Columnist opening in Orlando

Because when you treat writers -- people -- like stocks, acquisitions in a portfolio, that's what happens.

 

yeah, we should never compare. it's not fair. :

 

I echo 21's sentiments. The entire reason the Internet is good for readers is the multiplicity of available voices. If I choose not to avail myself of Page 2's voices, it's no reflection on the talent level of the people whose voices they are.
There are no more captive audiences. A decade ago, if you lived in Orlando, loved sports, and hated Jemele Hill or some other columnists' work, you were SOL. It's tough to avvoid the front page left of a newspaper section. Now, it's easy give writers you don't care for a wide berth. There should be FEWER of these haters vs. defenders threads on this site, not more of 'em.

 

To review:

Florida coed+bolt-on breasts=Page 2 columnist

Florida writer+oral blog=Page 2 columnist

 

Florida State coed! -- Florida coed's are all natural.

 

Gee, maybe because we basically spend our entire careers comparing team X to team Y and player X to player Y and coach X to coach Y and this salary to that salary.

I want every columnist I read to compare with Jim Murray. That none can doesn't mean I still can't hope.

 

Thanks, deportes. I don't have an account with them, so I'll have to do without for now.

 

Well, hate - d, at least you've progressed from "blah, blah, blah" as a 'critique' of my comments. That's a start. Kind of like when the first fish walked on land. Congratulations. You'll be a biped in no time.

Two problems with your response: (1) I said "many if not most," it's called a qualifier; (2) The apparent thrust of the article is that Sexton indeed does have psychological problems. Further, it says it would be better if drugs were the real problem here. That is to say, they're not the real problem.

So we've established that Sexton has psychological problems. So while you don't have to have them to smoke a doob or take a hit of A, Sexton did have these issues when he partook of the supposed drugs. Can't say that the issues 'made' him supposedly do the drugs, but the issues were there nonetheless.

You know when a guy gets off of work, and it's been a long day, and he just wants to go to a bar and down a few brews to "feel better." Well, that impulse is much stronger for people with psychological problems. I know, I've worked with people with just those issues. They're called "dual diagnosis" patients. One diagnosis for the psychological disorder, one diagnosis for the substance abuse disorder, whatever the substance.

Again, neither you nor I know if Sexton's assumed mental issues 'caused' him to supposedly do drugs that night. But his odds are a lot higher than the average college student's.

Remember when Martin Lawrence ran into traffic and was pointing guns at various drivers? Or when the Raiders' Barrett Robins had a breakdown the night before the Super Bowl? Both were examples of people with 'dual diagnosis' issues who 'lost it' because they took a substance which exacerbated their psychological disorders.

So what if, in the wakes of their incidents, I write a column - apparently without hard evidence - alledging or insinuating that both of their incidents were prompted by drug usage. But I don't stop there. I then say that drugs aren't their real issue, psychological problems are.

I've already made a jump from fact to speculation, and I appear ignorant of the frequent link between drugs and psychological issues. I'm writing beyond my knowledge base. But I'm not done. I then write, both patronizingly and ignorantly so, that it would be best for Lawrence's and Robbins' families if drugs were there real issues, but they're not. I mean, I'm a writer, I know these things. Who needs doctors?

That's where the heartless aspect of the column comes in. How insensitive am I to just smugly condense these peoples' serious issues - issues I've written are serious - into my laptop and indiscriminately offer bogus "diagnoses," while these two are at their lowest points? That's beyond bad taste. It's also exposing myself to a potential lawsuit. Remember the trouble Bill Frist got into when he 'diagnosed' Terri Schiavo via videotape? And he was an actual doctor.

That's why I said that the column is (from all the information I've gathered so far, including Hill's follow - up column where she apologized for playing doctor) heartless, patronizing, and ignorant. That's as clear as I can be.

Sexton might be a jerk, and FSU and his family may have covered - up the real story, but Hill's piece, seemingly, is mere frivolous, antagonistic speculation. Have some respect for those with serious psychological problems, or even those with trivial bad drug reactions.

It reminds me of the T.O. 'suicide' fiasco. Anyone that bore a grudge against him came out with guns blazing, facts be damned. Numerous 'would - be doctors' appeared. One of the worst perpetrators was ESPN Radio's Erik Kuselias, who was absurdly throwing around that T.O. was bipolar. Totally slanderous. It was embarrassing, the garbage that was being said and written. But the overdose gave them the pretext to dump on T.O., and they seized it. That's what Hill's piece sounds like to me.

Now I still have to see the piece for myself, but I'm betting there's both a pretty good reason Hill apologized for what she wrote and why the Sentinel took it down from its site. I want to support Jemele, but this is upsetting, bush - league stuff. We've all made mistakes in judgement and written our 'grudge' pieces. Hopefully this was one of the few of hers. One question remains, however: How did this get past an editor or editors? Was somebody trying to make Hill look bad?

