By CHRIS RASMUSSEN
I came to a conclusion that I didn’t expect when I read this blog post yesterday: I don’t care how much Jason Whitlock makes but I suspect he earns every penny.
I’m a news junkie. I read the Star every day not just because doing so is a civic responsibility but because I love newspapers. If I had my druthers, we’d have multiple newspapers in every town. Yes, it's unfortunate when any business fires workers just so the wealthy can enjoy higher profits -- and doubly so when it involves newspapers, which are the lifeblood of democracy. And yes, managers are never the first to be laid off, although they might be the first to deserve it.
But, like it or not, the media landscape is changing.
When I was a kid, the only way to get national and international news was to read the Star and the Times. Now, multiple digital sources provide the same information, often with more detail and at less cost.
Sports coverage is more immune from these changes. Blogs provide little access to feed sports fans' demand for information, talk radio takes too much time for a sports fan to actually get any information, ESPN devotes too little space to local sports teams and local news broadcasts provide little sports coverage at all.
With all these changes, Whitlock’s role at the Star is even more important. He does his job and does it well. Each winter, he provides a must-read column concerning the topic of discussion at every water cooler and family gathering in this town: the Chiefs. He provides access and unvarnished opinion on a topic where there is clearly an insatiable demand.
Do I agree with every thing he writes? Hell no. But I read him and – most importantly – he gets a reaction from me, my friends and my family. Indifference is the columnist’s only sin and no one in this town who follows sports is indifferent about Jason Whitlock.
Sure, paying so much money to one who writes about games strikes many as grotesque (to say nothing of the athletes Whitlock covers, who make multiples of his salary). I also think reality shows are incredibly stupid and find Sex and the City a tribute to vapidity. Thankfully for all of us, neither you or I individually decide what people can or can’t watch or the salaries of those who entertain us.
The market does. That’s why Jason Whitlock earns his salary.
Showing 1-5 of 5
You think he's worth his salary because he writes a column about the chiefs once per year that you find interesting? Wow, what a low threshold.
I don't care what he makes -- that's between he and his employer. I don't like his style because he causes conflict for the sake on conflict, not necessarily because he (IMO) believes half the stuff he spews. This becomes evident when 6 months later he'll totally contradict himself. He has no conscience about it.
The guy is a joke. He is no longer the young hungry reporter looking to stir things up. He got rich, fat (not physically), now he is just going through the motions. He writes what,one, two columns a week. I avoid his columns. Too predictable and boring.
I think that Jason Whitlock is a rabble-rouser. And if that sells papers, I guess on some level that's a good thing.
I do, however, think that his methods are rudimentary and his thrust is disingenuous, borderline dishonest.
I'd be willing to bet that he doesn't truly believe half of the stuff he writes, and that he does it to get the vig.
Case in point, his article on Mauricia Grant wasn't exactly flattering towards NASCAR, which employs a lot of white folks and a lot of white folks make up NASCAR's audience. White America sat on its hands on that one.
But when he insults a basketball pioneer like C. Vivian Stringer? White Americans stood up and applauded. All the woman does is graduate virtually 100% of her players and plays a high level of hoops, but since she stood up to Don Imus, she's a symbol of negativity? Come on, now, folks.
If white America wants to hold up Whitlock's critiques of black people as if to say, "SEE?!?! A black guy said that about his own people, so it MUST be true," then you guys should at least be honest individuals and stop and think when he calls out something as racist on your side of the fence.
But, for you people, it's all fun and games when he trots out the "black KKK" or Jesse Jackson or Scoop Jackson. You people don't laugh when he points the dooky stick at you. Typical.
You have got to be kidding. You honestly think he is worth $350,000 a year?
This week Whitlock wrote an entire column saying the Lakers could not win a championship because they had too many European (see white) players.
The very next day he retracted that entire column because he somehow overlooked all the European players on the Spurs.
Whitlock isn't even the best sportswriter at the Star. Joe Posnanski is considered one of the best in the nation.
like
dislike
