WCP/Dave McKenna: Dan Snyder: Unsportsman of the Year, 2011

[MattFancy]

I feel like we see this same article at least once a year.

[paloosa]

McKenna is just like every other reporter that has been in DC reporting on the Washington Redskins. They all think that their opinion matters and that they know what it takes to be successful as an NFL owner or how to coach the team, etc. They are just as bad as the people they write about because their egos supersede their brains and forget to be objective as possible about the story as possible. Isn't that what is taught in school when you do research. You find the facts and try to keep it as unbias as possible? Well I guess it is ok that you use your bias, unsupported facts and flat out lies to make a story. Just as long as it sells newspapers it is ok. City paper where McKenna writes or was writing at did all those unethical things and should be sued by anyone they falsely accuse or attack the character of someone. McKenna was protected by the paper and his opinion about anything hasn't and never will matter.

[Hitman21ST]

I feel like we see this same article at least once a year.

Trash, rinse, repeat.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Don't want to stand up for McKenna, but wasn't the allegation that he had somehow "attacked" Tanya Snyder pretty much laughed off by many? In the "A-Z" article, McKenna mentioned that Mrs. Snyder was "selling the owner's transformation" on a TV interview. Unless there's a different article where he attacks her, I'm not seeing something so outrageous there.

He said she went on the air TO "sell" Snyder's transformation...

No. She went on the air to promote a charity.

Of course, the whole lawsuit (dropped a while ago) was pretty hamhanded. Snyder claiming that the suit was Tony Wyllie's idea. And that he personally did not read the article. Geez..........

Ever wonder if the lawsuit made McKenna's employers rethink his value to their paper and re-assess his articles, leading to his "retirement" in the first place? Do you think he would have been "retiring" if the lawsuit had never been filed?

---------- Post added December-30th-2011 at 08:01 AM ----------

I think "stuffing the ballot box" is more accurate and less pejorative than "rigging the poll," but that's really just splitting hairs. The whole thing was a farce, and PD got a bunch of us to play along.

You feel online polls and voting are a farce, fine. Say these polls in and of themselves are a farce, then. And explain why.

That doesn't mean, though, that you declare Phillip Daniels was "rigging" the poll and that he was running a "poll-rigging scheme".

This should not be a difficult concept for anyone to grasp.

[Taylor 36]

He said she went on the air TO "sell" Snyder's transformation...

No. She went on the air to promote a charity.

Ever wonder if the lawsuit made McKenna's employers rethink his value to their paper and re-assess his articles, leading to his "retirement" in the first place? Do you think he would have been "retiring" if the lawsuit had never been filed?

---------- Post added December-30th-2011 at 08:01 AM ----------

You feel online polls and voting are a farce, fine. Say these polls in and of themselves are a farce, then. And explain why.

That doesn't mean, though, that you declare Phillip Daniels was "rigging" the poll and that he was running a "poll-rigging scheme".

This should not be a difficult concept for anyone to grasp.

It is difficult to grasp for those that are blinded with hate for Daniel Snyder. If McKenna's articles were word for word the same but attacking anyone else other than Snyder, you would see the majority of these people whom do not seem to grasp this all of a sudden be fully aware of the irresponsible, completely biased and unprofessional antics being spewed with lies mixed into truths mixed into unfounded accusations by the asshat and the trash rag that has employed him for way longer than any respectable media outlet would have.

[elkabong82]

We've been through this before, Elka. Show where Snyder's wife was attacked.

You're just repeating a lie that Snyder told, to try justifying his ridiculous lawsuit against the City Paper.

No I'm not, you simply, again, choose to ignore the answers to your questions that you don't like.

First off, McKenna had no business even bringing her into the discussion. If you can't even understand that then you're blinded.

But again, he claimed Mrs. Snyder went on air to sell Snyder's transformation and that she'd been going across the country doing that. While she did speak of Snyder on the tv segment, the actual purpose of the segment was about kids health, and she's been going around the country promoting breast cancer awareness since she is a survivor. So McKenna disparaged her cause and claimed she was nothing more than a mouthpiece for Snyder. The article was about Snyder as a football team owner, so again, going after his wife is unnecessary, and the way he did it was classless. Anyone capable of seeing things clearly w/o letting their anti-Snyder bias interfere was able to see that just fine.

Unless of course you're telling me that you'd be ok with someone bringing up your wife or any family member as part of a criticism of your work.

