Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: SoccerInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  Sports e-mail alerts  |  RSS

D.C. United's Annapolis Showdown

From the Post/Metro staff's Maryland Moment blog.....

D.C. United plans to rally its forces at the state house tomorrow, but stadium opponents will be there too.

Read all about it.

By Steve Goff  |  March 16, 2009; 12:30 PM ET
Categories:  D.C. United  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: World Cup, NCAA Style
Next: World Cup, NCAA Style Part II

Comments

Talk about idiots, here's one for ya . . .

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1329

Posted by: delantero | March 16, 2009 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Will Marc Fisher be making it out then?

Posted by: notafembot | March 16, 2009 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Fischer actually report something honestly and accurately? HA, he'll just make up some garbage like he usually does . .

Posted by: delantero | March 16, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

What crap. Of course the majority of the folks sending emails aren't living in PG. That's not kind of the point, that is the point.

Posted by: DadRyan | March 16, 2009 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Delantero, I think the column in your link is meant to be tongue-in-cheek. (At least that's how I read it.)

It doesn't surprise me that there are people in Prince George's who are not in favor of DCU's SSS plan. It seems to me the team's owners haven't proven that their plan will pay off for Prince George's. Taxpayers have a right to be skeptical. Nonetheless, I hope the bill passes.

Posted by: Brokenbil | March 16, 2009 1:01 PM | Report abuse

@delantero,

Mr Webb needs to tell me how demanding baseball is - 3 trips to the plate, 9 jogs to the outfield, and maybe 8 movements to catch a fly-ball. I'm exhausted already.

And since he hates the sport and what it involves, WHY, let your children to be involved with it if it's so fundamentally disruptive to your beliefs on religion and life.

How tired and pathetic - much like his books with their circulation in the quadruple digits - mostly at Liberty. And I would be embarassed if I were his children too.

Posted by: VirginiaBlueBlood | March 16, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuse

That link is so last week's comment sections, delantero.

Posted by: sitruc | March 16, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

VirginiaBlueBlood, are you sure that Stephen H. Webb column is supposed to be taken seriously? I find that hard to believe. He sounds like so many sportswriters who make up the lamest reasons why they don't cover soccer. It reads like a joke to me.

Posted by: Brokenbil | March 16, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

That site and the article appear to be serious and more than slighty disturbing in many aspects.

Posted by: sitruc | March 16, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Someone could see if the legislator would also add, after asking how many people live in PG, "how many of you would consider moving to PG if the stadium were built here, next time you are going to move?" And then I suggest that lots of hands should go up. Perhaps someone at DCU's stadium planning group could get that question seeded with a friend on the council.

Posted by: dsheon | March 16, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

@delantero and sitruc,

Yep - anything on a site like that tend to come from the TRULY DISCONNECTED.

It's like asking Nancy Pelosi how she can help clean up Baltimore...

Posted by: VirginiaBlueBlood | March 16, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

GOFF - Any updates on Fred, Namoff or Crayton injuries? Will any of the 3 be ready to play this Sunday?

Posted by: kris77 | March 16, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I thought Webb's piece was amusing

Posted by: OWNTF | March 16, 2009 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Crayton looked fine to me when he was jogging around the field in Charleston on Saturday. Shoot, Namoff was kicking the ball around, joking with fans and looked fine in my opinion. I'd had a lot to drink but, everyone seemed happy and confident.

Posted by: DadRyan | March 16, 2009 2:40 PM | Report abuse

DadRyan, Thanks for the update! :)

Posted by: kris77 | March 16, 2009 2:52 PM | Report abuse

I suggest we should take a collection to send Mr. Webb to parenting classes since he has yet to learn that it's not all about him.

Posted by: carnack | March 16, 2009 3:07 PM | Report abuse

It didn't take the vultures over at the Metro desk long to jump on the caravan news and try to rally support for the other side, did it? Why is everything they print over there so hostile to this? Her blog was obviously in favor of the opposition. Would there have been many opponents if her blog wasn't posted? I have my doubts.

Barra Brava, Screaming Eagles, and La Norte please bring your drums so we can drown out their voices tomorrow.

Posted by: croftonpost | March 16, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Oops, I meant to say opponents at tomorrows rally.

Posted by: croftonpost | March 16, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

""I think the column in your link is meant to be tongue-in-cheek.""

If it is, it's just not very funny.

"That link is so last week's comment sections"

That's what I get for snowboarding in Colorado . . I'm so yesterday's news before it happens.

Posted by: delantero | March 16, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse

So if soccer folks think the Metro blog is so blatantly anti-stadium, do the anti-stadium folks think the Soccer Insider post was blatantly pro-stadium?

Come on, folks

Give me a break

I posted the news that DCU was organizing a rally, Metro posted the news that opposition is organizing a rally. That's all.

Posted by: Steve Goff | March 16, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Exactly.

Posted by: dpowellutkedu | March 16, 2009 5:37 PM | Report abuse

We have become jaded. Why are their stories always about the opposition? Where are the positive contributions concerning the stadium and DC United in their stories? Today's blog doesn't appear to be just reporting their is opposition coming out tomorrow. It appears to question the voracity of DC United's proposal ex.

"In public comments, team leaders have said they will pay 25 percent of the costs of the stadium. The other 75 percent would be paid by tax revenue generated at the stadium site, they say."

"They" would be more than DC United team leaders as it states. They would be DC United, the MD Stadium Authority, and the folks who introduced the legislation to the delegates.

I subscribe to the Post, I love the Post but I do not feel the Metro section has treated this equitably. If so many of us are of this opinion, there must be something to it. I know Kevin Payne would agree judging by last week's events.

Posted by: croftonpost | March 16, 2009 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Exactly...

Posted by: DadRyan | March 16, 2009 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Hey Steve, I love you man, but you should be giving us a break. A lot of people are fed up with this irresponsible *reporting* that your "colleagues" keep pumping out. You are a model for objective reporting when it comes to United, and all things football, but what ever is going on with the Metro folks is far from it. Sticking up for them like that seems a little strange... Do you really want to work at Whole Foods that badly?;-)

Posted by: DadRyan | March 16, 2009 6:09 PM | Report abuse

I don't think Helderman's piece is biased. I can, however, see how one could take as such. If I was going to express skepticism about something without openly admitting it, I might consider something like the repetitive ", they say." sentence closers. However, in this instance my impression is that it's just stylistically unappealing and/or hurried writing.

I think a lot of our collective beef with the Metro desk is that they put the anti-stadium side's argument out there clearly, while our side is not quite as well presented. Part of this is that they seem to be much better connected to local activists and government rather than soccer fans (which is completely understandable). However, it seems to be as much from a lack of effort to see where we stand, or the club stands, as anything else. Marc Fisher aside, I think the Metro desk would stop appearing biased if they just got our facts and opinions together like they do for those against the stadium. If Kevin Payne is having to make public statements correcting stories in the Metro section, then the conclusions I have to draw are either sloppy journalism, biased journalism, or poor presentation on DCU's side. While I think the latter is involved to some degree, I think it's definitely not the main culprit.

To use a cliche, the devil is in the details. When the Metro section runs a piece about how DCU and the Stadium Authority, together, decided on the bonds PG would have to float (something PG already knew they would have to do; what they didn't know was the specific number), it's presented as if DCU is changing the plan to grab more money. The whole tone of the article changed when it became "the team asked for $47 million" rather than "the team, in conjunction with the MD Stadium Authority, determined what PG's contribution to the stadium would be". Leaving out little details like that colors us in the same light as the Nats and MLB, even if on a smaller scale. In this area, that's poison.

I don't speak for everyone else, but what I want out of the Metro desk isn't unbiased reporting, it's better journalism.

Posted by: Chest_Rockwell | March 16, 2009 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Generally speaking, I would think a journalist would simply call DC United in order to verify a statement or claim and, more importantly, give them a chance to respond.

I know all about journalism, I watched DICK.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144168/

Posted by: delantero | March 16, 2009 8:02 PM | Report abuse

hmmm... +1

Posted by: DadRyan | March 16, 2009 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Seattle and it's progressive population in the most part voted against replacing the Kingdome and building what would eventually become the home of the hottest thing in MLS. They built it anyway. The skeptics have long been silenced in good old Seattle. The cries of government finagling are a distant memory, just as the Post Intelligencer soon WILL be.
I hope someone can imagine that there's a big lesson to be learned in recognizing how similar DCU's situation is/and was to the Super Sonics. In a city where the watering down of their papers, and irrelevance to what people in the city really gave a crap about led to their demise we can find an example of a place we do not want to go. We do not want Will and Vick to become Howard Schultz. I sure as hell don't want the Washington Post to become the joke that the PI became in it's last decade.
People don't believe that United could be moved from the DC area...Just ask Sir Mix-a-Lot about the Sonics. I bet he'd cry his freaking eyes out.

Posted by: DadRyan | March 16, 2009 10:20 PM | Report abuse

I agree with all of the above. As much as I love Steve's passion for soccer I don't think he quite gets this. The answer to his earlier question is NO. His blog purposely avoids pro-stadium rallying as it should. However, the articles over at the Metro desk whether intended or not (things that make you go hmmm) have acted as matches to light the inferno of opposition. The proponents of the stadium do not enjoy such authorship unless it comes from dcunited.com. What's wrong with this picture?

