The exact moment that Jason Whitlock stopped mattering

It is such a sick burn to point out that journalists on a journalism board are providing thoughts about a media figure.

 

How is he undermining himself morally and politically?

 

It's a dumb point so long as we agree that not "mattering" is more about having what most journalists deem the wrong thoughts about things.

Whitlock's hero is Royko. Royko's thoughts in the 1990s are generally not acceptable today. He'd be accused of shitposting.

(Note: This is not some endorsement of The Blaze, either.)

 

The only person comparing Jason Whitlock to Mike Royko is Jason Whitlock.

He should stop doing so. Same for the comparison with Ralph Wiley.

 

You suggested the cautionary tale was moral.

I'm saying it's moral . . . and practical and artistic and political.

 

nah

Some of Royko's thoughts in the 90s were debatable.

Thus, they were debated.

 

Got it. So, how did he undermine himself morally and politically?

 

You go first, since it was your suggestion.

 

I suggested that was your meaning. How could I go first on what you mean?

 

What led you to believe that was his meaning?

"This is what you meant! I know it is! Explain yourself!"

It's like arguing with a more polite Simon Cowbell.

 

I don't know.

But you seemed pretty comfortable making the assumption.

Is it a cautionary tale with a moral? Of course. That's the definition of the form.

(The moral of the Whitlock story - as a matter of career counseling - might be "Work hard. And don't alienate everyone you've ever worked for, or with.")

As a matter of morality, I think shoveling under-reported, under-researched grievance into the grievance-making machine is pretty cynical, and a thin mess of pottage indeed. Hence the phrase "shitposting." At a place like the Blaze he's not trying to convince anyone of anything.

Politically?

He has become - or worse yet, pretends to be - an ideologue. So he's no Mike Royko.