Huge Cooley Article in Post

[Jon Jansen is money]

This article is hilarious

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/06/AR2006010602033.html

[fent]

so he's still with christy...lucky SOB...

[skinsfan811]

Haha...he is pretty lucky.

I'm still kinda PO'd about him getting left out of the pro bowl...he was easily the best "full back" on the list.

[chicago_skinz_fan]

That Article just made Cooley my favorite Redskin. Now I got to go buy another jersey! He is kinda like me, all into 80s hair bands, kind of a crazy dude in college, etc... Man that was a great article.

[Skins57]

so he's still with christy...lucky SOB...


One lucky dude

[cal_junior]

That Article just made Cooley my favorite Redskin. Now I got to go buy another jersey! He is kinda like me, all into 80s hair bands, kind of a crazy dude in college, etc... Man that was a great article.

5 . . 4 . . 3 . . 2 . . Oh, sorry, just counting down until the anti-Wise contingent chimes in.

[The Skinsinator]

That was an awesome article and Cooley is just like Portis- out there having fun showing off his talent. However don't let his talent/youth fool you, he is one of the most competitive Skins we have. He's due for a big game and he will come through tomorrow. Hail Chris Cooley!

[bgforever]

When Gibbs called him into his office, running back Clinton Portis remembered Cooley playfully showing up in a bandana and a hoodie, looking like the recalcitrant the organization worried he might be turning into. "What's up?" he said to Gibbs, who privately feared Cooley might be the team's next extreme individualist -- essentially a John Riggins in training.



Excerpt of article by Mike Wise, Washington Post Writer


I knew it, said all along he'd be the second coming of Riggins :lol1:

[DoGood]

It is truly amazing that this kid has turned out into this kind of player. Great find Joe!!!!

HAIL TO THE REDSKINS

[BurgundyNGold]

Mike Wise wrote this? OK, I'm building an ark.

[inevitable]

can we get some pictures of said cheerleader?

[BurgundyNGold]

5 . . 4 . . 3 . . 2 . . Oh, sorry, just counting down until the anti-Wise contingent chimes in.
So, by my count for Mike Wise its:

Negative Articles: 6
Positive Articles: 1

It's a good start, Carl. Let's see how it continues. It's not like the Redskins have giving him much ammo, what with their bothersome winning and making the playoffs and all. Gregg Williams signed a new deal which totally made Mike Wise's and his yet again unnamed source in his last article look like a pair of jackasses. And if the Redskins keep winning what's he going to write about? The Iditarod?

This was a good human interest article that was well researched -- aside from one unnamed source -- and well written. What else do you want me to say about the article? It's hot Carl, is that what you'd like to hear?

[SimplyZ]

i love cooley :)

[cal_junior]

So, by my count for Mike Wise its:

Negative Articles: 6
Positive Articles: 1

It's a good start, Carl. Let's see how it continues. It's not like the Redskins have giving him much ammo, what with their bothersome winning and making the playoffs and all. Gregg Williams signed a new deal which totally made Mike Wise's and his yet again unnamed source in his last article look like a pair of jackasses. And if the Redskins keep winning what's he going to write about? The Iditarod?

This was a good human interest article that was well researched -- aside from one unnamed source -- and well written. What else do you want me to say about the article? It's hot Carl, is that what you'd like to hear?

Sigh. You called him a hack before, and no hack could ever think about writing something that good. And his unnamed sources on GW said other teams had contacted the Skins, which, uh, they had.

[DUCKIN_TACKLERS]

I dont know if Chris is gonna turn into Riggo but he sure is DIESEL

[DUCKIN_TACKLERS]

I dont know if Chris is gonna turn into Riggo but he sure is DIESEL

[Axegrinder]

Way to go Knucklehead!
Way to go!:)

[BigCountry]

2 (cheerleaders) in the hand is worth a CENSORED BY SPENCE

[IowaSkinsFan]

so he's still with christy...lucky SOB...

I told everyone that I saw him kiss her in the stands during the second Dallass game.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Mark this on your calendars.

"You could put in the article that Chris Cooley and Christy Ogilvie will be clearing things up on DC-101 over the summer with 'Elliot in the Morning,' " Cooley said. "Yeah, dude, put that in there."

[helimech24]

What a great story, all I could do is smile through the whole thing.

[CarMike]

"You could put in the article that Chris Cooley and Christy Ogilvie will be clearing things up on DC-101 over the summer with 'Elliot in the Morning,' " Cooley said. "Yeah, dude, put that in there."
Marriage? :D

[IowaSkinsFan]

Marriage? :D

I think it will have more to do with Christy not breaking up Cooley's marriage, which if you believe the Post's timeline of when Cooley's ex wife went back to Utah, that would be accurate.

Another aspect of it will probably be how the rest of the Cheerleaders shouldn't be so childish and petty with the way they tried to treat Cooley in the season opener. Buglisi and Ogilvie knew what the rules were when they went over to Cooley's house.

[dj_stouty]

can we get some pictures of said cheerleader?

http://www.redskins.com/uploads/photos/perm/main/NOEKHNAKHCFL/Christy%200302.jpg

Here is a picture of Christie. Her and I used to trade waves when I sat in the endzone last year. Great looking girl!

[CarMike]

I think it will have more to do with Christy not breaking up Cooley's marriage, which if you believe the Post's timeline of when Cooley's ex wife went back to Utah, that would be accurate.

Another aspect of it will probably be how the rest of the Cheerleaders shouldn't be so childish and petty with the way they tried to treat Cooley in the season opener. Buglisi and Ogilvie knew what the rules were when they went over to Cooley's house.
Why would they wait till this summer to talk about that?

[IowaSkinsFan]

Why would they wait till this summer to talk about that?

Well, Cooley is probably going to be busy through February, you know, Super Bowl and all that stuff.

Then he will need some time to unwind and probably has to film some commercials for that endorsement deal that he has.....

March thru May will fly by!

[IowaSkinsFan]

http://www.redskins.com/uploads/photos/perm/main/NOEKHNAKHCFL/Christy%200302.jpg

Here is a picture of Christie. Her and I used to trade waves when I sat in the endzone last year. Great looking girl!


She was playing you against Chris?

[redskin_rich]

Here is a picture of Christie. Her and I used to trade waves when I sat in the endzone last year. Great looking girl!

There are some better pictures in Maxim but we can't post them here. I posted a picture of Frankie in the old thread about Cooley and the cheerleaders, I'll try to find it, she is no slouch herself.

Edit- Here it is---> http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=530567&postcount=116

[Jon Jansen is money]

I'd like to know when the Captain Chaos shirts are coming out

[cal_junior]

So, by my count for Mike Wise its:

Negative Articles: 6
Positive Articles: 1

It's a good start, Carl. Let's see how it continues. It's not like the Redskins have giving him much ammo, what with their bothersome winning and making the playoffs and all. Gregg Williams signed a new deal which totally made Mike Wise's and his yet again unnamed source in his last article look like a pair of jackasses. And if the Redskins keep winning what's he going to write about? The Iditarod?

This was a good human interest article that was well researched -- aside from one unnamed source -- and well written. What else do you want me to say about the article? It's hot Carl, is that what you'd like to hear?

Just a quick question (that I'm sure I'll regret asking later), why do you equate unnamed sourced with a lack of research? Just curious.

[helimech24]

I'd like to know when the Captain Chaos shirts are coming out
They are out now at PRO IMAGE, they also have Redskins Playoffs Bound Shirts. Got mine last night.

[IowaSkinsFan]

There are some better pictures in Maxim but we can't post them here. I posted a picture of Frankie in the old thread about Cooley and the cheerleaders, I'll try to find it, she is no slouch herself.

Edit- Here it is---> http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=530567&postcount=116

Wow, Cooley picked the wrong one!

[ihatedallas]

loved teh article, they had a huge one on players from the U with Moss and Portis in it also...

[helimech24]

Wow, Cooley picked the wrong one!

Yeah, I like Frankie better.

[IMALILTEAPOT]

whoa frankie is fiiine

[bgforever]

Maybe Frankie was a bit "too hot" for Cooley.

[BurgundyNGold]

Just a quick question (that I'm sure I'll regret asking later), why do you equate unnamed sourced with a lack of research? Just curious.
Why not as Jayson Blair, Carl? Unnamed sources are unverifiable by the public at large , in Wise's case, are never corroborated. Much like your motives here.

[BurgundyNGold]

Sigh. You called him a hack before, and no hack could ever think about writing something that good. And his unnamed sources on GW said other teams had contacted the Skins, which, uh, they had.
Look up the definition of hack, Carl. I'm pretty sure it encompasses the works of Mise wise.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hack

For that matter, here's another one for you look up, assuming you can take a break from carrying water for the Post long enough to click the link.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lackey

[Jero]

Yeah, I like Frankie better.


According to her MySpace profile she sounds like a real Rhodes Scholar. Nice to look at though.

www.myspace.com/frankiebuglisi

[cal_junior]

Why not as Jayson Blair, Carl? Unnamed sources are unverifiable by the public at large , in Wise's case, are never corroborated. Much like your motives here.

Or why not as in Watergate. It is impossible to keep our public officials, or in this case professional sports franchises, accountable without using info from sources who are unable to go on the record.
BTW, I challenge you come up with a specific example where one of Wise's sources were proven to be incorrect. His info has always been good, whether or not you wanted to hear what he was trying to say is another question.

[cal_junior]

Look up the definition of hack, Carl. I'm pretty sure it encompasses the works of Mise wise.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hack

For that matter, here's another one for you look up, assuming you can take a break from carrying water for the Post long enough to click the link.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lackey

I appreciate that you're a loyal Skins fan, I am as well. But you're confusing someone not homering with not having talent. Calling Wise a hack really removes credibility from your argument here.

[akhhorus]

I appreciate that you're a loyal Skins fan, I am as well. But you're confusing someone not homering with not having talent. Calling Wise a hack really removes credibility from your argument here.

So, do you consider Sally Jenkins a credible journalist?

[BurgundyNGold]

I appreciate that you're a loyal Skins fan, I am as well. But you're confusing someone not homering with not having talent. Calling Wise a hack really removes credibility from your argument here.
Read the link, Carl. It is in English. I don't think there are many big word either. Then come back and question credibility.

