This is a response to your comments–I am not coming after you OR your article. I get SOOO pissed whenever I read his stuff, as well. I just wanted to spend a moment explaining why I think Whitlock is what he is. I completely agree with you that he is a complete tool, but just whining about it doesn’t do it for me; let’s look into why he’s a tool. I only used the “Whitey keeping the black man down” (something that he does write about often) as one example of his insistence to use race as an excuse to challenge and press us. That is why we don’t like him–because he presses us to think things we don’t want to.

Please re-read my super-long comment; I am not going against you. I like that you’re swinging the hammer, but I’m just trying to aim the hammer. Chillax, bro.

-cw

I think you should re-read this column after you have chilled from Fox News, the most biased news on Earth.
If you closely look at Whitlock columns, you’ll find just the opposite of “Whitey keep the black man down.” He talks about black people needing to improve themselves and not look for “the man” to help them out. He bashes hip-hop “gangsta” culture, and I cited many irrefutable examples of this in the article. I was just making the point often, what makes him controversial is how he often sits on the other side of the fence from popular black opinion. Sorry I irritated you but I think you missed the point.

-cw

However, to say he is a bad writer is incorrect. He creates an argument, “proves it” (in his own mind, not to most of us), and gives plenty of examples of why he thinks what he thinks. Additionally, he does it without grammatical, syntactic, or logical errors; even the least journalistically-experienced mind can tell that, unlike Hill, Whitlock has experienced editors that are looking over his shoulders. (Adam/Zach, expect a post about this from me in the future–this one grinds my gears.)

While I disagree with JW 99% of the time, I realize that many times, he is going too far off the deep end to challenge our own thinking (a rhetorical device called “hyperbole”). This is something that politicians, orators, TV personalities, and teacher do in their respective fields all the time (and I plan on doing to my own students). Just because they’re pushing an issue doesn’t mean they genuinely believe it–they just want us to find out how much WE agree/disagree with it. It’s a technique that helps us look into ourselves and develop as people (or, in a smaller KCStar-sense, sports fans).

I think most people, nationally, know Whitlock is full of shit in a lot of issues. I think he absolutely does turn most of his columns into unnecessarily into “How Whitey keeps the proud black man down” rants. The difference comes when we get a genuinely race-related issue like Rutgers/Imus, Whitlock gets his argument teed up for him so he can hit it right out of the park. That’s really where he gets his credibility. Outright racial insensitivity is indefensible; when someone in the media says something like this, it gives carte blanche to the “defenders of the race” (i.e. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson) to stand up for themselves.

You can’t turn on any type of news program anymore without facing political bias from one side or the other–our language isn’t built to speak completely, 100% objectively. We like what we like, and we’re not afraid to share that opinion. The trouble comes from when we let those opinions become fact and define who we are and what we believe. When reading Whitlock, or Posnanski, or Bill Simmons, or Crane, or me (especially me), or Adam, or whoever, keep in mind what is fact, what is opinion, and what word choices we’re making that are influencing your mind. It’s not enough to ride shotgun in this world–be aware of what goes into your mind; be in charge of what stays.

-cw

Great read, Crane!

We all know that I’m not too high on the Joeson Posnansklock “dynamic” duo these days.