Scoop Responds
Uncategorized October 6th. 2006, 6:53pm
You just knew this was coming. Finally, after weeks of anticipation, Scoop Jackson has penned a retort to Jason Whitlock’s headline-grabbing Q&A with us last month in which the overweight lova called Scoop, among other things, a chronic bojangler.
We’ll reserve comment for the time being, but in summation:
I really don’t know what’s eating Mr. Whitlock, because for all his issues with me and my style, he has never done the honorable thing, which is to call me so we can discuss it man-to-man. Even when we were sitting together at a table in a Dallas hotel lobby during the NBA Finals in June watching a World Cup game with Dan Le Batard, dude never said anything. Nothing. Even when invited by the producers of “Quite Frankly” to discuss the issue — his issue with me — in July, he refused.
Perhaps if he had done that, said something to me, pulled me to the side and said, “Brah, I don’t like you, here’s why …,” we’d have no problem now. But he chose to go public, get personal, say things in print that he wouldn’t to my face. So let me say this, right here and right now: Who I am, what I write, and how I write it is not something I’ll ever have to explain or apologize for to anyone! I speak and write the truth as I see it in a language and style that people I care about and respect understand.
And … they’re off.
The Importance of Being Civil (Page 2)
Bears Are Good, but Truth Is ‘Skins Are Better (AOL Sports)
10 Responses to “Scoop Responds”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 7th, 2006 at 5:22 AM
Ah, Scoop. Scoop, scoop. Now you want to play the ‘civil’ card. Whitlock nailed you, or ‘bojangled’ you, if you would prefer. I certainly can understand Big Lova not wanting to be associated with the Scoop Jax’es and the Alan Grant’s (“the NFL is not ready for three powerful black men (Culpepper, Moss, and the guy who didn’t have the coin to buy the Vikes) to join forces,” to paraphrase) of the world. That Columbia graduated this guy WITH A MASTER’S is a hit on their reputation. Scoop is a one – trick, race – baiting phony. Nothing more. Even Stephen’s A. Bitch is better, which is saying something. Hopefully, Scoop’s contract runs out soon and we can be done with him for good. Scoop – you got played, playa’. For you to try to prop yourself up as some heir to Wiley is an embarrasment to him, his legacy, and whichever editor allowed that bunk to make it to the website. You ARE a modern – day Bojangles, and props to Whitlock for making that apt analogy. The only differences are your pay scale, where you ‘dance,’ and your attitude to your ‘dancing.’ Bojangles danced for little, you ‘dance’ for much more, but you still dance. You ‘dance’ behind your keyboard, and the original Bojangels danced, physically, in public. Here’s the crucial difference, however: You actually think you’re not dancing. The original Bojangles’ act might seem to be more degrading, but at least he knew he was dancing. I personally think your ‘dancing’ is more humiliating, because you actually think, to quote the Stereo MC’s, “you’re running the show,” when in reality “you’re just getting used like a dirty old ho.’” And this is what Big Lova is saying about a needed Revolution – if columnists like you are looked up to, more and more would – be black writers will strive to become self – destructive, bigoted Bojangles themselves. You know Big Lova’s right, you just wish he hadn’t called you out. Sad.
October 7th, 2006 at 6:27 AM
Doesn’t it prove everything Whitlock said that Scoop had to abandon his street-cred-whoring style just to attempt to intelligently answer him? That didn’t read like Scoop at all, except for the paper-thin reasoning behind a really long version of “I’m just being myself” as an attempted magical refutation of everything Whitlock said. Okay, and maybe that part about how a “real man” would’ve called him on the phone and said “hey, you know that black role model thing? You’re not it.” Fine, so maybe it was Scoop, but it wasn’t the “acting like a crackhead will endear me to black people” Scoop.
Then again, how can you take anybody seriously who’d approve a biography like Whitlock’s at aol.com? Can we just annihilate the both of them in some sort of matter-antimatter collision?
October 7th, 2006 at 8:06 PM
Wow, I am just learning baout this feud between the Mr Whitlock and mighty mouse. I will have to come down on the side of Whitlock. I rarely agree with the man but he is an excellent writer who writes intelligently and insightfully. I do not have to agree with him or like his point of view to read him and recognize talent. His articles make you think and want to discuss what was written. I do not think there is any higher praise you can give a writer than that.
Now that we have discussed writers lets move on to Scoop Jackson. I know he is capable of writing in complete and coherant sentences, so why does he not use them in his Page 2 articles? He is “keeping it real” for his target audience. My firend your target audience must be ebonics only speakers. I am a white man and what you write is not English nor can you be a serious writer unless you write in English (for a supposedly English speaking readership, not implying there are no serious writers in Dutch, German etc) and obey the rules of grammar. I am an accountant and would love to be a writer. You live my dream and should respect the awesome responsibility that the written language has and the power you wield. It is not to be disrespected no dumbed down. If you think that your readers are too stupid to understand your points if written correctly, then you do not respect them very much do you?
October 8th, 2006 at 12:32 AM
Everyone loved Scoop when he was writing for Slam. People wondered why a brotha, o sorry white people (guess that aint english), i mean brother wasnt on the national stage displaying his talents for the rest of America to see.