[IHATEDALLAS'82'87'91]

He is so cool.

[BurgundyNGold]

Or why not as in Watergate. It is impossible to keep our public officials, or in this case professional sports franchises, accountable without using info from sources who are unable to go on the record.
BTW, I challenge you come up with a specific example where one of Wise's sources were proven to be incorrect. His info has always been good, whether or not you wanted to hear what he was trying to say is another question.
I think you have this backwards. It is not my job as the reader to disprove what Jayson Blair, er, Mike Wise says is true. He uses unnamed sources. Nothing that he has reported through one of these "unnamed sources" since he came to the Post has come to pass. So, that equals zippy credibility for Wise, which is about two shades more than you currently have around here. It is on Wise to build his own credibility to the point where he can use unnamed sources and have them actually have credibility through the merits of his reputation. He does not have any such credibilty in this town because he is a big fake masquerading as an actual columnist.

What you and Wise don't get is that the burden of substance is on Wise and his lackeys -- of whom it seems you're marching lead -- to produce a second, independently verifying source for anything stated by an unnamed source. Maybe I'm missing it, but Wise doesn't ever seem to offer that. Really, your beloved Post is guilty of irresponsible journalism for even running Wise's uncorroborated drivel.

You stated that Wise's statement about informal contact with Williams has been vindicated. The only team reported to have contacted the Redskins seeking permission was Houston. As long as challenges are out there, I challenge you to substantiate this Wise claim from December 20, 2006 -- before the Philly game:

At least five teams, through intermediaries, have contacted Williams, the Redskins' assistant head coach-defense, about taking over their NFL franchise next season.

BTW, even a blind squirrel fins a nut every now and again, so I expect him to get something right one of these days. Throw enough crap and something is bound to stick. However, if he was my leadoff hitter, I'd send him back to the minors with his batting average.

[santanadasavior]

It's good to know that the guy is having fun. What he and Portis and the other young guys do to keep the locker room funny and exciting is great, it lets these guys relax in tough situations.

[cal_junior]

I think you have this backwards. It is not my job as the reader to disprove what Jayson Blair, er, Mike Wise says is true. He uses unnamed sources. Nothing that he has reported through one of these "unnamed sources" since he came to the Post has come to pass. So, that equals zippy credibility for Wise, which is about two shades more than you currently have around here. It is on Wise to build his own credibility to the point where he can use unnamed sources and have them actually have credibility through the merits of his reputation. He does not have any such credibilty in this town because he is a big fake masquerading as an actual columnist.

What you and Wise don't get is that the burden of substance is on Wise and his lackeys -- of whom it seems you're marching lead -- to produce a second, independently verifying source for anything stated by an unnamed source. Maybe I'm missing it, but Wise doesn't ever seem to offer that. Really, your beloved Post is guilty of irresponsible journalism for even running Wise's uncorroborated drivel.

You stated that Wise's statement about informal contact with Williams has been vindicated. The only team reported to have contacted the Redskins seeking permission was Houston. As long as challenges are out there, I challenge you to substantiate this Wise claim from December 20, 2006 -- before the Philly game:



BTW, even a blind squirrel fins a nut every now and again, so I expect him to get something right one of these days. Throw enough crap and something is bound to stick. However, if he was my leadoff hitter, I'd send him back to the minors with his batting average.

You could not be more wrong. To this point you have given no proof that Wise, writing for a credible publication, has written anything incorrect. You are the only person challenging his accuracy, therefore the burden here is on you. "Nothing he has reported through unnamed sources has come to pass"? Give just one example. Wise saying he thinks GW is probably going to leave isn't the same thing as what you're charging.
As for all the carls, water-carrying, and lackey-stuff, here's a dictionary word for you:


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad%20hominem

[CarMike]

TIMEOUT!!!!!!
http://img1.zenhex.com/quiz3/13545/res2.jpg

:D

[BurgundyNGold]

You could not be more wrong. To this point you have given no proof that Wise, writing for a credible publication, has written anything incorrect. You are the only person challenging his accuracy, therefore the burdon here is on you. "Nothing he has reported through unnamed sources has come to pass"? Give just one example. Wise saying he thinks GW is probably going to leave isn't the same thing as what you're charging.
As for all the carls, water-carrying, and so forth, here's a dictionary word for you:


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad%20hominem
The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. Let's not skew or omit that fact just because neither you nor Wise can back up what he routinely asserts as unmitigated fact. I also find it convenient and quite telling that you choose to ignore my reminding you that unnamed sources should be independently verified when practicing journalism with integrity.

Wise is establishing a pattern for the Post. I'm sorry if you don't like it and I won't apologize for being the only person to call it out to this point; however the dots of his method are there to be connected if anyone wishes to do so. He makes assertions and then cannot back it up, a fact that you conveniently choose to ignore. Since he has no credibility covering the Redskins, you're darn tootin' that I'll call him on it. As for challenging his accuracy, just because I am the first person to have called it out up here does not mean that I am the only one who thinks the guy is FOS. Or you for that matter. Let's hear from your supporters on this issue:

[crickets]

Wise said that 5 NFL teams had informally contacted Williams. He is the only person to report that, and as he so often does, only used unnamed team sources or worse, other journalists (who, BTW also happen to be unnamed). that puts Wise on the island for reporting it, not me for challenging him or his minions to substantiate it. I am still waiting for you to do so.

And don't try to muddy the water by attempting to unilaterally declare my argument to be ad hominem, Carl. I call you a watercarrier for the Post because your own actions clearly demonstrate that you are very much that. If you don't like it, then make a lifestyle change. I stick to the facts at hand with the exception of calling you Carl, which I do purely for my own amusement and for that of the growing number of people who are already growing weary of your antics.

[BurgundyNGold]

TIMEOUT!!!!!!
http://img1.zenhex.com/quiz3/13545/res2.jpg

:D

Sorry, Mike. I posted before I saw this. I've said my peace here and have no problem putting this down if the other can. Until the next time he does this.

[CarMike]

By no means quit the debate. Nothing wrong with that. I just had to post that picture of Frankie. :D

[BurgundyNGold]

By no means quit the debate. Nothing wrong with that. I just had to post that picture of Frankie. :D
Is that Frankie? She looks different that in that photo that redskin_rich posted. What is she wearing?

[dj_stouty]

For what its worth, Pastabelly reported that Williams was at the top of at least three team's head coaching list.

I think it is common industry knowledge that Williams was a top choice of many teams this year.

If he wasn't soo sought after, then why would Danny give him a raise?

[CarMike]

Is that Frankie? She looks different that in that photo that redskin_rich posted. What is she wearing?
I think so. I found that picture of her on her MySpace.com link from above.

What is she wearing? Too many clothing. :D

[BurgundyNGold]

For what its worth, Pastabelly reported that Williams was at the top of at least three team's head coaching list.

I think it is common industry knowledge that Williams was a top choice of many teams this year.

If he wasn't soo sought after, then why would Danny give him a raise?
Yeah, but reporting that GW was at the top of 3 teams' list and reporting that 5 teams had independently contacted him during the season and against league rules is very, very different. Especially when you're the only person to report that and you cite unnamed sources.

Gotta go get ready for the game. I'll catch up with this later or tomorrow.

[BurgundyNGold]

I think so. I found that picture of her on her MySpace.com link from above.

What is she wearing? Too many clothing. :D
LOL. She looks like her car hit a peacock on the way to a Univision game show. :D

[bgforever]

By no means quit the debate. Nothing wrong with that. I just had to post that picture of Frankie. :D


As I was saying before maybe.....uh,,,just maybe Frankie's "too hot", er I mean like uh, (drooling), uh, huh, huh, uh......

[cal_junior]

The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. Let's not skew or omit that fact just because neither you nor Wise can back up what he routinely asserts as unmitigated fact. I also find it convenient and quite telling that you choose to ignore my reminding you that unnamed sources should be independently verified when practicing journalism with integrity.

Wise is establishing a pattern for the Post. I'm sorry if you don't like it and I won't apologize for being the only person to call it out to this point; however the dots of his method are there to be connected if anyone wishes to do so. He makes assertions and then cannot back it up, a fact that you conveniently choose to ignore. Since he has no credibility covering the Redskins, you're darn tootin' that I'll call him on it. As for challenging his accuracy, just because I am the first person to have called it out up here does not mean that I am the only one who thinks the guy is FOS. Or you for that matter. Let's hear from your supporters on this issue:

[crickets]

Wise said that 5 NFL teams had informally contacted Williams. He is the only person to report that, and as he so often does, only used unnamed team sources or worse, other journalists (who, BTW also happen to be unnamed). that puts Wise on the island for reporting it, not me for challenging him or his minions to substantiate it. I am still waiting for you to do so.

And don't try to muddy the water by attempting to unilaterally declare my argument to be ad hominem, Carl. I call you a watercarrier for the Post because your own actions clearly demonstrate that you are very much that. If you don't like it, then make a lifestyle change. I stick to the facts at hand with the exception of calling you Carl, which I do purely for my own amusement and for that of the growing number of people who are already growing weary of your antics.

1. You are are correct. And in this instance you are the prosecution.

2. "independently verified"? Sure, in a world with candy clouds and unicorns. There are instances where Party A and Party B do something that only Part C can confirm or deny. Journalism, even at the highest level, most certainly does not require independent verification. Wise tells his editor whether or not he feels comfortable with the credibility of the source, and his editor(s) makes a determination.

3. A "pattern"? Prove it. I would bet Clinton Portis that if asked to back up any piece of any story Wise would be able to. Just because he doesn't tell you who said something doesn't make it false.

4. The only person to report that five team had contacted the Skins? Well maybe the person who told him got what he wanted when his, ahem, client got the money he was looking for.

5. Look up the word unilateral. I said aspects of your argument fell into the category of logical fallacy. My point was, why do you spend as much time talking about me and motives (???) as you do backing up your claims.
And BTW, you proved me oh so right with your latest "Until the next time he does this." Does what? Engage in debate? My bad, I thought that's what forums like this were for. I enjoy discussing topics like this, I only hope you will keep your posts on higher ground.

