In America there has been a lot of discussion on some of the sports teams names. Names like the Red Skins, I think the Blackhawks. The Chiefs is another one. I can understand the argument for some of these.
This article was written in the last week targeting a Chiefs fan.
The journalist a 50-year-old African American man decided to make an example of a 9-year-old kid. So there is a power imbalance there not only with the age but the audience he can get against the response the child can give in return. Originally in the article they only used the black side of his face, not the front view showing he had his face painted in the teams' colours. The other item he attacked was the kid wearing a native American head dress. This meant the author could attack him on two fronts for cultural appropriation.
The African-American players had no issue with the boy and actually interacted with him.
When called out the journalist like a lot of woke people do doubled down and said it would be insulting wearing Mexican gear on cinco.
Now not only is the target a 9-year-old child. He is also part Native American and has spent part of his life on a reservation and his father or grandfather sit on the board of their tribe.
Deadspin has added some updates on the article to get around the legal mess. Saying the views of the journalist aren't theirs and a comment about specific tribes not approving of wearing headdress. The damage is already done as how many people will go back to read the article any retractions need to reach a similar audience. The boys family are looking into legal options.
I've seen mainstream media disparage YouTubers or other people in non-traditional media as they don't tell the truth or validate sources. Here is a case of a guy pushing an agenda who deliberately ignored some facts like the young age of his victim and the second picture which would have provided more context.
Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians condemns 'wearing regalia as part of a costume'
deadspin.com