Another editorial offering from blackathlete.net

[tapintoamerica]

Here's an excerpt from an unsigned column on this often vitriolic site. It's about the wacky ending to Sunday's Redskins-Cowboys game, in which Washington blocked a Dallas field-goal attempt and wound up with a chance to win because a Cowboy special-teams guy committed a 15-yard penalty without which time would have expired and overtime would have been necessary:

"What is so so good about this Hero & Goat story is that the Two Heroes are Black and the Goat White. Yes yes it would have been fine if it was the other way around (not really) but it wasn't ! "

While part of me wishes to ignore this sort of thing, another part recalls that this outlet of alleged journalism has been credentialed for at least one Final Four. I find this disturbing and would like to know what others think.

 

[Double Down]

Nick Novak is black? News to me.

 

[FantasyAlliance.cm]

Is Scoop Jackson submitting anonymous articles there?

 

[write then drink]

that's revolting

 

[XXXX]

what the heck does race have anything to do with the ending of that game? but if they want to talk about goats in that game i believe TO is black. lets never run anything from blackathlete.net EVER again, unless it has the words "we are not legitimate news organization, and but rather just the black panther party with a jazzed up name."

 

[tapintoamerica]

I agree that it's specious to give such a site the slightest hint of credibility. I just felt the obligation to get this particular item into the public discussion in light of the organization's previously successful attempts at credibility.

 

[DyePack]

In some ways, it's no worse than the Poynters and others that drag race into every possible angle whenever possible.

This site just has the guts to show its true colors.

 

[RokSki]

Gregory Moore is by far the best writer on the site, and he has gained some national notoriety. If he was credentialed, I can understand that. A lot of what is printed on the site is of dubious quality.

Every 6 - 8 months or so they reprint excerpts or commentary on the book "Taboo," which purports to show scientific data demonstrating black athletes' physical superiority (more fast - twitch fibers, etc.). The book has been dismissed numerous times in various arenas, but BlackAthlete.net still reprints articles on it like it is a brand - new, groundbreaking work. This is what you get with this admittedly racially - focused site.

The 'Black Box' feature (the content of which is referenced in the title article of this thread) prints some laughable stuff, although you might find similar thoughts expressed by Alan Grant or Scoop on Page 2. Just about whatever you read there, take it with a grain of salt. I don't know if they turn down many submissions.

Moore (based in San Antonio) does a good job covering the Spurs, and the site does a good job of getting NBA / NFL /MLB reports from cities where they have reporters with access to local teams.

The site did several articles last year about the lack of credentials for traditionally - black media outlets. This discussion may have led to their getting credentialed for the Final Four. The articles were pretty well - done.

If you're looking for unbiased fare, this is not your site. If you're looking for the sentiment of a significant number of African - Americans, however, you will often find that on this site, regardless of whether you agree with it or not.

Oftentimes, the site gives good insight into the different cultural factions within the black community. Moore, for one, does a good job of fleshing - out these issues (e.g., Are NBA'ers too 'Gangsta,' or are they criticized too harshly by those outside of their culture).

It's kind of like a hip - hop version of reading the Weekly Standard: It's mostly about conservatives from a conservative point of view, but you can learn a lot about what conservatives are thinking and saying about each other and democrats from reading it. That's its real value.

That's my take.

 

[Bruhman]

If you're looking for unbiased fare, this is not your site. If you're looking for the sentiment of a significant number of African - Americans, however, you will often find that on this site, regardless of whether you agree with it or not.

I'm unfamiliar with the site. But from the sound of it, I'd bet that a sigificant number of African-Americans often don't share the same sentiment.

And I know a significant number of blacks who think some NBA'ers ARE too gangsta and aren't criticized enough by those INSIDE their culture.

And not all of those black critics are Uncle Toms or Oreos, either.

 

[Alma]

Bruhman,

So some black critics are Uncle Toms and Oreos?

 

[RokSki]

Bruhman,

I agree with you. I wasn't making a judgement of the site, just trying to give an overview. Gregory Moore does an effective job of representing the black "non - Gangsta" view. I personally believe that Moore's rise to national prominence is because of these positions. Whether his rise is because he represents a significant number of blacks' opinions or because he represents what the white establishment wants the prevailing black opinion to be is not my place to decide.

Having thought about it more, BlackAthlete.net should be given credit for providing a variety of black opinions. The site regularly roasts Tiger Woods for his lack of involvement in the black community. And its editorial "Black Box" has also decried Barry Bonds' supposed use of steroids. So I have to retract some of my initial put - downs of the site. They could easily omit Moore's brand of opinion if they wanted.

As I said previously, I find the site useful if somewhat over - the - top. A lot of what is said there seems to be what many feel but are too afraid to say. I'm not saying I agree with these views, but I can appreciate a forum where people give voice to these views without self - censorship.

 

[Bruhman]

Bruhman,

So some black critics are Uncle Toms and Oreos?

IMHO, yes.