Jemele and Mike

Pearlman said she was "one of the best columnists in the country."

She wasn't.

The rest of these arguments (not just yours) are goalpost-moving.

 

And I'm not trying to be a dick or rekindle old bad blood.

I just think journalists disserve the profession when they circle the wagons.

We don't like when police do it, right?

 

There's nothing wrong with Coates' piece, it's a legitimate opinion espoused by an established political/societal commentator in a well respected periodical. As much as I truly loath fucko and am angry and depressed by his election, I don't believe he's a white supremacist. He's a salesmen for a carnival act. If he thought people would love him by repeating everything Maxine Waters has said for 30 years, he would say it. Hill is as equally entitled to her opinion as Coates.
However, her Twitter followers were obtained by virtue of her employment at ESPN. Unless her job at ESPN is as the angry black woman ranting against her perceived injustices from society at large, she needs to stick to sports. ESPN's consumers can go to Fox or MSNBC or The Atlantic or The Weekly Standard for politics. Stay in yo lane Jemelle, lest people will think you got and keep your jobs by virtue of the color of skin, not the content of your abilities. And if she thought about it she would realize she's being patronized. But for a couple of million dollars of years, I'd be willing to be patronized too. Until ESPN affords those with differing opinions fro Jemelle the opportunity to use their positions to make conservative Right wing political comments with the same impunity as Jemelle, she needs to stick to jock sniffing.

 

All right, let's workshop this. We all have off days. I've written some horrendous shit. Like, this morning. Already. Regarding Hill, I'm not sure if this is an off day or not. It seems fairly representative. Like a lot of her stuff, she has some kernel of an argument she wants to advance - black athletes like Cam Newton have to present a certain way to be marketable - but it comes out jumbled and milquetoast:

Vick, Newton and our double standards

Jemele Hill ESPN

Aug 31, 2011

The reason Touré's ESPN The Magazine piece entitled "What if Michael Vick were white?" is stirring such an emotional debate is that a lot of African-Americans just innately believe that white people's actions -- whether they are failures or successes -- are perceived differently by the mainstream.

Interesting premise.

Tim Tebow bowls over a couple of defensive players for a touchdown in a meaningless preseason game, it's considered a display of his toughness and leadership. But when Vick launches himself at Troy Polamalu after throwing a costly interception, it's considered risky and stupid.

I can't tell what she's saying here. Does he mean that this is how black people perceive that people react to these events? Or is this a strawman she's setting up for the rest of the column?

The same goes for appearance. The Denver Nuggets' Chris "Birdman" Anderson, who is white, has so many tattoos that you can barely see his actual skin. And despite a troubled past that includes serious drug abuse, he's a fan favorite who is characterized as a free spirit.

By who? Where is your evidence of this? I'm not taking judicial notice of this fact.

But that wasn't the way a lot of people felt about Allen Iverson, whose tattoos and diamond necklace were airbrushed out when he appeared in the NBA's publication, HOOP magazine, in 2000.

Yeah, that was shameful. But it was 11 years ago. At least she gives an example here, but I'm not sure it supports "a lot of people." I'm not at all a fan of these kind of generalizations.

We try to pretend these double standards don't exist, hurling the phrase "race card" at one another that cheapens any kind of contextual racial discussion.

Who is "we"? Is Jemele Hill's point that out of 350 million people in America, there are some racist idiots? I concur. Not sure it's the basis of strong argument without more steak. Lot of sizzle so far.

But the double standards aren't going away anytime soon.

This is about the fifth strawman in this column. By the way, when the fuck are we getting to a point here?

And Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson probably knows it.

Six.

There was an understandable outcry after Richardson proclaimed on "The Charlie Rose Show" that before he made Cam Newton his franchise quarterback-in-waiting and the NFL's No. 1 overall pick this year, he asked Newton if he has any tattoos or piercings. According to Richardson, Newton told him that he does not. In the interview with Rose, Richardson said he told Newton, "Good. We want to keep it that way. We want to keep no tattoos, no piercings and I think you've got a very nice haircut."

Yikes. This actually sounds like it could be the premise of a pretty good column.

Depending on what you've read, Richardson is either just a concerned capitalist or an outright racist.

She links to actual evidence here. Good.

In his column addressing the flap, my good friend Dave Zirin wrote, "No word if he then checked Newton's gums" -- a pointed reference to how blacks were physically appraised by prospective owners at slave auctions.

That's a pretty good line by Zirin.

But Richardson wasn't being a racist. He was doing Newton, who will start the Panthers' final preseason game Thursday, a favor.

That's strange. That doesn't look like Jason Whitlock's column mug atop the piece.

Richardson has been alive for 75 years, so I'm sure he's at least somewhat aware of the double standards for black athletes, as well as for franchise quarterbacks in general.

If you've been listening to any of the discussion generated by Touré's piece on Vick, it's obvious that some people will never forgive Vick for operating and financing a dogfighting operation despite the two years he served in federal prison for the crimes.

But it's just as obvious that quite a few people have forgiven Vick.