This is an issue I saw from the city paper article, even though there were a bunch of parts I agreed with. But I argued with others, you included, about what was said about Mrs. Snyder and actually had to explain to you and others why it was classless even though to the open eyes it's pretty clear. So you in fact know I'm not simply "repeating a lie," (especially when in that thread and in this one I said there were parts of the article I agreed with), and it's rather dishonest to state that, but also telling that your perception on the issue is clouded at best.

[@DCGoldPants]

Here we go again.

If Snyder just ignored what was written, it would have been long forgotten. The mishandling of the now dropped lawsuit was a mess. The claims of what he was being attacked about kept changing. Racism. Attacking his wife while fighting cancer or something. Nonsense.

The things he's tried is why he's viewed so poorly. Charging fans for a special lane to get out of the stadium. Trying to force people to get a certain credit card to buy season tickets, The ban on signs, The prices of items in the stadium store compared to NFL.com. He might LOVE this team.....but he hasn't really shown a lot of respect to the fans.

[TheTotalPackage]

lol...i see nothing wrong with mckenna's article. a billionaire tried to crush him and he prevailed. if he wants to toot his horn and diss the billionaire on the way out, more power to him. if snyder doesn't want folks writing negative things about him, he should stop giving them things to write about. i think a lot of people who are bashing mckenna are wearing burgundy and gold colored glasses. it's like talking about your mama. you can talk, whine, moan about how bad your mother pisses you off but let someone else come along and say the same things and you're ready to fight.

[elkabong82]

Here we go again.

If Snyder just ignored what was written, it would have been long forgotten. The mishandling of the now dropped lawsuit was a mess. The claims of what he was being attacked about kept changing. Racism. Attacking his wife while fighting cancer or something. Nonsense.

The things he's tried is why he's viewed so poorly. Charging fans for a special lane to get out of the stadium. Trying to force people to get a certain credit card to buy season tickets, The ban on signs, The prices of items in the stadium store compared to NFL.com. He might LOVE this team.....but he hasn't really shown a lot of respect to the fans.

Nobody in here is saying that Snyder hasn't done bad things as an owner and people understand why he has been viewed poorly. That doesn't give people a free pass to include his wife in criticisms of Snyder as football team owner, nor disparage her cause. Writing that off as nonsense, instead of addressing the reasons listed right above you as to why it was inappropriate, and stating the reasons kept changing when there were several cited in 1 lawsuit, takes away the credibility of the rest of your argument even though the part about why Snyder is viewed poorly is accurate.

But in this very thread it's been mentioned what kind of person McKenna is. He accused Phillip Daniels of ballot stuffing, rather than examining the whole process there and how the winner had people voting multiple times each day, and he's accused ES mods of being Snyder lackeys and censoring this board so there is no criticism of Snyder. We both know that to be untrue. So McKenna is a guy who will throw baseless accusations out, in print, in order to satisfy his agenda against Snyder. Yet bringing up Snyder's wife is somehow justified and that time he wasn't being ridiculous and classless just to satisfy an agenda? A zebra doesn't change his stripes, or in this case a skunk doesn't change his stink.

---------- Post added December-30th-2011 at 11:49 AM ----------

lol...i see nothing wrong with mckenna's article. a billionaire tried to crush him and he prevailed. if he wants to toot his horn and diss the billionaire on the way out, more power to him. if snyder doesn't want folks writing negative things about him, he should stop giving them things to write about. i think a lot of people who are bashing mckenna are wearing burgundy and gold colored glasses. it's like talking about your mama. you can talk, whine, moan about how bad your mother pisses you off but let someone else come along and say the same things and you're ready to fight.

Sure, if you ignore that most have said there are a bunch of parts of the article they agree with, but do take exception to a couple parts, then you'd be correct that they are viewing it through B&G glasses. I also find a great way to get a point across and not come off as ignorantly disparaging an opposing argument is by starting your post with "lol."

So tell me, if someone criticized your work at your job, and then started bashing your mother's unrelated line of work, would you think that was fair and necessary to include?

As much as people dislike Snyder and are vocal of such on here, I'd never seen anyone so classless and pathetic that they actually brought up Snyder's wife as a criticism until McKenna did it in print. When that happened, even some long-time Snyder haters said it was classless, and that should tell you something. The mere fact she was never brought up by ESers, who will find the most trivial things to complain about, shows just how unrelated she is to criticism of Dan Snyder, which should be obvious to any rationally thinking person.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

It is difficult to grasp for those that are blinded with hate for Daniel Snyder. If McKenna's articles were word for word the same but attacking anyone else other than Snyder, you would see the majority of these people whom do not seem to grasp this all of a sudden be fully aware of the irresponsible, completely biased and unprofessional antics being spewed with lies mixed into truths mixed into unfounded accusations by the asshat and the trash rag that has employed him for way longer than any respectable media outlet would have.

