piling on whitlock

This is a very good point, one I was trying to figure out how to express yesterday. Whitlock writes and reports with a sense of confidence rather than running his ideas through the "what does the public want to hear from me" filter which, in turn, leads to the group think mentaility that too often pervades our business. Lupica is on the opposite end of the spectrum nowadays, conducting himself not as just an "opinion leader" but one who is at the very top of the group think pyramid. Although I have absolutely no inside knowledge on the issue, I'd bet this was the essence of their feud.

 

Double Down,

Very fine post. Don't agree.

Whitlock, when he's writing about issues, is a nihilist. He plays both sides against the middle. His platform is "honesty," which shouldn't be confused with truth. He harpoons hypocrisy as if it wasn't the human condition. News flash: It is. Whitlock has intellectual honesty for the faithless, the political, the hopelessly entwined in the filthy glitter that is human thought. He's perfect for this current debate culture, because he has a strong BS detector, an eye for weakness, and a skill for argument. For all those rhetorical gifts, he uses them mostly to muddle an issue and play bull in the china shop.

His support of the SF reporters, considering how he feels about the Bonds situation, is…well, come on. The guys broke the law, leaked grand jury testimony, subverted the spirit and rule of law, but they're just doing what they were paid to do? But columnists aren't? Huh? I mean, actually, I do understand the distinction between the two, between the blue-collar reporter and the ivory-tower columnist feeding off the fat of the lamb their book produced. It's just a bullshit mirage of a distinction that involves no less rationalizing than the accumulated defenses of Albom after his remarkable blunder.

 

Thanks!

 

The guys did not break the law, the person who leaked the information broke the law, they reported it. Unless I'm wrong there is no crime in reporting the leaked info, it's the original dissemination that's illegal, not repeating it for publication. What the reporters are doing is failing to identify someone who the government said broke the law.

 

What's wrong with pizza? I love pizza!

 

It's gotta be Scoop . . . or Scoop's cabana boy.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/475877p-400320c.html

In fairness, I thought Lupica's column today on Sean Bell (unarmed Queens guy who got killed by cops in a hail of 51 shots) was very good in a Breslin-esque sort of way. I'm hoping he went out there to Jamaica and actually talked to these guys rather than doing a couple of phoners, but that might be too much to expect. I'd like to hold out the possibility that maybe, just maybe, he's getting a second career wind (or reading SportsJournalists.com?). Whatever, if he keeps writing stuff like this he might begin to regain some of his street cred. I'd love to see him turn into the old Lupica again. I practically idolized the guy when I first got into the business (1979).

 

Strong statement from Whitlock in Today's AOL column. Complete with one sentence paragraphs. What will Bob Ryan think.


Some white people think ESPN’s tolerance and promotion of Michael Irvin’s bojangling is proof that black people in the media enjoy a freedom denied their white peers.

The freedom to bojangle for dollars is equivalent to the freedom to jump off a tall building with no parachute and a pending wedding date with Tyra Banks.

It’s a freedom offered to the insanely stupid and forced upon the disrespected.


If ESPN held black people in respect, the network would’ve taken action against Irvin for the over-the-top buffoonery he performed on Dan Patrick’s nationally syndicated radio show. In a rambling, disoriented interview on Patrick’s show, Irvin joked twice that Tony Romo’s athleticism could be attributed to a great-great-great-great grandmother knocking boots with a black slave.

No doubt, Irvin was joking. But Irvin was too stupid to realize that the joke was inappropriate for the platform and that his delivery of the joke much too primitive and poorly worded.

The joke belongs in the locker room or strip club.

It took Irvin a week to comprehend this distinction, and, apparently, it took ESPN a week and an Associated Press story on Irvin’s latest buffoonery, to realize it needed to put out a cover story.

Luckily, USA Today’s Michael McCarthy cooperated, running Irvin’s apology on Monday and tossing in an attack on Irvin’s critics just to make sure the folks in Bristol return his calls.

McCarthy stated: the “bloggers” criticizing Irvin have an agenda; that it’s easy to make the mistake Irvin did in a live interview; and that Irvin just needs someone like Tom Jackson to babysit The Playmaker during all interviews.

McCarthy’s rationalizing is absurd and embarrassing.

But, more importantly, it perfectly illustrates the mindset that is undermining black progress.

Standards of professionalism are being eliminated for black media members willing to play the buffoon for ratings. If you’re black and your opinions can be digested and dismissed simultaneously and you’re willing to shuck and jive on command, there’s virtually no limit to what a TV network will tolerate.

All of the networks are looking for the next Flavor of Love. ESPN is quite happy with its Flavor of Irvin.

 

Bingo.

 

sounds like a bitter ex-employee taking yet another swipe at his former employer.

must be nice having an employer who allows you to grind the axe every time you feel like doing as much.

reads like mr. honesty is acting unethical as hell.

wonder if the star would stoop to this level?

 

Why should ESPN trample through the sports world unfettered? It's good that Whitlock is willing to take them on. Its not like he keeps rehashing the same story.

Crackpipe Irvin keeps creating new stories to embarrass ESPN yet they won't do anything.

 

And, finally, I haven't read a newspaper since Sunday morning. Is Michael Irvin, ESPN's biggest embarassment, still working? If so, how. And why?

That's from Bill Conlin this morning, so I guess Whitlock isn't out there by himself on this one.