piling on whitlock

No - the stance I was refering too was his position on Barry Bonds being singled out. One that many disagreed with but now one that many are coming around on as more athletes get caught.

 

Boom, please name all of the athletes who have been "caught."
Not implicated, but actually "caught."

 

It was well documented here and even on Front page column in the NY Observer.

Luppy was threatened by Kriegel's excellant column -"On the Mark " and went to his buddy Leon Carter and had Kriegel dumped under guise of cut backs.

At that time Kriegel was one of best sports columnists in NY.

 

On the Mark was basically Shooting from the Lip with a little more effort put into it, so it made Lupica look bad.

Kriegel did move to newsside as a columnist at the NYDN for a while before he went off to write books or whatever.

No question he has talent but, much like Lupica, he was an insufferable prick as I recall.

 

I hear ya, but it's a different era. You're thinking of the pre/post The National days, when newspaper columnists were the rock stars of the business. And I would still argue that most of those 'stars' were regionally known at best. There was very little forum for national exposure.

But now you can't separate 'newspaper attention' from 'media attention'....if you're generating some electricity in the newspaper, you're going to find your way onto tv/internet. Can you argue that regional newspaper exposure has more impact and relevance than national tv/internet exposure? Maybe on regional issues....but in the big picture?

ps, not being nosy, but whitlock, how old are you?

 

I'll give Ryan credit. He justifies Lupica's motivations the same way he recently justified Manny Ramirez's. I guess you could argue they're both "big game" players, in a sense.

I think what I'm sort of annoyed with here is the Captains of Industry not only defending their fraternity of friends for laziness or ethical lapses (listening to Kornheiser justify Albom's fabrications on TK's old radio show made me very sad), but also Ryan's feeling that things will "never be as good" for the next generation as they were for his own, and that Ryan would "hate to be a sports writer trying to make it in today's world." Blah. People said the same thing about sports writing when Ryan, Lupica, Gammons and Albom were just pups. That it would never be as good now because columnists couldn't ride the train with players, and access was limited, and radio and television would diminish the importance of the good, honest newspaper man. The format will change for writers and opinion makers, and the rules will change, but it's a little naive to say the good times have come and gone. They'll be different, sure. But not as grand or as fun? That's pretty subjective.

Fen, I can't really tell you what makes Whitlock relevant and Lupica irrelevant. I just know it when I see it -- sort of like Potter Stewart, I guess. A little bit is just Jason's understanding of culture, the language, the pulse of what's going on. Even when he's totally wrong, I feel like at least he's plugged in and informed. He's not faking it. Some of it is a generational thing. Relevance isn't entirely about youth, but some of it certainly is. Maybe we overstate Whitlock's importance here a bit because he hangs out and posts under his real name, and maybe he's more popular with sports writers than he is with readers (and that's he's, as you said, a regional phenomenon), but when I read Jason, he makes me think about things differently, whether I agree with him or not. Lupica and Albom no longer do that. It does beg the question though: What's are the standards for relevance? Popularity? Certainly that plays a part, but it's obviously not everything. To me, coming up with original ideas is far more important. There have been more popular artists that Bob Dylan throughout his career, but as I know you'd argue, he was looking at things differently and influencing people in ways that we wouldn't see for years. I'm not saying that Jason is Dylan by any stretch (as I said before, I think he's more like Chuck D in the grand scheme of things) but just because he works in Kansas City and no longer shows up on ESPN doesn't mean he's not relevant as an opinion-maker.

Part of Jason's strength comes from being intellectually honest, I think. If Jason wrote a book about the Summer of '98, and gushed over Sosa and McGwire, I want to believe he'd be out there talking about how he felt hoodwinked, and played like a fool. There is credibility in admitting you were duped, because people have long memories. To me, it seems like Lupica wants to pretend that book simply did not happen, and that he's been on the side of the righteous all along. It's sort of like Boom pointing out how Mike rips the Yankees for the extravagant spending and their poisonous owner, but put the Yankees in the WS, and suddenly he's all "The Yankees are October." Ryan sort of mockingly says that Whitlock is trying to paint himself as "the last honest man in the world," but that's not it. He was saying, at least in my opinion, that he wasn't going to participate in the charade that was the phony outrage over steroids (certainly not sitting next to someone who profited off of it), and that he didn't want to work for a website that was basically paying Scoop Jackson to advance the theory that it was cool to be ignorant, because it felt dishonest.

I'm not sure there is such a thing as the Voice of Black America anymore, and I doubt Jason is auditioning for it anyway because I'm not sure he believes in such a thing (I'll let him speak to that, though). I think he's trying to craft the Voice of Jason Whitlock, and I think he's doing a pretty decent job. It seems quite obvious to me that most of what he does here is done with a wink and a smile. It surprises me that people think he's really the most arrogant man alive, or that he thinks he's the greatest columnist in the world, simply because he enjoys toying with some of us. He did take a risk leaving ESPN the way he did, one that I very much admire, and for the sake of the industry, I hope it works out, and that he does well at AOL as proof that you don't have to take ESPN's money to matter. But as Ryan said, we'll see how it all plays out.

 

I liked Kriegel's column, but you knew when he was in a room.

 

Fuck, nothing like following up Double Down to make you feel like schnoob.

 

Well, CJ, for what it's worth, you've got my vote in the race to see who becomes the next Voice of Canada.

 

As Ryan said, we'll see how it all plays oot.

 

DD- Great post ! You hit it in 2 words why Whitlock is relevant-

"intellectual honesty"

 

Jones, funny but I found that your writing style and that of Kriegel when he did a feature story was very similar. At time Kriegel had a kind of hip, fresh style that really stood out at the News.