FEEDBACK WANTED: Should ES adopt a boycott (ignore) policy for the WP?

[tshile]

 

Another thing to consider with a decision like this - and this poll which brings it to light - is how this will reflect on the organization and Mr. Snyder if anybody in the media - Deadspin, City Paper, Dave McKenna, WP columnists, etc - decides to run with this and cast it as another example of Daniel Snyder's pettiness in responding to the media. 

 

Everybody here knows that this board runs independently of the ownership, but that fact gets lost when the media writes about it.  It's happened before with Extremeskins. There will be no nuance about volunteer posters and moderators in the story of how the Official Message Board of the Washington Redskins has banned the Washington Post from its news section.  So what you end up with is that the truth of the matter - a personal decision by a hard working volunteer to boycott WP articles - gets chewed up and spit out as another example of the owner's petulance. 

 

We will know that's not true, but the truth often doesn't see the light of day when an alternative spin fits a pre-ordained media narrative. 

 

This is more reason to weed them out of the list of sources, in my opinion.

 

They aren't interested in presenting information to us, they're interested in attacking the organization in any way they can find. Even if that means, as you've laid out, characterizing the move as one being pushed by Snyder despite all evidence that Snyder and the Redskins have zero to do with the board. They'll literally create a false narrative because it suits their agenda.

 

That's the entire problem and point of the thread. They have made it clear as day they want nothing but to attack the organization in any way possible.

 

These are the people you want to receive money by clicks on their articles on this board? These are the people you're fighting for when it's suggested that maybe we should use other, non-agenda driven sources?

 

You've unintentionally admitted to realizing the core issue here isn't about keeping 'opposing view points' out and creating an echo chamber as you described it earlier. It's about recognizing a 3rd party's intentions as being solely to attack the organization.

[Dan T.]

 

 

 

This is more reason to weed them out of the list of sources, in my opinion.

 

They aren't interested in presenting information to us, they're interested in attacking the organization in any way they can find. Even if that means, as you've laid out, characterizing the move as one being pushed by Snyder despite all evidence that Snyder and the Redskins have zero to do with the board. They'll literally create a false narrative because it suits their agenda.

 

That's the entire problem and point of the thread. They have made it clear as day they want nothing but to attack the organization in any way possible.

 

These are the people you want to receive money by clicks on their articles on this board? These are the people you're fighting for when it's suggested that maybe we should use other, non-agenda driven sources?

 

You've unintentionally admitted to realizing the core issue here isn't about keeping 'opposing view points' out and creating an echo chamber as you described it earlier. It's about recognizing a 3rd party's intentions as being solely to attack the organization.

 

 

Your argument is fatally flawed because I'm talking about how the entire sports media would perceive and report on a boycott of the Washington Post, not just how the Post would report it .

 

And your statement that "they want to attack the organization in any way possible" just sounds paranoid.  The Post has beat writers, NFL writers, sports columinsts, and ed. board staff who may write about the team at any time.  Do you believe there is an organizational mandate at the Post to denigrate the team "in any way possible"?

[jflow78]

Your argument is fatally flawed because I'm talking about the entire sports media, not just the Washington Post with regard to how a boycott would be perceived.

This entire discussion is solely concerning the WP, so your comment about "the entire sports media" is beside the point.  I don't think ES has ever been concerned with how the "entire sports media" views them.

 

It's a reality that the WP has created a narrative where nothing positive can come from this team, regardless of the facts.  As tshile pointed out, they have spun every story in a negative light, from the firing of Shanahan to the recover of Griffin's knee to signing nearly every FA or drafting nearly every draft pick as a decision "pushed by Snyder" ONLY when they don't work out.  

 

When have they used that same logic on players who DID work out?  It's not paranoid to recognize a pattern and accept that the WP doesn't want an unbiased story, they just want to stir **** up and cause drama and negative attention to be brought to the organization.  ES no longer posting WP articles in the News section isn't likely to be noticed by anyone other than ESers.  

 

(and not even by them, since no one seemed to notice that Hap hadn't been posting their **** anyway, until TK started this thread)

 

EDIT: 

 

As I noticed you edited your comment, I've altered my own comment and the one I quoted from you, in respect of your change.

[Thinking Skins]

Another thing to consider with a decision like this - and this poll which brings it to light - is how this will reflect on the organization and Mr. Snyder if anybody in the media - Deadspin, City Paper, Dave McKenna, WP columnists, etc - decides to run with this and cast it as another example of Daniel Snyder's pettiness in responding to the media. 

 

Everybody here knows that this board runs independently of the ownership, but that fact gets lost when the media writes about it.  It's happened before with Extremeskins. There will be no nuance about volunteer posters and moderators in the story of how the Official Message Board of the Washington Redskins has banned the Washington Post from its news section.  So what you end up with is that the truth of the matter - a personal decision by a hard working volunteer to boycott WP articles - gets chewed up and spit out as another example of the owner's petulance. 

 

We will know that's not true, but the truth often doesn't see the light of day when an alternative spin fits a pre-ordained media narrative. 

