As we conducted our daily perusing of the internet to find injustice and topics for our educatory offerings; we came across a post on The Big Lead which got us thinking.
The post covered a discussion that took place on a radio show (on 850 the Buzz) hosted by former ESPN page 2 contributor Bomani Jones (Jones is hosting the show in June and July on weekdays from 3-6PM live_feed) . During a discussion about the great first two months of the season by baseball's Josh Hamilton (Hamilton is the former #1 pick turned drug addict, turned recovered potential superstar), Jones wondered if the press was particularly enamored and receptive to the story of Hamilton's redemptive quest and success because of his pale hue and rekindled devotion to Christianity.
Certainly, a fair question. And one that, we at NOIS had discussed amongst ourselves in the past.
In an effort for further clarification, we decided to ask Bomani Jones a few more questions about his take on the subject. And, we also decided to get the opinion of other another prominent Negro sports columnist, Scoop Jackson.
First, our discussion with Bomani (edit. this was a discussion format, so please, those of you that love to send us grammar and spelling corrections...this is unedited/as is....so save the the Ms. Crabapple act):
NOIS: First, there have been black athletes that have fallen, obviously, into a world of drugs. Darryl Strawberry and Doc Gooden come to mind quite quickly. And, both of those guys went thru periods in which it seemed like they had recovered. Was the media as supportive? As applauding? Positive? I seem to remember the media being skeptical....but that's my memory. The possibility of relapse to addiction is staggering. Is it not odd that the media isn't skeptical about what the future holds for Hamilton? That everyone is so sure that he is on the right road forever?
Bomani: I don't remember Strawberry receiving the same treatment, nor do I remember Gooden throwing a no-hitter for the Yankees being treated as a tale of triumph over adversity. But, I'm also young enough that someone could prove me wrong by doing the LexisNexis search that I'm too tired to do myself right now. The saddest thing about Strawberry didn't come from the media, though. It came from Tom Lasorda, Straw manager when he relapsed in Los Angeles, who refused to acknowledge addiction as a sickness and went out of his way to call it "a weakness."
What's striking to me is the humanity that Hamilton has been afforded the last couple of years. It's a humanity he absolutely deserves, mind you. I've never met a single person that wanted to be strung out, so I'm not about to wag a finger at him for getting hooked on drugs. I applaud him for rising up and reclaiming his life. The baseball thing is secondary to me. I'd be thrilled for him if he was working on a garbage truck and just quit smoking cigarettes.
I can't say for sure exactly why Hamilton's story has been treated as it has. I just know I've never seen a former crack smoker get this much love from anyone, and the sports media hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt on this thing (or much of anything when it comes to race, quite honestly). Never.
In Hamilton's story, he is the protagonist, and addiction is treated as the villain. The dragon isn't slain, but it's a beast that we're made to root against (as we should). In most cases, however, it is the addict that is treated as the villain. That is where this case is different than most i recall seeing.
Check the SI piece (which is well-written, I must say). Hamilton's father-in-law talks about how aware Josh is that "the devil" isn't far away. The Rangers have Jerry Narron with Hamilton as "a friend" and "a precaution," according to Hamilton. All very human stuff.
That's also stuff that, depending on who's behind the keyboard and who's under the microscope, could have been written differently. Narron could have been cast more as a supervisor, someone to make sure he behaves himself. I already talked about stuff like the addiction as "the devil." The question is simply this -- why does Josh Hamilton get such treatment and others don't?
Race certainly isn't the only factor, but you have to consider it. This country has put a black face on it's nonsensical "War on Drugs" from Day One, a strategy that is certainly more about being "tough on crime" than it is about helping anybody, considering that drugs aren't any harder to find than they used to be but these policies haven't undergone much change. Check the history, and you'll find a significant reason that cocaine was made illegal was to protect society from "cocaine crazed Negroes." Policies and perceptions, when it comes to drugs, have always had a racial component.
So people are going to try to tell me that Josh Hamilton, a middle-class white guy, isn't getting different treatment than a black person would? Anyone that says that white drug addicts are not treated with a different level of sympathy than black ones is either stupid, or must think I am, if I'm expected to believe that. If you don't question whether race had something to do with how a story of a white drug addict is reported vis-a-vis a black one, it's only because you don't want to.
Now, as for media skepticism about Hamilton, I'm sure it's there. It has to be. I haven't seen it vocalized much, and maybe that's because doing so interferes with the story (I was accused by many listeners of tainting the story, one I praised on air a few dozen times). It's expressed when you see people talk about all the steps Hamilton takes to avoid temptation -- not going out with teammates, not taking per diem money, etc. -- but that stuff seems to be framed as a testament to his dedication and to the power of the devil.
My frustration, however, is not with how Hamilton's story is being treated. It's the stories that don't get this treatment that make me scratch my head. The depths of Hamilton's addiction, considering that he emerged from them, were unique. Addiction, however, was not, nor is overcoming it.
I can think of addicts with backgrounds that made it far more likely they would get strung out than Josh Hamilton The sordid tale of Chris Washburn, who was shamelessly used his whole basketball playing life, immediately comes to mind. Washburn is a punch line when people talk about cocaine-addicted basketball players, and that's foul.
I just don't think stardom or whiteness or anything else need be coupled with a neat story should be required before treating a recovered addict with respect and humanity.
NOIS: Forgotten in all of this is the fact that Hamilton DID what he did. Certainly, we are a very forgiving society. Do you think that young black athletes, like Pacman Jones, who has been reckless and a poor decision maker...do you think that if he is able to make better decisions, mature and become a solid citizen, that HE will hailed by the media as a 'hero'? Or can he look forward to people saying that the only reason he stopped his reckless behavior was the money?
Bomani: As a hero? Hell no, he won't. Pacman's haunted by demons, and we all know it. It's also worth noting that Pacman hasn't talked to many people about said demons (through a mutual friend that I've known since I was 16, and that he's known his whole life, I was turned down for an interview last year). Would he receive such treatment if he was more open? Mayhaps.
Another part that can't be ignored is that there hasn't been a line of people running to say what a great guy Pacman is or was before. Again, I know people that will vouch for him, and they're people I trust for totally non-business reasons. Most people don't. If people thought he was a bad guy before -- and most did -- then they won't be but so happy to see him succeed. On my show, I had all kinds of people that knew Hamilton from various points in his life talk about what a great guy he is. That is a significant point if Hamilton and Jones are going to be compared with one another (something I did on my show, and something a few of my listeners astutely pointed out, though I don't think this is the only real difference between these two guys).
I know this, though -- a storyline of training camp and beyond with Pacman will be whether he falls back into his bad behavior. It will come up early, and it will probably come up often. Hell, he isn't even really reinstated yet, as they make sure he can get through training camp without sneaking strippers in or something. Can't blame anyone for that, either. It's hard to stop being a knucklehead, even if we're dealing with a knucklehead young enough to grow out of a lot of his problems (like Josh Hamilton did).
If Pacman has four interceptions and a return touchdown in his first five games -- which, ballparking here, is an equivalent start to Hamilton's torrid pace -- you will not see "The Redemption of Pacman Jones" on the cover of Sports Illustrated. Of that, I can guarantee you. But, how much of that will be because Pacman won't be talking? Or because he's not as magnetic as Hamilton? Good questions.
I think Pacman's as haunted by his past as Hamilton was by whatever told him to keep getting high. If he succeeds, he's overcoming, too (and honestly, some would argue that Pacman overcame just by living this long). How do we decide whose triumph over adversity, whether self-inflicted or not, is noble and whose is just a matter of cleaning up his own mess? By whether we like them or not? There's got to be a better standard to use than that.
NOIS: From all accounts, Hamilton came from a fairly solid, stable background. Yet he fell into drugs. No one blamed his 'culture' or background for what happened. Yet, when a black athlete makes poor decisions, many in the media want to drag his 'culture' down with him. No one says, 'josh hamilton fell victim to the ills of his middle class white upbringing...and that is why he had those horrible few years'.....yet, regardless of the background of a black athlete who makes bad moves, 'black' culture is called into question...when a white athlete falls, it is simply an indictment of the white athlete....when a black athlete falls, it is an indictment of the athlete, his upbringing, black society and anything else that can be thrown in.....(I guess that wasn't a question....it was just a rant....sorry.....lol)
Bomani: The curse of blackness is as follows -- nothing good you do represents anyone but you, and it barely does that much. The bad you do represents every single black person on this side of Senegal AND the culture they subscribe to. Now, the killer is that black culture is treated as separate from this larger culture that is America.
Michael Moore did a movie called "Roger and Me" a long time ago, a film about life in Flint, Mich. after a plant closing. Long of the short -- General Motors did those hard-working Americans dirty, and leaving town was part of why crime began to skyrocket. It's a fair point Moore makes.
When I think of Flint, I think of some hard ass ghettoes and gangs. I know black folks from Michigan, so I think of the things they tell me about the place (I've never been there). The way I see it, gangs thrive in situations of poverty, the kind of poverty that comes when a blue-collar industry that employs vast swaths of people goes away. In other words, I doubt the gang situation in Flint would be what some say it is had automobile industry not pulled out. It's the same way Baltimore wouldn't have become what it is now -- now that, I've seen -- had the shipping industry not died.
