Jason Whitlock really ticks me off

[BrianGriffin]

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.

No, they sit in the dugout and pick their teammates swings and mannerisms and love life apart. Dugouts are like fricking sewing circles, to borrow an outdated saying.

I don't see the smallest problem with the topic, though I would agree that if it wasn't Whitlock or some other envied/despised figure in the business, it probably would not inspire the start of a thread.

Brian,
I don't particularly envy or despise him, even though some board members aren't big fans of his. I was just trying to bring up a point on a column.

I hear ya. But I'll also ask ya: If the reputation did not precede the columnist, would such a lede have elicited the same reaction from you? If it was from an anonymous small town writer, would it have bothered you?

I'm not suggesting that's the case. Seriously, I'm asking because I think it's a worthy discussion. A coach I cover swears he's been called for two technical fouls this year for "looking" at the official. Well, one might suggest that he has built such an adversarial relationship with officials, the presumption of a confrontation draws a response before the actual confrontation.

How did Mick say it? "It's the singer, not the song." ...

 

[budcrew08]

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

The night is young.

OK, I can't wait any longer. Hatred of Democrats? Not really--it's more a matter of simply not understanding liberals. They want George W. Bush tried for war crimes, but want to let blood-thirsty terrorists go scot-free. Now that makes a lot of sense.

Oops, sorry, got off track here. Forgot where I am. Journalism Topics?? Uh, well, that Whitlock guy is really a pompous ass. How's that. Am I back in the fold now?

If that's how you feel, how come you didn't just agree with me in the first place?

 

[clutchcargo]

budcrew----no need to unless you absolutely want to. I was just trying to make a point here, and please, everyone, forgive me for having a dissenting point of view here.

 

[podunk press]

Nothing wrong with that lede.

Nothing wrong with Whitlock. I'm a fan.

 

[Bubbler]

I liked it other than A) it's HDTV and B) placing any creedence to Bill Simmons.
He hit the Ball State reference on the head -- wasn't gratutious, I knew which teams he was talking about. They did have the shirt.

forking A!

(said the Ball State grad whose best-ever March Madness memories are from the team Whitlock referenced)

 

[clutchcargo]

I'm starting to feel like Karl Rove after just sitting down for an interview on Air America.

Pardon me for going against the grain.

 

[Tom Petty]

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

The night is young.

OK, I can't wait any longer. Hatred of Democrats? Not really--it's more a matter of simply not understanding liberals. They want George W. Bush tried for war crimes, but want to let blood-thirsty terrorists go scot-free. Now that makes a lot of sense.

Oops, sorry, got off track here. Forgot where I am. Journalism Topics?? Uh, well, that Whitlock guy is really a pompous ass. How's that. Am I back in the fold now?

george bush is a blood-thirsty terrorist? sounds about right.

 

[budcrew08]

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.

No, they sit in the dugout and pick their teammates swings and mannerisms and love life apart. Dugouts are like fricking sewing circles, to borrow an outdated saying.

I don't see the smallest problem with the topic, though I would agree that if it wasn't Whitlock or some other envied/despised figure in the business, it probably would not inspire the start of a thread.

Brian,
I don't particularly envy or despise him, even though some board members aren't big fans of his. I was just trying to bring up a point on a column.

I hear ya. But I'll also ask ya: If the reputation did not precede the columnist, would such a lede have elicited the same reaction from you? If it was from an anonymous small town writer, would it have bothered you?

I'm not suggesting that's the case. Seriously, I'm asking because I think it's a worthy discussion. A coach I cover swears he's been called for two technical fouls this year for "looking" at the official. Well, one might suggest that he has built such an adversarial relationship with officials, the presumption of a confrontation draws a response before the actual confrontation.

How did Mick say it? "It's the singer, not the song." ...

yeah, I think it would even if it wasn't a big-time guy... more of the 'look at the cool things I get to do and you don't' vibe.

 

[clutchcargo]

george bush is a blood-thirsty terrorist? sounds about right.

Huh?

 

[Tom Petty]

Nothing wrong with that lede.

Nothing wrong with Whitlock. I'm a fan.

fans throw panties.

 

[sg86]

I absolutely abhor Jason Whitlock and I had no problem whatsoever with it.

 

[Tom Petty]

george bush is a blood-thirsty terrorist? sounds about right.

Huh?

you said george bush was a blood-thirsty terroist. i said that those words sounded correct. terrorists kill innocent women and children for no cause. you were spot on.