'Skins.com : Washington Post inaccurate

[spanishomelette]

This particular blurb is from last Thursday 8/26

[Dan T.]

Originally posted by spanishomelette

This particular blurb is from last Thursday 8/26

Point taken, omelette. Still, it seems highly unusual that a team's web site would post two articles in a week complaining about a local paper's news coverage. It seems like there's a whole lot of animosity that's bubbling up here.

[The Rook]

Originally posted by Sweet Sassy Molassy

Damn, the Redskins FO is not happy with the Post. They even put them out on front street about the lower bowl tickets. Man, this should be interesting.

Really. Meow - looks like Danny-boy scratched the post. :laugh:

[Sea Bass]

That is really bad, though, for a player to hear that he is being cut for the first time in the paper and then to find out later that the paper was wrong.

It put him through a lot of unecessary grief.

By the way, Ryan Clark was a starting safety for the Giants last year, not the whole season, but a few games.

[RedskinGodfather]

Nunyo needs to hang himself or go back to where he came from.

[JWB]

Wow. I would be pissed off if this had happened to me or someone I knew. I can understand that the paper wants to be the first to report, but people's jobs are on the line. I don't think they realize it. When you report who's cut you better be REAL sure.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by Art

Are you kidding?

Whether Clark gets released next round of cuts or not is irrelevant to the incorrect reporting that he was cut in this round of cuts. A report that came out before the cuts were announced and the team indicates had inaccurate information. This is a bad deal for the Post.

Not only is the team obviously getting tired of the Post's quality of writing right now, but, they are targeting these guys and beating them about the head and shoulders.

Interesting, though, that Redskins.com makes no mention of the AP article that Nunyo took his "facts" from.

[Dan T.]

Why would the 'Skins PR department want to escalate this pissing contest with the Post? Granted, there's been more than a few inaccuracies reported, but I can't understand why they would build up this adversarial relationship. What's the old saying about not picking a fight with anyone who buys ink by the gallon?

They are really ticked off about something. But isn't there a better way to handle it than sniping through their official web site?

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Dan T.

isn't there a better way to handle it than sniping through their official web site?

"Snyder non sitit sanguinem"

[Larry Brown #43]

The Times is eclipsing (or has eclipsed) the Post on Redskins coverage. On top of that, the Times is LIGHT YEARS ahead of the Post in coverage of the Expos-to-DC story. The Post buries a story about the Expos situation in the Metro section once in a blue moon, whereas the Times covers the story in the Sports section on almost a daily basis. There's some unholy alliance between Peter Angelos and the Post.

[Art]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

Interesting, though, that Redskins.com makes no mention of the AP article that Nunyo took his "facts" from.

I don't know if the AP article was accurate or not, but, I do know the battle isn't with the AP right now. It's with the Post. And there's a reason for it. This isn't the first time the media has used other media members to source stories recently. It's not a good thing for media members to do such things. It's one thing to report that the AP reported something. It's another thing to form a cabal of journalists sharing info in the press room then writing it as if you've sourced it yourself.