Dollars to donuts says when people see those boys bangin' in Flint, they blame black culture, the same way they do when they see boys selling dope in Baltimore. If they see struggling white people in Flint, they want to spit on General Motors.
See what I mean?
I personally long for the day that I am afforded my God-given American right to not give a flying fuck about anybody else when I do something, whether it be good or bad. I long for the day when my mistakes are my own, and I'm not expected to represent 20 or 30 million people with every word I say. That's a luxury white folks have that other groups don't, and it's something they should feel really grateful for -- the comfort in knowing that the behavior of people you've never met has absolutely no effect on your life. I really wonder what that's like.
Certainly, some folks who listened to Bomani's show, or have heard others mention that Hamilton is getting more positive media support because of his sun-starved skin naturally jumped to the prerequisite conclusion that Jones and others were simply playing the 'race card'. Complaining and mentioning race as means to gain attention for themselves. Or, are so race fixated that they see racism at every turn.
If you read Jones' comments here, you would understand that it is much deeper than race. It is respect and humanity. It is compassion. The question is, is it easier to be more compassionate to one of your own?
As we mentioned, we wanted other thoughts on this topic. So, we turned to ESPN.com's Scoop Jackson.
NOIS: Any thoughts on whether the feel good buzz and attention on Josh Hamilton's rise from the ashes would be as closely covered and widely applauded if he were not of a pale hue?
Scoop: i just read the SI joint and WAS THINKING THE EXACT SAME THING!!!!
Again, The question is, is it easier to be more compassionate to one of your own?
Showing posts with label Scoop Jackson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scoop Jackson. Show all posts
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Scoop Jackson: The NOIS Interview
As we said in our last post, we have been working on something special for you.
We put together an indepth interview with espn.com Page 2 and SLAM magazine columnist, Scoop Jackson.
We imagine that most of our readers are familiar with Scoop on some level.
As you read this, please keep in mind, that the interview was conducted via email and Scoop answered in caps, very informally.
What we are saying is....kill the noise and complaints about spelling and typos. We could have edited it, I suppose. But why? This was essentially an informal discussion, so we left it in that form.
We hope this gives you a better insight into probably the most maligned personality on espn.com.
Additionally, we think the last answer Scoop gives could effectively be applied to this site.
Enjoy.
And hit us back with your thoughts, impressions and suggestions for future interview subjects.
"hope this works. if you need anything else, let me know. answers are in caps. thanks!!!
-scoop"
1. We'll cut right to the chase. On espn.com's Page 2, you are known for your powerful opinions and are often accused of "reverse-racism". A term developed by the same institutions which, in an effort to perpetuate racism, deny its existence. It's the classic "i'm rubber and you're glue" defense, used by people that don't like what they see when you hold a mirror in front of them and force them to look at themselves. We often get the same response from some of our readers. We liken it to the "kill the messenger" analogy. In our minds, "reverse racism" is a term conjured as a self defense mechanism. Pulled from thin air to be used in instances in which the accuser has been met with an argument in which he is incapable of effectively engaging. It is less than an empty phrase. When you are accused of "reverse racism", does it have any meaning to you?
IT DEPENDS. I AGREE 100% WITH YOUR DEFINITION OF "REVERSE RACISM" BUT AT THE SAME TIME I DO BELIEVE IT EXISTS AND THAT WE (BLACK PEOPLE) ARE CAPABLE OF USING IT, ALTHOUGH OFTEN UNINTENTIONALLY. I'M MORE INCLINED TO GO WITH "GUILT" AS OPPOSED TO "SELF DEFENSE" AS THE MECHANISM USED FOR THE TERMS EXISTENCE. A LOT OF TIMES WHEN WE PLACE OUR TRUE FEELINGS AND BELIEFS IN FRONT OF THE COUNTRY THERE IS A SENSE OF "GUILT" THAT I BELIEVE INSTANTLY OVERCOMES MANY AMERICANS BECAUSE IT'S VERY HARD TO COME TO GRIPS WITH AMERICA'S PAST WHEN IT CONCERNS US. THE WAY THIS COUNTRY TREATED BLACKS CAN NOT BE DENIED AND THE TRUTH HURTS, HURTS BOTH WAYS: HURTS US TO REMEMBER, HURTS THEM TO BE REMINDED. AND THAT'S WHERE, TO ME, THE GUILT COMES IN. SO WHEN I "HOLD A MIRROR" AS YOU SAID, UP TO AMERICA, I UNDERSTAND THE REACTION FROM THOSE WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND OR DON'T WANT TO TAKE THE TIME TO UNDERSTAND WHERE I'M COMING FROM. I'M COMING FROM A PLACE THAT AT TIMES WILL MAKE THEM FEEL GUILT. AND IF WE ALL STUDIED THE NATURE OF HUMAN BEINGS AND HOW WE COMMUNICATE WITH ONE ANOTHER WE'D KNOW THAT ONE OF THE NATURAL REACTIONS TO GUILT IS DEFENSE... ESPECIALLY IF YOU FEEL THAT YOU ARE NOT DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR WHY THE GUILT EXISTS. AMERICA WANTS TO AND TRIES TO DISCONNECT ITSELF FROM IT'S PAST WITH US. THAT'S WHY YOU ALWAYS HEAR "WHY CAN'T YOU ALL GET PAST IT, YOU HAVE OPRAH, MICHAEL JORDAN, TIGER WOODS, KEN CHENAULT IS RUNNING ONE OF THE MAJOR COMPANIES IN THE WORLD, A BLACK COACH JUST WON THE SUPER BOWL, OBAMA IS A GREAT LEADER AND REPRESENTATIVE FOR YOU ALL, ETC." BUT THEY NEVER TAKE INCONSIDERATION THAT EACH ONE OF THE PEOPLE THEY MENTION IS ONE, NOT SEVERAL. AND IN THE SEARCH AND NEED FOR SOME FORM OF EQUALITY, ONE DOESN'T EQUAL MANY. FOR EVERY ONE AFRICAN-AMERICAN LEADER THAT IS THROWN IN OUR FACE TO FOLLOW AND BE SATISFIED WITH, THERE ARE 35-50
OTHER NON-AFRICAN AMERICANS THAT COUNTER THEIR PRESENCE AND EXISTENCE. YEAH, OBAMA IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, BUT HOW MANY BLACK GOVERNORS AND SENATORS DO WE HAVE IN AMERICA? SEE WHAT I'M SAYING OR TRYING TO GET AT? BUT MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY DON'T SEE IT THAT WAY, THEY SEE IT IN A WAY THAT "WE SHOULD BE HAPPY WITH OBAMA AND THAT'S IT. BE HAPPY THAT WE HAVE OPRAH, AND THAT'S IT. BE HAPPY THAT DENZEL HAS TWO OSCARS, AND THAT'S IT. AND THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO DEAL WITH, OR AT LEAST THAT'S THE WAY I LOOK AT IT IN ORDER TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THE REACTIONS AND RESPONSES I GET FOR WHAT I WRITE. I TRY TO BE VERY REASONABLE AND UNDERSTANDING OF PEOPLE'S RESPONSES WHEN THEY SAY I USE "REVERSE RACISM" TO GET MY POINTS ACROSS, BUT I'M NOT ALWAYS ACCEPTING OF IT. BUT JUST LIKE I WANT OR HOPE THAT PEOPLE SEE THINGS FROM MY VANTAGE POINT, I TRY TO DO THE SAME WITH OTHERS. I MAY AT TIMES WRITE THINGS THAT WILL UNINTENTIONALLY UPSET AND IRRITATE SOME PEOPLE AND ONCE I GET RESPONSES I TRY TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND SEE WHERE THEY ARE COMING FROM AND SEE WHERE THERE MAY BE SOME VALIDITY FROM THEIR VANTAGE POINT AND IN WHAT THEY ARE SAYING. AT THE SAME TIME, I HAVE TO STAY GROUNDED IN THE ORIGINAL BELIEF OF WHAT I WROTE. I KNOW IT'S NOT RIGHT, BECAUSE AS A JOURNALIST I'M SUPPOSED TO BE TOTALLY OBJECTIVE TO EVERYTHING, BUT I DO WRITE WITH A MINDSET OF WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF BLACK PEOPLE. THAT TO ME IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE MY OBLIGATION. SO WHEN I HEAR "REVERSE RACISM" I UNDERSTAND WHERE IT COMES FROM AND SOMETIMES - EVEN THOUGH I MIGHT DISAGREE WITH IT - I SEE WHERE THOSE THAT CLAIM IT CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION. BUT FOR ME IT'S BETTER TO NOT BE TOTALLY OBJECTIVE THAN TOTALLY OBLIVIOUS. LIKE EVERYTHING IS ALL GOOD. THE PLAYING FIELD IS NOT THAT LEVEL.
