• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Jason Whitlock is a big fat(fired) idiot.

vrbryant

Ever thus to ____ers
Staff member
Recently read his article on Page 2 - link - and it pissed me off just enough to write the Page 2 staff. Felt like sharing, and didn't feel like recounting it fresh, so I'll just reproduce my note to them here.

Jason Whitlock's July 20th article, "Welcome back to the Truths", embodies everything I find tasteless and hackneyed in modern American journalism. These ten 'truths' are, obviously, not truths at all. They are ten ludicrous pot shots cranked out by a fat, ignorant puppet whose strings are pulled by a system that not only tolerates sensationalism, but actually encourages it. The tragedy, of course, is that by taking the time to rant into this little text box, I am only further justifying the publication of this filth. I read it, found it abhorrent, and chose to speak up, thereby proving that I was successfully provoked into doing so. Though it has to say *something* that I've never felt compelled to write in and gripe about something that Bill Simmons produced. I should also be openly conscious of the fact that Page 2 is and (to my knowledge) always has been a section of this site designed specifically to feature comically outlandish content. I suppose I just feel that Whitlock in particular seems to have a difficult time delivering his jokes in a manner that doesn't suggest that he's one hundred percent serious. Here's a guy that less than a year ago was whining - right here on Page 2, no less - that Terrell Owens was underpaid and deserved our respect, and now makes it a point to mention how deeply his distaste for #81 runs. I don't know--I'm probably overreacting. It's just frustrating that (like with so many other things) a childish, no-talent individual presumably continues to collect a paycheck for content that I wouldn't have the gall to spit out on my most wicked of benders. This phrase alone should result in - at the very least - a firm, forceful slap across the back of Whitlock's bloated head: "I hope Packers fans are happy they're holding Favre hostage in Green Bay rather than allowing him to finish his career with dignity in a winning environment." Interesting comment, considering Favre himself said on multiple occasions that he neither wanted to play for nor could imagine himself wearing the uniform of a team other than the Green Bay Packers. Lost on Whitlock, I guess, but I'm sure he's plenty busy reporting the exploits of the powerhouse Royals. Now, I somehow doubt this will reach Whitlock's eyes from here, and I refuse to give him the satisfaction of finding one more distempered e-mail in his inbox, so if whoever reads this sees him waddling around the office (or the nearest cotton candy stand, assuming there is no 'office'), tell him I said he's an idiot. Much obliged.

V. R. Bryant

Feel free to share your hatred for Whitlock below.
 
you responded to THAT column, VR? compared to most of what he writes, that article was only mildly horrible.

GoEnglish_com_TheStrawThatBrokeTheCamelsBack.gif
 
Upvote 0
10. Marvin Lewis' ego could be getting in the way of a terrific coaching career.

Agree. Also loved his Trail Blazers' analogy.

9. Brett Favre will regret his decision to return to the Packers by Week 4, when John Madden won't be around on "Monday Night Football" to explain away Favre's terrible performance against the Eagles.

Agree. But he's not being held "hostage" by anybody. He'd be a Packer or he'd be sitting on the couch.

Personally, I think he should have grabbed a bag of Lay's and chilled in the Laz-E-Boy for the fall. He has nothing else to prove - and doesn't have the suprehuman skills left or the team to prove it anyway.

8. Phillip Rivers is going to bomb in San Diego.

Agree. No true #1 receiver and the guy throws floaters. This will not be a pretty season in Ron Burgundy's town.

7. As much as I dislike Terrell Owens, I have to admit he's going to have success in Dallas this season.

Agree. He'll wait until his second season in Dallas to bitch, moan and bring the team down with him.

6. But I don't like the Cowboys as much as I like the Washington Redskins, my pick to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl.

Agree. But not because I like the Redskins. I just think the NFC is that weak.

5. Joey Harrington is going to beat out Daunte Culpepper by midseason.

Completely disagree. Not because I like Culpepper that much, but because Joey is that iffy under pressure. The running game will carry the Dolphins and mask Daunte's weaknesses.

4. Peyton Manning will not miss Edgerrin James.

Disagree. The Colts will still have a strong offense, but Peyton lives for the play action - and it's just not going to make too many defenses bite this year.

3. Edgerrin James will miss Peyton Manning and the Colts' offensive line.

Agree. And Matt Leinart will miss the USC offensive line as well as the Pac-10 defensive lines.

2. Ben Roethlisberger's motorcycle accident will negatively impact his performance this season.

Agree, but how much? He's still got a great receiving corps and a terrific offensive line.

1. The Baltimore Ravens are my pick to win the Super Bowl.

Disagree. If, and that's a big IF, they stay healthy, they have as good a shot as anyone. But, I just don't buy McNair playing 16 games this year.


I agreed with most of what he had to say. So I guess I don't know what the big deal is.
 
