Whitlock Revises And Extends His Remarks

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=whitlock/060803

A column about last week's Sports Reporters - and Mitch 'n Mike are not going to be happy about that lead, JW -- in which Whitlock expands on what he was trying to say. There's not a lot to disagree with in here except, again, I think he's at sea a bit on the subject of integrity. I do not think that word means what he thinks it means. You can agree with him that athletes are purely entertainers -- in fact, I do -- and still insist on integrity. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
And we're off.

 

My two favorite parts are the second graf and the last graf... but that shouldn't surprise anyone....

Premise was sound...

 

Whitlock writes in so many broad, vague generalities disguised as profundities that it's impossible to decide what he means, let alone what he believes. He builds more straw-men arguments per column than any columnist I've ever read. No athletes standing up on social issues? Motumbo built a hospital at his own cost in war-torn Congo, Manning, McNair and Garnett worked in post-Katrina Louisiana when the feds couldn't/wouldn't do it, Smoltz went on record demanding his union act on steroids, Wes Unseld has fuinded/operated a school for 25 years rather than yield to public "education," Jermaine O'Neal cited racism behind the NBA's age limit, Tiger Woods has given millions of dollars of real encouragement, rather than empty rhetoric, for young blacks -- these are entertainers who have taken stands on social issues, and, given an hour to report it, I could give you 50 more. Spare me the slick, superficial, meaningless teevee talking-head shtick.

 

That's a great post.

 

I'm not that familiar with Whitlock, but those sort of people annoy me. They often seem like they're not trying to make a salient point about anything so much as they're trying to win an argument with completely circular, sometimes nonsensical logic.

 

god bless and thanks for your continued support of my column. i need to add you to the list of my "beat writers," guys who criticize my columns for a living on this message board.

good column/post.

 

It's unbecoming to get defensive. Laugh it off.

 

dude, i am laughing. if i didn't laugh, do you think i would post on this board regularly?

 

I thought the perspective that times have changed and money has changed athletes was spot on. Most of use would take drugs to hope to land a $10 million contract. Made me look at the issue differently.

My only quibble was the gratuitous shot at The Sopranos.

 

could have used a veiled shot at "Richie Pace" for almost getting thrown onto the court at the Final Four too... damn Climpson players

 

Sure, jaredk, those guys you mentioned have taken stands on issues. Mostly the easy ones. Rarely, if ever, any more do athletes take a stand on a controversial issue that could cost them endorsement dollars. It's easy to give money to hospitals or support rebuilding efforts after Katrina. No one thinks that's a bad idea.

But how many athletes have come out against the war in Iraq like some did against Vietnam? How many have said we should be doing more to help in countries like Rwanda and Burundi? How many take on issues that might cause them to lose face instead of gaining fans?

Most of the heroes that Whitlock mentioned took on issues that were controversial at the time. They didn't take the easy stands. That doesn't mean that the athletes you mentioned aren't honorable, but they're a different kind of hero than the ones in the past. They take little risk with their actions.

 

Now that's a great post.