2. We notice in the comments section, and have seen on threads on a message board called sportsjournalists.com, complaints that you are a poor writer. For example, in your most recent column, you capitalized the 'c'in the word 'common' at the end of the sentence. This was obviously done as a reference to the popular musician, Common. But a lot of folks that read your columns don't understand your references, assume you made a mistake, and label you ignorant. Do you get any pleasure (we do) from knowing that those critics are unknowingly, yet overtly displaying their own ignorance -clearly showing that you are writing on a higher plane than they are capable of understanding?
THERE'S NEVER A PLEASURE WHEN PEOPLE THINK YOU ARE IGNORANT AND THERE'S NEVER A PLEASURE WHEN PEOPLE DON'T GET IT BECAUSE AS A WRITER YOU'D LIKE FOR THEM TO GET IT SO THAT THEY CAN ENJOY WHAT IT IS THAT YOU WROTE OR WHAT YOU WORKED ON. LIKE THE COMMON THING IN THE BONDS COLUMN THE OTHER DAY. THE SENTENCE WAS "...NOTHING TO STOP HIM FROM FINDING FOREVER IN THE NEXT NUMBER. I KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON IN HER MIND, WE HAD THAT MUCH IN COMMON." NOW COMMON'S NEW CD IS ENTITLED"FINDING FOREVER." SO OF COURSE FOR ME, AS A WRITER, I THOUGHT THE SENTENCE WAS SLICK, LIKE A CLEVER RHYME VERSE. BUT THERE WERE THOSE WHO GAVE ME SOME HEAT BECAUSE OF THE SPELLING OF COMMON BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T KNOW THE CONNECTION TO THE 'FINDING FOREVER" OR DIDN'T KNOW THAT HIS NEW CD WAS COMING OUT AND THAT WAS THE TITLE OR THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHO HE WAS. EITHER WAY, THEY DIDN'T "GET" THE WORD PLAY AND BECAUSE OF THAT TAGGED ME AS BEING "IGNORANT" AND A POOR WRITER. WHICH TO ME, I GET NO PLEASURE OUT OF BECAUSE THEY "MISSED" WHAT I THOUGHT - STILL THINK - IS A CREATIVE PART OF THE STORY. IT'S LIKE MISSING THE PUNCHLINE OF A JOKE. I GOT THE SAME THING WHEN I USED "BEAUTIFULLEST" IN THE TITLE OF ONE OF MY COLUMNS ABOUT A YEAR AGO. GOT ALL TYPES OF EMAILS TALKING ABOUT HOW I "BASTARDIZED" THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. AND SOME OF THOSE EMAILS CAME FROM PEOPLE WHO KNEW THE CONNECTION TO KEITH MURRAY'S SONG (THE MOST BEAUTIFULLEST THING IN THE WORLD), BUT STILL THEY DIDN'T CARE. THERE ARE TWO ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTION, ONE - AND I'M BEING VERY HONEST HERE - I THINK I AM A GOOD WRITER, BUT I AM A POOR TYPER. ALWAYS HAVE BEEN. (AND I'M NOT THE GREATEST SPELLER EITHER)IF YOU TALK TO THE EDITORS AND EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT AT ESPN THEY WILL TELL YOU THAT SOMEONE'S NAME WILL ALMOST ALWAYS BE MISSPELLED IN EVERY COLUMN I TURN IN. AT TIMES I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW IT HAPPENS BUT IT'S ALMOST BECOME STANDARD ON MY PART EVEN WHEN I DO EVERYTHING IN MY POWER TO AVOID IT. IT'S LIKE A CURSE. AND IT'S SOMETHING I DETEST BECAUSE I THINK IT'S DISRESPECTFUL TO THE PEOPLE I'M WRITING ABOUT AND TO THE EDITORS WHO ARE WORKING ON MY COPY. IT'S REALLY SOMETHING I NEED TO DO A MORE THOROUGH JOB OF EXECUTING, I'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR A WHILE. THAT SAID, TYPOS AND MISSPELLING THINGS IN TEXT ARE A PART OF THE GAME. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECTLY WRITTEN COLUMN OR STORY. WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE EDITORS, MANY OF THEM. AS WRITERS OUR JOBS IS TO CREATE AND OFTEN WE HAVE TO CREATE UNDER SERIOUS DEADLINES, SO IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO CREATE SOMETHING OF SUBSTANCE AND WORTH, WE MESS SOME WORDS UP OR SOME FACTS. EDITORS ARE THERE TO CORRECT THOSE BEFORE THE COPY GOES TO PRINT, PRESS OR POST. NOW MUCH LIKE WRITERS, THEY ARE WORKING ON CRAZY DEADLINES TOO, AND MORE THAN OFTEN WORKING ON MORE THAN ONE STORY AT A TIME. BUT IT'S THEIR JOB TO FIND THE FAULTS IN WHAT WE WRITE AND MAKE THE NECESSARY CHANGES, AND JUST LIKE US, THEY ARE NOT PERFECT... EVEN IF THERE'S MORE THAN ONE OR TWO THAT EDIT STORIES. WHAT'S FUNNY TO ME IS WHEN THERE'S A TYPO IN A COLUMN OR SOMETHING IS MISSPELLED HOW I, THE WRITER, GETS BLAMED AND CALLED "ILLITERATE" OR"IGNORANT" OR "A HORRIBLE, UNEDUCATED WRITER" AND SEVEN TO EIGHT OTHER PEOPLE READ AND CHECKED THE STORY/COLUMN BEFORE IT GOT POSTED BUT NONE OF THEM CATCHES ANY HEAT. NO FLAK. THAT'S WHAT MAKES ME LAUGH. WHEN PEOPLE READ SOMETHING THAT I WROTE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN A MISTAKE AND ACT LIKE I JUST WROTE THE COLUMN AND IT WENT DIRECTLY FROM MY COMPUTER ON TO THE SITE. BUT IF PEOPLE WANT TO CONCENTRATE ON THAT AND NOT LOOK AT THE CONTENT OR PAY ATTENTION TO THE OVER ALL MESSAGE OR HAVE HANG-UPS ABOUT THE DETAILS AS OPPOSED TO WHAT IS THE OVERALL CREATION OF THE COLUMN AND WHAT IT'S ATTEMPTING TO SAY, THEN SO BE IT. THERE'S NOTHING I CAN REALLY DO. I DO THINK IT'S UNFORTUNATE. IT'S LIKE RUN'S LINE IN "KING OF ROCK" WHERE HE SAID, "THERE ARE THREE OF US BUT WE'RE NOT THE BEATLES. "NOW WE ALL KNOW THERE WERE FOUR BEATLES, BUT SHOULD THAT ONE MISTAKE TAKE AWAY FROM HOW GREAT THE SONG WAS? I WOULDN'T BECAUSE I'D RATHER CONCENTRATE ON THE GENIUS OF THE SONG THAN FOCUS A SMALL MISTAKE THAT TO ME DOESN'T TAKE AWAY WHAT THEY WERE TRYNA DO. THE OTHER COMPONENT IN THIS IS THAT I HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT USED TO SEE WHAT I DO IN THE CONTEXT OF WHERE IT IS PRESENTED. JOURNALISM HAS NOT BEEN THE PLACE FOR CREATIVITY IN WRITING THE WAY I SOMETIMES PRESENT IT. BOOKS, PROBABLY. POETRY, PROBABLY. BUT IN MAINSTREAM JOURNALISM AT THE LEVEL OF AN ESPN, IT REALLY HASN'T BEEN SEEN, NOT EVEN WITH THE OPENNESS PAGE 2 HAS DEVELOPED ON ESPN.COM. SO WHEN I GET SOME OF THE RESPONSES I GET I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME OF IT COMES FROM WHAT I WROTE NOT BEING THE "NORMAL" PLACE WHERE THAT STYLE IS ACCEPTED OR BETTER YET SEEN. I GET TOLD ALL OF THE TIME, "LEAVE THAT --- AT SLAM, ESPN IS NOT THE PLACE FOR THE WAY YOU WRITE." IN THEIR MINDS I'M SUPPOSED TO CHANGE. MY PHILOSOPHY IS THAT, AND THIS IS AN UNDERSTANDING ME AND ESPN HAD FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, I AM ALLOWED TO BE ME. IT MIGHT TAKE SOME TIME, BUT IF I PROVIDE REALLY SOLID AND STRONG CONTENT THEN THE AUDIENCE WILL EVENTUALLY COME AROUND. THEY'LL GET IT. IT'S JUST GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME.
3. A while back, we interviewed Whitlock on here. In an effort to see how far your differences extend, we want to ask you a question that we asked him. And compare your answers. Which is the best 'cue: Memphis, Kansas City, Carolina or Mongolian?