Upvote 0
Whether you agree or disagree with that nonsense is not the issue. The issue is that this article is the very picture of sensationalist journalism, the M.O. of which is to spew extremist, all-or-nothing views (Rivers will do this, the Packers won't do that, etc.) in the hope that poor saps (read: me) will end up pissed off and screaming, thereby drawing more attention to the "journalist" in question. It's disgusting, pathetic, and every time I fall for it, I die a little inside. Whitlock is just one of an army of talking monkeys (Stephen A. Smith, Skip Bayless, Trev Alberts, Jim Rome, Jay Mariotti, and so forth) who have really loud voices and little/no integrity with which to back them up. At the end of the day, though, they will still claim to be members of the same profession as, say, Peter Gammons. And that pisses me off.

Four Rooms said:
Chester: Like my old grand daddy used to say, "The less a man makes declarative statements, the less apt he is to look foolish in retrospect."
 
Upvote 0
As long as he's not on my Television screen I'm content. I have witnessed few people on television with less personality than this bean bag. He sat in for Jim Rome a couple times and I think on PTI a couple times, and you can literally see his head following the sentences on the cue cards/teleprompter. To be honest, I'm impressed that he can string a comprehensible sentence together in print.
 
Upvote 0
Whether you agree or disagree with that nonsense is not the issue. The issue is that this article is the very picture of sensationalist journalism, the M.O. of which is to spew extremist, all-or-nothing views (Rivers will do this, the Packers won't do that, etc.) in the hope that poor saps (read: me) will end up pissed off and screaming, thereby drawing more attention to the "journalist" in question. It's disgusting, pathetic, and every time I fall for it, I die a little inside. Whitlock is just one of an army of talking monkeys (Stephen A. Smith, Skip Bayless, Trev Alberts, Jim Rome, Jay Mariotti, and so forth) who have really loud voices and little/no integrity with which to back them up. At the end of the day, though, they will still claim to be members of the same profession as, say, Peter Gammons. And that pisses me off.

Most sports columnists are former sports journalists. And they'd probably recognize that fact. Their job is to have an opinion - and some of them happen to have huge egos that upset people. (See everyone you listed above, minus Jim Rome, who deserves his own douchebag category).

Look at Bill O'Reilly, Chris Mathews, Keith Olberman, and other political pundits who spew off hate for ratings on far more serious issues than whether the Ravens are Super Bowl contenders.

These sports commentators are a lot like the political punditocracy, in that they generated anger among those who disagree with them. But let's face it. In the grand scheme of things, it's mostly about entertainment with sports. And for better or for worse, some people find these guys entertaining.

But it's not irresponsible for ESPN to allow these opinions to be articulated in columns and commentary. It's irresponsible when ESPN allows opinions to affect the NEWS portion - and that's what you should be upset about.
 
Upvote 0
Most sports columnists are former sports journalists. And they'd probably recognize that fact. Their job is to have an opinion - and some of them happen to have huge egos that upset people. (See everyone you listed above, minus Jim Rome, who deserves his own douchebag category).

Look at Bill O'Reilly, Chris Mathews, Keith Olberman, and other political pundits who spew off hate for ratings on far more serious issues than whether the Ravens are Super Bowl contenders.

These sports commentators are a lot like the political punditocracy, in that they generated anger among those who disagree with them. But let's face it. In the grand scheme of things, it's mostly about entertainment with sports. And for better or for worse, some people find these guys entertaining.

But it's not irresponsible for ESPN to allow these opinions to be articulated in columns and commentary. It's irresponsible when ESPN allows opinions to affect the NEWS portion - and that's what you should be upset about.

I put the onus on the journalists, not the media outlets. The news networks (ESPN included) have one chief concern: revenue. And I'm fine with that. The fact is that there are plenty of journalists who turn a profit for their respective networks/publications who choose not to resort to cheap provocation to make names for themselves, and Jason Whitlock is not one of them.
 
Upvote 0
Whether you agree or disagree with that nonsense is not the issue. The issue is that this article is the very picture of sensationalist journalism, the M.O. of which is to spew extremist, all-or-nothing views (Rivers will do this, the Packers won't do that, etc.) in the hope that poor saps (read: me) will end up pissed off and screaming, thereby drawing more attention to the "journalist" in question. It's disgusting, pathetic, and every time I fall for it, I die a little inside. Whitlock is just one of an army of talking monkeys (Stephen A. Smith, Skip Bayless, Trev Alberts, Jim Rome, Jay Mariotti, and so forth) who have really loud voices and little/no integrity with which to back them up. At the end of the day, though, they will still claim to be members of the same profession as, say, Peter Gammons. And that pisses me off.

VR--I don't always understand the object of your diatribes, but I always respect your point. If there is anyone on our board whose commentary on the media and journalism warrants presumptive credibility, it's the members of the Bryant family.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top