Snyder Interview
 

[url="http://washingtontimes.com/sports/20050330-010800-4653r.htm"]http://washingtontimes.com/sports/20050330-010800-4653r.htm[/url]

Crazy good interview

I mean, seriously, what did the interviewer leave out? He asked every single good question imaginable!

I must say, I was not a Dan Fan, but I look at him differently now!

Re: Snyder Interview
 

I agree, great questions, very good interview

Re: Snyder Interview
 

An interesting interview in many ways. It seems to me that Snyder takes several not so veiled jabs at the "media" - aka The Post. I had always understood that - from the quality of the stories, the lack of sources other than players, and a news blurb somewhere (ESPN ??) that the Skins only dealt with the Post - the Washington Times did not have the media access that the Post did. I cannot remember the last time there was any report from Snyder or anyone from the FO in the Times - it always seemed like they got their news second hand. I wonder if their is some other dynamic working here - Post not playing Snyder's lap dog and the Snyder going to the Times to tell "his side".

All in all - an interesting interview. It did seem to ignore the accusations that Snyder undercut some of his coaches by dealing directly with players he liked and Snyder sort of glossed over the Schottenheimer firing. Other than that, however, very interesting and informative.

Re: Snyder Interview
 

it was a good interview. I like that they posted the interview as is and didn't protray Dan in one way or another. People never get the full story in the sports industry, They make heroes, and villians to sale off the shelves.

Re: Snyder Interview
 

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.

Re: Snyder Interview
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]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.[/QUOTE]

I think Snyder may have really soured on the Post - maybe that's why he gave the interview to the Times and revoked the Posts general admission seats.

Re: Snyder Interview
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin]I think Snyder may have really soured on the Post - maybe that's why he gave the interview to the Times and revoked the Posts general admission seats.[/QUOTE]
It seems that a lot of the misinformation in the media surrounding the Skins eminates from the Post. Almost every story that ends up being flat-out wrong or at least fundamentally wrong always seems to cite the Post. This didn't happen as much when Maske was the Skins beat reporter for WP. Now this apparent moron Demasio is the beat guy and it seems he is one of those types of journalists who thinks its his job to stir up trouble. There have been several stories of note. The whole Coles situation and the bogus 'Ryan Clark is cut story' come to mind. Snyder leads me to believe that Moss wasn't offered a new contract until recently yet the Post reported that the deal was done weeks ago. I wonder who Demasio's sources are. Apparently they aren't close enough to the decision makers to be right much. There's a big difference between "Well I have heard that Ryan Clark is probably going to get cut" to him actually being cut.

Re: Snyder Interview
 

Extremeskins has been keeping track of some of Nunyo's inaccuracies, and some of them are quite disturbing for someone who is supposed to be the beat reporter for a major newspaper.

Re: Snyder Interview
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Extremeskins has been keeping track of some of Nunyo's inaccuracies, and some of them are quite disturbing for someone who is supposed to be the beat reporter for a major newspaper.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't he come off like a typical reporter with no regard for truth but rather values the sensational value of a story at the expense of accuracy? I mean Maske NEVER had these problems. Or at least he didn't have them to this degree.

Re: Snyder Interview
 

Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. The reason we read these guys is because they TRY to give us the scoop before it happens. They do the same thing we do only they get paid for it.

Re: Snyder Interview
 

When Dan first took over the Skins I read a five page artical talking about how Snyder made his fortunes. After reading the artical I could only think of how successful he would be with the team. After 5 years of loosing I still believe he will accomplish his goals and our franchise will rise to the top. He is only in his late 30's and has gone through his growing pains. I feel he has learned from his mistakes and can only improve in the ownership and decision making of this franchise. He is truly a Redskins fan and only has the best intentions for the team whether right or wrong.

Re: Snyder Interview
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. The reason we read these guys is because they TRY to give us the scoop before it happens. They do the same thing we do only they get paid for it.[/QUOTE]


Daseal, are you the Devil?

Re: Snyder Interview
 

[QUOTE=Daseal]Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. The reason we read these guys is because they TRY to give us the scoop before it happens. They do the same thing we do only they get paid for it.[/QUOTE]

Its an issue of being respectful and responsible. Nunyo seems more fit to write for The Globe then the WP.

I am the first person to druel over breaking news and rumors but man, he just seems to throw stuff out with no regard and info.

Plus this dude is writing for freaking Washington Post, not the Milwaukee Times, and this is the Redskins, not the Seahawks or Browns. And another thing, the guys sounds like an idiot when he talks. . .

Re: Snyder Interview
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Extremeskins has been keeping track of some of Nunyo's inaccuracies, and some of them are quite disturbing for someone who is supposed to be the beat reporter for a major newspaper.[/QUOTE]
Got a link? I'd love to read that.

Re: Snyder Interview
 

[url]http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=96374[/url]

This is a great conversation about Nunyo's reporting. Thanks for alerting me to it Matty!

What a buffoon Nunyo is.

Re: Snyder Interview
 

Personally I prefer an accurate story rather than a "scoop" full of untruths.

Re: Snyder Interview
 

Daseal = Poo Poo Pants

Just kiddin Daseal. But what good is getting a scoop if it's not accurate? I'd rather not read anything than read stuff that's wrong. I appreciate the effort in trying to bring info to the fans, but you don't build much journalistic integrity if you're often wrong.

And sure, we try to get the scoop just like these reporters do. But since the reporters get paid and we don't, I think they should have to be accurate.

Re: Snyder Interview
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin]An interesting interview in many ways. It seems to me that Snyder takes several not so veiled jabs at the "media" - aka The Post. I had always understood that - from the quality of the stories, the lack of sources other than players, and a news blurb somewhere (ESPN ??) that the Skins only dealt with the Post - the Washington Times did not have the media access that the Post did. I cannot remember the last time there was any report from Snyder or anyone from the FO in the Times - it always seemed like they got their news second hand. I wonder if their is some other dynamic working here - Post not playing Snyder's lap dog and the Snyder going to the Times to tell "his side".

All in all - an interesting interview. It did seem to ignore the accusations that Snyder undercut some of his coaches by dealing directly with players he liked and Snyder sort of glossed over the Schottenheimer firing. Other than that, however, very interesting and informative.[/QUOTE]


I cannot remember many stories that the Times scoops the Post. The most glaring indictment of the Times came the night before my Mom died and HOF Coach Gibbs was hired. I knew at 1:00 a.m. (Hospital i-net connection) and the Post had the story. The Times was still reporting R. Rhodes and J. Fassel!

I read both every a.m., and without a doubt, the Times is a day behind!

This article is seemingly a first. It might not indicate a total flip-flop by LDS and the Redskins FO toward the Post however. If it was, then why have all of the Times articles still been a day late for the past two weeks?

Re: 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 think Nunyo Demasio is particularly good as a beat reporter; I find his writing style dull; he's not nearly as good as Mark Maske was. But the scuttlebut is that the new sports editor at the Post thought that Maske was "getting a bit too cozy" with the Redskins and so he made the switch. Now Maske does general NFL beat reporting and not just the Skins. I have no idea if that actually was the case, but that is what is out there on the wire. So Demasio's "marching orders" are to remain at arm's length from the team and to be an objective reporter. That tends to motivate him to have some negative stuff in his stories - wouldn't want the boss to think he was getting too chummy with "the story" causing Demasio to be reassigned to covering DC United.

And by the way, Demasio was a lot closer to "right" than "wrong" about the Coles story. Until he broke it, everyone here on The Warpath was 100% convinced that Coles' foot would be better and he would be the Skins' #1 WR and catch 90-100 balls for the Skins next year. You may not like the outcome of Demasio's reporting there because it guaranteed that the end of the Coles/Redskins relatinship would be acrimonious and not something where compromise was likely to happen, but you can't say he didn't do a reporter's job in getting to the bottom of the story.

I'd be willing to wager that Joe Crisp would have gone with that story had he had the story back in early February. :food-smil Of course Joe Crisp would have written better prose, but nonetheless, he would have run the story and run it hard!

Re: Snyder Interview
 

SC, you need to go and read the thread at extremeskins. Nunyo was flat out wrong on the Coles situation. He was the one who initially reported that the Redskins were PLANNING ON releasing Coles, but the team vehemently denied that, and they ended up trading him. No matter how you cut it, Nunyo was flat out wrong on that one.

I don't think releasing him was ever an option in their minds. They knew they weren't going to let him go for nothing.

I don't think this Dan Snyder interview is a matter of how accurate the story is. It's just interesting to note how sour the relationship has gotten between the team and the WP. You just know Snyder is going to the Times out of spite for the Post.

Re: Snyder Interview
 

[QUOTE=sportscurmudgeon]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...[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Snyder Interview
 

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!!

Re: Snyder Interview
 

Chargers anyone?

Re: Snyder Interview
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]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.[/QUOTE]
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.

Re: Snyder Interview
 

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.

Re: Snyder Interview
 

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]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.[/QUOTE]

Couldn't have said it any better

:biggthump

Re: Snyder Interview
 

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]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.[/QUOTE]

Thank you - well said.

Re: Snyder Interview
 

I amend a post I made earlier.

Sports Curmudgeon = Poo Poo Pants

Ramseyfan, nice post.

Re: Snyder Interview
 

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.

Re: Snyder Interview
 

[QUOTE=EEich]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.[/QUOTE]

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

Re: Snyder Interview
 

I'm not so sure...
It's hard for me to say that the Skins have improved during the off-season.
We've been hearing Dan say it for five years now. It's getting old and tired.

Re: Snyder Interview
 

[QUOTE=EEich]I'm not so sure...
It's hard for me to say that the Skins have improved during the off-season.
We've been hearing Dan say it for five years now. It's getting old and tired.[/QUOTE]

Right, but in the past offseasons we've also been hearing Steve Spurrier saying that he thought we'd improved. But now, we're hearing Joe Gibbs saying we're improved.

It's a given that Dan Snyder knows nothing about football. But when Joe Gibbs starts to say we're improving, then I'm starting to believe. There's a bit of a difference between Gibbs and Spurrier.

Re: Snyder Interview
 

After watching Gibbs start the wrong QB for most of last year,
I can't say that I have as much confidence in Joe as I did during his Superbowl years.

Re: Snyder Interview
 

But Brunell isn't starting this year, Ramsey is. I can't see how that's not a cause for optimism.

Re: Snyder Interview
 

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.

Re: Snyder Interview
 

[url]http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=citadel-2_364805_71&prov=citadel&type=lgns[/url]

Re: Snyder Interview
 

[quote]Right, but in the past offseasons we've also been hearing Steve Spurrier saying that he thought we'd improved. But now, we're hearing Joe Gibbs saying we're improved.

It's a given that Dan Snyder knows nothing about football. But when Joe Gibbs starts to say we're improving, then I'm starting to believe. There's a bit of a difference between Gibbs and Spurrier.[/quote]

Have you ever heard a coach say, "Man we got a lot worse this offseason... We won't be competing this year. Sorry fans."

The 49ers (thank god, I hate em!) might end up saying it this year, but I've never heard anything but optimism from coaches!

Re: Snyder Interview
 

[quote]But Snyder gave his first interview in more than two years to a paper he once reviled. In fact, the reporter who interviewed Snyder, David Elfin -- also a Warpath contributor -- once was banished to the basement during home games. Why? Because Snyder didn't like the newspaper's coverage in his early years.[/quote]

Nice article, EEich! Who is it!

Re: Snyder Interview
 

[COLOR=DarkRed]TWT: Why not give Vinny the GM title?
Snyder: Having a GM goes back to when the general manager ran the ticket office. He used to be like a CEO. Less than half the teams today have a GM. The majority of the coaches have the final say. New England and Philadelphia have a vice president of player personnel and no GM. We have the same structure. [/COLOR]

I found this interesting. Is it true? Also, did you see where Danny blamed Vinny for the Deon fiasco?

Anyway, I liked the interview. I believe that he's letting Gibbs run the show. And it can't hurt to have two papers in town competing to have the best skins coverage.

Re: Snyder Interview
 

Being an out of town fan I only have the Post and Times websites to depend on for Redskins "news" so I don't really care about the politics of who is in bed with the FO or not.. Bottom line the Post needs to remember is Journalism 101, it's more important to be right than first.