Wanted: Your new name for the #Redskins

For illustrative purposes only. As content on blogs is generally
considered opinion, Dan Snyder & the Washington Redskins
have no enforceable authority for this to be removed. Ditto if
I Photoshopped a "Washington Palefaces" helmet, etc.

Now that Danny Boy Snyder and the Washington Redskins have lost a suit in the U.S. Patent Office — a ruling that, if upheld, means all of his team's trademarks of the "Redskins" are null and void — maybe the name will be changed to something else.

The team thinks it will win that appeal:

"We are confident we will prevail once again, and that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's divided ruling will be overturned on appeal," team attorney Robert Raskopf said in a statement. "This case is no different than an earlier case, where the Board cancelled the Redskins' trademark registrations, and where a federal district court disagreed and reversed the Board."

However, the early case's overturning was on a technicality, not "merits." The legal concept is known as "laches." That technicality doesn't seem to be an issue in the new suit, according to a good overview by Vox. Actually, since I looked on Wiki, per the link for "laches," it could still apply, in a vacuum. As for the "you weren't offended enough" part of the district court's ruling in 2004, on the 1999 case? In the real world, the cultural and social landscape in the US on such issues has changed a lot in 15 years. And, the plaintiffs have a lot more evidence to present this time.

Given the likelihood the ruling sticks this time, and the way the mouth-breathers are already populating sports websites' discussion of this issue, I'm lining up suggested name changes.

No. 1?
"Washington Wingnuts."  It even has alliteration. Wouldn't make for the best logo, though.

No. 2?
"Washington Palefaces." It's got the petard-hoisting angle. Helmet would have a pasty-faced Snyder as logo, mayhaps.

No. 3?
"Washington Rednecks." Keeps the "red" in the name, hoists the petard higher than the "Palefaces" does. Would satisfy wingnuts because a stereotypical picture of one of their own would be the new logo.

No. 4? 
"Washington Gasbags." Snyder could put Rush Limbaugh on the helmets. Or Glenn Beck, if he wanted a younger angle.

No. 5?
"Washington Lobbyists." After all, who's the biggest winner in DC? Dollar bill on helmets presages the NFL eventually having NASCAR-style unis.

No. 6?
"Washington Snyders." Danny Boy's wet dream comes true.

No. 7?
"Washington Hymies." The offensiveness issue punches Snyder right in the personal nut sack.

Anyway, if you've got anything else, write it in.

I'll even accept comments from wingnuts just for the fun of rejecting them like a weak Dwyane Wade layup.

As for what this ruling would mean when upheld? Other people could not only sell items with a straight-up Redskins logo without violating copyright. They could sell stuff with something like my "No" slash through it, or worse. And, Danny Boy, since "Redskins" would no longer be trademarked, couldn't win a copyright suit OR a product disparagement suit. 

That said, in a good explainer, near the bottom, Sports on Earth links Forbes to say that Danny Boy could sue under state laws or common law statutes. State courts in non-mouthbreathing areas would surely rule against him, though,  unless a state law very, very explicitly compelled a ruling otherwise.

As for what's at stake financially?

A quick teh Google says, without the Dallas Cowboys counted separately, since Jethro Jerry Jones finagled himself out of revenue sharing, that the NFL sold $2 billion-with-a-B of merchandise in 2010. Since the Redskins are fairly popular, I'll divide by 30 rather than 32, and round up just slightly. That's $67 million gross in Redskins money; at a 10 percent profit for licensing fees, that's $6.7 million, as a guesstimate. Now, that said, would they lose all of that? No, Danny Boy would, if he wants to keep fighting, stamp an "Authorized Washington Redskins™ logo on products that were still paying him for the branding, and appeal to mouthbreathers to "stick it to liberals" and diehards to buy only "authorized." But, would he lose half of that? I think that's reasonable.

Weymouth-Brauchli continue to pass buck on Post salons

It looks like the dynamic duo, the Washington Post’s publisher and executive editor, respectively, are going to let Charles Pelton take most the heat on the Post’s ill-fated salons, while Post President Stephen Hills won’t even talk to his own reporters about it.

In an e-mailed statement Friday, Pelton said: “This is a new venture, there were some stumbles and too much of a rush to the finish. And I’ve taken responsibility for my part in this. However, I strongly believe that journalism must support more than a newspaper and a set of Web sites. It needs new avenues of expression — and revenue — and live events are just one of these.”

Some at The Post view Pelton as overly eager and not attuned to the newsroom’s ethical sensitivities. But Pelton raised questions about some of those very issues in a May 21 e-mail to Weymouth, Brauchli and Stephen P. Hills, The Post’s president and general manager. Pelton reports to Hills, who declined to be interviewed.

The salons evolved in other ways. Originally, the salon financiers, members of Congress, etc. would all be “on background.” Not good, but, at least you get comments. And, since just about everything reported out of Washington by the MSM today is “on background,” i.e., comments by people not named, and not directly quoted, in the real journalism world, this would be business as usual!

But, at some point, it went from “on background” to “off the record,” a whole different kettle of fish.

Meanwhile, the Post still has more than 200 managers? Wow. Maybe that’s part of why you’re losing $20 mil a quarter right there. Sounds like The Dallas Morning News — whack the folks on the front line, have the managers keep their jobs.

‘New media’ acts just like MSM on ‘access’ – Politico!

Looks like Politico needs to shut its own yap after slapping down the Washington Post over its salons. A reporter from Politico, Mike Allen, was among those attending President Obama’s off-the-record 4th of July BBQ for the WH press corps, and has now been busted.

When Allen quoted from the pool report in his Playbook column the next day, he deleted a reference to his own name and didn't bother to tell his readers that he was actually at the party.

Yep, sounds like something the “old media” would do.

