WJFK/WPGC refuse to air anti-Redskin ad

Story provided by NBC 4.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/sports/Radio-Stations-Wont-Air-Anti-Redskin-Ads-228462281.html

The team has been using the mascot since 1933, when it was still located in Boston. With all the tradition associated with the Redskins' franchise, I figure the Oneida Nation will come up short in their attempt to get Dan Snyder to change the nickname. If they succeed, places like Cleveland and Atlanta are going to need to research some new nicknames for their baseball teams as well.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/sports/Radio-Stations-Wont-Air-Anti-Redskin-Ads-228462281.html

This link is corrected.

There's also the Florida State Seminoles.

People won't be truly free until they free their own minds from being so easily offended. I think they're wusses. Snyder would be crazy to give this even a second thought.

Team names like Indians, Braves, and Seminoles (proper names) are not usually offensive to many. Slurs like redskins often are. With that said its (redskin) use as a slur ended long ago, even before the team was named that. People should really get over it.

But the issue is, should someone who disagrees with your take be banned from advertising their POV? I don't think so.

I think they should be able to refuse any advertiser they dont want. It's their billing that suffers.

Link exchange is nothing else but it is just placing the other persons weblog link on your page at proper place and other person will also do similar in support of you. deefaafkddde

I wonder if technically, buying ads to promote changing a professional sports team name, or for that matter keeping it, would be considered political advertising similar to a PAC?