My Letter to the Sports Editor of Washington Post

[BurgundyNGold]

Great letter, Keino. I wish you could've thrown in a reference to the Taco Bell dog, but other that that it was perfect.

[colkurtz]

Tremendous letter, Keino. Someone needs to call Sally out from her Giant Blue cloud and "I hate everything Redskins / Snyder / Gibbs / Cerrato" rants. She seriously needs to go work for one of the rag sheets in New York and stop this chirade of being a Washington columnist.

[whitskins]

Sally Jenkins is going to be writing Eli Manning's obituary this weekend, so look for the trend to continue.

[smoak]

Originally Posted by BurgundyNGold

I couldn't have said that better myself. In fact, if I had written a letter about Sally, it wouldn't have cleared the censors.

Probably?!? Satan probably would have thought it was in poor taste.

[cal_junior]

Just out of curiosity, what is the general consensus on what the proper mix between positive and critical commentary pieces this season would be?

[Keino]

Originally Posted by cal_junior

Just out of curiosity, what is the general consensus on what the proper mix between positive and critical commentary pieces this season would be?

The best balance would be the truth. Don't disappear during 2 seperate 3-0 streaks only to reappear when the team loses to bash. Don't write more pieces related to the team playing in the city you live in, when you write for another city's newspaper. She has written 4 opinion pieces with positive spin toward the Giants while writing 3 Redskins pieces immediately after losses.

The proper mix is obviously pointing out the good and the bad. See Mr. Wilbon.

[BurgundyNGold]

Originally Posted by cal_junior

Just out of curiosity, what is the general consensus on what the proper mix between positive and critical commentary pieces this season would be?

Well, let's say 1 to 1. Do a positive one and you've earned the right to do a negative one without being considered biased. A positive cancels out a negative leaving, nothing, which is the equivalent of unbiased.

There was a thread just yesterday where someone was on about Wilbon because he wrote an article that the person perceived to be negative. However, if you go up and down that thread, you find the majority of posters defended Wilbon and his right to a contrary opinion. Why? Because Wilbon writes positive articles when we do well and negative articles when we do poorly. Tony K too. Unlike Jenkins and Wise, who take every opportunity to bash the team when we don't do well and then do a David Blaine disapperaing act when the team does well.

[cal_junior]

I guess I get a little defensive because I feel like the media is bashed far too often these days. My only counter would be that maybe your complaints should be directed at the editors of the Post, and not the writer.
I would be willing to bet that Jenkins (who you will all love to hear me say is pretty close to being the most respected female sportswriter in America) is doing exactly as she is instructed. She is supposed to be the voice from afar, commenting on the District almost as an outsider. You may not like to read it, but the paper probably feels like it makes its section more balanced.
And as for her lineup of columns this year, the only one which seems like she might have made a conscious effort to be negative is the one on Nov. 30 - "Those Burgundy-Colored Glasses May Need Cleaning."
As for the other two, I believe the Denver and KC columns were written from the only two games she has been assigned to cover this fall.

[BurgundyNGold]

Originally Posted by cal_junior

I guess I get a little defensive because I feel like the media is bashed far too often these days. My only counter would be that maybe your complaints should be directed at the editors of the Post, and not the writer.
I would be willing to bet that Jenkins (who you will all love to hear me say is pretty close to being the most respected female sportswriter in America) is doing exactly as she is instructed. She is supposed to be the voice from afar, commenting on the District almost as an outsider. You may not like to read it, but the paper probably feels like it makes its section more balanced.
And as for her lineup of columns this year, the only one which seems like she might have made a conscious effort to be negative is the one on Nov. 30 - "Those Burgundy-Colored Glasses May Need Cleaning."
As for the other two, I believe the Denver and KC columns were written from the only two games she has been assigned to cover this fall.

So... now Sally lives in NY, covers the Gints and slams the Skins because... she's just following orders? Puh-lease. Does the excuse fairy visit you at night and leave these under your pillow?

You've got a wonderful little tapestry woven there, cal. Too bad it's all based on supposition and is devoid of any actual fact. Everything any of us needs to know about Sally came out of her own mealy little mouth on the 7 or 8 article I posted for you. If you can't see the trend there, well, then I can't do anything more for you.

[SkinsFan73]

she sucks thats all i have to say

[BandWagon]

Originally Posted by cal_junior

I guess I get a little defensive because I feel like the media is bashed far too often these days. My only counter would be that maybe your complaints should be directed at the editors of the Post, and not the writer.
I would be willing to bet that Jenkins (who you will all love to hear me say is pretty close to being the most respected female sportswriter in America) is doing exactly as she is instructed. She is supposed to be the voice from afar, commenting on the District almost as an outsider. You may not like to read it, but the paper probably feels like it makes its section more balanced.
And as for her lineup of columns this year, the only one which seems like she might have made a conscious effort to be negative is the one on Nov. 30 - "Those Burgundy-Colored Glasses May Need Cleaning."
As for the other two, I believe the Denver and KC columns were written from the only two games she has been assigned to cover this fall.

My question would be "why are we paying someone to write a piece on the New York Giants for a Washington, D.C. paper?" I don't get it. I have ZERO interest in that. There is also a clear predisposition, IMO on a routine basis, to create a stir (shock value if you like) to generate attention to the paper. Don't think for a second the Post wasn't enjoying the feud tha resulted in the tickets being pulled. They have a clear objective to take a decidely negative opinion stance thinly veiled by the guise of minimal "beat" reporting.

For example: Why the heck was Snyder cutting down trees such a big flippin' deal? Because the Post was trying to create a controversy for it's own benefit.

[cal_junior]

My question would be "why are we paying someone to write a piece on the New York Giants for a Washington, D.C. paper?" I don't get it.

I imagine the Post fancies itself a national-type publication, similar to the New York Times or the LA Times. The want to give you things other than what comes out of Redskins Park.
I actually feel like I have a pretty good handle on all things Redskins from places like this site, redskins.com and newspaper and radio.
Do I want a writer in NY telling me about the Skins? Not really. I'd rather she give me the latest on the opposition so I'm more informed when I watch the game. Or write about games she actually attended, which this season were two losses.

[RedskinsDave]

George Solomon, is that you?

[Joe-T]

...is she cute ?

[cal_junior]

George Solomon, is that you?

I do sound like that, don't I? No, I'm just a guy who grew up in D.C. but works in media in Ohio. The Post has always been my favorite paper so I probably get a little testy when people challenge it. Whether the people like what they write sometimes or not, most of the Post staffers are very, very good.