PTI stint ending with fireworks...

Precisely. LeBastard is fine because he's self-deprecating and atleast seems to know that the show sucks with him. Whitlock, I just don't find as informative or boasting of personality. PTI is much much better when its Michael and Tony.

 

Not to badger, Jason, but let me see if I have this right.

You wrote a column in the KC Star that was at least in part a response to a Scoop Jackson column on ESPN.com on minorities in sports journalism. Interesting topic for those of us in the biz, very good column, but I think it's a fair comment that a small percentage of your KC Star readers would have seen Scoop's original column that prompted yours. Not to mention that a much larger percentage of readers regardless of where they are don't give a damn about issues within our industry regardless of their social context.

Now you're on PTI with Jay Mariotti, and you won't ask him about an incident which a significant portion of PTI's audience is familiar, who got entangled with a well-known, volatile sports personality, an incident which Mariotti played up to nth degree with his victim act in the national media at large, which you wrote about yourself in your own space, and who — as far as I can tell — is in some stage of limbo with the Sun-Times at worst, and at best became the poster boy of how not to handle a charged situation.

If I'm wrong about any of this, I apologize in advance.

If I'm not, I really don't think "its old news" flies as a reason not to broach the topic. And it makes me wonder whether the ESPN higher-ups or Mariotti himself wants this issue gagged.

If so, that would be a shame, because as much as you took Scoop to task for his allegations, Mariotti deserves a Scoop-style grilling by one of his own colleagues for his actions in the Guillen thing.

 

Amen, bubbler!!

 

Other threads, bogie, other threads...

 

Thing is, DLB runs that act up the flagpole on his radio show, too. A radio show that is pretty good.

I don't think he believes it. Insincere. Capital I.

 

In recent days, I have had three big accomplishments. I have a column up on MSNBC.com about what it might be like if Donald Trump owned the Cubs. I changed a tire in the parking lot of Great America. Finally, I got through today without taking any of my female co-workers to Outback for bloomin' onions and hugs.

Worship me.

 

Also not to badger, Jason, but our esteemed Bubbler has this whole deal dead to rights. Seriously, dude, you need to read the above post a few times and see how it sits with you. After, I'm pretty sure you'll know in your heart that you and Jay at least need to air things out a little bit. It'll seem shifty if you don't.

I'll be watching. Please don't disappoint.

Or should I say, don't make me wonder who's the pimp and who's the ho.

 

On the other hand...Mariotti isn't whitlock's guest, and unless ozziegate is an actual topic, hard to see where a spontaneous interview would fit into the format.

 

Unless they cover the topic in a 90-second bit, which wouldn't be hard to do. Mariotti says something, then Whitlock chimes in and asks a question, Mariotte speaks his peace once more ... next topic. It wouldn't be overkill, but you covered something that people would like to see addressed.

 

Ninety seconds is an eternity, and those topics are agreed to in advance....can't quite see that happening in this case, can you?

(And don't get me wrong, I'd love whitlock to spend the entire show--every topic--finding ways to reference the story. I'm just not sure it's as easy as everyone thinks...)

 

Threadjacking here. JW, what were you thinking when you put that jacket on over the red shirt?
Resume legit discussion about discussing homosexuality with JM.

 

Not really, but at issue is Whitlock's decision not to even attempt to break the ice on the subject. If Mariotti doesn't want to talk about it, fine. But at least ask.