 

Me again...a few more points to add...
1. I remember very vividly a time when many of my colleagues in Detroit were ripping Jason Whitlock (who was in Ann Arbor at the time) and saying he wasn't worthy of a column and he'd never make it and he was just a young, loud, black guy getting a break he didn't deserve. Whether or not you agree with his views, I think Jason has proven -- and then some -- that he has a voice worth reading.
2. I think, hard as it is for us getting-old farts to accept (I'm 41), the business has changed. There was a time when we longed to be recognized in the APSE feature-writing category and make Best American Sportswriting, when we became "famous'' and envied among our peers for writing long, thoughtful pieces that we labored over, or investigative pieces that brought down college football programs. I still love doing long stories and profiles, and will continue to do them, but that is not what the younger generation wants and that certainly is not what ESPN.com or any other website wants. The young (read: electronic) generation is about instant gratification, 'tude, about drawing attention to one's self and one's views on MySpace and Facebook and various blogs, whether or not those views are well thought out or researched. I teach a college sportswriting class, and it's depressing, to be quite honest, to see what my students read and what they consider "journalism''. But that's reality.
We can argue til we're blue about whether Jamele Hill is more or less "talented'' than other sportswriters, and whether her sentences are as literary as other writers'. But the bottom line is, ESPN feels she fits their audience and will lend a different perspective to their product, and that's fine. Hey, some people love John Grisham, some loved the Kite Runner (me!!), and others love books I've never heard of. There's room for all of us.
To be perfectly frank, I felt much more fulfilled writing a long feature on the incredible family journey of new Marlins manager Fredi Gonzalez than I would have ranting and raving on a blog. But that's me. And other people have different tastes. It does no good to rip Jamele Hill, and it's not fair, either.
OK, now I'm REALLY getting back to work on yet another old-fashioned print journalism story that will not make me rich or famous...
Have a great weekend and Happy Halloween!!
Michelle Kaufman.

 

Unlike Jenn Sterger, who landed a job with SI.com. So really, why all the fuss that someone like Jemele Hill, who has held beat positions and worked for three major papers, is making the switch to ESPN2?

 

It would be absolutely unfair to say that she draws negative comments only because she is a black woman. But if that's a response to what I said, take that and a token and catch the A train.

I didn't even come close to saying such a thing. I asked why she seems to receive an inordinate amount of criticism from this group of writers. Interestingly, no one's answered that one, and this strikes me as the type of room where pretty much everyone has an answer about pretty much everything.

I'm certainly not saying all of Jemele's critics are racist because, quite honestly, I don't know all of you. I may know more, but Whitlock's the only friend I've got here who was kind enough to use a handle from which I could glean his identity. 'Preciate that, Jason.

Anyway, I have trouble believing all of this is really about a blog, nor does it have to do with what I'm told was a tasteless comment about mental illness (I didn't read the Sexton column, so feel free to correct me if the problems with it are deeper than just a foul remark). This is just too much for that.

After reading this thread and others, it seems to me that a lot of the bashing she takes just doesn't make any sense. Interestingly, the absence of logic is one of the key characteristics of racism. It's an irrational thought process, much like the criticism she seems to field on this board is irrational. Maybe that's just a neat coincidence, but that gives me reason to suspect that some people here dislike that a black woman has achieved the level of success that she has. Not <i>all</i> of you, but definitely some, and I don't think anyone would dare try to dispute that.

Feel free to express displeasure with Jemele's work, but at least try to be sorta fair about it. The crazy thing is that I really don't know what about her work is so bothersome to the critics here. I can't glean that from here. I would expect that those that find her to be uninteresting would say, "yanno, I just can't get into her." Instead, I just see "she's fuckin terrible," and it smells kinda fishy.

But here's something I haven't seen mentioned here--shouldn't those that find her writing to be pedestrian welcome her opportunity to write on a larger stage? If you think Jemele isn't very talented, wouldn't a platform as widely read as ESPN.com give her the chance to prove you right in front of the whole world, not just Central Florida? Anyone so confident that she's no good should sit back and wait for the chance to say "I told you so."

That sound fair to you? Sounds fair to me.
[/quote]

Somebody above questioned my point as well, but I'll deal with both questions at once.

Bomani, you've done the same thing twice. You say you aren't accusing the posters who criticizes Jamele Hill of being a racist, then you make arguments linking them to racism. So, they're not racists, but they are acting like racists? Is that what you're trying to say?

To clarify my point previous, I was acknowledging that there may be some racism involved in the reaction to Jamele Hill, but to dismiss every negative comment as racially motivated is unfair and incorrect.

That last part saying that people who criticize Jamele Hill should just wait and enjoy it if she flops on the big stage is garbage. Let's take this from the point of view of somebody who is not a racist or sexist, but just doesn't care for her work or is bothered by the Sexton column or the blog.

First of all, whatever happens, she still got a great opportunity. Whatever she does with it, that still can't be considered anything but a positive for her, one that some people don't think she deserved.

More importantly, and I admit this isn't fair, but it would create even more bullshit about diversity hires. Argue all you want, but I think we all know some sports writers get jobs not on their merits, but becuase they are a minority or a woman. As much as that bothers me, I am just as frustrated for women and minorities I know in the business who have to hear about it all the time. I think a high-profile failure would make things harder for other women and minorities.

I know people who got their jobs because they were diversity hires. Even they admit it. Some took the opportunity and ran with it. Others flopped badly. And even the ones who do the job well still take crap for how they got their jobs, in part because of the failures of other diversity hires.

Not to mention the fact that while I question some of her past decisions, I'd hate to see things go badly for Jamele Hill. I'm just not wired that way, to root for someone to fail. Well, at least not somebody I don't even know.