Jason Whitlock really ticks me off

[budcrew08]

Mr. Whitlock has a new column on foxsports.com about the NCAA tournament, and he leads off by saying how awesome he is that he gets to sit on press row. Does he come off like a pompous ass, or am I being too rough on him?

http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/9350268/Here-are-10-picks-you-can-book

My friends are always jealous that I get good seats to some of the best sporting events in the world. Before HD-TV and the televising of nearly all sports events, being a sports writer was far better than being a sports fan.

 

[BrianGriffin]

Mr. Whitlock has a new column on foxsports.com about the NCAA tournament, and he leads off by saying how awesome he is that he gets to sit on press row. Does he come off like a pompous ass, or am I being too rough on him?

http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/9350268/Here-are-10-picks-you-can-book

My friends are always jealous that I get good seats to some of the best sporting events in the world. Before HD-TV and the televising of nearly all sports events, being a sports writer was far better than being a sports fan.

Didn't strike me as pompous at all. And it's true. Except it's not true in the SEC, where in most arenas, the media gets marginalized into the corners or the baseline or whatever.

 

[StaggerLee]

Mr. Whitlock has a new column on foxsports.com about the NCAA tournament, and he leads off by saying how awesome he is that he gets to sit on press row. Does he come off like a pompous ass, or am I being too rough on him?

http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/9350268/Here-are-10-picks-you-can-book

My friends are always jealous that I get good seats to some of the best sporting events in the world. Before HD-TV and the televising of nearly all sports events, being a sports writer was far better than being a sports fan.

If you just read the first paragraph, then yes, you would think he's a pompous ass. But I believe the point he's making is that he'd rather be watching all 32 opening-round games then being stuck at one site.

So, in that respect, the lead works. At least for me, and I'm not his biggest fan.

Didn't strike me as pompous at all. And it's true. Except it's not true in the SEC, where in most arenas, the media gets marginalized into the corners or the baseline or whatever.

Oh, don't worry, that's coming to a conference near everyone soon. It's all about getting the big boosters in the premium front-row seats now. Pretty soon, they'll have the media sitting up in the 300 section at a makeshift table.

 

[shotglass]

Whitlock column lede, version 2B.

 

[Double J]

StaggerLee is absolutely correct.

Nevertheless, Jason Whitlock is indeed a pompous ass.

 

[clutchcargo]

Here we go again, hero worship on the threads of sportsjournalists.com.

Whether we diss Whitlock or praise him here, or Jay Mariotti, or Jeff Pearlman, or whomever, just the fact we single out one of our peers by name and talk about him or her, is a form of hero worship.

This is kind of embarrassing, for one of our peers to be talking about another peer like they are some sort of celebrity. We should be able to let one of our peers write a column without getting bent out of shape over it, even when opinion goes against what you would write.

I know this site is called Journalism Topics, but this sort of thing really doesn't need to be there. Do you think bench players on the Pittsburgh Pirates or KC Royals sit around on their own Web site all day daydreaming, threading and critiquing about ARod or Pujols or Beckett all day?

Let's at least act try to act professional here.

 

[shotglass]

Over/under for someone to whine about the anonymity of this message board: 2 posts.

 

[clutchcargo]

I mean, it's like every time one of these posts gets started, it's like we are being papparazzi chasing after one of our own.

Maybe those of you griping about Whitlock ought to give out your names and one of us will send them to Jason, and let him write in here about you.

I presume we are ALL journalists in here.

 

[Angola!]

well at least clutch managed to not work his hatred for democrats into that strange post.

 

[shotglass]

Well, we hit the under with that one, didn't we.

 

[budcrew08]

I mean, it's like every time one of these posts gets started, it's like we are being papparazzi chasing after one of our own.

Maybe those of you griping about Whitlock ought to give out your names and one of us will send them to Jason, and let him write in here about you.

I presume we are ALL journalists in here.

Sure. I don't give a shirt, I'm just a small-town journalist who doesn't know anything. I thought his lede was pompous, I asked for other opinions. There's no hero worship here.

This is the first time I've ever said anything about one of Mr. Whitlock's columns, even though I am aware of the board's issues with him, by the way.

 

[Tom Petty]

Here we go again, hero worship on the threads of sportsjournalists.com.

Whether we diss Whitlock or praise him here, or Jay Mariotti, or Jeff Pearlman, or whomever, just the fact we single out one of our peers by name and talk about him or her, is a form of hero worship.

This is kind of embarrassing, for one of our peers to be talking about another peer like they are some sort of celebrity. We should be able to let one of our peers write a column without getting bent out of shape over it, even when opinion goes against what you would write.

I know this site is called Journalism Topics, but this sort of thing really doesn't need to be there. Do you think bench players on the Pittsburgh Pirates or KC Royals sit around on their own Web site all day daydreaming, threading and critiquing about ARod or Pujols or Beckett all day?

Let's at least act try to act professional here.

anything else we should be posting or not posting about? really, i'm waiting to see what's OK with you.