[cal_junior]

Go Skins!!!!
30 minutes until kickoff.

[TupaFan]

I love Cooley!! That was a great article. Can't wait for the t-shirts to come out. Besides Tom, Chris is my favorite Redskin.

GO SKINS!!

[Evilsockm]

That's not Frankie. that's Adriana Lima. It looks like she took a "which victoria's secret angel are you?" quiz and came up Lima, and pasted the link into her myspace profile.

Cool article. Wierd to see all that info out there.

[BurgundyNGold]

1. You are are correct. And in this instance you are the prosecution.
EDIT:

[Wise is the prosecution as he is the one making the claims in his article. He is the one with the bruden to prove them as accurate and correct. It is not up to me to prove that what he writes in inaccurate. As you are so eager to be his proxy in this case, the burden falls to you to show that Wise is factually accurate in his assertions he gleaned from his "unnamed sources" -- some of which were his fellow media buddies.

If you can't do that, then you should concede as much and get over it.]

2. "independently verified"? Sure, in a world with candy clouds and unicorns. There are instances where Party A and Party B do something that only Part C can confirm or deny. Journalism, even at the highest level, most certainly does not require independent verification. Wise tells his editor whether or not he feels comfortable with the credibility of the source, and his editor(s) makes a determination.
Unless you work for the "Weekly World News", you're way off base as to what the code of journalists ethics entails. I'm not even a journalist and I can find that out pretty easily.

Here is a quote from the journalism guidelines of the George-Anne Daily -- which itself is clearly not on par with the readership of the Post. Nonetheless, here is what they have as their guidelines for verification:


2. VERIFICATION OF SOURCES The reporter (or editor) should verify, or ascertain the truthfulness of the source of each news or informational report appearing in the newspaper prior to publication.

Verification of an eyewitness account of a spontaneous news event or action requires a confirmation from a second, independent source (another witness, written documentation, or observable physical evidence). If there are discrepancies in the two accounts, the reporter should point out these inconsistencies in the story.

If verification from a second, independent source cannot be made, an account from a lone eyewitness to a spontaneous news event or action if it is published at all should be labeled as an unsubstantiated allegation.

Seemingly routine reports from private agencies or individuals should be evaluated both for authenticity of the source and the validity of the content, and at the editors discretion subject to additional independent verification.
If you work in the media as you profess, why do you continue to argue and debate such an axiom of journalism? Maybe that's because Kinko's isn't officially considered "the media", Carl. Sorry to burst your bubble.

3. A "pattern"? Prove it. I would bet Clinton Portis that if asked to back up any piece of any story Wise would be able to. Just because he doesn't tell you who said something doesn't make it false.
Wise's pattern is to use unnamed sources for things he reports. If you can't read what he says in his articles, then I can't help you. That's pretty much just basic reading comprehension. To top it off, the tidbits he supposedly gets from unnamed sources are not reported by anybody else and, to this point, none have to to fruition about the Redskins. As far as any reasonable person is concerned, Wise garners about as much respect as a journalist in DC to this point as the Town Crier of Alexandria. Respect is earned, not assumed. Wise has zero credits in this town.

4. The only person to report that five team had contacted the Skins? Well maybe the person who told him got what he wanted when his, ahem, client got the money he was looking for.
No, Wise reported that 5 teams contacted Williams during the season and in viloation of league rules. Again, your reading comprehension needs work, Carl.

5. Look up the word unilateral. I said aspects of your argument fell into the category of logical fallacy. My point was, why do you spend as much time talking about me and motives (???) as you do backing up your claims.
I've substantiated my hypothesis. Much more than you have. Your anwser is to attack me by asking me to prove what you and Wise have alleged to NOT be true. What kind of logic is that? I'm still waiting on you to definitively show me where Mike Wise's awards that make him so respected. I'm also waiting for your to show me where it is acceptable anywhere outside of tabloids to not get your facts verified. Apparently, both you and Wise went to the Jayson Blair school of journalism where actually having sources and facts are, well, optional.

And BTW, you proved me oh so right with your latest "Until the next time he does this." Does what? Engage in debate? My bad, I thought that's what forums like this were for. I enjoy discussing topics like this, I only hope you will keep your posts on higher ground.
You know what "does this" means. It means you like to purposely agitate other posters, which BTW isn't even so much me. I think you're hopeless on these matters and are only up here to argue for the sake of doing so. If it weren't because some kid who doesn't know any better might come up here and believe your bunk, I would ignore list you and await the inevitable day that you piss off the wrong person up here.

You come in here posting positive articles all the time from the Washington Post and to a lesser extent other media sources that serve to show that the Redskins are covered fairly by the Post and the media in general. These articles are clearly a passive aggressive response to Keino and others who debated with you on the fairness of the media. Not coincidentally, these types of posts and later threads by you started after your debate with Keino, not before. Apparently, being that you fancy yourself a member of the media, you feel some sort of kinship that obligates you to start those thread as passive aggressive little digs and other posters up here who don't think that the Redskins get fair coverage. Apparently, you feel the need to inject your Post water carrying into threads that other posters write about the media purely for the sake of argument. Here's a word of advice: Don't waste your time defending mediots like Wise and Jenkins. Life is too short.

That is what I mean by "until he does this again". Since it seems you're primarily here to agitate, I'll be counting the minutes until you do so again.

[helimech24]

Then show that Wise is factually accurate in his assertions he gleaned from his "unnamed sources" -- some of which were his fellow media buddies, lol.

Otherwise, knock it off.


Unless you work for the "Weekly World News", you're way off base as to what the code of journalists ethics entails. I'm not even a journalist and I can find that out pretty easily.

Here is a quote from the journalism guidelines of the George-Anne Daily -- which itself is clearly not on par with the readership of the Post. Nonetheless, here is what they have as their guidelines for verification:


If you work in the media as you profess, why do you continue to argue and debate such an axiom of journalism? Maybe that's because Kinko's isn't officially considered "the media", Carl. Sorry to burst your bubble.


Wise's pattern is to use unnamed sources for things he reports. If you can't read what he says in his articles, then I can't help you. That's pretty much just basic reading comprehension. To top it off, the tidbits he supposedly gets from unnamed sources are not reported by anybody else and, to this point, none have to to fruition about the Redskins. As far as any reasonable person is concerned, Wise garners about as much respect as a journalist in DC to this point as the Town Crier of Alexandria. Respect is earned, not assumed. Wise has zero credits in this town.


No, Wise reported that 5 teams contacted Williams during the season and in viloation of league rules. Again, your reading comprehension needs work, Carl.


I've substantiated my hypothesis. Much more than you have. Your anwser is to attack me by asking me to prove what you and Wise have alleged to NOT be true. What kind of logic is that? I'm still waiting on you to definitively show me where Mike Wise's awards that make him so respected. I'm also waiting for your to show me where it is acceptable anywhere outside of tabloids to not get your facts verified. Apparently, both you and Wise went to the Jayson Blair school of journalism where actually having sources and facts are, well, optional.


You know what "does this" means. It means you like to purposely agitate other posters, which BTW isn't even so much me. I think you're hopeless on these matters and are only up here to argue for the sake of doing so. If it weren't because some kid who doesn't know any better might come up here and believe your bunk, I would ignore list you and await the inevitable day that you piss off the wrong person up here.
You come in here posting positive articles all the time from the Washington Post and to a lesser extent other media sources that serve to show that the Redskins are covered fairly by the Post and the media in general. These articles are clearly a passive aggressive response to Keino and others who debated with you on the fairness of the media. Not coincidentally, these types of posts and later threads by you started after your debate with Keino, not before. Apparently, being that you fancy yourself a member of the media, you feel some sort of kinship that obligates you to start those thread as passive aggressive little digs and other posters up here who don't think that the Redskins get fair coverage. Apparently, you feel the need to inject your Post water carrying into threads that other posters write about the media purely for the sake of argument. Here's a word of advice: Don't waste your time defending mediots like Wise and Jenkins. Life is too short.

That is what I mean by "until he does this again". Since it seems you're primarily here to agitate, I'll be counting the minutes until you do so again.

That is a nice little rant BNG, I bolded my fav. part,lol.

[akhhorus]

"independently verified"? Sure, in a world with candy clouds and unicorns. There are instances where Party A and Party B do something that only Part C can confirm or deny. Journalism, even at the highest level, most certainly does not require independent verification. Wise tells his editor whether or not he feels comfortable with the credibility of the source, and his editor(s) makes a determination.

You are full of it here. All credible journalism requires at leats tacit independant confirmation. Even if it's just running it by a source in the know and asking them if it is false or not, if you think any decent news source doesn't do this you are way off. Now, if you're talking about blogs, then all rules are out the window.

[cal_junior]

You are full of it here. All credible journalism requires at leats tacit independant confirmation. Even if it's just running it by a source in the know and asking them if it is false or not, if you think any decent news source doesn't do this you are way off. Now, if you're talking about blogs, then all rules are out the window.

I would agree with that, to the extent that it is possible. There are some instances where that cannot be done and decisions about the credibility of a source have to be made. Sometimes it backfires, as with what happened with Newsweek in Iraq. I don't think the use of one source is a black and white issue.

[akhhorus]

I would agree with that, to the extent that it is possible. There are some instances where that cannot be done and decisions about the credibility of a source have to be made. Sometimes it backfires, as with what happened with Newsweek in Iraq. I don't think the use of one source is a black and white issue.

Ah, but Newsweek actually got their story right in the end, and they did verify it. The complaints was that there were claims that there were violent protests over the story(which wasn't true). And anytime anyone is going to write a story saying something that isn't common knowledge, they will run it past a source for verification. Sports journalists get a lot of leeway with sources because this isn't life or death things and they are free to report wild rumors without much basis or verification. But they should be held to the standard than all journalists are.

[cal_junior]

Ah, but Newsweek actually got their story right in the end, and they did verify it. The complaints was that there were claims that there were violent protests over the story(which wasn't true). And anytime anyone is going to write a story saying something that isn't common knowledge, they will run it past a source for verification. Sports journalists get a lot of leeway with sources because this isn't life or death things and they are free to report wild rumors without much basis or verification. But they should be held to the standard than all journalists are.

