Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: dcsportsbog and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS
Posted at 10:57 AM ET, 02/ 3/2011

On Dan Snyder and Dave McKenna

By Dan Steinberg


Maybe you've heard that Dan Snyder is suing the City Paper. I guess some people have written about it.

Since my name has come up as part of the legal process, I had sort of refrained from writing about the whole thing, on the advice of no one in particular. Just felt funny. But it's kind of become a big story in these parts, and some e-mailers were asking whether I'd be commenting and whatnot.

I'll probably write more at some point, but for now, I wanted to highlight my favorite part of this entire episode. It comes in the letter from Snyder's counsel to City Paper's counsel, which City Paper published on its Web site this week. Presumably, Snyder's counsel is getting paid a lot of money to pursue this matter. Not enough for them to get Dave McKenna's first name right, though.


By Dan Steinberg  | February 3, 2011; 10:57 AM ET
Categories:  Media, Redskins  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Fred Smoot's Super Bowl schedule
Next: Leonsis answers questions about t-shirt cannons

Comments

I realize there's only so much you can say, but I haven't stopped laughing at the Danny since this story broke. The guy is a non-stop source of entertainment. Has nobody ever told him that the dogs bark, but the caravan moves on? Let it go, Dan. Just let it go.

Posted by: Gunga2009 | February 3, 2011 11:08 AM | Report abuse

The irony in the first misspelling is too much. The whole thing could start the writers riot of 2011 if he is actually trying to bury the City Paper.

Posted by: smperk | February 3, 2011 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Well, this is one way Snyder can get some media attention during Super Bowl Week.

Posted by: disgruntledfan | February 3, 2011 11:23 AM | Report abuse

This would be funny, if the legal repercussions weren't so great. Two excellent writers - Dave & Dan (or Dan & Dan, apparently) -- are at risk here. One could lose his job. These are men who are doing their jobs (whether you like the stories or not) and are likely paid little (in comparison) to do so. What's scary is that Snyder flat out admits in his letter that he has more "resources" to fight this battle than the city paper does. Our wonderful legal system, where the person who flops out the biggest money-dick wins.

Posted by: Incredulous2 | February 3, 2011 11:35 AM | Report abuse

We have to destroy Snyder

Posted by: Kev29 | February 3, 2011 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Good for Dan. I for one have grown tired of the bashing. The man has made mistakes, but more recently he has done what all the fans wanted him to do. The constant bashing has grown old.

Posted by: Hondo5 | February 3, 2011 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Love you Steins, but this is petty. Deal with the substance or don't deal with the issue.

Posted by: jtheisman | February 3, 2011 11:42 AM | Report abuse

My favorite part of this whole stupid lawsuit is the hilarious claim that the devil horns and mustache drawn on Snyder are "anti-Semitic".

Posted by: GoNatsGo | February 3, 2011 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Am I crazy to think that one reason, Dan, that they named you in the suit is to scare you away from writing about the suit in the Bog--since there's pretty much no story more Bog-appropriate than this one. Guess that plan didn't work, though.

I'm most appalled by the emphasis in the lawsuit on the "anti-Semitic" drawing. The reason Dan Snyder is being depicted as the devil with horns is because people think Dan Snyder is the devil--because of his actions, not his Jewishness. It's an insult to true victims of anti-Semitism.

Posted by: TheFingerman | February 3, 2011 11:50 AM | Report abuse

"I'll probably write more at some point, but for now, "

And by "writing", you mean you'll publish our comments, or just copy and paste errors from other articles?

Posted by: IDontThinkSo1 | February 3, 2011 11:56 AM | Report abuse

@Incredulous: Neither McKenna nor Dan nor the City Paper nor the Post have anything to fear. This "lawsuit" will never make it off the ground, and whatever resources the papers spend fending off these buffoons will be made up for in increased web traffic probably.

Posted by: ThisGuy | February 3, 2011 12:00 PM | Report abuse

@jtheisman

This: "I'll probably write more at some point ..."

Means: Dan will probably write more at some point on this topic

Posted by: Incredulous2 | February 3, 2011 12:01 PM | Report abuse

I for one have grown tired of the bashing. The man has made mistakes, but more recently he has done what all the fans wanted him to do. The constant bashing has grown old.

Posted by: Hondo5 | February 3, 2011 11:40 AM

Hilarious - Snyder puts up a couple new video screens and we're supposed to stop 'bashing' him. American sports fans are such frickin sheep. No wonder people like Snyder and Angelos keep making money off us.

