NBA and NAACP an amazing paradox

The paradoxical contradictions associated with the news media's coverage of Don Sterling continues. apparently the L.A. Clippers slime bag owner has a past and reporters have already been digging. Witness this from the New York Times:
It looks as if the N.B.A. and its team owners have finally had enough of Sterling, and the overdue moment for dealing with him is finally here.
It only took the league 33 years.
Sterling bought the Clippers in 1981 and has been a blight on the N.B.A. ever since. It’s only now — just as the Clippers are making a rare cameo in the playoff spotlight — that the league has pledged to punish its troublesome owner.
When the Clippers were losing, which they did for 27 of Sterling’s years there, the league tacitly accepted Sterling’s well-documented racism and other flaws. For decades it was perfectly acceptable to let him run his team like “a Southern plantation-like structure,” as the former Clippers general manager Elgin Baylor once charged in a lawsuit.
One of the most distressing parts of the revelations might have been that they did not come as a complete surprise. A string of lawsuits against Sterling over the years — for housing discrimination, for sexual harassment, for failing to pay employees — was not enough to pique the N.B.A.’s interest in disciplining him. A claim in one lawsuit said Sterling did not like Hispanics as tenants because all they did was “smoke and drink and just hang around the building.” A 2009 federal discrimination lawsuit led to a $2.76 million settlement, widely reported to be the largest amount paid in such a suit.
Did the N.B.A. and its team owners somehow miss that news? Or did they just ignore it and hope others would too because, after all, the Clippers were usually so bad that no one really cared what they did?
Now the Sterling problem has exploded in everyone’s face, and it’s time for the league and the team owners to act. None of them can feign ignorance. For years, they had their chance to stand up and be counted, to point out that Sterling was a dangerous liability for the league, and to press for his departure from the their ranks.
Instead, they stepped aside while others complained about him, to no avail.
In 1988, he supposedly told Danny Manning’s agent, “I’m offering a lot of money for a poor black kid.” That quote came from a discrimination lawsuit filed by Baylor, the Hall of Fame forward, in 2009.
That suit also accused Sterling of running his franchise with the mentality of a Southern plantation owner, as a man who preferred a team of “poor black boys from the South” who were “playing for a white coach.”
Baylor lost the lawsuit, but among the most shocking parts of it — just like the most shocking aspect of the most recent accusations against Sterling — was how long Baylor put up with “the Southern plantation” mentality before standing up for himself.
It took him 23 years.
OK New York Times. Go after the NBA. Fair enough. Why not re-read this entire story and substitute the word NAACP every time the author says NBA. Then you will get the bigger picture.
In a sense what the NAACP did was far worse than the NBA. Sterling owned the team which provides him with legal protections from the NBA. On the other hand, seemingly, the NAACP voluntarily ignored all of these “well documented” facts about Sterling and instead chose to give him a lifetime achievement award at their 100^th anniversary celebration.
Tell me that doesn't stink? Will the media question what is going on at the NAACP? Forget it. They are off-limits no matter what they do.