@DCGoldPants Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 http://www.tbd.com/articles/2011/02/dan-snyder-lawsuit-a-complete-analysis-49871.html Interesting read IMO Team Snyder may want to watch the contradictions.On Wednesday, Redskins Owner Daniel Snyder filed suit (PDF) against Washington City Paper and its ownership for the "lies, half-truths, innuendo and anti-Semitic imagery" that have allegedly appeared in the weekly paper and its website of late. In an interview with the Washington Post, Snyder rep Patty Glaser said, "This is not a case of the big guy versus the little guy." Oh yeah? Let's check the record then. In a letter threatening suit against City Paper, Redskins executive David Donovan wrote, "Indeed, the cost of litigation would presumably quickly outstrip the asset value of the Washington City Paper." No matter what turns this story may take from here on out, that particular line will forever color the public image of Snyder. Along with all the instances that City Paper reporter Dave McKenna documented in his lawsuit-triggering November cover story ("The Cranky Redskins Fan's Guide to Dan Snyder"), the corporate bullying of the City Paper will forever attest to the pettiness of a cigar-chomping billionaire. Full article after the jump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsdude Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 In a letter threatening suit against City Paper, Redskins executive David Donovan wrote, "Indeed, the cost of litigation would presumably quickly outstrip the asset value of the Washington City Paper." What a scumbag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NattyBo Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Can't wait for the apologists to come in here with no knowledge and tell us how Snyder is somehow going to win this case. Like I said in the other two threads: this case has next to no legs and the only thing it accomplishes is bringing more scorn to the Redskins. Great analysis from TBD on the legal aspects of the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 In a letter threatening suit against City Paper, Redskins executive David Donovan wrote, "Indeed, the cost of litigation would presumably quickly outstrip the asset value of the Washington City Paper." What a scumbag. That's bullying. Plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 One of their first points is very interesting - the City Paper, like many large media outlets - carries libel insurance. Which neuters Snyder's threat that the cost of the lawsuit would outstrip the value Washington City Paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 One of their first points is very interesting - the City Paper, like many large media outlets - carries libel insurance. Which neuters Snyder's threat that the cost of the lawsuit would outstrip the value Washington City Paper.Interesting. Nice find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 All in all, though, that was a pretty weak article from TBD, especially since 1. the title promised more by calling it "a complete analysis" of the lawsuit, and 2. both authors - Erik Wemple and Andrew Beaujon - were pretty prominent City Paper staffers before joining TBD - Beaujon was at CP for at least 4 years and Wemple for more than 10 years. Both wrote a bunch of bylined articles for the CP, and they admit they still have personal connections with CP staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Interesting stuff. Thanks for posting Buford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 That's bullying. Plain and simple. And Snyder thought it would work. Now that it hasn't, he is in a corner from which there is no easy exit. He cannot drop the suit without losing face, nor can he proceed without spending a ton of money on a case he can't win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Can't wait for the apologists to come in here with no knowledge and tell us how Snyder is somehow going to win this case.Like I said in the other two threads: this case has next to no legs and the only thing it accomplishes is bringing more scorn to the Redskins. Great analysis from TBD on the legal aspects of the case. Well I see the "Snyder Haters" have already come in here like flies to a dung pile (sarcasm). Do you even realize how stupid and one-sided someone looks when they constantly resort to labeling the other side in a disengenuous manner? You've done it a bunch in the Snyder threads, seriously, grow up and quit disparaging fellow Skins fans simply because you disagree with them and are incapable of viewing them rationally. "No knowledge"? Really? Because I've argued specifics with you previously on this, so how's about you cut it out with the gross exaggerations and quit insulting people's opinions just because you disagree? In other words, quit being an ass. So you're still being completely dishonest about the argument on the other side of this, and labeling people as Snyder apologists eventhough nobody is forgiving all of his actions, just saying he does have a legitimate beef on a few things? Yeah, that apologist label is completely appropriate then (rolls eyes) Great analysis? First off when they mention the forgery all they do is posit the question are employee misdeeds the "hill Snyder wants to die on?" Oh yeah, great analysis there. They mention that Verizon/GTE's employees were also slamming, so it seems it may have been a problem in that industry, not unique to Snyder's company. And the article completely ignores that Snyder was directly accused himself of forgery in order to posit their silly question. If they're going to mention the problem Snyder has and then completely ignore the point about direct accusation and act like the fault being on employees is equally as bad (which is a disguised way of saying McKenna's accusation was ok), then they aren't looking at it genuinely. McKenna should not have blamed Snyder directly, and in the real world you can be held accountable for that. Those of you unable to separate your dislike (bias) of Snyder from this case simply give Mckenna a pass on this false allegation eventhough he is clearly wrong. The trees thing is ticky-tacky by Snyder. We all know that McKenna wasn't being serious about the Agent Orange thing. However, such language does paint an improper picture of what really happened. Cutting down trees is not th same as using a chemical agent, it was an incorrect and sensationalized thing to say. I think this was just a case of trying to add more meat to the case and to show a pattern with Mckenna. One thing though, why haven't any of these journalists, then and now, looked into the tree thing to see why in fact they were protected. A high-up official approved the trees be cut down,but because someone who wants them to be protected says it should be open to public debe, apparently that's all the evidence