THAT'S A HARD QUESTION TO ANSWER. I SAY THAT - AND PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT I LOVE GATES BBQ IN KC, KEEP A CASE OF THE SAUCE AT MY CRIB (HOUSE)- 'Q IS SUCH A PERSONAL MEAL THAT CHOOSING WHERE THE BEST 'Q IS FROM CAN'T BE DONE. IT'S ABOUT WHO COOKS THE 'Q, NOT THE PLACE. AS GOOD AS SOME OF THE SPOTS IN MEMPHIS, CHICAGO, CAROLINA, GEORGIA, ETC. ARE, NO COMMERCIAL BBQ IS GOING TO BE AS GOOD AS WHEN SOMEONE IS OVER THE GRILL AT A PICNIC OR IN A BACKYARD. I KNOW CATS THAT DO THAT FOR A LIVING THAT DON'T HAVE RESTAURANTS WHO'S 'Q IS BETTER THAN I'VE TASTED ANYWHERE. AND THAT CAN BE IN ANY STATE OR CITY, IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHO THE CHEF/COOK IS. PICKING THE PLACE THAT HAS THE BEST BBQ IS LIKE PICKING THE PLACE IN THE COUNTRY THAT HAS THE BEST BASKETBALL PLAYERS. IT CAN'T BE DONE.
4. Are you at all surprised at the vigor with which the federal government has pursued its case against Michael Vick? Particularly knowing that the very same government that is trying Vick for cruelty to animals allows the military to train dogs, with no concern for the dogs well being, to find explosives and fulfill other combat related roles. And dogs have been killed as a result.
WHAT I FIND MORE HYPOCRITICAL THAN ANYTHING ELSE CONCERNING THE VICK CASE IS HOW THE ORGANIZATIONS AND FEDS THAT ARE GOING AFTER HIM - SEEM TO BE ONLY GOING AFTER HIM!!! TO ME, THEY ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE WELL-BEING OF THE DOGS OR CONCERNED ABOUT STOPPING THE CULTURE OF DOG FIGHTING. THEIR CONCERN IS SINGULAR. THEY WANT VICK. THAT'S ALL. SO TO ME, THERE'S A DISINGENUOUSNESS TO THEIR APPROACH. TO ME IT'S EQUIVALENT TO THE GOVERNMENT BUILDING A WAR ON DRUGS STRATEGY AND GOING AFTER ONE DRUG DEALER OR THE RECORD INDUSTRY GOING AFTER ONE BOOTLEGGER OR THE MOVIE INDUSTRY GOING AFTER ONE COMPANY THAT'S PIRATING FILMS. THE REPORTS THAT HAVE COME OUT CONCERNING THE POPULARITY OF DOG FIGHTING IN THIS COUNTRY HAVE SAID (AND CONFIRMED BY PETA AND THE ANTI-CRUELTY SOCIETY) THAT DOG FIGHTING IS A BILLION-DOLLAR BUSINESS. DO WE REALLY THINK VICK HAS GENERATED CLOSE TO A BILLION DOLLARS WITH HIS BAD NEWZ KENNEL OPERATION? I'M NOT SAYING IT'S RIGHT AND NEITHER AM I PROTECTING VICK, BUT LET'S BE CLEAR: YES HE IS A BIG NAME, BUT I NEED TO SEE SOME OTHERS GETTING CRACKED DOWN ON BESIDES VICK TO MAKE ME BELIEVE THAT THE FEDS ARE CONCERNED WITH THE INHUMANENESS OF THE CULTURE AND NOT JUST CONVICTING ONE PERSON OF A CRIME.
5. Donovan McNabb recently took some heat for verbalizing his support for Michael Vick. He essentially stated that he hoped Vick hadn't done what he is accused of, and that he would like to see him back on the field. Due to the media's twisted representation of McNabb's statements, he was forced to clarify the next day that he was not supporting dog fighting.It has to be tempting for you to resort to the same type of tactics that the mainstream media uses (ie, spinning quotes and contexts). How are you able to rise above it and stick to painting an unbiased presentation that stays true to both yourself and reality?
I TRY VERY HARD TO APPROACH THINGS I WRITE ABOUT WITH CONSIDERING THE WHOLE OR AS CLOSE TO A COMPLETE PERSPECTIVE AS POSSIBLE. I'M NOT ALWAYS SUCCESSFUL, BUT I DO TRY ON ALL ACCOUNTS TO APPROACH WHAT I DO IN THAT MANNER. THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE I DON'T SEE A LOT OF US - JOURNALIST, MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA, ETC. - DOING THAT. THE CULTURE OF JOURNALISM - BE IT PRINT OR BROADCAST AND ESPECIALLY SPORTS JOURNALISM - NOW IS TO SAY WHATEVER AND HOPE THE AUDIENCE FALLS FOR IT. IT'S LIKE SAYING BONDS IS A CHEAT AND ACTING LIKE NO ONE ELSE IN BASEBALL IS CHEATING OR THAT THE COMMISSIONER ISN'T AS GUILTY BY DOING NOTHING ABOUT THE KNOWN STEROID USAGE WHEN IT ORIGINALLY BECAME EVIDENT; IT'S LIKE ONLY FOCUSING ON THE STUDENTS AND THE GIRL IN THE DUKE LACROSSE SITUATION AND ACTING LIKE THE UNIVERSITY - THE PRESIDENT, THE DEAN, THE CHANCELLOR, ETC. - HAD NO RESPONSIBILITY IN WHAT HAPPENED BY LETTING THE PLAYERS ON THAT TEAM BE AS OUT-OF-CONTROL AS THEY WERE FOR ALL THOSE YEARS; IT'S LIKE THE PICTURE THE MEDIA PAINTED OF THE CRIMINALITY DURING THE NBA ALL-STAR GAME IN VEGAS WITHOUT DOING THE RESEARCH TO FIND THAT THE ACTIVITY WAS ON PAR WITH WHAT USUALLY GOES DOWN IN VEGAS WHEN BIG EVENTS COME TO TOWN OR ON NEW YEARS EVE; IT'S LIKE BLAMING KOBE BRYANT FOR THE SITUATION THE LAKERS ARE IN AND NOT CONSIDERING THAT A BIG PART OF THE ORGANIZATION'S DOWNFALL IS BECAUSE THE OWNER AND GM TRADED SHAQ AWAY WITHOUT GETTING AT LEAST ONE ALL-STAR IN RETURN. I COULD GO ON AND ON. THERE'S A THEORIST BY THE NAME OF ELISABETH NOELLE-NEUMANN THAT CALLS THIS THE "PILLORY" FUNCTION OF THE MEDIA. IT'S THE FEELING OF BEING SCAPEGOAT'D BY THE MEDIA, ALMOST TO THE DEGREE THAT WE ARE HELD HELPLESS BY THE MEDIA BECAUSE AN ALTERNATIVE OR COUNTER POINT-OF-VIEW IS NON-EXISTENT OR SILENT. PART OF WHAT I TRY TO DO IS NOT BE A PART OF THAT SPIRAL OF SILENCE; TRY TO GIVE A VOICE TO VOICES OFTEN UNHEARD. SO TO "RISE ABOVE IT," AS YOU SAID, I TRY TO RISE ABOVE IT BY LOOKING TO SEE IF THE TOTAL PICTURE IS BEING PAINTED OR IF THERE'S A PERSPECTIVE TO A STORY THAT'S NOT BEING CONSIDERED. OFTEN TIMES WHEN I DO WRITE SOMETHING THAT COUNTERS WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED IN MASSES,PEOPLE THINK I'M WRITING JUST FOR THE SAKE OF CREATING SOME FORM OF CONTROVERSY. AND THAT'S OFTEN THE FURTHEST THING FROM THE TRUTH. OFTEN I JUST LOOK AT THE LANDSCAPE OF WHAT IS BEING COVERED AND SEE IF THERE IS A VOID IN MY MIND IN THAT COVERAGE. THAT'S ALL. FROM THERE I TRY TO FIND A CREATIVE AND SUBSTANTIAL WAY TO PRESENT IT. THE PROBLEM FOR MOST IS THAT I TOO OFTEN HAVE "WE" (READ ABOVE) IN MIND WHEN I DO THAT.
We put together an indepth interview with espn.com Page 2 and SLAM magazine columnist, Scoop Jackson.
We imagine that most of our readers are familiar with Scoop on some level.
As you read this, please keep in mind, that the interview was conducted via email and Scoop answered in caps, very informally.
What we are saying is....kill the noise and complaints about spelling and typos. We could have edited it, I suppose. But why? This was essentially an informal discussion, so we left it in that form.
We hope this gives you a better insight into probably the most maligned personality on espn.com.
Additionally, we think the last answer Scoop gives could effectively be applied to this site.
Enjoy.
And hit us back with your thoughts, impressions and suggestions for future interview subjects.
"hope this works. if you need anything else, let me know. answers are in caps. thanks!!!
-scoop"
1. We'll cut right to the chase. On espn.com's Page 2, you are known for your powerful opinions and are often accused of "reverse-racism". A term developed by the same institutions which, in an effort to perpetuate racism, deny its existence. It's the classic "i'm rubber and you're glue" defense, used by people that don't like what they see when you hold a mirror in front of them and force them to look at themselves. We often get the same response from some of our readers. We liken it to the "kill the messenger" analogy. In our minds, "reverse racism" is a term conjured as a self defense mechanism. Pulled from thin air to be used in instances in which the accuser has been met with an argument in which he is incapable of effectively engaging. It is less than an empty phrase. When you are accused of "reverse racism", does it have any meaning to you?
