Tag Archives: jason whitlock

Jennifer Floyd Engel Tells the Truth

I’ve known Jennifer Floyd Engel for a lot of years. Knew her when she was the Dallas Stars hockey writer, Jennifer Floyd. She has always been honest, considerate and fair, although her official nickname — a nickname she endorses — is “The Little Ball of Hate.”

This week, in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, she did something that I have seldom read from a sports journalist on either side of the border (other than from me and Jason Whitlock, of course). It’s the sudden, public “revelation” that sports writers are thin-skinned, hypocritical, often wrong and annoyingly defensive. The only people in all of sports more irritating than sports writers are game officials (especially the three blind mice calling the Ohio State-Purdue game yesterday).

I would appreciate it if all of you went to http://www.star-telegram.com/jenengel to read the column. But if you don’t feel like making a couple of clicks on your PC, here it is in its entirety, courtesy of Howard Bloom’s Sports Business News. It’s the best sports column of this or, maybe, any other year:

By Jennifer Floyd Engel

Fort Worth Star-Telegram

The words “girl fight” have a way of stopping down a room, everybody angling for a good view of the emotionally fraught, highly charged chaos likely to ensue. This article was written by Jennifer Floyd Engel and appeared in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

It is emotional porn.

This dirty fascination is how I feel about media fights, and we have a doozy brewing at the moment between dot.com big-timers Jason Whitlock and Peter King.

Whitlock basically accused King in a Fox Sports column of being the ringleader of a bunch of good ol’ boys screwing up the Pro Football Hall of Fame voting process with politics and secrecy. King and a few of his cohorts fired back by calling Whitlock an idiot, a blob and just plain misinformed.

And about his criticism over the lack of transparency?

Well, King explained, there are reasons they keep their votes and their reasoning to themselves.

I am going to go ahead and break this story. There are no bigger hypocrites in sports than the journalists who cover them. Nor am I absolving myself. We all do it.

Sports journalists cry Rooney Rule while sitting in press boxes jammed with people who look and think and write like us. We tell the Michael Youngs of the world to make way for younger talent while clinging to seniority as a basic tenet of life. Or in the case of this Hall of Fame voting imbroglio, we demand transparency from coaches and athletes while buffering ourselves from criticism by refusing to divulge two of the five Ws. Who did we vote for and against? And why?

And this makes us hypocrites.

Full disclosure: I am not one of the Pro Football Hall of Fame voters nor do I have a chance of ever being one. In fact, the last time I voted for anything of any sporting consequence at all was for the three stars at a Stars game, and I like it that way.

I would argue that journalists should not be in the business of determining who the MVP is, who is an All-Star and who ends up in the Hall of Fame. The only problem is I do not know who should.

Players and GMs have their own biases and blind spots. The absence of Jimmy Johnson locally in the Ring of Honor highlights the dangers of a committee of one. All-Star voting pretty much kills any arguments about fan involvement. The hope with reporters is that they are at least doing their due diligence and talking to those who played and who study the game to make informed decisions. You do not have to play the game, as Whitlock suggested, to determine who is deserving. But it helps alleviate criticisms of bias or incompetence when voters are forced to show their work.

The plight of Willie Roaf is not all that juicy in my world and I don’t agree with everything Whitlock wrote, but he is right about the transparency. We should know who every single one of the voters in the room decided were worthy of inclusion into the Hall of Fame and why. If people want an explanation of, say, why it took so many so embarrassingly long to recognize Bullet Bob Hayes, the voters should be required to give one. Anything less from a group whose very existence is buoyed by mandatory player availability and answers to hard questions is beyond hypocritical.

Nor do I buy King’s argument that it is unfair for a Hall selector to have his vote and reasoning out there because it would be uncomfortable when he has to go cover the team. Why, yes, it could be. And it often is.

It is hard to walk into a locker room after writing a player stunk or a coach needs to be fired or a GM screwed up, but that is why it is so important. I can only speak for myself, but it makes me really believe what I am writing and choose my words carefully because I know I am going to have to defend it.

Part of my job is showing up just in case a player wants to tell me to “bleep off.” And anybody unwilling to stand by and defend his position probably should not be voting for such a prestigious honor anyway.