needed to slam Snyder. Not one has bothered to see if those trees had valid reason to be protected, or even why they were being protected. If they were that sacred, I don't think a park official would have approved them to be cut down. I think McKenna and others are being ticky-tacky with this as well. In the part about diabetic and cancer patients, Snyder talks about them purely as an example of a market segment. Plus, they aren't the only market segments he talked about. Now how exactly does any of that constitue saying that Snyder was bragging (which clearly he wasn't but that doesn't sell papers), or even that it was about him bragging his wealth came from diabetes and cancer patients? Even the writers wouldn't acknowledge that, all they did was focus on the word brag, because they knew also it was a huge stretch by McKenna that they couldn't deend, else they would have addressed it. But Snyder talking about identifying trends and marketing to those trends, that is where his welath came from. But alas that would give credit to Snyder for being smart, so McKenna decided instead to run a sensationalized headline that greatly distorted the truth. And the writers mention the tossed off Six Flags board comment, but all they show is the same evidence used bfore, which shows that they didn't want Snyder on the boad unless it was approved by the majority of backstop purchasers. How do you even possibly construe that he was kicked off the board from that? And the writers don't even explain either, instead they roll into whether or not the case has legs. But it's not about whether or not the case has legs, Snyder has a beef with the City Paper, he think they are purposefully defaming him in part because he is a competitor in the sports media outlets, so he's likely going to drag this out until City Paper's parent company decides it's better just to settle out of court. Snyder feels McKenna went too far, made false allegations, and classlessly drug his wife into this, so I imagine he's playing hardball now and looking to get rid of City paper or have their parent company put restrictions on them. There are a bunch of small publications which have been disparaging of Snyder. He hasn't gone after any of them. He didn't go after any of McKenna's other articles either. But it seems that this was the last straw, especially when they refused to make a retraction and had drug Snyder's wife into it. McKenna stepped over the line and made it personal. If it were me, I'd be going after them also. Because people who are that classless won't stop stooping t that level and eventually at some point you do have to stand up for yourself and say enough is enough. The writers themselves admitted they used to work for City Paper and still have connections there, so of course they will side with McKenna. But really they didn't have much of any in-depth analysis and they never addressed the reasons behind each of Snyder's complaints, as I explained above. Plus, they only touched on a couple of them. A "complete" analysis would have addressed all the complaints. But since it was what you wanted to hear, you champion a fluff piece as "great analysis." Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 One of their first points is very interesting - the City Paper, like many large media outlets - carries libel insurance. Which neuters Snyder's threat that the cost of the lawsuit would outstrip the value Washington City Paper. Does the libel insurance offset the legal costs? I assume it only kicks in after an award has been made. Or does it pay to defend themselves in court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Does the libel insurance offset the legal costs? I assume it only kicks in after an award has been made. Or does it pay to defend themselves in court? There are different types of coverage. Here's a decent article on libel insurance from the Online Journalism Review out of the University of Southern California's Annenberg School of Communications and Journalism: http://www.ojr.org/ojr/law/1077150111.php And more info from copylaw.com http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/Pub_lib.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bird_1972 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 This is probably appropriate for this thread. A Dan Steinberg Sports Bog post summarizing this ongoing debacle and a local DC news organization's commentary: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog/2011/02/brett_haber_on_daniel_snyder.html?wprss=dcsportsbog I encourage you to click on the video if you haven't seen it already. Pretty damning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rictus58 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I said this off line to buford and I still believe it. The focal point of this lawsuit is going to be the business interests of the parent company of the city paper competing against Snyder's interests outside of the Redskins. Everything else is just little grains of sand that show a pattern of behavior on the part of the CP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bird_1972 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I said this off line to buford and I still believe it.The focal point of this lawsuit is going to be the business interests of the parent company of the city paper competing against Snyder's interests outside of the Redskins. Everything else is just little grains of sand that show a pattern of behavior on the part of the CP. What exactly do you mean by Snyder's interests outside the Redskins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rictus58 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 What exactly do you mean by Snyder's interests outside the Redskins? http://images.tbd.com/pdfs/snyder-lawsuit.pdf page 6. point 7. "the WCP competes directly with Mr. Snyder's Red Zebra Broadcasting for Local advertising in the Washington Metro area. Moreover, defendant Atalaya Captial Management, which owns the WCP, is a private investment fund that competes directly with Mr. Snyders RedZone Capital Management Company for investments and investors". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NattyBo Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 snip Just FYI, being verbose doesn't make you right or make you seem any more intelligent - you could have made your point with far less pounding of your keyboard. You continue to demonstrate that you have no idea what it means to legally prove libel & defamation of a highly public figure. Go ahead and look up how many times it's been successfully done historically. But clearly dozens of people replying to you isn't making you reconsider your stance, you just keep repeating the same (often incorrect) talking points over and over, so I guess I'll just have to agree to disagree or use the ignore function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedlamVR Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Just FYI, being verbose doesn't make you right or make you seem any more intelligent - you could have made your point with far less pounding of your keyboard.You continue to demonstrate that you have no idea what it means to legally prove libel & defamation of a highly public figure. Go ahead and look up how many times it's been successfully done historically. But clearly dozens of people replying to you isn't making you reconsider your stance, you just keep repeating the same (often incorrect) talking points over and over, so I guess I'll just have to agree to disagree or use the ignore function. As do you but much more nasty in the process . It is very much in the hands of the court . I think there are enough people who want Snyder to win this action to make it so . The media have stepped across the mark too often and this really lazy journalism is a wide open goal and if the CP is the sacrifice that drive home a firmer message then so be it . Also for those who think litigation insurance is the pill to sink Snyder's aspirations have to think for a second - you get your car written off what happens to your insurance premium - does it go up or down ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jflow78 Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 In a letter threatening suit against City Paper, Redskins executive David Donovan wrote, "Indeed, the cost of litigation would presumably quickly outstrip the asset value of the Washington City Paper." That was exactly my point in another thread. Unless their parent company is willing to pony up some serious money, there's no way in **** that the paper can take a lawsuit like this. Newspapers are dying because they don't make any money, so it's not like the owner is going to be willing to pour a ton of money into a losing cause, regardless of how strong their side of the argument is. Even if they won the lawsuit, they still lose because of the financial side. They'll either settle quick, or go under. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo da Magnificent Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Lazy journalism is not libel. Per the story: "That means that his lawyers will have to prove not only untruths but also "actual malice" on part of City Paper. To vault that particular bar, they'll need to show that the paper knew that it was printing falsehoods about Snyder and went ahead and did it anyway." Danny will have to show falsehood. Not lazy journalism, not poor writing, not crossing the line. Falsehood. He has no chance on this. None. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 That was exactly my point in another thread. Unless their parent company is willing to pony up some serious money, there's no way in **** that the paper can take a lawsuit like this. Newspapers are dying because they don't make any money, so it's not like the owner is going to be willing to pour a ton of money into a losing cause, regardless of how strong their side of the argument is. Even if they won the lawsuit, they still lose because of the financial side. They'll either settle quick, or go under. the article mentions they have insurance that covers this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PortlandSkins Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 I just gave some money to the City Paper defense fund. I'll give some more every time one of Snyder's little trolls tries to defend him on this website. http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/legaldefense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsince72 Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Lazy journalism is not libel. Per the story: "That means that his lawyers will have to prove not only untruths but also "actual malice" on part of City Paper. To vault that particular bar, they'll need to show that the paper knew that it was printing falsehoods about Snyder and went ahead and did it anyway." Danny will have to show falsehood. Not lazy journalism, not poor writing, not crossing the line. Falsehood. He has no chance on this. None. This may not be as hard as some may think. One thing that McKenna has done often, is write constantly about Dan. It's "Snyder has done this", "Snyder has done that". He's ready to jump on any story or move that Snyder makes. It is almost an obsession. All of these articles are fair game and while they may come close to libel, they never seem to quite cross the line. Some, however, may feel that there have been a few instances of libel. A good attorney will highlight the constant ridicule. Whether the ridicule is deserved or not isn't important. Establishing a pattern or agenda on McKenna's part helps Snyder's case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark The Homer Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 In a letter threatening suit against City Paper, Redskins executive David Donovan wrote, "Indeed, the cost of litigation would presumably quickly outstrip the asset value of the Washington City Paper." What a scumbag. That's bullying. Plain and simple. I'm not sure about that. First, who started this? This crap has been going on for years. http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=snyder+redskins+city+paper#q=snyder+redskins+city+paper+site:extremeskins.com&hl=en&prmd=ivns&ei=O8ZMTbOiKMOclgfb35HXDw&start=90&sa=N&fp=c6ee28c51d57fabe If you peruse the links, you'll see that the paper has been attacking Snyder for at least five years. So, after five years, are you sure it is Snyder who is bullying? Secondly, Donovan is simply making a statement of fact. And, Snyder's team did provide the paper an opportunity to retract some of the details of the story. The paper chose not to. Third, any proceeds from the suit is going to charity. So, who's the bully? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spooky Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 I'm not sure about that.First, who started this? This crap has been going on for years. http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=snyder+redskins+city+paper#q=snyder+redskins+city+paper+site:extremeskins.com&hl=en&prmd=ivns&ei=O8ZMTbOiKMOclgfb35HXDw&start=90&sa=N&fp=c6ee28c51d57fabe If you peruse the links, you'll see that the paper has been attacking Snyder for at least five years. So, after five years, are you sure it is Snyder who is bullying? Secondly, Donovan is simply making a statement of fact. And, Snyder's team did provide the paper an opportunity to retract some of the details of the story. The paper chose not to. Third, any proceeds from the suit is going to charity. So, who's the bully? I agree, especially when they criticized his wife efforts with breast cancer wareness and she being a surviver. What is up with the effigy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.