THE BLOG
08/18/2014 11:08 am ET Updated Oct 17, 2014

Et Tu, Media?

While most reasonable folk have finally succumbed to... reason... that uttering the word "r-dskin" is as vile as uttering the word "n-gger" and that in either case, it should at most be referenced as the "R-word" or the "N-word," I'm left to wonder still.

Uttering the R-word is just wrong. Highly offensive to the section of humanity that is reminded of the "long history of mistreatment of Native American people in the United States, and that the name perpetuates stereotypes that obscures understanding of the reality of Native Americans today and instead helps to keep alive racially discriminatory attitudes." And yet, I wonder still.

Whenever we can, we take people to task for being vile. We. We, the consuming public. We have a voice. We raised hell and got Donald Sterling out of there. We're beating war drums and creating a tide that we hope will sweep across NFL fandom to force what's-his-name to change the team name. Because... well... it's vile. People shouldn't be able to just go around parading the R-word. On shirts, mugs, flags, and so on. I mean, think of the outrage if it was the N-word! Don't get me wrong -- they have the constitutional right to, but we shouldn't reward them by buying their merchandise. And we shouldn't have to recognize them with our tax money by giving them federal trademark protection.

So here is why I still wonder: why aren't we calling out the media? Why aren't we taking them to task? Why are we letting them make money off of it? Does the Washington Post have to say "Redskin"? I get Fox News saying it. But does ESPN have to also? CBS? Despite the network in no uncertain terms saying that their commentators have a choice NOT to? Time? Et tu, Time? USA Today?

LA Times?

NBC?

What gives, us? Hey us, can you hear me? Why are we letting them get away with it?