More on the media’s sale of ‘access’

Yesterday, I blogged a bit about this issue, starting with noting that the Atlantic Monthly was selling access, access, access, as Jack Shafer reminds us.

And, I noted that this drug is as addicting inside the Beltway to the editorial side of newsrooms as it is to the business/marketing wing. That’s why, at the Washington Post, Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli apparently signed off at first. It was only after he realized that this drug “access” would only be dispensed by the business side that he got all huffy.

More on that?

“Access” if part of why reporters inside the Beltway are OK with all their “on background” comments from White House staff, Cabinet department staff, etc. It’s not just the government that wants to control “access,” it’s the MSM.

First, it gets to hang on to scraps of its self-appointed “priesthood” function that way. Second, competing “priests” try to keep opposing press “sects” away from the inner sanctums of their temples.

Within the temples, at the biggest papers, you have different “denominations” whose leaders may control “access” from one another, even.

All this leads back to Brauchli’s bitchfest.

I can think of multiple grounds for concern.

1. He didn’t want to be herding cats amongst his own reporters.
2. He was worried about leaks from the business side, exposing Post sources to other papers, even though a lot of them are common to the New York Times, other papers still flush enough to afford larger DC bureaus, the AP, etc.
3. He was worried that like, when Pompey invaded Jerusalem and pulled back the curtain on the Holy of Holies, we would find nothing inside.

Want more evidence of media as high priests? Gene Lyons has some smackdown.

Update:It looks like the dynamic duo, the Washington Post’s publisher and executive editor, respectively, are going to let Charles Pelton take most the heat on the Post’s ill-fated salons, while Post President Stephen Hills won’t even talk to his own reporters about it.

What Atlantic and WaPost REALLY sell at salons

It was access, access, access, as Jack Shafer reminds us.

And, that drug is as addicting inside the Beltway to the editorial side of newsrooms as it is to the business/marketing wing. That’s why, at the Washington Post, Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli apparently signed off at first. It was only after he realized that this drug “access” would only be dispensed by the business side that he got all huffy.

Atlantic and WaPost hypocrisy fest

As readers who follow national politics may already know, the Atlantic Monthly didn’t comment on the Washington Post’s “pay-to-play” salons because it’s been doing pretty much the same thing and, so far at least, is even less repentant than the Post.

Speaking of that, though, the Post says it will conduct an internal investigation of it’s own salon plans and how they got to be the way they did.

Given that Publisher Katherine Weymouth has refused to fall on the sword herself, and still isn’t:

Weymouth said she was on vacation last week and did not see the invitation that was sent out in her name

(As if the flier invitation is the only thing wrong about this)

And Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli really can’t be as ignorant of what happened as he claims, it’s clear that “internal investigation” means scapegoat searching.

Let’s let Post political reporter Dan Balz talk about that:

“I think everyone still has questions about how this collective breakdown occurred. This was not just two people in a room. There were a number of discussions about it. That part concerned me. Everyone knows the dinners were a bad idea.”

It appears new marketing exec Charles Pelton, already fingered for the fliers about the salons, would be scapegoating target No. 1.

That said, how different is this from newspapers spiking, toning down, delaying, or otherwise bollixing up stories for fear of offending major advertisers?

Not much. So, in that sense, this is nothing new.

WaPost doesn’t need Big Biz salon sponsors

When you have people like Ceci Connelly already in the pocket of the insurance industry

The Politico has a detailed smackdown of the Post’s business side egregiousness. That said, if the Post lost $19.5 million in the first quarter, it’s obviously trying to scrape up money from somewhere.

Ironically, per the Politico story, the first salon was on healthcare (page 3 of story):

“Offered at $25,000 per sponsor, per Salon. Maximum of two sponsors per Salon. Underwriters’ CEO or Executive Director participates in the discussion. Underwriters appreciatively acknowledged in printed invitations and at the dinner. Annual series sponsorship of 11 Salons offered at $250,000 … Hosts and Discussion Leaders ... Health-care reporting and editorial staff members of The Washington Post ... An exclusive opportunity to participate in the health-care reform debate among the select few who will actually get it done. ...

Sheee-it.

And, given the CYAs already flying from various Post brass, hell yes, an outside investigation is needed.

Jim Johnson, meet Chris Dodd

The Connecticut Senator reportedly joins the former Barack Obama VP vetter as among people receiving special “friends and family” loans from Countrywide Financial, one of the country’s main subprime mortgage companies.

Dodd’s staff is, of course, denying it:

“The Dodds received a competitive rate on their loans,” spokesman Bryan DeAngelis said in a statement. “They did not seek or anticipate any special treatment and they were not aware of any.”

Conde Nast Portfolio begs to differ:

The magazine first reported Dodd's participation in a special program that awarded preferential rates to people considered “friends” of the company's chairman and chief executive, Angelo Mozilo.

Portfolio reported that Countrywide made two loans at special rates to Dodd in 2003. One was a $503,000 loan to refinance a Washington townhouse. The second was for refinancing a loan on a home in East Haddam, Conn.

Countrywide waived three-eighths of a point, or about $2,000, on the townhouse loan, and one-fourth of a point, about $700, on the second, according to internal documents cited by Portfolio. Both loans were for 30 years, with the first five years at a fixed rate.

Beyond that, Mr. DeAngelis, even if Dodd didn’t ask, he didn’t turn it down. Nor did a number of other “name” people.

The bottom line is, how much did Dodd save? Portfolio estimates as much as $70K, though that's being disputed

This appearance of unsavory behavior is bipartisan, though it’s sad to see the number of Democrats on the list:

The magazine said other participants in the company’s “V.I.P.” program included Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., chairman of the Budget Committee and a member of the Finance Committee, former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, and former U.N. ambassador and assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke.

Yet another reason to vote Green or else not vote.