Whitlock done all around ESPN

J-Dub, I'm surprised it took this long for you to realize the envy that Simmons holds in his heart for "real" sports journalists. He *truly* believes that the Boston papers had it out for him when they wouldn't let him write his "columns" the way he does now.

The truth is: he's not a reporter. He can't be a reporter. He doesn't want to be a reporter. And he doesn't understand that you have to *report* to be a good columnist.

 

"I am kook (reader), therefore I am..."

 

You're a good man and a good journalist J-Dub. You're a lot more talented than most of your fellow posters give you credit for.

 

I hesitate to use the phrase about oxen being gored in this context, but c'mon, Daddy Whit, this has been Simmons shtick for years. You ran the ball for this guy hereabouts -- him and Hunter Thompson and Ralph Wiley, remember?

 

As nice as it is to portray Jason Whitlock as a martyr, something seems a little off. To be fair, there have been some incidents with Jason, including his quitting on-air at a KC radio station. The incident, IIRC, involved a nasty dispute and unproven allegations about a radio station employee (correct me if I'm wrong) which Jason perpetuated on the air.

The fact is Chris Fowler and SAS have been allowed to openly criticize the WWL in recent months. Why wouldn't they let Whitlock do it?

Maybe it's because Fowler and SAS are fulltimers they've invested heavily in, and Whitlock is not.

Or maybe they just weren't that into him.

 

I would just like to point out this:

How many times have we seen Whitlock stick up for Simmons on this site when the rest of us were tearing him apart like a pact of wolves?

A lot.

And so what happens the first chance BS gets when he has an opportunity to stick up for Jason, or at the very least, tap dance around the question?

Bill basically throws Jason under the bus.

Bravo. With friends like these...

 

This is probably a stupid question, but does Simmons ever come on here? My guess would be no, but I thought I'd ask.

 

He has at some point because he brought this site up in some of his columns. Basically he said he hated this site because we all allegedly hate him and we are why he got out of newspapers, or something to that effect. I know he posts on SOSH and I am pretty sure he at least reads shit on here.

 

Yeah, I knew about Son of Sam Horn, so obviously he's not adverse to message boards. Personally, I think he should come on here and clarify his comments on Whitlock. For someone who is always complaining about not being able to speak his mind about announcers, anchors, ESPN and the like, it's seems pretty hypocritical for him not to be in Whitlock's corner. I guess we really are seeing his true colors.

Addendum: And this is from someone who has been reading and enjoying Simmons' columns ever since they started appearing on Page 2.

 

Later in his chat he rips on Kornheiser and Theisman, so I don't really understand. He also takes shots at Rick Reilly and says he works harder than him.

Not to threadjack, but I think this question and response from his chat is why he never made it in newspapers. You have to be able to right a tight column and still be entertaining and he doesn't seem to have the ability to do that.


TJ (Minneapolis, MN): Are you capable of 950-word columns? I'm not convinced.

Bill Simmons: Anyone's capable of a 950-word column. But here's the problem, and this is why I hated writing my mag column when it was 700 words (which is absolutely ludicrous) and 800 words (not as ludicrous, but still ridiculous): You barely have enough time to bring up a point, argue it and wrap it up with that little space. The biggest challenge is just conserving words and making your point in as little time as possible. Well, how is that entertaining? I understand the mentality 20 years ago, but with the internet taking off, we should be figuring out ways to take advantage of the extra space and have fun with it, you know?

Bill Simmons: For instance, my Lambeau column was initially meant to be for the magazine. And after it was over, I was thinking about it and decided, "Wait, some really funny stuff happened on this trip, why would I cut it down to 1200 words, why not explore the studio space with it?" So I wrote a 9500-word first draft, then spent the next 2 days cutting it down to a semi-reasonable length (6200). Now, would you have rather have read a 1200 word column or a 6200-word column? I don't know. I'd rather print out the 6200 words and dive into it, personally.

 

So because he's unable to write tight and not lose the readers, all of us are wrong.

OK...

 

My theory on writing long but not losing readers, especially online, is a simple one. It's all about paragraph length. Simmons can write 7,000 words and not lose too many folks because he keeps his paragraphs short, which increases the number of those break lines between them. You can see those with your peripheral vision and you actually feel like you're making progress. It's all about reading speed. Simplistic and obvious, perhaps, but it certainly seems to be something that Simmons has a grasp of. I'd rather read 7,000 words of five-sentence paragraphs then 1,000 words with 20-sentence paragraphs.