Jemele and Mike

To me, she's interesting because she came out of a traditional print background and is around my age.

 

There are tens of millions of black female Americans who aren't the host of the 6 p.m. SportsCenter, so that can't be the "only reason" she has her job.

 

Of course it isn't. But her critics will say that, including here.

 

I think the bolded part is the closest I've seen anyone hit upon here. It's a lot harder than people think. It's also why I've said she has "meatball" opinions about a lot of things - she knows just enough to not come off as a total idiot on a wide range of topics, but not enough to offer a news junkie like me and a lot of the types like me who frequent this board a whole lot of value.

You mention that she's "attractive." I guess she is. I hadn't thought much about it until TSP mentioned it on here. She has a "one of the guys" persona and as merely a long-distance observer of her and her work (we probably shared a press box or two, but I don't recall ever interacting with her) I never really thought about her that way. She's not a sideline reporter, for example, and has never been strolled out in a traditional pretty face role. I think it has more to do with Wilbon/Kornheiser screen presence than anything sexualized.

 

There is a gray and white piece of matter between our ears called a brain. It serves to control and coordinate the mental and physical actions. It's probably the most misused and misguided mass in our body. Jamele, whom I consider a colleague and an acquaintance, probably should have thought this through before send out her tweets. None of her tweets was going to change the actions of President Trump. She has dumb controversial things in the past. Her stint in Orlando was definitely interesting. There is pressure on ESPN to can her like it did others who didn't stay in their lane. I hope they don't fire her. But here is a lesson for many that has been repeated by LeVar Ball, "STAY IN YOUR LANE." She may have tweeted the truth about POTUS but was it worth all of this drama?

 

This has turned into Being Jemele Malkovich.

 

You know, my problem with her simply tweeting Donald Trump is a White Supremacist is that it's just another example of her not really having the insight and nuance to be a really good columnist of talking head. Great columnists are also really good amateur psychologists, and you don't have to pay that much attention to Trump to figure out his deal.

He's a narcissist. Say all the terrible things you want about white supremacists and you'll get no arguments, but they actually believe in something. They have a cause. It's a terrible cause and they are damaged people, but there is, for lack of a better term, substance.

Donald Trump doesn't give a shit about anything but Donald Trump. Over the course of his ramblings he hit on some things that made a small group of people cheer, but cheer loudly and consistently. It strokes his ego. He makes an attempt to play to whatever crowd is in front of him, and he figured out his safest bet for instant gratification is to gather that crowd and tell them what they want to hear. If he thought he could get crowds of blacks and hispanics to cheer and chant his name and tell him he's the best, he'd say what they wanted to hear. He's pathetic, but he's not truly a white supremacist. He's a Trump supremacist.

In other words, that was a simplistic take. Why would I seek out Jamelle Hill for a simplistic take I can find all over the inter webs?

 

The calls for her to be fired or disciplined for the Trump tweets are just conservatives trying to play the "everything is like everything else" game.

Schilling got away with plenty of political opinions. Then he crossed the line about Muslims. That doesn't mean every political opinion is beyond the pale. Just that one.

 

Of course. It gets people talking. At length.

 

Yeah, but when did anybody ever watch SportsCenter and come away feeling like they knew a lot more about things than they did going in? It's always been empty calories. And that's ok. Not everything is splitting the atom. Once that sort of thing appealed to me, and now it doesn't. But I'm self aware enough to realize a network that catered to my tastes and interests would be near-instantly bankrupt.

 

And, look, I feel kind of bad that I'm helping to extend a discussion about Jemele Hill that some believe exists for fairly indefensible reasons. But I would talk about particular writers and what does and doesn't work for me for hours and hours and hours. I'd rather be talking about the novel or "GQ" longform piece I just read. People here don't want to talk about that. People want to talk about Jemele Hill. So I do.

Same reason I've gotten myself into hot water here talking about other hot-button SJ.com names. This kind of discussion is catnip for me.