It's official (now): Whitlock leaving the KC Star

IF burning a bridge means telling the truth, fine.

But this isn't exactly the test case I'd want to base that theory on given that our protagonist, as Elliotte pointed out, has admitted making shit up about his superiors in the past.

Put it this way. If the bridge you burn comes back to burn you, chances are, you're being burned by your own lack of credibility.

And Whitlock has a major credibility problem here whether he believes he does or not.

 

Fair enough, Bubbler.
I guess the credibility of this case will be told in the court system. If Whitlock is not telling the truth, he'll be in court.
No newspaper like the Kansas City Star will allow its editor to be trashed like that publicly if it is not true. That's why I think you guys are wrong to even be considering the possibility Whitlock is lying here. His ego may be big, but it is silly to suggest he'd risk his fortune over a lie about an editor of a major metro, who frankly 90 percent of the public has never heard of. Also I would think Whitlock being a big time columnist has a good lawyer who OKayed Whitlock laying out the allegations with truth as the defense. Nobody goes on the radio for 3 hours and throws out allegations without the consent of a lawyer. As many of us are aware, newspapers are ready to go to court!
Would you not agree to that?

 

The best thing about Whitlock going to FoxSports.com is the guaranteed irrelevance. And I say that as one of the biggest Mark Kriegel fans on the planet.

 

Nice of Whitlock to break out the "women sleep their way to the top" meme. If he thought Lawton was a bad boss, take it to Fannin. No satisfaction there? Go up the HR chain. If he truly respected Fannin, why do that to him publicly? Maybe he just can't admit he's in it for the bigger check, and needed to create a self-rationalization so he could sleep at night.

 

He didn't respect Fannin. He said something about somebody being that unethical should not be in charge. He also said something about him bullying young reporters. He was very critical of Fannin in the 3 hour deal.

 

Fredrick,

I'm having a hard time with the idea that Whitlock was so outraged at Yahoo! Sports not receiving credit, and yet, he had no compunction about what he did today. He can't be that principled of a guy. He kind of showed that, in a different manner, with that broadcast.

These days, stories change/grow/develop so quickly, that leading outlets often don't get the credit/attribution that they perhaps should. Other media play catch-up and then just move on, whatever their reasons may be for doing so, and it happens all the time without anyone batting an eye.

Also, to me, the idea of "burning a bridge" means there are negative connotations for the one who does it -- and it doesn't appear that this will, in fact, have any real consequences for Whitlock. He has a job, and his life probably will not be impacted.

To "burn" a bridge implies that you, not necessarily the other party, have been hurt or will be hurt, and that doesn't appear to be the case here. That's why it happened.

Whitlock "burned" that bridge because he could, and because he could afford to do it.

His reasons weren't noble and you shouldn't make them out to be so.

 

To me, the big story in all of this is KC still manages to put out a quality sports section daily despite all of this turmoil. Damn, this is worth all that and a bag of popcorn.

 

Don't forget, he "protested" this Yahoo thing for 3 months. According to what I've read, he hasn't written a column in protest in 3 months. The newspaper flat out lied and said he was on vacation. As popular as this man apparently was in Kansas City, I could see him putting on this 3 hour show thinking it was his responsibility to do so and explain to the masses why he's leaving.
I don't know him or his situation. Not saying for sure he is noble. A devil's advocate would say he was truly trying to explain why he's leaving Kansas City after 10 or more years.

 

OK. Let's pre-suppose that the most egregious of Whitlock's claims are true -- and at least three people with better knowledge of the current goings-on at the Star swear they are complete horse bleep, but whatever -- how "courageous," exactly, is it to wait until you have a $2 million job offer before bringing those things to light? If you truly suffer and bleed for the place, shouldn't these things have been discussed in an effort to "save" it? And believe me, I know from personal experience: the Star brass that relentlessly kissed Jason's ass for 17 year wouldn't have "retaliated," bank on that. The Star as an institution, in fact, has only itself to blame for this muddy mess for enabling Whitlock every day he was there.

I like Wally Matthews a lot, and no single person benefited more from his own implosion eight years ago than I did since I wound up with his job. But this is exactly the same as that: Wally was lauded for the courage of his convictions at the time but it was later pointed out he had 8 years to talk about how terrible life at the Post was, and waited until he had a radio gig lined up before clearing his throat.

 

Let's hope that the "$2 million deal" is a huge exaggeration.

Also: It will be interesting to see who they name as new sports editor. The spotlight is bright.

 

Let me be a little more blunt: Ask a Star sports staffer. Lawton and Fannin have been an item for a looong time

 

So doing the LeBron ripoff of "The Explanation" was really fitting, eh?