My latest column for the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana University focuses on Peter King and Bill Simmons trying to make a difference.
**********
Peter King writes about 2.5 million words for his weekly MMQB column, so there’s a chance due to eyes glazing over that I missed an earlier mention. However, since the Washington football team didn’t play (Sunday), his only reference was in a prediction for (Monday’s) game.
“Washington 31, Philadelphia 23. Robert Griffin III and Mike Vick set a land-speed record for number of plays (2,349) in a 60-minute game. I don’t trust the Eagles defense.”
Note that King used the nickname for the Philadelphia NFL team, but not for Washington. And he won’t.
Friday afternoon, King declared on his site that he won’t be using “Redskins” anymore.
“I’ve decided to stop using the Washington team nickname. It’s a name you won’t see me use anymore. The simple reason is that for the last two or three years, I’ve been uneasy when I sat down to write about the team and had to use the nickname. In some stories I’ve tried to use it sparingly. But this year, I decided to stop entirely because it offends too many people, and I don’t want to add to the offensiveness. Some people, and some Native American organizations—such as the highly respected American Indian Movement—think the nickname is a slur. Obviously, the team feels it isn’t a slur, and there are several prominent Native American leaders who agree. But I can do my job without using it, and I will.”
King isn’t alone here. Awful Announcing noticed that another high-profile figure, Bill Simmons, referred to the team as the “Washington D.C.’s” in a recent post.
King and Simmons are two heavy hitters. They have a combined 3.3 million followers on Twitter. So when they decide to take a stand, it gets people’s attention.
Indeed, the controversy over the “Redskins” nickname is getting more intense. It should go without saying that it is incredibly derogatory. Various Native American groups have called for it to be eliminated. I believe if a group of people says they are offended by the use of a nickname, it should be changed.
Washington owner Daniel Snyder could make it easy on everyone and change the nickname, as have many college and high school teams have done when it comes to their former Native American labels. Snyder, though, remains steadfast that “Redskins” will stay, adding to his legacy as one of the NFL’s all-time worst owners.
It continues to present a dilemma for news organizations covering the Redskins. The Washington Post never would refer to a Native American congressman “as the redskin representative from Arizona.” Yet it writes about the Redskins daily in its sports section.
ESPN ombudsman Robert Lipsyte addressed the issue in his latest column.
Lipsyte writes:
So what if ESPN refused to use the R-word?
That quixotic thought has been bubbling for a while in ESPN’s 150-person Stats & Information Group, where vice presidents Edmundo Macedo and Noel Nash collected information on the history of the team and opposition toward the name and then distributed it to network news managers. It was the start of a campaign to have ESPN stop using the name. Macedo told me that he thought the chances of actually succeeding were currently slim and none, but that it was worth the effort to get people thinking about it.
“Think about the name,” he wrote to me in an email. “Think about the stereotypical connotations around color. We would not accept anything similar as a team nickname if it were associated with any other ethnicity or any other race.
“Over the years, the more I thought about it, the less comfortable I became using it. I’m not sure other Americans have stopped to hear the voices of Native Americans. I can only imagine how painful it must be to hear or see that word over and over, referenced so casually every day.”
Lipsyte, though, didn’t go as far as to say ESPN should stop using the nickname, even though he clearly leans that way. He brings up a good point that news organizations shouldn’t make news. Consciously not using the nickname falls under that category.
Lipsyte also points to ESPN’s business relationship with the NFL, which has Snyder as one of its owners.
“I have retired the routine use of the phrase “conflict of interest” when it comes to ESPN – it’s simply inadequate to the nuances of the, um, conflicts of interest,” Lipsyte writes.
Lipsyte seems to settle for a compromise offered by ESPN.com editor Patrick Stiegman.
“To simply ignore the nickname in our coverage seems like nothing more than grandstanding,” Stiegman said. “We can use the name of the team, but our best service to fans is to report the hell out of the story, draw attention to the issue and cover all aspects of the controversy.”
