Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Skins vs. The Post

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-08-2005, 09:02 PM   #16
Karma Chameleon
 
jdlea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Annapolis, MD
Age: 30
Posts: 3,101
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.
jdlea is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 05-09-2005, 11:21 AM   #17
Special Teams
 
56FAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: MANASSAS VA
Age: 52
Posts: 323
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
56FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2005, 02:31 PM   #18
Registered User
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 50
Posts: 15,818
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.
firstdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2005, 04:02 PM   #19
Impact Rookie
 
SkinsRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Crofton, MD
Age: 45
Posts: 907
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.
SkinsRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2005, 10:07 AM   #20
Franchise Player
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 36
Posts: 9,985
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.
FRPLG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2005, 11:55 AM   #21
Playmaker
 
irish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,732
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 $.
irish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2005, 02:30 AM   #22
Playmaker
 
sportscurmudgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,159
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.
__________________
The Sports Curmudgeon
www.sportscurmudgeon.com
But don't get me wrong, I love sports...
sportscurmudgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2005, 10:52 PM   #23
The Starter
 
monk81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 2,029
Re: Skins vs. The Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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...........
__________________
"It's absolutely criminal, in my opinion, that Monk has yet to be enshrined (in the Pro-Football Hall of Fame)" Dan Arkush PFW
monk81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2005, 11:27 PM   #24
Playmaker
 
sportscurmudgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,159
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...
__________________
The Sports Curmudgeon
www.sportscurmudgeon.com
But don't get me wrong, I love sports...
sportscurmudgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.21162 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25