Daniel Snyder ...Dare We Say Maturing....as a competent owner

[joeken24]

On 6/5/2018 at 9:33 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

The media though isn't one body.  It's a series of different reporters, radio personalities -- national guys, local guys.  You have a lot of people typically covering an owner of a major sports team. 

 

I'll use George Steinbrenner as an example.  His reputation was being a rash guy, impatient -- can be a douche but also could be a nice guy.  He had a combative relationship with some reporters but a better reputation with others.  Is all of that manufactured nonsense?  I don't see how that would be possible. There are too many people weighing in on the subject -- mind you the media isn't just about editorial but they will quote people that have interacted with George.  If lets say 15 people described George as an impetuous dude.  Odds are pretty good he actually is just that. 

 

The media didn't do a 180 on George until the Yankees became major winners in the 1990s and George discernibly mellowed.  

 

The Redskins are a 500 team.  The media doesn't celebrate mediocrity as representing a sea change.  Yeah I get that some here do or think they are on the brink of busting loose like that.  But the media isn't picking on the Redskins because they do not celebrate their rise to mediocrity.   If the Redskins actually bust loose for real versus thinking they might have or they should have or could have -- i think you'd see plenty of complements. 

 

If you are watching a feel good movie of some dude rising from the ashes like Rocky its not an ascension from the bottom to so so.  That would be a boring movie and an uninspiring movie. 

 

And as for Dan mellowing with age like George perhaps did.  We don't know if that's the case.  We still see some of the same douche like behavior from the organization at least in my view with the Kirk press release and Scot ouster.  Not sure about Dan's part if any with it.  So for people to do a 180 as if the organization exudes class and competence -- I don't think its billboard level obvious.  They have much further to go.

 

For Steinbrenner the turnaround was obvious -- he stopped saying crazy things in the media and firing people left and right AND the Yankees started winning championships.  It wasn't instead hey we got less antics from George but still got some and hooray the Yankees finished in 3rd place -- isn't in time to come around on George? 

 

Dan and Bruce represent the Redskins.  It's their job to present themselves and the team in the best way possible.  We can call the media evil or whatever but plenty of other teams manage to do this part well.   If Dan/Bruce don't want to engage on this front, then they made their bed. 

 

Going back to my case.  If I wanted to say screw the media, let them write whatever they want to about me or my clients -- versus turning that around then my decision was to live with the bad coverage.   So if that's their decision to take it on the chin, then IMO its not our responsibility to deduce that behind closed doors its much better than its being portrayed.  

 

I think the crux of this argument is does Dan deserve the benefit of the doubt or does he not?  And to that point, I don't see how he's earned the benefit of the doubt.  If your image isn't perceived as hot with people who cover your team especially if some of those people think you are a douche -- then show them you aren't a douche.   Jerry Jones for his faults has the guts to put himself out there.  He's said publicly his son really controls operations now much more than in the past among other things.  He knows what his image is and he manages it when he chooses.  If Dan/Bruce decide they don't want to manage it -- then its not our job to do that for them.   

 

We got no idea that they've turned things around as for how they do things.  We can guess.  And we see certain improvements.  But for me I am not celebrating mediocrity or grading them on a curve.  I'll start with this the Redskins are the only team in the NFL that has gone 20 plus years without an 11 win season.  Go win 11 games or heck just make the playoffs and win one playoff game -- is that too much to ask?    But until they have some real success -- and the bar isn't that high considering those are things that some franchises like the Steelers/Packers/Seahawks and other successful franchises would yawn at as just modest success. 

 

 

I hate the tone of this post so much!!! Somehow it still speaks to what the media believes they have - power. Noone should "make their bed" because they don't get along with the all powerful unethical media (generally speaking). I understand public relations and how image plays a part in that. I just hate the idea that the media believes it is their job to manipulate the narrative - they should simply report the facts for the people to form their own narrative.