So the stuff about the Koran was right? I thought they came out with a retraction and apology.

[akhhorus]

So the stuff about the Koran was right? I thought they came out with a retraction and apology.

They did. And a week after they did, a classified FBI report confirms what Newsweek said.

[cal_junior]

We'll try this again:

1. Yes it is up to you. Not sure how else to say this. As far as I know no one besides you (including those Wise writes about, who you would think might get upset at these wild inaccuracies you claim) has challenged a single one of Wise's facts. So, yes, you have to prove his info has been wrong.

2. The primary 'code of journalism' is to be right. You have to print facts, that's really the biggest thing. So when you can confirm something, of course you do. My point was that there are rare instances when you cannot do so, and a paper might have go with a source which cannot be independently confirmed. Like a corporate whistle-blower, for instance.

3. Kinko's? With this you are proving my point. That's not related to the issue and yet you include it only to be malicious. Classy.

4. Wise's use of unnamed sources proves nothing negative until one of his stories is proven wrong. http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=3946 It is common practice and, if anything, means he is going after tougher stories. Maybe the reason no one else is reporting these things is because he is the only one to get the info. Just a thought.

5. "No, Wise reported that 5 teams contacted Williams during the season and in viloation of league rules. Again, your reading comprehension needs work, Carl."

I know. I only pointed out a possible source and reason why nobody else had it. Not sure what you mean here.

6. "Your anwser is to attack me by asking me to prove what you and Wise have alleged to NOT be true."

Lol, asking is attacking? Seriously? Refer to No. 1 for the rest of this point.

7.The last two paragraphs are the most confusing to me. I went back and looked at my posts and most of my arguments on this subject have been with you. In fact I saw the debate with Keino, a rather friendly one in which you were very much involved. I think you're bringing other people into this to isolate me and present an unfair representation of my posts. Again, I think, this part is a little strange. Really nothing in this section is accurate, the only person I seem to have agitated is you.
As in this post, I'm not making digs at people, just defending my point. You, on the other hand, said I am "hopeless" on certain points and referred to my posts as "bunk." Who really is the agitator here?

[cal_junior]

They did. And a week after they did, a classified FBI report confirms what Newsweek said.

Huh, interesting. I admitedly lost track of that story after it happend.

[akhhorus]

We'll try this again:

1. Yes it is up to you. Not sure how else to say this. As far as I know no one besides you (including those Wise writes about, who you would think might get upset at these wild inaccuracies you claim) has challenged a single one of Wise's facts. So, yes, you have to prove his info has been wrong.

2. The primary 'code of journalism' is to be right. You have to print facts, that's really the biggest thing. So when you can confirm something, of course you do. My point was that there are rare instances when you cannot do so, and a paper might have go with a source which cannot be independently confirmed. Like a corporate whistle-blower, for instance.

Wrong. Even with a corporate white blower, any credible news source would confirm most of the information that the whistle blower was giving. No Newspaper would print that company X is making a product that causes rectal cancer in grandmothers unless they could confirm enough of the story independantly.

3. Kinko's? With this you are proving my point. That's not related to the issue and yet you include it only to be malicious. Classy.

4. Wise's use of unnamed sources proves nothing negative until one of his stories is proven wrong. http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=3946 It is common practice and, if anything, means he is going after tougher stories. Maybe the reason no one else is reporting these things is because he is the only one to get the info. Just a thought.

Wise was gently pushed from the New York Times because of his loose use of facts. And this is the first time he's ever covered sports for a big time newspaper. It shows. Wise clearly has no love for the Skins and looks for anything to attack them with. Sally Jenkins, who is just as biased, is based out of New York. And she's the least credible columist covering the Skins(which is kinda of hard to do from 500 miles away).

[cal_junior]

No Newspaper would print that company X is making a product that causes rectal cancer in grandmothers unless they could confirm enough of the story independantly.

Agreed. But there are certainly instances where a single primary source is used. Especially in sports.

Wise was gently pushed from the New York Times because of his loose use of facts.

You must have better info that I do. I remember seeing something that speculated Wise was just one example of top journalists fleeing a weakening Times. Basically he was seeking out a paper that featured its sports section more prominently. And the Post gave him a ton of money.

And this is the first time he's ever covered sports for a big time newspaper. It shows.

Not counting the New York Times, right?

And she's the least credible columist covering the Skins.

I'm not sure she really "covers the Skins" in the same way Boswell and Wilbon do. I agree she's not around a lot, if that's what you mean.

[akhhorus]

Agreed. But there are certainly instances where a single primary source is used. Especially in sports.

And the articles and reports are shaky at best and often wrong. For good reason. And even in sports, where fact checking isn't a priority, you can't write an outragous rumor based on a single source that you haven't checked out.

You must have better info that I do. I remember seeing something that speculated Wise was just one example of top journalists fleeing a weakening Times. Basically he was seeking out a paper that featured its sports section more prominently. And the Post gave him a ton of money.

Not counting the New York Times, right?

Wise didn't cover sports for the Times. He wrote features and did reviews of movies and shows. He didn't leave for some salary bump, he read the writing on the wall. I can almost guarantee the Post isn't paying him much more than he made at the Times. He's not the featured Redskins columnist and doesn't have the prominence of Wilbon or Boswell.

I'm not sure she really "covers the Skins" in the same way Boswell and Wilbon do. I agree she's not around a lot, if that's what you mean.

Her irregular columns focus primarly on the Skins. And she's wrong about 85% of the time with her bold predictions. She's based out of New York and freelances up there for other publications. As for Wise, read this column if you think he's not an idiot in retrospect:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18484-2005Mar8.html

And he hasn't bothered to declare how he was wrong last time I checked. My favorite line of his was:

Does anyone believe the Redskins are better off without Pierce, Coles and Smoot? Put your hand down, Danny.

And again, I haven't seen the Mea Culpa that so many people trashing the Skins before the season have issued. Instead, Wise focused on how Poor Lavar has gotten screwed by the franchise.

[cal_junior]

Found this in an old Washingtonion article in '04. The story mentions he had nine years of experience at the Times, mostly doing NBA basketball:

"Former Post sports editor George Solomon tried to hire Wise in 1999 to cover the NBA, but Wise says he wasn’t ready then to leave the Times. The Chicago Tribune made a run at Wise recently to be its lead columnist, but he declined."

[akhhorus]

Found this in an old Washingtonion article in '04. The story mentions he had nine years of experience at the Times, mostly doing NBA basketball:

Ah yes, he did cover the NBA. I find it funny that Sally Jenkins loved the hire. And Wise does write Basketball columns for the Post, but he's not qualified to write NFL columns. He clearly doesn't know the team and doesn't bother to cultivate sources that give him good info like the beat writers and guys like Wilbon and Boswell do.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Regarding Cooley, I think teams are accounting for him easily (now) due to the types of routes he is running. I think Joe could help Santana out with coverage by sending Cooley deep into the seam. If all Cooley is doing is running little out patterns, drags and screens, he will be easily covered by the Seahawks, just as the Iggles and Bucs did.

[redwolf1218]

Regarding Cooley, I think teams are accounting for him easily (now) due to the types of routes he is running. I think Joe could help Santana out with coverage by sending Cooley deep into the seam. If all Cooley is doing is running little out patterns, drags and screens, he will be easily covered by the Seahawks, just as the Iggles and Bucs did.
they diagrammed it on espn the other night, saying when Bunell rolls left (since he cant be effective at all rolling right) they just swarm Cooley. pretty easy to defend.

[BurgundyNGold]

We'll try this again:
Yes it is up to you. Not sure how else to say this. As far as I know no one besides you (including those Wise writes about, who you would think might get upset at these wild inaccuracies you claim) has challenged a single one of Wise's facts. So, yes, you have to prove his info has been wrong.
This is about as clearly as I can say this:

In the court of public opinion, the prosectutor (Wise) made claims about defendant (Williams, Redskins). The prosecutor (Wise) must back it up or the statement gets tossed. If the "evidence" as introduced is sufficiently prejudicial, the prosecutor (Wise) could be fined or otherwise sanctioned.

Since neither Wise nor you as his proxy have proven a single shred of what he has reported through unnamed sources about the Redskins as fact, the "evidence" should be tossed out as unsubstantiated and prejudicial.

The primary 'code of journalism' is to be right. You have to print facts, that's really the biggest thing. So when you can confirm something, of course you do. My point was that there are rare instances when you cannot do so, and a paper might have go with a source which cannot be independently confirmed. Like a corporate whistle-blower, for instance.
You're basing your argument on whistle blowers? Even in those very rare circumstances it is highly desirable and, depending on the level of legal exposure of the publication, virtually required to seek independent verification. I am quite certain that Wise's unnamed source was not a tobacco executive, so you don't have a leg to stand on with this diluted version of your previous argument.

Kinko's? With this you are proving my point. That's not related to the issue and yet you include it only to be malicious. Classy.
Stop exhibiting all the journalistic knowledge of a copy jockey and you won't be mistaken for one.

Wise's use of unnamed sources proves nothing negative until one of his stories is proven wrong. http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=3946 It is common practice and, if anything, means he is going after tougher stories. Maybe the reason no one else is reporting these things is because he is the only one to get the info. Just a thought.
He hasn't been substantiated, but he hasn't been proven wrong. Hmmm. How about this: There is life after death because an unnamned source at work told me so. See? Anyone can be Mike Wise. :rolleyes:

If you're going to make claims that you attribute to an unnamed source that is not corroborated, you are the only person to report it and it ultimately does not prove to be true -- which pretty much covers his entire body of work on the Redskins that doesn not involve a fluff piece about Cooley -- that should raise red flags for anyone who is looking for honest and responsible journailsm. If I were you, I'd be begging for the guy to get canned because of this as an insult to the integrity of your industry. Hell, if he got fired you might even move up the ladder a rung or two.

"No, Wise reported that 5 teams contacted Williams during the season and in viloation of league rules. Again, your reading comprehension needs work, Carl."

