Gabe Oppenheim replied to my comment on his article this morning, and invited me to call him to talk about things. We then exchanged several e-mails and did eventually have our conversation. He gave me permission to paraphrase and use some of his remarks in his e-mails to explain his perspective, but declined to answer directly by commenting on my blog or as a comment to his own story on the Post.
I will start by saying that I believe him to be sorry about the way his article was perceived. But he also admitted that he really doesn't understand how or why people are misinterpreting his story. He said that he understands fan loyalty and passion and thought his article conveyed that, and not the condescending, mocking tone that I, and many others, perceived.
He stated his article was about the certain men at that certain table that he quoted, but readily admitted he did a poor job explaining that in the article. He even mentioned he had some filler at the end about the little boy that got the trivia contest right and won tickets, but that it was "trimmed" by his editor.
He stated in his opening e-mail:
I'm sorry if the story in any way misrepresented the scene. To be perfectly honest, I'm a huge baseball fan and as such, I have great, great respect for fans who follow teams -- especially ones who follow bad teams.
-snip-
I assure you I didn't came in with an intention to mock. I think the words I use in the piece can be taken of two ways: as indicators of the table's ineffaceable dignity, despite the losses, or as sardonic tweaks.
When pressed on the issue of categorizing Nats fans as "men, mostly middle-aged", he replied:
"You are obviously right that Nats fans aren't all middle-aged men, and my first graph is deceptively constructed (not intentionally). I realize now that it seems as if I'm characterizing the whole place, when really I was trying to characterize only the men at the table -- when really, I wanted the article to be ABOUT only the men at my table. But that doesn't come through, and it's my fault.
I did say that the 70 in attendance were "fanboys of various ages," which was supposed to cover the rest of the place. The problem became that people misinterpreted "fanboys" to be a term of mockery and male chauvinism; I assumed women could be subsumed under "fanboys," too, just as they can be under the phrase "you guys.""
We talked about the use of the term "fanboy" and it's generally negative connotation in the sporting world, but again, he didn't understand that and didn't feel the term was negative. And since I am not female, I won't speak to the phrase "you guys" as being insutling to women, but will allow the women who read this tell me if they are insulted that a writer for the Washington Post thinks it's ok to label women as "you guys" and "fanboys".
What is still troubling to me is that after trading e-mails and speaking for about 10 minutes, he still didn't understand why I, and others were upset. He was sorry that we were, and time and again stated that was not his intention, but he still didn't get it. It's not the references to old allegiances that people took exception to. It speaks more to the way the whole theme of the article seemed to belittle the subjects of the story.
He kept saying that it wasn't his intention, but that's obviously the perception.
Mr. Oppenheim also admitted to me that he was unaware of the long-time problems fans have had with the Post's coverage of the Nationals, something he now is completely submersed in.
Here's what it boils down to: the Post sent a Style Reporter with no institutional knowledge to cover a baseball story and he wrote an article that had absolutely nothing to do with why the event was being held and many Nationals fans found it at least troubling, if not down-right insulting. And the author, though honestly sorry for the way his article was perceived, doesn't quite understand why they feel that way.
Photo (C) C. Nichols 2008.
Photo 2009 © Cheryl Nichols. All Rights Reserved. 
