Chris Jones on Jason Whitlock

[playthrough]

Absolutely love this:

"Well, here's the stone-cold truth, kids: Jason Whitlock has no soul. He's neither a good reporter nor a good writer. 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."

I kind of hate that part. Unless Jones talked to Wiley and knew how he felt about Whitlock, I hate seeing the unsourced opinions of dead people. It's like having a dead celebrity appear in a commercial for a company they never endorsed.

I kinda do too. If an idol of mine was gone and someone told me that said idol would be "forking mortified to be associated with me", that would cut very deep. Then again I guess that was the whole point of this exercise. Which in the end seems to be a little silly. But to each his own.

EDIT: Yeah, from that Boom post...that's rough.

 

[accguy]

Yes, this Tweet from Whitlock means he's about to go nuclear:

WhitlockJason: If you're a blogger looking for traction, email me at BallState68@aol.com. I got some diabolical brutality I need to unload.

 

[secretariat]

I'm wracking my brain trying to figure out what he could say to CJ that would be so bad. As far as I can tell, Chris is happily married with a kid, gainfully employed and has written at least one critically acclaimed piece (on Ebert), which gives him at least one up on Whitlock. The only advantage Whitlock might have is name recognition, but ... Miley Cyrus sells more records than The Decemberists. Doesn't mean she makes better music.

 

[The Big Ragu]

I really have no problem with this. You may agree or disagree with him, but Jones went at someone and put his name to it. It was the one thing I respected about Whitlock, actually, when he was on here. He could act like a deck, and took shots at lots of people, but at least he put his name to it (although you could argue that might have been ego more than sense of fairness).

It's why I never personally took any shots at Whitlock's work on here. It's where I draw a line. My sense of fair game tells me you don't take shots at someone by name while anonymous. Jones didn't do that. And it demonstrates that he has enough conviction in what he wrote that he is willing to take what comes back his way.

The spineless comment earlier, couldn't have been any more off base.

 

[Alma]

Interesting line: Well, here's the stone-cold truth, kids: Jason Whitlock has no soul


http://sonofboldventure.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-to-be-professional-writer.html

Blather.

And this paragraph: "Be a forking pro. There are so few of them in this business anymore, they stand out like stars. I can walk out on my front porch and look out over the lake, out over the silver water and the waves, and I can spot them from a million miles away."

...is inaccurate, <i>purple-prosed</i> blather. They're not that rare, Chris. I know plenty of them. Let's not pretend you and your porch and your lake and its silver water somehow cornered the market on what "pro" means. You haven't been around that long. And you haven't written that many stories, to be frank.

 

[jlee]

I like Jones' work, a lot, but not this post. The premise is awful, to call out a wannabe sports writer who already got taken down a peg on CNN.com ... then use it as a springboard to take evidence-free swipes at Whitlock. The profanity is unnecessary, too.

-- Josh Armstrong

 

[Jersey_Guy]

Maybe they're not that rare where you are, Alma, but they sure are where I am.

Or maybe our standards are just different.

 

[Oggiedoggie]

Who is Jason Whitlock?

 

[Alma]

Maybe they're not that rare where you are, Alma, but they sure are where I am.

Or maybe our standards are just different.

I wouldn't have any idea if they're different. Maybe.

But there are many more than Jones' metaphor suggests. Sometimes terrific writers, like Jones, take what I like to call the "feature writer's privilege" of presuming everybody walks around thinking about 9,000-word takeouts. They don't. Guys like that comprise .1% of the business. In the grand scheme of things, they're not that crucial to the advancement of the craft, as startling as that may seem to be people of their talents.

To be honest, I'd like to see people who have to churn out excellent work more often than a boxer fights in a calendar year weighing in on what it means to be a pro.

 

[Jersey_Guy]

Well, I think you're making a very broad assumption that Jones - whom I don't know in the least - believes you have to do what he does to be a pro.

I'm not making that assumption.

 

[YGBFKM]

The profanity must be an homage to Pierce.

 

[Stoney]

Here is a sample:
http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/posts/948856/

Well that's a weird little blast from the past. So why does this site no longer get pissing matches from national writers posting under their own name?