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

Again, these types of things have been going on for years. And, again, even if they weren't, the system would still be unfair and ripe for criticism.

 

1.) I have no idea why cops reporters serve as PR the people they're supposed to be covering critically. Equally foolish. Just helps create the illusion of a win when it won't the change an unfair system. And, it'd be an even bigger waste of resources if reporters went around busting dealers and users themselves, which is what Charles Robinson is doing in this situation.

2.) As for politicians, system may be broken, but the rules aren't unfair. I don't think many people are arguing that politicians should receive bribes. That said, I do think that be exposing only bribes it risks making the problem seem it's limited to quid pro quo cash-for-votes bribes when the problem is much more systemic. But the political press often chronicles much of that, too, focusing on lobbying dollars, revolving doors, etc. And even the Washington bubble and regulatory captures are occasionally discussed.

 

Respectably, can we never refer to Whitlock as the foremost Wire expert? Whitlock is a Wire advocate, but the way he talks and writes about the series is about two inches deep. He used to be better, but his constant references suggesting "[X person in sports] is Stringer and [Y person in sports] is Avon" has become a joke. A man who once recognized the deeper complexities of a series about the way institutions destroy individuals now references the series the same way people who watched The Sporanos each week to see who would get whacked.

Liking The Wire and saying interesting things about The Wire are not the same thing.

 

It's always good to make references in print to a show that was canceled because nobody watched it. And HBO cancels almost nothing...

 

Did anyone refer to him as that?

 

My apologies. I took that as mockery, not a serious comment, in context.

 

Are you implying that the show wasn't good?

Or just that no one will get the references?

 

I wanted to thank everyone on this thread. Last night I had a really fucked up dream in which Zeke (who looked nothing like Zeke, but whom I referred to throughout as Zeke's real name and saw him as Zeke) and I were in 1920's Indiana watching a speech in a dusty field in front of a train station in which the entire cast of The Wire was being honored but then came the big train crash from Super 8 and Zeke and I escaped and wandered through town, walking through groups of people both unaware of what had happened and spewing random racist statements. At one point I said "Jesus, it's the 1920's, Indiana! Wake up!"

I have weird dreams.

 

Charles Robinson probably did the right thing by staying with Yahoo. And in an unrelated question, when's the last time ESPN did a really kick-butt investigative piece on one of the sports with which it has ties? Carry on ...

 

Charles Robinson is an incredibly talented reporter. Fantastic, great, wonderful. I don't want to downplay his ability at all.

But he hasn't used his gifts, at least in the articles I've read of his, to serve a great good. It's not like he's writing about police corruption or elderly abuse or war.

Robinson's work is very significant in the narrow world of college sports. Obviously, there's a market for college sports, and his work should absolutely have been published. I've read them, and greatly enjoyed and respected them. Still, I don't see a wider value for his investigative articles, no matter how well done

The Atlantic article would be just as relevant without Robin's revelations. The NCAA system isn't unfair because people break the rules. It's unfair because the NCAA has been allowed to use cartel practices, illegal for most businesses, to get away with not paying its workforce.