NYT - Redskins Cheerleaders Describe Trip to Costa Rica that Crossed the Line

[Mooka]

5 hours ago, clskinsfan said:

 

You can post whatever you want to try to claim the NYT is infallible. But their agenda is perfectly clear to anyone willing to look at it.

 

 

Sooooo everyone else in the world doesn't have their own agenda? 

 

No possible way the angelic Ms Christa, or other random anonymous former cheerleader could also have their own agenda huh. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

4 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

That would have been smarter, I agree. But on the "Things Califan Cares About In Connection To These Allegations" list, it ranks around #16, just above "What did the sponsors' wives think of all this?"...

I’m now almost as interested in this list as the story itself.  What are the other items on the list?  I’d love to know what #1-15 are.  Also, what if a sponsor was a woman? Would her husband’s opinion be lumped into #16? Or is that a separate category?  What if a sponsor is single?  Or just dating?  

 

 

[goskins10]

3 hours ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

So that in itself explains why the story is being written about something that happened 5 years ago... and clearly for 5 years these young ladies didn't feel something bad enough happened to come forward with it until they were approached.... if my theory is correct. 

 

This is the assumption made by many that have never been in that situation. When in fact the ladies may have been horrified at the time and it took this long before they could talk about it. I raised this issue before - there are many emotions that go through your head, fear, guilt and humiliation .That's why these things do not get reported sooner or at all. With all due respect , assuming it's not a big deal because they did not say anything for 5 yrs is based on a truly faulty premise and one the displays a lack of understanding what goes through the minds of people that suffer the type of abuse these ladies are alleged to have endured. 

 

I am, not saying there is not the possibility that these women did not suddenly get upset when it looked liek thy could cash in. But that's why there has to be a complete investigation. If they made it up they should pay accordingly. If any of it's true, whoever was responsible should also pay accordingly. 

 

My guess is that's it's somewhere in between. Some of it true, some of it exaggerated. But even if only a part of it is true. there has to be accountability. 

[Stadium-Armory]

"I was never asked to do anything I couldn't say no to"  ... does not absolve anyone of anything.  Even if you can say no, you shouldn't be asked to do sleezy **** at work.

[SWFLSkins]

8 minutes ago, Stadium-Armory said:

"I was never asked to do anything I couldn't say no to"  ... does not absolve anyone of anything.  Even if you can say no, you shouldn't be asked to do sleezy **** at work.

 

There are so many jobs or industries this would pertain to. 

[NewCliche21]

19 minutes ago, SWFLSkins said:

 

There are so many jobs or industries this would pertain to. 

 

Uh, and?  Just because it happens frequently doesn't make it right.

[SWFLSkins]

8 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

Uh, and?  Just because it happens frequently doesn't make it right.

 

Never said it did, you know me better than that. I started thinking of how many industries are guilty of that and worse. 

[clskinsfan]

58 minutes ago, Stadium-Armory said:

"I was never asked to do anything I couldn't say no to"  ... does not absolve anyone of anything.  Even if you can say no, you shouldn't be asked to do sleezy **** at work.

 

Very fair point! As I stated in my earlier post. If any Cheerleader felt uncomfortable or like they were being "pimped out" then it is unacceptable. It is just weird to me that there are contrasting stories from the people who were actually there. 

[Stadium-Armory]

It seems reasonable that their stories differ because the cheerleaders didn't all have the same experience. The NYT story even said as much: something about how some were picked as dinner escorts, and some were not. It is logical that there will be differing stories and that doesn't make any of them untrue.

 

 

 

 

 

[PlayAction]

1 hour ago, Stadium-Armory said:

It seems reasonable that their stories differ because the cheerleaders didn't all have the same experience. The NYT story even said as much: something about how some were picked as dinner escorts, 

 

I can almost guarantee that some were asked to go to the dinner and thought it was perfectly fine.  It's the nature of the request - one person's skeevy is another persons free meal.  I know cheerleaders go to club rooms during games for social visits and picture taking.  They might not expect anything different for dinner.  We don't know anything at all about what happened.  Were cheerleaders picked up individually from their room and taken to dinner?  Or did they just go in a big group to a buffet dinner with big wigs?  

