Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

FEEDBACK WANTED: Should ES adopt a boycott (ignore) policy for the WP?


TK

  

383 members have voted

  1. 1. Should ES boycott WP, PFT, & other agenda driven anti Redskins name media?


This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

when I originally saw this thread my reaction was NO, I remember delivering the Post years ago. I remember how I used to open a newspaper and be so excited to read the sports section and all about the Redskins. They were a part of my childhood and had a connection to me unlike any other newspaper ever will have in my life.

However it seems to me they choose this, they choose to seperate from the team. Its always about the team to me first and they jumped ship first.

I really enjoyed reading Bangs response on here. In the end it is all about money. So why would this website give money to the newspaper who turned it back on the team? It shouldnt. I love the work Hap does here, he is awesome and this team website admins and posters are too. This thread is a great example of the community around here and I feel proud to be a member here.

I am tired of the name debate and tired of people boycotting my team. Us fans should have a place to go where we feel the comforted in times of trouble like this and we should have a place free of attack of the team name and if that means we dont give money to the Post well they did this to us, not the other way around. I support this boycott and hope this helps the Post and gets them to see how wrong it was they did that. If not, well nice to know ya. Goodbye

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How hard is it to get the same story from multiple other sources anymore?

 

Not very hard, a lot of times I only post one or two articles of the same subject when all of the major outlets have the same news.  I mostly concider it a waste of time to post 5 or 6 articles repeating the same thing, Its not like I need to get my post count up :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what you're saying is-refuse to listen to a point of view that differs from your own? really? Come on, man!

 

We have listened to opposing views for over a year in the media at large, and the owner has repeatedly stated he has zero plans to change the name.  The media in this case is not reporting the news, they are trying to CREATE the news, and they are only presenting one-side of a complicated issue.  

Most average Joe and Jane Americans do not even know that there is a strong opposing viewpoint among Native Americans, and that viewpoint has not been reported on at all.  They present the issue as if it is case-closed, and it is not nearly that simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what you're saying is-refuse to listen to a point of view that differs from your own? really? Come on, man!

 

No, it's saying refusing to listen to a point of view presented by someone whose not interested in an honest, objective, or reasonable presentaiton or conversation regarding said view.

 

I have no problem discussing homosexual rights issues with a reasoned, objective, honest supporter or detractor of said laws. I do have a problem discussing it with someone from Westboro Baptist.

 

I have no problem discussing or reading view points of the "opposition" that is put forward with a reasonable expectation of objectivity, honesty, and sincerity on their part to actively treat "my side" at face value as opposed to as a caricature. The Washington Post's Editorial Board has shown it won't do that.

 

So on a personal level I have no desire to read their "point of view". From a broader level, I'd encourage an active boycott not because they hold a particular view but because they're actively engaging in a ridiculous stunt by refusing to use the recognized and official name of the organization they're supposedly covering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To those who say that if there is a group of people offended, then a change should be in order, I ask:

 

What if the number of people who currently support the name & vastly outnumber those who are opposed to it are offended BY the name change & that number, in turn, outweighs those who are currently offended by the name itself? What then? Every poll I have seen as recent as a few weeks ago that asks Native Americans if they are offended by the name &/or want it changed, the numbers are overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the name what it is. In most cases, a 9 to 1 margin. So, if that 1 NA is offended & they change the name based on that 1 NA's opinion, now they are offending 9 NA's as opposed to 1. That seems unreasonable to me.

 

The other thing I would like to know is, since UnWise Mike & other media talking heads are so concerned for the NA all of a sudden & how they are being mistreated by the Redskins, how much time & effort have they actually put into taking care of their real issues. Things that I mentioned in my letter to the "paper in Washington", like declining health care & education on reservations. I mean, if they are so concerned about protecting NA's, shouldn't they be more interested in taking care of real needs rather than worrying about an "offensive" name?

 

My thing is & always will be that if most NAs are offended by it, then yes, by all means change it. But that's not the case. 9-1 in most polls, NAs are not only not offended, but appreciate & like the name. So, no, they shouldn't change the name because 1 out of every 10 NA is offended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems petty to boycott the WP.  Just ignore it if you don't like what they're doing, but official boycotts seems extreme.  Let the people that want to talk about it talk about the WP talk about it, the ones that don't, can not click in a thread or click out of the thread and go elsewhere.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems petty to boycott the WP.  Just ignore it if you don't like what they're doing, but official boycotts seems extreme.  Let the people that want to talk about it talk about the WP talk about it, the ones that don't, can not click in a thread or click out of the thread and go elsewhere.  

