• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

Should BGO Stop Promoting Washington Post Redskins Content?

Should BGO Stop Promoting Washington Post Redskins Content?

  • Yes

    Votes: 37 100.0%

  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Undecided

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    37
Probably the best thing to come out of this mess is that the plight of the Native American has marginally come to the in-focus forefront of our ADHD society.

As far as the WAPO support, I agree that the personal gratification of ban and boycott has merit, I cancelled my subscription years ago, the sport section being just one reason.

I also feel that we need to keep our ears to the ground, it's better to know 'what the enemy' is up to rather than blissful ignorance.

Ban the suckers for sure, no direct linkage, just make sure we keep up with what they're up to via a buffer source from a friendly camp and reference that site via linkage.
 
Yes, we should!

And I would really like to see Dan Snyder step up and revoke any and all tickets and passes from them too!

If we're going to feud, let's go all out and get mad dog mean!

 
Boone said:
We're not talking about the on-the-field coverage (although, given the opportunity, they'll try and spin that negatively too when any opportunity presents itself), we're talking about their nearly constant barrage of criticism, character defamation, and general opposition to anything the team or Dan Syder does. It's incessant and it's obvious.
Click to expand...

I agree about the bizarrely negative (off-the-field, and at times on-the-field) coverage (bracketing the name issue, which is different, whatever one's position). But I'd be in favor of not having a blanket boycott of on-the-field coverage. If a story has merit/is objective, why not link to it? There shouldn't be a presumption that a Post story is worth reading (unlike, say, Keim), but I don't see any reason to respond to the Post's visceral lack of nuance and objectivity about the merits of particular situations with a visceral refusal to consider the merits of particular stories.
 
tr1 said:
Herzog was loved by the fans. If he had a personal problem, you don't fire guys...you give them time to straighten out.

You can keep making excuses for Snyder, but his actions speak volumes about the character of the guy. And, Herzog was being objective about the organization. That got him fired more than any personal reason.

I'll see you my speculation and call yours. :)
Click to expand...

No - my speculating would be saying that's WHY Herzog got fired (you know - stating a possible explanation as if it's fact). I just gave that as a possible explanation. Maybe Sonny and Sam had issues with him? Who knows? You and I don't. That's my point.

And where am I making excuses for Snyder? I haven't done that - not once. I'm talking about the Washington Post and their ridiculously negative coverage of not just Snyder, but anything Redskins-related. It borders on a vendetta. If you don't see it, that's fine. But whether Snyder is a baby killer or Jesus come back down to earth is irrelevant. And trying to paint me as a Snyder apologist is laughable. I've been as critical of many of his actions as any Redskins fan anywhere. It's just easier to assume I'm a mindless homer than to consider that Dan Snyder may not be the only humans involved here that need to up their game.
 
romberjo said:
I agree about the bizarrely negative (off-the-field, and at times on-the-field) coverage (bracketing the name issue, which is different, whatever one's position). But I'd be in favor of not having a blanket boycott of on-the-field coverage. If a story has merit/is objective, why not link to it? There shouldn't be a presumption that a Post story is worth reading (unlike, say, Keim), but I don't see any reason to respond to the Post's visceral lack of nuance and objectivity about the merits of particular situations with a visceral refusal to consider the merits of particular stories.
Click to expand...

That's a valid, well-reasoned point Romberjo - thanks! That's why I posted the poll. Again, we would never restrict anyone's individual ability to post any article they find interesting or worthwhile, this would only be about the blanket promotion in our news forums of Washington Post content. But you do raise a valid point - that it would also eliminate posting of balanced articles, or articles by writers who produce great content and don't tow the Post's scornful party line. I'll admit, taking the high road is almost always a wiser choice. It's just not always the most appealing one :)
 
No feed.

For those of us who want to visit their site, that is fine. That is our right.

The Dan Snyder bashing at BGO needs to come to an end. If he does something wacky at some point, then let the bashing re-commence. It has been nearly five years since he gave up control of the football operations. His charity work is probably tops in the league. The man is not perfect, but neither is anyone else. I'm sure he would like to go back and change many things - all of us would like to go back and make some changes too, if given the chance.

Again, no feed.
 
You posted a Dave McKenna article as evidence you're right? Man - the irony is thick. That guy is the biggest hack and sorriest excuse for a journalist the world has ever produced.
 
Let's all read your unauthorized biography there, cowboy ;).
I'm sure God uses you as a moral compass.

Dan Snyder is the lazy man's target. Move on, brother.
 
People actually read the opinions of that (or any) editorial board and actually care?
 
And of course you have the absolute right to any opinion you have tr1. I've never had any interest in owning a website where only some opinions were allowed or tolerated. One experience that colors my thinking here is having been an Extremeskins mod - and hearing all of the 'traditional media' folks rail about the censorship that took place behind the scenes - reportedly at the direct command of Snyder and friends. It was an outright lie, but multiple media folks (including McKenna) put it out there over and over as fact. It was a lie. The team never conversed with us about anything, much less what they wanted people to say about the team or Snyder. Even now, say what you will about the site, there is outright gutting of Snyder on the fan site he bankrolls. So I tend to take some of the character assassination at face value. I think Snyder has earned a lot of the guttings he's gotten. But the job of journalists and news organizations is to be objective, not to be looking for opportunities to trash people they don't like, or covering Redskins activities in the absolute worst possible light possible because they hate the ownership.
 
Too bad the Post editorial board isn't on twitter. Some of us would like to have a "word" with them. :)

I guess there is no internet connection in ivory towers.
 
I'm not a Daniel Snyder fan - I'm a Washington Redskins fan. If the Post were able to limit it's BS coverage to Dan Snyder, while I would still feel that runs counter to the very objectiveness 'journalism' is supposed to hold so dear, I could live with it. When you start actively attacking the team itself, it's traditions, the fans who cheer for the team, that crosses the line. The idea that this is 'taking a shot at the Post' - well, that's laughable.
 
What does the name change have to do with Snyder? This is the post taking a jab at our team. Not everything is an outlet to hate Snyder

**** the post.
 
Well - I took the 7 poll votes as a mandate - you won't see any more WP content in our news feeds from here on out. We're going with the brain-washed company men over at the Washington Times for our sports content. Again, no restrictions should anyone want to post or link to a WP article on their own. We're just not going to promote their business while they trash our team anymore.
 
If I was Snyder I would revoke their press privileges until they apologise publically and sincerely, no more free seats, no more access.
 
I view giving employees the right to use it or not a little differently. May be semantics, may not be. But they haven't taken an *official* position like the WP has.
 
I think you're approaching this the right way, by not promoting the Post.

On a side note, I really thought this topic might die down somewhat during the season. But that prediction isn't looking so great at the moment.
 
And we'll continue to stop posting content if they do. I'm hoping other sites pick up the banner and join us - there is power in numbers and the best thing that could happen to the Washington Post and other media outlets is to see their subscriber/viewership #'s plummet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users
We are all excited to experience the announcement of draft selections IN REAL TIME TOGETHER. If you feel the need to be the first to 'blurt out' the team's picks you are better off staying out of chat and sticking to Twitter. Please refrain from announcing/discussing our picks until the official announcement has been made at the podium. Thanks!

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top