obviously i'll have something to say about this...

I think this would be an excellent opportunity to get Whitlock's definition of a good columnist. Jason, your serve.

 

For good or ill, you'll find his answer in today's KC Star.

 

Jason lost his shine when ESPN fired him - why do you think he has taken his BEEFS to SportsJournalists.com?

Before the Espn firing her was rarely here. Nowdays he's looking for other journalists to beef with. It's how you keep yourself in the limelight and attention on you - even though you're a sorry excuse for a human being.

Vivian had it right when she said "i wonder where your mindframe comes from"

Jason has found an audience in lamblasting blacks for the attainment of "MONEY"

= SELLOUT!

Reel e Reel if you think that's cool - I'm disgusted.

 

Oh, I think it might have a lot to do with someone's opinion of oh, I dunno, let's take a stab and guess....Jason Whitlock!

 

I'm not surprised by some who pose as "honest" journalists on this site yet routinely sweep Whitlocks penchant of being woefully short in the fact department under the rug.

They regularly wear blinders while reading his columns because of the comfort zone he provides them on the subject of race.

 

there are a number of ways to be a good columnist.

1. really creative (reilly, simmons, rushin)

2. insightful (wilbon, forde, rhoden, lebatard, bob ryan, wetzel)

3. brilliant writer (plaschke, posnanski, albom)

4. humor (bob wojo, simmons, kornheiser, chad, simers, ratto)

5. original thinker (sally jenkins, christine brennan, telander, couch)

6. powerful opinions (mariotti, stephen a. smiff, drew sharp, couch)

7. voice of a city (galloway, marriotti, lebatard)

8. dominate a particular topic/team (cowboys/galloway, stephen a. smiff/sixers, peter king/nfl, katz/college basketball)

9. tiny and insecure (lupica)

10. several different strengths (vaccaro, shaun powell, lebatard, cazano)

this is all off the top of my head in five minutes. and i don't read everybody.... don't be offended.

 

Saw a lot of replies... But no response to this point?

 

I didn't say I agree with him.

But, he can do what he wants. If enough people get disgusted, you won't see him on TV again.

Don't be disgusted with me, yet. You know I have a righteous point of view.

Just keeping it real, you all.

 

Did no one post this yet? The response: http://www.kansascity.com/182/story/100983.html

 

Hughley resonates with black kids far more than Imus.

I wonder how much thorough research it took him to come to that conclusion?

DL Hugley and his list of cancelled TV shows sure does have a magic pull in the black community.

Does Jason believe that in addressing the Imus comments, one is too consumed, too pre-occupied to discuss other issues of importance?

It seems to work that way in a place called Whitlock land.

 

I'll say one thing.

Lotta folks giving JW flack about making Wojo's article about him. Saying JW is trying to shine the light on hisself.

i. Wojo wrote the column. He mentioned JW.
ii. Viv Stringer took the opportunity, while at a Black Athletes Forum that supposedly conceived to address the topic of the lack of Black sports journalists, to revisit the Imus issue and JW's column on it.

From that perspective. The light was shined on JW.

Why hate on him for dancing in the spotlight?

Just keeping it real, you all.

 

They regularly wear blinders while reading his columns because of the comfort zone he provides them on the subject of race.

He's going to have a long shelf life as long as he gives a certain segment of the population a free pass.