This is one billion percent true, unfortunately...

---------- Post added December-30th-2011 at 09:08 AM ----------

The things he's tried is why he's viewed so poorly.

the same can-and should-be said about McKenna.

But I get it..."The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and all that.

[Jumbo]

Forget Snyder. Forget him for a moment. I can see viewing people who defend McKenna as essentially "ES traitors" in a sense who should maybe find another site. He has repeatedly attacked the extremeskins site and even the staff over the years as Henry has noted, often in a most low-life manner including outright lies and unmerited insults. He's hardly paraded only a stream of facts in that activity, for Christ's sake. I would have called it "yellow journalism" but I can't use the j-word in connection with the guy.

[RFKFedEx]

Can we see some evidence of what McKenna did to ES? I'm not saying he didn't wrong us, but I want to know how, who, what, etc. I'm not aware of any of these allegations.

[elkabong82]

Can we see some evidence of what McKenna did to ES? I'm not saying he didn't wrong us, but I want to know how, who, what, etc. I'm not aware of any of these allegations.

simply google dave mckenna extremeskins and you'll get a bunch of evidence

[PCS]

Can we see some evidence of what McKenna did to ES? I'm not saying he didn't wrong us, but I want to know how, who, what, etc. I'm not aware of any of these allegations.

You want to see it,find it. It's there. Henry and Jumbo are dead on with their descriptions of what the hack "wrote".

[Jumbo]

Can we see some evidence of what McKenna did to ES? I'm not saying he didn't wrong us, but I want to know how, who, what, etc. I'm not aware of any of these allegations.

Did you try doing any leg-work yourself (rhetorical)? Most of us who have been here as long as you have and have made thousands of posts as you have are quite aware of it. But maybe someone will do it for you. Henry's posts alludes to one serious aspect of the "relationship."

I'm sure you don't figure we're just confused, mistaken, or making it up.

[Jumbo]

simply google dave mckenna extremeskins and you'll get a bunch of evidence

You're too kind. Though it's commonly accepted, I hate it when people are lazy in that particular message board fashion (and RFK may not have consciously been being such). I often tell people "do it yourself" if they're in a discussion on a matter where they seem entirely unaware of some rather pertinent aspects of it.

But some of that comes from part-time teaching of grad classes where some of those poor over-worked souls will try to get others to do their work as often as possible. :pfft:

And RFK, if you're that ignorant of the matter, why are you making so many posts that read at least as somewhat of a defense? (not trying to pick on you, just noting the behavior)

Also, your earlier "point"as to him being "interesting" and generating reactions (just like many an internet troll) as a trait that by implication "justifies" the actions (and in the sense of it makes bank, it's correct) carries the same weight to me when applying it to, say, a Jerry Springer type product----just because something sad-ass can often make it "success"-wise in our culture doesn't mean I accept it as "ok." It's also kind of a "duh---obvious" point to make. To me, such a point is thus doubly lame in any discussion.

I admit I have always hated that "argument" apparently used to "justify" garbage. You’ll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public is an adage that is often misattributed in origin, but has become accepted for good reason, and is relevant here to a serious degree.

But Dave would love seeing ES'ers bicker over him while reading the board, so I don't wish to feed that kind of crap and am back to ignoring Most Things McKenna.

BTW, in fairness, I do think he sometimes shows cleverness in his writing skills and have heard from reliable sources that he's done some legitimate reporting in his career. It just doesn't balance out with the crap he's flung for its own low-level self-serving sake for me.

[@DCGoldPants]

Nobody in here is saying that Snyder hasn't done bad things as an owner and people understand why he has been viewed poorly. That doesn't give people a free pass to include his wife in criticisms of Snyder as football team owner, nor disparage her cause. Writing that off as nonsense, instead of addressing the reasons listed right above you as to why it was inappropriate, and stating the reasons kept changing when there were several cited in 1 lawsuit, takes away the credibility of the rest of your argument even though the part about why Snyder is viewed poorly is accurate..

As far as Mrs. Snyder, that whole thing became a mess. Snyder went on the radio "“Someone calls you a criminal, someone makes fun of your wife who's battling breast cancer, shame on you.”"

