Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

[QUOTE=ExtremeArt]Joe,

I just wanted to say I'm sorry things didn't work out better for you. I have always promoted your work. When we were able to become part of the Redskins I even engaged in discussions to bring you on board as we needed experience and local guys to help us out since we're missing out on a lot of stuff we could be doing by being short-staffed.

Unfortunately, you developed something of a negative reaction with many at Redskins Park who felt you were obtrusive and self-serving. I have heard stories about how uncomfortable you made some people with your self-promotion to them and that you were absolutely not going to be part of our efforts. I was surprised to hear this and think no less of you for having heard it.

I just think it's unfortunate you have developed a negative view of us for accomplishing something you wanted to accomplish but were unable to. One thing going for us, to be fair, is the team was never looking for "fan journalists". It had all the journalists it could handle and it had all the fans it could handle. It didn't need fans acting like reporters. It wanted fans acting like fans.

As you know, the "press" box is not just for "press". It's for PR folks, scouts, writers from team sites, etc. There are lots of people who are not in the professional media, with strong team ties, who are in every press box there is. The media has rules it is responsible for abiding by. A team scout isn't bound by the same. I think you know this. I hope you do.

I'm sorry you feel as upset with us. We've always considered you a friend who we've promoted. We will continue to do so. With hope, you'll come to forgive us.[/QUOTE]
Well if anyone really felt this way about Joe then they are a dumb shit! He gets his passes pulled for no damn reason like the day before camp and they expected him to be like "well that's life". WTF?
Joe is about being a responsible journalist (wheteher they want it or not) and not about being a fan who writes fluff articles. The difference is he can write fair and balanced articles from the perspective of a journalist all the while holding a loyalty to the team. Maybe that loyalty would hold him in check when barraged by the anti-Snder crowd. Seems to me that maybe that is EXACTLY what the skins should want.
And it is contradictory to say they want a fan's prespective not a fan journalists' and then group them together when handing out passes. He is either a journalist or a fan to them and in the former case he should have gotten passes like other journalists and in the other he got screwed for no good damn reason.

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

[QUOTE=joecrisp]I don't get why I would be jealous of them. I was doing the whole "hanging out with the players and coaches" thing a long time before they came around, and I'm sure I'll be a doing a lot more of that in the future, regardless of whether I'm directly affiliated with the team or not.

My beef is, in fact, with the manner in which the Redskins have conducted their entire anti-med... err... "media relations" operation. The ExtremeSkins situation is a prime example of why the media and the Redskins have been at odds for so long now. The behavior or those fans in the pressbox isn't unlike the behavior of Snyder and Swanson towards the press corps. In fact, it's quite representative.

Apparently, Messrs Snyder and Swanson aren't familiar with the old adage, "kill them with kindness." They're taking the 21st century craze of media-bashing to new, unexplored heights.

I'm sure that will win them a lot of fans in the press. I'm sure Redskins fans won't care. I'm sure and everyone will stop reading all news sources other than those directly from the team, and will chuckle happily right along with Larry Michael as he feeds them the "unfiltered" daily scoop of fluff straight from Redskins Park. I'm sure they'll grin smugly along with good Ol' Art Mills as he boisterously details his latest anti-media antics. I'm sure nobody will know anything other than this: the Redskins are a great, wonderful and beneficent franchise, with only the most marvelous of owners, whose sole raison d'etre is to make the fans happy. Ignorance truly is bliss, isn't it, Redskins fans?[/QUOTE]

If any member of the media allows Dan Snyder's general contempt for the journalists to alter the way they report or represent their opinions, then they're doing a shitty job and shouldn't be in the journalism business. If Snyder takes away their press box space and they change their reporting as a result of that, then they're not very objective now are they?

It's a journalist's job to report objectively, without bias, no matter how much of a war Snyder wages on them. I suspect that not all journalists are petty, I suspect some will still report objectively. They're the ones I'll read.

And if they do in fact report objectively, Snyder's contempt will wane.

