The NFL And Why We’re More Outraged Over A Team Name Than Criminal Behavior
However, there’s one bothersome aspect to the ongoing debate about whether to change the team name. The degree of public outrage over the name, both for and against, seems to far outweigh the reaction to clearly more outrage-worthy behavior throughout the NFL. Again, this isn’t to say in any way, shape or form that the Washington team name issue isn’t important. It is. But it’s slightly less important than what appears to be an epidemic of criminal behavior by NFL players, including domestic violence, drug abuse, the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs, and the league’s frustrating leniency toward all of the above. Even the federal government, which hasn’t scrutinized any of these other more critical problems, weighed in on the name controversy.
This past June, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office famously rescinded the trademark to the team name, famously satirized on a recent episode of the great South Park. The matter worked its way up to a tribunal with the Trademark Office known as the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which decided 2-to-1 to rescind the trademark due to its obviously offensive connotation.
And this week, it was announced that the Federal Communications Commission is considering a request to ban the used of the team name on broadcast television. The chairman of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, stated point-blank that the team name is “offensive and derogatory” and that he and the other members of the commission “will be dealing with that issue on the merits, and we’ll be responding accordingly.” Naturally, it could swing either way, though the FCC often decides based on what they consider to be community standards with regards to offensive language — a subjective “we know it when we see it” rule of thumb. The fact that the chairman used the word “offensive” should make Dan Snyder crap his big-boy pants.
It doesn’t take much… CONTINUE READING
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Bob Cesca
Bob Cesca is the managing editor at The Daily Banter (www.thedailybanter.com) and a Huffington Post contributor since 2005. He's worked in journalism since 1988 as a print writer/editor, a radio news anchor, a digital media columnist/editor, a book author and blogger. He's the co-host of the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast and a Thursday regular on the syndicated Stephanie Miller Show. He's appeared on numerous other radio shows including the John Phillips Show and Geraldo Rivera Show in Los Angeles. Bob has been a commentator/analyst on the BBC (TV and radio), MSNBC, Current TV, CNN and Sky News. Following him on Twitter: @bobcesca_go
10 responses to The NFL And Why We’re More Outraged Over A Team Name Than Criminal Behavior
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Skydog2 October 2nd, 2014 at 08:10
“an epidemic of criminal behavior by NFL players”
The only thing new here is the amount of press coverage it’s now getting …. it’s about time. And if you think the NFL is bad, wait until the NBA season starts. Don’t even get me started about boxing.
R.J. Carter October 2nd, 2014 at 08:54
Only my Cardinals are squeaky clean. The rest of major league sports is a cesspool.
Carla Akins October 2nd, 2014 at 09:02
Bwahaha. Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
burqa October 2nd, 2014 at 20:33
I would never call Conrad Dobler “squeaky clean.”
Skydog2 October 2nd, 2014 at 08:10
“an epidemic of criminal behavior by NFL players”
The only thing new here is the amount of press coverage it’s now getting …. it’s about time. And if you think the NFL is bad, wait until the NBA season starts. Don’t even get me started about boxing.
R.J. Carter October 2nd, 2014 at 08:54
Only my Cardinals are squeaky clean. The rest of major league sports is a cesspool.
Carla Akins October 2nd, 2014 at 09:02
Bwahaha. Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
burqa October 2nd, 2014 at 20:33
I would never call Conrad Dobler “squeaky clean.”
burqa October 2nd, 2014 at 20:32
I became a fan of the burgundy and gold back in the 60s and it was not until recent years that I really gave much serious thought to the name of the team. Objections to the name go back to at least 1972 and I think I was like many who didn’t give it much thought, liked the name and the logo but didn’t connect it to American Indians or the fact the name is an ugly ethnic slur.
This is human nature – some of us see things before others, and even obvious things take some of us more time to understand. I think some of the opposition to changing the name is coming from a reluctance to do what someone else tells one to do, especially when that other person or group is a stranger or behaves in such a way as to cause those who favor the name to be defensive.
We need to decide what we want in such a situation. Do we just want to hurl insults and cause the ones giving offense to circle the wagons?
Or do we wish to see them change?
If the latter, we need to persuade in a manner that gives the other side room to step towards us without getting their head chopped off.
The former just satisfies an overly hungry ego and the latter actually gets us to where something improves in our society.
We see these two approaches in political discussions.
While it is fun to be a smart-aleck at times, I think public discussion of issues would be more fruitful were we to elevate our game and subtract a good measure of the rancor, hyperbole and finger-pointing. This is how Liberaland used to be. It was a welcome oasis from the usual crap seen in so many other forums.
Because the strength of our (the Left) arguments often is in facts and historic precedence, I believe that such an atmosphere makes it possible for our arguments to shine even brighter. The Right has an even tougher time debating on that sort of terrain where they are not able to resort to nastiness or distract with emotional arguments the way they have used wedge issues to distract from the impact of their policies on those who vote for them.
Somehow, some on the Left decided that we need to be as nasty as the Right. I would prefer the Right have a monopoly on nastiness, but that’s just me…
burqa October 2nd, 2014 at 20:32
I became a fan of the burgundy and gold back in the 60s and it was not until recent years that I really gave much serious thought to the name of the team. Objections to the name go back to at least 1972 and I think I was like many who didn’t give it much thought, liked the name and the logo but didn’t connect it to American Indians or the fact the name is an ugly ethnic slur.
This is human nature – some of us see things before others, and even obvious things take some of us more time to understand. I think some of the opposition to changing the name is coming from a reluctance to do what someone else tells one to do, especially when that other person or group is a stranger or behaves in such a way as to cause those who favor the name to be defensive.
We need to decide what we want in such a situation. Do we just want to hurl insults and cause the ones giving offense to circle the wagons?
Or do we wish to see them change?
If the latter, we need to persuade in a manner that gives the other side room to step towards us without getting their head chopped off.
The former just satisfies an overly hungry ego and the latter actually gets us to where something improves in our society.
We see these two approaches in political discussions.
While it is fun to be a smart-aleck at times, I think public discussion of issues would be more fruitful were we to elevate our game and subtract a good measure of the rancor, hyperbole and finger-pointing. This is how Liberaland used to be. It was a welcome oasis from the usual crap seen in so many other forums.
Because the strength of our (the Left) arguments often is in facts and historic precedence, I believe that such an atmosphere makes it possible for our arguments to shine even brighter. The Right has an even tougher time debating on that sort of terrain where they are not able to resort to nastiness or distract with emotional arguments the way they have used wedge issues to distract from the impact of their policies on those who vote for them.
Somehow, some on the Left decided that we need to be as nasty as the Right. I would prefer the Right have a monopoly on nastiness, but that’s just me…