Washington Post vs. Washington Times...

Robert K. · Post by **Robert K.** » Sun Jan 11, 2004 1:14 am

I can't explain exactly the reasons (although the names Wilbon, Kornheiser, and Boswell come to mind... just for starters), but I've never really turned to the Times for my 'Skins coverage (or anything else for that matter). And it didn't help that when I went to the Times website on Wednesday morning for more 'Skins news all they had about the Joe Gibbs hire was an AP story!

Do other people feel that The Post is clearly superior, or do I need to give the Times more of a chance?

skinz74 · Post by **skinz74** » Sun Jan 11, 2004 1:18 am

I've noticed that a majority of our updates and important headlines that News Hog provides comes from the Post. But, I try to nab as much info as I can, so I usually check as many as time permits...just to be objective.

BossHog · Post by **BossHog** » Sun Jan 11, 2004 1:20 am

The Times beat writers are good, especially Jody Foledsy (IMO).

The Times don't have anywhere near the amount of content that the Post have though.

I think your best bet is to read it all!!! We have the news section where the news Hog posts all the headlines you can find during the regular season. We close it down during the offseason, to give the poor guy a break, but if you look in the News Section on the website and just check any day in the archive, you'll find 20 or more articles every day.

Some of those guys are nearly as good as our own writers.

:rock:

Robert K. · Post by **Robert K.** » Sun Jan 11, 2004 1:32 am

BossHog wrote:Some of those guys are nearly as good as our own writers.

haha... ok, if you guys post it, I'll read it

BossHog... do you ever listen to Sports Talk 980 on the Internet? (particularly after games and between 3-7 EST when it's all local). Maybe one of the reasons I've pretty much ignored the times is that I mostly care about the columns since I also get so much good coverage of the 'Skins on 980.

redskins56 · Post by **redskins56** » Sun Jan 11, 2004 2:07 am

Both papers have pro bowl caliber rosters. The post writers who cover the Skins are Michael Wilbon, and Mark Maske. Maske is the lead beat writer, and Wilbon attends the majority of the games.

The times has (as Boss hog mentioned) Jody Foldesy, and David Elfin. They are both with the Skins on every trip, at every practice, and every press conference.

I think they both do a great job and I try to catch them both. However, I only get the Post on Sunday's and don't get the times at all. Generally, I get on the web and go to their sites, or try to head into town, to get to the closest paper boxes.

As you requested I will give my choice though. I will go with the WASHINGTON POST, because they have more pages devoted to the Skins, but they are both good.

Very good post. Nice debate topic!

-Geepz

BossHog · Post by **BossHog** » Sun Jan 11, 2004 12:24 pm

I listen to 980 occasionally, but I rarely have time to think, so not as often as I should.

I like the amount of content that the Post turns out, but I think Jody was the best beat writer going this year.

I can tell you that, while I was at Camp, seeing things for myself... I thought that they were all WRONG and couldn't figure out what they were reporting on. It often seems that they all just sit in a circle and come up with the same vanilla.

That's why I say read it all... and draw your own conclusions and opinions.

Justice Hog · Post by **Justice Hog** » Sun Jan 11, 2004 12:27 pm

I feel ya, Boss.

Last year, I wrote about one day at camp. You wrote about several....and even others wrote about a lot more.

The "official" word in those papers was that player X, Y, and Z and scheme X, Y, and Z were lookin' pretty good, etc.

All of us were writing....these guys suck and/or need improvement and/or other information.

Brothers and sisters out there, if you want the REAL coverage of Redskins camp, look at this site first....then at other sites.

Then, as Boss suggests, draw your own conclusions.

BossHog · Post by **BossHog** » Sun Jan 11, 2004 12:36 pm

Actually... the even odder thing was... if they thought a player did well... I thought he stunk... and if they said he stunk... I thought they were great. Of course, they did have the advantage of ten other people telling them what to write while we had to rely on our observations.

In retrospect... we were all wrong.

'Cause they all stunk.

But not in 2004!

:rock:

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Sun Jan 11, 2004 10:40 pm

I check both every day. I also check all the major sites, and I even click on "wire" on the ESPN NFL site in case there's breaking news that hasn't been posted yet. IMHO, the Post is a more team-friendly, flag-waving type. The Times, though, is a Snyder-bashing sarcasm-laced type. It's Yin and Yang, and I read both. I read the Post first, though.

whomp-em · Post by **whomp-em** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 3:59 pm

the post definitely updates its website more frequently. and like tcwest10 said, they seem to be more team-friendly/fan-based (with all the surveys and photo galleries to go along with the articles). but i read them both just because it's redskins info. all i know is that after living in baltimore for a while i'll take either one over that rag the baltimore sun...

BossHog · Post by **BossHog** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 4:05 pm

I agree whomp-em, and I'd just like to add that the internet has just mae things so much infinitely better too.

Living in Canada... I was out of the loop... still am for merchandise... but thanks to the internet, I'm able to follow my team almost like I lived in D.C.

The more Redskins content I can get... the better.

Robert K. · Post by **Robert K.** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 4:39 pm

BossHog wrote:Living in Canada... I was out of the loop... still am for merchandise... but thanks to the internet, I'm able to follow my team almost like I lived in D.C.

I've been meaning to ask... how is it that the admin of such a great 'Skins site is living in Canada?

Did you used to live here around DC?

BossHog · Post by **BossHog** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 4:46 pm

never lived near D.C... there's no 'guessable' reason.

I started following football pretty closely when I was about 10 (1980), and all i knew after watching for a little while, was that I hated the Dallas Cowboys. Over the next year or two, as I looked for my football identity, I naturally migrated to an NFC East rival to the Pukes, and was enamored with this big line that was shaping up in Washington.

