Chris Jones on Jason Whitlock

More dead-on logic from the muppet. Did these "feuds" that sparked the defection of the great ones occur on the Journalism/Writing boards or the Sports/News/Politics boards? If it was the latter, that runs a fat dagger through the more eloquent arguments I've seen on their behalf here. You choose to enter Politics/Sports opinion pissing match world at your own peril, nobody owes them any special deference on those boards.

 

Which is, in part, why it felt phony to me. That it droned on and on, and basically accused Jones of not understanding what reporting is (which is laughable if you've ever read one of his better pieces) went on to make Bill Reiter sound arrogant and naive, and his submission read as if he had been told to post it.

 

Not dwelling on his wounded ego at all. As I've said, I think Whitlock got needlessly shit on by some here too. Not for his ideas or anything he posted, but because it was JasonWhitlock or Whitlock or Whitlock2 posting it. Same happened to Jones and McIntyre too, I'm sure.

Some saw the bigtimers on here and began fawning after them. Others saw them and saw targets for their venom. Hell, if Posnanski (or insert another widely beloved writer) started posting under his own name here, the same thing would happen again.

Should they have expected it? Probably. Should they all have had thicker skin? Yeah, OK. Would the board be better with those guys on it? I think so.

 

Inky - you and I are in agreement

 

I said this earlier and I'll paraphrase it here:

I wonder if posters realize the professional insight and contributions they are missing from people willing to share, but unwilling to do so not necessarily out of arrogance but out of simple common sense. If you're at the height of your game and willing to engage in some meaningful discussion of craft with a bunch of anonymous folks, why the hell should you bother sticking around if they take sport in bashing you?

The above statement says nothing about whether the bashing came on a journalism topic, politics or any other. It makes no claim that their exits had anything to do with a writing board. (To be fair, I don't remember the exact details of each, but am speaking more of a general tone that has seemed to occasionally emerge around here when certain names come up or show up. It's somewhat like the folks who look to pick a fight with a boxing champ so they can prove "I don't sweat you.")

But regardless of which board turns folks off, the point is someone like a Jones, for instance, was willing to come here and talk craft. He's a top writer for freaking Esquire. Most people have to pay for that type of insight -- whether the person is thin-skinned, thick-skinned, a dick, a saint or anything in between. He was doing it for free. So, yes, his contributions might be a little more valuable than others because this is a journalism board and he holds a position many would aspire to reach.
That's not fawning. That's reality.

So the point for me is, sure anyone can be bashed here and can join a pissing match at their own peril. But I think there's a lot more to lose for the folks left behind when high quality journalists decide to split than the journalists themselves.

 

It's not about 'bigtimers.' Example: Dave Kindred has posted here for years under his own name. People disagree with him all the time; they have a discussion and move on. No one attacks him or kisses his hiney. He doesn't attack or belittle anyone. Post, discuss, agree to disagree, move on.

The difference is that Dave sticks to journalism topics. Once you cross over into the broader scheme of this board, you're just another poster, and it's all fair game, doesn't matter who you are. No fair getting dirty in the sandbox and then crying that the sandbox is too dirty.

Really, why is this even an issue here any more? How many years since whitlock or jones last posted here? How is this even relevant to SportsJournalists.com at this point?

 

Disagree slightly with the bolded parts, while also noting that the hiney kissing and attacking, as well as Mr. Kindred's appearances in the non-journalism topics, are much less common than for most of the "names" who have posted here. Not sure why.

I believe you are incorrect in this particular assertion.

Reiter, if I'm not mistaken, was a college contemporary of The Sainted Wright Thompson and the also excellent Seth Wickersham. Reiter's work stands tall with both.

And I have no doubt regarding the veracity of his Whitlock post.

 

Just one note on the idea that because Jones writes for Esquire, he should be above quarreling like this. And in public no less! He's sullying the Esquire brand. He looks petty. Etc. Guess what? Writers have always fought each other. And in the history of Esquire controversies or confrontational writers, Jones's swipes at Whitlock are pretty mild.

http://www.planetpeschel.com/index?/site/comments/gore_vidal_takes_down_william_f_buckley_1968/

http://nymag.com/arts/books/features/26285/

http://www.salon.com/books/log/2000/01/21/wolfe

www.twitter.com/scott_raab

 

I don't think people have been suggesting that Jones being petty and quarreling like this has been damaging to the Esquire brand.

I don't think people have been suggesting that it is mostly Canadians who are blindly supporting Jones.

I don't think people are suggesting that Jones was partly going after Whitlock because Whitlock is black (and using Ralph Wiley the way a bigot would use "hey some of my best friends are black").

I don't think people are suggesting that this board should start referring to Jason as "the Whitlock" the way some of Chris' acolytes refer to him as "the Jones."

I don't think any of the above has been expressly suggested.

 

So we're back to square one then, ChrisL?

 

Yup - this is all Canada's fault.