The thing with media is we are a sensitive lot. We blow and go, torch and question, call for jobs and talk in moral absolutes then get touchy when somebody has the audacity to question us. I find myself doing it sometimes, bristling against and getting defensive about an angry e-mail about a column. And I abhor this quality in myself, and constantly have to remind myself that, if I cannot handle criticism, I — and other journalists — probably should not be critical.

It is hypocritical.

And, as we see in this latest media fight, there are no bigger hypocrites in sports than the journalists who cover them.

Nobody in Tampa, Nobody in Jacksonville and Jason Whitlock Gets it Right Again

TAMPA, Fla. — Sitting in the press box at the St. Pete Times Forum wondering where the hockey fans went…

I remember coming to Lightning games and seeing at least 15,000 people inside this beautiful building in downtown Tampa, cheering and screaming and urging on their hockey heroes.

But not anymore.

Tonight, the Lightning will probably announce a crowd of 13,000 or 14,000, but the reality is, this building is not half full. And the truly sad part is that Alexander Ovechkin and a very good Washington Capitals team is playing a Lightning club that struggles on defence but has every weapon on offence — Marty St. Louis, Vinny Lecavalier, Steven Stamkos and Ryan Malone. If you live in Tampa and you don’t like this Lightning team, you just don’t like hockey.

Of course, it could all just be part of a recession that few people want to admit is seriously affecting professional sports. I was in Jacksonville yesterday as the Jaguars took another step toward an AFC wild card berth with a 23-18 win over Houston, but fewer than 43,000 people were in the  stands. It was the smallest crowd in Jaguars history.

Fact is, if you want to buy tickets to any sporting event in America these days, there are “plenty of good seats available.” My wife just bought a $50 ticket to the Pro Bowl from Ticketmaster. Nobody thought there would be Pro Bowl tickets available if the NFL moved the game from Honolulu to South Florida, but nobody thought the recession would kick the crap out of ticket sales the way it has.

Tonight, here in Tampa, Ovechkin is wheeling all over the rink while Lecavalier had had three great scoring chances in the first period. It’s a good hockey game. But if there are 6,000 people in this building, I’ll eat the seats.

(NOTE: Just watched Ovechkin score his 19th goal of the season on a one-timer after taking a great pass from Alexander Semin. Ovie is worth the price of admission and I can assure you that here in Tampa, the price of admission ain’t much.)

NOTE: There is only one mainstream media reporter who truly understands the Tiger Woods scandal. Read Jason Whitlock of the Kansas City Star at: http://www.kansascity.com/182/story/1613268.html?storylink=omni_popular.

After reading his column, the rest of the issue is moot.

Selena Roberts joins a growing list of “Let’s Make it All Up,” mainstream media superstars

In this space, we have long railed about the mainstream media mess that was the Duke Lacrosse Case. For those who have forgotten, the Duke Lacrosse Case was a tragic miscarriage of justice fueled and then perpetuated by the mainstream media — particularly the New York Times. In this sad story, an ambitious North Carolina prosecutor named Michael Nifong, railroaded a number of Duke University lacrosse players, by using his pals in the mainstream media to convict the kids long before the charges ever got to trial. He and the media, essentially destroyed their lives.

Of course, the case unravelled, the media looked like a foolish, ignorant mob and Nifong lost his job and his license to practice law.

In the middle of it all was a woman named Selena Roberts who, from her bully pulpit at the New York Times, convicted the young men long before any of the false charges ever reached a court of law. Roberts looked like a hateful, mindless idiot when the smoke cleared, but she never did apologize to the young men, whose lives she personally destroyed, or even to the public, which was duped into believing Nifong was right, the kids were monsters and the hooker at the heart of the phony charges was some saint sent to clean up the mess left by men.

There is a deep, dark, white-hot hole in hell for people like Selena Roberts, but like so many mainstream media monsters before her, she can’t quit spewing the fictional venom. 

Now, she’s decided to destroy the life of baseball player Alex Rodriguez and she’s done a pretty damn good job, too. In a book entitled “A-Rod,” this entitled journalist (how does a hate-filled hack like Roberts get jobs at the New York Times and Sports Illustrated?), Roberts has used more than 115 un-named sources to make Rodriguez look like the worst human being ever to play baseball.

Like her scummy predecessors, Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Wlliams, who wrote the books Game of Shadows using more than 225 un-named sources, in their very successful effort to vilify Barry Bonds, Roberts appears to make it all up.