See I always route for the underdogs.

So it was cool to me that these big, 'unskilled' guys called the Hogs were starting to get some press. I didn't need much prodding, so a new skins fan was born.

And that's why I called the site theHogs.net when I started the site... the Hogs are my inspiration.

So I'm as happy as they come, that it's all coming full circle right now.

:rock:

Robert K. · Post by **Robert K.** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 6:20 pm

BossHog wrote:I started following football pretty closely when I was about 10 (1980), and all i knew after watching for a little while, was that I hated the Dallas Cowboys.

So I'm as happy as they come, that it's all coming full circle right now.

Sounds like you had good instincts early on (hating the Cowboys) :wink:

Yeah, this has to be a great time for you

I've been here near DC since I was born (just turned 35), and I also started getting into football right around the same time as you did

Texas Hog · Post by **Texas Hog** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 2:50 pm

And were glad you did BH!

On the papers....I delivered both rags when I was a youngster in the cold, dark am in a freakin' grocery cart and hated them both. As I recall the Times went broke and out of business for a while. Someone correct me if I'm wrong there, maybe it wasn't the Times.

As of late, I guest I lean toward the Post, as I don't see much in the way of Skin material in the Times.

Warmother · Post by **Warmother** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 8:01 am

I'm happy when I can read either. The rag that is in my area is the Baltimore Sun or Carroll County Times both pro Raven.

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 2:55 pm

I'm rather late to this forum but I thought I would shed some light on this topic.
First of all, the Washington Times is owned by a whack-job named Sun Young Moon. He's the head of some nutty church who's name escapes me. Unification Church or something to that effect. The Rev. Moon quite literally believes he is the Messiah. The paper is essentially a mouthpiece for the conservative movement in America. When Snyder came to town, and I forget exactly how, he snubbed the Times writers (I believe by altering their press access in some fashion). The Times has not forgotten that slight and it is reflected in the tone of their coverage, or lack there of.
The Post has much more in-depth if occassionally overly sychophantic coverage.

psummersjr · Post by **psummersjr** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 4:12 pm

I don't think I knew the Times existed until I was in high school. My father got the Post everyday and that's all I knew. Once in high school, I learned about the Times b/c of the plant off NY Ave which was near my high school (Gonzaga). I read the occasional online article on the Times' website but I pretty much just read the Post. Plus, I love Wilbon, Kornheiser, Maske and Boswell.

skinsfaninroanoke · Post by **skinsfaninroanoke** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 4:53 pm

Actually - I think it was when Snyder fired a lot of the people in the FO, including the marketing and media relations people - I think that is where a lot of the issues from the media came about...

newshog · Post by **newshog** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 5:30 pm

The Post seems to have a much better relationship with the team than the Times, and as Fios and others have pointed out, it is reflected in the tone (and kind and amount) of coverage that the they have, to both positive and negative effect.

The Post and Times beat writers are all quite good, in my opinion--the Post folks seem to have greater access, which is great because it allows them to break stories that they might not otherwise get. On the other hand, I get the impression that the Times reporters have to do more nose-to-the-grindstone, old-fashioned journalism, which in turn occasionally yields stories that the Post doesn't seem to attempt (perhaps for fear of causing problems with the FO).

It's in the columnists that the REAL distinction lies--the Times columnists are, generally, bitter, vile-filled spewers of hatred for all things Redskins while the Post columnists are pretty even-handed (perhaps occasionally overly positive, but that might just be in contrast with the black-hearted Times columnists).

But as others recommend, the best solution is to check with as many sources as possible. Paul Woody at the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Jim Ducibella at the Norfolk Virginia-Pilot, Warner Hessler at the Hampton Roads Daily Press, Edward Lee with the Baltimore Sun, and even Adam Himmelsbach at the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star are all local reporters who cover the Redskins on a daily (or near-daily) basis during the regular season. The more sources you use, the better the picture you get (though it does get pretty clear when they're reporting on the same stuff).

Robert K. · Post by **Robert K.** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 5:38 pm

newshog wrote:It's in the columnists that the REAL distinction lies--the Times columnists are, generally, bitter, vile-filled spewers of hatred for all things Redskins while the Post columnists are pretty even-handed (perhaps occasionally overly positive, but that might just be in contrast with the black-hearted Times columnists).

I agree with that for the most part. And, on top of what you just said, the Post columnists are also just better writers, IMO. Wilbon, Kornheiser, and Boswell are among the best in the country (and Jenkins is in the next teir). I just don't find myself enjoying columns in the Times (and I often don't agree with what they say, or at least their tone).

newshog · Post by **newshog** » Mon Jan 19, 2004 5:57 pm

I agree, Robert--from a technical standpoint, the Post columnists just have more skill. One or two of the Times columnists are actually hard to follow, which isn't a great compliment to somebody whose job involves making their opinions clear!

TopHawg · Post by **TopHawg** » Tue Jan 20, 2004 3:32 pm

Being from MD I never really got into the post b/c we didn't get it deliverd to our doorstep. But as soon as I saw "Pardon the Interruption" on ESPN and found out Korny and Wilby wrote for the Post I immediatley started to read the post whenever I could. When two of your writers have their own show on the most watched network on TV, you know your paper is better (at least as far as sports commentary goes)

BossHog · Post by **BossHog** » Tue Jan 20, 2004 6:33 pm

newshog wrote:I agree, Robert--from a technical standpoint, the Post columnists just have more skill. One or two of the Times columnists are actually hard to follow, which isn't a great compliment to somebody whose job involves making their opinions clear!

Yeah, but I think the writing is getting better, and I think the Times' digging is too. They used to be behind on a lot, now Jody scores a few scoops.