 

I was thinking about this too, but was hesitant to post it because I doubt many here care what City Paper thinks of ExtremeSkins. I'll say that I don't really care what they think. I go to that paper to read about arts and events, and I come here to read about the Skins. different folks.

[Dan T.]

This entire discussion is solely concerning the WP, so your comment about "the entire sports media" is beside the point.  I don't think ES has ever been concerned with how the "entire sports media" views them.  Not to mention, THAT sounds paranoid.

 

 

My comment was how a boycott of the Washington Post might be perceived by the sports world at large, and how it might, rightly or wrongly, reflect on Dan Snyder and the organization.  So no, the entire discussion is NOT solely concerning the WP. 

 

And you're right, ES doesn't give a **** how the entire sports media views them.  But that wasn't my point, if you go back and read my earlier post from this morning.

 

There are two old adages an organization such as the Redskins would do well to keep in mind in maintaining good media public relations, but I don't think they've done so in the past decade:

 

1. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

 

2. Don't pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel.

 

A boycott on this board violates both.

[zoony]

Dan, I think boycott is an incredibly poor choice of words. If members wish to post a WP article they can, nothing stopping them (other than an apparent rash of members recently with an inability to follow the rules when posting news articles). But I digress...

This site is nothing more than a collection of passionate fans. If a guy donating his spare time to run an entire breaking news forum doesn't wish to link articles from the WP, who are we to tell him he must? Do we threaten to take away his pay? Maybe take away some of his benefits? Oh that's right he gets neither

I can tell you personally, were I to donate as much of my time to this board as Hap does, not only would I not post WP articles, I would tell anyone who doesn't like it to, well, nevermind. It's my free time and its my decision

[Diesel Hog]

^ This is not a real boycott.  The mods have made that clear.  It's them just not using links in the news section.  You can still post WP links here, they are not going to ban you.  They are not calling for you to cancel your subscription or even stop reading the paper.  They just aren't posting their links in the news section, and personally, I think it's a great call.

[tshile]

Your argument is fatally flawed because I'm talking about how the entire sports media would perceive and report on a boycott of the Washington Post, not just how the Post would report it .

 

And your statement that "they want to attack the organization in any way possible" just sounds paranoid.  The Post has beat writers, NFL writers, sports columinsts, and ed. board staff who may write about the team at any time.  Do you believe there is an organizational mandate at the Post to denigrate the team "in any way possible"?

 

It would be 'fatally flawed' if the discussion is about blocking all media outlets that say bad things, but it's not. It's about the Post and on some level a small and specific list of other organizations or 'media'. Are you denying that the Post would cover it that way? You included them in their list. So my point stands - you're admitting they're doing exactly what everyone has been saying they're doing. They will purposefully create a false narrative to attack the team. 

 

By the way - as some have pointed out, the Post isn't the only one this has been talked about doing this with. There are other outlets that have revealed themselves to be on the same page as the Post. However the Post is specifically being called out because of their recent announcement and their strong influence in the area.

 

You can say it sounds paranoid all you want, but anyone who's been a part of either organization is well aware of the feud that has gone on between the Post and Snyder since Snyder bought the team. It goes all the way back to Snyder revoking passes/tickets from the Post because of articles they were writing about him.

 

Do I think there is a mandate to slander the organization? No, absolutely not. But I do think there is a mandate, outright stated or just implied, to drum up as much controversy as possible to generate clicks and views. This is not unique or novel for the Post, it started with Politics years ago and has unfortunately bleed over into the arena of sports. It's become the standard for what passes as 'journalism' these days.

 

In addition to that there are clearly people at the Post that's sole interest is in going after Snyder, mostly via going after the Redskins. If you haven't been able to discern that over the last two decades then... well, it explains your stance.

 

My issue with your whole argument on this has nothing to do with how you personally feel about the post, and everything to do with how you constantly try to summarize the anger on behalf of many redskins fans that have been calling for this (either an official boycott, or casually suggestion "... stop reading their garbage" in random  threads) as some sort of shutting out of opposing view points, or trying to create a echo-chamber/like-minded discussion board. That couldn't be further from the truth and you constantly neglecting the nuance of the actual issue is a bit alarming.

[USS Redskins]

Its tough but I have removed all of the posts twitter feeds from my accounts... and any links on my computer.

 

I wont give them the clicks... John Keim is the only one you really need now, anyway.

[Dan T.]

It's funny in a way, because back when the Redskins were good, the Washington Post was, quite literally, leading the parade:

 

 

 

So really, the surest way for the Redskins to stop the Post from writing bad stuff about the team (aside from the name-change thing, which I'm afraid isn't going away) is to start winning.

[HapHaszard]

^ This is not a real boycott.  The mods have made that clear.  It's them just not using links in the news section.  You can still post WP links here, they are not going to ban you.  They are not calling for you to cancel your subscription or even stop reading the paper.  They just aren't posting their links in the news section, and personally, I think it's a great call.

