Love him, (or) hate him, Jason Whitlock of The Kansas City Star and FoxSports.com creates dialogue with his columns. I find Jason on the wrong-side of the fence on subjects such as Don Imus, The Jena Six, and Hip-Hop’s ruining of the black community, but his opinions cause others to exchange ideas, something that can’t be said for the majority of sportswriters.

I caught up with Whitlock earlier in the week for a brief interview. He discusses his Pulitzer quest, his Reverend Wright, and gives some advice to Pacman Jones after the jump.

HG: Buzz Bissinger set the blogosphere on fire with his comments during Bob Costas’ Town Hall Meeting. He has since backed away from some of the things he said on HBO, but why is the old guard so angry with/afraid of blogs, and why can’t newspapers and blogs co-exist without beef in the future?

JW: The old guard is losing jobs and being second-guessed and questioned in a manner we’ve never experienced. Losing jobs and being held accountable are going to tweak our insecurity. But it will pass and we will co-exist. We have no choice.

HG: With newspapers dwindling in size, and quality jobs harder to find, what route would you tell an aspiring journalist to take?

JW: Develop a niche. The Internet is all about finding specifically what you want. Don’t be a generalist. You look foolish trying to know everything. Be the best at something specific. And learn how to report. Information is still the driving force.

HG: I was critical of you for your takes and timing with the Don Imus situation. It seemed to me you were pushing Jason Whitlock’s agenda and using the opportunity to “make a name for yourself” with people that didn’t know your work. You’re on the record as saying you wanted to win a Pulitzer for your Imus commentary but did you jump into the Imus flap thinking media circuit and bright lights?

JW: Hell, no. I didn’t write anything in the Imus column that I haven’t been writing for years. You can find that sentiment in columns I wrote in the Ann Arbor News in the early 1990s. People don’t get my honesty. They mistake it for overwhelming arrogance. That’s fine. I can deal with that. I initially ignored the Imus controversy. A friend called me during Vivian Stringer’s press conference/recruiting rally. It offended me and provoked me to write. It was totally organic. It wasn’t until much later in the year that I looked back at what I wrote about Imus, the Jena Six, Michael Vick, Barry Bonds and a few other things that I reached the conclusion that I had a body of columns worthy of Pulitzer consideration in my opinion. So I had no problem saying it. That’s what I believed. I’ve been writing columns regularly since 1992. I’ve believed that twice in 16 years. I’m not out chasing the Pulitzer. I want(ed) to win one because Mike Royko won one. He’s my idol. But the dream is pretty much over. I doubt I’ll ever write another column as pervasive and influential as the Imus column. It’s tough to write a newspaper column that lands you on Oprah. I’ve satisfied my journalism awards dream winning the Scripps Howard Foundation National Journalism Award for commentary. That was quite an honor. Royko won one, so that’s my link to Mike Royko. Plus, David Simon took a lot of the shine off Pulitzers for me.

HG: You’re often critical of Hip-Hop’s influence on black culture, but do you consider any other factors (socioeconomic, lack of funding for education, the government aided crack epidemic) before you decide what ails the black community?

JW: I just wrote a 5,000-word piece for Playboy that addresses a gigantic problem within our community. Now Playboy is trying to sabotage the message with a ridiculously, sensational headline. But if you read the piece, your question will be answered. The piece comes out this Friday.

YBB Note: I haven’t had a chance to read the Playboy piece and didn’t know about it until Jason mentioned it in his answer, but the fine folks at Playboy pissed off Whitlock by changing the title of his story. The piece was originally titled “All America’s Crisis” and was advertised as such by Playboy.

Here’s a small part of Whitlock’s take on Playboy’s editorial decision:

Chris Napolitano, editorial director of Playboy magazine, is committed to stirring a racial controversy in the next issue of Hugh Hefner’s favorite publication.

Napolitano, No. 2 behind Hef at the magazine, intends to use a 5,000-word column I wrote challenging the wisdom of America’s drug war, world-leading incarceration rate and brutal prison system as an excuse to fan racial flames and distract readers from the real issues raised in the piece.

So on May 9, this headline will greet Playboy readers on the cover: “Jason Whitlock, The Black KKK.” On the inside of the magazine over my column, the headline will read: “The Black KKK.” A subheadline will state: “Hip Hop is killing Black America, and it’s time to do something about it.”

I’ll have to save my full opinion until after I read the story, but at least it seems that JW is starting to acknowledge factors other than Hip-Hop. End YBB Note

HG: Considering your stance on Hip-Hop and the state of the black community, are Tech N9ne and the 57th Street Rogue Dog Villains potentially your Reverend Wright?

JW: You damn skippy they’re Reverend Wright, and I’ll never disown Tech N9ne, Big Krizz Kalico and Cutt Kalhoun and the RDVs. You can add Dr. Dre and Tupac to the list, too. I’ve never denied being a fan of rap music. I know why it touches people and where the gangsta element comes from. Look, I’m overweight and I would tell people McDonald’s is freaking horrible and should be outlawed. But that don’t mean you’ll never see me creeping through a Mickey D’s drive-thru at 2 a.m. and grabbing a Filet-O-Fish. Just because I acknowledge my hypocrisy doesn’t mean my criticisms are inaccurate. We all fall short of the glory from time to time.

