Scoop Jackson vs. Whitlock (round 6)

a) wouldn't an editor at ESPN just say, 'uh, let's do something else instead of rehash this again'

6. The Whitlock/Jackson Episode. Normally when someone calls you to tell you that your name is in the sports section of the USA Today, you think it's either a byline or you are part of a scandal. But to be part of a public beef, one that makes what Michael Eric Dyson is doing to Bill Cosby seem pale, that borders on the Jayson Blair side of embarrassment. Especially when the episode gets mentioned in your Wikipedia entry. Nothing positive came of this. It was professional sports journalism at its worst. This is what America could rightfully call black-on-black crime on a higher level.

b) 'professional sports journalism at its worst' ... huh??

c) black on black? so anytime a black man calls out another black man, even if it's full of truth, it's a crime?

d) so Scoop is comparing himself to Dyson? oh brother

e) Jayson Blair? wtf?

i've largedly avoided this ... whatever it is ... but post is a new low for scoop

 

Well, according to Whitlock, ESPN editors want Jackson "bojangling" in such a ridiculous manner.

 

It's just more sportswriting that's not about sports. It goes in with the PC policing and the panting for apologies. I guess we're supposed to believe this will attract -- and keep -- readers.

 

Who is this Poop Jackoff of which you speak?

 

This sounds like Scoop using his inalienable right to never be criticized. If he could have called Whitlock a racist he would've.

 

Wait a minute. This is the sixth item in a ten item column. It is a polite and reasoned response to being repeatedly called an Uncle Tom or a minstrel or worse. I know the guy's a punching bag hereabouts, but he's got a right to defend himself and to do so on the same foul ground that Whitlock decided was worth fighting on. If I were going to land on Scoop and ESPN.com's editors, assuming they exist, I'd land on them for Item No. Two, in which they embarrassingly use the word "apostle" when they clearly want "epistle." THAT'S awful.

 

As soon as I saw this author of this topic, I knew there would be no link with it. It's amazing how often, AF, you assume other people on this thread have been reading EXACTLY WHAT YOU'VE BEEN READING and are prepared to comment on it.

How 'bout a link, eh? There are few things more annoying that having to go search for a story that someone wants me to have an opinion about.

 

Sounds like Scoop bragging that I got him mentioned in USA Today and alerting his readers to the fact that he can be found in Wikipedia. The rest of it is just typical Scoop mumbo-jumbo. What he calls "black-on-black crime" is just my very necessary pimp hand cleaning up another dirty corner. What he mistakes for "sports journalism at its worst" was 10 or 15 words in a blog interview. And to state that nothing positive came of the beatdown I delivered is to ignore the obvious change in his writing style, topic choices and lowered platform on Page 2. Spare the rod, spoil the child. You can hate me, but you cannot deny that I'm very necessary.

Stop Bojangling '07!

 

You might want to add a link to whatever you read, so we know what it is you're talking about.

 

YAWN...

 

As necessary as a second can opener.