 }})
Lanky Livingston
Guest
The Washington Redskins were not in the Super Bowl this year, as you probably recall. They weren’t in the playoffs, either, and were, for the sixth season since 2000, under .500. There’s plenty of work to be done in D.C., but the way in which the team began its offseason was almost certainly not what Skins fans had in mind. Last week, in response to an epic-scale, full-spectrum takedown of Snyder’s tenure as team owner from veteran D.C. sportswriter Dave McKenna, Redskins owner Dan Snyder sent a letter to the Washington City Paper accusing the publication of “character assassination” and threatening a costly lawsuit. That Wednesday, Snyder filed suit against the paper in New York.
It’s tough to know what Redskins fans abhor most about the lawsuit. For some, it’s the bullying tone of the letter from Snyder’s attorney – which threatens that the cost of litigation would “presumably quickly outstrip the asset value of the Washington City Paper.”
“No matter what turns this story may take from here on out, that particular line will forever color the public image of Snyder,” TBD’s Andrew Beaujon and Erik Wemple (former City Paper employees both, if that matters) write in a nice overview of the suit. “The corporate bullying of the City Paper will forever attest to the pettiness of a cigar-chomping billionaire.”
For others, the suit’s low point is the way that the letter frequently refers to Dave McKenna as “Dan McKenna.” For still others, it’s the allegation that the defaced picture of Snyder that ran on the cover of the November 19, 2010 issue of City Paper – an illustration that has much in common with the desecration to which movie posters are subjected in New York’s subways – was anti-Semitic. “This is almost unbearably stupid,” The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg sighs. “The image isn’t anti-Semitic, at least not to anyone who has ever gone to grade school and/or has scrawled on a magazine.”
The person who seems most unembarrassed by the lawsuit, it seems, is Snyder himself. “What’s baffling is Snyder’s apparent inability to recognize that the very existence of the lawsuit buttresses the theme of the article,” Susan Milligan writes in U.S. News and World Report. “Snyder is a wealthy man. Can he not afford a public relations consultant? He’s becoming the Christine O’Donnell of the professional sports world. (No Redskins officials could be reached for comment on this or other criticisms heaved at the team. We’ll update if we hear from them.)
In the New York Times, David Carr writes that Snyder’s high-handedness was probably not a strong legal tactic, and objectionable in other ways besides. In the Washington Post, the estimable Gene Weingarten puts his back into a combination mockery/condemnation of Snyder so searing that he seems to be angling for a fight of his own. It’s safe to say that the early reviews for Snyder’s gambit have not been glowing.
This is true most of all for Redskins fans, whose offseason is not off to an especially inspiring start. “The Redskins used to win Super Bowls,” Tablet’s Marc Tracy writes. “Instead of picking fights with small alternative newspapers and a gadfly sportswriter, maybe Snyder should be devoting more of his time to figuring out how to get back in the winning-Super-Bowls business.”
-----
Click link for the rest of the article.
It’s tough to know what Redskins fans abhor most about the lawsuit. For some, it’s the bullying tone of the letter from Snyder’s attorney – which threatens that the cost of litigation would “presumably quickly outstrip the asset value of the Washington City Paper.”
“No matter what turns this story may take from here on out, that particular line will forever color the public image of Snyder,” TBD’s Andrew Beaujon and Erik Wemple (former City Paper employees both, if that matters) write in a nice overview of the suit. “The corporate bullying of the City Paper will forever attest to the pettiness of a cigar-chomping billionaire.”
For others, the suit’s low point is the way that the letter frequently refers to Dave McKenna as “Dan McKenna.” For still others, it’s the allegation that the defaced picture of Snyder that ran on the cover of the November 19, 2010 issue of City Paper – an illustration that has much in common with the desecration to which movie posters are subjected in New York’s subways – was anti-Semitic. “This is almost unbearably stupid,” The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg sighs. “The image isn’t anti-Semitic, at least not to anyone who has ever gone to grade school and/or has scrawled on a magazine.”
The person who seems most unembarrassed by the lawsuit, it seems, is Snyder himself. “What’s baffling is Snyder’s apparent inability to recognize that the very existence of the lawsuit buttresses the theme of the article,” Susan Milligan writes in U.S. News and World Report. “Snyder is a wealthy man. Can he not afford a public relations consultant? He’s becoming the Christine O’Donnell of the professional sports world. (No Redskins officials could be reached for comment on this or other criticisms heaved at the team. We’ll update if we hear from them.)
In the New York Times, David Carr writes that Snyder’s high-handedness was probably not a strong legal tactic, and objectionable in other ways besides. In the Washington Post, the estimable Gene Weingarten puts his back into a combination mockery/condemnation of Snyder so searing that he seems to be angling for a fight of his own. It’s safe to say that the early reviews for Snyder’s gambit have not been glowing.
This is true most of all for Redskins fans, whose offseason is not off to an especially inspiring start. “The Redskins used to win Super Bowls,” Tablet’s Marc Tracy writes. “Instead of picking fights with small alternative newspapers and a gadfly sportswriter, maybe Snyder should be devoting more of his time to figuring out how to get back in the winning-Super-Bowls business.”
-----
Click link for the rest of the article.