Posted by: Kev29 | February 3, 2011 12:09 PM | Report abuse

@ TheFingerMan

"I'm most appalled by the emphasis in the lawsuit on the "anti-Semitic" drawing. The reason Dan Snyder is being depicted as the devil with horns is because people think Dan Snyder is the devil--because of his actions, not his Jewishness. It's an insult to true victims of anti-Semitism."

Steinz needs to help out here, I couldn't find the post. But if you recall during all the burgundy revolution bog posts, there was one that contained a guy wearing a t-shirt with the likeness of Snyder with devil horns and wads of cash in his hands. I distinctly remember Steinberg taking a bit of an issue with the picture, as--although maybe not intended--it had loose connections to anti-semetic ideas or imagery in the past.

What is the difference between THAT picture and the one in this agenda-driven article? (BTW, I am tired of BOTH Snyder and the media going after him like a shark chasing blood).

Posted by: PropJoe | February 3, 2011 12:25 PM | Report abuse

What is the difference between THAT picture and the one in this agenda-driven article? (BTW, I am tired of BOTH Snyder and the media going after him like a shark chasing blood).

Posted by: PropJoe | February 3, 2011 12:25 PM | Report abuse

No difference. A jew as the devil is a depiction that goes back to medieval times. Whether people who use it today realize it or not, it's still offensive to Jews. McKenna's intent may not have been anti-Semitic. I tend to think it wasn't. But it's still perceived as anti-Semitic nonetheless.

As for the lawsuit. Look, I happen to think there were a lot of issues with the McKenna piece and much of it was out of bounds. Not to mention his over the top, delusional commentary on the radio after the piece came out. Some of his on air comments could legitimately be considered slander. I just don't think suing is a good idea. It is horrible PR and the last thing you want to do is provoke the Washington Post. Trust me, that is a losing battle for him even if he wins in court.

Posted by: Barno1 | February 3, 2011 12:51 PM | Report abuse

The view from Philly:

Dan Snyder is a sad case. In the years to come we will be hearing weird stories about him.

Posted by: VAALEX | February 3, 2011 12:54 PM | Report abuse

I remember the A-Z article on Snyder and it was mean-spirited (somewhat funny/somewhat sad) and I took most of it to be true and some satirical. I am sure some believed every word of it and that is how rumors get started and passed around as fact so you can't blame Snyder for being pissed.

For years, Snyder did nothing to help his reputation and now he is trying to be more image conscious so that article didn't help. On the good Dan, bad Dan, I heard that any settlement on the lawsuit will be donated to charity.

Posted by: GoingGoingGone | February 3, 2011 12:59 PM | Report abuse

I heard that any settlement on the lawsuit will be donated to charity.

Posted by: GoingGoingGone

I have also heard that any losses from unsuccessful pursuit of the claim will be take out of the a$$es of Redskins season ticketholders.

Posted by: Kenbeatrizz | February 3, 2011 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Pfffff, nuts to the whole devil horns is anti-semitic notion.

If anything it's the real Lucifer who should be complaining about being compared to Dan Snyder.

Satan's getting a raw deal on this one.

Posted by: P00PY_MCP00P | February 3, 2011 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Join the new Facebook group "Redskins Fans in Support of Dave McKenna" and vote against corporate bullies.

Posted by: toxicpie | February 3, 2011 1:45 PM | Report abuse

And Danny Boy is worried about his image? This latest action just shows that he has to have his attorneys on payroll do something else besides sue delinquent premium seat holders. Did Danny Boy sue when 'Tank McNamara' named him sports jerk of the year? I wonder how many people even knew about that month's old article until the threatened lawsuit made the news? Now a lot more people know and are shaking their heads and laughing at how ridiculous the suit is. Perhaps Danny Boy will be nickel and diming a lot more people trying to recover the hundred's of millions of dollars those poor performing free agent signings got when Snyderatto was in charge.
Thank goodness I cancelled my 53 season support of the team last year!

Posted by: bbmcoachk | February 3, 2011 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Poopy, though we disagree, that was pretty funny.

Posted by: Barno1 | February 3, 2011 2:48 PM | Report abuse

The Snyder PR trainwreck continues....he is making a case to be known as the worst owner in the history of sports.

Posted by: dbunkr | February 3, 2011 2:51 PM | Report abuse

"The constant bashing has grown old."

No, it hasnt, and this episode is more reason to bash. The reasons to bash are countless, but I recommend you read Dave McKenna's article to refresh your memory.

And drawing devil horns on a public figure is not slander, and is not anti-semtic. Its an innocuous attempt at humor, nothing more.

I love the Redskins and want to see them succeed, but Dan has a long way to go, if ever, to lead a successful NFL franchise.