I know. I only pointed out a possible source and reason why nobody else had it. Not sure what you mean here.
No, you tried to say that Wise reported that 5 teams had contacted the Redskins, as in directly and legally after the season. That's not true and anyone who read the article should know that. When Wise reported this, nobody had contacted the Redskins. In fact, Wise stated that 5 teams had contacted Williams during the season, which of course is against league tampering rules. That's a pretty heavy allegation that Wise levied and that you chose to gloss over. Once again, Wise is the prosecutor, trying a case in the court of public opinion. And yet, he has no proof aside from another unnamed source who may or may not be one "who covers the team". That's some irresponsible reporting right there. If you don't think so, then for the sake of honesty and integrity, I hope your work never enters the public record.

"Your anwser is to attack me by asking me to prove what you and Wise have alleged to NOT be true."

Lol, asking is attacking? Seriously? Refer to No. 1 for the rest of this point.
You insist that I have to offer proof to refute what one single solitary reporter has trumpeted out to the world. When I correctly remind you that the burden of proof is on the prosecution (Wise), you try to turn it on me by asserting that somehow I am the prosecution, lol. Are you kidding me?

You talk a big game, but much like Wise himself, you don't deliver. I am still waiting on you to substantiate:

1) Your claim that Wise is celebrated. Where are his awards? Where is anything that should serve to make anyone think of him as other than the ambulance chasing hack that he is?
2) The fact that unnamed sources don't have to be verified as part of standard operating procedure in journalism. And don't point me to a blog.
3) ANY of the Mike Wise's outlandish claims about Williams or Lindsey

The last two paragraphs are the most confusing to me. I went back and looked at my posts and most of my arguments on this subject have been with you. In fact I saw the debate with Keino, a rather friendly one in which you were very much involved. I think you're bringing other people into this to isolate me and present an unfair representation of my posts. Again, I think, this part is a little strange. Really nothing in this section is accurate, the only person I seem to have agitated is you.
As in this post, I'm not making digs at people, just defending my point. You, on the other hand, said I am "hopeless" on certain points and referred to my posts as "bunk." Who really is the agitator here?
I assure you that I am not the only one who sees what you've done in your short time here. As for you being hopeless, I can only call them as I see them. When you continue to deny that it is Wise's responsibility to be able to substantiate his own allegations, you come back to me and say that I should have to prove him wrong. That's not how it works in journalism or in America in general. If you put yourself out there, you have to back up what you say. Yet, you keep trying to say that it is somehow my responsibility to prove Wise wrong. The fact that you keep coming back with this ludicrous point just further goes to show that you are hopelessly carrying for Wise and the Post. As I said before, if you don't like that perception, make a lifestyle change and see Wise for the hack that he is.

As for what you're saying being bunk, when you come up here and say that reporters don't have to check their facts and that unnamed sources don't need to be independetly verified -- in clear violation of an established journalistic code of ethics -- what exactly would you call it? You might've been able to call it an oversight if not for your stalwart defense of that particular edge of cliff. If it looks like bunk and it smells like bink, guess what? It's probably your argument.

[BurgundyNGold]

Her irregular columns focus primarly on the Skins. And she's wrong about 85% of the time with her bold predictions. She's based out of New York and freelances up there for other publications. As for Wise, read this column if you think he's not an idiot in retrospect:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18484-2005Mar8.html

And he hasn't bothered to declare how he was wrong last time I checked. My favorite line of his was:

Does anyone believe the Redskins are better off without Pierce, Coles and Smoot? Put your hand down, Danny.

And again, I haven't seen the Mea Culpa that so many people trashing the Skins before the season have issued. Instead, Wise focused on how Poor Lavar has gotten screwed by the franchise.
Jeebus, could this guy be a bigger a-hole? I don't care who you are, comparing Joe Gibbs to Manny, Moe OR Jack is out of line.

BTW, this is my favorite part of the article:

Correction to This Article
Earlier versions of this column incorrectly referred to Fred Smoot, of the Washington Redskins, as a "Pro Bowl, ball-hawking cornerback." In fact, Smoot was a Pro Bowl alternate and did not play in the game. This version has been corrected.

ROTFLMAO!!!

[cal_junior]

1. This was literally the first thing that popped up under Google: http://apse.dallasnews.com/apr1999/8contest.htm - check under feature stories. I also know that Shaq's people selected Wise to write his biography, but the NYTimes wouldn't let him do it because of conflict of interest. I doubt the representation of the single biggest name in the NBA would pick a "hack" to write his bio.
2. Did you just dismiss something written for the American Journalism Review as a "blog"? Yikes.
3. Wise reports five teams contacted GW, stating the info as fact. No "sources said" or anything. My guess would be that info cme from GW's people using the paper as leverage with the The Danny. Worked pretty well, didn't it? GW's agent would certainly never confirm this, nor would an NFL team admit they violated policy. If you notice he seems to confirm this by citing an unnamed team official as a second, validating sourse. Here's a guess: GW's people tell him something, Wise goes to a member of Danny's team for off-the-record confirmation.
I am not arguing that sources do not need to be independently verified. Of course they do. Only that there are instances where it is impossible. That is all.

We'll drop the whole "who needs to prove what" thing becuse you seem convinced that Wise is somehow prosecutorial by reporting things that have yet to been challenged outside of a fan forum. Instead, I challenge you to give me one piece of evidence that Wise is a hack. I think at least one APSE award (I honestly did a very brief search) and being lured away from the NYTimes to the Post is my evidence that he is one of the top guys in the business.

[WorldBFree76]

I want a "Captain Chaos" shirt :)

[BurgundyNGold]

1. This was literally the first thing that popped up under Google: http://apse.dallasnews.com/apr1999/8contest.htm - check under feature stories. I also know that Shaq's people selected Wise to write his biography, but the NYTimes wouldn't let him do it because of conflict of interest. I doubt the representation of the single biggest name in the NBA would pick a "hack" to write his bio.
Sure they would, especially if he were to heap effusive praise upon Shaq:


hack:

3.

a) One who undertakes unpleasant or distasteful tasks for money or reward; a hireling

b) A writer hired to produce routine or commercial writing


2. Did you just dismiss something written for the American Journalism Review as a "blog"? Yikes.
No, I dismissed the link you sent as a non sequitur contribution. It was a piece that argued that dimissing unnamed sources out of hand was counterproductive. Since I'm not implying that, it was not relevant to the discussion. My problem is not inherently with unnamed sources being used, only that the facts they yield are not independently verified or are provided by fellow members of the media.

3. Wise reports five teams contacted GW, stating the info as fact. No "sources said" or anything. My guess would be that info cme from GW's people using the paper as leverage with the The Danny. Worked pretty well, didn't it? GW's agent would certainly never confirm this, nor would an NFL team admit they violated policy. If you notice he seems to confirm this by citing an unnamed team official as a second, validating sourse. Here's a guess: GW's people tell him something, Wise goes to a member of Danny's team for off-the-record confirmation.
I am not arguing that sources do not need to be independently verified. Of course they do. Only that there are instances where it is impossible. That is all.
That's an awful lot of guessing to go along with an empty plate of fact. And we're back to using an unnamed team offical as unmitigated fact again? I'm starting to feel like I'm actually IN a Wise article, lol.

Wise made the allegation of tampering. ESPN didn't, Neither did CBS or FOX. Just Mikey. He likes it. Unfortunately, it amounts to bupkis.

As for the verification side, I'm glad to see we can agree that unnamed sources need to be independetly verified. I would even go so far as to say that in certain extreme circumstances an exception exists for every rule, including this one. However, I am fairly certain that this story was not one of them and Wise's consistent use of unverified unnamed sources coupled with his goose egg record for getting things right in this town serve as adequate evidence for any naysayer to reasonably conclude that Wise might very well be FOS on this or anything else that is Redskins related.

We'll drop the whole "who needs to prove what" thing becuse you seem convinced that Wise is somehow prosecutorial by reporting things that have yet to been challenged outside of a fan forum. Instead, I challenge you to give me one piece of evidence that Wise is a hack. I think at least one APSE award (I honestly did a very brief search) and being lured away from the NYTimes to the Post is my evidence that he is one of the top guys in the business.
As I read this very thread there is contention about the circumstances under which Wise left the Times and was hired by the Post. The only place where you've cited that hiring Wise was a coup was in Washingtonian Magazine. To that I replied that you might want to see the letterhead that article was written on.

I don't doubt that Wise may have an award or two. I mean, how do you make it to the Post and not even have at least a few awards? However, I'm not going to simply assume that he's as accomplished as you think he is when a cursory search for me didn't reveal any such peer recognition. Hell, even Sally Jenkins has more peer recognition than Wise. That's just straight up sad.

[cal_junior]

And we're back to using an unnamed team offical as unmitigated fact again? I'm starting to feel like I'm actually IN a Wise article, lol.

No, in my admitedly hypothetical scenario I suggested the team official was used to confirm what a GW rep may have told Wise. A whisper from an agent, along with confirmation from a team official. Two sources.

Wise made the allegation of tampering. ESPN didn't, Neither did CBS or FOX. Just Mikey. He likes it. Unfortunately, it amounts to bupkis.

Wait a minute, Fox, CBS and ESPN missed something that the Post had? No, I don't believe it. I have a feeling violations like that happen all the time, and are no cause for an outlet the size of those three to show up days late for a relative non-story. If you notice, the Post didn't headline the story with the breaking news that teams were breaking rules. The info was simply used to prove how coveted GW was.

As I read this very thread there is contention about the circumstances under which Wise left the Times and was hired by the Post.

A claim which has in no way been substantiated.

However, I'm not going to simply assume that he's as accomplished as you think he is when a cursory search for me didn't reveal any such peer recognition.

I didn't make-up the link I sent you. Try searching the APSE website.

Hell, even Sally Jenkins has more peer recognition than Wise. That's just straight up sad.

She is pretty terrible, that's why Lance Armstrong and Pat Summitt wanted nothing to do with her. Wait a minute. . .

[cal_junior]

Apparantly the Washingtonian has some rep for being Post-friendly (I don't know, I don't read it regularly), but here in an article where the magazine calls out the Post for getting beat on a huge story, Wilbon says some things that might qualify as confirmation of Wise's talent.

