Art Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 The agenda the media has against the Redskins is well known and understood. What's not as noticed is how rapidly the contradictory reports come out that make writers look like fools. Today's example is our friend Lenny the Hutt. When we signed Portis, he immediately drove home the point that he got $17 million in bonuses. Over and over, that number, $17 million, became what people believe Portis got as a signing bonus because Lenny never bothered to let people know it's $11.5 million in signing bonus and $5.5 million in option bonuses. Meanwhile, the Eagles sign Kearse. Lenny writes about the $16 million bonus. He does add that there are four more million in roster bonuses, but, he doesn't add them in. He never writes repeatedly that Kearse got a $20 million bonus. Why is this do you think? Also interesting is when the Eagles sign Kearse, Lenny writes that the Redskins were a team that was interested. He writes, insultingly, that Snyder ran into a contract demand from Kearse that he didn't want to match and that several hours before Kearse was signed the Redskins backed off. Yet, in the article about the Redskins start to free agency, he writes that despite team officials insisting we would be restrained in free agency, we haven't been. So, in one article he says we were restrained. In the other that we weren't. Which is it? You even have Nunyo writing that Kearse was a loss for us as if we ever had him or even had him visit. How can we lose a player we never met? The media is having a rough time of it lately I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Maybe the venom is coming from Dannys removal of coffee and donuts in the press area at Fedex :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Mort was on ESPN News last night saying he knew all along that the Redskins weren't ga-ga over Kearse and wern't going after him hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwninja420 Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Seems they have their minds crossed up. Always trying to create drama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUSTINMFOX Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Thanks Art; good pint. The media will always be biased though. They'll be kissing our butts once were in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUSTINMFOX Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma Maybe the venom is coming from Dannys removal of coffee and donuts in the press area at Fedex :laugh: Funny you said that Booma.....I had a hard time tracking some coffee down while at Fedex Mon. and Tues. (inventory) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 It's just ridiculous. Even members of the media are starting to pick up on it. You had that article from Cowlishaw taking a shot at Lenny. Wilbon poked fun at Jenkins in his article. Whatever happened to reporting? Why the constant editorializing? You can easily tell a solid Lenny piece from a shaky one. The solid one is literally "just the facts." If I see a "just the facts" piece from him, it has so much more credibility... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 4, 2004 Author Share Posted March 4, 2004 Originally posted by Griff Mort was on ESPN News last night saying he knew all along that the Redskins weren't ga-ga over Kearse and wern't going after him hard. Correct. The media created us as a front runner for Kearse. And now that we didn't get him, they create this as a loss for us. Even Gibbs said Kearse was a guy any team would love to have but that he might be more costly than we were going to look at. Despite that, the media allowed itself to just presume we'd be the team to give him his high demands. Had we done so, you'd see Kearse's contract contually branded as a $20 million bonus. But when another team does it, you see $20 million only as an afterthought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 If this Is Lenny Does that mean Nunyo's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sire Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Art I felt the same way reading the article. Maybe that's why other fans can't understand how the Skins aren't in cap he!!. They only read articles like Lenny the huts article with half truths and negative spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WallyG3 Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 I have heard on radio spots and such that the difference between this year, and years past is that we are not just looking for big names and getting old vets, we are looking to sign young talent. It's kind of a complement? At least it's a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey66 Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Originally posted by Art When we signed Portis, he immediately drove home the point that he got $17 million in bonuses. Over and over, that number, $17 million, became what people believe Portis got as a signing bonus because Lenny never bothered to let people know it's $11.5 million in signing bonus and $5.5 million in option bonuses. Art or anybody else, what exactly are "option bonuses" and how do they count against the cap? thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 4, 2004 Author Share Posted March 4, 2004 Originally posted by WallyG3 I have heard on radio spots and such that the difference between this year, and years past is that we are not just looking for big names and getting old vets, we are looking to sign young talent. It's kind of a complement? At least it's a start. No, it's not a compliment. It's insulting that the people saying this haven't recognized that this is what we've done the last THREE offseasons. There was a CLEAR and unquestioned shift in how we conduct business after Marty left. A plan was in place to target a different sort of free agent and to build the team with young, proven (to whatever degree) NFL players. That it's taken guys three years to figure out we've been doing this for three years is insulting and further demonstrates the incredibly foolish reporting you see far too often on the Skins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 4, 2004 Author Share Posted March 4, 2004 Originally posted by monkey66 Art or anybody else, what exactly are "option bonuses" and how do they count against the cap? thanks. Specifically in the case we're talking about, we're talking about roster bonuses. These "option" bonuses are not guaranteed. Therefore they do not count against the cap like a signing bonus does. A signing bonus spreads out over the life of a deal. An option bonus is paid in full against the cap the day it comes due. But, if the player blows out a knee you and you have to release him, it doesn't cost you anything other than the remainder of the signing bonus. The Portis deal actually appears to be a very good one. If he works out, we have scheduled a couple of bigger hits for him. If he doesn't, we are moderately protected. You just won't find this stated anywhere by a reporter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pga Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 It is so hard to figure out the media, who to believe, who not to believe. I used to get all caught up in the hype but after the last 2 years of all the Spurrier crap I have become pretty hardshelled