IT DEPENDS. I AGREE 100% WITH YOUR DEFINITION OF "REVERSE RACISM" BUT AT THE SAME TIME I DO BELIEVE IT EXISTS AND THAT WE (BLACK PEOPLE) ARE CAPABLE OF USING IT, ALTHOUGH OFTEN UNINTENTIONALLY. I'M MORE INCLINED TO GO WITH "GUILT" AS OPPOSED TO "SELF DEFENSE" AS THE MECHANISM USED FOR THE TERMS EXISTENCE. A LOT OF TIMES WHEN WE PLACE OUR TRUE FEELINGS AND BELIEFS IN FRONT OF THE COUNTRY THERE IS A SENSE OF "GUILT" THAT I BELIEVE INSTANTLY OVERCOMES MANY AMERICANS BECAUSE IT'S VERY HARD TO COME TO GRIPS WITH AMERICA'S PAST WHEN IT CONCERNS US. THE WAY THIS COUNTRY TREATED BLACKS CAN NOT BE DENIED AND THE TRUTH HURTS, HURTS BOTH WAYS: HURTS US TO REMEMBER, HURTS THEM TO BE REMINDED. AND THAT'S WHERE, TO ME, THE GUILT COMES IN. SO WHEN I "HOLD A MIRROR" AS YOU SAID, UP TO AMERICA, I UNDERSTAND THE REACTION FROM THOSE WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND OR DON'T WANT TO TAKE THE TIME TO UNDERSTAND WHERE I'M COMING FROM. I'M COMING FROM A PLACE THAT AT TIMES WILL MAKE THEM FEEL GUILT. AND IF WE ALL STUDIED THE NATURE OF HUMAN BEINGS AND HOW WE COMMUNICATE WITH ONE ANOTHER WE'D KNOW THAT ONE OF THE NATURAL REACTIONS TO GUILT IS DEFENSE... ESPECIALLY IF YOU FEEL THAT YOU ARE NOT DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR WHY THE GUILT EXISTS. AMERICA WANTS TO AND TRIES TO DISCONNECT ITSELF FROM IT'S PAST WITH US. THAT'S WHY YOU ALWAYS HEAR "WHY CAN'T YOU ALL GET PAST IT, YOU HAVE OPRAH, MICHAEL JORDAN, TIGER WOODS, KEN CHENAULT IS RUNNING ONE OF THE MAJOR COMPANIES IN THE WORLD, A BLACK COACH JUST WON THE SUPER BOWL, OBAMA IS A GREAT LEADER AND REPRESENTATIVE FOR YOU ALL, ETC." BUT THEY NEVER TAKE INCONSIDERATION THAT EACH ONE OF THE PEOPLE THEY MENTION IS ONE, NOT SEVERAL. AND IN THE SEARCH AND NEED FOR SOME FORM OF EQUALITY, ONE DOESN'T EQUAL MANY. FOR EVERY ONE AFRICAN-AMERICAN LEADER THAT IS THROWN IN OUR FACE TO FOLLOW AND BE SATISFIED WITH, THERE ARE 35-50
OTHER NON-AFRICAN AMERICANS THAT COUNTER THEIR PRESENCE AND EXISTENCE. YEAH, OBAMA IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, BUT HOW MANY BLACK GOVERNORS AND SENATORS DO WE HAVE IN AMERICA? SEE WHAT I'M SAYING OR TRYING TO GET AT? BUT MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY DON'T SEE IT THAT WAY, THEY SEE IT IN A WAY THAT "WE SHOULD BE HAPPY WITH OBAMA AND THAT'S IT. BE HAPPY THAT WE HAVE OPRAH, AND THAT'S IT. BE HAPPY THAT DENZEL HAS TWO OSCARS, AND THAT'S IT. AND THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO DEAL WITH, OR AT LEAST THAT'S THE WAY I LOOK AT IT IN ORDER TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THE REACTIONS AND RESPONSES I GET FOR WHAT I WRITE. I TRY TO BE VERY REASONABLE AND UNDERSTANDING OF PEOPLE'S RESPONSES WHEN THEY SAY I USE "REVERSE RACISM" TO GET MY POINTS ACROSS, BUT I'M NOT ALWAYS ACCEPTING OF IT. BUT JUST LIKE I WANT OR HOPE THAT PEOPLE SEE THINGS FROM MY VANTAGE POINT, I TRY TO DO THE SAME WITH OTHERS. I MAY AT TIMES WRITE THINGS THAT WILL UNINTENTIONALLY UPSET AND IRRITATE SOME PEOPLE AND ONCE I GET RESPONSES I TRY TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND SEE WHERE THEY ARE COMING FROM AND SEE WHERE THERE MAY BE SOME VALIDITY FROM THEIR VANTAGE POINT AND IN WHAT THEY ARE SAYING. AT THE SAME TIME, I HAVE TO STAY GROUNDED IN THE ORIGINAL BELIEF OF WHAT I WROTE. I KNOW IT'S NOT RIGHT, BECAUSE AS A JOURNALIST I'M SUPPOSED TO BE TOTALLY OBJECTIVE TO EVERYTHING, BUT I DO WRITE WITH A MINDSET OF WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF BLACK PEOPLE. THAT TO ME IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE MY OBLIGATION. SO WHEN I HEAR "REVERSE RACISM" I UNDERSTAND WHERE IT COMES FROM AND SOMETIMES - EVEN THOUGH I MIGHT DISAGREE WITH IT - I SEE WHERE THOSE THAT CLAIM IT CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION. BUT FOR ME IT'S BETTER TO NOT BE TOTALLY OBJECTIVE THAN TOTALLY OBLIVIOUS. LIKE EVERYTHING IS ALL GOOD. THE PLAYING FIELD IS NOT THAT LEVEL.
2. We notice in the comments section, and have seen on threads on a message board called sportsjournalists.com, complaints that you are a poor writer. For example, in your most recent column, you capitalized the 'c'in the word 'common' at the end of the sentence. This was obviously done as a reference to the popular musician, Common. But a lot of folks that read your columns don't understand your references, assume you made a mistake, and label you ignorant. Do you get any pleasure (we do) from knowing that those critics are unknowingly, yet overtly displaying their own ignorance -clearly showing that you are writing on a higher plane than they are capable of understanding?
