Thursday, November 20, 2014

Please Remove Whitlock

Though it is typically not my intent to disparage anyone, I have been so terribly disappointed by ESPN’s decision to continue to use Jason Whitlock in any capacity that I don’t mind in this case.  Indeed I often disagree with his take on sports, but I’m most disturbed by his ventures into social analysis; an area where he has often been demonstrated to be flat wrong, historically/factually incorrect and where his inaccurate and disparaging speculations have done tremendous damage to individuals as well as groups of people.  Instead of just venting in a column about it here at The Vortex, a few months back I wrote ESPN’s Ombudsman to express my displeasure.  Unfortunately ESPN seems bent on retaining Whitlock and, to the dismay of anyone who ever cared about facts and/or black people, letting Whitlock head up a “Black ESPN” site, similar to espnW, ESPN's site dedicated to women in sports (see the recent hire for the site: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/11/mike-wise-espn-jason-whitlock-washington-post).  Thus I’m posting the letter that I wrote the Ombudsman (see below).  

I should point out that I’m far from the only person who has expressed their disgust concerning Whitlock.  For greater context, you can find some other columns concerning Whitlock by following these links:





Dear ESPN Ombudsman, Mr. Robert Lipsyte,

I was delighted to see that ESPN hired someone with your credentials as Ombudsman.  Your many decades of journalism, particularly as it pertains to issues of race, I think lend great credibility to the station; especially because race and sports often meet in both good and bad ways.  Back in March I read your column “Give fans what they want, or should have?”  In the column, you mention ESPN’s “The N-Word” special that featured Michael Wilbon and Jason Whitlock as panelists.  You also ended your column by stating “I look forward to Whitlock’s new site, which he sees as a home for black journalists and fans.”  I would like you to know that I do not look forward to anything Whitlock ever has to say, especially on the issue of race, and I hope this letter makes it clear to you why.  Although it’s been several months since I read your column, and I thought to write you then, I have been, and continued to be, deeply disturbed by ESPN’s insistence on using commentator Jason Whitlock.  So I’m writing you now. 

I am bothered by Jason Whitlock’s presence as a substitute host for Pardon The Interruption (PTI) and as a writer for the network because he has an incredibly horrible track record of making insensitive racial and social comments.  Not only has he been insensitive in these arenas, he is also often factually false when expressing his views on these topics.  Given that ESPN dismissed Rob Parker last year on the basis (at least in part) that he made racially tinged comments directed at NFL player Robert Griffin III (RG3), I would have thought as a matter of consistency that ESPN would not hire someone like Whitlock given his long, extensive and egregious track record of racially insensitive and inaccurate statements.

Let me say at the outset, although I do draw the Rob Parker comparison several times in this letter, please don’t miss my point.  Whether or not there was ever a Rob Parker (whom I was aware of and saw on the network numerous times, but never cared to follow), Jason Whitlock is not a credible writer or commentator on the merits of what he’s said and written in the past.  This is about Whitlock’s deplorable track-record, not simply a lowest-common denominator comparison.

I could list numerous times when Whitlock has made ginormous missteps.  I won’t even get into the over-the-top and out of bounds and on its face wrong racially incendiary comments he made concerning the circumstances that caused the death of NFL player Sean Taylor in 2007 – a circumstance in which he violated every rule of human decency and compassion, while violating every basic rule of journalism, like getting your facts straight.  But for simplicity sake, I'll focus this letter on his 2013 comments aimed at NBA player Jeremy Lin.  Following a superb performance that added to the so-called 'Linsanity,' Whitlock tweeted the following:

'Some lucky lady in NYC is gonna feel a couple inches of pain tonight.'

This statement was an obvious reference to the stereotype that Asian men have small penises (Lin is of Asian descent).

Instead of apologizing for this insensitive infraction, Whitlock responded with a very convoluted response that raised numerous other problems. In part, he said

'...I then gave in to another part of my personality — my immature, sophomoric, comedic nature. It's been with me since birth, a gift from my mother and honed as a child listening to my godmother's Richard Pryor albums. I still want to be a standup comedian...'

Apparently that’s what qualifies as an apology in Whitlock’s mind (you can find his full “apology” online with a simple google search).  Again, I point out that Rob Parker was dismissed from ESPN with the racially charged statements directed at RG3 specifically cited as part of the rationale for his dismissal.  Yet, several months later, Jason Whitlock was re-hired despite his racial stereotype comment directed at Asian-American NBA player Jeremy Lin?  How in the world are those two realities reconcilable?? I fail to see how Whitlock's comment directed at Lin (and the disconcerting non-apology that followed) is somehow more desirable than Parker's comments to RG3.

