A longtime NFL writer is under fire after including a racially-charged paragraph in a column about former Vikings running back Adrian Peterson.
Peterson, who was indicted in 2014 for reckless and negligent injury of his then-4-year-old son, is expected to received a good amount of attention from a number of teams during free agency, including the Dallas Cowboys (the Eagles have shown no interest in the 31-year-old).
Longtime Green Bay Gazette writer Pete Dougherty thinks the Packers should go after Peterson, making a case in a recent column that the all-pro running back still has a number of productive football seasons ahead of him.
Dougherty also thinks Peterson paid his penalty for his misdeeds, comparing the six-game suspension he served in 2014 to the time former Eagles quarterback Michael Vick spent in jail following a conviction over an illegal dog-fighting ring.
Let's also not forget that Peterson likely is descended from slaves who suffered savage disciplinary beatings generation after genration after generation. It excuses nothing but also can't be ignored. This is learned behavior.
The paragraph has since been removed from Dougherty's column, and an editor's note now appears at the top of the story:
A paragraph in an earlier version of Pete Dougherty's column that included a reference to Peterson's punishment of his 4-year-old son being connected to America's history of slavery was removed. It was poorly reasoned and insensitive. We apologize to all readers who were offended.
New York Times Magazine writer and David Carr fellow Greg Howard was among the first to point out Dougherty's column:
ESPN Radio host Bomani Jones had a big problem with Dougherty's reasoning:
CNN host Soledad O'Brien could only manage two words in response to the column:
The column first appeared on PackersNews.com, a website that includes content from writers from the Press-Gazette and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which are both owned by Gannett. It also appeared on USA Today's website.
In a statement Friday, editor Robert Zizzo called it "a huge mistake in judgment by a reporter and failed oversight by editors."