HG: One thing we agree on is that The Wire is one of the greatest television shows of all-time. If they were to make a Wire movie, what angles or storylines would you like to see covered?

JW: More of Kima’s love life. There was a lot of time wasted on McNulty’s catting around when we could’ve seen what Kima was up to.

HG: Finally, if you could give Pacman Jones advice, what would it be? What about Roger Clemens? Jason Whitlock haters?

JW: Pacman: Listen to Jim Brown and embrace the Amer-I-Can program.

Clemens: Move to Montana and disappear.

Whitlock haters: There are no Whitlock haters. There are only people who don’t know me.

Jason Whitlock, interview, sports, blogs

The new media flavor of the week is the “race based” poll or study. Just last week the traditional and non-traditional media were buzzing over alleged racial bias amongst NBA referees and now this:

• More than half of baseball fans are rooting against Barry Bonds as he tries to break Hank Aaron’s major league home run record of 755, according to an ESPN/ABC News poll.
• The survey found that 52 percent of fans hope Bonds doesn’t break the record, while 37 percent of fans want him to surpass Aaron’s mark, set in 1974.
• In addition, 73 percent of fans think Bonds used steroids, despite Bonds’ repeated denials. Bonds has never tested positive for steroids.
• However, race plays a unique role. Black fans in the survey are more than twice as likely to want Bonds to break Aaron’s record (74 percent to 28 percent), and 37 percent of black fans think Bonds used steroids, compared to 76 percent of white fans.

There are parts of the polls that I agree with and then some parts that I don’t understand. The first thing I want to know is why do these polls interview a couple of hundred people and then tell us “this is what Americans think”? Every black person I know thinks Bonds used some sort of performance enhancer. I definitely think he used something. One of my partnas is a huge SF Giants fan and he’s black, and he’ll tell you that Barry used something. As more and more news comes out about the steroid era, it looks like damn near everybody used a PED of some sort.

I could waste the next hour of your time going into what I view as hypocrisy and bias towards Barry Bonds, but I want to question the media’s motivation behind running these stories.. Is this 1907 or 2007? Is our country a melting pot or a race war waiting to happen?

Whenever I see one of these “black people think ___” polls I always ask my brothas “did any of you get to vote on this?” and the answer is always no. I don’t know one person that has ever been polled for these purposes.. Do you? And why are we always breaking things down along black and white lines? There’s no brown and yellow people with opinions? Does the future of our country hinge on what blacks and whites think about different subjects? All of this crap is stupid.

The only thing these polls prove is that our race relations in this country are in a bad state. It’s just like when it’s election time. You always hear “so and so is going after the black vote” or “candidate x needs to secure the Latino vote”. If we’re all Americans, shouldn’t it just be the democrat or republican vote?

These polls present more problems than they solve and the conducters of the surveys should be ashamed of themselves. I mean, take the Bonds poll for instance.. Blacks care whether black man A has the homerun record over black man B? If things are really racially based wouldn’t blacks be content either way? But, you can sell more newspapersget more hits on a website if you run out a racially divisive poll. I can’t wait until next week so I can find out how Native Americans feel about the NBA age limit.

American’s conflicted about Bonds’ home run chase. Courtesy of ESPN.com

DIGG IT  *  DEL.ICIO.US  *  REDDIT  *  BALL HYPE

A study conducted by Justin Wolfers, an assistant professor of business and public policy at the Wharton School, and Joseph Price, a Cornell graduate student in economics reports that during the 13 seasons from 1991 through 2004, white referees called fouls at a greater rate against black players than against white players. The study also found that black refs called more fouls against white players.

The duo of Wolfers and Price did a lot of research for their study and even submitted the results to the NBA. David Stern had his own team of nerds do some research and they came up with some different results:

“We think our cut at the data is more powerful, more robust, and demonstrates that there is no bias.”

Of course you do Mr. Stern. Unfortunately for Stern the New York Times had 3 independent experts compare the Wolfers-Price paper to the NBA report, and all 3 concluded that the Wolfers and Price study was “far more sound”.

I decided to do my own study and here’s what I discovered:

• Violet Palmer calls fouls against males 100% of the time.
• 12 of the top 20 most foul prone players (min. of 40 games) are black, 5 are foreign born, 3 are white Americans, 2 are O’Neals, 2 are Warriors, 2 are Cavaliers, and 17 are big men (6’9″+).
• Joey Crawford hates Tim Duncan regardless of color.
• Dirk Nowitzki (12) and Chris Kaman (8) led non-blacks in technical fouls.
• Euros don’t foul flagrantly.
• Rasheed Wallace (21 techs) was ejected 1 time while Chucky Atkins (4 techs) was ejected twice.
• I have too much time on my hands.

While I’m poking fun at the study, it does have some interesting information. I can’t wait for the next report: BASEBALL UMPIRES CALL MORE STRIKES AGAINST LATINOS

Study of NBA Sees Racial Bias in Calling Fouls. Thank you The New York Times

NBA players foul statistics. Thank you NBA.com

DIGG IT  *  DEL.ICIO.US  *  REDDIT  *  BALL HYPE