Just to make something clear, the Mods have nothing to do with this, while my avatar says moderator I am not a mod.  I am the one that is not posting articles to the BRBN section.  Furthermore if anyone wants to post that papers articles to the section they are welcome to do so.  Posting to BRBN has never and will not be restricted to just me.  I am responsible to insure that the rules on posting articles are followed so if your wanting to post read rule 10 first.

[chipwhich]

It's funny in a way, because back when the Redskins were good, the Washington Post was, quite literally, leading the parade:

 

 

So really, the surest way for the Redskins to stop the Post from writing bad stuff about the team (aside from the name-change thing, which I'm afraid isn't going away) is to start winning.

 

Losing isn't the the reason the Post and the Redskins are at war with each other.  Winning won't fix that. 

[Dan T.]

Losing isn't the the reason the Post and the Redskins are at war with each other.  Winning won't fix that. 

 

Yeah, at this point you're probably right.  The honeymoon is long over.

[Destino]

Losing isn't the the reason the Post and the Redskins are at war with each other. Winning won't fix that.

I don't know, the press in 2012 was pretty friendly once this team got on a run and RG3 was a rock star. Let's try winning for three years straight and see what happens

[Sikbug]

Just to make something clear, the Mods have nothing to do with this, while my avatar says moderator I am not a mod.  I am the one that is not posting articles to the BRBN section.  Furthermore if anyone wants to post that papers articles to the section they are welcome to do so.  Posting to BRBN has never and will not be restricted to just me.  I am responsible to insure that the rules on posting articles are followed so if your wanting to post read rule 10 first.

 

I am a little confused as I didn't read every single post in this yet, but I was responding in the poll to the op, which stated "Recently I've received several messages, texts, & phone call discussions (along with it popping up in the actual Name Change thread) about how ES should adopt a boycott policy for media sites that have been pushing their agenda for changing the name."

 

Which I still say no too, but now you all are saying it's just in the breaking news section only?

[HapHaszard]

Which I still say no too, but now you all are saying it's just in the breaking news section only?

My part is only the breaking news section, I have decided that I do not want to post their articles, and generate revenue to that paper. I am not boycotting them since I will not stop anyone else from posting their articles in the BRBN

 

Any actions taken by the moderators would be their decision, and as far as I know they have not taken a stand on the matter.

[Sikbug]

Gotcha, that to me makes more sense, my take from the op was that people were going to be banned for posting their articles, which in turn is what gave me the reactionary post I gave the other day. 

[TK]

Gotcha, that to me makes more sense, my take from the op was that people were going to be banned for posting their articles, which in turn is what gave me the reactionary post I gave the other day.

Find the post I made in this thread with two links in it & check them out.

[jflow78]

I don't believe for a second that the WP is only spinning every story in a negative light because the team sucks.  Yes, there was a moment during 2012 when they reported positive things, except for all the stories during the offseason.  EVERY ONE was intended to create negative drama and attention toward the team.

 

I DO think the WP has a mandate to report almost soley negative things about the Skins.  Like tshile said, it started when Dan Snyder took over the team.  Hence, the million suggestions that every failing is Snyder's fault, but the successes never are.

 

The biggest problem with it is, if the hometown paper is reporting BS, where do we all think the national media is getting their BS stories from?  The WP, where else?  It's not as if 50 reporters just suddenly came up with the same BS story at the same time.  So, until the post changes it's tune, the national tune won't change either.

[Diesel Hog]

Eh, the Times is better covering the Redskins anyway.  I don't read the Times other sections, but their Sports section is pretty solid.

[PCS]

Native American Redskins Nation Calls for Boycott of Washington Post

 

 

 

http://httr4life.com/native-american-redskins-nation-calls-for-boycott-of-washington-post/

[HapHaszard]

Native American Redskins Nation Calls for Boycott of Washington Post

 

 

 

http://httr4life.com/native-american-redskins-nation-calls-for-boycott-of-washington-post/

 

you beat me to it PCS.

[PCS]

First time for everything I guess.

[SonnyandSam]

Time for Redskins Nation to step up and boycott the Washington Post. I voted yes.

 

Later today, I will take steps to cancel all my WaPo twitter follows and will install blocks on all WaPo advertising on my internet browsers. UnWise Mike's latest plan to publish emails from about 240 Redskins fans who oppose the name for various reasons including they are tired of the controversy but not opposed to the name, while he ignores over 2,000+ Native American Redskins fans on Facebook and the millions of Redskins fans across the globe who support the name and sees the latest attack as political correctness gone amuck.

 

Too many other talented beat reporters to follow for football related Redskins news. In the past, I defended Mike for his right to his opinion. But his continued crusade against the name and his abuse of people who disagree with him is unacceptable. I've had enough of his BS.

 

Hail!

[nuposse87]

I'm not really a fan of the post's content with regards to the team itself, but banning them and other outlets just because they differ on the name seems petty and childish. Simply ignoring them is fine, I would think. Banning them would be a sign of "victory" on "their" side and display of butthurtness on "our" side. 

 

I might be willing to yield on all UnWise Mike related content though, that guy is insufferable. Plus he likes Ernie Grunfeld, which is more then enough reason to wish ill on him.