 

"they asked for you specifically" could be either creepy or flattering depending upon the vibe.  Too many people making snap judgements.  The league will investigate to save face.  Knowing the NFL they will probably fine the Redskins draft picks no matter what.   

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

I brought this up before any reports by other cheerleaders came out disputing the accounts of the trip, so it’s not like I’m now backpedaling.  But it all boils down to the individual.  I’m sure there were cheerleaders there that relish in the attention and think all this is no big deal and business as usual.  At the same time, I’m sure some others were uncomfortable with it.  The article provided accounts of the situation from those girls that clearly didn’t enjoy it.  That doesn’t mean there aren’t others who live for these events.

[skins island connection]

9 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

Not saying this about you, just using your post as a jumping off point...but....

 

Why are any of us assuming the passports were taken to intimidate the cheerleaders? Is there another article that alludes to this being a possibility, or is it just a case of giving a minimum of information and letting readers extrapolate and fill in the blanks themselves?

 

 

 

I would think today's media baits people into situations where the women could benefit from the story, when in reality its the reporter looking for that splash effect or front page glory.

If anything, the media has taught everyone that they do in fact have agendas; every single news station has a " people's advocate " person who is standing for the person wronged by a business, and the larger cities have an almost daily episode. But they only air the stories that they find where the person is actually wronged. You never hear about the others who seemingly leave out crucial information or the ones who flat out lied, because it doesn't champion their cause.

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

One thing I’m not able to wrap my head around, is what those who spoke to the NYT would stand to gain from telling this story.  To my knowledge, they are still unnamed.  There are no lawsuits.  If anything, they are creating enemies with their prior teammates that saw nothing wrong with these events.  I just don’t see what would motivate them to make this up.  It makes entirely more sense that they all have their own perspective, some good and some bad.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

7 hours ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

One thing I’m not able to wrap my head around, is what those who spoke to the NYT would stand to gain from telling this story.  To my knowledge, they are still unnamed.  There are no lawsuits.  If anything, they are creating enemies with their prior teammates that saw nothing wrong with these events.  I just don’t see what would motivate them to make this up.  It makes entirely more sense that they all have their own perspective, some good and some bad.

 

I doubt they're making stuff up, and I doubt the women speaking on the record are just shills paid by the Redskins. I still maintain that the writer of the article may have purposefully misrepresented things to give the article the impact she wanted. That article link about nail salons that Grego posted is a massive eye opener in terms of how someone's personal experience can be written about in such a way as to make it appear representational of how things really are behind the scenes. And it's written by someone who used to work at the NYT. It's written as if he's in the same boat as the cheerleaders who are speaking up on twitter--meaning, he and his wife own a salon snd have extensive knowledge, and after reading the NYT article basically felt almost nothing written in it matched the reality they were surrounded by. 

 

 

[SWFLSkins]

Such a wicked web is weaved by many a journalist. That said, I would like it to be investigated fairly and reported on truthfully. 

[dyst]

I would first like to say that, it’s true, we do not know what exactly happened. Maybe it is truth, and maybe it is false. An investigation will determine that.

 

As for some of the issues being brough up.

 

1. It does not matter if some cheerleaders felt one way while others felt another way. The ones who felt pressured is more than enough to be concerning. 

 

2. Maybe it took 5 years because people, now more than ever feel safe coming out, after the entire Hollywood scandal. Their voices are actually being heard and change is a possibility. 

 

3. As for the publication, not saying they don’t have an agenda, maybe they do. Maybe they don’t. Also, these pieces are usually written have the author has tried their best to collaborate and verify the story as best they can. Doesn’t mean its 100% chance of being correct but I doubt they print just anything. So they felt it real enough to mark in ink.

 

 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 hours ago, dyst said:

3. As for the publication, not saying they don’t have an agenda, maybe they do. Maybe they don’t. Also, these pieces are usually written have the author has tried their best to collaborate and verify the story as best they can. Doesn’t mean its 100% chance of being correct but I doubt they print just anything. So they felt it real enough to mark in ink.

 

 

 

 

All I can say is that there have been numerous examples of respected publications putting out headline-grabbing articles that, when under the light of investigation, showed that thoroughness and accuracy got left behind in favor of getting out a juicy story. It should be to the point that as readers we should always be on the lookout for anything that may contradict what's been written and keep an open mind to the possibility that articles like these may not paint the most accurate portraits. Again, that nail salon story of Grego's was a doozy. The guy methodically deconstructs the NYT article giving damn good reasons why things said in it cannot be true, and how the story of the salon worker most likely does not represent the average salon worker at all. The NYT article was taken very seriously, to the point that it changed laws in New York state. And a large part of it may not have been true at all. That is some serious ****.

[NewCliche21]

59 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

 

All I can say is that there have been numerous examples of respected publications putting out headline-grabbing articles that, when under the light of investigation, showed that thoroughness and accuracy got left behind in favor of getting out a juicy story. It should be to the point that as readers we should always be on the lookout for anything that may contradict what's been written and keep an open mind to the possibility that articles like these may not paint the most accurate portraits. Again, that nail salon story of Grego's was a doozy. The guy methodically deconstructs the NYT article giving damn good reasons why things said in it cannot be true, and how the story of the salon worker most likely does not represent the average salon worker at all. The NYT article was taken very seriously, to the point that it changed laws in New York state. And a large part of it may not have been true at all. That is some serious ****.

 

What's so juicy about this story?  Not to get political, but there are a million things in US Politics alone that are juicy stories.

And you keep citing this *one* article from years ago.  What's with that?  I stole a pencil from my kindergarten class.  Am I now branded a thief forever?

It sounds like some of you, and I say "sounds like" because I'm not trying to speak for you, just want this to not be true.  I wonder the veracity of these arguments had it been "Dallas Cowboys" in the headline instead of "Washington Redskins."

[Califan007 The Constipated]

29 minutes ago, NewCliche21 said:

 

What's so juicy about this story?  Not to get political, but there are a million things in US Politics alone that are juicy stories.

And you keep citing this *one* article from years ago.  What's with that?  I stole a pencil from my kindergarten class.  Am I now branded a thief forever?

It sounds like some of you, and I say "sounds like" because I'm not trying to speak for you, just want this to not be true.  I wonder the veracity of these arguments had it been "Dallas Cowboys" in the headline instead of "Washington Redskins."

 

1) Which story are you asking about?

 

2) I keep siting "this one article from years ago" because it was posted in the thread--plus, the nail salon story is more recent than the Costa Rica trip: Nail salon story-2015. Costa Rica trip-2013. Besides, I didn't realize there was a 2-year statute of limitations on examples of how the NYT may have published less than accurate pieces. But it's a very good example of how a respected publication can put out an article full of inaccuracies yet still have it be taken at face value as undeniable truth, to the point that it changes actual law. That in and of itself should scare the ever-loving **** out of everyone on this site. And it shouldn't require any explanation as to why. The NYT did attempt a rebuttal of those criticisms of the article, but were nowhere near as convincing as the guy who criticized it, and even misstated (or ignored completely) the meat of some of the criticisms. In fact, one of the NYT responses actually helped prove one part of the criticism was indeed true lol...

 

3) I wish more people on this thread could comprehend that, for many of us, it has nothing whatsoever to do with wanting this story to be true or not true. We want the story to be accurate. We want the instances and experiences to include far more facts. We want much better context (that whole passport thing had ZERO context). I'm guessing, though, that it could also be said that there are some on this thread who actually want the story to be true. Why else would anyone have such a strong reaction to hearing all sides in this?

[grego]

Echoing a bit more of what Cali is saying, it's not that I do or don't want it to be true - I gave up my myopia regarding my sports teams infallibility long ago. 

 

Seeing how media has become less about reporting what's true and more about getting clicks by appealing to emotion (this is exactly what Kristof, who works for the very paper in question, is saying when it comes to writing stories), I think one is wise to be skeptical, particularly given the team involved and the subject matter. Given the medias treatment over the teams name, if one is not skeptical  by now, I'm not sure one will ever be. 

 

Ultimately, this story appears to be one about some of the cheerleaders feelings about events. So, I don't know how much 'true or false' plays into it. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

47 minutes ago, grego said:

Echoing a bit more of what Cali is saying, it's not that I do or don't want it to be true - I gave up my myopia regarding my sports teams infallibility long ago. 