If the Metro desk were to author just one article (complete with a proponent title ie. see Chest Rockwell's comment above) that centered on the proponents of the stadium, why they support it, the actual likelihood of a default (which isn't likely), and the benefits of a mixed use plan then my opinion could be altered. It's definitely an article worth pursuing but it doesn't generate as much buzz so, it probably will never happen.

Posted by: croftonpost | March 16, 2009 11:38 PM | Report abuse

Goff -- This is the internet. 98% of the people who post on the internet assume that the powers that be are arrayed against them, conspiratorially. They read great bias into factual presentations. It doesn't matter that the Metro piece starts by noting that you are reporting on a DCU rally -- and that the opposition is rallying in response. It becomes apart of the instant meme that the Post is arrayed against this proposal. Ditto the prior piece, which reported that MacFarlane and the Stadium Authority chief were asking PG to chip in $47 million. Somehow that gets read here as if it didn't mention that the request/proposal was coming from the Authority and the team. All it takes is one person to announce there's a big conspiracy, and everyone else jumps on that train. Nothing you write will ever shake that belief. Almost no one wants journalistic integrity -- they want journalists to report their side.

Posted by: fischy | March 17, 2009 12:08 AM | Report abuse

fischy,

Wrong. We want journalists to report both sides. I am not as you describe nor do I believe the others are. I suggest you read Chest Rockwell's comments above as they very eloquently state the problem as we perceive it. Your's is nothing more than perception as well, it's not fact.

Posted by: croftonpost | March 17, 2009 1:04 AM | Report abuse

On occassion paranoid internet nuts are right.

It took a FOIA request by the City Paper to unmask The David Nakamura's willingness to trade negative stories for access with the Mayor, yet the Post has not once responded to this documented allegation of bias. And that has direct bearing on the Post's objectivity on reporting on the stadium.

I agree with Goff that it's news that opponents are organizing, and have no problem with that appearing.

But I have a big problem with the Post not calling the Mayor out on failing to live up to the pre-election commitment he made to fans at RFK. I voted for him, reluctantly, because of this promise. If the Post seeks to live to its mandate to inform the public, it has dropped the ball on this one.


Posted by: dsheon | March 17, 2009 8:12 AM | Report abuse

@crofton -- Of course, it's just opinion. But, it's an observation that I could deploy into almost any political discussion on the internet, with at least a kernel of truth -- no matter the site or perspective. It's why the Post is seen as both a liberal mouthpiece and a neocon rag, depending on where you look. I did read Chest's post -- it was Chest's post that prompted my own. Sure, that Metro piece began by saying "team officials" told PG council members they need to put money in -- and didn't mention the Stadium Authority's role until the very next sentence. The next sentence -- does say that both team officials and the Stadium Authority made the request. Calling that bias, rather than punchy writing, is a stretch -- and it wasn't even wrong. Team officials did make the request. They weren't the only doing that, and the article made that clear in the second sentence.

@dsheon -- First that I'm hearing about that bit. Sounds interesting. I'd like to know more about it. Not saying that conspiracies don't exist, but they're not as ubiquitous as the internets make it seem. As for Fenty, I feel like they did do that. Thanks to the Post's reporting, we know the things that Fenty did to prevent DCU from talking to developers, and the paper broke the news that he flipped on the original plan to have MacFarlane develop. Not mentioning that there was a campaign promise? Seems a bit picky to me. He didn't go to the mat for the team, and he wasn't agreeing to the team's financial demands, but he didn't close the door on the project, either. Just de-emphasized and limited the team's role, for political reasons.

Posted by: fischy | March 17, 2009 9:49 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Goff as well. The problem isn't the reporting of the opposition of the stadium. The problem is the overwhelming amount of the reporting on this issue has focused on the opposition. Their is news to report and merit to be had on the proponent side of the equation. As I said above, print just one article that focuses on the proponents instead of the opponents. Is that asking for too much?

I have never heard anything regarding the Nakamura thing. If true, it is very interesting.

Posted by: croftonpost | March 17, 2009 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Fischy,

Do you believe a story that focuses on the proponents instead of the opponents is too much to ask for? From my perspective that is really my only big beef.

Posted by: croftonpost | March 17, 2009 10:02 AM | Report abuse

@crofton -- It depends what you mean. I just heard on WAMU about the DCU rally plans. Nothing there about opponents. DO I take from that the station is supporting the stadium plan? I think that would be silly, and there's nothing inherently wrong in writing such a piece. Goff did that online. But, the coverage should be balanced. I'm guessing the Post will report tomorrow about DCU's supporters. Will that satisfy you?

Posted by: fischy | March 17, 2009 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Yes. Wishful thinking, but I'm hoping that an article like that will help educate some of the opposition. Some of the opponents clearly are not aware of the facts in this whole mess.

Posted by: croftonpost | March 17, 2009 10:29 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company