News Wars

[SouthernCali Skins]

http://redskins.scout.com/2/377300.html

News Wars

By Rich Tandler Site Editor

Date: May 8, 2005

Tandler's Redskins Blog Ver. 5.8.05--There is an old adage that says that you should never pick a fight with one who buys ink by the barrel. Maybe that's changed; you might be able to get away with it if you buy bandwidth by the terabyte.

A few months ago the Redskins picked a fight with the Washington Post over what the team perceived to be overly negative and inaccurate coverage. What was a skirmish involving the pulling of season tickets on the Redskins part and some highly critical columns by Post writers has escalated. From an article in the Washingtonian:

Redskins spokesman Karl Swanson says the team is ramping up its Web site and putting up news because fans couldn't see through the "filter" of DC's news outlets. Both Redskins owner Daniel Snyder and coach Joe Gibbs are behind the effort to portray the Redskins "unfiltered."

"We want people to see things for themselves, as opposed to information filtered through editors or producers," Swanson says. "Our focus is to be a news source."

(It's difficult to read this and not recall Daffy Duck spitting out, "This means war!" after having been outsmarted for the umpteenth time by Bugs Bunny.)

Can the Redskins be a legitimate news source? Sure, in some ways. Redskins.com can be a good source for finding out some raw information such as this player was released and that one was signed and for hearing and watching interviews and press conferences that the media might not carry, at least not in their entirety.

For example, when Joe Gibbs holds a press conference, that's news and Redskins.com carries those live and archives them. You can hear every one of Gibbs' official press conferences since the day he was introduced as the returning head coach. The other media will carry selected quotes and clips and that's the "filter" that Swanson is referring to.

They've taken it one step further now with videos of interviews that involve same-day happenings. For example, they webcast an interview with Santana Moss' agent the day that Moss agreed to his new deal. Nothing earth-shattering was said and this is evidence that the Skins are moving into manufacturing news as well as making it.

The notion that this "news" is "unfiltered" is, obviously, utter nonsense. The interviews are by Larry Michael, the former Clear Channel executive who began moonlighting as the play by play announcer for the Redskins last year. The team enticed him to quit his day job and become some sort of a communications director for them. Hard-hitting these interviews are not. The information is indeed filtered, it's just a different filter, a burgundy and gold colored one.

Relying on Redskins.com for your Redskins news is no different relying on the Republican National Committee for your news on the administration in the White House. Of course, given the adverserial relationship that has developed between the Post and the Skins, relying on the Post exclusively for Skins news may be like sticking to, well, the Washington Post for your political coverage. I trust that most of us have become educated consumers of news and will take in information from a number of sources.

What's ironic here is that the Redskins are attempting to establish the idea of a website as a source for legitimate news. What's odd about that is that the team refuses to grant media credentials to any news organization that has a presence only on the Internet (most other teams in the league follow the same policy). So, in my position as the editor of WarpathInsiders.com, I can't get media credentials based solely on the fact that it's a web-based news and information source. The message that the press pass policy sends is that no Internet-based news sources are really legitimate--except, apparently, for the one that resides at Redskins.com.

The Redskins' efforts to manage the news actually started a few months ago when Joe Gibbs stopped his regular interviews with WTEM because the hosts were being too adversarial. Instead, Gibbs started doing radio interviews with Mr. Tenacious himself, Michael. Fortunately, the news takeover attempt is quite transparent and, again, most consumers of news will see right through it.

[andyman]

Yawn.

[SouthernCali Skins]

hey i got andyman to post in one of my threads:cheers:

:laugh:

[bubba9497]

I thought "I" was being challanged :laugh:

[bulldog]

let's get this point right out there:

I am not looking to the Post or anyone for the kind of muckracking reporting that we need in areas such as politics, world affairs, economics, social issues, etc............

I don't need to see the sports page I read turn into a ***** and moan session for every player that is disgruntled about having to work out in the offseason or feels that he should be traded somewhere else

If that means I am not interested in 'news' so be it

Do I want to know why Laveranues Coles was traded, including some info on Coles' perspective? Yes.

