He really doesn't get it
Redskins owner Dan Snyder finally gave an interview. Some years ago, I think it was 2001 or 2002, the Redskins were hosting a ceremony for some oldster players at halftime and Dan Snyder walked out onto the field at Redskins Stadium. Far from the fans adoring him he was booed mercilessly and from the expression on his face it was clear that right up until that moment he really believed he was the gods' gift to Redskins football.
With the exception of this comically softball interview in the Washingtonian from September 2006 I have never seen Dan give out a formal interview since and we do not see him on the big screen at games.
The interview was on Comcast SportsNet, I guess where old George Michael landed after he was pushed out at WRC channel 4 in Washington last year along with forever entertainment reporter Arch Campbell, guess what was old is young again. Go read the DC Sports Bog piece, Dan Steinberg knows what he's talking about.
And it begs some comment from this peanut gallery. Dan Snyder:
Well I think part of the problem with the media is that there's a landscape change in the media. And newspapers, for example, their circulations are declining rapidly, three, four percent a year. So what they need is controversy to sell, they need negativity. And I think when it all comes down to it, it becomes a sort of feeding frenzy for them.Where do I begin, this is bullshit.
First, newspaper circulation has nothing to do with reporting. Newspapers are only good for three things: riding the Metro, taking a crap and avoiding discussion at the breakfast table. For everything else I use the internet and that includes Washington Post reporting and I think the Post and other major outlets realize that, look at the New York Times, they just stopped selling access to their opinion pages because they realized it's more lucrative to give it away on ad-supported pages than to charge, and the NYT had 272000 subscribers paying for the privilege (quick math 272k X 50 bucks = 13.6 million dollars a year, that's just for the opinion pages and archives, that pays for a lots of stuff).
The Washington Post is a news business not a newspaper and believe me if the Post could figure out a way to get out of the newspaper business they would, the online business is much more profitable and the print version is just the cost of legitimacy at this point.
This negates Dan's point about negativity and anecdotally I think it's bullshit anyway since when the team is doing well the area is all happiness and joy and no one gives a crap what Dan Snyder does. When the team is not doing well they ask the hard questions, look at the decisions and analyze situations just like yours truly.
Oh by the way I forgot to mention that 'doing well' is defined as winning games and not as cashflow, profit or operating margin, people that read stuff about football don't give a rat's ass about that.
If you look at the more modern media, newer technology, whether it be Comcast SportsNet or what have you, it's almost a little bit less biased because there's less agenda.WTF?
Newer technology? Like Comcast SportsNet, a second rate sports network populated with castoff talent and dark studios? Or do you mean teh internets, like...washingtonpost.com, curlyr.blogspot.com or redskins.com? Believe me all three of those have an agenda, one is to make money the other is to make a better football team and the third is to control the message. The plurality of voices in that there 'newer technology' means I don't have to permit the team to tell me what I think.
Michael: "GM: So you're saying that you give the fans MORE through your Internet and everything?"Ok so not more. More is Jason La Canfora and Les Carpenter putting together stats, it's Dillweed looking at DVR for hours, it's me digging through the archives for references to prove my point. More is not email reminders, video of daily pressers or marginal reporting by the team of of the team.
DS: We give them unfiltered.
GM: What does that mean?
DS: Well it's not filtered by a 26-year old reporter that really doesn't know necessarily what's really going on. Doesn't necessarily meet with the coaches, the players, that doesn't have a clue but yet makes an opinion about a left tackle in comments that you say to yourself, 'You know, they obviously don't have a clue what's really going on.' So what we're delivering is the truth.
I want my football news filtered. Someone to read the body language, pore over the stats and call bullshit when bullshit needs to be called. Also to recognize when praise is deserved and all the little things that get reported when a team does well. The team just wants me to engage in the hero worship of NFL football and I want to know the team as a collection of individuals working together for a purpose.
And dude using someone's age to make a point about their competence or intent, that's just cowardly. Weren't you 34 when you bought the team? I guess it's that extra eight years that made you the man you are.
DS: When you're losing, it's brutal. When you're, winning it's not.The cardinal rule Dan, the cardinal rule.
Dan, it's our team, you and Joe Gibbs are just the stewards.
Hat tip to Michael David Smith at Redskins AOL Fanhouse for the link. And Dan Steinberg must have been pissed when he wrote that piece, he linked over to the 'Deep Cover' Thanksgiving piece on the Redskins from ESPN last year.
Dan Snyder from here.