Tags

, ,

My husband got all worked up last night reading an article in The Washington Post about Dan Snyder, owner of the Washington Redskins, and his beef with a writer for a local alternative paper.

Upset about an unflattering cover story, Snyder wants the writer fired. In addition, Snyder is very interested in e-mails exchanged by the writer and a Post sports blogger.

These passages in The Post’s Feb. 2 article on the unfolding saga sparked the spousal outrage:

“According to several people with direct knowledge of the situation, Snyder’s attorneys contacted The Post last week and asked the newspaper to preserve e-mails between Post sports blogger Dan Steinberg and McKenna.” (McKenna is the writer for the alt paper.)

“Steinberg declined to comment Tuesday, as did The Post.”

Among the “people with direct knowledge of the situation,” my husband reasoned, had to be someone with The Post. “And how can a paper not comment in its own story?” he demanded.

Excellent questions, aren’t they? Especially given that Washington City Paper’s coverage of the brouhaha has been much more transparent.

Looks like I have a good example for my future students on the merits of transparency and the pitfalls of anonymous sourcing.

Advertisements