 

Seeing how media has become less about reporting what's true and more about getting clicks by appealing to emotion (this is exactly what Kristof, who works for the very paper in question, is saying when it comes to writing stories), I think one is wise to be skeptical, particularly given the team involved and the subject matter. Given the medias treatment over the teams name, if one is not skeptical  by now, I'm not sure one will ever be. 

 

Ultimately, this story appears to be one about some of the cheerleaders feelings about events. So, I don't know how much 'true or false' plays into it. 

4

 

If the story had been written more as individual perception instead of as representative experience it could have still driven home the same important points, and we would have all stopped typing in this thread long ago lol...

[Veryoldschool]

I have an agenda and that is to root for a team  I've followed for decades without feeling like an enabler but it seems that is impossible because everything Snyder touches turns ugly and squalid.  It's not enough he hires young women to behave like showgirls on the sideline he has to turn a buck producing a sleazy calendar and provide a peep show at the photo shoot for a bunch of pervs buying branding rights.  Snyder soils everyone in his employ and us fans as well.

[SWFLSkins]

3 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

 

3) I wish more people on this thread could comprehend that, for many of us, it has nothing whatsoever to do with wanting this story to be true or not true. We want the story to be accurate. We want the instances and experiences to include far more facts. We want much better context (that whole passport thing had ZERO context). I'm guessing, though, that it could also be said that there are some on this thread who actually want the story to be true. Why else would anyone have such a strong reaction to hearing all sides in this?

[NewCliche21]

5 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

1) Which story are you asking about?

 

2) I keep siting "this one article from years ago" because it was posted in the thread--plus, the nail salon story is more recent than the Costa Rica trip: Nail salon story-2015. Costa Rica trip-2013. Besides, I didn't realize there was a 2-year statute of limitations on examples of how the NYT may have published less than accurate pieces. But it's a very good example of how a respected publication can put out an article full of inaccuracies yet still have it be taken at face value as undeniable truth, to the point that it changes actual law. That in and of itself should scare the ever-loving **** out of everyone on this site. And it shouldn't require any explanation as to why. The NYT did attempt a rebuttal of those criticisms of the article, but were nowhere near as convincing as the guy who criticized it, and even misstated (or ignored completely) the meat of some of the criticisms. In fact, one of the NYT responses actually helped prove one part of the criticism was indeed true lol...

 

3) I wish more people on this thread could comprehend that, for many of us, it has nothing whatsoever to do with wanting this story to be true or not true. We want the story to be accurate. We want the instances and experiences to include far more facts. We want much better context (that whole passport thing had ZERO context). I'm guessing, though, that it could also be said that there are some on this thread who actually want the story to be true. Why else would anyone have such a strong reaction to hearing all sides in this?

 

1)  The one you reference in number two.

 

2)  It's not about number of years; it's about number of articles written.  While the nail salon article may have been more recent in when it happened, that has nothing to do with reporting.  They just caught the Golden State Killer this year, so I guess those murders were more recent than those in 2016?  No, that's not how time works.  Your nail salon article also isn't a good example; it's an outlier.  Believe it or not our run defense had a couple of TFL last year.  Were they any good?  No.  And you wouldn't argue as such.

 

Harping on one article when you have thousands to pick from isn't changing minds, Cali.  I like you, you know that, this is just not the way to get things across.

 

When it comes to exploitation, that's a real issue that's pervasive throughout our society.  I don't want this **** to be true, I've just been in this field for fifteen years and understand exploitation, abuses of power, consent, and a **** ton of other themes that are running through this situation.  I'm not opposed to more facts, who would be?  That's stupid.  I'm opposed to dismissing this as "girls complaining" or "they should know better" or "they could've said no" or any other number of very common victim-blaming posts.

 

3)  What it comes down to is what facts?  How many?  How are they proven?  CAN they be proven?  In what timeframe?  And so on and so forth ad infinium.  And it's bull**** when some posters, your name not being among them, lose their minds when it's another team's player or another team altogether, but are so "hardcore" as fans that they need to defend anything that has our name in it.

 

4)  To everyone:  PLEASE stop bringing in that people have agendas or hate the team or the media is out to get everyone.  You look like idiots.

[SWFLSkins]

I hope there is a proper investigation and the truths revealed. Probably get buried with a call to the editor from a high dollar sponsor or the NFL itself, but hey