Wilbon doesn't see why Pearlman wrote about Payton

If Wilbon cared to do 30 seconds of research he would have found out that Pearlman has written over and over and over again on his blog why he was attracted to Payton as a subject.

 

I'm sorry, but you don't go around diagnosing from a distance, particularly if you're a newspaper columnist and not a doctor. Everyone is passing the burden to CTE and concussions these days, not realizing that the disease remains relatively unknown.

A few months ago, Ben Reiter wrote about the other side of CTE research: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1185392/index.htm

I worry that this unknown disease will be used as a scapegoat.

 

Pretty much. I'm disappointed in Wilbon. I thought he was above this. He comes out looking very bad here.

 

Not a fan of that column at all. Pearlman himself, quoted in the column, has the common sense answer.

"I didn't address it because it would have been pure speculation since no one studied his brain after he died."

And Haugh himself provides the counter-weight to his own point ...

"Not that broaching the possible presence of CTE would excuse Payton for his infidelities or abuse of painkillers."

Uhh, then why bring it up? Chicago's fanboy media is grasping at straws.

 

Devil's advocating: I read Wilbon last week, and was ready to rip him, but part of me says, "You know what? Wilbon is unashamedly a native and fan of some teams and people, he's reasonably up front about it, and who says every single sports writer has to be a hardass and aloof and 'objective' (whatever that means anymore)."

It's not like he has a hidden agenda here. So part of me says, "That's who Wilbon is, and so be it."

So you take what he writes about certain Chicago topics for what they are, and treat them as hard-edged reporting at your own peril.

I know this is a problem for many, but if you really think about it: Why? He liked Walter Payton, doesn't think the book was necessary. OK by me. Not like it's going to hurt sales or anything.

 

That doesn't wash with me.

I don't think fanbois should react this way, either.

 

In a different form of Devil's advocate: How many people here would have the stones to tell Michael Wilbon that he needed to back off until he read the book, or anything similar?

I can't defend the column. I know for sure that if a normal columnist submitted it to me, I'd shoot it down with a flurry of questions and the resolution of, "Wait until you read the book, then we can talk." But if it were Michael Wilbon?

Wilbon's got to be making close to 10 times as much money as his editors. ESPN pays Michael Wilbon to be Michael Wilbon. They give him this soap box, for better or worse.

Anyone think they could have shelved this from running?

 

That's fair enough ... I don't completely agree with me ...

 

And I totally get that you were devil's advocating. It was worth it to bring up, but in the end, I just don't think that excuses it. My problem isn't that Wilbon is a journalist saying this. It's that he's a human being saying it.

I talked about Chicago meatball football fans on the Urlacher/Singetary thread. They were out in full fucking force this week, that's for sure. I had to turn off the Hub Arkush/Dan Hampton pregame today on the radio I was so disgusted. For a few minutes, I considered not even watching the game because I'm so disgusted to associate with this fan base after the red letter week it logged.

 

Setting a bad example and he knows better, or at least was trained better.

Also, maybe the reason some people write books is because the TV shows are taken.