 

It burns me when reporters get a pass for spreading misinformation. The idea that a reporter has to write a ****ing comic book to get people to read their story speaks to bull**** on many levels (reality or not). Sports articles (particularly coming out of WP and the like) do not have to be about good vs evil; conspiracy; drama blah blah blah. I know the school of journalism teaches it, but try focusing on the truth for once!!!

Ah, but truth is not profitable.

Here's a truth....Harm is done to those victimized by unethical reporters that don't do their homework for the sake of viewership. But of course, people will say the person reported on makes millions, they'll get over it. You'll say that until it happens to you. You won't find a single article in any news outlet about a reporter that ****ed up a story (a false one) that harmed a person's image or their life. You'll never ever see a public apology. That would harm the media outlet and we don't want to lose credibility, do we?

 

So if you're a public figure, you stay quite. You keep out of the media. You give them nothing to quote and nothing to lie about (they still fabricate a story up to a point just before a lawsuit but what can ya do).

 

You've heard a politician lie, right? You go to fact check, you look at the amount of so called lies, right? You find out, they lied on just about everything that came of their ****ing mouth. You take what you believe to be a lie and you vote accordingly. Well, reporters don't have a fact check. They vilify who they want, when they want. Its up to the person reported on to file a lawsuit against the new organization (spend money for lawyers, take time from life, etc.). You (the reader) never finds out about the lie and you form your opinion on the lie. That's complete and utter bull****, IMO!! This is where the media's power lays and I ****ing hate it. But yes, it is the society we live in. And again, whether Dan or anyone else manages or mismanages the media, why is common practice for the media to default to bad coverage? What I'm hearing from your post is that we need to be nice to you in order for you to have the common decency and professionalism to write truth.

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

9 hours ago, joeken24 said:

I hate the tone of this post so much!!! Somehow it still speaks to what the media believes they have - power. Noone should "make their bed" because they don't get along with the all powerful unethical media (generally speaking). I understand public relations and how image plays a part in that. I just hate the idea that the media believes it is their job to manipulate the narrative - they should simply report the facts for the people to form their own narrative.

 

 

Hate the tone?  All I was saying is the media needs to be managed.  That's why sports organizations and corporations and just about every major outfit has a PR dept.  How much angst you have about the media doesn't change that reality. 

 

The thrust of your post feels very political as opposed to sports related.  The only time I typically see the media brandished with a big brush like this is in politics.  And I am not picking a side here.  Fox News has an angle.  CNN has an angle.  This now a thing in sports?  An anti-Dan Snyder station just because?   The media collectively decided to band against Dan just because?

 

9 hours ago, joeken24 said:

 

Here's a truth....Harm is done to those victimized by unethical reporters that don't do their homework for the sake of viewership. But of course, people will say the person reported on makes millions, they'll get over it. You'll say that until it happens to you. 

 

 

It has for me multiple times.  It's not fun. If anyone should be decrying all of this -- it's me.  But, it comes with the turf if you play in the public arena.   You can bemoan it or do what most everyone else does and manage it.   Its just reality.  Heck even public traded companies stocks rise and fall at times based on how they are betrayed in the media.  Businesses, politics, sports, entertainment industry -- its part of the soup.  

 

There isn't one reporter out there but a whole bunch of them covering things with their own takes and personalities.  Then you have some authoring or reading editorials.  It's not like one monolithic band.  In politics you can have a station or newspaper with a slant.  But even in those cases typically there is also a counter balance somewhere from another medium.  Coming from someone who understands politics intimately, I just don't see how its apples to apples where this stuff applies to Dan?  

 

It's basic human nature that if you earned an infamous reputation for whatever reason -- it typically doesn't just peel off by osmosis unless there is discernible/dramatic changes.  Hence my George Steinbrenner example earlier.  Politics is a running script -- even if you win you are still on the clock and being judged.  In sports, winning has a conclusive long-standing definitive result -- that stands typically even if it doesn't consistently hold the next year.  

 

9 hours ago, joeken24 said:

 

And again, whether Dan or anyone else manages or mismanages the media, why is common practice for the media to default to bad coverage? What I'm hearing from your post is that we need to be nice to you in order for you to have the common decency and professionalism to write truth.