What I don't need to see is a two-page article where a guy rants about everything from the owner to the new coach to his contract and all the other things that the self-absorbed subject has on his mind.

If Coles or Arrington wants to go into every detail of life that is bothering him, he can host his own website and talk to the fans directly from his daily diary :laugh:

[Tarhog]

No, sorry, but a shortened clip or a press conference not shown in its entirety is hardly the 'filter' they're referring to. It goes way beyond that. Its getting the facts wrong, getting the facts wrong and then twisting and turning to spin them as anything other than wrong, its antagonistic smear pieces, its a lot of things. But its not just about an incomplete press conference.

I respect Tandler. And his most valid point here is the one regarding web-based information sources and the lack of respect they get. Extremeskins.com is one of them. However, I think thats argument fails to recognize that theres a big difference between releasing information the Redskins KNOW is correct (because....well, because they're the Redskins) and giving access to all comers with a .com after their name who may or may not report the information accurately. Trust and respect are earned over time with experience. And you can hardly blame the Skins for being a little gun shy at present. I think its quite possible though, that they will give more access to web-based news sources and web sites in the future. They've taken a small step here on extremeskins.com, granting us a Q&A with Mr. Cerrato. We certainly hope to have a lot more of that kind of 1 on 1 access in the future as fans benefit immensely from it.

I have to think that a lot of the loud protestations here have a lot more to do with the traditional trough no longer overflowing with the usual bounty of media morsels, than a real concern over bias or manipulation of information. After all, most of those ****ing loudest were doing almost all of the manipulating prior to now. Funny they should begrudge the Redskins the same opportunity. Critics of 'unfiltered' news keep saying the fans will 'see right through this'. I agree, assuming the Skins move away from simply providing previously unavailable access and information to actually attempting to manipulate opinion, hide potentially negative developments, and bamboozle their fanbase, the fans WILL recognize and react against it.

So whats the problem?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

There's only one problem with this guy's article....every-stinkin-body in sports reporting is biased and subjective...lol...the idea that, as fans, we won't be able to get "fair and balanced" journalism anymore when it comes to the Skins is laughable...just as laughbable as thinking that sports fans of all teams don't search everywhere for info on their team, anyway. What Snyder and Gibbs have done, is put one more legitimate source for Redskins info out into the market...nothing more.

[TK]

Originally By Rich Tandler

Site Editor

Date: May 8, 2005

Tandler's Redskins Blog Ver. 5.8.05--

http://redskins.scout.com/2/377300.html

Fortunately, the news takeover attempt is quite transparent and, again, most consumers of news will see right through it.

Hmmm... That line sound familiar....

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=101619

“They become another competitor,” says Post sports editor Emilio Garcia-Ruiz. But he adds: “I think the fans see right through this.”

Editor speak?

[Westbrook36]

Well, smart fans should be able to read multiple sources and acertain the truth, as they believe it to be.

There is no way in hell I can read Dave Spadaro's fluff pieces and think they are the truth any more then I can read a militant Steven A Smith article and believe that's the truth.

[Fred Jones]

The only problem I have is the Redskins may one day put out wrong or misleading information and act just like the post by putting their own filter on the story.

I am not defending the Post or any other news source. I am also not saying that that is what is going on now, or will go on under Gibbs. However, when things settle down, a few years go by, the skins get used to putting out their own news, before we know it we may start getting feed what they want us to hear. Maybe that will never happen, but than again no one knows. Until then, I will give the skins the benefit of the doubt.

Reference WB, I agree and I include many posters on this site as knowledgeable and able to decipher the story. However, there are a lot of people out there that are just plain stupid and don't bother to broaden their horizons.

[Om]

It surprises me a bit to see Tandler take the easy approach here, simply echoing the media mantra defending their long-held turf by now trying to run the, "hey look, it's now the SKINS doing the spinning" angle past consumers.

