Saw this via Jason McIntyre and Big Lead.
Apparently, Peter King’s new MMQB site is considering not using “Redskins” in its copy about that team in Washington. In an email, King told McIntyre a final decision hasn’t been made.
However, in a radio interview, MMQB’s Robert Klemko said:
“I know that our site, we’ve talked about it, and we’re not going to use Redskins in our writing,” Klemko said on CBS Sports Radio’s MoJo with Chris Moore and Brian Jones.
“We’re going to say ‘Washington football team,’” Klemko added. “And it’s not something we’re going to publicize or write about. We’re just not going to do it.”
Sorry, Robert, but an entity as large as Sports Illustrated isn’t going to be able to fly under the radar with this decision. If the magazine and its sites don’t use Redskins in its coverage, it is going to make major news.
I might be wrong, but I can’t imagine King can act unilaterally here. How would it look if SI continued to go with Redskins while MMQB didn’t?
The Redskins nickname easily is the most vile in sports. No explanation required. The fact that it represents the NFL team in DC, where an African-American president is sitting in the White House, is even more outrageous.
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.
Washington owner Daniel Snyder is defiant about not changing his team’s name. He says it is about tradition, although surely marketing factors in there too.
King is noble in his desire to not want to use the Redskins nickname. However, he and SI shouldn’t have to go at it alone.
It is time for other news organizations, including ESPN, to stop using the nickname. As I said in regards to the Washington Post, it should be a matter of policy consistent with what takes place elsewhere in these publications or on these sites.
Only in the NFL would it be allowed for someone to be called a “Redskin.” It can’t be tolerated anymore.