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

I honestly wish Joe hadn't been dicked over like he was. It was wrong, ham-handed and pisses me off to no end. The guy does a commendable job year in and year out and gets nothing for it all the while hacks like DeMasio get SI jobs based on their 'hard hitting' journalism. I am pissed at Snyder and crew for this but I am not pissed that they put extremeskins reps in the press box. If Joe was there I would want him to feel as free as he pleased to cheer or not. The press shouldn't own the press box. Why do they get to decide how one acts in there? It's not theirs. It's provided to them by the team to allow them to cover the team. This arrangement is in everyone's best interest for sure since the team gets coverage (=money) and the journalists sell their product(=money) but in the end the Skins can boot their butts. They cover the team from the press box at the Skins' leisure.

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG]Well if anyone really felt this way about Joe then they are a dumb shit! He gets his passes pulled for no damn reason like the day before camp and they expected him to be like "well that's life". WTF?
Joe is about being a responsible journalist (wheteher they want it or not) and not about being a fan who writes fluff articles. The difference is he can write fair and balanced articles from the perspective of a journalist all the while holding a loyalty to the team. Maybe that loyalty would hold him in check when barraged by the anti-Snder crowd. Seems to me that maybe that is EXACTLY what the skins should want.
And it is contradictory to say they want a fan's prespective not a fan journalists' and then group them together when handing out passes. He is either a journalist or a fan to them and in the former case he should have gotten passes like other journalists and in the other he got screwed for no good damn reason.[/QUOTE]

As I said, I'm a fan of Joe's work and we featured it prominently on our site during mini-camp. I think the problem is also the strength you attribute to him, and it's something too few running fan sites recognize. Joe is, absolutely, able to write fair and balanced articles from the perspective of a journalist all the while holding a loyalty to the team. As am I.

The difference is, I don't want to, because, more important to me than being a journalist is being a fan. More important to Joe is being a journalist. And, the team, in seeking fans to associate with, looked for those who actually seemed to BE fans. They had all the journalists capable of being journalists they needed. They didn't need fans being the same.

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

[QUOTE=ExtremeArt]Unfortunately, you developed something of a negative reaction with many at Redskins Park who felt you were obtrusive and self-serving. I have heard stories about how uncomfortable you made some people with your self-promotion to them and that you were absolutely not going to be part of our efforts. I was surprised to hear this and think no less of you for having heard it...[/QUOTE]

Wow, Art. That's news to me. I don't recall ever promoting MYSELF to anyone at Redskins Park. I quite frequently promoted The Warpath around Redskins Park, as I'm sure you have promoted ExtremeSkins. I'd be interested to know who in particular was put off by my presence there and why. As I've said, I always tried to conduct myself as professionally as possible. There were some players with whom I tried to develop a better rapport in order to benefit The Warpath, but that's no different than anything any other representative would do to benefit their constituents. If they were put off by that, then someone should have told me.

You see, I was there, by myself, with no one there to guide me as to how things are supposed to work. I didn't have the benefit of a guinea pig who went before me to let me know what I should and should not do. I did my best to pass on what I had learned to TK and Tarhog, as well as the guys from TheHogs.net, when they arrived for minicamp in the spring. I really wish someone had told me to back off, if that's what was necessary. I truly thought I was being as nice and polite to everyone as I could possibly be.

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

[QUOTE=joecrisp]Wow, Art. That's news to me. I don't recall ever promoting MYSELF to anyone at Redskins Park. I quite frequently promoted The Warpath around Redskins Park, as I'm sure you have promoted ExtremeSkins. I'd be interested to know who in particular was put off by my presence there and why. As I've said, I always tried to conduct myself as professionally as possible. There were some players with whom I tried to develop a better rapport in order to benefit The Warpath, but that's no different than anything any other representative would do to benefit their constituents. If they were put off by that, then someone should have told me.

You see, I was there, by myself, with no one there to guide me as to how things are supposed to work. I didn't have the benefit of a guinea pig who went before me to let me know what I should and should not do. I did my best to pass on what I had learned to TK and Tarhog, as well as the guys from TheHogs.net, when they arrived for minicamp in the spring. I really wish someone had told me to back off, if that's what was necessary. I truly thought I was being as nice and polite to everyone as I could possibly be.[/QUOTE]

I can't really go into details due to personal trusts I've developed, but, I have been working to rehabilitate your image with those who would help me bring you into a coverage role -- had you had an interest in such -- as a primary "beat" reporter for the site given you are closer and have the experience.

I won't do that any longer, obviously, given your position as to who we are in your mind, but, I thought you should know.

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

[QUOTE=ExtremeArt]They had all the journalists capable of being journalists they needed. They didn't need fans being the same.[/QUOTE]
Isn't that the big problem? That they don't have journalists capable of being journalists? Isn't this one reason Extereskins was brought on? To offer an 'unfilitered' fan's view?

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

[QUOTE=joecrisp]I did my best to pass on what I had learned to TK and Tarhog, as well as the guys from TheHogs.net, when they arrived for minicamp in the spring. [/QUOTE]

Thats absolutely true, and Joe, we really appreciated it.

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

Man we all saw these types of discussions coming when this whole deal went down didn't we?

And Exteremskins guys. I think we all appreciate you all for coming here to actually discuss this.

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG]Isn't that the big problem? That they don't have journalists capable of being journalists? Isn't this one reason Extereskins was brought on? To offer an 'unfilitered' fan's view?[/QUOTE]

No, not really.

ES was brought on to provide fans a place to talk about the team so they wouldn't have to build it themselves :). It was our idea to bring a Fan View column where we'd attempt to put forth areas fans were discussing while at the same time taking a position on those views.

The Arrington column which many did not like because it distinctly taunted some fans, was very controversial at the Park just for the reasons I saw in this thread. Do they really want to divide fans on their official site. I actually credit them for having the guts to publish it and thank them for it.

One thing I can promise anyone who wonders, no one has sold out or altered positions based on the relationship. If the team tries to make everyone go to a single MasterCard for all payment while I have voice, you can bet they'll get absolutely hammered :). So far my natural inclination as a fan is to believe in experienced, proven coaches who set direction rather than individual players I may love. That's why I didn't weep a whole lot when we lost Smoot, who was my favorite.

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]Which brings me to my third point. I know you're a journalist Joe, so I can understand why this would be an issue for you. But by and large, nobody cares if a little less press box space is available to real journalists. I totally agree with you that Dan Snyder is holding up his middle finger to the press on this move. He's giving it to them right in the ass. Is it a dick move? Sure. But the average fan doesn't care.

It's not like he's sticking his middle finger up to all journalists. Never did Dan Snyder say he had a problem with all journalism. He said, in his ExtremeSkins chat, that he has a problem with inaccuracies in the media. And he's got a point. That doesn't mean all of the press was inaccurate though.

We've had many discussions on this site which highlighted our feelings that Dan Snyder has gotten a bad rap as an owner, more so that he deserves. He has made some solid football moves lately which have gone unrecognized because of SOME of the media's inability to let go of their initial impression of him; that he is a meddling owner who deserves to fail. I assert that THOSE members of the media were not doing their homework and not giving him credit where credit was due. To those members of the media I think they deserve Dan Snyder's F YOU, and I join him. I say F YOU to Pastabelly for his refusal to give any credit free of underhanded digs, I say F YOU to the Post for taking the ticket spat public in the papers, and I say F YOU to any journalist who still writes that Dan Snyder is still a meddlesome owner without any supporting evidence other than the actions he took 4 years ago.

In the end, I can see where Snyder is coming from. He has been victimized by a portion of the media. I can see where you are coming from too, because it has robbed some honest, hardworking journalists like yourself of some space in the pressbox. But to that I say don't blame Dan Snyder, blame the journalists who refuse to report objective material. They are the ones that ruined it for you.[/QUOTE]

maybe he's "victim-ized" because he keeps shoving shit in the media's face... you said no one cares about the press-box thing, but i'm sure the journalists do, and it may even affect what they write. Danny has been notorious for doing b**chy things to the media and over-reacting, so its no surprise they don't like him. He's a victim about as much as water isn't wet.