THERE'S NEVER A PLEASURE WHEN PEOPLE THINK YOU ARE IGNORANT AND THERE'S NEVER A PLEASURE WHEN PEOPLE DON'T GET IT BECAUSE AS A WRITER YOU'D LIKE FOR THEM TO GET IT SO THAT THEY CAN ENJOY WHAT IT IS THAT YOU WROTE OR WHAT YOU WORKED ON. LIKE THE COMMON THING IN THE BONDS COLUMN THE OTHER DAY. THE SENTENCE WAS "...NOTHING TO STOP HIM FROM FINDING FOREVER IN THE NEXT NUMBER. I KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON IN HER MIND, WE HAD THAT MUCH IN COMMON." NOW COMMON'S NEW CD IS ENTITLED"FINDING FOREVER." SO OF COURSE FOR ME, AS A WRITER, I THOUGHT THE SENTENCE WAS SLICK, LIKE A CLEVER RHYME VERSE. BUT THERE WERE THOSE WHO GAVE ME SOME HEAT BECAUSE OF THE SPELLING OF COMMON BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T KNOW THE CONNECTION TO THE 'FINDING FOREVER" OR DIDN'T KNOW THAT HIS NEW CD WAS COMING OUT AND THAT WAS THE TITLE OR THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHO HE WAS. EITHER WAY, THEY DIDN'T "GET" THE WORD PLAY AND BECAUSE OF THAT TAGGED ME AS BEING "IGNORANT" AND A POOR WRITER. WHICH TO ME, I GET NO PLEASURE OUT OF BECAUSE THEY "MISSED" WHAT I THOUGHT - STILL THINK - IS A CREATIVE PART OF THE STORY. IT'S LIKE MISSING THE PUNCHLINE OF A JOKE. I GOT THE SAME THING WHEN I USED "BEAUTIFULLEST" IN THE TITLE OF ONE OF MY COLUMNS ABOUT A YEAR AGO. GOT ALL TYPES OF EMAILS TALKING ABOUT HOW I "BASTARDIZED" THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. AND SOME OF THOSE EMAILS CAME FROM PEOPLE WHO KNEW THE CONNECTION TO KEITH MURRAY'S SONG (THE MOST BEAUTIFULLEST THING IN THE WORLD), BUT STILL THEY DIDN'T CARE. THERE ARE TWO ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTION, ONE - AND I'M BEING VERY HONEST HERE - I THINK I AM A GOOD WRITER, BUT I AM A POOR TYPER. ALWAYS HAVE BEEN. (AND I'M NOT THE GREATEST SPELLER EITHER)IF YOU TALK TO THE EDITORS AND EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT AT ESPN THEY WILL TELL YOU THAT SOMEONE'S NAME WILL ALMOST ALWAYS BE MISSPELLED IN EVERY COLUMN I TURN IN. AT TIMES I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW IT HAPPENS BUT IT'S ALMOST BECOME STANDARD ON MY PART EVEN WHEN I DO EVERYTHING IN MY POWER TO AVOID IT. IT'S LIKE A CURSE. AND IT'S SOMETHING I DETEST BECAUSE I THINK IT'S DISRESPECTFUL TO THE PEOPLE I'M WRITING ABOUT AND TO THE EDITORS WHO ARE WORKING ON MY COPY. IT'S REALLY SOMETHING I NEED TO DO A MORE THOROUGH JOB OF EXECUTING, I'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR A WHILE. THAT SAID, TYPOS AND MISSPELLING THINGS IN TEXT ARE A PART OF THE GAME. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECTLY WRITTEN COLUMN OR STORY. WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE EDITORS, MANY OF THEM. AS WRITERS OUR JOBS IS TO CREATE AND OFTEN WE HAVE TO CREATE UNDER SERIOUS DEADLINES, SO IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO CREATE SOMETHING OF SUBSTANCE AND WORTH, WE MESS SOME WORDS UP OR SOME FACTS. EDITORS ARE THERE TO CORRECT THOSE BEFORE THE COPY GOES TO PRINT, PRESS OR POST. NOW MUCH LIKE WRITERS, THEY ARE WORKING ON CRAZY DEADLINES TOO, AND MORE THAN OFTEN WORKING ON MORE THAN ONE STORY AT A TIME. BUT IT'S THEIR JOB TO FIND THE FAULTS IN WHAT WE WRITE AND MAKE THE NECESSARY CHANGES, AND JUST LIKE US, THEY ARE NOT PERFECT... EVEN IF THERE'S MORE THAN ONE OR TWO THAT EDIT STORIES. WHAT'S FUNNY TO ME IS WHEN THERE'S A TYPO IN A COLUMN OR SOMETHING IS MISSPELLED HOW I, THE WRITER, GETS BLAMED AND CALLED "ILLITERATE" OR"IGNORANT" OR "A HORRIBLE, UNEDUCATED WRITER" AND SEVEN TO EIGHT OTHER PEOPLE READ AND CHECKED THE STORY/COLUMN BEFORE IT GOT POSTED BUT NONE OF THEM CATCHES ANY HEAT. NO FLAK. THAT'S WHAT MAKES ME LAUGH. WHEN PEOPLE READ SOMETHING THAT I WROTE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN A MISTAKE AND ACT LIKE I JUST WROTE THE COLUMN AND IT WENT DIRECTLY FROM MY COMPUTER ON TO THE SITE. BUT IF PEOPLE WANT TO CONCENTRATE ON THAT AND NOT LOOK AT THE CONTENT OR PAY ATTENTION TO THE OVER ALL MESSAGE OR HAVE HANG-UPS ABOUT THE DETAILS AS OPPOSED TO WHAT IS THE OVERALL CREATION OF THE COLUMN AND WHAT IT'S ATTEMPTING TO SAY, THEN SO BE IT. THERE'S NOTHING I CAN REALLY DO. I DO THINK IT'S UNFORTUNATE. IT'S LIKE RUN'S LINE IN "KING OF ROCK" WHERE HE SAID, "THERE ARE THREE OF US BUT WE'RE NOT THE BEATLES. "NOW WE ALL KNOW THERE WERE FOUR BEATLES, BUT SHOULD THAT ONE MISTAKE TAKE AWAY FROM HOW GREAT THE SONG WAS? I WOULDN'T BECAUSE I'D RATHER CONCENTRATE ON THE GENIUS OF THE SONG THAN FOCUS A SMALL MISTAKE THAT TO ME DOESN'T TAKE AWAY WHAT THEY WERE TRYNA DO. THE OTHER COMPONENT IN THIS IS THAT I HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT USED TO SEE WHAT I DO IN THE CONTEXT OF WHERE IT IS PRESENTED. JOURNALISM HAS NOT BEEN THE PLACE FOR CREATIVITY IN WRITING THE WAY I SOMETIMES PRESENT IT. BOOKS, PROBABLY. POETRY, PROBABLY. BUT IN MAINSTREAM JOURNALISM AT THE LEVEL OF AN ESPN, IT REALLY HASN'T BEEN SEEN, NOT EVEN WITH THE OPENNESS PAGE 2 HAS DEVELOPED ON ESPN.COM. SO WHEN I GET SOME OF THE RESPONSES I GET I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME OF IT COMES FROM WHAT I WROTE NOT BEING THE "NORMAL" PLACE WHERE THAT STYLE IS ACCEPTED OR BETTER YET SEEN. I GET TOLD ALL OF THE TIME, "LEAVE THAT --- AT SLAM, ESPN IS NOT THE PLACE FOR THE WAY YOU WRITE." IN THEIR MINDS I'M SUPPOSED TO CHANGE. MY PHILOSOPHY IS THAT, AND THIS IS AN UNDERSTANDING ME AND ESPN HAD FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, I AM ALLOWED TO BE ME. IT MIGHT TAKE SOME TIME, BUT IF I PROVIDE REALLY SOLID AND STRONG CONTENT THEN THE AUDIENCE WILL EVENTUALLY COME AROUND. THEY'LL GET IT. IT'S JUST GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME.
3. A while back, we interviewed Whitlock on here. In an effort to see how far your differences extend, we want to ask you a question that we asked him. And compare your answers. Which is the best 'cue: Memphis, Kansas City, Carolina or Mongolian?
THAT'S A HARD QUESTION TO ANSWER. I SAY THAT - AND PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT I LOVE GATES BBQ IN KC, KEEP A CASE OF THE SAUCE AT MY CRIB (HOUSE)- 'Q IS SUCH A PERSONAL MEAL THAT CHOOSING WHERE THE BEST 'Q IS FROM CAN'T BE DONE. IT'S ABOUT WHO COOKS THE 'Q, NOT THE PLACE. AS GOOD AS SOME OF THE SPOTS IN MEMPHIS, CHICAGO, CAROLINA, GEORGIA, ETC. ARE, NO COMMERCIAL BBQ IS GOING TO BE AS GOOD AS WHEN SOMEONE IS OVER THE GRILL AT A PICNIC OR IN A BACKYARD. I KNOW CATS THAT DO THAT FOR A LIVING THAT DON'T HAVE RESTAURANTS WHO'S 'Q IS BETTER THAN I'VE TASTED ANYWHERE. AND THAT CAN BE IN ANY STATE OR CITY, IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHO THE CHEF/COOK IS. PICKING THE PLACE THAT HAS THE BEST BBQ IS LIKE PICKING THE PLACE IN THE COUNTRY THAT HAS THE BEST BASKETBALL PLAYERS. IT CAN'T BE DONE.
4. Are you at all surprised at the vigor with which the federal government has pursued its case against Michael Vick? Particularly knowing that the very same government that is trying Vick for cruelty to animals allows the military to train dogs, with no concern for the dogs well being, to find explosives and fulfill other combat related roles. And dogs have been killed as a result.
WHAT I FIND MORE HYPOCRITICAL THAN ANYTHING ELSE CONCERNING THE VICK CASE IS HOW THE ORGANIZATIONS AND FEDS THAT ARE GOING AFTER HIM - SEEM TO BE ONLY GOING AFTER HIM!!! TO ME, THEY ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE WELL-BEING OF THE DOGS OR CONCERNED ABOUT STOPPING THE CULTURE OF DOG FIGHTING. THEIR CONCERN IS SINGULAR. THEY WANT VICK. THAT'S ALL. SO TO ME, THERE'S A DISINGENUOUSNESS TO THEIR APPROACH. TO ME IT'S EQUIVALENT TO THE GOVERNMENT BUILDING A WAR ON DRUGS STRATEGY AND GOING AFTER ONE DRUG DEALER OR THE RECORD INDUSTRY GOING AFTER ONE BOOTLEGGER OR THE MOVIE INDUSTRY GOING AFTER ONE COMPANY THAT'S PIRATING FILMS. THE REPORTS THAT HAVE COME OUT CONCERNING THE POPULARITY OF DOG FIGHTING IN THIS COUNTRY HAVE SAID (AND CONFIRMED BY PETA AND THE ANTI-CRUELTY SOCIETY) THAT DOG FIGHTING IS A BILLION-DOLLAR BUSINESS. DO WE REALLY THINK VICK HAS GENERATED CLOSE TO A BILLION DOLLARS WITH HIS BAD NEWZ KENNEL OPERATION? I'M NOT SAYING IT'S RIGHT AND NEITHER AM I PROTECTING VICK, BUT LET'S BE CLEAR: YES HE IS A BIG NAME, BUT I NEED TO SEE SOME OTHERS GETTING CRACKED DOWN ON BESIDES VICK TO MAKE ME BELIEVE THAT THE FEDS ARE CONCERNED WITH THE INHUMANENESS OF THE CULTURE AND NOT JUST CONVICTING ONE PERSON OF A CRIME.