 

 

If that's what you are hearing in my post -- you are hearing my point wrong.  I used the point specifically with Bruce.  Brewer saying that his adversarial relationship with the press colors his coverage in terms of not giving the benefit of the doubt -- let me emphasize the word "adversarial" which doesn't mean neutral it means bad.   If I am going to treat people whether its in the media or anywhere else not that nicely -- the idea that it might boomerang on me is pretty high.  That has nothing to do with the media but just basic human nature.   I recall some of the 106.7 guys joking with McNally about how Bruce is willing to talk to him but refuses to do anything with them because of a story he didn't like.

 

If you play the media in a petulant and rude way.  The idea that they will play nice in return I think is a bit naive.   

 

Coverage in sports is different in many ways from politics.  The team wins -- you got good coverage.  Even from the WP.  You lose.  You don't.  But being in that middling in between grey area leaves things open to interpretation.   So yeah if a media member thinks for example Bruce is a douche, he's not going to write some glowing article about how 7-9 is better than it looks and lets pat Bruce/Dan on the back for it.  

 

Going back to my Steinbrenner example.  The narrative changed when he won big and his behavior discernibly changed.  That's not happened here, yet.  And if it does, I think you'll see Dan get credit.  

 

[thebluefood]

Tell ya what, @joeken24: you take a week to work a sports reporter's beat - including 12 hour work days, grueling quotas to fill column space, late night deadlines, and the absolutely ****ty pay - and then come back and tell us all about the big bad media.

 

Geez, man, anti-media rants like that would make George Allen raise an eyebrow. Honestly, with some of the posts I've seen on this forum (especially from the crowd that goes to shocking lengths to cape for a billionaire with an astounding Napoleon Complex), I really wonder how you all think newsrooms functions.   

[Tsailand]

On 6/9/2018 at 1:29 PM, Veryoldschool said:

The title of this thread makes me chuckle every time I login to the board....

 

I know I'm going to be bumping this thread a few times every year.

[Veryoldschool]

1 minute ago, Tsailand said:

 

I know I'm going to be bumping this thread a few times every year.

 

Yeah, but let's hope we have a good season and fewer reasons to mock Dan Snyder.

[joeken24]

18 hours ago, thebluefood said:

Tell ya what, @joeken24: you take a week to work a sports reporter's beat - including 12 hour work days, grueling quotas to fill column space, late night deadlines, and the absolutely ****ty pay - and then come back and tell us all about the big bad media.

 

Geez, man, anti-media rants like that would make George Allen raise an eyebrow. Honestly, with some of the posts I've seen on this forum (especially from the crowd that goes to shocking lengths to cape for a billionaire with an astounding Napoleon Complex), I really wonder how you all think newsrooms functions.   

I've said generally on a number of occasions, but If the shoe fits....

BTW, I served in the military for 20+ years. I've worked hours on deployments that make 12 hours seem like a day off (and with ****ty pay, relatively speaking). So lets not make assumptions. But ya know what? I was still held to a level of professionalism. My issue is when news reporters integrate themselves into a story by way of assumptions, speculation, bias and lazy writting. Your first paragraph in no way justifies bad reporting. 

[joeken24]

On 6/10/2018 at 9:19 AM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Hate the tone?  All I was saying is the media needs to be managed.  That's why sports organizations and corporations and just about every major outfit has a PR dept.  How much angst you have about the media doesn't change that reality. 

 

The thrust of your post feels very political as opposed to sports related.  The only time I typically see the media brandished with a big brush like this is in politics.  And I am not picking a side here.  Fox News has an angle.  CNN has an angle.  This now a thing in sports?  An anti-Dan Snyder station just because?   The media collectively decided to band against Dan just because?

 

 

It has for me multiple times.  It's not fun. If anyone should be decrying all of this -- it's me.  But, it comes with the turf if you play in the public arena.   You can bemoan it or do what most everyone else does and manage it.   Its just reality.  Heck even public traded companies stocks rise and fall at times based on how they are betrayed in the media.  Businesses, politics, sports, entertainment industry -- its part of the soup.  

