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

I dunno, a boycott seems like we're just having a contest with them to see who can stick their fingers in their ears and yell the loudest.  I do like the auto correct on UnWise Mike's name though.  That's pretty accurate, the guy couldn't be a bigger blowhard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You misunderstand me.  I was not talking of the right guaranteed under the first amendment (or the 14th, which applies the rights of the 1st to the states in addition to the federal government)  I was speaking of the inherent right that we all have to disagree and to speak our piece.  Snyder has it, you and I have it, the Post has it.  If the editorial page decides that they won't say Redskins, that is their right.  I might think it is stupid, as with Boswell's continued use of "washington's football team" rather than use the name in all his columns.  (I don't know if he has ever told anyone he was not going to use the name anymore, but he does not.)

Let them all have their say, and we will have ours.  My belief is that eventually, people will get bored with the topic.  Of course, that is just my opinion.  In the meantime, I will just continue to sigh and shake my head dismissively.

The (Com)Post still has that right. They can still speak their peace. They have the same "bullhorn" they've always had so they, UnWise Mike, and their ilk can say the same things they have said on the subject a zillion times already.

Many of us here have simply chosen to close our window. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of wish we could boycott NBC for the Bob "Ole Red Eye" Costas rant. What a tool.

 

Cooley apparently was speaking recently at how NBC used an Oneida reservation to host a boxing venue, which I think can be presumed was a huge money maker for NBC. If NBC profited massively at what would be a cheaper venue than say Caesars Palace, perhaps one could argue they were being insensitive themselves. Cooley wanted to ask him about it, as it happened around the same time as the rant. H/T to Wethog over at HF. 

 

 

We can also add The NY Daily "News" to the boycott list. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Going to be honest here. Most of you look a little whiny when it comes to the Post. I guess I'm in the minority when it comes to the media and NOT getting in an uproar over what they say/write/tweet etc.

 

I don't get angry or upset over the media. I reserve those emotions for the team I root for and right now they disgust me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What puts you, & the minority in the ummmm....minority, is the inability or unwillingness to recognize the difference between integrity driven, objective journalism vs. the ultra agendized one-sided, 100% bias, slanted, anti-Redskins drivel that comes out of that rag.

I actively boycott any journalism that isn't 100% down the middle, fact based with no slant or opinions expressed. So adding WaPo to my list (which it has been already for some time now) is hardly a stretch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind . . . [The] peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."

J. S. Mill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objective journalism would absolutely fry a team that has been as bad at everything as the redskins have been for 20 years, is having it's name protested, and it's owner unsuccessfully sued a blogger (I'm not calling that clown a journalist).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Naw...print facts...wins, losses, stats, who signed where, why they signed...sighted by sources, confirmed by a 2nd source. The minute you interject your opinion in an article...I'm done. For any reason, under any circumstance.

I am a grown ass man, perfectly capable of forming my own opinion based on presented facts brought to light. I, nor anyone else, needs their opinions to be sussed out for them. To present a column with an opinion is to assume that your readers are either a ) morons who are incapable of doing so on their own, or b ) hold you, the author, in such high regard as to give a sniff what you think about a given subject.

It's more offensive than any team name, or failures of said team. If I want opinions. ..I go to friends or comments sections, or message boards. When I want facts...I (used to) go to columns. Unfortunately you can't even really do that anymore. So now I tend to stick with scientific journals for my facts, & only read columns if I'm extremely bored, & have the time to drudge through 10 or so articles of differing opinions on 1 subject in order suss out which facts are mutually relevant, & then form my own opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't censorship.  You are still free to go to the Post.  The First Amendment has no provision that forces a private entity to use information from any/all sources if it doesn't want to. 

 

When I refuse to allow Penthouse into my home, it's not censorship.  I'm exercising my right as a father to refrain from allowing myself to generate even a small amount of revenue for Larry Flynt's empire.  Which will be invested in the furthering of his goals (to debase societal morals, denegrate women, and coarsen the culture).

 

And no, I'm not a prude. Just discerning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What puts you, & the minority in the ummmm....minority, is the inability or unwillingness to recognize the difference between integrity driven, objective journalism vs. the ultra agendized one-sided, 100% bias, slanted, anti-Redskins drivel that comes out of that rag.

I actively boycott any journalism that isn't 100% down the middle, fact based with no slant or opinions expressed. So adding WaPo to my list (which it has been already for some time now) is hardly a stretch.

It's a ****ing football team! Who gives a ****? It's entertaining to me. I love the banter between the writers and the fans that get offended by "the ultra agendized one-sided, 100% bias, slanted, anti-Redskins drivel"

 

I've got news for you. Those reporters that have been "driveling" have been right about this team waaaaayyyyyy more often then not. Particularly during the Snyder era. Deny it, but it's the truth. There's nothing that is positive about this team right now. Nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The WP use to be a great read back in the 80's era, but for the last 2 decades they have attacked not just this team, but the hometown team, a huge icon of the Nations Capital, and never 1 time had a problem with the name until a group of crybabies were raised out of the sewer to protest something that's been around for about 80 years. I can't bare to and will not read any more of their articles, They have truly earned a boycott. 

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...