5. Donovan McNabb recently took some heat for verbalizing his support for Michael Vick. He essentially stated that he hoped Vick hadn't done what he is accused of, and that he would like to see him back on the field. Due to the media's twisted representation of McNabb's statements, he was forced to clarify the next day that he was not supporting dog fighting.It has to be tempting for you to resort to the same type of tactics that the mainstream media uses (ie, spinning quotes and contexts). How are you able to rise above it and stick to painting an unbiased presentation that stays true to both yourself and reality?
I TRY VERY HARD TO APPROACH THINGS I WRITE ABOUT WITH CONSIDERING THE WHOLE OR AS CLOSE TO A COMPLETE PERSPECTIVE AS POSSIBLE. I'M NOT ALWAYS SUCCESSFUL, BUT I DO TRY ON ALL ACCOUNTS TO APPROACH WHAT I DO IN THAT MANNER. THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE I DON'T SEE A LOT OF US - JOURNALIST, MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA, ETC. - DOING THAT. THE CULTURE OF JOURNALISM - BE IT PRINT OR BROADCAST AND ESPECIALLY SPORTS JOURNALISM - NOW IS TO SAY WHATEVER AND HOPE THE AUDIENCE FALLS FOR IT. IT'S LIKE SAYING BONDS IS A CHEAT AND ACTING LIKE NO ONE ELSE IN BASEBALL IS CHEATING OR THAT THE COMMISSIONER ISN'T AS GUILTY BY DOING NOTHING ABOUT THE KNOWN STEROID USAGE WHEN IT ORIGINALLY BECAME EVIDENT; IT'S LIKE ONLY FOCUSING ON THE STUDENTS AND THE GIRL IN THE DUKE LACROSSE SITUATION AND ACTING LIKE THE UNIVERSITY - THE PRESIDENT, THE DEAN, THE CHANCELLOR, ETC. - HAD NO RESPONSIBILITY IN WHAT HAPPENED BY LETTING THE PLAYERS ON THAT TEAM BE AS OUT-OF-CONTROL AS THEY WERE FOR ALL THOSE YEARS; IT'S LIKE THE PICTURE THE MEDIA PAINTED OF THE CRIMINALITY DURING THE NBA ALL-STAR GAME IN VEGAS WITHOUT DOING THE RESEARCH TO FIND THAT THE ACTIVITY WAS ON PAR WITH WHAT USUALLY GOES DOWN IN VEGAS WHEN BIG EVENTS COME TO TOWN OR ON NEW YEARS EVE; IT'S LIKE BLAMING KOBE BRYANT FOR THE SITUATION THE LAKERS ARE IN AND NOT CONSIDERING THAT A BIG PART OF THE ORGANIZATION'S DOWNFALL IS BECAUSE THE OWNER AND GM TRADED SHAQ AWAY WITHOUT GETTING AT LEAST ONE ALL-STAR IN RETURN. I COULD GO ON AND ON. THERE'S A THEORIST BY THE NAME OF ELISABETH NOELLE-NEUMANN THAT CALLS THIS THE "PILLORY" FUNCTION OF THE MEDIA. IT'S THE FEELING OF BEING SCAPEGOAT'D BY THE MEDIA, ALMOST TO THE DEGREE THAT WE ARE HELD HELPLESS BY THE MEDIA BECAUSE AN ALTERNATIVE OR COUNTER POINT-OF-VIEW IS NON-EXISTENT OR SILENT. PART OF WHAT I TRY TO DO IS NOT BE A PART OF THAT SPIRAL OF SILENCE; TRY TO GIVE A VOICE TO VOICES OFTEN UNHEARD. SO TO "RISE ABOVE IT," AS YOU SAID, I TRY TO RISE ABOVE IT BY LOOKING TO SEE IF THE TOTAL PICTURE IS BEING PAINTED OR IF THERE'S A PERSPECTIVE TO A STORY THAT'S NOT BEING CONSIDERED. OFTEN TIMES WHEN I DO WRITE SOMETHING THAT COUNTERS WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED IN MASSES,PEOPLE THINK I'M WRITING JUST FOR THE SAKE OF CREATING SOME FORM OF CONTROVERSY. AND THAT'S OFTEN THE FURTHEST THING FROM THE TRUTH. OFTEN I JUST LOOK AT THE LANDSCAPE OF WHAT IS BEING COVERED AND SEE IF THERE IS A VOID IN MY MIND IN THAT COVERAGE. THAT'S ALL. FROM THERE I TRY TO FIND A CREATIVE AND SUBSTANTIAL WAY TO PRESENT IT. THE PROBLEM FOR MOST IS THAT I TOO OFTEN HAVE "WE" (READ ABOVE) IN MIND WHEN I DO THAT.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Scoop Jackson: Defiance Personified
We take a lot of heat for our exuberant defense of individual rights. For our never ending struggle to try to persuade the rest of America to see past skin color. For making the clear, undeniable case that the struggle for civil rights has only just begun. That it isn't over. That it is everywhere. That if it isn't in plain site, we will find a way to expose it.
Blogfrica is a hot continent. Heat does not bother us.
We are told that we are biased. That we always stick up for the Negro, no matter the circumstances.
But, for the non-racists, it is clear that we stand up for wronged individuals. Misrepresented individuals.
Some of whom happen to be Negroes.
While the voice of NOIS resonates throughout Blogfrica, perhaps the most influential and admired voice that stands for the rights of wronged individuals in sports is that of Scoop Jackson.
Long renowned for his poetic outlook on the world of sports, Mr. Jackson is often at the forefront of any defense of young athletes that are mistakenly (whether purposely or not) portrayed by the media in a negative light. Jackson was the first to point out that the caustic outrage and fear relayed by the media in its reporting of this year past's NBA all star festivities was sensationalized and opportunistic. That it was conveyed in a manner meant to degrade the cultural relevance of 'hip hop' and purposely fabricated to ensure that white America retain a healthy fear of young Negro males.
Mr. Jackson has also eloquently pleaded his case of why it is important to root for the Williams sisters when they take the court. He makes the case that, in reality, it is an obligation. That it is a matter of self preservation.
Well, Mr. Jackson has now eloquently and inarguably educated us on the Bonds saga.
Bonds hit 754. I finally bought a jersey; had to -- an official Russell Authentic game jersey, size 44. The hate he was receiving had reached a point of insanity. The business of baseball had made this personal. "Behind every great fortune there is a crime." "Godfather" speak. Balzac. In a culture of wrongdoing in the game, Bonds was being singled out. So I dropped $250 in the name of defiance. The same defiance made us support O.J. even if we thought he was guilty and not abandon Al Sharpton when we knew he was wrong about Tawana.
Can you see? It isn't about right or wrong. Those that would pretend that Bonds has done something wrong miss the complete picture. He was a part of something wrong to begin with! Just as O.J. and Al Sharpton were.
Al Sharpton was fighting racism. He was fighting the imagined mistreatment of a young Negro woman. Reality isn't even something that should have been brought into the picture. To suggest or accept that Sharpton should be held accountable for championing a fallacious tale would be to suggest that it would be wrong to fight racism.
The only appropriate response is defiance. "The story is not true? So what. Racism exists in this country. That's the truth."
O.J. was tried by a system which was not perfect. Material evidence? DNA evidence? What does it matter? If the system had inconsistencies or corruptions within it, then the only appropriate response was to support him. And, in the end, the system proved that the defiance was a fair and reasonable reaction. Despite the evidence, he was acquitted! What more proof of a faulty and questionable system was necessary to validate the supportive defiance?
So, Mr. Jackson's purchase and wearing of a Bonds' jersey is an act of the type of social defiance that has made any gains for Negroes in America possible.
Racist? No. Protective? No doubt. Overprotective? Probably. Wrong? Please. Defiance is part of the existence of who we are. It becomes part of our DNA in times like this, when one of our own seems to be rightfully accused but wrongly treated. It's a convoluted, twisted sense of purpose fueled by a sanctimonious and overtly self-righteous coverage of someone who may have committed a sin in the hell baseball had become. We are defiant in times like these because others are being made saints and bigger heroes at the expense of Bonds. Aaron has entered some sort of mythical sainthood. A-Rod all of a sudden is as pure as Rahsaan Patterson's voice or Don Cheadle's acting. We are defiant in times like these because even when we have advantages, the playing field is not level, not for us.
Mr. Jackson makes the case that being defiant in the support of a fellow Negro, who may well be completely wrong, is not a racist act. It can't be. And understand why.
It can't be a racist act because, regardless of the right or wrong, odds are that the Negro is not being treated fairly. And that is the racist act! Supporting the wrongly treated Negro by defiantly standing up for him despite his guilt or own wrong actions is fighting racism.
