« Dickerson Is Rec Specs and Turtlenecks | Home | JMU Is No Campus for Old Men »
Cerrato vs. La Canfora Beef Continues
By Chris Mottram | September 23, 2008
We all know by now that Vinny Cerrato started his little bi-weekly radio show last week, because, shit, it’s not like he has anything better to do. At least if he’s busy on the radio four hours a week that’s less time for him to fuck up any personnel decisions. Friday’s show was, by all accounts, pretty uneventful. Yesterday morning, however, things got interesting as Cerrato accused Jason La Canfora of accusing him of tampering. Confusing, I know.
Basically, Cerrato went on air and said that La Canfora called the league and accused Cerrato of tampering after he discussed the future of Raiders coach Lane Kiffin on the NFL Newtork. Also keep in mind that Cerrato has some sort of ongoing feud with La Canfora, so much so that he openly talked shit about JLC to me in a job interview. Here are the excerpts:
I don’t see why Jason La Canfora would call the league office to charge us with tampering. […]
If we were caught tampering, we would lose draft picks and be fined heavily. Look at the New England Patriots, Minnesota Vikings, a lot of these teams that have had these things happen lately, you’re gonna get fined heavily.
But when a guy is trying to hurt the franchise of the Washington redskins, I’m gonna stand up and I’m gonna defend the Washington Redskins, because there is nothing that happened on that—this is just a guy attacking us, and I wish that he would just be professional like the rest of his colleagues that cover the Redskins. Period.
That’s Cerrato’s take. Here’s what La Canfora actually called the league about:
Jason did not “charge” anyone with anything. He called the NFL’s public relations staff last week to ask how the league’s anti-tampering rules would come into play if Vinny Cerrato answered a question during his new radio show about a player or coach under contract to another team. Sports radio hosts are often asked these sorts of questions, and we were curious whether Cerrato would be limited in the way he could respond by virtue of his position as a team GM.
Jason did not make any sort of complaint whatsoever. (In fact, reporters cannot charge teams with violations of NFL rules. Only other teams can file charges like tampering.) He referred to Cerrato’s questions about Raiders coach Lane Kiffin only to provide context for the question he was asking. He did not write about the issue.
So, in fact, La Canfora was not calling the NFL to directly accuse Cerrato of anything. He was simply doing his job as a reporter by attempting to find out what repercussions, if any, Cerrato’s radio program, and the content of said radio program, could potentially have on the team in general. Whether he was inquiring with the league in an attempt to catch Cerrato in some sort of wrongdoing is up for debate. But he certainly wasn’t attacking or being accusatory or unprofessional. He has a right, and a responsibility, to gather this sort of info about the team he’s assigned to cover.
Topics: Washington Post, Media Bird Doggin', Redskins |
18 Responses to “Cerrato vs. La Canfora Beef Continues”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:08 am
“But he certainly wasn’t attacking or being accusatory or unprofessional. He has a right, and a responsibility, to gather this sort of info about the team he’s assigned to cover.”
Amen. Who wants to read ExtremeSkins or Warpath on the wp.com site? Those sites already exist. You want to read homerism at it’s finest, go there.
Personally, I’d rather get my Skins news from someone who doesn’t have a Skins bias, and is actually talented at what he does.
As I said in my own post about this situation: “This is just another PR arm of Snyder Enterprises, and JLC and the Washington Post have long been in their doghouse.”
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:31 am
Unfortunately this is not about journalistic integrity (as Mr. Irrelevant implies in his post about this), nor is it about the noble La Canfora standing alone as a voice if objective reason in a sea of pro-’skins media coverage (as the commentor above would have us believe). No, La Canfora has long had a bias against the ’skins, and this has skewed his coverage. Don’t just take my word for it; See Pro Football Talk’s take here:
http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/09/23/la-canfora-accuses-cerrato-of-slander/;
see Player Hater’s Ball here: http://www.playerhatersball.com/2008/09/carnage-continues-vinny-cerrato-vs-la.html.
See also many, many comments on Redskins Insider (Jason La Canfora’s blog on the Washington Post) who argue that this bias now spills over into his coverage of the team.
We don’t want reporters to be fans of the team they are covering because this would affect their objectivity. Fair enough; I agree. What about journalists that actively DISLIKE the organization they are covering? Does this not also affect objectivity?