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

[QUOTE=ExtremeArt]I can't really go into details due to personal trusts I've developed, but, I have been working to rehabilitate your image with those who would help me bring you into a coverage role -- had you had an interest in such -- as a primary "beat" reporter for the site given you are closer and have the experience.

I won't do that any longer, obviously, given your position as to who we are in your mind, but, I thought you should know.[/QUOTE]

He was there for three years, you come along and he gets told the day before (after already booking rooms etc) that its a no-go, but just for him... and he's got no right to be upset?

If its been this long and he still has zero love from inside the park for whatever reasons that you won't share, I highly doubt they'd suddenly 180 now. Maybe if you clued him in before that post about anything he wouldn't seem so bad to you personally.

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]He was there for three years, you come along and he gets told the day before (after already booking rooms etc) that its a no-go, but just for him... and he's got no right to be upset?

If its been this long and he still has zero love from inside the park for whatever reasons that you won't share, I highly doubt they'd suddenly 180 now. Maybe if you clued him in before that post about anything he wouldn't seem so bad to you personally.[/QUOTE]

At no point did I say or hint that Joe seemed bad to me personally. I have no ill-will or anger or disappointment in Joe in the slightest. I saw his post as it was sent to me to look at and I thought I'd let him know something and express my sympathy for the situation he found himself under.

As you may recall, no fan sites of any sort received camp access. We did ONLY on August 9 after the deal was solidified on August 8, up to which point we thought it would fall through. The decision to block fan sites was made long before. I think I even mentioned it on ES that we were denied access to camp some weeks prior but I don't know the time frame of that off the top of my head.

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

Joe Crisp doesn't need me to speak up for him, but I will. Reporting on the Redskins has been a labor of love for Joe Crisp that he's done out of his own pocket for years, and he's missed precious time with his wife, family, and friends to do this. And to build what he thought was a solid relationship with the team. Shame on him I guess for being mature, responsible, and professional.

Joe and I don't agree on a lot of things when it comes to the Redskins. But I've met him and talked to him several times on the phone. He's a solid man. When it comes to The Warpath, he's only wanted one thing-to provide it with the best camp coverage possible. And only the moderators know this, but a couple of years ago Joe actually asked if one of us could help him out, maybe even relieve him for a little bit, during camp. So any notion that he's doing this just for himself is absurd.

But now he's being accused here on our message board of having been self-serving and obtrusive. I don't think I'm alone in saying it was completely out of line to call Joe out like that in a public discussion. If you're going to make a claim like that, tell it to him personally and give him specifics. To just toss it out here the way it was done is plain wrong.

Sorry, I'm just really bothered by the way Joe was called out like that.

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

[QUOTE=ExtremeArt]As you may recall, no fan sites of any sort received camp access. We did ONLY on August 9 after the deal was solidified on August 8, up to which point we thought it would fall through. The decision to block fan sites was made long before. I think I even mentioned it on ES that we were denied access to camp some weeks prior but I don't know the time frame of that off the top of my head.[/QUOTE]

Are you saying there was no correlation between everyone being denied access to camp and the deal that was in the works between ES and the Redskins?

I find that very hard to believe.

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Are you saying there was no correlation between everyone being denied access to camp and the deal that was in the works between ES and the Redskins?

I find that very hard to believe.[/QUOTE]

Why don't you check our ExtremeSkins TC reports (by myself specifically) between August 1st and 6th. Go see what side of the fence I was on.

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

[QUOTE=ExtremeArt]At no point did I say or hint that Joe seemed bad to me personally. I have no ill-will or anger or disappointment in Joe in the slightest. I saw his post as it was sent to me to look at and I thought I'd let him know something and express my sympathy for the situation he found himself under.

As you may recall, no fan sites of any sort received camp access. We did ONLY on August 9 after the deal was solidified on August 8, up to which point we thought it would fall through. The decision to block fan sites was made long before. I think I even mentioned it on ES that we were denied access to camp some weeks prior but I don't know the time frame of that off the top of my head.[/QUOTE]

joe's had received camp access for this site before this year, or at least gotten tons of player interviews/media access etc in years prior. After you got bought his access was revoked instantly though.

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

[QUOTE=extremeskins]Why don't you check our ExtremeSkins TC reports (by myself specifically) between August 1st and 6th. Go see what side of the fence I was on.[/QUOTE]

um, i think you totally missed matty's point.

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

Good luck with the great board guys. We're all Redskins fans. I hope if/when future 'articles' like this spring up, you'll try and give your fellow fans a little benefit of the doubt.

You really can't believe everything you read.

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Are you saying there was no correlation between everyone being denied access to camp and the deal that was in the works between ES and the Redskins?

I find that very hard to believe.[/QUOTE]

We sent Tony to D.C., paid for his trip and everything, and he watched camp as a fan. There was no fan site access for us, or anyone else. The deal we had looked as if it would not come about. They'd lined up mods from KFFL and had another site ready to go starting from scratch. They were not waiting on us. They were waiting on their hardware to come in so they could go live with their own board.

In the end we were able to come to an agreement and very late things changed. The team had decided after mini-camp that no more ian sites save the one they provided would have access. That included us.

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

Tafkas,

I'm sorry you feel some topics ought not be discussed in public. I think Joe and I are fine, judging from our messages back and forth. I suspect he understands what I said to him was not anything I believe or know to be the case, but something I'd heard and figured he should know it. It seemed an appropriate place to communicate having been drawn to Joe's views here.

But, you'll have to ask Joe if Joe's ok with this conversation or not. He didn't indicate to me he had a problem with it.

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

[QUOTE=ExtremeArt]There was no fan site access for us, or anyone else. [/QUOTE]

unless i'm mistaken, joe HAS had access for thewarpath before this year, even though you keep saying that's not the case.

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

simply rediculous. calling someone out like that in a public discussion, like TAFKAS said is just low. dont know how you couldnt have realized that

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

How sad is it that Dan Synder feel his tenure as owner can't stand up to the tiniest criticism? Does any other owner take as many steps to control the media as the Skins' owner? Here's an idea put out a product that doesn't disappoint every year, isn't over priced, and seems to be run by a front office of fools. The guy owns the most valuable sports team [b]IN THE WORLD, [/b]ofcourse the media will say negative things about you sometimes. Ofcourse the fans will blame you and your front office when you lead the NFL in dead Cap space and hasn't made the playoffs since your first year as owner.

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

This is the text of a PM I just sent to Art. Initially, I felt I should keep my thoughts about this situation private, but I've begun to think that my silence could be misconstrued as a submission to what Art has presented here as fact:

[QUOTE=joecrisp]Art,
While I can understand why you felt it was justified to call me out here on The Warpath (I had called out the motivations of the Redskins-ExtremeSkins merger, and you in particular), I agree with TAFKAS in that I would have preferred you share that information with me privately, and not air it publicly on a forum that I consider my online home.

The manner and timing of your claims came off as a deliberate and malicious jab at my character (your personal disclaimer notwithstanding) in an effort to undermine my credibility and sully my reputation within The Warpath community. Frankly, until I know who provided that information to you and why they feel the way they do, I'll find it very hard to believe there is any base to these claims.

Like I said before, until I hear otherwise, I believe Karl Swanson has a personal vendetta against me because I circumvented his attempts to deny my media access, and he will probably do what he feels is necessary to discredit me, not only among your staff, but also with the public I serve. Given the nature of Swanson's past behavior towards those who have crossed his path, that would not surprise me in the least.

If, as you say, the ExtremeSkins staff has been lobbying on my behalf, I would have expected you, TK, Tarhog or someone else from your staff to have brought these negative claims to my personal attention when they came up. I think that's a fair expectation on my part, considering the appeals you and Tarhog have made here that people shouldn't take the word of third parties as fact. As it is, the claims you've made here are really no different than the "unnamed source" reporting tactics that you and the Redskins have railed against so vocally.[/QUOTE]

I think I should clarify that I don't know whether Swanson is the source of these claims, but Art has stated that, in the interest of personal trusts, he can't divulge the identity of his source(s). That being the case, I think it's fair to question the validity and motivation of these claims, just as it would be fair to question the validity and motivation of an article which makes attribution to unnamed sources.

Like I said, nobody at Redskins Park has ever given me the slightest indication that they had a problem with me, and if they did, I would have expected someone to bring it to my attention, so that I could correct whatever behavior it was that they found problematic. I find the claims about my supposed self-promotion very strange, as the only thing I ever promoted during my visits to Redskins Park was this website, my representation of this website, and any opportunities that I thought might benefit The Warpath community. If people at Redskins Park began to associate my interests with The Warpath as self-interest, then I guess my promotional efforts were maybe a little too successful.

All I can say to that is:

"Ich bin ein Warpather."

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

I agree with you 110%, Joe.

The fans and Redskins organization alike are tired of "unnames sources" being the basis of fact. C'mon, be a man and back up your claims, Art, or at least advise your "source" to man up and be responsible for his/her opinions.

Joe was screwed over by someone at Redskins Park who simply does not like him for whatever reason, let's call it what it is and stop dancing around the issue. And then on top of it to have his character come in to question by "unnamed sources" is really insulting, immature and completely unnecessary.

Sounds like more of the same old, typical Redskins propoganda that Redskins.com dishes out. This thing just screams of that jerk Swanson, and until we know otherwise I'm going to assume he's the unnamed source.

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

Joe,

I maintain some concern that while you want no public questions or worries brought forth to you here, you continue to question others in public. I'm perfectly fine with an open conversation, but, don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to ask me to keep this under wraps with you privately while you continue to speak about it openly?

Would you like to talk here, or privately?

It is of NO consequence to me whether you believe what I'm saying or not. You can totally ignore what I've said and the intent under which it WAS said. No worries there. Though, if you wish to continue speaking in public, I will put to you a simple question regarding the Daily Progress, the editor there, and your credentials as to whether he, or the team itself, requested they be pulled and why, if you know.

So, as long as you want a public debate, we can do it. I don't come back every day here, but I will try to check this thread every so often to answer anything you ask of me or write for me here. If nothing, I'll continue to answer your private messages. You define the where :).

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]unless i'm mistaken, joe HAS had access for thewarpath before this year, even though you keep saying that's not the case.[/QUOTE]

TG,

I think I was kind of referencing THIS training camp, not previous years. The decision was made by the team shortly after mini-camp that no one would have access to THIS training camp. We were told this in June when we requested access.

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

[QUOTE=ExtremeArt]TG,

I think I was kind of referencing THIS training camp, not previous years. The decision was made by the team shortly after mini-camp that no one would have access to THIS training camp. We were told this in June when we requested access.[/QUOTE]

then why wasn't anyone else informed until the day of? that seems pretty low of them and like it was done on purpose to prevent enough time to create contingencies.

Re: The Anti-Media Media
 

[QUOTE=ExtremeArt]Joe,

I maintain some concern that while you want no public questions or worries brought forth to you here, you continue to question others in public. I'm perfectly fine with an open conversation, but, don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to ask me to keep this under wraps with you privately while you continue to speak about it openly?

Would you like to talk here, or privately?

It is of NO consequence to me whether you believe what I'm saying or not. You can totally ignore what I've said and the intent under which it WAS said. No worries there. Though, if you wish to continue speaking in public, I will put to you a simple question regarding the Daily Progress, the editor there, and your credentials as to whether he, or the team itself, requested they be pulled and why, if you know.

So, as long as you want a public debate, we can do it. I don't come back every day here, but I will try to check this thread every so often to answer anything you ask of me or write for me here. If nothing, I'll continue to answer your private messages. You define the where :).[/QUOTE]


I have nothing to hide here, Art. The reason I've made this discussion public is because you've chosen to drag my name through the mud, based on rumors you've heard, which you never took the time to verify with me personally. Like I've said, if there was a question about my motives, my interactions with the Redskins, or my work with the Daily Progress, these things should have been brought to my attention if you were, as you say, working on my behalf to "clear my name" with those in charge at Redskins Park.

