It was back on the last weekend of November when we were all supposed to be up in arms about a case of racism spotted at a Kansas City Chiefs football game. Deadspin — the activist sporting website — delivered a stunted attempt at journalism where writer Carron Phillips alleged that a boy of roughly nine years in age was committing an act of dual racism. 

Phillips literally charged this boy with the racist sin of wearing blackface AND displaying intolerance towards Native Americans by wearing a feathered headdress. Phillips generated outrage for sure, but not in the manner he anticipated. He was flamed for his idiotic approach, for missing or intentionally avoiding the fact the boy wore multiple colors on his face, and ultimately was shamed completely when it was learned the kid was himself a Native American.

The outlet has come under fire, Phillips has been exposed as a partisan hack, and the family is weighing the possibility of taking legal action. So, where is Deadspin on the matter today? Well, it has made an attempt at rectifying things — sort of. Carron’s racist diatribe has gone through revisions, and a tepid attempt at an apology has been made – but all the while, the piece remains up, some of the core elements remain in place, and the site is attempting to regain a shred of respectability…as futile as that may be.

The evolution of this trainwreck that has plunged from a trestle is something to behold. When he first met pushback on his article, Phillips, unsurprisingly, lashed out. In a series of social media posts (since deleted), he called critics of his piece “idiots” and then, for no discernable reason, leveled the accusation that these people hated Mexicans while wearing sombreros on Cinco De Mayo.

After getting one of the biggest quote ratios I’ve ever seen, Carron Phillips deleted his tweet defending his garbage story. pic.twitter.com/tGhpxBXP3i

— Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) November 28, 2023

Now, he has scrubbed any mention of his piece entirely. And how did the site approach this debacle? Initially…it said nothing. Just as it was attempting to contend with the proven false aspect of the “blackface” accusation and how to spin it, then arrived the next major problem: The boy turned out to be a Native American. Now, most respectable outlets would have taken action, such as issuing a full correction and apology, issuing an editor’s note on the numerous errors, or even striking the piece entirely with an explanation.

Instead, Deadspin decided to double down.

When it was learned the family hails from California’s Chumash Tribe, the outlet rested on a report that included a statement from the tribal elders, hoping this would exonerate Deadspin in some fashion. On November 30, they placed an update on the top of Carron’s piece that claimed the tribe “condemned” the wearing of the headdress. Here is the statement from the Chumash representatives:

"We are aware that a young member of our community attended a Kansas City Chiefs game in a headdress and face paint in his way of supporting his favorite team. Please keep in mind that the decisions made by individuals or families in our community are their own and may not reflect the views of the broader tribal community. As a federally recognized tribe, the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians does not endorse wearing regalia as part of a costume or participating in any other type of cultural appropriation.”

This is a very political response by the tribe, essentially saying this was a decision made by the family, but it lacks Deadspin’s claim of a condemnation of the act. “Does Not Endorse” is a means of sidestepping without making a full condemnation. But this does nothing to help Deadspin’s cause. Look at what this update means:

• The site still maintains it was correct in stating the wearing of a headdress was racist.

• It stands by the statement by Phillips this was done out of contempt for races. (His original quote, now deleted: “A  Kansas City Chiefs fan found a way to hate Black people and the Native Americans at the same time.”)

• The site said nothing whatsoever about the false charge of the boy wearing blackface.

As a sign that things were not improving and that a threat of legal action was looming, it was more than a week later when yet another revision was made. This time, the article was preceded by a lengthy editor’s note, and Phillips’ article underwent a severe dose of editing. For this iteration, the headline was completely altered, all references to the child were eliminated, and his photograph was replaced with one of Roger Goodell.

UPDATE-
After spending a week defending itself and pretending it was proper to attempt to destroy a 9-year-old football fan, @Deadspin has completely altered its hitpiece on a kid.
The article has been basically neutered, after being called out for the idiocy behind the piece. pic.twitter.com/bvCoqVbV2A

— Brad Slager: Flips On The Highbeams In Fog Of War (@MartiniShark) December 13, 2023

As far as mea culpas go, this is a rather pathetic effort. Deadspin strains here to excuse or ignore all of the deeply problematic elements it posted. This is as lame of an explanation as things get, but it is probably the best to expect from this troupe.

On Nov. 27, Deadspin published an opinion piece criticizing the NFL for allowing a young fan to attend the Kansas City Chiefs game against the Las Vegas Raiders on Nov. 26 wearing a traditional Native American headdress and, based upon the available photo, what appeared to be black face paint.

• Uh, no. The piece criticized the boy, and Phillips was then calling on the league to take action against the child. As for the claim, “based upon the available photo,” this seems deceptive. The picture originally used was a still shot from the live telecast. How Phillips obtained the image but not the video is a mystery, and if he simply relied on a supplied screenshot and did not explore the matter further, it is an indictment of his journalism. He harbored no curiosity as to why a young boy would be wearing “blackface” to a public sporting event? That itself is a problem.

Unfortunately the article drew attention to the fan, though our intended focus was on the NFL and its checkered history on race, an issue which our writer has covered extensively for Deadspin. Three years ago, the Chiefs banned fans from wearing headdresses in Arrowhead Stadium, as well as face painting that “appropriates American Indian cultures and traditions.”

• Wrong, again. You cannot say “Unfortunately” regarding the focus being on the boy. He was the subject of the headline, as well as the subheader, AND was the topic of the opening paragraph, where he was being accused of practicing “hate” towards blacks and Native Americans. The matter of headdresses being banned at Arrowhead Stadium is also deflection, as the game in which this was all entered had been played in Las Vegas. 

We regret any suggestion that we were attacking the fan. To that end, our story was updated on Dec. 7 to remove any photos, tweets, links, or otherwise identifying information about the fan. We have also revised the headline to better reflect the substance of the story.  

• This is a non-apology apology, done for legal reasons alone. You were attacking the fan. That much is obvious, and now the site is in CYA mode. The “Revised” headline is actually a recalibration, an attempt to steer the outrage towards what Phillips has long been writing on, and that is any perceived instance of racism. 

___________

After all of this, there is still no allusion to the boy actually being a Native American, and there is no retraction or correction concerning the false charge of him wearing blackface. This is a clear case of journalism malpractice, and it is an unsurprising result when your starting point on the matter is to attempt to cancel a nine-year-old boy for the sake of forwarding your social activist agenda.

Deadspin has lived down to its moniker, and it is of little surprise. The site favors activism, and it only encourages an outrage merchant like Phillips to continue his familiar prattling. Since this disastrous piece, he has delivered at least three other entries in which race was a major component, if not the centerpiece. Clearly, the man writing in favor of diversity struggles with a diversity of thought.