to all the BS that erupts about the Skins. It is great to see how the reporters spin things depending on how they feel that day. Good pick up on Pastabelly Art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake56 Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Having worked in the media in another city, here are my observations about the media coverage of the Redskins: #1. Snyder will always be tagged as a big spender and disliked, because of his current and past transactions, until the Redskins win. #2. There is a well-known atmosphere of disrespect, distrust and resentment at Redskins Park between the media and Snyder's pr staff. That's why the media were so happy he brought Gibbs back although it's helped only a little, I'm told. #3. Vinnie Cerrato worked with Len P at ESPN.com and was known to be a big source for Len P until recently. I don't know what made Len P turn on the Redskins -- could have been the Gibbs scoop -- although I heard he and Vinnie were hanging out together at the combine. #4. Wilbon, Jenkins, et al can write whatever they pretty much want because they're columnists -- as is Len P, Prisco, Czar, etc -- those who should not being doing that kind of opinion writing are the daily beat reporters. It will be amazing what happens to the coverage once the Redskins start winning. When you don't, everything is magnified, particularly anything Snyder does -- Gibbs or no Gibbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 4, 2004 Author Share Posted March 4, 2004 Jake, other than it being well-known Cerrato as a big source for Lenny, your post is absolutely DEAD on. As for Cerrato being a big source for Lenny, if you mean a source of information we intend to leak, then, yes, he was that. If you mean a source of information we didn't want getting out, then you're off. The Redskins are the most secretive organization there is. The leadership doesn't reveal anything it doesn't want revealed because they are so tightly bound. Another mild quibble is that Lenny, Prisco and the rest are more than just columnists. Wilbon and Korny and Sally are just columnists. Lenny and the rest are reporters too. They break news. In news stories, reporter opinions shouldn't be evident. When they are, it's a poorly written news story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BD Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Art, this post is right on. I'm not surprised about national media bias - I'm more depressed by the LOCAL media bias on this stuff. Local media should always be more accurate and generally more fair than national, and it just seems like both Len and the Post have worse coverage this year. BD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake56 Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Art, maybe I was not clear but yes, I did mean that it is well known in the media that Vinnie has been a source for Len P in the past on good information the Redskins wanted leaked. Yes, those .com guys can serve as reporters but if you meet any of them, they'll tell you their main job is to take a breath once all the breaking news is out there and then analyze it. That's why one day you can get a slam item on you and then a week later, a more balanced column. I'm not sure the Washington Post coverage has been "worse" this year or maybe a little bit more balanced and less "pro-Redskin." The Redskins seemed to have lost their mouthpiece in Maske, and in turn the Washington Post has lost a lot of scoops and leaks, but I'm sure this will balance out as the season goes on once everyone gets used to each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 4, 2004 Author Share Posted March 4, 2004 Jake, By worse I don't think people mean the tone of Nunyo's work. By worse I think people mean the breaking story that Green is coming back to coach that wasn't true. Or the player's name that was spelled incorrectly. Or whole articles without attributed sources -- though he's been spoken to about that and is now adding sources. We're talking about qualifying Kearse as a "loss" when he never was met. Talking about misrepresting salary cap dollars in an article a couple of days ago by not factoring in the $6.8 million savings from trading Champ. This is where the reporting is worse. Errors, ommissions, questionable facts, shaky construction and the rest contribute to the coverage being worse. The tone is also worse. But that's a different topic than this I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 I was wondering about the Portis contract...when ever it was reported they kept say total bonuses $17 million......but all the b*tch a** reporters kept saying that the $17 million was a signing bonus when I was pretty sure there were some roster bonuses and stuff involved....I'm glad we didn't get Kearse .......because guess what if we had we would have been hung out to dry by the media for over paying for a player that will get injured.....f them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake56 Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Art, If this is correct about DeMasio's reporting then the Washington Post should have run corrections after being proven wrong. If they have not then the Post is standing by their reporter which most papers do. You should write the editor and tell him all the mistakes in Nunyo's reporting and see if they'll correct them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 4, 2004 Author Share Posted March 4, 2004 There's no "if" to it being correct. Just the other day he spelled Berry's name wrong. His first story as beat writer was breaking Green's return. That was incorrect. I don't have to write the editor. Maske and Nunyo read this page. He knows what he's doing wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie5 Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Let's not confuse "reporting" with what Pastabelly does. He's an "internet scribe." This a job that answers to no journalistic reporting standards in any way. He doesn't report, he opines. Based on what facts? I think it's likely he pulls them out of his gigantic arse and it's obviously based on getting even in some way. It's like the Android's Dungeon character in the Simpsons: in his comic book store, he's the King and he can banish you or do whatever he wants; outside of the store, he gets a bag of sht wherever he goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GB81 Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 I've always thought it good for local papers to be critical, even hyper-critical, of teams that perform poorly over an extended period, the Redskins being such a team. The Redskins have been a bad team for along time, so they lose the benefit of the doubt. That being said, criticism is for columnists and facts are for reporters. Oh, and mispelling a player's name is absolutely inexcuseable... you would think someone with a ridiculous name like Nunyo would be sensitive to mispellings. Edit: Pasquerelli writes both news articles and columns. While he has taken a less than impartial tone in some articles, he makes some effort to distinguish between the two. And, I don't think being skeptical of the Redskins offseason bonanza makes someone biased. I think it makes them experienced. I know I'm in the minority here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.