Whitlock done all around ESPN

[HoopsMcCann]

but....

Said Williamson, "ESPN has no problem with being criticized. We think that's healthy. But we're not going to tolerate personal attacks against specific individuals."

 

[slappy4428]

but....

Said Williamson, "ESPN has no problem with being criticized. We think that's healthy. But we're not going to tolerate personal attacks against specific individuals."

See, that's OK because it's in defense of himself and ESPN...

 

[Ralph Waldo Henderson]

And never mind the fact that it's inarguable that more people WANT and TRY to be NBA players than sportswriters. The chances that someone trying for the NBA will make it is about 1.3 percent. The chances that someone trying to be a sportswriter will make it are, oh, about 90 percent. And that's being conservative.

Either Scoop is being disingenous in the name of making his point or he's just an idiot. As much as I want to believe it's the former, I'm afraid it's the latter.

 

[TwoGloves]

Was that a column or a novel? Jesus, that was long-winded.

 

[Double Down]

By writing this column in standard English, Scoop pretty much exposes all his other work as posturing and proves Whitlock correct.

This column was readable, and actually not bad, exactly for the reason you pointed out. Scoop wasn't trying to write in some completely phony voice that he thinks is "street" and instead let his viewpoint come out, not an impression of what he thinks that viewpoint should sound like. See, I think he's right that he could lend a diverse viewpoint to ESPN's Page 2. I have no doubt that he might see things about Kobe, Serena Williams, Marion Jones and even, odd as it might sound at first, David Eckstien than Gene Wojo, Pat Forde and Bill Simmons might not. But Whitlock was right. This is a serious column by someone with a serious point, and too much of Scoop's other stuff reads like someone doing a bad Flava Flav impression.

I'd love for Scoop to read Paul Beatty's "White Boy Shuffle." He could learn a lot.

 

[ChickWriter1975]

First, let me say I respect both of these columnists, who have been pioneers in their own way.

This is what I don't get: Why must Scoop Jackson apologize to any of you on this board -- or anyone in the world, for that matter -- for the way he writes? Far as I know, Scoop has been writing the same way HIS ENTIRE CAREER. He doesn't have a change for anyone. He writes for a specific audience, the same audience he had when he was at Slam and before that.

It is very arrogant of us as writers to think someone only has to write a certain way and how we want them to write. It is ridiculous for some of you to say you like this column because it was in "standard English." WTF is that? So, it was the written the way YOU want Scoop to write and now he's some kind of buffoon. Unbelievable. Bill Simmons isn't conventional, either. Sometimes, I don't get his jokes or his arguments. But you know what? People read that MF. And I, unlike a lot of people who frequent this site, have enough respect for him as a fellow writer to know what he does isn't easy and it's something only he can do. I'll say the same about Scoop.

By the way, a sellout is someone who changes to make money. Show me some evidence where Scoop has changed. If any of you met him, you'd know he's exactly like he is in his column. And also understand that columnists are allowed to change their voices and approaches. I've seen columnists who use "standard English" drop in slang phrases, and no one is accusing them of selling out.

 

[ChickWriter1975]

One more thing:

Here is a serious question that I'd like to get people's thoughts on:

Should JW have at least said something to Scoop at some point? Was it JW's responsibility to do so? I just remember awhile ago Jay Marriotti catching heck because he writes things about people and rarely, if ever, of giving them an opportunity to respond. I'm not comparing the situations nor am I calling JW some kind of coward, but just curious what everyone else thought.

 

[Canyonero!]

The problem I have with Scoop is it's ALWAYS about race. I guarantee he gets racist emails from ignorant readers, and I bet he gets treated differently than white writers. Racism is definitely still a huge problem.

But in his One Year at ESPN column, he makes a point that a black athlete (in this case Ricky Williams) gets busted for dope, and it's front page of the section. A white athlete (he cites Chris Andersen) gets busted and it barely gets a brief. That's not at all about race. Williams had the potential to be the next great -- Andersen was Chris Dudley with hops.

If the roles are reversed and say, Brian Urlacher gets busted on the same day as someone like Jumaine Jones, you better believe Urlacher's story gets much much more play. Newsworthiness is newsworthiness, and it's not race in a case like that which determines if it's newsworthy, it's how good/recognizable the athlete is.

 

[jason_whitlock]

CW1975

Scoop has a forum to air his thoughts. He is not the Chicago White Sox. He used a whole column to air his thoughts on diversity and newspapers. I responded.....

When the guy from a blog asked me a question about Scoop, did I need to call Scoop and get his response before answering a question from a blogger? I don't think so. I was interviewed and offered my opinion about a public figure.

As for Scoop's latest column... I did speak with him when in Dallas. My comments were very brief to Scoop. I have virtually no respect for him as a journalist and I rarely engage people I don't respect. Just me and the way that I am. Sorry.

The dude did call my voice mail at the KC Star and he left this message, which I played for some friends because I found the message hilarious: "Jason Whitlock, this is Scoop Jackson. Keep my name outya mouth, all right?" Click. No phone number. No nothing.

 

[Kid Presentable]

Is "unarguable" a word?

 

[ChickWriter1975]

That IS hilarious, LOL. (re: phone message)

JW, it's like I said before, both of you are good role models for young, black men, regardless of what you might think of one another personally (and professionally). I hate that it has come to this. I'm not sure how it has because I'd much rather see two strong black male columnists encouraging one another than regressing into a mode that truthfully does no one any good.

 

[jason_whitlock]

CW1975

You're gonna have to define good role model. Going into college and high school classrooms and throwing around embarrassingly faulty logic does not make a "good role model."

Does no good? I disagree. You always have to have a bad guy to make people behave. Scoop will and has toned down his shtick. Despite his ridiculous defense of his sportswriter-NBA argument, this was clearly his best column. I'll take credit for making Scoop readable. No need to send me a check. It's what I do. My pimp hand is very necessary. Lupica has toned down his Barry Bonds attack and can currently be seen on The Sports Reporters backpedaling and playing nice.

It's not pretty work, but the work I do is for the betterment of humanity.