Awesome Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 For several years, it's been the general consensus that the Washington Post has had better coverage of the Redskins than the Washington Times. The Post usually broke news before the Times and offered a less-biased, if not more pro-Redskin, approach than the Times. But recently, there's been a noticeable decline in the Post's news coverage that, oddly enough, can be charted almost directly by the changing of the guard between Mark Maske and Nunyo Demasio. Since Demasio has taken over the Redskins beat at the Post, there has been an increase in mistakes and a pattern of rehashed news. I know it's the offseason, but Demasio has been pretty bad about writing a whole lot, but never saying anything new. I find myself breezing through his stuff now b/c it's always filled with the same information. If you think about it, the offseason would seem to be the time when reporters really have to prove their salt, much more so than during the season. This tells me something. Also, the Post is consistently getting beaten on breaking news, not only by the Times, but sometimes even by ESPN, if not other outlets. My point: it's my opinion that in a few short months, the Post has gone from the undisputed king of Redskins journalism to second fiddle behind the Times, if not third or fourth. There could be a number of reasons for that, but I think it's interesting that the decline as come simultaneously with the promotion of Nunyo Demasio as Redskins beat reporter. Curious as to what you guys think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WM_Marylander Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 The Times in general is a joke. Jimmy Johnson coming to the Skins article anyone? I won't read that Mooney paper unless I get it for free, I'm done with the Post, Baltimore Sun, and am completely bored otherwise. The Post overall is a more reputable paper. The Times is awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Nunyo is no Mark Maske. Maske has/had the inside sources last year. With him taking on the NFL story gig, I'm sure he still does. Doubt that Nunyo has the sources that Maske does. Nunyo seems to just re-write the AP wire stuff & comes off as Jabba being his main source for his articles. Writing like that, he may never have what Maske had with the Skins. Respect. Can we get a Nunyo plagerism smiley? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 TK nailed it. Nunyo copies the AP article and its pretty sad. What happened to Darrell Green joining Gibbs staff? Overall the situation is sad. Remember the Jansen situation with the Times? They said he was likely gone, the next day Maske reports that he's signed a new deal. The days of one being much better than the other are over. Now the best inside info comes from Sportstalk 980 and George Michaels.....you gotta have faith, faith faith! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Originally posted by Euro-Trash Bufford TK nailed it. Nunyo copies the AP article and its pretty sad. Is that a vote for the Nunyo plagerism smiley? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinMac Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Since Gibbs has been back, the Times has been better HANDS DOWN. It isn't even close. They are the ones breaking all the news, and the Post has been a day late on pretty much everything (including yesterday's news about Corey Raymer & Beverly). The Times was certainly the laughingstock of DC sports coverage until Gibbs returned, but recently they have done better the the Washington Composte, no question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 I don't read the Mooney Times, I have no respect for that paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Years ago the Times had MUCH better coverage than the Post. Then Snyder took over, kicked the Times out and the Post become top dog. Not only that, but the Times began a full-scale propoganda war against the Redskins, so for the past five years or so, the Post had the better coverage. This year, Maske's departure had seriuosly hurt the Post, while Gibb's return has convinced the Times to ease up considerably on it's mud-slinging. I think the Post still has the edge, but it's far closer than it has been in years. And if Snyder makes nice with the Times, I'm certain the Times will have much better coverage again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Errors in the Times are the stuff of legend the last few years. From breaking the story that Jansen will leave in free agency on the very day he signed long term, to repeated, recent articles suggesting no one wants to work for the Redskins as coach, there is a LOT more here to work on to rehab a broken reputation. However, it is true they are doing a better job the last few weeks than the Post. Not only has there been a clear improvement as to the ability to first print news, but, the tone has shifted. Meanwhile, the Post can't seem to get out of the way of Nunyo learning on the job. He's produced articles with no attribution, with mistakes in spelling, with mistakes in player position identification. He is late to the party always repeating hours later news we've already seen elsewhere. He seems overmatched for the best sports beat in Washington at Washington's top newspaper. Honestly, the Post should bring Maske back to the Redskins beat and put Nunyo on the NFL beat. At most papers the NFL beat is a promotion. But with Gibbs in town, the choice job is the Redskins beat and the fans expect quality reporting. Give Nunyo the NFL beat and let him learn a little about a league he clearly lacks knowledge of for a few years. Then give him the Redskins. He certainly doesn't seem to deserve the position he has and I'm not sure how he got it. Though I don't always like content in the Post, it is generally fair to say the writers the post hires are wonderfully skilled in the craft of writing. Nunyo doesn't seem to have this. He seems to be ideally suited for a back woods job or less important beat where he'll go largely unnoticed. But he is a second-class writer of limited ability and that, more than the lack of content or sourcing he's brought to the table, is what's really painful to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awesome Posted March 10, 2004 Author Share Posted March 10, 2004 Anyone know how to email Nunyo? I've looked for links around his stories but can't find any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKINZ_DOMIN8 Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!! You people have finally flipped out!!!!!!!! Its not enough you are on a witch-hunt for Pasquarelli and the rest now you paranoid crybabies are trying to select which newspaper is supposedly better. (By what standards?) You are not Skins fans you are bandwagoners otherwise you would accept the fact that people aren't always going to write positive stories about the team. Instead you act like a bunch of high-school girls trying to play one side against each other. If this wasn't so pathetically hillarious it would certainly be pitiful. :twitch: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 SD, A remarkably inflated level of personal idiocy and gross ignorance isn't something, when displayed, that often creates the most persuasive of messengers when delivering such a post as you have here. It is acceptable that your own level of innate discomfiture with conversations such as these leaves you baffled to the point of roiling anger that you just don't get it and others, therefore, must have some similar disability you recognize within yourself. In the end though, a reasonable person with a mild level of thought, recognition and capability to listen to others will appreciate that the only laughable post thusfar in this thread has your name attached. As if often the case, media defenders screech out that what is being argued against with their writing is some form of displeasure at a lack of positivity within a published article. Of course, everyone else who's actually taking part in the conversation wonders why it always comes down that terribly boring and incredibly off the mark position. No one cares if an article is positive or negative. No one doubts that an article will not always be positive. Often, an article must be negative to capture the experience surrounding the team. Such articles are appreciated and debated as the necessary piece of enlightening journalism they may be. What is generally being discussed here goes beyond tone. It goes to factualness. It goes to thoughtlessness. It goes a lack of attribution. A lack of reality. A display of such complete disconnection with the team that one wonders how they can be football writers. I recommend that until you actually figure out what everyone is talking about and recognizes that you shut up and try to be smarter in future messages. I can't force such a recommendation upon you. I can only point you in a direction that will be help you hide your own weakness better. We can't force you to understand that a story published on the very day a player signs long term that states he's going to leave is bad journalism. You just have to know it is and realize that when others see it for what it is they are probably correct and you should probably not be so stupid around those people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankbones Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Originally posted by SKINZ_DOMIN8 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!! You people have finally flipped out!!!!!!!! Its not enough you are on a witch-hunt for Pasquarelli and the rest now you paranoid crybabies are trying to select which newspaper is supposedly better. (By what standards?) You are not Skins fans you are bandwagoners otherwise you would accept the fact that people aren't always going to write positive stories about the team. Instead you act like a bunch of high-school girls trying to play one side against each other. If this wasn't so pathetically hillarious it would certainly be pitiful. :twitch: Did you read people's post? Or are you that freakin' stupid? People are debating which newspaper provides better coverage. The Times ran an article saying that we were going to hire Jimmy Johnson the day Gibbs was hired. That is bad journalism, not a "witch-hunt", not crying about anything. That is a fact. You have added nothing to this board in any of you posts, and I for one would like to see you gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKINZ_DOMIN8 Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Of course, everyone else who's actually taking part in the conversation wonders why it always comes down that terribly boring and incredibly off the mark position. No one cares if an article is positive or negative. No one doubts that an article will not always be positive. Often, an article must be negative to capture the experience surrounding the team. Just look at the title of this thread. That says it all. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 I did look at the title of the thread, and it says nothing. You may have decided it's necessary in your hysterical fit of hebetudinous frothing to ignore what's being said. But the title of this thread doesn't say anything at all except Times v. Post. That's all it says. Then, the first post explains what that means. Posts that follow expand upon that meaning and explain it aptly and without confusion to any person without an apologetic need to defend poor writing. Again, you don't get the debate. That's great. You don't understand why people attack Lenny when weeks prior to the signing of one offensive lineman he wrote what an ideal prospect he is as an inline blocker at guard and then after we sign him he pans the move as a terrible one since the player can't project at guard. You don't care to notice hypoticritical and false articles. Instead you just assume everyone should drift happily in your alternate reality and you will make sure people pay if they disturb it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Quick! Somebody pass the popcorn. Art's found a replacement for EM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeletor The Invincible Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Art, sometimes I wonder if you just like to look at your own words on a computer screen. Anyway, back to point, while I think the Post has the better stories, the Times has it's usefulness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Can one froth hebetudinously? Drool maybe ... but froth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsNation Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 SKINZ_DOMIN8 - I have never seen you comment in a positive manner on any subject in this forum, sometimes you make myself (and im sure many others wonder) if you are a 'troll" as we call it... Everybody on here is "wrong" according to you no matter what their "opinions" are...dont you realize that this thread is a generated out of Maptastic's well concocted opinion???? As a matter of fact 100% of the threads started on here thrive on opinion...topics range from facts and what-ifs on a daily basis. The topic involving one's opinion of who has a more credible reputation as a newspaper is a completely routine and valid one. This forum is deeper and overall far more knowledgeble than any ESPN/CBS sportsline board that is concerned about whether we should draft S.Taylor or trade Rod Gardner... My point is that this IS the forum for these topics and one's like them we indulge in conversation that your ordinary boards would not...you should respect folk's opinions around here and if you dont have something positive to say than remain silent or deal w/Art,Om & Die Hard's punishment............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Originally posted by Skeletor The Invincible Art, sometimes I wonder if you just like to look at your own words on a computer screen. Anyway, back to point, while I think the Post has the better stories, the Times has it's usefulness. You've figured me out, Skeletor . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Hog Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 The Times used to have pretty good Skins coverage about 5 years ago, but the Post is by far the better paper lately. The past couple of years, the Times has actually been fairly negative when it comes to commentary on the Skins – which hasn’t made me jump ad reading it’s articles. Also, the WT online format sucks ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross3909 Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 For right now I have to say I am sticking with the post for my Skins news however I miss Maske. Plus it is the only paper that puts it's Liberal OpEd articles right on the front page. It is kind of hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awesome Posted March 10, 2004 Author Share Posted March 10, 2004 Originally posted by Phat Hog Also, the WT online format sucks ! You said it man. Almost as bad as the Times Dispatch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Originally posted by MAPTASTIC For several years, it's been the general consensus that the Washington Post has had better coverage of the Redskins than the Washington Times. The Post usually broke news before the Times and offered a less-biased, if not more pro-Redskin, approach than the Times. But recently, there's been a noticeable decline in the Post's news coverage that, oddly enough, can be charted almost directly by the changing of the guard between Mark Maske and Nunyo Demasio. I thought I was the only one that noticed...Mr. Demasio leaves a lot to be desired...I now have a mucher greater appreciation of Mark Maske after reading Nuno's regurgitated so-called journalism...I actually read the Times now that Mark's on the NFL beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WM_Marylander Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 You guys keep supporting Reverend Moon if you want. But not I. The Times' football coverage has been lacking for a while. The only advantage they had for a few years was color, and since the Post updated, they're toast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.