Supporting Bonds. Supporting Michael Vick. Neither is a commentary on whether what they did is wrong or right. Because it doesn't matter. The defiance is about creating equality.
So, when you read about someone supporting Vick or praising Bonds, realize that dog fighting or steroids aren't a part of the equation. Understand, that the defiant support in the face of the accusations is about fairness. It is about achieving equal treatment. Accept that the suggestion that one is supporting either man simply because he is a Negro is the racist act.
The defiant support with complete disregard for accountability of action or wrong doing is an attempt to bring America together. It is an effort to demonstrate that skin color does not matter. That we all should be treated equally.
A young black man at a public library had on a Michael Vick jersey one day last week. I walked up to him, thinking about my Bonds jersey. Said, "You big for wearing that." He simply said, "Thanks." Then, almost as an afterthought, he said, "I think he's guilty as hell, but I still got his back."
We too had something in common. As we should.
As we all should.
Have his back.
Regardless of his skin color.
Regardless of right or wrong.
It's not what you do, it's how you are treated after you do it.
We defy you to suggest otherwise.
Blogfrica is a hot continent. Heat does not bother us.
We are told that we are biased. That we always stick up for the Negro, no matter the circumstances.
But, for the non-racists, it is clear that we stand up for wronged individuals. Misrepresented individuals.
Some of whom happen to be Negroes.
While the voice of NOIS resonates throughout Blogfrica, perhaps the most influential and admired voice that stands for the rights of wronged individuals in sports is that of Scoop Jackson.
Long renowned for his poetic outlook on the world of sports, Mr. Jackson is often at the forefront of any defense of young athletes that are mistakenly (whether purposely or not) portrayed by the media in a negative light. Jackson was the first to point out that the caustic outrage and fear relayed by the media in its reporting of this year past's NBA all star festivities was sensationalized and opportunistic. That it was conveyed in a manner meant to degrade the cultural relevance of 'hip hop' and purposely fabricated to ensure that white America retain a healthy fear of young Negro males.
Mr. Jackson has also eloquently pleaded his case of why it is important to root for the Williams sisters when they take the court. He makes the case that, in reality, it is an obligation. That it is a matter of self preservation.
Well, Mr. Jackson has now eloquently and inarguably educated us on the Bonds saga.
Bonds hit 754. I finally bought a jersey; had to -- an official Russell Authentic game jersey, size 44. The hate he was receiving had reached a point of insanity. The business of baseball had made this personal. "Behind every great fortune there is a crime." "Godfather" speak. Balzac. In a culture of wrongdoing in the game, Bonds was being singled out. So I dropped $250 in the name of defiance. The same defiance made us support O.J. even if we thought he was guilty and not abandon Al Sharpton when we knew he was wrong about Tawana.
Can you see? It isn't about right or wrong. Those that would pretend that Bonds has done something wrong miss the complete picture. He was a part of something wrong to begin with! Just as O.J. and Al Sharpton were.
Al Sharpton was fighting racism. He was fighting the imagined mistreatment of a young Negro woman. Reality isn't even something that should have been brought into the picture. To suggest or accept that Sharpton should be held accountable for championing a fallacious tale would be to suggest that it would be wrong to fight racism.
The only appropriate response is defiance. "The story is not true? So what. Racism exists in this country. That's the truth."
O.J. was tried by a system which was not perfect. Material evidence? DNA evidence? What does it matter? If the system had inconsistencies or corruptions within it, then the only appropriate response was to support him. And, in the end, the system proved that the defiance was a fair and reasonable reaction. Despite the evidence, he was acquitted! What more proof of a faulty and questionable system was necessary to validate the supportive defiance?
So, Mr. Jackson's purchase and wearing of a Bonds' jersey is an act of the type of social defiance that has made any gains for Negroes in America possible.
Racist? No. Protective? No doubt. Overprotective? Probably. Wrong? Please. Defiance is part of the existence of who we are. It becomes part of our DNA in times like this, when one of our own seems to be rightfully accused but wrongly treated. It's a convoluted, twisted sense of purpose fueled by a sanctimonious and overtly self-righteous coverage of someone who may have committed a sin in the hell baseball had become. We are defiant in times like these because others are being made saints and bigger heroes at the expense of Bonds. Aaron has entered some sort of mythical sainthood. A-Rod all of a sudden is as pure as Rahsaan Patterson's voice or Don Cheadle's acting. We are defiant in times like these because even when we have advantages, the playing field is not level, not for us.
Mr. Jackson makes the case that being defiant in the support of a fellow Negro, who may well be completely wrong, is not a racist act. It can't be. And understand why.
It can't be a racist act because, regardless of the right or wrong, odds are that the Negro is not being treated fairly. And that is the racist act! Supporting the wrongly treated Negro by defiantly standing up for him despite his guilt or own wrong actions is fighting racism.
Supporting Bonds. Supporting Michael Vick. Neither is a commentary on whether what they did is wrong or right. Because it doesn't matter. The defiance is about creating equality.
So, when you read about someone supporting Vick or praising Bonds, realize that dog fighting or steroids aren't a part of the equation. Understand, that the defiant support in the face of the accusations is about fairness. It is about achieving equal treatment. Accept that the suggestion that one is supporting either man simply because he is a Negro is the racist act.
The defiant support with complete disregard for accountability of action or wrong doing is an attempt to bring America together. It is an effort to demonstrate that skin color does not matter. That we all should be treated equally.
A young black man at a public library had on a Michael Vick jersey one day last week. I walked up to him, thinking about my Bonds jersey. Said, "You big for wearing that." He simply said, "Thanks." Then, almost as an afterthought, he said, "I think he's guilty as hell, but I still got his back."
We too had something in common. As we should.
As we all should.
Have his back.
Regardless of his skin color.
Regardless of right or wrong.
It's not what you do, it's how you are treated after you do it.
We defy you to suggest otherwise.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
LeBron: What "It" Means
For those of you that don't go over to Page 2 on ESPN.com much anymore (and let's face it, other than the frat boys going to read Simmons and those that want to be informed going read Scoop, not many visit), we wanted to point something out.
Scoop's latest column, "The Meaning of LeBron", is must read material.
The column highlights the many levels of significance of LeBron's imposition of his will on the game. From the importance to the city of Cleveland to resurgence of the NBA itself.
"It means there's hope. Like an India.Arie song. There's hope for the game. Hope there will be a future as long as he plays, that all is not lost. There's hope that NASCAR, the PGA, Ultimate Fighting, the X Games and all the other sports that seem to have passed the NBA in popularity might have to start paying attention. Because the days of old, the game Jordan built, may be coming back."
Scoop poetically paints the canvas with the complete picture of the importance of what transpired in the Cleveland-Detroit series. Eloquently, he addressed the sports, pop culture, civic and personal significance of what blossomed before our very eyes.
But what else does it mean?
It means that, in spite of the NBA pushing Steve Nash, Dirk and their "suspect" MVP trophies down our throats, the fans want LeBron as the face of the NBA.
It means that the most important, most followed, most necessary players aren't necessarily the one's the league would prefer us to swallow.
It means that those big companies that dole out lucrative endorsement deals and tie their own identity to the identity of the players fans most relate to, care about and want to emulate have researched the market. And Steve and Dirk aren't who the fans want to witness.
It means that Scoop is correct. That if the NBA "hopes" to stay relevant in the face of all the entities he mentioned; then a face like LeBron's is the only hope the league has.
It means a face like LeBron's is the only face capable of replacing a face like Michael's.
It means that LeBron's is the face of "our" league.
It means the NBA might be in trouble.
Scoop's latest column, "The Meaning of LeBron", is must read material.
The column highlights the many levels of significance of LeBron's imposition of his will on the game. From the importance to the city of Cleveland to resurgence of the NBA itself.
"It means there's hope. Like an India.Arie song. There's hope for the game. Hope there will be a future as long as he plays, that all is not lost. There's hope that NASCAR, the PGA, Ultimate Fighting, the X Games and all the other sports that seem to have passed the NBA in popularity might have to start paying attention. Because the days of old, the game Jordan built, may be coming back."
Scoop poetically paints the canvas with the complete picture of the importance of what transpired in the Cleveland-Detroit series. Eloquently, he addressed the sports, pop culture, civic and personal significance of what blossomed before our very eyes.
But what else does it mean?
It means that, in spite of the NBA pushing Steve Nash, Dirk and their "suspect" MVP trophies down our throats, the fans want LeBron as the face of the NBA.
It means that the most important, most followed, most necessary players aren't necessarily the one's the league would prefer us to swallow.
It means that those big companies that dole out lucrative endorsement deals and tie their own identity to the identity of the players fans most relate to, care about and want to emulate have researched the market. And Steve and Dirk aren't who the fans want to witness.
It means that Scoop is correct. That if the NBA "hopes" to stay relevant in the face of all the entities he mentioned; then a face like LeBron's is the only hope the league has.
It means a face like LeBron's is the only face capable of replacing a face like Michael's.
It means that LeBron's is the face of "our" league.
It means the NBA might be in trouble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)