http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/11/02/jay-gruden-vehemently-denies-report-by-espns-britt-mchenry/
This sheds some light on the "amateurish" story written by McHenry. People want gossip and negativity and that's what sells but McHenry either was knowlingly fabricating this story or she just didn't get it.
What's worse is that the Redskins people asked the journalists to keep the incident in house so that the Skins could deal with the individuals themselves (to think that this is unique to the Skins is also silly) but McHenry chose to disregard that message and not only put the story out there but do it inaccurately.
Media is given the right to meet with players but they should do so responsibly. It's a shame when trust is broken. Frankly, this is why I hate most of these "reports" because you never know what to believe. Things can be taken out of context or it's one person's perception of what was said. I know I have said things and thought I was trying to convey a certain message only to find out that the person I was speaking to took it completely different than what I intended.
Whatever. It's too bad this story even came out but that's the nature of media/social media.
2 comments:
The story is probably out of proportion and reported incorrectly. But whenever I look back on stories that seemed outlandish, a lot times there is some amount of truth to it. In other words where the is smoke there is a fire.
Wilbon who responded after all of the other media members in support of his collegue report, brings up an interesting point. Skins are going to deny no matter what. What else would they do? They are not going to acknowledge it and create a media circus. Personally I would hate to side with either the media or the skins but if you're trying to get objectivity, its more likely to come from the media than skins PR.
Its also interesting to see Gruden talk about the report as if he was there. I am not 100% sure but I doubt he was any closer to the situation than any of the reporters who deny the report. How would he know what happened? He speaks as if he was there. If he was not there, which I think is the case, all he is doing is speaking/denying on behalf of his employers interest. You cant give credibility to that. Gruden's words are just as reliable as McHenry's in this case.
Something else to consider is the inside relationships between all the media members. Maybe none of them like McHenry for some reason. Perhaps its because she was promoted to a bigger network and a bigger market. I also find it very odd that the report was denied so immediately and vehemently by a few media members.
Has ESPN acknowledged the false report?
My reading is that there probably is an issue with RG3 but maybe its not as bad as McHenry made it seem.
This is nonsense. Wilbon was not even there and showed support to her colleague. Great!
The rest of the Redskin reporters WERE there and they all said the same thing. That the incident was not a reflection of their feelings towards RG3 but rather the media.
A few of the local reporters who chimed in acknowledged that RG3 probably isn't loved by every teammate but mentioned that what teammate is?
Why is it surprising to you that the report was denied so immediately and vehemently? It shouldn't come as a surprise at all. Frankly, the local media that did respond to it didn't so much go out of there way to respond. The story became big news and they were asked about it. I know McNally from WJFK didn't go out of his way. He reports on JFK and he was asked about it by the Junkies and Paulsen and Dukes.
It shouldn't be a surprise at all. Put yourself in the same situation. If you are a reporter there and see what took place and then someone reports something different than what you and several of your colleagues saw, seems to me you would want to stand up and say that that was incorrect reporting.
No one is disputing that there was a disruption. The dispute is in the reason for the disruption.
Media and sports teams have to have a relationship because of contracts. However, that does not give media the right to create false stories. Again, if McHenry's perception was that the disruption was created by bad feelings towards RG3 that is her perception. She hasn't been a beat reporter for the Skins nearly as long as the local folks that chimed in. Maybe she doesn't know the locker room as well. Who knows? The point is that several local media Redskin beat reporters mentioned that RG3 was not the reason for the disruption. There is no reason to believe that all those beat reporters who report for various companies (WJFK, Washington Post, etc.) are in collusion. That would be ridiculous.
Post a Comment