 

There isn't one reporter out there but a whole bunch of them covering things with their own takes and personalities.  Then you have some authoring or reading editorials.  It's not like one monolithic band.  In politics you can have a station or newspaper with a slant.  But even in those cases typically there is also a counter balance somewhere from another medium.  Coming from someone who understands politics intimately, I just don't see how its apples to apples where this stuff applies to Dan?  

 

It's basic human nature that if you earned an infamous reputation for whatever reason -- it typically doesn't just peel off by osmosis unless there is discernible/dramatic changes.  Hence my George Steinbrenner example earlier.  Politics is a running script -- even if you win you are still on the clock and being judged.  In sports, winning has a conclusive long-standing definitive result -- that stands typically even if it doesn't consistently hold the next year.  

 

 

If that's what you are hearing in my post -- you are hearing my point wrong.  I used the point specifically with Bruce.  Brewer saying that his adversarial relationship with the press colors his coverage in terms of not giving the benefit of the doubt -- let me emphasize the word "adversarial" which doesn't mean neutral it means bad.   If I am going to treat people whether its in the media or anywhere else not that nicely -- the idea that it might boomerang on me is pretty high.  That has nothing to do with the media but just basic human nature.   I recall some of the 106.7 guys joking with McNally about how Bruce is willing to talk to him but refuses to do anything with them because of a story he didn't like.

 

If you play the media in a petulant and rude way.  The idea that they will play nice in return I think is a bit naive.   

 

Coverage in sports is different in many ways from politics.  The team wins -- you got good coverage.  Even from the WP.  You lose.  You don't.  But being in that middling in between grey area leaves things open to interpretation.   So yeah if a media member thinks for example Bruce is a douche, he's not going to write some glowing article about how 7-9 is better than it looks and lets pat Bruce/Dan on the back for it.  

 

Going back to my Steinbrenner example.  The narrative changed when he won big and his behavior discernibly changed.  That's not happened here, yet.  And if it does, I think you'll see Dan get credit.  

 

So I get the just of your post. But aren't you pretty much saying that the narrative of a public figure is virtually controlled by the media? If yes, that's exactly my point. You mentioned the word slant. You talked about the CNNs and Fox News of the world. They all have a slant. Including WP talking about sports. Which is why again, its up to me to do my own fact finding instead of relying on slant to form some extreme viewpoint about the character of Dan (or anyone else for that matter). Again, my argument started with Dan because the immediate response to the original positive post.

 

So you mentioned this regarding Steinbrenner:

Quote

The narrative changed when he won big and his behavior discernibly changed.

 

Behavior towards who? The media? See, this again is the reality in politics and now sports that bother me. It is a reality, I get that. But it really does create a poor environment for fans that buy into it. So you're saying treat the media nice and you'll be considered a good person in the public (??)

 

You also mentioned the 106.7 guys joking with McNally about how Bruce....

 

How do you know if that's a true story or not? I listen to 106.7. And lets be truthful...there are a few of those guys that worked at 980 and got the axe. So it could be (I said could be) a guy with an axe to grind. But then again, it could be the junkies who are basically guys with a mic talking sports and saying a lot of stuff tongue and cheek. I don't think they get as much access to the Redskins as 980, so there is that.

 

 

 

 

[thebluefood]

6 minutes ago, joeken24 said:

I've said generally on a number of occasions, but If the shoe fits....

BTW, I served in the military for 20+ years. I've worked hours on deployments that make 12 hours seem like a day off (and with ****ty pay, relatively speaking). So lets not make assumptions. But ya know what? I was still held to a level of professionalism. My issue is when news reporters integrate themselves into a story by way of assumptions, speculation, bias and lazy writting. Your first paragraph in no way justifies bad reporting. 

And wouldn't want to see any lazy "writting" now would we?

 

I'm not making any assumptions here apart from you not knowing anything about what it's like to be a reporter, especially a sports reporter. If you did, your comments would have some modicum of nuance or authority. The only thing I'm reading is the same hackneyed tripe about the media I've been reading and hearing since I was a teenager. The only one in this sidebar making assumptions is you and the assumption, as far as I can tell, is that "generally" reporters aren't working in good faith with the people they cover which, sad to say, just ain't true.

 

To bring it back to the actual subject at hand: Dan Snyder's been a piss poor owner of this franchise and has turned a source of genuine, civic pride for the D.C. Metro Area into a source of consistent embarrassment for fans and residents alike. If mere competency is the bar we're setting, then we're getting exactly what we deserve: a perpetually mediocre franchise that loves PR Trash Fires and high parking fees as much as it hates putting safe, green turf on its playing field and treating its employees with respect. 

[joeken24]

27 minutes ago, thebluefood said:

And wouldn't want to see any lazy "writting" now would we?

 

I'm not making any assumptions here apart from you not knowing anything about what it's like to be a reporter, especially a sports reporter. If you did, your comments would have some modicum of nuance or authority. The only thing I'm reading is the same hackneyed tripe about the media I've been reading and hearing since I was a teenager. The only one in this sidebar making assumptions is you and the assumption, as far as I can tell, is that "generally" reporters aren't working in good faith with the people they cover which, sad to say, just ain't true.

 

To bring it back to the actual subject at hand: Dan Snyder's been a piss poor owner of this franchise and has turned a source of genuine, civic pride for the D.C. Metro Area into a source of consistent embarrassment for fans and residents alike. If mere competency is the bar we're setting, then we're getting exactly what we deserve: a perpetually mediocre franchise that loves PR Trash Fires and high parking fees as much as it hates putting safe, green turf on its playing field and treating its employees with respect. 

Ya know....you last paragraph reminded me of the scene in a Few Good Men where Colonel Nathan Jessup lost his bearing and just blurted out "you goddamn right I did" after a long winded story about his justification for ordering the code red.

Sounds like you hate your job (If you're really a sports reporter that is). But based on your last paragraph, you clearly lack enough objectivity to write a story about Dan Snyder. But to your defense, you are probably not the only one in this town with the power of the pen that feels the same way. But again, if you're a professional, you should (IMO) provide unbiased information to the fans. Even if the person you're reporting on doesn't like you.

Bad angry reporters are like bad referees in an otherwise great game. Sounds to me like the shoe does fit.

[joeken24]

1 hour ago, thebluefood said:

And wouldn't want to see any lazy "writting" now would we?

 

I'm not making any assumptions here apart from you not knowing anything about what it's like to be a reporter, especially a sports reporter. If you did, your comments would have some modicum of nuance or authority. The only thing I'm reading is the same hackneyed tripe about the media I've been reading and hearing since I was a teenager. The only one in this sidebar making assumptions is you and the assumption, as far as I can tell, is that "generally" reporters aren't working in good faith with the people they cover which, sad to say, just ain't true.

 

To bring it back to the actual subject at hand: Dan Snyder's been a piss poor owner of this franchise and has turned a source of genuine, civic pride for the D.C. Metro Area into a source of consistent embarrassment for fans and residents alike. If mere competency is the bar we're setting, then we're getting exactly what we deserve: a perpetually mediocre franchise that loves PR Trash Fires and high parking fees as much as it hates putting safe, green turf on its playing field and treating its employees with respect. 

Quote

The only thing I'm reading is the same hackneyed tripe about the media I've been reading and hearing since I was a teenager.

So enough people have said it. I guess that makes it true (??)

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

So the majority of local and national media that have come and gone over the last 20 years have been conspiring together to bully the reputation of Dan Snyder.  

 

Makes sense.

 

 

[joeken24]

11 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

So the majority of local and national media that have come and gone over the last 20 years have been conspiring together to bully the reputation of Dan Snyder.  

 

Makes sense.

