Here's my guess about JLac and the skins in the JG II era:
JLac walked into a pre-existing feud between the skins and Post. JG is not a friend of the press--he sees it as a bunch of spies and liars, pretty much. And the FO has been doing its best to control its media output. So they treat JLac like a cub reporter and have no problem blatantly misleading him, leaving him out of the loop, minimizing his access, etc. Is any of this incorrect? How would you react?
Meanwhile, JLac sets up his blog, which is one of the better sources of up-to-the-minute accurate skins news, IMO. Do y'all read redskins insider? My guess is you disagree with it from time to time, and find some of the coverage anti-skins for your taste, but you generally read it. Because it provides NEWS of the team, even among the opinion stuff. (And opinion is ok, IMO--it's a blog). And he does regular chats on the Post site. And the guy pretty reliably answers his emails and takes the job seriously. Is any of this incorrect?
Whatever. Don't like him, don't read him. I really do wonder why we skins fans have such a complex about the media. It's the friggin MEDIA, people! What do you expect? At what point did you form the nutty opinion that the media is 100% reliable, constrained to write what you agree with, inhumanely non-partial, etc? Newsflash: it's not. And if you think we've got it bad, try reading the dreck in NYC or Philly. Houston is ok, but IT'S BORING, sports-news-wise. I long for some "haters" at times just to shake things up.
(BTW, none of this applies to Sally Jenkins' skins coverage. She's off the radar. I do not read her. As Dorothy Parker once said, "Everything she writes is a lie, even 'and' and 'the'." Guess we all have our hatred.

)