From the original article

His wife, Tanya Snyder, is out selling the transformation, too. Last week she went on local TV to tell an interviewer that he is now surrounded by “better people,” and that he’s “grown and he’s evolved.” Well, maybe his wife can find evidence of Snyder’s growth and evolution. I can’t.

Maybe I'm confused....but if that's all that's mentioned about her......I don't see anything beyond just questioning what she says about him. Nothing about cancer. Nothing about making fun.

and that to me is worse that somebody actually making fun of somebody who's battling cancer. Using your wife's cancer as an excuse to be angry at this writer that most people didn't even know existed. Shame on him.

[Henry]

Can we see some evidence of what McKenna did to ES? I'm not saying he didn't wrong us, but I want to know how, who, what, etc. I'm not aware of any of these allegations.

There are some really long threads on this board already about it, and I don't want to legitimize McKenna's work any more than it already has been by having this thread go another 50 pages.

I will only say that he wrote what he wrote and I know what I know and I'm not interested in anything else he has to say. But that's just me. You can choose to dismiss my opinion as it suits you.

[elkabong82]

As far as Mrs. Snyder, that whole thing became a mess. Snyder went on the radio "“Someone calls you a criminal, someone makes fun of your wife who's battling breast cancer, shame on you.”"

From the original article

Maybe I'm confused....but if that's all that's mentioned about her......I don't see anything beyond just questioning what she says about him. Nothing about cancer. Nothing about making fun.

and that to me is worse that somebody actually making fun of somebody who's battling cancer. Using your wife's cancer as an excuse to be angry at this writer that most people didn't even know existed. Shame on him.

Again, why is she even worth mentioning? Would you bring up a person's wife when criticizing their occupation? Would you accept criticism and lies about your wife's motives as part of a criticism of your work performance? I keep asking this question to those claiming they don't understand, but have yet to receive a reply on it.

Plus, "she's out selling the transformation too" implies frequency, more than just a tv spot but in reality she is out in the public eye to promote breast cancer awareness and is part of the NFL kid fitness campaign, and neither has to do with Dan Snyder as owner.

Again, the tv spot was for kid's health, but she was asked about Snyder as well, which most local media are going to try to do, heck they ask players about the team at charity events. Tell me, when Laron was doing his annual charity even for Thanksgiving and reporters asked him about his upcoming contract concerns, does that mean Laron is out selling his conytract issues? Or does it simply mean he was doing charity work but then asked about team stuff by the media? So McKenna disparaged the kid's fitness cause, as well as the character of Mrs. Snyder by suggesting her sole motive was to upsell Dan Snyder. You either get that, or you refuse to.

Anybody who actually watched the tv segment knew that upselling Dan Snyder was not the main purpose or even why she was there. So McKenna classlessly brought her into the argument for no good reason, and then completley disparaged the actual reason she was there, and on top of it essentially called his wife a liar. Did McKenna even bother to look at the new people Snyder hired to see if the comment was true? Nope, just blatant accusations.

Heck, all you have to do is bother to understand McKenna's character, or lack thereof, which has been detailed even by mods in this thread, to see he has an irrational agenda and throws out accusations with little or no substantiation. But if you refuse to see that, or you can't understand what was wrong with McKenna even bringing up Snyder's wife no matter how many times it is explained to you, then it's simply because you are unwilling.

To then take something you don't understand and try and flip it around in that last sentence is pretty low Buford. Shame on you.

[@DCGoldPants]

Pretty low? She didn't mention Cancer at all in her interview and neither did the article....and what I am saying was low? That's a reach. Almost as much of a reach as calling the picture with the article anti-semitic. Did Snyder bother to see who was behind the picture...and find out they were Jewish before saying that? Nope.

And NFL owner is a public figure. So is the spouse of an owner if they are out there doing interviews on ANYTHING.

Why did Snyder go on a series of interviews and say they were making fun of her cancer? Just answer that.

[RFKFedEx]

I did a Google search on McKenna and ES. It looks as if we've fallen victim to an unfortunate set of circumstances, mostly stemming from the reputation of Snyder and the anonymous nature of the internet.

My loyalty lies here with ES and the people who work hard to keep this ship in order. I've enjoyed countless hours of entertainment here over the years, by comparison a few brief moments reading McKenna and the WCP. I don't agree with McKenna's accusations of Snyder running the board or the mods bowing down to Danny. I know that voluntarily running ES is usually a thankless job. However, this doesn't mean I can't find McKenna's work entertaining. I don't hold him or his paper to the same standards as Tom Boswell and the Washington Post.

