Jemele and Mike

That's not true. I've said repeatedly why I don't think she's good.

 

So did Lane Kiffin.

Up to a point.

 

Wouldn't "one of the best columnists in the country" have bagged an APSE column-writing award at some point?

I perused the APSE contest winners site. Didn't see her name. Saw my name. Didn't see hers.

 

Careful. You're treading dangerously close to appealing to authority.

 

You said she has "a meatball's understanding and insight." Great. That opinion is no more valid than Pearlman's assertion that she was one of the best columnists in the country.

 

To wit:

In a vacuum, that she got hired by a top 20 newspaper in the country makes it more likely that she is "one of the best columnists in the country" than had she not been hired by a top 20 newspaper, just as not placing in APSE makes it less likely.

All these things do is create rebuttable presumptions.

 

Yeah, I get it. We're arguing over something subjective. I could say that Carly Rae Jepsen was better than the Beatles. You can't disprove it.

 

I feel a little bad because I got led far afield and into arguing that she's not "good." She's probably "good," relatively speaking, because she can write a readable column that is passionate and informed about sports and, sometimes, social issues that intersect sports.

I just think that's a long way from "one of the best."

It's not an easy job, though, sports columnist.

 

Jeff Pearlman just orgasmed and he doesn't know why.

 

Her sportfishing columns were outstanding.

 

Some people in my business get unthinkable breaks.

Michael Strahan is on the front line of the most watched morning show... with no discernible skills.

Josh Elliott turned his smirk into SI with little experience... to ESPN SportsCenter and then to three networks, two of which decided he wasn't worth the trouble.

I've seen six or seven people plucked from tiny markets and jumped to ESPN or Top 10 markets. Their careers changed in one swoop. Rich Eisen is a prime example - Redding CA to ESPN. But he proved he belonged.

This brings me to Jemele Hill. She is in the right place during the right era. People can hire her and feel like they're more enlightened. She also not only offers more variables than most. She can also work more avenues than, say, I can.

I can't go into Bristol and talk about race, Title IX or even most politics and not put my career at risk. There's no upside. As a white guy, I have to stick to sports if I'm at ESPN.

Jemele Hill can touch on any subject. I can't. That makes her better television, regardless of whether I have more knowledge, better ad-libbing skills or a sharper wit.

That's why she keeps getting better and better gigs. Eventually they'll see that she isn't a "draw". (Stephen A Smith is a draw, for example.)

 

This is accurate at ESPN.

It's part of why the conversation around the network is so shallow. It's not a conversation. It's a monologue, given by various talking heads presenting a point of view. The one host who'd gently - and I mean gently - push back was recently found naked and drunk in Wyoming.

So when it becomes a monologue, it had better be a damn compelling monologue, richly written and delivered with timing and purpose, preferably from a sharp, dynamic mind. Bomani Jones deliver those minutes pretty consistently. It's compelling. I get the sense that, if Jones had to argue the other side, he could, even if he doesn't agree, because he's broken it down. Kate Fagan has moments (though she lacks a good platform and great training).

And then there are those who aren't compelling.