Again, it is hard to argue with that line of thinking. Reporters shouldn’t become the story.
Yet in this case, the nickname is so offensive, it warrants people to start taking a stand. It has to begin somewhere.
Last week, Tony Kornheiser, who wrote the word “Redskins” a zillion times during his long career with the Washington Post, noted on Pardon the Interruption that it likely will take the biggest entities to eliminate the offensive nickname.
“I don’t think writers and bloggers and websites can make this happen,” he said, “I do think television networks can make this happen. … To pick two: If ESPN and Fox said ‘We’re not going to use Redskins anymore’ and the NFL tacitly went along with that and didn’t say anything, that would put pressure on CBS and NBC. I think it has to come from the larger institutions.”
I disagree. I think writers and bloggers and websites can effect this change. Especially when the writers and bloggers are as big as King and Simmons.
They carry a ton of influence in this business. Perhaps, it will spark a writer or an editor to think, “You know what? Peter King is right. We’re not going to use Redskins anymore.”
King and Simmons obviously feel enough is enough. Expect others to follow their lead.
The job of reporters is to report not grandstand like King, Collins and Brennan. You cannot trademark a slur. The Redskins are trademarked. Groups have sued to force the Redskins to change the name and have thus far lost, with SCOTUS refusing to even hear a challenge.
The self-righteousness of these journalist is appalling and lends credence to the charge that the media is dominated by craven, radical liberals. Only 9% of Native Americans object to the Redskins.
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/downloads/political_communication/naes/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr.pdf
From your PDF:
“Because they make up a very small proportion of the total population, the responses of 768 people who said they were Indians or Native Americans were collected over a very long period of polling, from October 7, 2003 through September 20, 2004.”
They also left out Hawaii and Alaska, wonder why…
Here is a good book:
Darrell Huff How to Lie with Statistics Penguin Books 1973
See http://archive.org/details/HowToLieWithStatistics
You can find groups of greater than 768 people in each state in the country if you actually listen to what people have to say. And for those who say “eh, no big deal”, then fine, let’s change the Houston Texans to the Houston Rednecks (or any other southern team) and see how well that goes over. People are so dumb, they actually might enjoy that though.
You are wrong, the job of a good journalist (as opposed to reporter) is to bring editorial opinion to issues. Hell, that’s why you have sports commentators who are former athletes.
Good on those in the media who refuse to go along with the status quo.
I see a lot of words in your column above, but all I hear is: blah blah blah. I sure hope it makes you feel better about yourself to take a ‘principled’ stand against the perceived horrors you see in the world, but what are you really looking to achieve? Let me give you a silly example. I am white. As we know from recent news events, it’s common for blacks to refer to whites as cracker. I think we can all agree that it is a pejorative term. However, every time I go to my local grocery store I see the word ‘cracker’ displayed prominently on promotional posters and isle markers. Should we stop that too? If not, why not? If so, how far should we take this?
The crackers you buy in the store did not have their name derive from the racist use of the word (and I agree that using that word to describe people is a slur, just as the others are). We believe the football team’s name DID derive from a slur, and not, say, from the variety of potato.
Give me a break, so called “Gimmie A. Break” commenter!
You are really going to use “cracker” as an analogy?! No one is looking to censor “Red Skin” potatoes (parallel to your example) nor thinks of them in the same way as a term used for Native Americans, but you take offense that are no longer comfortable with a term which clearly has been used in the derogatory pictured in the context where it has been used in the derogatory sense? You are an idiot!
To say that people will need to run around and censor “cracker” in the grocery store as a slippery slope argument is beyond ridiculous. There is no slippery slope here. It’s completely level ground. The problem would be just the same if it was the Washington Blackskins, Whiteskins, Yellowskins, or any other color for that matter.
The time for racial mascots/names has past. I applaud those who decide that even of a stupid billionaire owner (even the fans don’t like him) doesn’t want to change, we aren’t obligated to say the full name of his team.
