A report card on the last year's media

[foofighters]

If you'll allow for a bit of self-indulgence, please read this take from year ago, when ProFootballTalk ranked the Cowboys as the 24th best team in the NFL heading into the season. ESPN was even worse, putting Dallas at No. 28.

http://insidethestar.com/lazy-media-baiting-trap/

Could they have possibly been more wrong? What about three consecutive 8-8 seasons could have possibly led to a conclusion of absolute implosion?



Most people get fired for being that wrong at their jobs. Not the media.

All this is to say, don't pay attention to the doom and gloom of Dallas' running back situation, or the whatever trumped-up crisis they create.

And likewise, pay no mind to the angle they're currently concocting to make the Eagles, Giants, and Commanders any better than they actually are.

Watch for the bull. It's gonna get deep.

I don't give two (insert word here) about what the media says. Good or bad. It's just an opinion and I like to make my own mind up by actually watching the games instead of highlights.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Where I have issues with media in recent era is they are more concerned to be the 1st to report something than they are about being right. To me the media should be able to provide facts and verify before going to press with it. Now days that seldom happens it is about getting the report out before anyone else, facts be damned

Sure, happens all of the time.

And that's in part why ESPN's ratings are going down, newspaper reporting is less popular and radio ratings are down. They're not credible.

The media should hold their credibility sacred. They can for ethical and their own moral code, but it's something that will always draw people to them if they are credible.

That's why I am always stuck to Jay Glazer and Todd Archer. I find them to be very credible and if they are reporting something, I know they are right. Meanwhile goofs like Mr. Blue Suit, Schism Boy, and the Perez Hilton of football can get 1 out of 5 stories correct (if they're lucky) and I'm not interested because I know down the road that the actual facts are going to come out which are going to be different from what they initially reported.

But in today's corporate world, it's all about making the big splash early on and sustainable profit is for losers.






YR

 

[big dog cowboy]

 

[Doomsday101]

Sure, happens all of the time.

And that's in part why ESPN's ratings are going down, newspaper reporting is less popular and radio ratings are down. They're not credible.

The media should hold their credibility sacred. They can for ethical and their own moral code, but it's something that will always draw people to them if they are credible.

That's why I am always stuck to Jay Glazer and Todd Archer. I find them to be very credible and if they are reporting something, I know they are right. Meanwhile goofs like Mr. Blue Suit, Schism Boy, and the Perez Hilton of football can get 1 out of 5 stories correct (if they're lucky) and I'm not interested because I know down the road that the actual facts are going to come out which are going to be different from what they initially reported.

But in today's corporate world, it's all about making the big splash early on and sustainable profit is for losers.






YR

Very well said.

 

[SkinsHokieFan]

And likewise, pay no mind to the angle they're currently concocting to make the Eagles, Giants, and Commanders any better than they actually are.

I have yet to see an article/prediction that gives the Commanders more then 6 wins. Can you point to anything that gives credence to this angle in your theory?