I suspect Rich knows full well that he's (rather obviously, in my view) chosen to ignore the single most impactful aspect of this whole thing ... the reality that the media has long since stopped being an impartial and responsible reporter of news out of Redskins Park---"news" in this case being the verbatim, in-context comments of coaches fielding questions from a group of reporters---in favor of being the self-appointed interpreters OF said comments ... and that that long-standing role has now been seriously undermined by the team's new direction.

I challenge anyone to go back to any report by the Post or Times or Lenny P, or even our friend Mr. Tandler to some extent, that uses quotes taken from one of the standard after-practice Q&A's the coaches do with reporters on a daily basis, and find even ONE where the quotes are not, on some level, taken out of context or couched in such a way as to change, affect or spin their meaning to fit whatever angle or premise the reporter has chosen to take with his underlying story that day.

Anyone who's been listening to the clips of those interview in their entirety on the team web site lately, and then reading the articles in the outlets the next day and NOT noticing how the quotes are manipulated, simply isn't paying very close attention. Dont' think this is a new phenomenon, either. This has been going on for years. Happily for us consumers, Redskins.com has suddenly changed the game.

Rich, unfortunately for him, is apparently one of the guys feeling somewhat threatened by the new "unfiltered" approach. His blog---well done and timely though it usually is---is still not the immediate, straight-to-the-consumer, in-context, unparsed information from the horse's mouth we're getting from the team now. It can't be---even a full transcript of the text (which we never see from the outlets; all we've every really gotten is a few pieces, cut and pasted to fit whatever the author's premise is that day) is only half the story ... as we can now tell by actually seeing and hearing the speakers for ourselves. One doesn't need to be a psychologist to get a basic read on inflection and body language and tone---he just has to be able to see and hear for himself.

I respect Rich immensely for how his career has taken off, but it's not hard, at least in this piece, to see him apparently feeling somewhat chastised by the mere fact that we don't really "need" him to interpret the team's words for us any more. Yes, we can still read him for HIS take now, which we will because we respect his work, but we dont have to read him any more to simply to find out what Gibbs said, or be told "how he said it," or most importantly, to be told what he really meant by it.

I wrote a few days ago about how the traditional outlets were going to hit back once the Skins showed they were serious about this "unfiltered" project. We've started seeing it already; first in Garcia-Ruiz' transparent comments the other day, and now to a lesser extent with Rich so closely echoing them. No disrespect to our friend the latter here, but honestly, this piece appears to be little more than a predictable circling of the proverbial wagons.

[Om]

PS. I DO agree 100% with Rich in that the team will probably want to let web-based outlets inside the ropes at some point soon as well. The irony of their NOT doing so at this point has not gone wholly unnoticed.

[zoony]

To use an obvious analogy, I am a fan of the US of A. I think it is great when the US government provides information directly to the public.

But I will always want my news peppered with spin and insight from media outlets. Good or bad, I want it... if nothing else than for entertainment purposes.

Same with the Redskins. Actually, I'm kind of enjoying the current setup. It seems that Redskins.com is providing the facts, and the Post/Times are providing the spin and rumors and editorials.

A great system, I think. I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Dead Money]

Someone needs some sugar in his coffee.. 'cause its bitter man, oh so bitter.

I like Rich's stuff but there are some things that you cannot get around - .com-media types aren't going to be treated with the same respect that the traditional media is until society allows the change. It takes time. Why whine about it? How about standing behind the team for defending itself against the onslaught of negativity and biased BS..I mean ...hatred. The times has written just as many articles in the same time and I don't see the hate over there.

And Tandler, although respected by many including me, well I feel he has crossed the line to brown-noser here. Circling the wagons? How about a big cup of "I don't care" to go with you T.O.ughnut in the morning?

Redskins.com is just going to make a good reporter better by doing this. And I suspect the good ones are quiet at work, and NOT whining about it to Redskins fans.

[zoony]

I would give one example, however, of something over on Redskins.com that made me kind of nervous.

The interview with Drew Rosenhaus.

Did anyone watch this garbage?

"Dan Snyder this, Dan Snyder that. Dan Snyder is the greatest owner of all, blah blah blah"

Funny... there was no interview with the Postons. :laugh:

I found myself getting a little queasy watching that one... but I WILL say that the insider video being posted on redskins.com is overall pretty awesome. mini-camp, workouts, interviews with Gibbs, etc. Great stuff

[Hogskin1]

I generally am very positively impressed with Tandler's work, but this one was EXTREMELY disappointing. From my perspective, any move by the Redskins to give ultra-negative Jenkins and Nunyo less material to distort and exaggerate is MUCH appreciated. I have long since stopped reading their crap, but still would love to see them move into a field they are more suited to - maybe, taking a cue from Tandler, POLITICS.

[rtandler]

Thanks for your takes on my article, guys. The response to this article here and elsewhere warrants a follow up, look for it in the next few days.

One point that I will make is that the day that the Redskins "report" about, for example, a screaming arguement between a player and a coach or between two players (I'm speaking hypothetically here), is the day that I will believe that their "news" is "unfiltered".

[PCS]

Fair enough Rich. Though maybe I'm being dense when I say I don't believe this is what the organization means by "unfiltered". Mind you, I would consider a report discussing a fight between 2 players that quoted sources close the team or inside Redskins park and then possibly speculating on what the fight was about to be no less filtered. What I hope/believe the non filtered version to be would be people like you asking Joe or another coach or even a player this question in say, a press conference or someting similar and then we go from there.

[Dead Money]

Originally posted by rtandler

Thanks for your takes on my article, guys. The response to this article here and elsewhere warrants a follow up, look for it in the next few days.

One point that I will make is that the day that the Redskins "report" about, for example, a screaming arguement between a player and a coach or between two players (I'm speaking hypothetically here), is the day that I will believe that their "news" is "unfiltered".

Of course not. I don't think anybody here is under the delusion that we are going to get the dirt that a reporter can dig up. But its when the basic facts get twisted into the "story " of the week and they misuse quotes out of context OR try to make a story that doesn't exist. (See nunyo's article on the skins' "interest" in Mitchell.)

I think that the team they mis-labeled their intent as "unfiltered" news. I have to agree with you there....

There's always going to be room for reporters and journalism. What I'm happy about is that I can see the interviews that these twisted quotes come from. I think that is what they are trying to do not re-invent the wheel.

The Post for one example has been able to hold the team hostage as their main media outlet for years and they think that they still can. Its refreshing to see that they cannot.

Of course, the casual fan is the one who suffers, not us here. We dig for everything but the casual fan is pretty much at the Post's mercy.

One thing I'm suprised nobody has touched on is the future of redskins.com. Being part of a subscription website, you should know how much effort and money goes into the production of such content.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Snyder is going to try to use it as yet another revenue stream in the future. Its a common strategy to ramp up efforts and give more than normal just to turn around and offer a subscription to that content down the road.

If I was a betting man, I would put some duckets on the chances that redskins.com costs money in the future.

[Art]

Originally posted by rtandler

Thanks for your takes on my article, guys. The response to this article here and elsewhere warrants a follow up, look for it in the next few days.

One point that I will make is that the day that the Redskins "report" about, for example, a screaming arguement between a player and a coach or between two players (I'm speaking hypothetically here), is the day that I will believe that their "news" is "unfiltered".

Rich,

I think we're in the very early days of this Redskins Unfiltered thing, but the question you ask is an interesting one for a very simple reason. I suspect the Redskins are not done with adding parts to this whole communications strategy. It would not surprise me, using your hypothetical, if the team says, "The fight is going to get out in the media, so, we might as well write it up ourselves."

Taking it a step further, the team clearly has a polished angle here going with Larry Michael doing some of the interviews and shorts. It wouldn't surprise me if you, Keim, or some other guy with sports reporting ability was approached to take on the official Redskins beat reporter position WITHIN the team's umbrella.

A guy who would be changed with writing actual journalistic stories with access no one could match, but who's employed by the team, because the stories are coming out already in the media, so why not produce them yourself.

What would you think if that were to happen? I have no idea if it will or is planned or anything else. It would just go to figure for me, because, the team has no reason NOT to produce stories of the sort you speak of since they are already getting into press.

[Henry]

I don't know why everyone is jumping on Rich for this piece. Other than the shameless plug for himself and a press pass I pretty much agree with it.

While I agree that the local media outlets have certainly turned on the Redskins, I don't know that the Redskins themselves will be able to manufacture their own personal counterwieght. Whether warranted or not, whatever they release will be seen as biased towards themselves.

Releasing facts, such as this guy has been signed or that guy has been cut, before the rest of the media can is one thing. But wording stories in such a way as to not show a clear bias of some kind? That's going to be a tricky business.

[@DCGoldPants]

I don't know.

If they didn't call this unfiltered news...but rather..."Inside Access"

who would care?

Its a football team here. There will be stuff they aren't going to share with the media or public. But for the most basic stuff like Moss signing his deal, or a guy being traded, not cut. Its a good outlet for this.

[Art]

Henry,

It's not that I disagree with the basics of what you're saying. You're right, if all the team does is what they're doing now, obviously, you're NEVER going to get a produced story that isn't slicked up to the most positive Redskin angle possible.

I merely suspect the team will be adding pieces if what Swanson said in that Washingtonian article is true that the team hopes to be a news source. If so, some level of competent journalism may be component of things in time.

As for the website plug, I think Rich knows -- or should know -- that it's not the Redskins who turn down requests from web-based publications or web sites, it's the NFL. Extremeskins.com has requested press credentials as well and been told, very politely, they'd love to but can't.

And, since we're the biggest site there is, we deserve the first press passes .

[@DCGoldPants]

oh yeah. A little add-on here.

Herzog has been hired by WTOP to do radio work. WTOP is owned by the same company (Bonneville)that owns Z104.

From what I understand, this is just the begining of bringing some legit heavy hitters on board before they switch Z104 to all sports talk, go for Skins broadcasts with their stronger signal, then go after other local teams as well.

So, this could be another Larry Michael connection with him leaving WJFK (Infinity), to help the Skins make this move also.

Next up..... Sportstalk980 (ClearChannel) will be either changing format. Or just carrying something like Foxsports most of the time.

The new 104 will most likely make a run at guys like Thompson and Mr. Tony.....I'm guessing Herzog would be on during afternoon drive.

Either way, its coming together.

[denverdan]

Don't get me wrong here, I'm very pleased with the coverage by redskins.com but as far as the news being unfliltered and unbiased does anyone really believe that? Is Gibbs ever going to come out and say, Gosh maybe that Brunell pick up wasn't such a good idea. The Larry Michaels inverviews with Gibbs are on the same level as a Bush interview with Press Secretary McClellan. So Tandler is right "Relying on Redskins.com for your Redskins news is no different relying on the Republican National Committee for your news on the administration in the White House"

There are many things the Redskins don't want you or other football teams for that matter, to know; we spend a lot of time here criticzing Lenny P amongst others for his biased inaccuracies, but these guys are also giving us information we can't get from redskins.com even if it is mostly negative, once in a while it hits dead on.

None of us are satisfied with one source, thats why we come here, maybe this whole thing is still in its early stages but at this point the Redskins are trying to limit the information getting out to the official team doctine and when that has failed to addressing false media reports rather than opening up and expanding coverage. I personally don't find them at fault here, its what every team does, only the Redskins do it more because of the large amount of negative coverage they receive.

The Reskins are fighting back against negative and false reports from the Post and Espn, but at the same time are they locking out some of these other news sources? If this is whats happening Tandler has a right to be bitter.

I think we have to ask, do we only want to know about things that are good for the Redskins or do we want more information some of which is not helpful to the Redskins, the example being Lenny P and the Campbell pick.