Let’s see, Peter King won’t use the name Redskins anymore, and NFL Commish Roger Goodell says if even one person has a complaint about the name, we should listen.
By the Commish’s reasoning, Daniel Snyder, a height-challenged person if there ever was one, should complain about the NY football Giants and Tennessee Titans because their team names make him feel inadequate (not their W-L records!).
By the Commish’s reasoning, an atheist can make a case for the New Orleans Saints to change their name.
By the Commish’s reasoning, an environmentalist can have the New York Jets change their name, since we all know jets pollute, make noise and use that evil fossil fuel for power.
By the Commish’s reasoning, if the Redskins are offensive, then what of the Kansas City Chiefs? They’re not named for Police Chiefs or CEO’s, after all! And why else is their team color red??? Does Mr. King plan to stop using the name Chiefs too? And if not, why not??
By the Commish’s reasoning, the Eagles, Falcons, Bears, Lions, Panthers, Broncos, Bengals, Cardinals, Dolphins, and Jaguars could be considered offensive to members of PETA!
Perhaps the Commish and Mr. King would be happy if we went back to the days of the good ol’ USSR and call the Redskins the Washington Football Collective?
Another reason why I haven’t read Monday morning QB for years. Peter King is a politically correct douche bag
Guess what? I live in Oklahoma. Those of you with an older public education probably know, but let me explain it to you younger folk. This used to be all Indian Reservations. We have a very high indigenous Indian population. Our State name is a Choctaw word for “Red People”. When the State was to be an all Indian State they named it okla humma, red people, because it’s equivalent to the English word Indian. Okla humma was a phrase in the Choctaw language used to describe the Indian race as a whole. That means their skin is red. They know it. You’ll notice by me using the word Indian instead of native American, that I know for a fact if you ask someone here what they are, they will say, “I’m an Indian.” I was at a combined council pow wow last year, and they were parading the princesses of the tribes to determine this year’s Miss Indian Oklahoma. The announcer said, “This is going to be tough. Those are some beautiful Indians on parade out there.” So, the bottom line here is that Redskins offends noone here in the land of the red man. If they would stop giving credence to people who have about 1 drop of Indian blood and are not registered with a tribe, yet call themselves Native American, this wouldn’t be an issue. I would like to personally invite Roger Goodell, Peter King and Bill Simmons to the good State of Okla Humma to meet a few redskins who love the NFL and don’t want it changed.
Liberal idiots.
How silly are we going to get as a nation. This is not a courageous stand. It is the act of a coward who gives in to a very small vocal minority of politically correct zealots, most of which have no Native American heritage at all. Native Americans as a whole simply aren’t stupid enough to follow this line of politically correct garbage. In fact, many are watching these very same REDSKINS! (UH OH did I say the dirty word?) every week, except for bye week that is.
“Journalists” (a term I use loosely) love to show how liberal they are. They cover for Obama whenever they can. Sportswriters don’t get many opportunities as others to demonstrate their liberalism. King and Simmons, neither of whom I normally read, are making the most of this opportunity. Native Americans don’t have nearly the problem with the word “Redskins” as liberal white hypocrites do.
About 15 years ago the NCAA was going after schools that had Native American nicknames. One of these schools was the Central Michigan University Chippewas. The tribe considered it an honor and many of the children attend CMU. The school was able to keep the nickname, but it was a real battle against liberal whites who think they should make decisions for others but the school and the tribe eventually won.
Good, and i won’t be using SI anymore, Peter. This “trendy liberal” push to censor language is weak. Where were you the past 10-20 years regarding the Redskins? Oh right, you were not bothered. You just caved to not your own “ill feelings” but other people telling you how to think. Weak.
Sanctimonious tools are free to exploit silly controversies ginned up by self-appointed arbiters of political correctness.
Rational folks are free to ignore these twits, and will.
As an IU alumni, I am embarrassed by Sherman’s preposterous drivel. Get a life, Sherman.
