Sports

By Brent Bozell | and By Tim Graham | June 21, 2014 | 8:31 AM EDT

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) found its way to the front page by declaring the word “Redskins” was offensive and therefore unworthy of trademark protection under a 1946 law that proscribes trademarks for “immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter.”

MSNBC anchor Joy Reid reported this news with an obscenity warning before airing a clip of Harry Reid: "And I just warn people, he does use the name of the team. So, I'm just going to warn you guys about that in advance." She’s not alone. Liberal sports writers refuse to type the word in their columns.

By Randy Hall | June 20, 2014 | 7:39 AM EDT

The debate over whether the National Football League team in the District of Columbia should change its name from the Washington Redskins to something “less offensive” was the subject when CNN Newsroom weekend anchor Don Lemon was a guest during The Tom Joyner Radio Show on Thursday.

Lemon started his commentary by talking about “bad words, words that you shouldn't say,” comparing the “N-word” to “the dreaded 'R-word'” as racially offensive terms. However, comedian Kevin Hart disagreed, noting that the only people being called “Redskins” are players on the professional football team.

By Ken Shepherd | June 12, 2014 | 10:43 PM EDT

All three major broadcast networks devoted stories to the opening of the World Cup today in Rio de Janeiro, but ABC's business interests arguably got in the way of objective reporting. ABC and her sister ESPN networks are, after all the exclusive "media rights licensees" to carry World Cup matches in the United States.

Reporting from Rio, ABC's Paula Faris devoted just one fleeting reference to the unrest in the streets (emphasis mine):

By Matthew Philbin | June 11, 2014 | 11:06 AM EDT

What do you suppose it costs to run a 60-second ad in major markets during the NBA playoffs on ABC? And can you think of something better to do with the “significant investment” a California Indian tribe has made than to register disapproval of a sports mascot?

The Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation isn’t saying how much it paid for the spots, airing in New York, D.C., Chicago, Dallas, L.A. San Francisco, Sacramento and Miami. It is saying that it ponied up for the anti-Redskins ad because, “It’s just a time to get people thinking about putting an end to outward hatred and using sports as a tool to focus on racism,” according to tribe spokesman Marshall McKay. Video after the jump.

By Tim Graham | June 2, 2014 | 9:00 AM EDT

As a network, ESPN continues to propagate the bizarre idea that it’s non-ideological to celebrate the drafting of gay NFL draftee Michael Sam. ESPN ombudsman Robert Lipsyte – a former New York Times columnist – unsurprisingly gave the network “high marks” for its promotional Sam coverage in a column posted Friday.

“I think ESPN’s point of view here is nonideological, unless you believe capitalism and proper journalism are ideological,” Lipyste claimed.

By Tim Graham | May 17, 2014 | 4:38 PM EDT

Michael Sam’s declaration in February that he wanted just to be known as a football player, and not a gay football player, started to unravel with the news that he was working with the Oprah Winfrey Network on a reality show on his "historic" journey. Who was causing the distraction now? Not the “haters.”

Sources told ESPN.com that the network's plan was to follow Sam's personal life as he tried to make the Rams, dividing the content into six to eight segments. The Rams and the NFL said they were unaware of the project prior to its announcement.

By Ken Shepherd | May 16, 2014 | 5:50 PM EDT

Much has been made in the liberal media about Michael Sam's NFL Draft party smooch with his boyfriend Vito Cammisano. And while there's little doubt about the emotion of the moment, it would be fair to say it was choreographed in no small part for the cameras, and not just those for news outlets. 

Apparently well before the draft, Sam was working with Oprah Winfrey's producers on the filming of a reality TV program, and Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN) cameras were present, naturally, for the phone call. Jessica Chasmar of the Washington Times has more:

By Walter E. Williams | May 15, 2014 | 6:07 PM EDT

Donald Sterling, Los Angeles Clippers owner, was recorded by his mistress making some crude racist remarks. Since then, Sterling's racist comments have dominated the news, from talk radio to late-night shows. A few politicians have weighed in, with President Barack Obama congratulating the NBA for its sanctions against Sterling. There's little defense for Sterling, save his constitutional right to make racist remarks. But in a sea of self-righteous indignation, I think we're missing the most valuable lesson that we can learn from this affair — a lesson that's particularly important for black Americans.

Though Sterling might be a racist, there's an important "so what?" Does he act in ways commonly attributed to racists? Let's look at his employment policy. This season, Sterling paid his top three players salaries totaling over $46 million. His 20-person roster payroll totaled over $73 million. Here are a couple of questions for you: What race are the players whom racist Sterling paid the highest salaries? What race dominated the 20-man roster? The fact of business is that Sterling's highest-paid players are black, and 85 percent of Clippers players are black. Down through the years, hundreds of U.S. corporations have faced charges of racism, and many have been subjects of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigations, but none of them had such a favorable employment and wage policy as Sterling. How does one explain this? People with limited thinking ability might conclude that Sterling is a racist in his private life but a nice card-carrying liberal in his public life, manifested by his hiring so many blacks, not to mention paying Doc Rivers, the Clippers' black head coach, a healthy $7 million a year. The likelier explanation is given no attention at all.

By David Limbaugh | May 13, 2014 | 11:18 PM EDT

Before I begin, I want to pose a question to the powers that control our society today: Am I allowed to comment on issues that pertain to homosexuality if I don't echo the views of our masters? Will people who read this column willingly twist what I say to justify condemnation of anyone who disagrees with them? They certainly do it to many other people.

Note to those waiting for an excuse to pretend to be offended so they can cram their views down our throats with McCarthyite tactics: Please read precisely what I say and don't draw unwarranted inferences, for there are no hidden meanings here and there is no concealed agenda.

By Matthew Philbin | May 7, 2014 | 12:21 PM EDT

If an NFL team ends up taking Michael Sam in a late draft round – or not at all – don’t blame the media. The Missouri defensive end came out of the closet to near universal media adulation (coincidentally timed with the NFL Combine in February). Now, with the draft looming on May 8, ESPN and ABC are doing their parts to make sure Sam is picked.

ESPN announced May 7 that it’s bestowing Sam with the Arthur Ashe Courage Award. The ceremony doesn’t take place until July, but it’s never too early to remind NFL coaching staffs that Sam had the courage to join society’s most trendy and celebrated grievance group.

By Tim Graham | May 7, 2014 | 8:03 AM EDT

The front of Wednesday’s Washington Post sports section worries “If Michael Sam goes undrafted, NFL might have a public-relations problem on its hands.” Sam announcing his homosexuality apparently makes it mandatory that he be drafted this week. That's a little insincere. The media are promising they'll give the NFL a PR problem is Sam goes undrafted.

For example, Post reporter Kent Babb equated Sam going undrafted with the controversy over lineman Jonathan Martin of the Miami Dolphins being racially bullied and harassed:

By Jeffrey Lord | May 3, 2014 | 1:20 PM EDT

And so, what many suspected is documented.

The liberals of Los Angeles loved Donald Sterling. So much so that the liberal Los Angeles Times – acknowledging the paper knew of stories alleging Sterling was a bigot – headlined and sub-headlined a loving profile of Sterling on January 3, 2010 by reporter Sandy Banks this way: