Scoop on Bonds

This thread is probably all over this site, but a search failed to find it. So I'm starting it here with the understanding that it may be moved or whatever.

Here is an excerpt of Scoop's most recent column, which just may become his most controversial yet:

Bonds hit 754. I finally bought a new jersey; had to -- an official Russell Authentic game jersey, size 44. The hate he was receiving had reached a point of insanity. The business of baseball had made this personal. "Behind every great fortune there is a crime." "Godfather" speak. Balzac. In a culture of wrongdoing in the game, Bonds was being singled out. So I dropped $250 in the name of defiance. The same defiance made us support O.J. even if we thought he was guilty and not abandon Al Sharpton when we knew he was wrong about Tawana.

Racist? No. Protective? No doubt. Overprotective? Probably. Wrong? Please. Defiance is part of the existence of who we are. It becomes part of our DNA in times like this, when one of our own seems to be rightfully accused but wrongly treated.

Am I reading this right? Is this to be translated that all black people are defiant and morally justified in defending wrongdoing when the accused is harshly criticized and black?

During the column, he admits he wore a Bonds jersey with the hope of inciting vitriolic reactions. If those reactions became violent, wouldn't the journalist in question be treading dangerously close to an ethical line? We're not supposed to make news or to try to make it, are we?

 

He's such an asshole. Where's sportbruh??

 

Scoop's goal is to be the Malcolm X of sports journalism. It's just too bad people take him about as seriously as Malcolm Jamal Warner.

 

Interesting point, made very, very badly.
"Part of the existence of who we are"?
Inches from actual English.

 

Threadjack:

Did Jemele Hill leave ESPN's Page 2? I haven't seen her stuff on there in a while. Granted, I only check ESPN about once a week - mostly to look for the latest Ombudsman offering.
Also notice she hasn't posted on here in a while ....

 

Hey, Scoop, it's OK. I've been wearing a Duke lacrosse jersey.

 

Fixed

 

There is a legitimate discussion in there somewhere, and in the hands of a more capable and intelligent witer, this material could've been a worthwhile piece. But Scoop just turns it to crap.

I can't believe the "Wrong? Please" reply to the idea of knowingly backing the wrong side in the O.J. and Brawley scandals. So is he saying that, as long as you're doing it out of defiance, its OK to support the acquittal of a double murderer who you know is guilty, that its OK to support a guy like Sharpton trying to destroy the lives of innocent family men with completely fraudulent abduction, rape, and sodomy allegations? God help us if that is the way we think. And shame on Scoop for suggesting that its OK to think that way.

 

Did you try to use the words scoop and journalist without the blue font? Shame on you.

 

typical sports media overkill to lump bonds with simpson and sharpton.
scoop probably thinks his column sounds more important by linking it to big news stories.
if you want to write news, go to the news department.

but the larger point has merit.
african-americans got fucked for 300 years.
why should they buy into the white idea of justice?
it's understandable to me if they don't.

bonds may be a prick on steroids, but he's an african-american prick on steroids. a prick they can call their own.

 

Wow. Well-played...

 

I was just on Page 2 and this piece appears to have abruptly disappeared.

An hour ago it was featured on its front page, but now its not even listed in scoop's archived materials. You think ESPN might've pulled it? I thought when I read it that the stuff essentially approving support of the guilty over the innocent went beyond the WWL's normal boundaries.