Christine Brennan is the latest high-profile writer to say she won’t be using the nickname for the Washington team. However, the USA Today columnist likely will catch a little more flak than the others. She lives in the DC area and used to cover Washington for the Washington Post.
Brennan writes:
I live in Washington, and for three years, from 1985-87, I was the Redskins beat writer for The Washington Post. Then, and even now, saying “Redskins” has always come naturally to me. That word has been a significant part of my life – my professional life anyway – and a very happy, proud, fulfilling part of it. In talking about the team, or my career, I’ve used the name so often that I’ve never given it a second thought.
But when I said the nickname this summer during a panel discussion, I stopped myself. For the first time, it didn’t seem right to say it.
Why then? Why not last year? Or five years ago? Or when I covered the team? I think it was the cumulative effect of all the reporting on the issue in the past year or so, solid journalism that continually brings to the surface just how racist the term is to many in the Native American community. And even if only some Native Americans think it’s racist, here’s news for the rest of us, whether we want to hear it and deal with it or not: it’s racist.
Brennan concludes:
So, if Goodell is true to his word, and I think he will be, he is going to start “doing the right things to address” the issue.
Someday, hopefully very soon, the team will get a new nickname. Things are changing. How do I know? Here I am writing this column.
Meanwhile, Tom Hoffarth of the Los Angeles Daily News asks if media people should be taking stands here. He writes it falls under the category of media making news, a no-no in our business.
Hoffarth writes:
The media will call out current team owner Daniel Snyder to change his franchise’s name. It’s ultimately his decision, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell meekly says. Yet Snyder recently told USA Today: “We’ll never change the name. It’s that simple. Never — you can use caps.”
Thwarted with that tactic, the media also has the ability to take it upon itself and change its own editorial policy, subtle or not.
Have an epiphany and take a number. The line’s getting longer by the day.
The idea of media making news being a “no-no” seems so outdated. The media dictates how people see things and how much they care. Tim Tebow wouldn’t be TIM TEBOW without ESPN constantly talking about him. The media frames the debate for sports issues. This is a sports and societal issue.
When ESPN uses “Redskin” they are taking the stance that it is okay. The most obvious example is that they reported on the Eagles player saying the N-word, but they didn’t say it themselves. They knew the N-word was wrong and didn’t want to endorse it. But by saying “Redskin” they are endorsing its use.