For a good role model Dan, see Ted Leonsis, i.e. transparency, building with young talent, honesty with fans, well thought out future plans, etc.

Posted by: jj24k03 | February 3, 2011 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Barno, I think the anti-semitic charge would stick a bit better if the picture or article tied into, in any way, Snyder's Jewishness. Which it didn't. It also doesn't look like the more common "jewish devil" libels. Beyond which, the "jew devil" slur is really dated and way too passe for a quasi-hipsterish alt-rag like the CityPaper. Notwithstanding the CityPaper now trotting out all the Jews on their staff to say it's okay...

Plus, the guy who owns a team named 'the redskins' complaining about bigoted slurs? The irony, it burns...

Posted by: dlgood | February 3, 2011 3:00 PM | Report abuse

No matter how hard patronizing liberals want to believe that the term "Redskins" is a derogatory term, the facts simply do not support it. The overwhelmingly vast majority of Native Americans are not offended by the term, as evidenced by every major poll on this non-issue. Sports Illustrated has polled Native Americans on this. The Annenberg Public Policy Center has polled Native Americans on this. And every time the question is asked "are you offended by the team name Redskins?" the results are the same: between 80-90% of Native Americans are NOT offended by it.

There is nothing worse than people who feign outrage on behalf of other people. It must be so frustrating for people like dlgood to see that so few Native Americans are bothered by the name Redskins. I can just see him trying to convince Native Americans "don't you realize you should be offended by this? I saw a lawsuit filed over it...it must be offensive!"

Posted by: Barno1 | February 3, 2011 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Hey Dan, I hear LA's looking for a team. Please take your record and antics there; think about it, there's more people there, that you can milk & piss-off!

Posted by: Hattrik | February 3, 2011 3:31 PM | Report abuse

I am calling out to all season ticket holders. DO NOT BUY YOUR TICKETS! I love the Redskins with all my heart and all I ever wanted was season tickets. I have only had them 6 years, but enough is enough! It pains me to give up the one true thing I've wanted since I was a child, but I can no longer support this jerk! I would like nothing more than to get 5 min in an octagon with him! SELL OUR TEAM, YOU DON'T DESERVE TO OWN IT!

Posted by: Toochilled | February 3, 2011 4:38 PM | Report abuse

@ BArno1

I take offense to your statement "No matter how hard patronizing liberals..."

I am a liberal. You have a problem with that? I am not offended by the name and have read the same poll results that you have, and actually agree with what you wrote. Does that mean I am NOT a liberal?

Talk about name calling and generalizations, you just stuck you foot in your mouth there bud. Perhaps you should read what you wrote before you contradict yourself and look like a fool.

Posted by: jmurray019 | February 3, 2011 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Barno -- just curious, if the team were called the "Whiteskins" or "Blackskins", would you consider those derogatory and/or offensive ?

Posted by: MadCap1 | February 3, 2011 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Barno are you as offended by Sarah Palin using the phrase "blood libel" as you are by the City Paper illustration? More offended? Less offended? Both reference historical anti-semetic propoganda

Also, I would be very interested in Steinz take on the illustration.

Personally, I see no parallel to an anti-semetic campaign from the CP. But I'm also not jewish and realizethat could affect my perspective.

One thing all parties can agree on, Danny Boy is an idiot for pushing through with this lawsuit.

And, the Weingarten piece was a cheap shot. It more makes me mad the Post would run the Giants fan angle than anything else.

Posted by: jpfterps | February 3, 2011 5:15 PM | Report abuse

@PropJoe

Yeah, I remember Dan's post on that. I understood where he was coming from, but I didn't really agree with it then, either. Yes, putting "horns" on a Jew is an anti-Semitic caricature and anti-Semites associating the Jew with the devil goes back hundreds of years. But Dan Snyder is very quiet about his Jewishness (I'm sure many people in the D.C. area and around the country have no idea what religion he is--unlike other Jewish NFL owners like Bob Kraft or Arthur Blank, who are very involved in their local Jewish communities, or someone like Abe Pollin.) That's certainly his right to not publicize it, and that's fine. But if the article doesn't mention his religion, he rarely mentions it, and the article details a guy who is greedy, mean, petty and thought by many Redskins fans to be evil, how is depicting him as a devil an anti-Semitic insult instead of just an illustration of a guy who (satirically, of course) embodies many qualities of the devil--irrespective of what his religion is?

Posted by: TheFingerman | February 3, 2011 5:29 PM | Report abuse

jpfterps - love the Giants angle. I can't even remember the last time the Skins beat the Giants. Was it during the Carter administration?

