1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Scoop Jackson vs. Whitlock (round 6)

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Almost_Famous, Dec 29, 2006.

  1. You called him an Uncle Tom, in so many words. He replied -- in the sixth item of a 10-item column -- adn did so with a minimum of fuss and bother.
    Nobody is necessary to anyone in this business, as I believe you found out, and as we all have, at one point or another.
  2. FB, not that it matters, he wrote a 2,000-word manifesto on this topic earlier. Guess you missed that.

    And I called him a bojangling idiot. Not to put words in his mouth, but I believe he's calling me an Uncle Tom (black on black crime) for calling him a bojangling idiot. FB, you need to get your name-calling straight...
  3. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Black-on-black crime, for some name calling between two goofy writers, is hyperbole. But it isn't calling you an Uncle Tom. Nothing he wrote there at least, implied that he thinks you're a stooge for any CAC. Just a black guy attacking another black guy.
  4. Or here's another way Scoop might frame it: It's "black-on-black crime" because opinion-makers such as Scoop and Whitlock, in a white-dominated industry, shouldn't be criticizing each other publicly. Which is stupid, but it could be what some think.

    But with Scoop, that's not it. Scoop's just mad that he's being called out by someone he can't accuse of being a racist.
  5. And you need to know what you're talking about.
    Your whole little "bojangling" riff is all about black writers writing as performance minstrelsy for white bosses and white readers. If that's not calling someone a Tom, I don't know what is. "Black-on-black crime," which is a clumsy formulation, doesn't remotely resemble it, in either meaning or effect.
    Jesus. Get over 40 percent of yourself.
  6. Flying Headbutt

    Flying Headbutt Moderator Staff Member

    That pretty sums up how I was thinking.

    Though Whitlock's first response was clever and amusing. I wish real politicians would bust out like that sometimes.
  7. joe king

    joe king Active Member

    Excuse me for interrupting, but I wish I could figure out why anyone gives the proverbial rat's ass about a pissing contest between two egomaniacal blowhards.

    Thank you for your support.
  8. shotglass

    shotglass Guest

    joe, I've been asking the same question for months.

    The puppetmasters have all the puppets wagging their tongues. They've done their job.
  9. Near as I can tell, Scoop's just defending himself.
  10. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    How anyone who considers themself to be anything resembling a journalist could be on any side other than Whitlock's on this one is beyond me...

    Whitlock is one of the few must-reads around...

    Scoop is a disgrace to journalism...
  11. shotglass

    shotglass Guest

    Your vote is recorded; be sure to pick up a free jockstrap on your way out.
  12. BYH

    BYH Active Member

    I call this a fight with no one to root for.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page