Bill Reiter
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2011
- Messages
- 1
I don't know Chris Jones. Never met him. Never talked to him. Never exchanged an email with him.
So I won't say he has no soul, or that he's a non-believer, or that he's a phony. Those are the kinds of judgments that should only be extended to someone you actually know.
Now as we all know, last week Mr. Jones turned a blog post on Jeff Pearlman into an attack on Jason Whitlock.
It was random, mean-spirited, inaccurate and, given the supposed reason for the blog in the first place, breathtakingly hypocritical.
Unlike Jones, I do know Jason Whitlock. He's a friend.
Before becoming friends, we were colleagues at The Kansas City Star, where Jason was widely seen as that rare big-time columnist willing to help young writers who were just getting their start.
So what Jones wrote took me back. I couldn't understand how a writer so talented (Jones' work is fantastic and I've enjoyed it for years) could write such unsubstantiated garbage on someone he'd never met in such silly, blatantly hypocritical prose.
First, he wrote Whitlock has no soul, can't report and can't write.
Then I read on and this nugget of failed reportage greeted me:
"He's a bloviator who's somehow carved out a niche for himself as a kind of anti-establishment figure by making references to The Wire and pretending he's the second coming of Ralph Wiley, when Ralph Wiley would be forking mortified to be associated with Whitlock's brand of self-serving buffoonery."
Jones is a great writer (I promise, judging him on his blog wouldn't be fair to his talents) who simply has no idea what he's talking about.
See, Ralph Wiley and Jason were close, close friends. And Wiley was a provocateur extraordinaire, a man fearless in his willingness to be loathed if that was the consequence of what he wrote and said, and a mentor to Whitlock.
Wiley might be forking mortified, but it would be how someone like Jones would have the gumption or ignorance to evoke Wiley's name under the banner of such a hypocritical, inaccurate, stupid hit job.
Like I said, I don't know Chris Jones. I just know he can write, and he seems to hate Jason Whitlock, and he's capable of moralizing about reporting and being a pro without being enough of a pro to do some basic reporting.
I know he's written 2,000 words in what looks like a desperate attempt to create what he calls a "feud" between "two guys who need attention" even though his supposed adversary has limited himself to two tweets.
In Jones' gleeful follow up blog (a response to Whitlock tweeting out a retort), he wrote Jason is a non-believer and blah, blah, blah.
He also wrote that he hoped young journalists might want to grow up to be S.L. Price, Thomas Lake or Wright Thompson instead. Agreed. I'd add Whitlock to that list. I'd add a host of other writers, some of whom I like, some of whom I can't stand, most of whom I don't know.
Sadly, from what I now know about Jones, I'm not sure I'd include him on the list.
Still, to be fair, I imagine if I spent some time talking to Chris, I'd probably discover he's a very nice guy. That he's loyal, interesting, well-intentioned, passionate and in love with this business. That he belongs on that list as much as Jason or Wright (another friend) or Lake or Price.
I'd probably discover that his wronging one of my friends doesn't make him a hack, soulless, a bloviator or an asshole.
Yeah, if I got to know Chris, I'd probably learn a lot about him that he failed to learn about Jason.
You know what I'd call that getting-to-know-you period, Chris?
Reporting.
Next time around I suggest you give it a whirl.
So I won't say he has no soul, or that he's a non-believer, or that he's a phony. Those are the kinds of judgments that should only be extended to someone you actually know.
Now as we all know, last week Mr. Jones turned a blog post on Jeff Pearlman into an attack on Jason Whitlock.
It was random, mean-spirited, inaccurate and, given the supposed reason for the blog in the first place, breathtakingly hypocritical.
Unlike Jones, I do know Jason Whitlock. He's a friend.
Before becoming friends, we were colleagues at The Kansas City Star, where Jason was widely seen as that rare big-time columnist willing to help young writers who were just getting their start.
So what Jones wrote took me back. I couldn't understand how a writer so talented (Jones' work is fantastic and I've enjoyed it for years) could write such unsubstantiated garbage on someone he'd never met in such silly, blatantly hypocritical prose.
First, he wrote Whitlock has no soul, can't report and can't write.
Then I read on and this nugget of failed reportage greeted me:
"He's a bloviator who's somehow carved out a niche for himself as a kind of anti-establishment figure by making references to The Wire and pretending he's the second coming of Ralph Wiley, when Ralph Wiley would be forking mortified to be associated with Whitlock's brand of self-serving buffoonery."
Jones is a great writer (I promise, judging him on his blog wouldn't be fair to his talents) who simply has no idea what he's talking about.
See, Ralph Wiley and Jason were close, close friends. And Wiley was a provocateur extraordinaire, a man fearless in his willingness to be loathed if that was the consequence of what he wrote and said, and a mentor to Whitlock.
Wiley might be forking mortified, but it would be how someone like Jones would have the gumption or ignorance to evoke Wiley's name under the banner of such a hypocritical, inaccurate, stupid hit job.
Like I said, I don't know Chris Jones. I just know he can write, and he seems to hate Jason Whitlock, and he's capable of moralizing about reporting and being a pro without being enough of a pro to do some basic reporting.
I know he's written 2,000 words in what looks like a desperate attempt to create what he calls a "feud" between "two guys who need attention" even though his supposed adversary has limited himself to two tweets.
In Jones' gleeful follow up blog (a response to Whitlock tweeting out a retort), he wrote Jason is a non-believer and blah, blah, blah.
He also wrote that he hoped young journalists might want to grow up to be S.L. Price, Thomas Lake or Wright Thompson instead. Agreed. I'd add Whitlock to that list. I'd add a host of other writers, some of whom I like, some of whom I can't stand, most of whom I don't know.
Sadly, from what I now know about Jones, I'm not sure I'd include him on the list.
Still, to be fair, I imagine if I spent some time talking to Chris, I'd probably discover he's a very nice guy. That he's loyal, interesting, well-intentioned, passionate and in love with this business. That he belongs on that list as much as Jason or Wright (another friend) or Lake or Price.
I'd probably discover that his wronging one of my friends doesn't make him a hack, soulless, a bloviator or an asshole.
Yeah, if I got to know Chris, I'd probably learn a lot about him that he failed to learn about Jason.
You know what I'd call that getting-to-know-you period, Chris?
Reporting.
Next time around I suggest you give it a whirl.
