Whitlock out at Fox Sports

[Alma]

Honest question: Do you find anything about Jason's newly-professed Christianity sincere?

Eh, yes and no. There's some inklings there. I inherently balk at aired grievance about persecution for Christian faith though. (This was common at PromiseKeepers rallies.) It's to be expected.

And the culture critiques have a limit. If he's really down for it, Maya Moore should be a column real soon. Because that's Christian.

 

[Alma]

Well said. Their buffet is generally light on the traditional meat of the doctrine such as respect of one's fellow human. Instead, it's big on anger and the notion that Jesus is an angry warrior rather than the advocate of love. That guy? He's an effeminate loser.

The buffet goes both ways, honestly. The "Jesus is a good guy who will help you and me get rich" is an offshoot, that's where teleevangelists hang out. So is "Jesus is a magical Marxist who's checks off on every aspect of the progressive political platform" is another.

But, yes, the tough guy Jesus is one issue.

 

[3_Octave_Fart]

Alma, do you believe the Lord was brown-skinned?

 

[stix]

Why bother?

What appears on Twitter is representative of . . . Twitter.

The "column" in question is a stinker. A series of preconceived grievances linked by nothing but Mr. Whitlock's need to generate a paycheck.

If Mr. Whitlock were actually interested in Terry Crews or social media's foreclosure of Christianity, he might have interviewed Terry Crews or called someone like Krista Tippett, for whom social media has widened the prospects and possibilities of faith.

This is a common problem among a lot of columnists these days, not just Whitlock.

Yes, I realize these are columns, but what happened to actually talking to other people? I tire of the "listen to me" line of "journalism." It isn't journalism, really. It's become lazy and self-important.

What's the difference between columns like the ones Whitlock writes and a long Facebook post? It's just another person telling you what he/she thinks. There's already too much of that.

 

[Songbird]

What's the difference between columns like the ones Whitlock writes and a long Facebook post?

Indeed.

 

[Azrael]

so it's a facebook post about a tweet

cool

 

[stix]

so it's a facebook post about a tweet

cool

Essentially, yes.

 

[Alma]

This is a common problem among a lot of columnists these days, not just Whitlock.

Yes, I realize these are columns, but what happened to actually talking to other people? I tire of the "listen to me" line of "journalism." It isn't journalism, really. It's become lazy and self-important.

These columns are written all the time and published all the time and celebrated by lots of progressives so long as the correct politics are expressed in them.

Heck yes I think columns should have more context to them than "I think" and it's one of Whitlock's biggest weaknesses.

But it's the weakness of a lot of columns and essays. It is a weakness that can easily be pointed out when it's the wrong politics. It is not a weakness that can not so easily be pointed out when it's the correct politics.

 

[Songbird]

celebrated by lots of progressives so long as the correct politics are expressed in them.

 

[stix]

These columns are written all the time and published all the time and celebrated by lots of progressives so long as the correct politics are expressed in them.

Heck yes I think columns should have more context to them than "I think" and it's one of Whitlock's biggest weaknesses.

But it's the weakness of a lot of columns and essays. It is a weakness that can easily be pointed out when it's the wrong politics. It is not a weakness that can not so easily be pointed out when it's the correct politics.

OK.

But when did I point out politics? I don't like the column because it's a bad column.

 

[Alma]

OK.

But when did I point out politics? I don't like the column because it's a bad column.

You didn't point out politics. I did.

I thought Whitlock's column was a meh, too, FWIW. But for the same reason you did.

 

[studthug12]

These columns are written all the time and published all the time and celebrated by lots of progressives so long as the correct politics are expressed in them.

Heck yes I think columns should have more context to them than "I think" and it's one of Whitlock's biggest weaknesses.

But it's the weakness of a lot of columns and essays. It is a weakness that can easily be pointed out when it's the wrong politics. It is not a weakness that can not so easily be pointed out when it's the correct politics.

But is that really what Whitlock would want? To be compared to Keyboard McGee writing a column or writing a boring pass the time column. No. He thinks he is something special, but the hard truth is...he's nothing special as a journalist.