Part of the irony in Whitlock’s non-apology is his apparent admiration for Richard Pryor who is THE GUY who made the use of the ‘n-word’ prolific amongst black people as a term of endearment through his comedy sketches. 

In February, I watched ESPN’s Black History Month special about “The N-Word.”  Although I tuned in with intrigue, the show immediately lost credibility when I saw Whitlock was present as a part of the panel.  Once again, I don’t understand why or how someone with his track record was ever allowed into this discussion.  As I watched, I heard Whitlock literally fabricate a reality based on his position.  I am specifically referring to his insistence that (and this is a paraphrase) ‘the last word that a black man heard when he was killed by a white lynch mob last century is the same last word that he hears when he’s killed by another black man in the streets today.’ 

REALLY??? 

What an incredibly ridiculous simplification of reality.  That statement has so many flaws and it was completely unsubstantiated by Whitlock with any facts or evidence (mostly because it can’t be substantiated with any facts or evidence because the facts and evidence do not agree with this statement).  This very flawed statement (that Whitlock stated as matter of fact) ignores an enormous amount of tangible, documented data concerning circumstances in which black men have been killed in the last century up to today.  It also ignores the fact that white people use the term, often with hateful intent (e.g. NFL player Riley Cooper, comedian Michael Richards).  His view of the n-word makes it seem as though only ignorant, young, hip-hop generation black people use the term AND that the term can ONLY be used with maliciousness.  This is despite the fact that his friend, Michael Wilbon is not young or from the hip-hop generation, and he is not ignorant about the term and the ways it has been used, yet Wilbon uses the term ‘every day,’ including using it as a term of endearment.

Whitlock, who often speaks in a cavalier, 'I know it all' manner was also false in his characterization of the n-word's history. He said the history is rooted in hatred. It actually is not. The term was used for millennia as merely a word to describe someone who was of dark skinned African descent. For example, the word from whence it is derived is used in the Bible to describe Simeon the Niger (Acts 13:1). The term is Latin in origin and simply meant black. It was not until the turn of the 20th century that it began to be used by white people toward black people with hateful spite. (As a side note, I was also disappointed in Bob Ley and all the panelists for not knowing this fact prior to commencing the special).

In general I agree that anyone who wants to be respected should refrain from using the term.  However, I don’t need to make up scenarios in order to espouse that position.  The Sunday after “The N-Word” special aired, I heard John Saunders commentary on “The Sports Reporters” about how the word shouldn’t be used.  Why not use John Saunders as a panelist on “The N-Word” special?  Why not Chauncey Billups, who appeared briefly in the special and claimed that same position?  There are any number of other credible writers, athletes and journalists who could have represented the position Whitlock represented who don’t have the deplorable history of racial falsehoods and missteps in their background that Whitlock has, and who wouldn’t have made up scenarios to make the same point.  Why use Whitlock?

And I guess that’s the big mystery as well as the big point I want to make.  Whitlock is not necessary!  There are hundreds and hundreds of journalists who are credible and don’t have a terrible track record like Whitlock; many of them already work at ESPN, and there are many that don’t work there who would jump at the opportunity to be ESPN employees.  Whitlock brings nothing positive to the table that couldn’t be provided by other commentators.  Whitlock just brings discredit and dishonor to the station, as I hope I’ve outlined here.  I could continue discussing his disparaging comments about Scoop Jackson and Mike Lupica (which apparently got him fired from ESPN before), or his incredibly flawed, arrogant and condescending statements about DeSean Jackson when he appeared on PTI earlier this year following Jackson’s “gang-ties” controversy.  Whitlock’s journalistic ‘rap sheet’ is long and terrible!!!

And I'm certain all the things I've written about here are things that ESPN was cognizant of when the network decided to re-hire him. Which makes his hiring all the more disappointing (and confusing when considering the previous dismissal of Rob Parker).  I think ESPN really should consider the following questions:

1.       What are the standards for hiring someone and firing someone?  If Rob Parker can be suspended and then removed for questioning a player’s relationship to their race, can the station then hire someone who has specifically targeted a player with a demeaning stereotypical racial jab and who has a documented history of poor racial understanding?

2.       Knowing that issues of race, class and politics often intertwine with sports, teams and athletes, considering his record, is Jason Whitlock really the guy you want speaking on those topics when they collide with sports?

Finally, I have been an avid and ‘religious’ viewer of the PTI program since its inception, but I find his presence very disturbing.  And so, although my personal protests and objections will probably go unnoticed and seem insignificant to a station with the large following that ESPN has, ESPN loses this diligent viewer of PTI each time Whitlock appears on the program.  As the Ombudsman, I sincerely hope you give what I’ve written some time, some thought, research it, and discuss it with management there at the station.

I thank you kindly for reading.

Sincerely,

Maelstrom

No comments: