Last Friday, National Public Radio standards editor Mark Memmott handed down an edict all but banning the term "Redskins" from the left-leaning taxpayer-financed network. On Tuesday, NPR's ombudsman gave his hearty approval of the move, waxing about the need for editors and management to not "shirk" their "responsibility" to "[define] morality."

 



Under Obama, the Federal Communications Commission has done pretty much nothing on broadcast obscenity. So it’s utterly baffling why Washington Post metro columnist (and former Metro section editor) Robert McCartney would try to pretend it’s any kind of a threat that the FCC will punish broadcasters for using that alleged obscenity....”Redskins.”

“Professor's FCC filing should worry Snyder” was McCartney’s headline. The professor threatening Redskins owner Daniel Snyder  is liberal John Banzhaf III, best known for anti-tobacco crusading many years ago.



The liberal legend of Jon Stewart began with his October 15, 2004 appearance on CNN’s “Crossfire,” where he rhetorically sentenced the show to death. He proclaimed, “It’s hurting America. Here is what I wanted to tell you guys: Stop... You have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.”

CNN announced it was canceling the show two months later, as network president president Jon Klein told the New York Times "I agree wholeheartedly with Jon Stewart's overall premise."



The Washington Post's Metro section on Saturday carried the headline "Redskins fans say 'Daily Show' misled them: Showdown with Native Americans Was a Surprise." Fans were set up for an ambush to be accused of racism, or loving a racist mascot.

In other words, once again, Jon Stewart's Comedy Central crew lied their faces off to an interview subject they wanted to mock. But this time, the liberal media didn't let it slide. Reporter Ian Shapira laid out just how much Team Stewart lied, and then said "No comment" when they were exposed.



"This [Redskins name] controversy is not going away," insisted NBCSports.com writer Michael David Smith in a story filed this afternoon. His proof: a handful of protesters in Houston complaining about the visiting Washington NFL team's mascot and logo.



A football game that ends up with a score of 71 to 23 would be considered a wipeout. But when a poll shows that’s the margin of support for keeping the name “Washington Redskins,” the pro-censorship Washington Post tries to find a silver lining. On the day the NFL season begins, the headline on the front page of the Sports section was “Support for name still mostly strong: ‘Redskins’ still heavily favored, but majority continues to shrink.”

As a pile of sensitive sports journalists boycott the name on print or on television, Post reporter Scott Clement tried to sell this puny 23 percent as encouraging progress:



To close out his MSNBC show on Thursday, Ed Schultz invited on a Native American social activist to discuss the push by liberals and sympathetic members of the sports media to force the NFL’s Washington Redskins to change their name. 

In discussing recent supporters of the name in Sarah Palin and former NFL coach and player Mike Ditka, author and Native American activist Gyasi Ross smeared Ditka for being a “segregation-era football player who became, appropriately, a coach of – of a team – a team – an NFL team that was comprised largely of black players that he could dictate his will to.” [MP3 audio here; Video below]



The Washington Post editorial board (the group that writes every day’s unsigned editorials) announced with fanfare that they would no longer use the word “Redskins” as they continue to agitate for a change in the team name. So “while we wait for the National Football League to catch up with thoughtful opinion and common decency, we have decided that, except when it is essential for clarity or effect, we will no longer use the slur ourselves.”

“What we are discussing here is a change only for editorials. Unlike our colleagues who cover sports and other news, we on the editorial board have the luxury of writing about the world as we would like it to be,” they wrote in their best Robert F. Kennedy impression.



Washington Post parenting writer Mari-Jane Williams took to the paper’s Thursday "Local Living" section to continue the paper’s advocating the name “Redskins” be stripped from the city’s NFL team through a conversation she had with her seven-year-old daughter after she wanted “to buy a Redskins outfit” for a bear she had at home. Upon hearing her daughter’s request, she told readers it was then that “we had to have the talk.” in which she told her “I don’t think so, honey. I think you should pick something else.”

Williams informed her daughter that the team’s name “has become a political statement, and not a good one” that is “an offensive word for a group of people” and she agreed that the team should change their name. 



The Washington Post has been an eager booster of the crusade to strip the name "Redskins" from the NFL, with crusading sports columnist Mike Wise even making it into NBC's crusading piece on Tuesday. In Wednesday's sports section, on page 2, there was a small bit of balance.

Former Chicago Bears coach and ESPN analyst Mike Ditka thoroughly trashed the idea of banning "Redskins" from football, comments made in a new interview with Mike Richman of RedskinsHistorian.com. Ditka called it beyond stupid:



On Tuesday, August 19, NBC continued the liberal media’s obsession with bullying the NFL’s Washington Redskins into changing its name. Nightly News anchor Brian Williams insisted that the team is having difficulty defending its name because “some consider it a slur.” 

Williams introduced the segment by proclaiming “it might have just gotten more difficult for the Washington Redskins to hang on to their name. Two NFL veterans who are now both veteran broadcasters, both say they will not use the team’s name during this coming football season in the booth.” [See video below.]  



The media are furious.

The Poynter Institute, which keeps an eye on all things journalistic, is maintaining a list of media people and institutions who have decided they are so enraged by the idea of calling the Washington Redskins the …well, you know..….that they will no longer participate in this heinous practice.