Wilbon doesn't see why Pearlman wrote about Payton

[Versatile]

http://espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/story/_/id/7038378/flaws-all-walter-payton-sweetness

This is the guy who said Sean Taylor had it coming.

 

[Gator]

Fanboi.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Fanboi.

Sums it up.

And I love Payton, too, but to knock this book's execution (provided it vets out, fully) is
wasted breath/keystrokes.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The marriage infidelities seem to be the part that people are most shaky about.

In Pearlman's defense, I guess, I don't think I've ever read a serious biography about someone that didn't explore their marriage. It's such a big part of their life. I just read Jonathan Eig's Lou Gehrig book and he writes extensively about Mrs. Gehrig's frosty relationship with the other Mrs. Gehrig - Lou's mother. And he addresses gossip that Babe Ruth had sex with Gehrig's wife on a cruise ship.

Our marriages are the central relationship in our lives and define us in so many ways. A biography that doesn't look at someone's marriage, as personal and uncomfortable as that can be, isn't really a serious biography.

 

[flexmaster33]

Marriages should also be the most valued relationship in our lives, unfortunately for many athletes the temptations they face on the road overcome them, and the locker room mentality doesn't help foster strong marriages.

Kudos to those athletes who stand for their marriages and do it well. Rather you want to be or not, you are role models.

 

[flexmaster33]

Perhaps Wilbon can supply us with the fluffy, marshmallow bio on Walter, as for me I prefer a biography that gives us a real view of the man involved...the good (and there was plenty with Walter) along with the bad.

 

[Illino]

Perhaps Wilbon can supply us with the fluffy, marshmallow bio on Walter, as for me I prefer a biography that gives us a real view of the man involved...the good (and there was plenty with Walter) along with the bad.

This.

I can't imagine this bio won't have the good as well. I think people get nutsy over book excerpts. All they are are the most gossipy nuggets out of books.

 

[flexmaster33]

Yes, I'm not a fan of book excerpts...with Pearlman's name on this one, I'm going to search it out for my Nook already.

 

[CentralIllinoisan]

Fanboi.

If there was ever a topic that deserved a one-word explanation, this is it. What a fool.

I heard the abomination that is the local sports talk spilling the same garbage, wondering why this had to come out about Payton. Ummm. How about you talk about why Payton did those things? Maybe there is reason, context to be provided. Instead they attack the messenger like he shoved the pills down Payton's throat.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Fanboi.

If there was ever a topic that deserved a one-word explanation, this is it. What a fool.

I heard the abomination that is the local sports talk spilling the same garbage, wondering why this had to come out about Payton. Ummm. How about you talk about why Payton did those things? Maybe there is reason, context to be provided. Instead they attack the messenger like he shoved the pills down Payton's throat.

I like Wilbon a good deal, but this is his Achilles' heel.

See: Jordan, Michael.

 

[brettwatson]

Strong column by Chi Trib's David Haugh on the topic. Haugh questions why the whole issue of brain disease isn't considered by the author.
--
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-0930-haugh-payton-book-bears-chicago--20110930,0,5781444.column

 

[The Big Ragu]

Wilbon wrote: "The point isn't to question Pearlman's accuracy, but to question his purpose in writing the book. What's the literary mission here?"

The literary mission is usually to sell books, isn't it? We'll see if the thing sells.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Wilbon wrote: "The point isn't to question Pearlman's accuracy, but to question his purpose in writing the book. What's the literary mission here?"

The literary mission is usually to sell books, isn't it? We'll see if the thing sells.

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.

 

[Versatile]

Strong column by Chi Trib's David Haugh on the topic. Haugh questions why the whole issue of brain disease isn't considered by the author.
--
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-0930-haugh-payton-book-bears-chicago--20110930,0,5781444.column

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.

 

[Den1983]

Fanboi.

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

 

[playthrough]

Wilbon wrote: "The point isn't to question Pearlman's accuracy, but to question his purpose in writing the book. What's the literary mission here?"

The literary mission is usually to sell books, isn't it? We'll see if the thing sells.

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.

He could have also waited to read the book. Too many times in the column he speculated (and said as much), asking questions that the book may well answer but Wilbon doesn't know because he only read the same excerpt as everyone else. He didn't think the book should have been written, yet he's contributing to its advance press. Oops.

 

[Bubbler]

Strong column by Chi Trib's David Haugh on the topic. Haugh questions why the whole issue of brain disease isn't considered by the author.
--
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-0930-haugh-payton-book-bears-chicago--20110930,0,5781444.column

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.

 

[SF_Express]

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.

 

[Dick Whitman]

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.

 

[Versatile]

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?