WTOP.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 2
    messages
     
  • Wes F.
    10:42am - Wed Apr 27th, 2011
    Proves my opinion about Danny-boy
    He's an attention junkie. Plain and simple. Once the attention died down, he had to stoke that fire again. He does not care whether or not the attention is positive, only that it's there.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Mike W.
    1:19am - Fri Apr 29th, 2011
    Chris Core: I question your " 'Core' Values!"
    No doubt that Dan Snider has a PR problem. But just because it's fashionable for everyone and his brother to jump on the "Bash Dan Snider" band wagon, doesn't mean he shouldn't stand up for what is right. The City Paper basically printed that Snider was a criminal, i.e., saying that he "got caught forging names as a telemarketer with Snyder Communications.” To me, that is a serious accusation, more so than tabloid commentators who simply say that "Snider is evil / he is a terrible owner / he has a 'dark heart,' etc." Maybe it's true & maybe it's not, but the City Paper did not back it up with any facts; apparently didn't try to check the facts by contacting Snider or his representatives; and finally, later tried to weasel out of apologizing by saying they didn't actually say Snider forged anything, a bold-faced lie! But since no one seems to enforce libel, the City Paper seems to think they are above this practice. I think it is dangerous to give media the power to print whatever they want, without having to verify the facts of the situation. A once respected journalist named Dan Rather, lost his job and reputation for the same type of thing. The last I checked, the Freedom of the Press does not protect libel.

    Surprisingly, you Chris Core, aren't against the company defending its libel practices, but are speaking out against Dan Snider, who inconveniencing you while trying to defend attacks on his character. Isn't the integrity of the media more important? Isn't this what the real danger is? Are you simply against Dan Snider because he is unpopular and it's fun to get on the bandwagon like everyone else, and kick the man while he's down (unpopular) or do you have a legitimate reason that you have so far, failed to mention? If so, I'd love to hear it. Until then, I have to question what your definition of "core values" really is!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }