Beef
Ahem...
I think that this beef is more like hand-slapping and pulled weaves over some dude than the last half-hour of Bad Boys 2 (and I'd go to Afghanistan/Lebanon/Iraq/Southside Houston, TX for Gabrielle Union... sorry, too personal there). Yet, the recent tiff between ESPN Page 2 columnist Scoop Jackson and former P2/Sports Reporters panelist and Kansas City Star scribe Jason Whitlock presents an interesting conversation piece when it comes to the landscape of not only sports media, but undertones between and within the races. While you may or may not share the opinions of either writer (and I think I can predict where many of us lie for both), one thing is clear: opinions are like one of those, everyone's got one.
This 'beef' essentially was brought to light a few months ago with a study conducted (and reported on) from Richard Lapchick, a regular commentator on diversity in sports. Not too long ago, the Associated Press Sports Editors asked for a comprehensive study regarding the diversity within the sports sections of the major newspapers in the United States and Canada. According to the study of the 305 major dailies, twelve percent of the staffers are African-American and further, comprise of only four sports editor positions. While there are many more statistics on Latinos, Asians and women, it was this specific point that spurred an article from Mr. Jackson. Jackson opens up with a discussion he has with many high schoolers where he asks them how many players are in the NBA. About 300 (350 in reality). He follows with a challenge to come up with 300 black sportswriters.
Surprisingly, none of them could name me. My own paper couldn't name me.
What sparked the ire of Mr. Whitlock was:
"Do you know why you can't name 300 black sportswriters?" I say to them. "Because 300 of us don't exist."
The room becomes less quiet. Mumbling. Private conversations break out.
Then I make the point: "Which means you all have a better chance to make it to the NBA than you do doing what I do for a living."
Whitlock's retort in the Star bordered on libel against Jackson, even though he has a valid argument on how the numbers of black sport scribes can increase. What had him booted from Page 2 was his interview on The Big Lead, a sports media/industry insider website (think People for jocks) in which he lambasts Jackson, Mike Lupica and anyone that he felt was jockeying for a paycheck while sacrificing integrity.
And Arsenio Hall would say "things that make you go hmmmm..."
At day's end, Whitlock is with AOL Sports and Jackson is getting back into the NBA grind for ESPN. Why does all of this matter? Without going in-depth of speculating, here's the gravy: if there are few minority voices as is reporting on an industry that is dominated by minority players, then why would both be at odds in trying to provide new voices? This is where as much as race may prove the be the sole reason, there is always something else at play. Apparently, they did not like each other from the start and there had been something brewing for a long time. Possibly both were looking at ESPN as platforms for their own views and their paths crossed. With the media loving to discuss itself (as I am doing so now), the story has Ben Johnson's legs. Again, at day's end, both are separate and working towards fufilling their audiences.
Maybe Royce Da 5'9 has a different point of view on this verbal jousting.
Okay, maybe Scoop proverbially stepped on JW's crispy white Uptowns/Air Force Ones. Maybe he believes that he is carrying the mantle of the late Ralph Wiley. If Whitlock's critique of Jackson's writing is correct or not is subjective and sounds more like a English teacher expecting a young Shakespeare in every class every fall. Maybe Whitlock is continuing to be the antagonist for the sake of being the antagonist. Maybe he thinks that he is the only black person in the country that is speaking truth. If Jackson fits some role that ESPN or any outlet believes represents all black sports fans, then where did Whitlock fit in the first place, considering that he sounds less like any black fan you might know? Jackson is known because of his hip-hop crested spin on sports where as Whitlock is known for being a voice of dissention. Neither are known for being Edward R. Murrow. Both feel that they reflect some truth. The funny thing about the truth is that you cannot tell the truth about anyone until you can tell the truth about yourself. So let's hear the real truth.
They flat out didn't like each other.
With every label I could attach to myself, I can talk about how I hope to represent neglected or unheralded groups of sports fans through my work. I can delve into my sports politics and how they compare and contrast to people from Harlem to Helsinki. It would be easy to break down how sports fans differ across all denominations and nations. Yet, that would fall prey to feeling myself a bit too much, trying to display range and verbal skills that are still forming at the age of twenty-four. Both Whitlock and Jackson may need to look into the truth of themselves for a moment and look broader into the truth of the sports media business. No matter how many racial epithets can be thrown and no matter how much dislike there is between them, both need to remember what it took for them to become trusted by their audiences. Remember that since there are few scribes that look like them, they should stop postulating and start encouraging. This is no kumbaya or peace talk, however, a feud like this won't necessarily help matters. As I hope that someday, I can help find unique voices to fill the void, these men have that recognized that responsibility, but need to accept it. Just keep personal animosity out of it.
Say What?!?!: Since this was a rather lengthy piece, I'll leave you with a homework assignment. Read this. Try not to laugh. Seriously.
posted by Jason Clinkscales @ 11:01 PM
0 comments