I feel you but....................................if you want to read the news.....go to their website

 

Now, permaban links on ES to the that Washington Newspaper in DC that ends with post.com...where's my pitchfork!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems petty to boycott the WP.  Just ignore it if you don't like what they're doing, but official boycotts seems extreme.  Let the people that want to talk about it talk about the WP talk about it, the ones that don't, can not click in a thread or click out of the thread and go elsewhere.  

 

Don't think of it as a boycott. Think of it as the site "ignoring" any WP content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that I saw in the Washington Posts statement that they did not feel Snyder himself was a racist, but they did not want to be on the wrong side of this issue from their perspective. I don't defend their actions, but just wanted to be sure before I felt this was part of their stance, which it is not.

I just don't know how as the largest newspaper in the area you can realistically cover the area's primary football franchise without using the team's name.

Is the Washington Post not going to allow itself to be involved with any marketing involving the Washington Redskins, which is a Billion dollar franchise? How far are they really willing to go to alienate themselves with the franchise? Did they really take into account this not making a difference then having to cover the team with this stance for the foreseeable future?

I still really like the Washington Post for stuff outside of Redskins coverage, so you won't get a boycott from me. I also agree that's tit for tat and won't solve anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if there's a way to change your vote, but I'm seriously thinking about it.  I have decided that when you are bombarded with propaganda with a group who refuses to accept that there's another point of view (especially when that POV happens to be the majority) and act like there isn't one, they're feeding their own agenda, NOT providing information.

 

As others have said, if you want to read it, you can go there on your own.  But, we as Redskins fans have already seen the power of taking a stand in mass (goodbye Vinny), and I think seeing this move as having a higher purpose behind it is different than censoring.

 

Don't for one minute think that the Post "has a different opinion that we don't agree with" they have a clear agenda.  Having an agenda and constantly feeding it to people is not an opinion.  You can call it an opinion, but it's business and they have a purpose behind it that has nothing to do with giving people another side of the story.  The WP is nothing but one sided propaganda.  If they shared another side to every story, or even if they JUST gave the facts and left their opinion out of it, that would be completely acceptable, but they don't seem to be able to do either of those things.  Instead, they drive the knife deeper and deeper because that's the way they run business.  Nothing more.  They aren't this crusading group of journalists who are just trying to get all the info out there.  They're a group of journalists who've sold out their ability to write the truth a long time ago when the dollar/party/job became more important than the truth, the cause for which I'd assume most of them became journalists in the first place.  

 

I think it would be quite fitting to take their ******* tea and dump it back in their laps, especially from a bunch of Redskins fans.  They aren't giving everyone an equal say, they're just trying to convince us that we're wrong because they say "everyone" thinks like they do.  And it just so happens that UnWise Mike is the worst bully among them.

 

Go **** yourself WP.  Hit them where it hurts (like we've said with players previously) in their pocket book.  Taking away links from ES will at least be a good start.  Maybe then, they'll see that not everyone agrees with them.

 

They're already a sinking organization, we just don't have to watch the train wreck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Count me as a no vote on this. Editors have a right to say or not say the name based on their belief. I try my hardest not to use the name myself as I have friends who are Native American and don't like the name. I used to argue about it, but its not worth it to me and I felt who am I to tell them what is/isn't offensive. But I normally just say "the Skins" and nobody ever notices (and no this is not an argument to make the team logo a potato). Doc calls the team The Burgundy and Gold.

I feel like there are middle grounds in this without drawing a line in the sand and taking names of those who cross, which this seems like.

Plus, it'd be different if Snyder told ES to do this. The fact that the mods are thinking to do it seems like a bit of overreaching. If somebody at WP writes a good editorial, this site should post it and encourage it to be read. This is getting like facebook/twitter where they're playing with people's news feeds to see how you react. I've been coming here for the last 15 years or so because its a nice environment of Skins fans where differing opinions can come and discuss things. Mods do a great job keeping things rational and within context and controlling trolls. But a stance like this is really similar to simply calling WP editorials trolls.

