Gallntfox Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 From today's Post....... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/10/AR2006011001799.html "Four plays later, Sean Taylor picked up Mike McMahon's fumble and ran 39 yards for the game-clinching score." Uhhhhhh...Howard.....Detmer was the QB for the Eagles on that play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDane Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 This quotation really bothers me: Suddenly, one of the NFL's great comeback stories this season seems destined for an unhappy ending. Why the hell would you even bother to put that sort of editorialist smack into an article, particularly if you're the home town paper? The Post continues to baffle me, even when the Redskins are in the SECOND ROUND OF THE PLAYOFFS. Someone tell zoony and Art to start keeping tabs on errors by this ****head too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlobberKnockinFootball Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 What a douchebag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveStrongSkins Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Oh come on people. Sometimes they have to have some type of spin like that on an article. Everything they write isnt going to be peaches and cream, there has to be a drama element. To be fair, Bryant has written some great articicles since being here and most of them very positive. Were people crying then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Oh come on people. Sometimes they have to have some type of spin like that on an article. Everything they write isnt going to be peaches and cream, there has to be a drama element. To be fair, Bryant has written some great articicles since being here and most of them very positive. Were people crying then? Bryant is a reporter, there should be no spin, be it positive or negative. There should be information provided by newsmakers and recounted for individuals who care about the beat. This is the second major factual error in his work in the last month though. That's not great . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linebckr99 Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Oh come on people. Sometimes they have to have some type of spin like that on an article. Everything they write isnt going to be peaches and cream, there has to be a drama element. To be fair, Bryant has written some great articicles since being here and most of them very positive. Were people crying then? That is an excellent point. He has written some good articles. He did make the mistake that McMahon fumbled when it was actually Detmer's fumble that was returned by Sean Taylor. Although this is a mistake that a writer and editor should not overlook, it was not the main point of the article and really we shouldn't be spending so much time attacking this mistake. It was not a mistake that attacks the redskins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins4eva Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 I agree with Art here--but, I don't know why you guys have such high expectations for the Washington Post--they've been living off of their reputation for about 35 years. Jason is a very good beat guy--but the others are pretty much worthless as writers--they add absolutely nothing to the dialogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 I agree with Art here--but, I don't know why you guys have such high expectations for the Washington Post--they've been living off of their reputation for about 35 years. Jason is a very good beat guy--but the others are pretty much worthless as writers--they add absolutely nothing to the dialogue. Personally, I like reporting that presents facts and lets the reader conclude. A good writer should be able to craft a story without making editorial comments as a journalist. Information stands alone. I happen to agree that Brunell seems to be reverting back to the Brunell of last year. He looks off and maybe it's right to suggest it's the wear and tear of the year and that he won't recover. It's just better as a journalist to let someone else say that for you rather than concluding it yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themurf Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 That is an excellent point. He has written some good articles. He did make the mistake that McMahon fumbled when it was actually Detmer's fumble that was returned by Sean Taylor. Although this is a mistake that a writer and editor should not overlook, it was not the main point of the article and really we shouldn't be spending so much time attacking this mistake. It was not a mistake that attacks the redskins. In the newspaper business that's considered a major error in fact. And when you think of it, there were only two important people in the entire play - the guy who fumbled, and the guy who picked it up. How is that not a main point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Uh oh Art, sportsjournalist.com is going to be wondering if you have a life and why are you harping on a guy who makes mistakes Because everyone makes mistakes, right Art? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linebckr99 Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 In the newspaper business that's considered a major error in fact. And when you think of it, there were only two important people in the entire play - the guy who fumbled, and the guy who picked it up. How is that not a main point? What I meant is that it is not a main point of his article. If you read the article, the focus is not on Mcmahon (Detmer) fumbling and having it returned by Sean Taylor for a Touchdown. The focus of this article is on Mark Brunell and how his strong numbers during the regular season have slid since being injured against the Giants. I'm not disagreeing that this is a factual error and when I first read the article, that was something I picked up on right away. All I'm saying is that I'm not ready to crucify Bryant and place him in the "Nunyo" category. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe many of Nunyo's errors were viewed as putting a negative slant on the Redskins organization. Borderline libel. Now after re-reading the article, I do take issue with Bryant saying "Suddenly, one of the NFL's great comeback stories this season seems destined for an unhappy ending." I think the jury is still out on whether or not this season will have an unhapy ending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Novaskin Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Personally, I like reporting that presents facts and lets the reader conclude. A good writer should be able to craft a story without making editorial comments as a journalist. Information stands alone. I happen to agree that Brunell seems to be reverting back to the Brunell of last year. He looks off and maybe it's right to suggest it's the wear and tear of the year and that he won't recover. It's just better as a journalist to let someone else say that for you rather than concluding it yourself. Very much in agreement with your statements. Journalists today think that just because they cover the team for a half a year they can state their word for fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budski Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Well Brunell is better than Dilfer and you see how far he took the Ravens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gallntfox Posted January 11, 2006 Author Share Posted January 11, 2006 The WP seems to never let the facts get in the way of a good story..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.