Would Mr. Irrelevant like to weigh in on this question?
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:52 am
Wow, looks like Vinny Cerrato reads your site, guys.
This is all getting off to a great start, can’t wait to see how much worse it gets.
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:52 am
“What about journalists that actively DISLIKE the organization they are covering? Does this not also affect objectivity?”
That’s a fair point, and perhaps the Cerrato-JLC beef has compromised his objectivity in other instances. But in this specific case, Cerrato was wrong to say the things he said on air about La Canfora. Furthermore, if Cerrato intends to use the radio show as a propaganda tool — to control the message, if you will, whether that message is factually accurate or not — concerns me. And if that’s what the show is going to do, then I’m glad to have La Canfora on the opposite side, keeping Cerrato in check.
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:54 am
fire jason la canfora, I realize you feel that JLC is biased against the Skins, but I just don’t agree (at least not completely). Cerrato and Snyder have misled this team and it’s fanbase for a long, long time, and JLC has been at the forefront of calling out a lot of their BS; and he has been in the doghouse with them for that.
Let’s put it all on the table here:
If it seems that there has been an inordinate amount of negativity directed at the Skins from JLC and the Post, it is because the Skins have not done a lot of good things OVER THE LAST DECADE. Yes we have had a little more success in recent years, but Skins fans are very quick to forget the past when the team strings together two wins.
PFT relates a piece of his email in that post, and I will not jump to judgement based on an edited email snippet (as evidenced by the ellipsis). But the first half of it is very true. Cerrato made a blatantly false and inflammatory statement about JLC.
The Player Hater’s Ball post is also off-base and inflammatory. “Narc”? What is this, a “Stop Snitchin” convention? Cerrato made his comments on public radio. There was absolutely no reason to assume that the League didn’t already know about it. He didn’t try to expose private emails or privileged information. He referenced a publicly broadcasted statement.
As far as the Redskins Insider commenters go… that is not a worthwhile block of evidence for anything. I have been a regular on that site since a month or two after it’s inception, and I know for a fact that there is more trash on there than not. There are some really good regulars, but the comments section (in most cases) is nothing more than an anonymous peanut gallery.
Sorry to take up so much room in you comments section, Brothers Mottram.
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:58 am
“Sorry to take up so much room in you… Brothers Mottram.”
See what an edited sentence can give you!?! YIKES!!
That was supposed to read, “…in YOUR comments section, Brothers Mottram.”
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Chris,
Thanks for answering/addressing my comment. I agree totally that Cerrato should not have made this an on-air issue, or at least should not have said the things he said, as you say (uh oh, head spinning).
But I am in turn troubled by your idea that La Canfora’s anti-’skins bias balances all the pro-’skins bias out there, as though there is some sort of big picture scorecard out there legitimating La Canfora’s bias. I completely disagree with this. It’s not the job of La Canfora, working at the Washington Post as he does, to “balance” against all the other media perspectives out there on any given topic. As an employee and representative of the Post, his job is to report - even on his “blog,” which is owned by the Post and purports to publish information about that sports organization that we all care so dearly about.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I didn’t mean to suggest that I want La Canfora to be an anti-Skins voice. Rather I merely want him to write the truth behind what’s actually going on and be critical when need be, which, with this organization, is often.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
BucktownSkinsFan,
We’ll just have to agree to disagree about JLC, I guess. I do agree that the comment section of RI is no kind of legitimate reference for JLC’s anti-’skins bias.
I have never had any kind of specific beef with JLC at all, and it was only after a long period of reading RI that I came to think that JLC did not like the ’skins organization. And he has, in fact, almost (I know, I know) said as much in some of his comments in RI. He very clearly has a beef with Cerrato and Snyder - I don’t think that is disputed by anyone. Doesn’t that affect his journalism in any way? Doesn’t that affect his objectivity?
Consider this: as soon as Cerrato’s radio show was announced, there were several RI post from JLC about what a waste of time this was for Cerrato, and how Cerrato stood alone among other GM’s in the NFL by spending four hours a week on the radio. Cerrato is wasting time that should be spent on evaluating players, according to JLC. No other high level NFL executive does this, according to JLC. Don’t just take my word for it; go back and check last week’s RI archive, if you don’t believe me:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/2008/09/vinny_cerrato_dan_snyders_new.html.
