Interesting read from a blog in the Washingtonian....
The Dysfunctional Relationship between the Post and the Redskins Share | Print
By Harry Jaffe
Where's Dan, where's Vinny? They're not there.
After covering the Washington Redskins for two seasons, Howard Bryant has one word for the relationship between the team and the Washington Post: “dysfunctional.”
Says Bryant: “With the exception of Joe Gibbs, it’s difficult to get a straight answer out of anybody in the front office. Dan Snyder is in the locker room, yet he’s never available for comment.”
One on one with Snyder?
“Never,” he says. “They do give interviews, just not to us. All the powwows and summits and lunches we tried to have, from the day-to-day standpoint, they didn’t pay off.”
The Redskins and the Post have been feuding since Snyder reacted angrily to what he saw as negative coverage, and the team yanked hundreds of the Post’s season tickets. Snyder invited Post editors to his mansion for a peace conference, but it only inflamed tensions.
“The Redskin players and the coaches were open and helpful,” Bryant says. “The locker room was the best I’ve ever covered. The front office was closed.”
Redskins spokesman Karl Swanson doesn’t see the problem: “Gibbs is the team president and is the voice and face of the team.”
Bryant is headed to ESPN, where he’ll write for its magazine and appear on TV. He’s also writing a biography of Hank Aaron.
Bryant says the Redskins’ relationship with the Post isn’t that different from the way it treats most reporters attempting to cover the team. He has covered the New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox and Oakland A’s. In every case, the front offices were more open and available to reporters.
“It’s the most contentious relationship with any team I’ve covered,” Bryant says. “There are no bouquets in either direction.”
He adds: “I think the Post realizes the best way to cover the Redskins is without the illusion of détente. It makes for better coverage, anyway.”
Indeed—much better than the cozy relationship the Post seemed to have with the Redskins for many years.
This piece originally appeared in the September 2007 edition of the magazine.
I don't understand what they (media) want from Dan or his right hand man(Ceratto, that is another topic but maybe somebody can tell me what he does) as soon as synder bought the team he tried to buy a championship and has done so since, as fans you cannot hate him for that. so anyway since he has been doing that all the media has been doing is saying he is an idiot he will never win, he doesn't get it, and they laugh at him and the team, the post has been writing negative things about the team during camp. So i guess the front office should oblige to every interview the post wants to do so they can twist their words and write about it like are doing with Springs and Gibbs and they have done with Arrington, archuleta.
As a journalist myself, I know what it's like to cover a team that believes your job is to function as an extension of its public relations department.
At the same time, the paper should never let its relationship with the team taint its coverage -- and that's something the Post, and the Times, are both regularly guilty of. So from that standpoint, I think both parties are equally to blame.
At the end of the day, though, as long as the information is being conveyed in a timely fashion, I don't honestly care how much abuse a reporter may have to suffer to get it.
This fight is a lot more complex than it is purported to be here.
Flower bouquets have certainly not been -exchanged- for sure. Both sides could go a long way to work together but I do not see that happening within the foreseeable future.
Daniel Snyder has defined incompetence, failure and greed to true Washington Redskins fans for over a decade and a half. Stay away from football operations !!!
Jeff Rhodes wrote:As a journalist myself, I know what it's like to cover a team that believes your job is to function as an extension of its public relations department.
At the same time, the paper should never let its relationship with the team taint its coverage -- and that's something the Post, and the Times, are both regularly guilty of. So from that standpoint, I think both parties are equally to blame.
At the end of the day, though, as long as the information is being conveyed in a timely fashion, I don't honestly care how much abuse a reporter may have to suffer to get it.
Seriously, if I want to read puff about the Skins (and I don't) there is always redskins.com. Real journalists should give readers the facts, pretty or not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "You can't do epic **** with basic people." - DJax "We're on the rise, man, whether you're on the train or not." - Josh Norman