I find these caveated paragraphs about Vick to be pretty reasonable.

Now, the primary reason Vick has reclaimed fans and generated another $100 million contract is that he's one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL.

But let's credit Vick's image overhaul for assisting in his career resurgence, too. Perhaps he's been coached by a public relations professional; but in his interviews now, Vick appears much more polished than he was in his Atlanta Falcons days. He is saying the right things and seems more thoughtful.

OK, hang on. I had forgotten that this began as a Michael Vick column. Then after a large amount of throat-clearing, it seemed to become a Cam Newton column. I had to go back to the top to re-orient myself to the Vick angle.

Whether his willingness to be a spokesperson for PETA is genuine or a well-crafted ruse, it likely factored into Nike's decision to reinvest in an endorsement contract with Vick. Pre-prison, Vick reportedly had a 10-year, $130 million contract with Nike, but the company severed ties with him after the dogfighting arrest. The new deal, signed this summer, is considered to be the first time in history that a brand of this magnitude dumped an athlete and later re-signed him.

Not that Newton has done anything as heinous as Vick -- it'll garner a big shoulder shrug from me even if it is one day revealed that he took money while a player at Auburn -- but Newton nonetheless should be taking notes on Vick's transformation and heeding Richardson's words.

It isn't clear if the Panthers owner ever asked Jimmy Clausen, the team's incumbent starter, or any other white quarterback, about having tattoos or piercings.

That's because Richardson doesn't have to.

Clausen could get "thug life" tatted on his stomach like Tupac and it would either go largely unnoticed or just be fodder for a "Saturday Night Live" skit.

Seven.

Also, we're really going to pretend that Jimmy Clausen has never been criticized for ... everything? (Often by yours truly, in the day.)

But if a prominent black athlete -- especially a high-profile quarterback, the No. 1 overall pick and the de facto leader of the team -- has tattoos or piercings, it takes on an entirely different connotation.

Eight.

Personally, I don't care.

About what? Piercings? Or how people react to piercings?

I'm not sure fans do, either.

You just spent most of this column telling us they did.

And no, it isn't right to judge anyone's character based on body art or piercings.

But I'm not a team owner, an advertiser, a corporate sponsor or the marketing executive who decides which athletes are worthy of endorsing a brand.

Newton's first goal is to help the Panthers win games, of course. But his next one should be to take advantage of all the opportunities that come with being the franchise guy.

In asking Newton about his tattoos and piercings, Richardson wasn't subjugating him. He certainly was looking out for the best interests of his franchise, but he also was approaching Newton businessman-to-businessman. There's a reason the majority of franchise quarterbacks in the NFL carry themselves a certain way, why they try to maintain a meticulous image. Richardson supposedly told the heavily tatted Jeremy Shockey he could "do without the tattoos," but last I checked, teams weren't hinging their franchises on tight ends. More is expected of a quarterback. And more is given to a quarterback, too.

Wait a minute. Hold the front door. He said the same thing to Shockey?! Why the fuck does this column exist then? The whole point, as I understood it, is that there is a double standard between black and white athletes when it comes to tattoos and piercings. Now we're just talking about quarterbacks? I have completely lost track of her argument.

Before the NFL draft, Newton publicly expressed a desire to be bigger than just a football player.

"I see myself as an entertainer and an icon," he said.

He was criticized for those remarks, but there's nothing wrong with those goals.

Richardson already is a successful businessman. He understands that how you present yourself is as important as what you know and how you perform.

It is? Earlier, you told us that Michael Vick earned a lot of his fans back by playing kick-ass quarterback.

Especially if you're black.

Or ... Jeremy Shockey.

This is not an "angry black woman" column. It begins that way - and then it completely lets the rich white guy subject off the hook.

 

Maybe Jemele is supposed to provide the ying to Rockin' Randall Hank's yang.

http://deadspin.com/hank-williams-jr-is-back-on-mnf-tonight-so-we-wrote-h-1803140983

 

About Trump? I dunno. Maybe.

I see no particular point in taking Hill's writing apart. It is what it is. Not awful, not brilliant.

The Twitter rant was unnecessary though. Clearly she thinks she can do it and to punish her for it would draw charges of racism against her bosses.

 

I don't disagree.

The point was that Pearlman said that she was "one of the best columnists in the country." People here countered or defended that statement with vague generalities about her work. I figured, why not just take a lot at her work? I'm sure I'll be branded the asshole, but it actually seemed like the most prudent next step.

 

I think there is a noticeable contrast between the Hill of the column I pulled - someone trying to be thoughtful, but a bit unfocused - and the Hill tweeting boldly in an attention grab that Donald Trump is a "white supremacist."

 

Right wing media is of course up in arms over this.

Has any mainstream organization mentioned it, or even folks like Deadapin, for whom this is a natural thing to cover?

People are going to lose their minds if this simply blows over.

 

And, btw, is her show even any good?

 

I don't find her tweets particularly offensive. It's just the same stuff you hear from a lot of meatball voices on the left. It reads like my brother's Facebook feed on a Saturday night.