“A caller this morning expressed his incredulity that The Star doesn’t normally print the name of Washingon’s NFL team: the Redskins…” Donovan wrote in his September 24 column. “I see no compelling reason for any publisher to reprint an egregiously offensive term as a casual matter of course.”
Having worked at the Star in the 1990s when the Indian mascot controversies first exploded – even the Chiefs came under fire – I can recall the Redskins controversy coming to a head in November 1992.
“It is hard to believe that near the end of the 20th century, one of America’s best-known sports franchises carries a nickname that has no other definition than as a racial slur,” wrote then Star sports columnist Jonathan Rand.
It wasn’t long after that before the Star instituted its “No Redskins” policy.
Donovan’s recent missive spread like wildfire. First to mediakc.com where KC guy Alex Parker wrote, “Donovan makes a solid point: when else would a newspaper publish a racial epithet? Most papers won’t publish the N-word.”
No sooner had Donovan unleashed his six graph primer on political correctness, than up popped the devil.
Two days later this headline appeared in the Star: “Redskins add RB Grant.”
Followed two days later by: “Redskins’ Williams, Garcon questionable”
And last Sunday: “Redskins’ Meriweather and Robinson hurt in pregame warmups.”
Okay look. The stories were syndicated and written by writers at The Sports Network who’s motto is “We don’t just meet your expectations. We exceed them.”
They undoubtedly exceeded Donovan’s.
Still Star editors runs countless syndicated stories each day, editing them freely. Why not these?
Might it not be a good idea for someone at 18th and Grand to pay attention to what its reader rep is saying? Or perhaps for the reader rep to check what’s on the Star website before taking such high ground?