I mean, we mock Snyder for suing his fans, but we as a message board are willing/thinking of boycotting WP? because of this? Sorry, but I'm really against this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have already personally boycotted UnWise Mike, Peter King and Keith Olbermann over this. I refuse to click on any of their links because that is partially funding this cause. Any time you click on a link to an article about the name change it not only generates ad revenue, but it also adds up in the stats and shows them people are interested it that topic so it generates more articles on the same subject. Now I'm going to boycott the Washington Post entirely. 

 

I'm part Algonquin and part Abenaki. The name of the team is one of the reasons I like the Redskins. It has never been a disparaging name. When I was in first grade I was so happy that I got to be an Indian (it was Ok to call us that back then) in the Thanksgiving play. I still remember the song... "We are the redskins brave and bold. Stories of us have been told". 

 

One last thing. I have have more Native American blood in me than the chief of the Oneida tribe that is spearheading this. Just saying...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sick of the anti Redskins crowd.  They attack anyone that disagrees with them & they even go so far as to attack people that aren't alive anymore to defend themselves.  They claim that Lone Star Dietz wasn't a real Native American & yet he was and if you don't believe me check out this website http://www.lonestardietz.com/.  Any Native Americas that say they aren't offended by the name are attacked.  They have even gone as far as attacking the Navajo Code Talkers from WW2 because they said they weren't offended by the name.  Redskins fans should send a message to the Washington Post, I think it would be really bad for them financially if they lost every Redskins fan in the D.C. Area as subscribers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am the one that brought it to TK's attention.  I got the idea from the Native American Redskins Fan FB Group (yes I am a member Cherokee).  I put it up on my FB page and twitter and the response was amazing how many agreed with it and have had issues with the no name newspaper. 

 

Remember we are not just talking about a disagreement.  They will not talk to you if you do not agree with their agenda.  There is no debate.  They attack fans mostly NA like myself because we do not agree with what they say we should. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am the one that brought it to TK's attention.  I got the idea from the Native American Redskins Fan FB Group (yes I am a member Cherokee).  I put it up on my FB page and twitter and the response was amazing how many agreed with it and have had issues with the no name newspaper. 

 

Remember we are not just talking about a disagreement.  They will not talk to you if you do not agree with their agenda.  There is no debate.  They attack fans mostly NA like myself because we do not agree with what they say we should. 

If you scroll back a little, Huly, you'll see that I posted a letter on the "paper of Washington"'s facebook page. I will no longer refer to them as they call themselves anymore, but rather "the paper in Washington" until this thing is reversed. I don't know that sending letters to the Editor are of any use, but I had to say something. For that matter, I don't even know if posting it on their facebook page even made it to the Editor or MW, but I REFUSE to go their site at this point & send it any deeper unless properly motivated. 

 

All I know is that SOMETHING has to be done on our end of things to start getting the truth out to the general populous. Living in Mobile, Al. there are people here who have no idea of the truth. Some have taken sides already & despite all my facts & information given, they refuse to hear anything other than, "It's a disparaging name". Others have been more receptive, but no one prior to me talking to them about it knows. They just hear what the media is saying & think that it makes sense without doing any real research. But, as much as I am trying here to educate those I come in contact with about this topic, something nationally needs to be done. This has to end or it will continue to grow until Snyder is forced to change the name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They claim that Lone Star Dietz wasn't a real Native American & yet he was and if you don't believe me check out this website http://www.lonestardietz.com/.

This is one of the things that changed my mind.  I'm sorry but they've basically said he's not native american enough to have a voice. It's one of the most racist things you can say, IMO.  

 

Honestly, what happened when that dumb *** reporter said Griffin wasn't black enough?  If it had been one of us that guy was talking about, there would have been no argument because no one would have cared.  

 

My grandfather was a full blood Cherokee from the Qualla Boundary, my Dad raised on various reservations, and they were fans BECAUSE of the mascot, not inspite of it.  I'm actually proud of my native heritage, but if I was to tell that to UnWise Mike, he's just say I wasn't a pureblood.  

 

Seriously, if he said the same thing but against black people, that dude would have lost his job in a heartbeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been effectively boycotting the WaPo for some time now. They started charging subscription fees for the online version and I haven't been able to log in since.

Actually clicking on that papers articles from the Breaking News section would get you to the articles bypassing the subscription.  However, you will need to find a different way now. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...