McKenna's position on Tanya Snyder and Phillip Daniels are his oppinion, no one has to agree with him.

[@DCGoldPants]

This...and then I'm done. I'm not a follower of McKenna....or even knew of his story before the lawsuit. But what's said below is pretty much how I see it.

http://dc.sbnation.com/washington-redskins/2011/12/30/2668942/dan-snyder-washington-city-paper-lawsuit-dc-sports-top-10

Top Washington D.C. Sports Stories Of 2011, No. 8: Dan Snyder Sues Washington City Paper

By Samuel Chamberlain - Associate Editor

Dan Snyder's stunning lawsuit against Dave McKenna and the Washington City Paper is the No. 8 story on our list.

Dec 30, 2011 - In February, Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder sued the Washington City Paper and its sports columnist Dave McKenna, accusing both parties of "[employing] lies, half-truths, innuendo, and anti-Semitic imagery to smear, malign, defame, and slander" Snyder, as well as "demean" the owner's wife, Tanya.

The documents that were released included a note from Redskins General Counsel Dave Donovan that amounted to a threat to put the publication out of business through the exorbitant cost of defending the lawsuit.

The lawsuit, filed in response to a McKenna article titled "The Cranky Redskins Fan's Guide to Daniel Snyder," was breathtaking in its pure chutzpah. No one with any legal knowledge thought the lawsuit had any chance of success, and the local media whiled away many hours picking over the suit's carcass.

Meanwhile, Snyder took to the editorial pages and airwaves to defend himself, insisting that he was in the right while also admitting that he had filed the suit without actually bothering to read the piece he was attacking.

The lawsuit shuttled from New York, where it was initially filed, to D.C., where it was re-filed and later languished before the Redskins owner pulled the plug on it just before the start of the 2011 regular season.

Snyder got nothing from the lawsuit except gobs of ridicule and reclaimed his status as one of the most-loathed owners in the NFL, if not all of sports. McKenna and the City Paper claimed victory in the court of public opinion. The rest of us were reminded that people come in all shapes and sizes, and that some are very small indeed.

a little more from the link.

[Jumbo]

Shame on him.

How about shame on you, too? Since your so quick to wag the judgmental finger, and since there is relevance to the matter at hand, let's remind folks who weren't here that you're the guy who went to wikipedia and wrote your own lengthy hack piece (now deleted) insulting extremeskins and the staff in egregious fashion, compete with lies and misrepresentations, and all because you got temp banned for a rule violation.

How about that matter? Then you created no less than eight different dupe accounts trying to circumvent your ban, knowing it was another (permanently bannable) rule violation and then later begged we take you back. Which we did, despite all this crap because you were one of the earliest members. You have been allowed to be here after all that and the crap in your six user notes (including other violations) involving five different mods form the past and current staff.

Maybe you should put your hypocritically wagging finger back in your ass.

I wanted to be done, but had to say something about your efforts here, though I am not criticizing having any actual debate on the merits of the lawsuit (which has its own thread than needs to be bumped btw if that's going to be an ongoing discussion).

[@DCGoldPants]

How about shame on you, too? Since your so quick to wag the judgmental finger, and since there is relevance to the matter at hand, let's remind folks who weren't here that you're the guy who went to wikipedia and wrote your own lengthy hack piece (now deleted) insulting extremeskins and the staff in egregious fashion, compete with lies and misrepresentations, and all because you got temp banned for a rule violation.

How about that matter? Then you created no less than eight different dupe accounts trying to circumvent your ban, knowing it was another (permanently bannable) rule violation and then later begged we take you back. Which we did, despite all this crap because you were one of the earliest members. You have been allowed to be here after all that and the crap in your six user notes (including other violations) involving five different mods form the past and current staff.

Maybe you should put your hypocritically wagging finger back in your ass.

I wanted to be done, but had to say something about your efforts here, though I am not criticizing having any actual debate on the merits of the lawsuit (which has it's own thread than needs to be bumped btw if that's going to be an ongoing discussion).

Fair enough. I was one of a handful of folks here at the time who messed with the Wiki page and reposted something after it was deleted. I never denied that. Shame on me.

[Jumbo]

Good enough, RFK. Not that it's pertinent, but I always found you a fine poster and solid member. I wanted to make those points in reply, nonetheless. And now I really am out of here.