I don’t see any other way to phrase it. When you use that many un-named sources, the only thing you can call it is fiction. Like Fainaru-Wada and Williams, who created a novel so gripping it forced the United States justice department to make up charges against Bonds — charges that have hung in the air for years and have still not resulted in a trial — you’ve done a remarkable job. It was so good, in fact, that Fainaru-Wada got a high-paying job with ESPN as a reward.

Obviously, there is a real benefit to writing fiction and the passing it off as fact. Selena Roberts is the latest mainstream media darling to go down that road and be rewarded for it. I don’t get it, when I wrote my two books, Home Run: The History of the Winnipeg Goldeyes and Canwest Global Park (2005) and the Canadian bestseller, The Winnipeg Jets: A Celebration of Professional Hockey in Winnipeg (2007), my editor wanted nothing less than every quote to be attributed along with dates, times and places, in order to source them all. I guess, when you’re a mainstream media star you can make up quotes and American editors will just blow them off as “un-named sources.”

Fortunately, the American mainstream media, embarrassed by Roberts’ incredible gall, has answered back:

Jason Whitlock of the Kansas City Star wrote on May 2:

Not long ago, sports writer Selena Roberts compared the Duke lacrosse players to gang members and career criminals

She claimed that the players’ unwillingness to confess to or snitch about a rape (that did not happen) was the equivalent of drug dealers and gang members promoting antisnitching campaigns.

When since-disgraced district attorney Mike Nifong whipped up a media posse to rain justice on the drunken, male college students, Roberts jumped on the fastest, most influential horse, using her New York Times column to convict the players and the culture of privilege that created them.

Proven inaccurate, Roberts never wrote a retraction for the columns that contributed to the public lynching of Reade Seligmann, Colin Finnerty and David Evans.

Instead, she moved on to Sports Illustrated, a seat on ESPN’s “The Sports Reporters” and a new target, baseball slugger Alex Rodriguez…

Roberts’ book [about A-Rod] is a long-winded blog. Why it’s being treated as an unimpeachable piece of journalism can only be explained by the cushy position she’s been handed by the New York Times, ESPN and Sports Illustrated and the unchallenged institutional bias found within the elite sports media institutions.

Then, a day or two later, Josh Alper wrote on nbcnewyork.com:

Matt Lauer of “Today” didn’t touch on Roberts’ role in that miserable moment in rushing to judgment (on the Duke lacrosse players) on Monday morning, but he did ask her about the use of anonymous sources, especially if any of them might be telling tall tales to fulfill their own motivations of seeing Rodriguez taken down a peg. Roberts’ response is curious, to say the least.

“But I think there’s not so much jealously as disillusionment because he’s so great, he’s such a great player, he didn’t need any of this,” Roberts told Lauer. ”He didn’t need to embellish anything, he’s a great story in and of himself.”

If, as Roberts’ book alleges, Rodriguez was doing steroids in high school, how is it true that he didn’t need any of this? According to Roberts, he wasn’t embellishing anything. Rather, he was maintaining the steroid use that he started well before stepping foot on a big league diamond. Unless his sixth-grade Little League season was so good that he could have been in the majors right then and there, it is Roberts’ contention that he was never a great player because he was always taking steroids.

And a great story? That’s not evident in what’s been leaked from her book. Stories about A-Rod tipping pitches for the opposition or forcing clubhouse attendants to put toothpaste on his toothbrush are meant to make judgments about Rodriguez’s character. Judgments that all flow from the fact that he used steroids, something that Craig Calcaterra, who hit on Roberts’ Duke connections before Whitlock, quite rightly calls bogus

Those stories, all anonymously sourced, are being roundly rejected by A-Rod’s teammates. Those denials are from Doug Mientkiewicz and Michael Young, which we know because they were willing to put their name behind their words.

As Roberts told Lauer, her use of anonymous sources broke the report of A-Rod’s failed drug test. Every word she writes may be true, but it certainly appears that she’s just as interested in using them to judge A-Rod as a person as she is in finding out if he broke any laws or rules of baseball.  

Selena Roberts’ book on Rodriguez, just like the Bonds’ book before that, is sleazy and yellow and all too typical. Sadly — and Jason Whitlock, among others, know it’s sad — the princes and princesses of the mainstream media milk their hateful, sick fiction for all it’s worth.