 

 

Missing the point. There is no conspiracy. Just a narrative. Happens all the time. Believe a report from @Bluefoot

and you'll get one narrative. Believe a report from Larry Michael and you'll get another narrative. All I'm saying is, do your own freakin' homework before you choose to follow the mass. If you've done your own homework, great!!!

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

2 minutes ago, joeken24 said:

Missing the point. There is no conspiracy. Just a narrative. Happens all the time.

So they are all and there are many, just lazy hacks with a fancy to hate on Snyder that follow the narrative for cheap clicks.

 

Part of me thinks you can’t possibly be this feeble minded and are only arguing for the sake of arguing.  That deep down you know your thoughts on this subject are not logical.  There’s another side of me that’s concerned you actually believe this and practice this in everyday life.

[joeken24]

10 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

So they are all and there are many, just lazy hacks with a fancy to hate on Snyder that follow the narrative for cheap clicks.

 

Part of me thinks you can’t possibly be this feeble minded and are only arguing for the sake of arguing.  That deep down you know your thoughts on this subject are not logical.  There’s another side of me that’s concerned you actually believe this and practice this in everyday life.

Do your own homework. Maybe they are lazy hacks as you put it. Maybe they're all spot on about Dan. Who knows. But I can tell one thing....you really don't know @BatteredFanSyndrome do you? No you certainly don't know for yourself. Its a narrative. That's all you have is a narrative.

 

I choose to do a little bit of homework. @thebluefoodproves to me why I should. Fact is, every one is welcome to believe what they want to believe.

 

So you got offended when you felt like I called you sheep. So you retaliate with calling me feeble minded. You see how easy it is for sheep to lose their way?

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

1 minute ago, joeken24 said:

Do your own homework. Maybe they are lazy hacks as you put it. Maybe they're all spot on about Dan. Who knows. But I can tell one thing....you really don't know @BatteredFanSyndrome do you? No you certainly don't.

 

I choose to do a little bit of homework. @thebluefoodproves to me why I should.

Perhaps I’ll stalk Dan Snyder and record his every move in an effort to prove he’s an asshole.

 

 

[joeken24]

7 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

Perhaps I’ll stalk Dan Snyder and record his every move in an effort to prove he’s an asshole.

 

 

Go for it. At least you'll have proof for yourself. What if you stalk some of the writers of the non-validated articles you read as well. Maybe they're assholes too. Oh but wait, there are too many writers, so they must not be assholes.

[thebluefood]

Post warranted two responses, eh @joeken24? Nice.

 

1.) Any connection between me and a Jack Nicholson performance is something I'll take as the highest of compliments. Thank you kindly.

 

2.) Well, you kinda saved your ass - I'm not a sports reporter. Worked with them, even did some stringing during and after college. But I did this thing where I observed them work and talked to them about their work and made connections between the two while also connecting that with my prior experiences. I do believe the term is "developing empathy and understanding." It's pretty sweet - you learn a lot about people who aren't like you through it. 

 

3.) Here's a little hot take of my own about "objective reporting": it ain't real. It's never been real. No, not even [your favorite news anchor/pundit/buddy who runs their own blog] is an "objective reporter." If you don't believe me, here's a guy with 50+ years of experience under his belt (albeit at an earlier point in his career):

Fair reporting? Yes. Well contextualized reporting based in public records, verifiable information from interviewees, and honest-to-goodness facts? A necessity. "Objective" reporting? It's not a thing.

 

4.) "This town" as in Washington, D.C. (as far as I know, Daniel Snyder doesn't own teams anywhere else but the D.C. Metro Area)? If so, that's a swing and a miss. I live in the Harrisburg, PA area, I'm not even a reporter anymore, and I never worked in the Metro D.C. area so that shoe doesn't fit me. 

 

5.) As far as I can tell, most of the reporting on the fiasco out of Ashburn/Landover is based in fact (despite Daniel Snyder's history of legal and professional action against the press - and park rangers...and season ticket holders...)

 

6.) @BatteredFanSyndrome already beat me to the punch there about the whole "if enough people say it thing" which is...come on, man. I haven't heard that one since grade school and that was a teacher telling us why it was a useless, inaccurate cliche. 

