Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Bob Condotta and the Seattle Times' Angle
digits
Member Posts: 1,677
Ever since the infamous "Victory and Ruins" series that the Seattle Times published back in 2008, I have wholeheartedly shared the belief with many of my fellow loyal Husky fans that the newspaper has an alternate agenda. After a series like that, how could you not? I believe that their agenda is to diminish/destroy UW's past football successes, accentuate our relatively recent mediocre to bad seasons, and undermine current improvements/achievements to the UW football program. And I believe @ the heart of this agenda lies one Mr. Bob Condotta.
First off, let me say that I do feel Bob is fairly good @ what he does. There is always a steady stream of information about all things UW football and he does a solid job of keeping us informed. But c'mon, the guy is a Wazzu graduate! Could you imagine The Tuscaloosa News hiring an Auburn graduate to cover Alabama football?! No, me neither, because it would absolutely never happen. Bob is a master of being the Devil's Advocate and underscoring any/every UW achievement. What ever happened to guys like Blaine Newham, who gave it to us straight, without any angles? I have called Condotta on this in the past and he categorically denies that he is biased in any way, shape or form. Furthermore, he has implied that it is rather idiotic that myself, or anyone for that matter, would think he would be biased because of being a Cougar. Hmm. I don't believe him, primarily due to his comments, articles and overall tone: When a UW player receives an award, he is usually the last to report it on the blog; when UW has a big win, it's because the other team didn't perform well... he once argued with me on a chat that Beaver fans travel as well as Husky fans! Sure, Pal. Whatever you say.
For awhile, I could handle Condotta's smarmy, condescending tone. But lately, I just can't deal with reading his articles, chats, etc. He is so obviously biased to me, it's nauseating. It really came to a head after the AC disaster when he interviewed Sark. If you go back and watch the clip, Condotta was audibly so obviously excited that his Cougs had just pulled off the upset, that he was a blabbering moron, and could barely intelligibly ask the questions he was posing to Sark. And in the aftermath, Condotta has repeatedly brought up the AC with UW coaches, players, on the Husky Football Blog, etc., essentially rubbing it in our noses. I'm fucking over it.
But I have some questions for y'all that I hope will glean some information on this topic for me:
1) What is your opinion of my theory? Am I paranoid, delusional, all of the above?
2) Did something happen between the UW and Seattle Times that created bad blood?
3) Do you feel this agenda is negatively affecting the UW Football Program as a whole and making it more difficult for us to returning to the elite?
4) Do you think Bob realizes/recognizes his biases and just denies it because he knows the Seattle Times has his back or is it more of a subconscious deal?
5) Why couldn't ESPN have made our lives easier and hired Condotta instead of Ted Miller?
First off, let me say that I do feel Bob is fairly good @ what he does. There is always a steady stream of information about all things UW football and he does a solid job of keeping us informed. But c'mon, the guy is a Wazzu graduate! Could you imagine The Tuscaloosa News hiring an Auburn graduate to cover Alabama football?! No, me neither, because it would absolutely never happen. Bob is a master of being the Devil's Advocate and underscoring any/every UW achievement. What ever happened to guys like Blaine Newham, who gave it to us straight, without any angles? I have called Condotta on this in the past and he categorically denies that he is biased in any way, shape or form. Furthermore, he has implied that it is rather idiotic that myself, or anyone for that matter, would think he would be biased because of being a Cougar. Hmm. I don't believe him, primarily due to his comments, articles and overall tone: When a UW player receives an award, he is usually the last to report it on the blog; when UW has a big win, it's because the other team didn't perform well... he once argued with me on a chat that Beaver fans travel as well as Husky fans! Sure, Pal. Whatever you say.
For awhile, I could handle Condotta's smarmy, condescending tone. But lately, I just can't deal with reading his articles, chats, etc. He is so obviously biased to me, it's nauseating. It really came to a head after the AC disaster when he interviewed Sark. If you go back and watch the clip, Condotta was audibly so obviously excited that his Cougs had just pulled off the upset, that he was a blabbering moron, and could barely intelligibly ask the questions he was posing to Sark. And in the aftermath, Condotta has repeatedly brought up the AC with UW coaches, players, on the Husky Football Blog, etc., essentially rubbing it in our noses. I'm fucking over it.
But I have some questions for y'all that I hope will glean some information on this topic for me:
1) What is your opinion of my theory? Am I paranoid, delusional, all of the above?
2) Did something happen between the UW and Seattle Times that created bad blood?
3) Do you feel this agenda is negatively affecting the UW Football Program as a whole and making it more difficult for us to returning to the elite?
4) Do you think Bob realizes/recognizes his biases and just denies it because he knows the Seattle Times has his back or is it more of a subconscious deal?
5) Why couldn't ESPN have made our lives easier and hired Condotta instead of Ted Miller?
Comments
Now to answer your questions:
1. The Times hates good Husky football. Just look at how Kelley and Brewer have propped up Ty and Sark.
2. The Times wants to sell newspapers. No bad blood that I know about.
3. UW itself hates Husky football a lot more than the Times does. Just look at how Emmert firebombed the program and ran away.
4. Whatever bias he has is subconscious. There have been plenty of us to push Bob to rip the Huskies more than he does.
5. Fuck ESPN.
Fix the product on the field, everything else takes care of itself.
He was covering the Sonics and the Seahawks, until the Sonics refused to allow him in their locker room after he wrote too many pieces that the Sonics thought were smearing the players (reporting DUIs, domestic violence cases, etc).
The paper then put him on the Huskies, and he broke the news about the Hobart loans that began the investigations into the program, uncovered the fruit baskets, and then James resigned. It was the LA Times that published the first story, but Farry co-wrote it as a Seattle Times reporter.
Farrey was a bit of a poindexter type that liked making a name for himself, exposing athletes and athletic "violations". Don James hated his guts. In my opinion Blethen (the Times owner) encouraged this behavior then, and probably still does today... Farrey wound up marrying Blethen's daughter.
Don't respond to anyone who uses "y'all" with any degree of sincerity.
And you're whining about a non-issue. So the local rag hates the local football powerhouse. Welcome to big-time college football. About half the programs in 'Merica have the same relationship with their local rags.
I've called the whaaaambulance for you. It should be there any minute.
Condotta searches the web and posts relevant links and stories. Jude lazily does this. I don't care that Jude is a Duck or if Condotta hates the Husky. I don't need a UW grad to be covering the Huskies either. Condotta is a true professional and Jude is a lazy piece of shit.