Mike Wise won't say "Redskins"?

It's his job to write like that. Some love it, some hate it and there's people like me who don't really care what columnists have to say.

But it's got to be rough if you feel the way he does and are the beat writer of the team. If you refused to use the nickname AND your section refused to use the nickname in heds and subheds, wouldn't you lose your credibility with your readers and feed perceptions that the press is elitist?

Just a thought.

On a sidenote- I once wrote for college newspaper that had a team with Indian nickname in conference. Paper could use the name but dealt with heat from hyper-liberals around the region. Student-run TV couldn't use it, say it or have logos on graphics- made for some interesting game coverage. I don't think anything has changed there since I've been gone.

 

Most papers rarely refer to the full name of their local team. Bay Area papers just refer to the A's on first reference, not the Oakland A's, for example. So why would Wise's referring to the Redskins as Washington on first reference be so objectionable? The point is, Wise isn't breaking some hard-and-fast journalistic rule by leaving the name Redskins out of his copy. If he needed to use a quote that had the word in his column, I imagine he would, since he made no vow that the term would never appear in his column, he's simply trying to avoid using it himself.

 

Um, every paper that shortens the local pro team name on all references uses team nickname, not city name.

 

Yeah, I get that. My point is, they don't use both names. As long as Wise is making it clear to the readers what team he's talking about, he shouldn't have to, either.

 

Because he's Mike Wise and is sui generis? And because leaving a team nickname out is more noble and surely has greater impact than, like, doing PSA's seeking donations and funding for struggling reservations?

 

Well, I'll repeat myself:

I read three Redskins columns. In none of them was there any question which team he was writing about. Unless you're looking for it, you wouldn't know he didn't use the word "Redskins."

So while there might not be any "payoff" for readers, they aren't shortchanged, either.

It's not exactly Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat, but if he wants to take this stand, and the readers aren't worse off for it, then I really don't understand the big deal.

 

Precisely. That's all I'm trying to say.

 

I really don't understand how anyone can read that excerpt from his column that clearly outlined Wise's convictions on this and think he's having a "snit" or making some kind of me-first move.
What Wise is doing is exactly what more columnists should do -- have such passion and conviction for an issue that he truly takes a stand rather than simply summoning up an opinion for a day and yelling and screaming as if he's on PTI or Around the Horn.
This isn't about him. It's about something that would make him feel he was compromising his conviction by simply robotically following the formula of "well, that's what they're called, so we call them that."
That's the same formula that has allowed that kind of insensitive nickname to go on forever because the feelings of an intense fan base is deemed more important than the feelings of human beings who are being slurred. And make no mistake, if you were Native American, you might have a very different feeling about this.
As for the thought that you express your moral outrage and then "go cover the team like you're supposed to," is that how you would have covered Jackie Robinson?
It's an extreme example, sure, but the point is some things end up being bigger than the little games we cover. And if you just want your columnists to be robots who follow orders or follow the norm, you're going to have some pretty weak journalists.
Especially now, when the trend is toward smarmy writing that is really glorified fan talk in print or online, I think Wise's stand is even more impressive.
This is column writing, not beat writing. A columnist wanting to take a stand on something does not make him a prima donna. It makes him exceptionally good at what he does.

 

I wouldn't surmise that because the Seminole tribe cooperates with FSU that no Seminoles are offended. My government speaks for me, officially, but does not necessarily reflect my views.

 

Really, at some point, if you're adept enough at writing seamless copy without the word Redskins, your point is lost anyway. So you didn't say Redskins. You still wrote about them.

I do commend his for taking a stand--and I don't think his position is self-serving or done for attention--but if you have a pulpit like Wise's, it's probably not enough to snip out the word. It's a start, but after a while, no one notices.

 

This, dooley, is your best point so far. I like Mike Wise, both as a writer and as a person, but columnists who take this kind of stance in the name of sticking up for Native Americans are usually the same guys who couldn't find a reservation with a compass and a map. They feel enlightened because they sat through Dances With Wolves or Smoke Signals without falling asleep, or they read some Sherman Alexie in college, or remember the name Jonathan Takes Enemy from Gary Smith's story, Shadow of a Nation.

If Wise wants to take the stance of not saying Redskins, I think it's a noble cause. But maybe there should be something behind it, otherwise it's just grandstanding. There are plenty of Native American kids who would like to go to college, but can't because of money. There are tons who struggle with alcohol addiction. He could do more good by trying to bully the Redskins into giving Native American's scholarships, or job opportunities, than he could by taking up the liberal cause de jour and trying to muster up some outrage in a community that has shown time and time again that they simply don't give a shit, they just want to dress up in feathers and watch football.

 

Isn't the Oakland baseball franchise now insistent on being called the Athletics, not the A's?