Except that other GM’s do the same thing - for example, see Bill Polian’s radio show:
http://www.colts.com/sub.cfm?page=events&id=3996
Remember, Bill Polian is the lead executive for the INDIANAPOLIS COLTS.
So I guess Cerrato does not stand alone on this sort of thing, huh? I guess other high level football executives in the NFL also host radio shows?
That’s what I mean by bias - JLC has a personal problem with the ’skins FO, particularly Cerrato.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Vinnys first official move as a Redskins executive was to get the 2nd and 3rd overall pick in that years draft.
I like the guy, and while he has had some bad moves (Arch and Lloyd) he has made some good ones (Samuels, Taylor, Cooley)
The Redskins are 2-1 right now as well.
Vinny now has the final say, something he just aquired this season.
Mayor = Fan of Vinny Cerrato
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Chris,
I agree that getting to the truth is what we all want. But I just don’t see how La Canfora is any kind of guide to the truth at Redskins Park, given that he has a personal vendettas against the organization he is supposed to be reporting about.
September 23rd, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Adding fuel to the fire… See Steinz’s post about Baghdad Larry entering the fray.
September 23rd, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Larry Michael comments on air last night about the situation are just embarrassing. The “source meter” shit is mind-numbingly stupid.
And as Steinz points out, it’s really the Skins keeping any feud between the two parties alive.
September 23rd, 2008 at 6:20 pm
At least post the whole thing from the Post’s Editor:
**************
We called the league today to confirm that Jason had not charged the Redskins with tampering. Here’s what NFL spokesman Michael Signora had to say: “Jason LaCanfora called our office and said that Vinny Cerrato was talking in specifics on his radio show about the Raiders’ coaching position. Jason wanted to know if that could possibly be a tampering issue. Jason has been told that there is no general prohibition against publicly talking about another team’s players or staff. It routinely occurs throughout the league.”
***************
September 23rd, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Larry Michael needs to keep his mouth shut, definitely not helping anything with that crap.
September 23rd, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Check the quote from the NFL, the one the Post put up in the “Editor’s note” on this subject. You might notice that LaConfora DID NOT OBJECTIVELY “inquire” about tampering rules, HE WAS OBVIOUSLY LOOKING FOR SOMETHING TO “CATCH” CERRATO ON. There is no defending it. It was just wrong. Cerrato is an idiot for dancing this asinine dance with LaConfora, but that doesn’t excuse what LaConfora did.
September 23rd, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Bluecollar: I left that part of the Post’s response out on purpose ’cause I didn’t want this post going on forever, but it only helps to prove my point, so thanks for adding it here.
He called the league to inquire about what Cerrato can and cannot say on his show without punishment from the NFL. That’s what a reporters job essentially is: To ask questions. He never called them to accuse Cerrato with anything, which is the key inflammatory point in all the bullshit Vinny spewed yesterday. Shit, as Skins fans, who don’t wanna see (further) harm done to this team by Cerrato, we too should wanna know if what he says on the radio could get the team slapped with tampering.
September 23rd, 2008 at 10:22 pm
I agree the Cerrato’s use of the word “charge” was inaccurate, and in bad taste, as much of what he does is. But the NFL’s version of the phone call is a clear indication that LaConfora didn’t just call with a question(in particular): Jason LaCanfora called our office and said that Vinny Cerrato was talking in specifics on his radio show about the Raiders’ coaching position. Jason wanted to know if that could possibly be a tampering issue.
“Specifics about the Raiders’ coaching position”, for one, he didn’t actually do that, he asked Sheffter about Kiffin and following the response, commented that he read that there was rumor that Syracuse was interested. By stating the “question” this way, it absolutely comes across as accusatory, inflamatory at best. If all LaConfora wanted to do was to inquire about the rules, why would he do it that way? And further, do you REALLY believe that LaConfora didn’t already know about the tampering rules? Really?
Cerrato didn’t handle this properly, but LaConfora has NO OBECTIVITY, NEVER DID. He hated the Redskins organization when he was in Baltimore, and still does. Unlike many others who feel the same way however, he IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN CAPABLE OF SEPARATING HIS PERSONAL FEELINGS FROM HIS REPORTING. The amount of venom in much of his work is as transparent as glass, and I am sure you have seen it as well as everyone else, it just depends on whether or not your own personal feelings about Cerrato/Snyder would allow you to admit it. At least, that’s what I think anyway.