Jason Whitlock brings the hammer


Earlier today a friend and colleague forwarded me Sally Jenkins’ Washington Post column on Tiger Woods. Jenkins is a solid writer, and she expressed her point well. However, it’s a point I disagree with. There’s this belief among members of the media that Tiger Woods owes us an explanation; owes the police his full time and cooperation; owes the world, because we’ve paid him millions upon millions of dollars.

To this, I cty bull••••. Tiger Woods is a huge celebrity, and celebrity has its perks and drawbacks. But just because one stars in sports … in movies … in music, well, it doesn’t mean he/she belongs to us.

Hence, while Jenkins did a swell job, I much prefer the take of Jason Whitlock, Fox Sports’ oft-brilliant, oft-loathed columnist. Here’s the link.

I don’t know Jason well. We’ve probably met in person once or twice, and we’ve exchanged a handful of e-mails and Facebook messages over the years. But what I like about him—and what many in my business don’t like about him—is a willingness/eagerness to hold the press accountable. If there’s one thing that sucked about writing for ESPN, it was that we were never, ever, ever allowed to comment on other members of the third estate. It was as if Sports Illustrated, the Chicago Tribune, the New York Times, etc never existed. D5_cb-listen-now-136x40_V3It’s a stupid philosophy, because if you have athletes, you have writers and TV dolts around at all time. They’re a part of the story because they create the story. To pretend otherwise is illogical.

Whitlock doesn’t pretend. I’ve never been bashed by the man, though I’m sure he’d take me to task if he deemed me worthy. He has ripped some good friends, and I don’t always like it.

But if athletes are fair game, we have to be fair game, too.

3 thoughts on “Jason Whitlock brings the hammer”

  1. Jeff,
    not to be nit-picky, but the press is considered the Fourth Estate. First Estate was clergy; Second was the nobles; and Third was the commoners.

  2. I think Whitlock did a good job here, but sidestepped one important question: if the golf course is a place where racist/sexist jokes are at home… is that okay? Pierce’s column was less about Tiger just as a lothario and more about him being less than the perfect package he had been marketed as, and all Pierce really said was that the press was going to eat it up whether Tiger liked it or not. Your personal feelings on Pierce aside, I think that’s pretty fair.

  3. Tiger Woods owes us one explanation and one explanation only: Why did he get in that Escalade and try to drive off at 2 AM? Where was he going? Why was he running away from his wife? Why was he hopped up on pharmies? If Tiger never gets in that car a drive over a hydrant and into a tree, none of this stuff comes out. It’s just another story in the Enquirer.

Leave a Reply