Wilbon v. Feinstein - What the Hell?

[Small Town Guy]

Yeah, "matching credentials" is really lame.

I'm picturing the business card scene in American Psycho.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

Yes, but they don't keep themselves thick-skinned. Wilbon's response above is tissue thin.

you are correct, in most cases. they can be a thin-skinned lot. in this case, however, i believe mike had reason to take offense -- you expect to take sling and arrows from your audience; it's more difficult to take when a colleague takes you to task. glass houses, etc.

it's just a low-blow delivered by a perceived friend. or at least a one-time frend or peer, imo.

Yes, but a thick-skinned response would be to say that he doesn't need to be suspended. You called him and gave him an earful, whatever.

But calling him Junior, saying you'll match your credentials with him and that you don't give a damn what he thinks all just scream that Feinstein really hit the target.

To be fair, Kornheiser refers to Feinstein only as Junior, the comments were made on Kornheiser's show, and even the person asking the question in the chat referred to Feinstein as Junior.

I'll cut Wilbon some slack. He was pissed, and understandably so. At the same time, I suspect on some level he's probably uncomfortable with his relationship with the people he covers, and knows it leaves him open to this type of criticism.

 

[kleeda]

Ah yes, the journalist pissing match. Great fun for us as journalists. Ultimately bad for all journalists.

 

[Ace]

Yes, but they don't keep themselves thick-skinned. Wilbon's response above is tissue thin.

you are correct, in most cases. they can be a thin-skinned lot. in this case, however, i believe mike had reason to take offense -- you expect to take sling and arrows from your audience; it's more difficult to take when a colleague takes you to task. glass houses, etc.

it's just a low-blow delivered by a perceived friend. or at least a one-time frend or peer, imo.

Yes, but a thick-skinned response would be to say that he doesn't need to be suspended. You called him and gave him an earful, whatever.

But calling him Junior, saying you'll match your credentials with him and that you don't give a damn what he thinks all just scream that Feinstein really hit the target.

To be fair, Kornheiser refers to Feinstein only as Junior, the comments were made on Kornheiser's show, and even the person asking the question in the chat referred to Feinstein as Junior.

I'll cut Wilbon some slack. He was pissed, and understandably so. At the same time, I suspect on some level he's probably uncomfortable with his relationship with the people he covers, and knows it leaves him open to this type of criticism.

His response was very human and understandable. He just needed to edit himself and take the higher road.

 

[spaceman]

When Feinstein stops flossing with Coach K's pubes, he can talk.

 

[hondo]

I like both guys, and they've both been cordial to me over the years. Tough call. I will only say that Feinstein has had the red ass about Tiger since Day One, possibly because Team Tiger wasn't going to be part of the Feinstein book machine.

 

[Fran Curci]

I know both of these guys and edited one of them. As a newspaper guy, Wilbon is far stronger. Junior's work often was littered with errors caught by the desk.

 

[AD]

a few years ago, norman chad eviscerated feinstein's book writing in his monday washington post column. it was so brutal that i couldn't tell if it was manufactured, faux conflict. does anyone know if chad -- or maybe an editor at the post -- has an ax out for feinstein? i mean, here was one colleague ripping another who often appears there during college hoops season. i can't remember seeing that in a paper like the post...

 

[HorseWhipped]

I'll go with Wilbon any time over Feinstein, who is much too comfortable thinking he's the King of Sports Journalists. After his Ravens book, I stopped reading his books. And his Sporting News column can't carry Dave Kindred's jockstrap. Sports journalists such as Feinstein lose their mark when they become self-satisfied instead of pushing harder and higher. I definitely put Feinstein in that crowd. Any of us seeking celebrity status needs to be reminded that we are sports journalists first and foremost, and that any enhanced access we achieve should be poured back into the business of sports journalism. Every day and every week. ... Then again, maybe I'm wrong. But I'll still take Wilbon.

 

[Ice9]

I remember during the 06 World Cup, Feinstein went on Sports Reporters and said -- straight-faced, totally serious -- that soccer needs to get rid of the offsides rule.

Don't get me wrong, I'd read Feinstein's grocery shopping list, but...really? No joke?

 

[Mizzougrad96]

At least Wilbon reserves his boot-licking for the top of the sports (Jordan, Woods, Barkley).

 

[heyabbott]

And unbelievably it continues -

http://www.feinsteinonthebrink.com/index.php?id=3138294648569771911

On this issue Feinstein has it right. Wilbon has been, willingly or not, a spinner in favor of certain athletes.
Feinstein wrote

here is where we differ (in my opinion): Guys like Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley, Shaq—the rich and famous guys Wilbon thinks of as friends—have public relations machines that tell the world how great they are. If they do something good, it should be reported. But when they screw up, they don’t need us taking a bullet for them. The people in sports who maybe need a boost every now and then (when they do something good) are the kids in The Patriot League; the football players at Army and Navy; the golfers who end up in Q-School.