The first task of getting rid of the elephant in the room (race) is to recognize its existence. Scoop is not a one trick pony, he feels obligated to write for a segment of society whose voice isnt often heard. Now i dont always agree with his position, I do respect it. What if he throws in some Hip-Hop references? So what if he calls himself the Rakim of Writing? O i get it, he didnt say Cash or Duran Duran. The beauty of the written language, especially English is that it can take many forms and still be effective. If you dont like the way Scoop writes, its your given right not to read his “columns (screw you Jason)”
October 8th, 2006 at 12:48 AM
the name calling is too much, first Jason says Scoop’s column is anti-white then he turns around and calls him bojangles. It does not take the Political Science Department at Ball State to see the contradiction.
October 8th, 2006 at 12:26 PM
Wow!
That first poster sounds like Jason Whitlock himself.
I’m with Scoop! Professional Brothas should NOT be DOGGING each other out. I bet money that Whitlock won’t be seen interviewing any prominent Black men while Scoop will be at the Afterparty with them.
If anything, This has Moved Scoop even closer to the Sporting Community. Besides, Where to Jason works, Aol? KC? Loser communities
October 8th, 2006 at 3:10 PM
The bottom line is very simple – agree or not, Jason’s columns were always well written, thought out and insightful. Jason wrote with skill and passion about SPORTS.
Scoop was, and is, boring.
Scoop could only aspire to the mantle of Ralph Wiley. Wiley was one of the absolute best sports writers, black or white.
Whitlock is at least on the same path as Wiley.
Scoop is just stumbling somewhere along in the dark.
October 8th, 2006 at 7:44 PM
Could not agree more with a previous poster. Oh, so now that Scoop is using the language you want him to use, it’s OK? Why does my man have to be a sellout if he doesn’t write like you want him to? Writing is like pitching. Sometimes, a curve and knuckleball will do. Other times, a fastball and a slider. The point is that writing should reflect personality and Scoop’s writing seems to reflect his. You don’t like it? Don’t read it.
Fact is, Scoop parlayed his success @ Slam to ESPN and a lot of people clearly have a problem with it. Scoop isn’t your typcial journalist and his peers hate him for it. Don’t get mad at another man for capitalizing on being different.
October 9th, 2006 at 11:29 PM
I think most of you are confusing the messanger with the message. Some of you may pledge allegiance to Whitlock and thats cool. I like both, but SJ is one of my heroes in the business because I feel he relates to me. what Jason did was go behind SJ’s back and tell ESPN that he hated him (basically) ands wanted him gone. After Scoop did his 1.3 percent doctrine, which is true, I’m in the business and it’s maddening that more brothas aren’t in the business b/c we are talented, Jason had a big problem and went all-out on someone who didn’t have a beef with him anddid it out of jealousy.
Agree or disagree, SJ can’t win with a lot of you ppl. You hate him, PC or not. He’s one of the more talented writers we have in the business, regardless of color and he is an heir to Ralph Wiley’s throne. If you remember, Wiley used street lingo in some of his early SI pieces and his editors tried to put quotations around it and Ralph was fumed, so get your facts str8 b4 callin Scoop fake. Jason’s a talented writer, but jealous and he should be ashamed of himself for going public b4 he went private to the man himself
October 10th, 2006 at 10:49 PM
I thought I would try to find an equivalent to what Scoop Jackson does with his writing style..the closest I could come up with is Irvine Welsh..thought there may be some parallels…
(Please note I am not comparing the two on a talent level – simply the writing style of using urban slang);
A relevant review of Irvine Welsh below…
Two common complaints of literary reviewers when considering the work of Welsh are that his books are read by people who don’t normally read and that their author has a negative view of literature (he prefers the title ‘cultural activist’ to ‘writer’). If either of these claims is true, then they perhaps deserve more credit than lofty condemnation. If Welsh really is managing to engage a culturally illiterate audience that has traditionally remained beyond the influence of the bourgeois novel then this is a form of ‘cultural activism’ most other ‘writers’ of his generation seem to have turned their backs on.
I personally just don’t think that SJ has the talent or the vision to pull this off effectively (or at least hasn’t shown it yet) – I think the success in the case of Irvine Welsh lies in the content – regardless of what type of language is used – In other words the language he uses in some of his books punctuates great content.
I guess the lesson I would take from Irvine Welsh is if you are going to take the plunge take the plunge – I think that this format is out of place when you have an editor.
Maybe it’s not fair to compare at all as SJ writes sports columns. I just get the sense that his articles are trying to be profound but in the end aren’t..they may have some entertainment value (good or bad depending on your taste)..His writing style just reads like he uses the language to be cool rather than to communicate with someone more effectively.
If SJ’s content and perception was better everyone would be talking about how cutting edge his writing is..not whether or not he is ’street’ or not..kind of like people recognized the genius of Picasso – how many artists do you think tried cutting edge things and never made it over the top becuase in the end there was just no content?
But as some have already pointed out … and as part of the aforementioned review mentions – when you do something different there will always be doubters…
“written in an unrelenting and aggressively masculine Scots dialect, has since become a trademark of Welsh’s fiction. Considered by some as the main strength of his prose (Welsh, some claim, has an ‘ear’ for the urban underclass of Leith), by others as strained and inauthentic, what is clear is that the repetition and excess associated with its ‘bad language’ serves more than a ‘realistic’ purpose. It is through the inarticulate outbursts of his characters that their powerlessness is most eloquently and symbolically expressed.”
So, in closing – Why all of the personal attacks? The man is a writer…he is doing a job and maybe even trying to create something artistic and socially relevant..The only real question should be;
Is SJ’s language and writing style purposeful and a strength or strained and inauthentic?