Every year for the past decade it seems, the Giants get two extra bye weeks against this debacle of a franchise. And there are ALWAYS plenty of good seats available should Giants fans wish to see the game at FedEx. Packs of roving Giants fans take over that stadium by halftime. Keep up the great work Mr Snyder!

Posted by: Tinman1188 | February 3, 2011 5:32 PM | Report abuse

I worked in a Fed. Government law office and a law firm. With all the overwhelming paper flowing out of legal offices, most legal documents have some typos or minor mistakes, even with spell check and reviewers.

Posted by: bringbackimus | February 3, 2011 5:45 PM | Report abuse

I worked in a Fed. Government law office and a law firm. With all the overwhelming paper flowing out of legal offices, most legal documents have some typos or minor mistakes, even with spell check and reviewers.

Posted by: bringbackimus | February 3, 2011 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Hey Barno, I'm a pretty socially liberal guy and I find nothing wrong with Redskins.

What does that make me, in regards to your statement?

Posted by: P00PY_MCP00P | February 3, 2011 6:07 PM | Report abuse

That's pretty petty, Dan, considering all the typos your blogs are posted with, and then mysteriously vanish after a commenter points them out!

Posted by: Nemo24601 | February 3, 2011 6:16 PM | Report abuse

All,

That was one of, if not the very first time I have even mentioned the word "liberal" or "democrat" on any Washington Post blog, at least in a critical way. I have criticized conservatives for horribly misguided positions on immigration issues on here. Back when the AZ law has been a subject on these blogs when it intertwined with baseball or the Diamondbacks or Suns, I wrote several posts blasting my fellow conservatives. I just call it as I see it.

And yes, of course you can be a liberal or a social liberal and still think team names like Redskins are not offensive. All I was saying was...those who support causes like the ones pushed by the Native American interest groups are, generally, liberals. Let's be honest. I am sorry if anyone took offense to labeling them patronizing. I'm not calling all liberals patronizing. Just those who tell us how offensive to a whole race of people something is, when polls decidedly say otherwise.

Go REDSKINS

Posted by: Barno1 | February 3, 2011 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Barno,
Maybe I'm Native American, Jewish, and Conservative?

You made a bunch of unnecessary assumptions. There are people who are comfortable or uncomfortable with the "Redskins" name independent of their voting practices.

Snyder never made much of any public point on any "bigotry" issue and the team name is as much of a bigotry issue as the cover drawing is.

So yeah, it's a little ironic that he's reaching to make an anti-semitism claim. And ironic that "but these native americans don't care" polls will be matched with a number of Jews coming out to say that the City Paper drawing didn't offend them.

Posted by: dlgood | February 4, 2011 5:25 AM | Report abuse

Barno,
Maybe I'm Native American, Jewish, and Conservative?

You made a bunch of unnecessary assumptions. There are people who are comfortable or uncomfortable with the "Redskins" name independent of their voting practices.

Snyder never made much of any public point on any "bigotry" issue and the team name is as much of a bigotry issue as the cover drawing is.

So yeah, it's a little ironic that he's reaching to make an anti-semitism claim. And ironic that "but these native americans don't care" polls will be matched with a number of Jews coming out to say that the City Paper drawing didn't offend them.

Posted by: dlgood | February 4, 2011 5:26 AM | Report abuse

Barno,
Maybe I'm Native American, Jewish, and Conservative?

You made a bunch of unnecessary assumptions. There are people who are comfortable or uncomfortable with the "Redskins" name independent of their voting practices.

Snyder never made much of any public point on any "bigotry" issue and the team name is as much of a bigotry issue as the cover drawing is.

So yeah, it's a little ironic that he's reaching to make an anti-semitism claim. And ironic that "but these native americans don't care" polls will be matched with a number of Jews coming out to say that the City Paper drawing didn't offend them.

Posted by: dlgood | February 4, 2011 5:27 AM | Report abuse

"Barno,
Maybe I'm Native American, Jewish, and Conservative? You made a bunch of unnecessary assumptions."

You're not a conservative, let's be honest. And I don't quite get your point. If someone on here posted comments saying misguided conservatives are blocking immigration reform, I wouldn't come on here and say "Hey wait, I'm a conservative and I'm not blocking immigration reform." Because of course when we generalize we aren't talking about the entire group of people. Not all conservatives think alike and not all liberals think alike, same goes for everyone in between. That said, if you don't realize that those who support changing the team name Redskins are generally liberals, well then, that's your right. But you are only kidding yourself.

Posted by: Barno1 | February 4, 2011 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company