Rev

A couple of things on @Deadspin’s update: 1. The editor’s note says the available photo at the time “appeared to be black face paint.” However, the embedded photo Deadspin included at the time – which was deceptive – was posted well after several photos of the kid’s full face were posted. 2. Say Deadspin didn’t know of the full photo at the time of publication. A) That is horrendous and irresponsible journalism. B) I can say for certain Deadspin was aware of the full photo 3 hours after publication because I emailed the author, @CarronJphillips, and he responded on X in a now-deleted post saying “red and black face paint is even worse” and that I hate Mexicans. (He has still never explained what evidence he has that I hate Mexicans.) 3. Deadspin provided an update to the story three days later with a comment from the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, which Phillips thought defended his smear of the child. So, they went into the story, changed it, but did NOT address or add the full photo showing the kid was not wearing blackface. 4. At this point, Nov. 30, we are 100% certain Deadspin knew the kid was not wearing blackface but left up an article saying he did. 5. Deadspin had over 11 days to update its story with the facts. Yet it waited until the family of the kid threatened legal action. 6. The photo of the kid Deadspin embedded was Community Noted with my column proving it wrong, which neither Deadspin editor-in-chief Jim Rich and G/O CEO Jim Spanfeller would address. They are both cowards. 7. The Editor’s note says the "intended focus was on the NFL” and not the fan. That is not true. The first paragraph of the article claimed the kid “hated both black people and Native Americans.” That is, by definition, directed at the kid and not the NFL. It’s also slanderous. Deadspin has since deleted that portion of the article without notice. outkick.com/deadspin-updates…