The quote from Wilbon is "Mike Wise is damn good at what he does. He's the best basketball writer in the country."



http://www.washingtonian.com/inwashington/buzz/jordan.html

[BurgundyNGold]

No, in my admitedly hypothetical scenario I suggested the team official was used to confirm what a GW rep may have told Wise. A whisper from an agent, along with confirmation from a team official. Two sources.
Too many dots, not enough proof to connect them. At least my contention that Wise is FOS until proven otherwise is pretty direct. For most people who are not Post apologists, credibility is earned. Apparently for you, not only does it not have to be earned, it's worthy of the benefit of the doubt to the point where you're making up hypotheticals that involved people whe weren't even mentioned in the article.

Wait a minute, Fox, CBS and ESPN missed something that the Post had? No, I don't believe it. I have a feeling violations like that happen all the time, and are no cause for an outlet the size of those three to show up days late for a relative non-story. If you notice, the Post didn't headline the story with the breaking news that teams were breaking rules. The info was simply used to prove how coveted GW was.
Not only did NO other major outlet report this, they didn't even rerun what would ordinarily be bombshell news that Wise reported. I wonder what that says about the credibility of his claim and perhaps Wise himself among his peers?

A claim which has in no way been substantiated.
That's true. We'll have to see how that shakes out because I too was unaware of how Wise left the Times.

I didn't make-up the link I sent you. Try searching the APSE website.
Nobody said that you made up anything aside from your outlandish defense theories for Wise's articles. I'm surprised that none of them involved Colombian drug lords, lol.

She is pretty terrible, that's why Lance Armstrong and Pat Summitt wanted nothing to do with her. Wait a minute. . .
Even a blind rat finds a piece of cheese every once in a while. ;)

[BurgundyNGold]

Apparantly the Washingtonian has some rep for being Post-friendly (I don't know, I don't read it regularly), but here in an article where the magazine calls out the Post for getting beat on a huge story, Wilbon says some things that might qualify as confirmation of Wise's talent.

The quote from Wilbon is "Mike Wise is damn good at what he does. He's the best basketball writer in the country."

http://www.washingtonian.com/inwashington/buzz/jordan.html
Washingtonian Magazine again. Still, it would be one thing for Wlibon to say that first sentence. That second sentence is above and beyond what is necessary so it would lead you to believe that it is genuinely how he feels.

Maybe Wise should go back to basketball where he apparently has fans?

[Keino]

I'm wondering how Carl is going to defend Wise's latest attempt at splitting the Redskins' lockerroom.....

[cal_junior]

I'm wondering how Carl is going to defend Wise's latest attempt at splitting the Redskins' lockerroom.....

If you are discussing the "Good and Ugly" piece, I will do no such thing. Clearly we fundamentally disagree on issues related to newpaper commentary and I'm not sure if there is a point to dragging it out. I read that column and my first thought is, Wow, Wise really is on LaVar's side. And I think that I agree with most of his take on Taylor. I'm not sure I've ever been more excited about a young Redskin than I am about #21 and is scares me that his decision-making might hurt his career. I never thought that Wise and the Post were making a point to divide the Redskns locker room. We will have to agree to disagree.

[BurgundyNGold]

I'm wondering how Carl is going to defend Wise's latest attempt at splitting the Redskins' lockerroom.....
What can you say? The guy just keeps coming back. Like herpes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/07/AR2006010701520.html

You gotta love the caption:

"LaVar Arrington's tenure with owner Daniel Snyder and the Redskins could end next week, but it's all breaking right now"

:rolleyes:

BTW, I love how he is so very clearly pandering to LaVar. Wise is obviously trying to set up a relationship by which with LaVar through which he can use his penchant for not keeping his emotions out of his mouth to get Redskin material to write about. Normally, it would just be a slimy thing to do -- setting up someone with the full intent to betray their trust later on -- but, after all, he is endeavoring to be a reporter, so I guess it's OK. :rolleyes: I just take exception for him doing this to my team and one of my favorite players.

Maybe if we're lucky, he'll get a story about the Chicago Bulls to drop in his lap just like the Jordan story and the Chicago Tribune will hire him out and away from the Post.

[Keino]

If you are discussing the "Good and Ugly" piece, I will do no such thing. Clearly we fundamentally disagree on issues related to newpaper commentary and I'm not sure if there is a point to dragging it out. I read that column and my first thought is, Wow, Wise really is on LaVar's side. And I think that I agree with most of his take on Taylor. I'm not sure I've ever been more excited about a young Redskin than I am about #21 and is scares me that his decision-making might hurt his career. I never thought that Wise and the Post were making a point to divide the Redskns locker room. We will have to agree to disagree.


Being on Lavar's side is one thing. Speculation on his future during a playoff run is far from appropriate, when again he is citing unsubsantiated "facts". I challenge you to find pieces written like that by any of the Columnists from 91 SB run (Wilbon, Kornheiser, Boswell, Aldridge, Chad).

For example, what is his source for this particular nugget: Williams's coaching staff left him with his current identity: An unwanted player sure he will be on a different team next season.

Here's a thought...Maybe...Just maybe, the coaches (Williams in particular) know what the hell they are doing and that it was incumbant upon Lavar to conform, not the other way around.

He should stick to basketball. Im sure the Wizards played over the weekend, winning one at Boston.

[cal_junior]

For example, what is his source for this particular nugget:

I think you may lose some of the anti-Wise contingent if this is your criticism of this particular story. Here is a direct quote from LaVar from the infamous Washington Times story:

"It's crazy and unfair that something I had very little to do with derailed my relationship with management. You see they're not marketing you anymore. You see people interacting with other people the way they used to interact with you. I watched how things were with Stephen Davis. I watched how things were with Champ [Bailey]. I saw the same things happening to me.
"I restructured my contract to help the Redskins. Do you think I'm going to do that now? Of course not."

Sounds like a guys who thinks he's out of there. In fact, the lede of the Times piece was:

LaVar Arrington knows he won't be a member of the Washington Redskins much longer.

[Keino]

Precisley my point. His source for the information was his competing in-town newspaper. Lavar has claimed through numerous sources that he was mis-quoted and taken out of context.

What is the motive for mentioning that in the recent column? It had nothing to do with the game or the playoffs. Did someone wuith knowledge in theorganization say that Arrington wasn't wanted?

By the way George, I enjoyed your column this week but I think you are better when talking about baseball.

[Keino]

Directly from his coach:

[The interception] was the type of play that we envisioned when we started putting this thing together," Williams said. "It's nice to see that we finally have a healthy LaVar Arrington. Lemar Marshall and Marcus have been doing that since they got there. It was nice to see LaVar jump in there. He made a lot of nice plays. We were able to keep him in there quite a bit because the packages we had going into the game matched up with what Tampa was doing."


Sure sounds unwanted to me......:rolleyes:

[akhhorus]

Precisley my point. His source for the information was his competing in-town newspaper. Lavar has claimed through numerous sources that he was mis-quoted and taken out of context.

What is the motive for mentioning that in the recent column? It had nothing to do with the game or the playoffs. Did someone wuith knowledge in theorganization say that Arrington wasn't wanted?

By the way George, I enjoyed your column this week but I think you are better when talking about baseball.

I still like when Wise called Santana Moss a #3 wideout at best, and that Portis would ultimately let Gibbs down. Does he do all his research through the Joe-T Foundation?

[cal_junior]

Precisley my point. His source for the information was his competing in-town newspaper. Lavar has claimed through numerous sources that he was mis-quoted and taken out of context.

What is the motive for mentioning that in the recent column? It had nothing to do with the game or the playoffs. Did someone wuith knowledge in theorganization say that Arrington wasn't wanted?

By the way George, I enjoyed your column this week but I think you are better when talking about baseball.

If your problem with Wise here is that he is out of line saying LaVar feels unwanted I think you're just looking for aspects of his stories to take issue with. I'd like any fan to make a case that LaVar is fully confident he'll be a Skin next year.

As for your second point, Wise doesn't argue that the Skins don't want him, but rather that the player feels unwanted.

[BurgundyNGold]

I still like when Wise called Santana Moss a #3 wideout at best, and that Portis would ultimately let Gibbs down. Does he do all his research through the Joe-T Foundation?
OK, that was too funny, lol.

Yeah, Wise has to be the worst prognosticator in the history of bad prognosticators. The article when Smoot left reminded me of when Will Ferrell did the John Edward "Crossing Over" spoof on SNL.

[cal_junior]

OK, that was too funny, lol.

Yeah, Wise has to be the worst prognosticator in the history of bad prognosticators. The article when Smoot left reminded me of when Will Ferrell did the John Edward "Crossing Over" spoof on SNL.

To further that point, Wise was famously criticized for writing a 3,000 word piece for the Times magazine criticizing both Marcus Camby and the Knicks for bringing him in. Literally the following week the Knicks made the playoffs and ended up going to the finals.

[BurgundyNGold]

To further that point, Wise was famously criticized for writing a 3,000 word piece for the Times magazine criticizing both Marcus Camby and the Knicks for bringing him in. Literally the following week the Knicks made the playoffs and ended up going to the finals.
LMAO! This guy should do a George Costanza and do the complete opposite of every instinct that he's ever had.

[Keino]

If your problem with Wise here is that he is out of line saying LaVar feels unwanted I think you're just looking for aspects of his stories to take issue with. I'd like any fan to make a case that LaVar is fully confident he'll be a Skin next year.

As for your second point, Wise doesn't argue that the Skins don't want him, but rather that the player feels unwanted.


I've stated my problem with Wise. If you can't understand what my problem is, I suggest you scroll up and read it again.

The implication is clearly that Williams and the coaching staff have given Lavar that identity ergo they don't want him and that's why Lavar correctly feels that way. I'm still trying to figure out the relevence to the current story.

I'm not going to make the case that Lavar feels this way or that, since I haven't spoken to him. You would think that someone holding themselves up to be a journalist would have the same type of integrity, George, as opposed to lazily relying on an unconfirmed story that the player himself disputed contextually.

I'm still waiting for you to produce, as I requested, an example of similar type of coverage from the Post Pre-Daniel Snyder.

[CNYSkinFan]

I still like when Wise called Santana Moss a #3 wideout at best, and that Portis would ultimately let Gibbs down. Does he do all his research through the Joe-T Foundation?

Classic...where is that Joe-t clown now that his Giants got smacked around.

[cal_junior]

I've stated my problem with Wise. If you can't understand what my problem is, I suggest you scroll up and read it again.

The implication is clearly that Williams and the coaching staff have given Lavar that identity ergo they don't want him and that's why Lavar correctly feels that way. I'm still trying to figure out the relevence to the current story.

I'm not going to make the case that Lavar feels this way or that, since I haven't spoken to him. You would think that someone holding themselves up to be a journalist would have the same type of integrity, George, as opposed to lazily relying on an unconfirmed story that the player himself disputed contextually.

I'm still waiting for you to produce, as I requested, an example of similar type of coverage from the Post Pre-Daniel Snyder.

Let me try and understand.

This, I believe, is the piece of the column you take issue with:

Arrington was once Taylor, a supernova flying all over the field with deadly, big-play intent, until injuries and an inability to mesh with Williams's coaching staff left him with his current identity: An unwanted player sure he will be on a different team next season.

Arrington used to be a big-play-type player flying all over the field? I think you'd agree with that. Injuries and not being able to work well with GW was why he didn't play? Pretty much a fact. Now he is a player who feels unwanted? I doubt you could make a case against that.

Your issue is with Wise linking the Redskins to LaVar feeling unwanted, that it's not necessarily because of the team that he feels like he won't be back? That perhaps LaVar has a persecution complex having nothing to do with anything specifically done by the team? I'm honestly just asking for confirmation here.

[Keino]

Arrington used to be a big-play-type player flying all over the field? I think you'd agree with that. Injuries and not being able to work well with GW was why he didn't play? Pretty much a fact. Now he is a player who feels unwanted? I doubt you could make a case against that.

Arrington used to be a big play type of player who was allowed to not play within the scheme. When he was forced to play within a scheme he hated, because he was made to be disciplined, he had his best season, statistically. Injuries and constant play outside of the scheme is why he didn't play. AGAIN - I don't know how he feels as I haven't talked to him. Neither has Wise and that's why Wise's speculation is bunk.

Your issue is with Wise linking the Redskins to LaVar feeling unwanted, that it's not necessarily because of the team that he feels like he won't be back? That perhaps LaVar has a persecution complex having nothing to do with anything specifically done by the team? I'm honestly just asking for confirmation here.

My issue is Four pronged. 1. Wise is painting a picture that he hasn't bothered to confirm personally. There are conflicting reports about the context of Lavar's comments to the Times, from Lavar himself. I love how you continue to ignore that particular point. 2. Wise is implying that the Redskins have made Lavar feel unwanted and that Lavar has been somehow "wronged" in this process of reaching the playoffs for the first time as a player. 3. In my opinion, based on prior articles by Wise, he is attmpting to cause or give the appearence of discord in the lockerroom. and 4. How are the comments relevent to an article that is supposed to be about the game, more or less?

My 5th gripe has nothing to do with the Post, but rather the fact that it seems that your number one mission here seems to be less about talking Redskins and more about defending the Post. I've asked several times now that you produce an article similar in nature to that of your 2 favorite writers (Jenkins and Wise) from Pre-Daniel Snyder days while the team was in the playoffs, and you keep ignoring that request. God knows that winning APSE awards trumps any actual knowledge about the team or doing any legwork to confirm the facts that support the opinions given. Yes that last sentence is Sarcasm.

[cal_junior]

1. As for the first half, does interviewing LaVar for the story not count as personal confirmation? In the column he talks about interviewing him after the TB game. As for the second, this is from the December 29 Virginian-Pilot:

Arrington on Wednesday tried to clarify his comments. He said in a TV interview that while he wasn’t misquoted, the story was the “writer’s interpretation of the situation.”
He said he thought that the story would be a season wrap-up and that his comments wouldn’t be published until the Redskins were done for the year. “The two overriding themes are that I want to beat the Eagles and I want to remain a Redskin,” Arrington told several TV stations. “Whether or not I’ll be able to do that, I don’t know.”

Sounds to me like his biggest gripe was with the timing of the article, not its content. And along with saying that, he expresses the very doubt about returning that Wise referenced.

2. I would imagine this comes, at least in part, from the interview with LaVar. In his opinion (this is a column) the Skins have made LaVar feel unwanted.
3. There’s is certainly no way for us to confirm or deny that here. I guess in my opinion, based on reading those same articles and with a look at his past, I doubt Wise would care whether his writing causes discord in the locker-room. But as you said, this is an opinion issue.
4. The column is being used as a sidebar. The immediate future of one of the most popular (and well-paid) Skins over the past five years is a side issue to the postseason run. People care about what happens to LaVar.
5. First I disagree with your premise. Without any doubt I can tell you my No. 1 goal here is to discuss and gain insight into the Washington Redskins. And, as a matter of fact, I feel “defending” the Post’s coverage is another way to discuss the Skins. I’m not talking about the Op-ed page here. My favorite writers at the Post are Kornheiser and Boswell, though, as you well know, I hold its entire commentary staff in high regard.
I assume your goal with the final request is to prove that the Post’s coverage of the team was far more positive before Jenkins and Wise, thought I’m not sure what that would mean if true. Based on a few articles I’ve found, the Post was getting criticized for being homers and may have made a conscious decision to take the area’s teams to task more often. Enter Wise and Jenkins.
Whether that was a good or bad decision, I don’t know. I just haven’t seen coverage that could be called biased or unfair. Compare the ratio of neutral news stories and positive columns to those opinion pieces written by Jenkins and Wise. I bet its 20-to-1 or more.
If I have taken these discussions in a negative direction, I’m sorry. I really enjoy the back-and-forth, especially when it is good-natured. Ultimately we are all fans here, myself for more than two decades.

[BurgundyNGold]

George Solomon is here? And Emilio Garcia-Ruiz?! Damn, I knew I should've worn underwear. :D

[Keino]

1. George, while he may have talked to Arrington after the game, there is not one quote that indicates that they talked about Lavar feeling "unwanted". In fact the very same quotes that he uses are what you can hear Arrington saying to EVERY reporter after the game if you watch the Post-game show. For all we know, he watched the same Comcast post-game show we all watched It Feels good...Surreal and indescribable was the theme of Lavar's comments, but I can see how you would view that as confirmation of feeling unwanted. Thats also sarcasm. As for the Virginia Pilot article, please post a link to the entire story. I'm quite sure he told Doc Walker that his comments were taken out of context.

2. You imagine or you know? If any of Lavar's comments drew him to that conclusion, shouldn't there be a supporting quote to that effect? This was an interview was it not?

3. Ok. opinion.

4. People do not care about Lavar more than the Redskins, nor do people want to read about Lavar's feelings during the playoff run if they are not team oriented feelings. It is only an issue because columnists like Wise are attempting to make it an issue, as you say "not caring" or as I would say, having no regard for how the team may be affected.

5. If you say so, Emilio. Sounds to me like you are more interested in defending your editorial decisions. No, my purpose in requesting a story of a similar nature to that which you defend is to prove that the Washington Post has an axe to grind with Daniel Snyder that they MUST balance with coverage of the single most important sports team in the Washington area according to reader polls. Why else would a Strength of Schedule argument be used when only 2 games on the schedule are determined by order of finish and that argument that was advaced by that evil harpy of a hack Sally Jenkins and defended by you, when the NFL itself has said that the Redskins schedule is one of the toughest.
Im not asking for homer coverage. Im asking for columnists who fashion themselves as journalists to act like journallists. That when an opinion is given it is supported by the facts. That statements of fact be verified and re-verified for accuracy. I think there is a moral obligation on the part of columnists to have an idea what they are talking about. Wise and Jenkins fall short on that moral obligation and as such should burn in hell.....or at least have to confess their sins against journalistic integrity.

[BurgundyNGold]

Whether that was a good or bad decision, I don’t know. I just haven’t seen coverage that could be called biased or unfair. Compare the ratio of neutral news stories and positive columns to those opinion pieces written by Jenkins and Wise. I bet its 20-to-1 or more.
Yeah, you see, I presented you with a list of Sally's football related articles since the season started. 6 or 7 or them were either negative or providing comfort to the enemy during the week of combat. None were positive, until an article she did after the season where she gave props to Brunell -- not the Redskins -- Brunell. So that ratio clearly flies in the face of what you're trying to say here. This is largely because you don't see the articles as negative. Therein lies your problem; you're married to the Post on these articles. Nearly everyone else up here sees that, but you selectively don't. Whatever.

Now Wise is a bit more sophisticated than Jenkins. She comes right at you like she was going after the last bear claw in the box. Wise operates in layers. He has a disengenuine style about him where he supplies backhanded compliments or flat out trashes the Redskins while seemingly praising other people in the organization to make it seem somewhat balanced. However, if I did a similar search for Wise's past articles on the Redskins, I am sure that it would turn up a ton of articles like the ones we have discussed and that Akh posted earlier. In the end, I'm sure that his ratio would similar to that of Sally. That is to say NOWHERE near your 20-1 positive/neutral estimate.

Jenkins and Wise are hit men. Defending them is like defending the Sandinistas. Just because you might understand what they're doing and who directed them to do it doesn't make it excusable.

[cal_junior]

In the end, I'm sure that his ratio would similar to that of Sally. That is to say NOWHERE near your 20-1 positive/neutral estimate.

How many so-called negative columns do you think the combo of Wise and Jenkins have wrtten this year? Maybe 12-15. Now estimate how many Redskins-related pieces the Post has done since Week 1 - Wilbon, Boswell, La Canfora, Bryant, Saslow, maybe toss in web-only pieces and wire pieces they run (I only see the Post online). I would conservatively say 10-12 per week. Multiply that by 18 or 19 (playoffs, baby) and you have about 180-200. If the ratio is 200ish to 12ish, you are in that general ballpark.

[cal_junior]

1. George, while he may have talked to Arrington after the game, there is not one quote that indicates that they talked about Lavar feeling "unwanted". In fact the very same quotes that he uses are what you can hear Arrington saying to EVERY reporter after the game if you watch the Post-game show. For all we know, he watched the same Comcast post-game show we all watched It Feels good...Surreal and indescribable was the theme of Lavar's comments, but I can see how you would view that as confirmation of feeling unwanted. Thats also sarcasm. As for the Virginia Pilot article, please post a link to the entire story. I'm quite sure he told Doc Walker that his comments were taken out of context.

