Predictably, Jason Whitlock has offered up his take on the Erin Andrews fiasco. I don’t like Jason Whitlock. I actually think he’s a gifted writer, but he’s just a pot-stirrer. It bothers me to no end that such a controversial-for-the-sake-of-controversy personality can be considered legitimate. Whitlock carefully crafts an image that he’s a level-headed champion of truth, scrawling late into the night in his notebook of superior reason. However, the picture of Jason Whitlock is more likely to resemble an obsessive blog-refresher in a coffee shop that giggles while typing and manhandling pastries. Clearly, he’s a f*cking softy masquerading as a man with a big… pen.
His piece talks about the Erin Andrews incident for MAYBE 200 words — and it even has a photoshopped picture (Dan Levy destroys Whitlock for this) of Whitlock looking through a keyhole at Andrews. However, Whitlock manages to take a sharp right turn and go on an anti-blog, race baiting tirade that finishes with a love tap to ESPN’s jaw. Initially, he chooses to excoriate Deadspin contributors AJ Daulerio and Will Leitch. This quickly breaks down into Whitlock chastising the site for a Stuart Scott post they made TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO.
I contend — and I’ll explain — that Daulerio’s invasion of Stuart Scott’s and Michelle Beisner’s privacy in 2007 is just as gross and heinous as what happened to Erin Andrews.
Everyone celebrated and/or blew off the crime against Scott and Beisner because Scott is not beloved by white men (or people like me who are turned off by his ghetto shtick).
If you didn’t know, Jason Whitlock is the “decider” when it comes to who is ghetto and who is not. Because that’s a much better shtick, right? Whitlock also derided Scoop Jackson for his “fake ghetto posturing” to The Big Lead back in 2006. But back to our story. At this point, Whitlock has characterized the Deadspin writers to a bunch of privacy-invading, smut-promoting, racially-biased scumbags. He infers that Deadspin deemed Michelle Beisner “unworthy of privacy” because she was “Befriending a Black Man While White and Attractive”. Obviously, Whitlock is simply dropping truth bombs on us whenever he makes a point to mention race. But Deadspin is just plain ol’ racist! It doesn’t stop there. According to Whitlock, “the site is inherently unfair to minorities and random members of the media it chooses to dislike for whatever reason.” It is? Oh yeah, he gave us that one example of that black guy who is also a member of the media that they posted about two years ago. That proves it! He ends this mini-rant by asserting that Deadspin should be analyzed and criticized by the mainstream media. Uh, isn’t that exactly what you’re attempting to do with this article, Whitlock?
Do I believe Deadspin is evil? No. I like to laugh at my own stupidity and the hypocrisy and buffoonery of my peers and athletes. Most days I enjoy Deadspin. But the site, like everything else on this planet, is flawed, and Deadspin is flawed in ways the mainstream media should notice, analyze and criticize.
This is classic Whitlock deflection here. Everything he wrote up to this point characterizes Deadspin as evil. Now it’s all in good fun! But wait, there’s more. He doesn’t close his piece after seemingly making his point that Deadspin has contributed to an erosion of privacy (DUE TO RACIAL BIAS IN SOME CASES) in the world of sports personalities. Nope, Whitlock decides to chastise ESPN for not covering Ben Roethlisberger’s civil suit while implying that they gave him a pass for his whiteness. That’s obviously true because no black people work at ESPN and all white people are in cahoots. Maybe somebody should tell this alleged “journalist” that Big Ben was set to appear on an ABC Sports Reality TV Show. His argument then morphs from ‘privacy should be respected’ to ‘exploitation should be equal opportunity’. It’s as if he’s making arguments based on convenience at this point.
Whitlock continues to power through his myriad of disconnected, malformed arguments by referencing the Pacman Jones strip club video. After reloading his racial ammunition (why on earth do we need to know the strippers are black? also, I’m pretty sure I saw a still with a white girl in it… not that it matters), he then claims that ESPN has “climbed on some high horse” by not covering the Erin Andrews video. Most normal people would not put strip club security camera footage of partying and peephole videos of an unsuspecting nude woman in the same category — but Whitlock does. Thanks for the context and perspective on that one. The article ends with another classic Whitlock deflection by saying that ESPN would be all over coverage of a Serena Williams, Anna Kournikova, or Candace Parker video tape. Because, suddenly, it’s not convenient to make this an argument about racism anymore. Now, he’s either criticizing ESPN for trying to protect Erin Andrews or for defaming Pacman Jones (because he’s black?). At this point, who the hell knows?
Here is my attempt to summarize the points in the article:
- Whitlock declares his column will “add context and reasonable perspective” to the “debate raging in the sports blogosphere about whether blogs contributed to the crime perpetrated against Ms. Andrews”
- Whitlock calls Deadspin the “world-wide leader in sexually objectifying Erin Andrews”
- Whitlock proceeds to say that the apologies of Deadspin contributors are “dishonest and biased”
- Whitlock declares that “Deadspin eliminated the shame of privacy invasion for profit and made it mainstream”
- He then rants about Stuart Scott (while concurrently knocking him) in order to prove the “invasion of Stuart Scott’s and Michelle Beisner’s privacy in 2007 is just as gross and heinous as what happened to Erin Andrews”
- He characterizes the Stu Scott incident as a “crime” then decides “Do I believe Deadspin is evil? No.” So, according to Whitlock, Deadspin is on the same level as a peephole pervert… but they’re not evil. They’re just dishonest, biased, and racist criminals with a hilarious blog! Makes sense.
- Whitlock says Deadspin “is no different from ESPN” and states “ESPN plays favorites for a wide variety of reasons. It’s unfair.” Can somebody please explain how these points related?
- After saying Deadspin’s “crime” was “gross and heinous” he decides he just wants “the exploitation to be equal opportunity.”
- He goes on to mention the Pacman Jones video while adding spicy language stating “there were black asses shaking and black entertainers demonstrating how fools depart from their money.”
- He finishes the piece by saying that ESPN “would throw together a two-hour documentary on how the video was made” if Serena Williams, Anna Kournikova or Candace Parker. Because now we’re just talking about playing favorites. AND NOW YOU KNOW WHY THE ERIN ANDREWS PEEPHOLE VIDEO CAME TO BE!
The title of the piece is “Erin Andrews nude video scandal: Whose fault?” I seriously doubt that any readers found the answer to that question from the article. Somebody needs to take away that white-people-don’t-like-black-people Mad Lib that he uses to for his articles. Thanks for the context and reasonable perspective on the debate raging in the sports blogosphere about whether or not blogs contributed to the crime perpetrated against Erin Andrews. Jason Whitlock should consider writing a piece about the Erin Andrews video when he has the time.
