The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

Without mentioning them by name...

In [URL=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/23/AR2005102301274.html]Mike Wise's column[/URL], he wrote the following (emphasis mine):
[QUOTE= Mike Wise - Washington Post]Some of us were worse than wrong. Columns, call-in shows and fan Web sites were downright nasty. [B]One extremist Web[/B] thread took on Gibbs's undying faith in Brunell:

"If Joe Gibbs starts Mark Brunell next Sunday, it will confirm what I have thought since the day we signed the inept quarterback. . . . One fervent Christian favoring another fervent Christian," a post written a year ago read. "Time to break the loyalty, Joe. This isn't church, it's football, and Mark Brunell is the biggest mistake you ever made."
[/QUOTE]

The quoted post can be viewed [URL=http://extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=76740]here[/URL].

I wonder if it's going to be WaPo policy to dig up old posts at the now-team-owned fansite to make said site look foolish. Looks like the Post-Skins feud is still out there.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

what's sad is...that post was written over a year ago. if anything, Mike Wise should have written about it last year. It's definitely short sided and childish to bring this up now.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

There were probably similar assanine posts here as well last year.

It's a shame that so many 'fans' gave up so quickly on Gibbs.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]There were probably similar assanine posts here as well last year.[/QUOTE]
That's kind of my point. I'm not here to defend Extreme, but calling out year-old message board posts is piss-poor journalism. It's like a low blow at message boards in general.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

But BrudLee, they're THE official message board. ;)

Seriously though, I completely agree. Old message board posts as support for your argument?! Damn.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

(maybe this will make the Post ;))
Mike Wise is a prick, and will never be held in the same light as TK.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

Yeah kinda comes with the territory. Being the Skins message board is going to make you a target.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

they are jealous because they are not top dog anymore, that and the fact that their sloppy and lazy habits have been shown for what they are. they are not used to be held to the fire.Journalism and reporting have really gone down hill over the last decade or so.i have little or no trust in any of them

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

I think it's kind of sad to take your personal vendetta against a FREAKIN' sports team out in the paper. I don't see how people, Skins fans or not, would continue to tolerate it. I mean it's the same ol' shit every week.

"Skins did this to us! Waaaaaaaaaaah!"

Get over it. The first part of healing is forgiveness. You'd THINK that Post readers would rather read something positive or objective for a change.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

you can thank the downward spiral of journalism to the 24/7 news world we live in. too many writers trying to jump the gun, because a matter of moments can mean the difference of several million hits to said story. and until some sort of check system is put in place, it'll continue to go down.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

I thought the article was good. I don't really see it as poor journalism. If you read the article, its contrasting the Mark Brunell of last year (and the perception of him at the time), to this year's Mark Brunell.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

I just think that the comment they quoted had too much agenda behind it. It's a little controversial to be putting in a large paper. When you put something like that in there, it starts stirring up controversy.

Now for the impressional people that read the Post, whenever the Skins sign someone they'll be like "Hmmm, wonder if it's because he's a Christian."

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection]I just think that the comment they quoted had too much agenda behind it. It's a little controversial to be putting in a large paper. When you put something like that in there, it starts stirring up controversy.

Now for the impressional people that read the Post, whenever the Skins sign someone they'll be like "Hmmm, wonder if it's because he's a Christian."[/QUOTE]
But it shows just how low Brunell was last year, as opposed to this year. He's using it for contrast, not controversy. I believe that if he used it in a story *last* year, it would have been more controversial, but to use it this year is kinda like saying "hey, moron, look where he (and Gibbs) is now".

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

Oh I completely agree with comparing. Just the comment out of the THOUSANDS there were to choose from was a little bit in bad taste in my opinion.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

I hope the Post doesn't decide to dig up anything I wrote about Mark Brunell