I am looking at how Wilbon treats Michael Phelps, Rick Pitino and Charles Barkley. Barkley, arrested for DUI while looking for his favorite prostitute, has had these issues of sleazy behavior already. Pitino acted in a manner consitant with Barkley's, but without his track record of non-professional sleaze. Phelps, just a wide eyed kid who earned the keys to Vegas after a decade of being shut in a swimming pool, alone. Chuck gets a well qualified backhanded tap on the wrist by Wilbon, but fires both barrels at Phelps.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/12/AR2009081203115.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/03/AR2009020303468.html

I don't know how many sports journalists knew of Michael Jordan's predilections for young doughy blondes. But it was a Washington Post magazine article, and not a Post Sports Journo (I think) that made it public record.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

The Jordan infidelity issue and the Lance Armstrong infidelity issue for that matter was completely ignored by the media. Most of Jordan's transgressions came in the early days of the Internet and maybe that helped him, but as I've mentioned several times on this board, there was a lawsuit more than a decade ago where a porn star made a film spoofing her affair with Jordan. Jordan tried to sue her, but when it was revealed that an affair did take place, the film was able to be distributed.

No paper ever made mention of this, but it was common knowledge among NBA writers and people around Chicago for that matter.

With Armstrong, when he won one of the Tours, they trotted his wife and kids out to celebrate the win, when he had been separated from his wife for more than a year and it was common knowledge that he had shacked up with someone in Austin and may have even been already dating Sheryl Crow. Nobody said a word at the time, even though every cycling writer out there knew about it.

I think Woods expected the same treatment as Jordan and Armstrong. I don't think he ever thought anything he did would be made public and to be fair, it took a perfect storm for it to come out. I have no idea if the golf media were as aware of Tiger's infidelity as those who covered Jordan and Armstrong. I'm guessing probably not since Tiger is much more shut off to any media than Jordan and Armstrong were.

It's fascinating.

 

[Alma]

We all have blind spots. We all have weaknesses as writers, as surveyors of the world.

IMO, Wilbon has a blind spot when it comes to certain people. Feinstein's blind spot relates to certain <i>kinds</i> of people. Both are blind spots. But one is loyalty while the other is misguided empathy.

I'd probably tend toward Feinstein's blind spot than I would Wilbon's, in part - I must admit - because I look at the men Wilbon defends and enjoys most - Barkley and Jordan - and I see two miserable, bloated fools who hate pretty much the whole world at any given moment. Charles is more just honest and gregarious about his contrarian worldview.

 

[Bubbler]

And unbelievably it continues -

http://www.feinsteinonthebrink.com/index.php?id=3138294648569771911

On this issue Feinstein has it right. Wilbon has been, willingly or not, a spinner in favor of certain athletes.
Feinstein wrote

here is where we differ (in my opinion): Guys like Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley, Shaq—the rich and famous guys Wilbon thinks of as friends—have public relations machines that tell the world how great they are. If they do something good, it should be reported. But when they screw up, they don’t need us taking a bullet for them. The people in sports who maybe need a boost every now and then (when they do something good) are the kids in The Patriot League; the football players at Army and Navy; the golfers who end up in Q-School.

I agree with Feinstein's point, but when he uses three topics he's written books about to make the point, it comes off as self-serving to me. Why not pick three similar topics he's written columns about?

 

[Pancamo]

What is the origin of "Junior"?

 

[MileHigh]

I think TK gave him the nickname when Feinstein joined the Post when he was in his young 20s.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

I think TK gave him the nickname when Feinstein joined the Post when he was in his young 20s.

I dare anyone without the initials TK to call him that.

 

[Songbird]

Yeah, "matching credentials" is really lame.

I'm picturing the business card scene in American Psycho.

very good.

 

[Jake_Taylor]

The Jordan infidelity issue and the Lance Armstrong infidelity issue for that matter was completely ignored by the media. Most of Jordan's transgressions came in the early days of the Internet and maybe that helped him, but as I've mentioned several times on this board, there was a lawsuit more than a decade ago where a porn star made a film spoofing her affair with Jordan. Jordan tried to sue her, but when it was revealed that an affair did take place, the film was able to be distributed.

No paper ever made mention of this, but it was common knowledge among NBA writers and people around Chicago for that matter.

With Armstrong, when he won one of the Tours, they trotted his wife and kids out to celebrate the win, when he had been separated from his wife for more than a year and it was common knowledge that he had shacked up with someone in Austin and may have even been already dating Sheryl Crow. Nobody said a word at the time, even though every cycling writer out there knew about it.

I think Woods expected the same treatment as Jordan and Armstrong. I don't think he ever thought anything he did would be made public and to be fair, it took a perfect storm for it to come out. I have no idea if the golf media were as aware of Tiger's infidelity as those who covered Jordan and Armstrong. I'm guessing probably not since Tiger is much more shut off to any media than Jordan and Armstrong were.

It's fascinating.

It kind of seems like Tiger got Clintoned. Just about every president before Slick Willy also had affairs, but the media ignored it. Eventually that was going to change and Clinton happened to be the guy.