Whitlock's First ESPN Column

[lcjjdnh]

An excellent column explaining his opposition to the use of resources to pursue stories like those at OSU. It is about the media, so linking it here.

http://m.espn.go.com/general/story?storyId=9669762&src=desktop

 

[LongTimeListener]

I respectfully disagree.

Yes. When I think of Jason Whitlock's week, "respectful" is definitely the word that comes to mind.

What a knob. He has enough people suckered into believing he is a deep thinker while he really just panders to the mouth-breathers. (Jesse and Al are the real racists! Black people use the N-word! Every media member except me sucks!) He's the Hannity of sports.

Good work if you can get it, I guess.

 

[jackfinarelli]

I respectfully disagree.

Yes. When I think of Jason Whitlock's week, "respectful" is definitely the word that comes to mind.

What a knob. He has enough people suckered into believing he is a deep thinker while he really just panders to the mouth-breathers. (Jesse and Al are the real racists! Black people use the N-word! Every media member except me sucks!) He's the Hannity of sports.

Good work if you can get it, I guess.

I don't consider him a "deep thinker" but I do believe that he offers a perspective on issues that I do not find in other places. That is not to say the I agree with Jason Whitlock all the time -- maybe not even 60% of the time - - but his expression of his perspectives on various sports/societal issues gives me something to add to my thinking as I develop my "take" on said sports/societal issues.

It has nothing at all to do with whether or not I agree with him in any given column. It is all about the fact that I enjoy his writing style and value his perspective on issues - which often differs significantly from mine.

 

[Double J]

"....what I believe to be an unsophisticated investigative piece...."

Has he even read it yet?

Dan Wetzel, a journalist I highly respect, wrote a column stating that these NCAA scandal stories reveal the folly of NCAA rules and pull back the curtain on the seedy underbelly of big-time college sports. He argues we need more of these stories. I respectfully disagree.

Nobody's forcing you to read these stories, Jason. (Obviously, since you still have yet to read the specific one that has your size XXXL Fruit of the Looms tied in a knot.) I mean, I could argue that people don't need to live-tweet high school football on Friday nights, but they do it because other people obviously care. Who are you to say what readers "need" or should read?

This is personal to me. I played college football at Ball State University in the late 1980s.

No way. None of us knew that about you. Why have you waited until now to reveal this interesting tidbit about yourself? :

I'm not going to tell you the real name of this next athlete or where he played football.

Yeah, in a column that slams investigative journalism, we should just take your word for it that this person actually exists.

I could go on, but there's no point. This is not an excellent column. Just more of the same old attention whoring.

 

[scheyer30]

I'm confident that at least 75 percent of the people that read the column did not do so with prior knowledge that the columnist is a former football player. We sometimes take for granted the stuff that the general public doesn't pay attention to or care about. A lot of people don't even read bylines.

 

[Joe Lapointe]

Lots of words in this column, many of them "I" and "me." A few good thoughts here amid the mush. Does this man have an editor?

 

[GidalKaiser]

I stopped as soon as he started the race-baiting, which was obviously very quickly. Jason Whitlock knows two things: how to race bait and how to get paid to race-bait.

 

[joe king]

I stopped as soon as he started the race-baiting, which was obviously very quickly. Jason Whitlock knows two things: how to race bait and how to get paid to race-bait.

Nice work if you can get it.

 

[H.L. Mencken]

The notion that Whitlock "race baits" in a traditional sense is completely false. Frankly, no columnist in the country is more critical of "black culture" than Jason Whitlock. Whitlock talks about race in a way that makes people white and black uncomfortable and that's why he is an important voice. He just inserts himself into a lot of topics as a way to always be a part of the discussion and get attention, but he is hardly "race baiting" when he correctly points out that it's a joke some people think higher education will be ruined if 60 kids out of 40,000 end up on campus despite not having great grades.

 

[boundforboston]

It's not that 60 bad students are allowed in. It's the fact that there are majors designed to help them get through college with minimal effort and that, apparently, there are tutors willing to do their work for them. Both of those things ruin the value of a degree at X University.

 

[LongTimeListener]

It's not that 60 bad students are allowed in. It's the fact that there are majors designed to help them get through college with minimal effort and that, apparently, there are tutors willing to do their work for them. Both of those things ruin the value of a degree at X University.

Not to mention that in most cases the athletic department is a drain on the general fund.

 

[H.L. Mencken]

Ruin? Holy Christ. Hyperbole much?

 

[Jake_Taylor]

Eh, if Whitlock wants to analyze quarterback play or reminisce about the Pacers' glory days he's readable, but nothing great.

But I don't get how a guy with such a track record of buffoonery can take himself seriously or expect anyone else to do so as voice on social issues.

 

[Double J]

Why should he not take himself seriously? There's always somebody ready to pay copious attention to said buffoonery and to throw large amounts of money at him for expressing it.

 

[Drip]

The notion that Whitlock "race baits" in a traditional sense is completely false. Frankly, no columnist in the country is more critical of "black culture" than Jason Whitlock. Whitlock talks about race in a way that makes people white and black uncomfortable and that's why he is an important voice. He just inserts himself into a lot of topics as a way to always be a part of the discussion and get attention, but he is hardly "race baiting" when he correctly points out that it's a joke some people think higher education will be ruined if 60 kids out of 40,000 end up on campus despite not having great grades.

Bull****. Jason Whitlock speaks for Jason Whitlock. He doesn't speak for any race,

 

[SnarkShark]

I'm kinda tired of sports columnists that don't to any serious reporting calling themselves "journalists."

 

[Twoback]

It's not that 60 bad students are allowed in. It's the fact that there are majors designed to help them get through college with minimal effort and that, apparently, there are tutors willing to do their work for them. Both of those things ruin the value of a degree at X University.

This is the biggest canard. Nobody designs majors to help athletes get through school. If they were to do so, there would be an Athletics major.
As for "devaluing" a degree -- only YOU can devalue your degree. Even if the accrediting board were to swoop in and remove its stamp of approval, your degree would still have been earned at the time when your university were still in good graces. And for goodness sake, Carolina admitted an entire department had major credibility issues, and the accreditors still didn't take a whack. So a few athletes getting by on a major that suits their time constraints isn't affecting your degree. It's this sort of garbage that gives Whitlock a reason to bellow. He's dead-on for about 80 percent of this column.

 

[Fran Curci]

Has he ripped his former bosses at FoxSports.com the way he slandered his former bosses at KC Star on the way out the door?

 

[boundforboston]

It's not that 60 bad students are allowed in. It's the fact that there are majors designed to help them get through college with minimal effort and that, apparently, there are tutors willing to do their work for them. Both of those things ruin the value of a degree at X University.

This is the biggest canard. Nobody designs majors to help athletes get through school. If they were to do so, there would be an Athletics major.
As for "devaluing" a degree -- only YOU can devalue your degree. Even if the accrediting board were to swoop in and remove its stamp of approval, your degree would still have been earned at the time when your university were still in good graces. And for goodness sake, Carolina admitted an entire department had major credibility issues, and the accreditors still didn't take a whack. So a few athletes getting by on a major that suits their time constraints isn't affecting your degree. It's this sort of garbage that gives Whitlock a reason to bellow. He's dead-on for about 80 percent of this column.

So if you have a college degree from Oklahoma State and the news of what happened in Stillwater the last 15-ish years comes out, that doesn't impact how people perceive your degree? And don't you ever wonder why so many athletes fall into certain majors? It's called academic clustering. There's a reason why they're there.