationship with an organization, means they are never associated with that organization.

That would be like saying what would Halliburton have to do with Cheney's current political orientation.

Also, as I noted in a subsequent posting, perhaps the ardor was spawned between Snyder and the Hearst Corporation.

[Drift Reality]

Originally Posted by BDBohnzie

i wouldn't put a second thought into "Speaking Gibberish"...someone on the espn.com writing team was trying to be clever...nothing more.

ESPN.com consistently ranks amongst the most viewed sites on the Internet.

When you're talking about a daily audience in the millions, and millions of dollars in advertising revenue, a writer "trying to be clever" doesn't qualify as motivation for why a lead caption would imply that Joe Gibbs and the Redskins are not going to be successful.

[Dave Butz Baby!]

Snyder Communications (which he sold) was not a "communications" company per se. They were a medical/pharmeceutical marketing firm that put on symposia and offered continuing education for doctors that were sponsored by the drug companies. Ever wonder where all those Viagra/Vioxx/Plavix etc ink pens/hats/notepads come from? Now you know!

When he bought the team, I worked for a direct competitor (now a part of Cardinal Health) of Snyder Communications that offered the same services.

Hope that clears up any confusion!

[Bergman14]

this is rediculous, maybe he pasquerelli does not have a bias against the redskins, maybe he actually puts up valid points, and we are the ones being biased.
More importantly though, nobody seems to be talking about his point on Sean Taylor. He said Andre Lott would start at safety.. Andre Lott? He also said iffy is buried on the third unit. What is going on? Taylor was in camp on time and in my mind there is no reason he should not start.

[Redskins_P]

Originally Posted by JoeGibbsIsBack

I'd say there's something going on too. Notice how ESPN visited all the other high profile camp sites this week but skipped right on by Washington. There's more to this than ESPN is leading us to believe.

Maybe Gibbs didn't want ESPN to visit camp??? Just a thought.