 

7.) I did plenty of homework. My sheepskin from my alma mater and my 12 year body backs it up. I sure as hell don't need to prove it to the likes of you.

 

Do you do this for every megalomaniac billionaire sports team owner or is there some special connection you have with Daniel M. Snyder? At this point, it would be less sad if you were a member of the FO caping for your boss. That, at least, would be based somewhat in your own professional interest. If you're some rando rushing to the defense of a franchise owner who doesn't know you from Adam and has a long, proven track record of bad team leadership then I don't know what to tell you. 

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, joeken24 said:

So I get the just of your post. But aren't you pretty much saying that the narrative of a public figure is virtually controlled by the media? If yes, that's exactly my point.

 

 

Nope.  But they are a factor.  

 

2 hours ago, joeken24 said:

Which is why again, its up to me to do my own fact finding instead of relying on slant to form some extreme viewpoint about the character of Dan (or anyone else for that matter). Again, my argument started with Dan because the immediate response to the original positive post.

 

How do you plan to do your own fact finding mission on Dan?

 

2 hours ago, joeken24 said:

So you're saying treat the media nice and you'll be considered a good person in the public (??)

 

Nope.  I am saying if you are douche to the media they are less likely to give you the benefit of the doubt on something than if they like you.

 

 For example Jay is liked by the people covering the team.  They in turn tend to be nicer to him.  Coincidence?

 

Running with your point -- I don't see how all these points work together.  Something has to give in the mix.

A.  Some see Bruce/Dan as a douche.  And there are multiple stories on this front.  

B.  If so some in the media may not have the back of a douche the way they will with someone likeable

C.  How do we know if Bruce/Dan are douches since we didn't experience it directly (that's your point)

D. If Dan/Bruce really are sweet guys why are so many people picking on them for no reason?  Were they randomly selected by all the members of the media in some raffle and they decided together lets turn this person's reputation upside down for kicks?

 

A & B work hand in hand.  A & B is where I am at.   C & D not so much.

 

Wouldn't there have be a reason to slam Dan?   It's just a coincidence that all these people from different stripes -- covering different teams, the local team, the national guys, ex-employees -- all of them came together in one grand attempt to damage Dan just because whatever? 

 

 

 

[joeken24]

3 minutes ago, thebluefood said:

Post warranted two responses, eh @joeken24? Nice.

 

1.) Any connection between me and a Jack Nicholson performance is something I'll take as the highest of compliments. Thank you kindly.

 

2.) Well, you kinda saved your ass - I'm not a sports reporter. Worked with them, even did some stringing during and after college. But I did this thing where I observed them work and talked to them about their work and made connections between the two while also connecting that with my prior experiences. I do believe the term is "developing empathy and understanding." It's pretty sweet - you learn a lot about people who aren't like you through it. 

 

3.) Here's a little hot take of my own about "objective reporting": it ain't real. It's never been real. No, not even [your favorite news anchor/pundit/buddy who runs their own blog] is an "objective reporter." If you don't believe me, here's a guy with 50+ years of experience under his belt (albeit at an earlier point in his career):

Fair reporting? Yes. Well contextualized reporting based in public records, verifiable information from interviewees, and honest-to-goodness facts? A necessity. "Objective" reporting? It's not a thing.

 

4.) "This town" as in Washington, D.C. (as far as I know, Daniel Snyder doesn't own teams anywhere else but the D.C. Metro Area)? If so, that's a swing and a miss. I live in the Harrisburg, PA area, I'm not even a reporter anymore, and I never worked in the Metro D.C. area so that shoe doesn't fit me. 

 

5.) As far as I can tell, most of the reporting on the fiasco out of Ashburn/Landover is based in fact (despite Daniel Snyder's history of legal and professional action against the press - and park rangers...and season ticket holders...)

 

6.) @BatteredFanSyndrome already beat me to the punch there about the whole "if enough people say it thing" which is...come on, man. I haven't heard that one since grade school and that was a teacher telling us why it was a useless, inaccurate cliche. 

 

7.) I did plenty of homework. My sheepskin from my alma mater and my 12 year body backs it up. I sure as hell don't need to prove it to the likes of you.

 

Do you do this for every megalomaniac billionaire sports team owner or is there some special connection you have with Daniel M. Snyder? At this point, it would be less sad if you were a member of the FO caping for your boss. That, at least, would be based somewhat in your own professional interest. If you're some rando rushing to the defense of a franchise owner who doesn't know you from Adam and has a long, proven track record of bad team leadership then I don't know what to tell you. 

Didn't watch the video. Not feeding into institutional ism or sheep speak. Just a select few fans that are hell bent on the same 'ole.

[skinfan2k]

so petty to give the remaining redskins rings on the same day as the caps parade? Couldn't he wait til the regular season???

[thebluefood]

Oh well, you sure did show me. "Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and ignore everything you wrote and make some comment about sheep. That'll teach those medidiots"

 

This is like an article from The Onion come to life - it's absolutely amazing. Please, God, let this be real and not some sort of elaborate troll campaign.

 

 

 

[goskins10]

22 minutes ago, skinfan2k said:

so petty to give the remaining redskins rings on the same day as the caps parade? Couldn't he wait til the regular season???

 

I guess they could have tried to postpone it, but to be fair they had this planned for a long time, well before anyone had an idea the CAPs would win the CUP. The guys and their families had already made flight plans and hotel reservations. The CAPs could have waited a day. I mean they just planned a day or so ago.

 

 

[skinfan2k]

7 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

I guess they could have tried to postpone it, but to be fair they had this planned for a long time, well before anyone had an idea the CAPs would win the CUP. The guys and their families had already made flight plans and hotel reservations. The CAPs could have waited a day. I mean they just planned a day or so ago.

 

 

 

The Caps waiting for some replacement players getting rings lol.  Are you serious?  

 

We have a Dan Synder fan boy here.  Again, he still hasn't learned.  You want good PR.  You do this during the season, not a random Tuesday in June. 

[goskins10]

2 minutes ago, skinfan2k said:

 

The Caps waiting for some replacement players getting rings lol.  Are you serious?  

 

We have a Dan Synder fan boy here.  Again, he still hasn't learned.  You want good PR.  You do this during the season, not a random Tuesday in June. 

 

You can make the argument that they could have done it during the season - however there may have been some resistance from the league since it's for the replacement players and it's not exactly like that was a shining moment for the league. It would bee calling attention to their failure.

 

But to the point of the response, you called it petty as if it were planned after the CAPs won as some sort of trying to take away from them. That's just not anywhere close to a reasonable statement. They have had this planned for months. And if the replacement players are such a low priority then it should not make any difference to the CAPs when it happens - as it clearly did not, and quite honestly should not. 

 

The CAPs did just plan it a few days ago so they could have picked any day - yesterday, tomorrow, Wednesday. They in fact knew that the Redskins were giving the rings today, unlike the Redskins who had no idea the CAPs were winning the CUP. But they didn't care, and honestly they should not have. Not seeing how that makes the Redskins decision petty.

 

And when I make the factual point that to be fair it was planned months ago, before anyone had any idea the CAPs would win the CUP, your response is to call me a fan boy. Sorry that facts bother you. Doesn't change that your statement is the kind of piling on that's neither necessary or true. There are many things to trash Snyder on, and I have repeatedly, in this thread alone. You don't need to make things up.  

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

9 hours ago, joeken24 said:

 

So you got offended when you felt like I called you sheep. So you retaliate with calling me feeble minded. You see how easy it is for sheep to lose their way?

 

Just noticed your edit, trying to throw this shot in here.

 

There is a difference between being offended and merely calling you on your BS.  You can’t offend me.  I was merely pointing out the several times you referred to people as sheep after you said you didn’t.

 

Like I said, I’m not sure you are actually this feeble minded.  Part of me can’t help but believe you are just trolling with these posts.