As if we needed another reason to love Charles Robinson...

Speaking of that, why is Robinson even writing about college football when there is a drug endemic in this country? What a punk ass security guard.

 

The same Whitlock who just got absolutely destroyed when he just tried to write ONE news story on the NBA lockout? Forget mall cop, Whitlock is the one standing in line at Mrs. Fields cookies. That guy is an armchair journalist who talks about other people who are working. An abomination, and a major reason why Fox Sports will always be a joke when it comes to real journalism. He should reach for another cookie next time he thinks about writing a news story. I'm sure Billy Hunter would be willing to bring him some milk, too.

 

Good arguments usually address the argument itself rather than the speaker, especially given my preface--"don't always agree with Whitlock"--made clear I was not appealing to authority.

Also, Whitlock is no worse than any of the other NBA reporters getting spun by their sources. This lockout has not been one of journalism's finest moments.

 

"Dope on the table" is a reference to lazy investigating. If you're suggesting lazy investigating in all these stories, you must be friggin' Bob Woodward.

And yes, Whitlock referencing "dope on the table" is one of the most ironic criticisms in history, because I don't know a lazier reporter than Whitlock. Which is why I think it's awesome when he comes out of his self-aggrandizing cocoon of sycophants to write an anonymous single-sourced news story...and then it blows up in his face. For heaven's sake, stick to being the foremost authority on the Wire. Or better yet, get a new show and a new schtick already. Both the columnist and the sitcom are three years past their expiration date.

 

Dope on the table does not mean lazy investigating (nor is The Wire a sitcom). Its about police making arrests or hyping stats as good PR while doing nothing to correct the underlying system.

And, as long as we're deflecting conversation on the actual merits by criticizing the work of other journalists that have nothing to do with this particular issue, Woodward ain't exactly a shining example of a great journalist either. He's spent the past 30 years, as Christopher Hitchens has said, serving as a stenographer for the rich and powerful.

 

Yes, it does mean lazy investigating. As in, cops going for "the dope on the table"...taking the lazy, easy bust. And I say again, if you think those are lazy or easy stories, I say you're someone who has likely never done one yourself. Which I'm guessing is spot-on, since you reference (and thus align yourself) with a lazy ass shoot-from-the-couch critic like Jason Whitlock.

I'll take Robinson and Woodward and break stories. You can take Whitlock and Hitchens and tour the country in a balloon with your abundance of sanctimonious hot air.

 

I explained to you exactly how I meant to use the term. Instead of presenting any form of an argument against that, you make an illogical argument about a completely different point.

 

Without Charles Robinson's work at Yahoo! Sports, Taylor Branch never writes his analysis piece for The Atlantic. That's all that needs to be said. We all play different roles. Someone has to blow the whistle before someone else can slam the gavel.

 

No one needed Charles Robinson to realize teams break the rules--it's been going on forever. Further, even if the rules were never broken, the system would still be unfair and ripe for criticism.

 

But you don't get a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian writing a massive analysis piece on college sports without whistle-blowers pointing to the problem. Charles Robinson is reporting facts that point to the necessity of overhaul that his colleagues at Yahoo, as well as many others, have suggested. But without facts provided by reporters such as Robinson, those voices have little ground to stand on.

Jason Whitlock and Tommy Craggs and Taylor Branch and Dan LeBatard need reports like these to better articulate their point and to draw reader interest. Making a difference starts with facts, not opinions.

 

Why are cops reporters writing about the guy busted for trafficking weed when he should be doing something to change the unfair system that sends people to jail for a drug less dangerous than alcohol?


And why are political reporters working to uncover scandals involving elected officials? Everybody already knows all politicians are crooked. Busting them doesn't fix the system.