"I'm devastated and sad my [Pulitzer] dream has been stolen."

If the Pulitzers were legit, Paul Krugman would have 10. It'd be like Bobby Orr and the Norris Trophy, back in the day.

 

Sara Ganim 1, Jason Whitlock 0

 

Dick Whitman and YankeeFan finally have melded into one person.

 

Slightly off-topic a bit, but as far as Whitlock, the columnist:

I think he's smart. I think he's a good writer when he reins himself in. And I think he's pretty good at what he does. That said, what he does is not something I'm particularly interested in or enjoy. He sets up two black-and-white sides to each situation he tackles. On one side is Jason Whitlock, righteous skeptic. On the other side, always, are the racists, fanbois, and other assorted cartoon characters of sports fandom. Whitlock structures his arguments in a way that if you are on the other side of the debate from him, or even if you recognize a nuance that his black-and-white viewpoint cannot countenance, you are clearly one of those cartoon characters.

You don't think Manti Te'o was the primary architect of the Lennay Kekua hoax? You are a gullible Notre Dame fanboi.

You don't think that the coverage of Barry Bonds's PED usage was related to his pursuit of Babe Ruth (!?) for second (?!) on the all-time home run list? You are a lying racist dog.

He sets things up precisely this way over and over and over again. I can see why Mike Royko is his hero, because I think that Royko's gift was also in creating these kind of dichotomies. But I think Royko was confident enough in his abilities that he didn't so frequently feel compelled to articulate what holding the opposite opinion meant for you. It was clear from the subtext. The shaming was more subtle and, as a result, I believe, much more persuasive and effective. It didn't trigger people's defense mechanisms the way that Whitlock's work does.

Either that or, you know, he didn't have Twitter in his arsenal to take down dissenters.

Also, for the record, I don't have nearly as much of a problem with this column as everyone else seemed to have. I don't think that Jason Whitlock believes he deserves the Pulitzer Prize for commentary. I don't. I think that he believes that the contest should be opened up a little more widely in this media age, and he was just using himself as a storytelling vehicle through which to make that point. The point was: Us Web-only commentators aren't lesser writers or opinion-makers. We have the same heroes and influences as the rest of you. Only the medium is different now.

 

To fight the good fight against that.

Exception for tweaking Alabama fans, though.

 

No, he wouldn't. At least I hope not.

 

Whitlock's reaction to the reaction to his column?

In case u missed what has good-old-boy network's panties in a bunch bit.ly/11YYvQT

 

Whitlock is doing a live chat with Deadspin at 2:30 p.m.

This'll be good.

 

Whitlock also can't win a Grammy for his columns, and he can't win the Preakness.

And newspaper reporters aren't eligible for the Morrow awards or the Emmys.

If you work in broadcasting, you can't win a Pulitzer.

If his life's dream was to win a Pulitzer, he should have known the first thing about the Pulitzers: They're for newspaper work, not for broadcast work. The broadcasters already have their own awards, as do the magazines and the singers and racehorses.

 

Well, if nothing else Whitlock drummed up a few more wars to stoke his fire.

http://www.shermanreport.com/jason-whitlock-wont-answer-my-unsophisticated-questions-says-first-take/

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/08/paul-krugman-austerity_n_2648039.html

Best American newspaper columnist since Mike Royko.