WashPost Editorial Board Stops Using 'Redskins' - EXCEPT 'for Clarity and Effect'

Craig Bannister
By Craig Bannister | August 22, 2014 | 3:40 PM EDT

The Washington Post announced today that its editorial board will stop using the word "Redskins" - EXCEPT, when it wants to be clear or have effect:

"While we wait for the NFL to catch up with public opinion and common decency we have decided not to use the slur ourselves except when it is essential for clarity or effect.

The editorial board is separate from the news-gathering side of the organization, which executive editor Marty Baron said will continue to use the team's moniker."

But, if they will continue to use "Redskins" for "clarity and effect," isn't that pretty much all the time?

And, if they'll continue to use this "slur" for effect, what other slurs do they think are okay to use when you want to have an impact?

Bonus Question: How many times did the Washington Post's editorial board even have occasion to use the word "Redskins" - before it began lobbying for its banishment?

If the NFL ever does "catch up" to the Washington Post's way of thinking, here are some suggestions for the team's new name:

  • The Washington Fedskins,
  • The Washington Redinks (an anagram of "Redskin" and fiscal gameplan),
  • The Washington Politically-Corrects ("PCs"),
  • The Washington Progressives

And, my personal favorite, since I've experience rush hour in the Nation's Capital:

The Washington Gridlocks