2. You imagine or you know? If any of Lavar's comments drew him to that conclusion, shouldn't there be a supporting quote to that effect? This was an interview was it not?

3. Ok. opinion.

4. People do not care about Lavar more than the Redskins, nor do people want to read about Lavar's feelings during the playoff run if they are not team oriented feelings. It is only an issue because columnists like Wise are attempting to make it an issue, as you say "not caring" or as I would say, having no regard for how the team may be affected.

5. If you say so, Emilio. Sounds to me like you are more interested in defending your editorial decisions. No, my purpose in requesting a story of a similar nature to that which you defend is to prove that the Washington Post has an axe to grind with Daniel Snyder that they MUST balance with coverage of the single most important sports team in the Washington area according to reader polls. Why else would a Strength of Schedule argument be used when only 2 games on the schedule are determined by order of finish and that argument that was advaced by that evil harpy of a hack Sally Jenkins and defended by you, when the NFL itself has said that the Redskins schedule is one of the toughest.
Im not asking for homer coverage. Im asking for columnists who fashion themselves as journalists to act like journallists. That when an opinion is given it is supported by the facts. That statements of fact be verified and re-verified for accuracy. I think there is a moral obligation on the part of columnists to have an idea what they are talking about. Wise and Jenkins fall short on that moral obligation and as such should burn in hell.....or at least have to confess their sins against journalistic integrity.

I haven't responded to this because I'm not really sure what of it to take seriously. I really have no desire to engage in a nasty debate, which seems like the direction this is headed.

[BurgundyNGold]

How many so-called negative columns do you think the combo of Wise and Jenkins have wrtten this year? Maybe 12-15. Now estimate how many Redskins-related pieces the Post has done since Week 1 - Wilbon, Boswell, La Canfora, Bryant, Saslow, maybe toss in web-only pieces and wire pieces they run (I only see the Post online). I would conservatively say 10-12 per week. Multiply that by 18 or 19 (playoffs, baby) and you have about 180-200. If the ratio is 200ish to 12ish, you are in that general ballpark.
As I have said since Day One of this conversation, I do not advance the theory that the Post is negative or out of balance. Nor do I think that any of the other writers you mentioned aside from Jenkins and Wise are particularly negative. Other people may advance that point, but I am not one of them.

My problem is and always has been the negativity and destructive intent of Jenkins and Wise. They are not balanced nor do they even strive to be. In Wise's case, he even endeavors to stir up any trouble that may be or to introduce chaos where there previously wasn't. I am talking about their ratios.

Like I said, those two are hired guns, hired to take pot shots at my, correction OUR team. When Wise does it with dubious information from mystery sources that aren't corroborated or reported or picked up elsewhere, I become very suspicious as I already know that his motives are not pure. Pot shots and outlandish claims in the paper can adversely affect a player or a coach and in turn affect a game. To me, that is unacceptable as a Redskin fan.

[Keino]

I haven't responded to this because I'm not really sure what of it to take seriously. I really have no desire to engage in a nasty debate, which seems like the direction this is headed.

I wasn't serious about the burn in hell part, but the rest of the post reflects how I see it.

[cal_junior]

As I have said since Day One of this conversation, I do not advance the theory that the Post is negative or out of balance. Nor do I think that any of the other writers you mentioned aside from Jenkins and Wise are particularly negative. Other people may advance that point, but I am not one of them.

My problem is and always has been the negativity and destructive intent of Jenkins and Wise. They are not balanced nor do they even strive to be. In Wise's case, he even endeavors to stir up any trouble that may be or to introduce chaos where there previously wasn't. I am talking about their ratios.

Like I said, those two are hired guns, hired to take pot shots at my, correction OUR team. When Wise does it with dubious information from mystery sources that aren't corroborated or reported or picked up elsewhere, I become very suspicious as I already know that his motives are not pure. Pot shots and outlandish claims in the paper can adversely affect a player or a coach and in turn affect a game. To me, that is unacceptable as a Redskin fan.

While I fundamentally disagree with you about the impact of media on the game (at least from the standpoint of players and coaches), it seems like we see eye-to-eye on more than I thought.
I agree that the Post, as a section, is balanced and I agree that those two are hired guns. The difference is that I think that’s kind of cool. Sure they take pot shots, that’s how columnists become successful. In an almost silly way I enjoy the fact that nothing as ridiculous as Jenkins calling out the fan base or Wise going overboard with his defense of LaVar will impact the team in any meaningful way. Danny many not like it but who cares, I just want wins.
Be unsure of Wise and Jenkins all you want, but until I hear about one of them being disciplined for libel (or even charged by anyone with it) I’m not conceding they are unprofessional.

[cal_junior]

I wasn't serious about the burn in hell part, but the rest of the post reflects how I see it.

You seriously think that I work for the Post?

[akhhorus]

You seriously think that I work for the Post?

If you did, you wouldn't be here defending them.

[cal_junior]

If you did, you wouldn't be here defending them.

Not to be contentious, but it was a question for Keino.

[akhhorus]

Not to be contentious, but it was a question for Keino.

I don't care who it was for. If you want a question to be for a specific person, feel free to send them a private message.

[BurgundyNGold]

While I fundamentally disagree with you about the impact of media on the game (at least from the standpoint of players and coaches), it seems like we see eye-to-eye on more than I thought.
I agree that the Post, as a section, is balanced and I agree that those two are hired guns. The difference is that I think that’s kind of cool. Sure they take pot shots, that’s how columnists become successful. In an almost silly way I enjoy the fact that nothing as ridiculous as Jenkins calling out the fan base or Wise going overboard with his defense of LaVar will impact the team in any meaningful way. Danny many not like it but who cares, I just want wins.
Be unsure of Wise and Jenkins all you want, but until I hear about one of them being disciplined for libel (or even charged by anyone with it) I’m not conceding they are unprofessional.
As far as I'm concerned, these two are like the "Hollywood" version of Hulk Hogan -- a manufactured bad guy strictly designed to get the goat of the audience and the team. Except they're compromising their objectivity to play the role to get the crowd to boo. As far as I'm concerned, if they're willing to compromise their principles and objectivity to that degree, is it so illogical that that could or would take another step down that road? After all, they're trying to get ahead in a competitive field. I'm not sure that Sally would do that, but Wise hasn't earned the credits from me to give him a pass.

I also want wins. To that end, I believe in the Gibbs way that no stone should go unturned and every little thing matters. I think what these two do are detrimental to the team. If either had any balance, I wouldn't give them too much grief when they went negative on an article. But they don't. It's all negative, all the time.

[cal_junior]

As far as I'm concerned, these two are like the "Hollywood" version of Hulk Hogan -- a manufactured bad guy strictly designed to get the goat of the audience and the team.

lol, are you contrasting Hollywood Hogan with the non-manufactured bad guys in professional wrestling. Who would those be exactly?

[BurgundyNGold]

lol, are you contrasting Hollywood Hogan with the non-manufactured bad guys in professional wrestling. Who would those be exactly?
I'm just going down a different line of discussion in the hopes of expressing a different point. Obviously, the entirety of WWE is contrived. In at least a few ways, we're talking about the same thing over at the Post. You've got your good guys (Shapiro, Boswell) and your bad guys (Jenkins, Wise). The difference is that the press can have very real effects on people's lives.

Positive press can be beneficial whereas negative press can be detrimental. If Wise keeps hammering the LaVar vs. the team thing, it could very well affect the relationship even more than it would be otherwise, which could actually hasten or facilitate his departure. Or, he or the Times could run a huge LaVar story right before the most important game of the year and take the focus off the game. Do you honestly think that doesn't have an impact? Even if a player's mind is only 10% off of the game in the film room, he may miss a few plays that that might be very important. Then, on gameday, he doesn't recognize the the formation that was shown on film and he gives up a TD. It is a single example of what could happen if and when maverick reporters attempt to tear down the team for their own selfish purposes. That's why I think that Wise's particular method of reporting is so damaging.

[cal_junior]

I'm just going down a different line of discussion in the hopes of expressing a different point. Obviously, the entirety of WWE is contrived. In at least a few ways, we're talking about the same thing over at the Post. You've got your good guys (Shapiro, Boswell) and your bad guys (Jenkins, Wise). The difference is that the press can have very real effects on people's lives.

Positive press can be beneficial whereas negative press can be detrimental. If Wise keeps hammering the LaVar vs. the team thing, it could very well affect the relationship even more than it would be otherwise, which could actually hasten or facilitate his departure. Or, he or the Times could run a huge LaVar story right before the most important game of the year and take the focus off the game. Do you honestly think that doesn't have an impact? Even if a player's mind is only 10% off of the game in the film room, he may miss a few plays that that might be very important. Then, on gameday, he doesn't recognize the the formation that was shown on film and he gives up a TD. It is a single example of what could happen if and when maverick reporters attempt to tear down the team for their own selfish purposes. That's why I think that Wise's particular method of reporting is so damaging.

Man, the lol was because I was kidding. You were supposed to say: Well The Undertaker and The Rock (in heel days) were faking it, but Roddy Piper, well that guy was really an a-hole. And if a player isn't able to concentrate on film because of something written in a newspaper, he's not somebody I want on my team.

[BurgundyNGold]

Man, the lol was because I was kidding. You were supposed to say: Well The Undertaker and The Rock (in heel days) were faking it, but Roddy Piper, well that guy was really an a-hole. And if a player isn't able to concentrate on film because of something written in a newspaper, he's not somebody I want on my team.
So that gives the likes of Mike Wise the license to pick up a sledgehammer and indescriminantly attempt to knock loose a few bricks out of an otherwise solid wall? Sorry, I don't subscribe to the theory of desctruction for the sake of destruction and ego.

And Roddy Piper is actually a pretty cool guy. I met him once as a teenager. I get the feeling that most of those guys are people you cpuld hang out and drink a few beers with.

[Keino]

You seriously think that I work for the Post?


If you don't they should be paying you the way you defend them. Jenkins and Wise are scumbags with a purpose. By not being objective in their viewpoints they are by definition lacking journalistic integrity.