Here are the facts in regard to The Daily Progress:

--Immediately following the Redskins' informing me that they would not be providing media access for fan websites (which did not occur until the Wednesday before camp opened-- despite my prior communications over the previous two months with the team that indicated I intended to be there and they expected to see me), I began emailing sports editors and sports directors throughout Virginia, informing them of my plight, and offering them coverage FOR THE FIRST WEEK OF CAMP, in exchange for media credentials. There was nothing underhanded about the way in which I presented this offer. I made it clear in that email that my accomodations for that week were paid for, and that I required no compensation from their publication. I simply needed credentials for the first week of training camp. That was it.

--My agreement with Jerry Ratcliffe entailed that I would submit daily articles, photos and audio clips for publication in The Daily Progress newspaper and dailyprogress.com. In exchange, The Daily Progress would link TheWarpath.net on their website. There was never any indication from Mr. Ratcliffe that he expected any services beyond that first week of camp, nor was there any offer on his part to compensate me for reporting beyond that first week. I never told Mr. Ratcliffe anything other than that I would be covering that first week of camp, including the Redskins-Ravens scrimmage.

--That first Monday of camp, Mr. Ratcliffe informed me he would be on vacation for most of the week. He referred me to their online coordinator and the various editors he worked with, and told me that they would be handling my material for the remainder of the week. With that in mind, I directed my communications to those individuals, working primarily with their online coordinator, Laura Bland. I forwarded my material both to her and to the editors, and I provided ample material-- in the form of articles, photos and audio clips-- each day I was there. In fact, I provided much more material than they actually used. I got nothing but positive responses from The Daily Progress staff, and Ms. Bland was particularly pleased with the material I provided. Since she was my primary contact person during Mr. Ratcliffe's absence, I presumed all was well. Nobody had given me any indications to the contrary.

--Here are the articles The Daily Progress published on their website:

[url]http://www.dailyprogress.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=CDP/MGArticle/CDP_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031784197416[/url]

[url]http://www.dailyprogress.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=CDP/MGArticle/CDP_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031784219229[/url]

[url]http://www.dailyprogress.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=CDP/MGArticle/CDP_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031784244084[/url]

[url]http://www.dailyprogress.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=CDP/MGArticle/CDP_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031784265839[/url]

[url]http://www.dailyprogress.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=CDP/MGArticle/CDP_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031784349465[/url]

Again, these are only the articles that were published. I provided more material that never saw publication.

--When I completed my reports that following Sunday with an article on tight end Billy Baber, I contacted Ms. Bland (Mr. Ratcliffe was still on vacation) and let her know that was my last report, and that I looked forward to working with her in the future. She wished me luck, and reiterated how happy she was with my work. She never indicated that there was any expectation on her part that my reports would continue beyond that point.

--It wasn't until the following weekend (after Mr. Ratcliffe returned from vacation) that I received emails from Mr. Ratcliffe asking why I hadn't continued submitting reports, and stating that he had requested the Redskins pull my credentials. I replied to his emails, and expressed my confusion, as I had made it clear in my first email to him and subsequent phone calls and emails both with him and his staff that I would only be providing coverage for that first week of camp. For whatever reason, Mr. Ratcliffe misunderstood or overlooked my statements in that regard, and assumed that I was providing coverage for the entire duration of training camp. We straightened it out, made our peace with each other, and Mr. Ratcliffe wished me luck this fall. That was the last I heard from him. Apparently, he never followed-up with the Redskins to explain what actually happened, and to restore my standing with their media relations staff.

--Neither the Redskins or Extremeskins contacted me once-- through this entire ordeal-- to get my side of the story, or to inform me of Mr. Ratcliffe's concerns.


Art, in regard to the question of when you and your staff knew the Redskins would be denying media access to fan sites, I believe you when you say that you were informed in June. However, that doesn't explain why nobody from the Redskins ever contacted me to inform me of the same until the week before camp opened, when it would ostensibly be too late for me to make contingency plans.