Chris Jones on Jason Whitlock

It's fairly obvious that he did it because he believes Jason Whitlock is Exhibit 1A of what an aspiring member of the media should not emulate. You don't have to agree with him - it's all just a battle of opinions, Pretty Ponies vs. Isn't It Cool To Get Photographed With Famous People and Burn Bridges For A Living - but it's certainly a legitimate opinion to hold. He's used Whitlock's own confessed admiration of Wiley to contrast what Wiley stood for with what Whitlock stands for. Fair game, man. Completely fair game.

Was it personal? Of course. But how can it not be personal when you're going to criticize someone's work as being worthless (which is pretty much what I took the post to say). There is no way to say what Jason Whitlock does is worthless without it being personal.

Mean? It's hard not to chuckle at the assertion that someone's being mean to Jason Whitlock. It's even harder not to chuckle coming from you and Boom, Chris.

I mean, really, is there no self-awareness at all?

Sure it's mean. I believe that was the point. I also believe you can recognize that. I don't believe Jason will complain about that aspect of it. Not in the least. He will likely call it inaccurate, perhaps demonstrate how he does attempt to align his work with what Wiley did, but he won't complain Jones was mean.

 

To heck with Jones and Whitlock. Whatever happened to Tom Petty?

 

I'll comment on this issue ... as soon as I can get the image of the subject line out of my head

 

Criticize Jones and Whitlock and Pearlman and penis painters all you want, but leave the minions alone, dammit.

 

It helps if you picture Jones as an Asian transvestite hooker.

 

I greatly appreciated this measure of levity.

 

She's pretty slutty-looking (not that there's anything wrong with that) but no evidence it's a guy in drag. And she's flashing the Shocker.

 

You said it better than I did

And I get disappointed with that, too. Of course, I could post more of what I think is good work.

 

But Jones never bothers to explain why Whitlock stinks and Wiley's so great. In the last ten years of his career, Wiley operated as a quasi-agent for Penny and Rocket and spent many of his ESPN columns inventing a fictional character based on Spike Lee and having conversations with him. He veered quite a distance from the classic idea of a reporter.

 

It didn't need any more explanation than he gave - Wiley was more than provocative (he was a writer, a journalist, etc.) and Whitlock isn't (again, his opinion). I don't think anyone who read the piece could have confused the contrast and the limited purpose of the contrast within this context, although obviously opinions can differ. You might not feel Wiley was that much more than provocative. Certainly fair enough.

But I don't think any more explanation was needed. It's an opinion.

To win a debate over Wiley as provocateur v. journalist? Sure, but that's another post.

 

Of course you have to explain opinions. What's the value in them if you don't make any argument aside from the proclamation.

<i>This guy is fucking great. This guy is so fucking not.</i>

That's Colin "I shoot from the tip of my dick" Cowherdism.

 

Is it OK that I don't really have a strong opinion on this piece? I like the advice Jones gives, I don't care for the route he took to get there ... and this comes from someone who has found Whitlock increasingly odious over the years.

But it didn't move me one way or another.