No surprise to see ex-Boston liberal Democrat mega-douche Bill Simmons on the fainting couch.
I realize King is a football writer, but in this whole debate I’ve always wondered, why does no one care about the Cleveland Indians, with their caricature of an Indian as a mascot, or the Atlanta Braves, whose fans do a “Tomahawk chop?”
In general though, I wish sportswriters would stick to sports. I don’t watch movies to hear actors’ political opinions, and I don’t read about sports to hear the writer’s political opinions. ESPN and SI have been getting increasingly political in recent years, which is a major reason why I no longer watch/read them. I feel like every time I turned on ESPN they were having a largely irrelevant political debate instead of just showing me the damn highlights. Of course, these seem to all fall entirely on one side of the spectrum. It’s tiresome – I can turn to MSNBC if I need unintelligent liberal talking points.
This is a joke. Nobody cared until some dumb liberals started making a big deal about it. Just live life and don’t get offended so easily.
Enough of the self important, gutless grandstanding. You 3 stooges can stop imagining yourselves to be the nation’s conscience and get back to work.
If I am a media liason for the Redskins, I think I would be banning King from attending camp during his training camp tour. I would also have an intern or low level flunky with a sign that says redskins stand behind any reporter doing a remote near the training camp or stadium who is a known “‘m not saying redskin anymore” pc goodytooshoes.
I have to listen to the dribble put out by the liberal MSM everyday day but now it is invading sports which was my one escape. Along comes ESPN which has gone overboard with liberal commentators and opinions.
Once again FOX recognizes that the majority of America does not tow the liberal line and starts FOX sports 1 as an alternative. My days with ESPN and all the other members of the MSM as relates to sports, is over.
Well, there are already six other teams in the NFL with ‘avian’ names, so how about “The Washington Blackbirds?” Should make everyone happy. ;^)
Who the he!! do you think you are? The heck with your politically correct garbage. The Washington Redskins I am not a fan of but I despise people like you who elevate themselves for a cause that doesn’t exist. You probably pontificated about “global warming” until it was changed to “climate change” because GW was a fraud. Just like you.
This is such a silly story. There’s nothing wrong with the name and most (that means more than half) Native Americans don’t think it’s a slur.
Team as old as the NFL itself, now come the political correct sissies that deserve a ‘bitch slap’ & ass kicked out the back door for daring to be different. They wanna be different, they can move their pansy-ass to San Francisco.
There is just no end to this politically correct sickness. We open this door & there’s no turning back. The sensitive fellas will just come after more & more until the game is no longer recognized. This pansy probably doesn’t know that @ one time, the America was played without helmets. Wish I could vomit on him.
It’s a good start. But when will they start calling Boston just Boston? Using the name Celtics is an affront to all who hail from the mountains and glens of Scotland. And what about that gnome on their souvenir cups? Not all of that ancestry are drunken leprechauns!
Unbelievable idiocy. When do we stop calling the “Giants” by their name? After all, it could be offensive to short people. Better still, when do we stop calling people who won’t call a team by its name, “American”, because they are offensive the the idea of what an American is?
What a bunch of pathetic losers.
This is a big issue I have with sport writers – many of them seem to believe that wading in to social issues somehow makes them feel more important than simply writing about something as fundamentally inconsequential as sports. I hear it constantly on sports radio, read it constantly on ESPN.com, in Sports Illustrated, etc. All of this is a major turn-off for two reasons:
1) Sports writers, talk show hosts, columnists, etc., are driven by some sort of combined feeling of responsibility and inadequacy, and not any kind of substantive framework related to their profession.
2) I and many others have absolutely NO interest in what a sports journalist has to say about anything other than sports itself. The reason people follow sports is NOT so some sports writer can provide us with their perspective on social issues and politics.
Basically, Peter King and Bill Simmons can do whatever they want, but it simply serves to diminish my desire to listen to what they have to say on the actual subject of sports.
More PC nonsense. The team honors Native Americans, does not disparage them.