(The working title of the article was going to be 'Stephen A. is Right...Again.')
Stephen A. Smith then went on to rant for 40 MORE MINUTES on how terrible Jason Whitlock is.
I like Stephen A., his position is very important to delineate in the culture wars.
Stephen A. is a sports reporter. About 90% of his takes are sports. Which team is better or what player is worth his contract. Every once in a while, he wades into discussions about race.
Stephen A. has the right to voice his opinion and occasionally share his truth. But his primary job is to talk about sports. Now you may say he's not good at his job, and that's a fair criticism, but he is mostly on point.
Jason Whitlock used to be mostly on point when he was on ESPN, but he lost his way. Once he joined TheBlaze, his articles have become almost cringe-worthy. Why? Because now Whitlock is the Right-wIng version of Jamele Hill. Every article is about race within sports. Now the reason Hill lasted so long at ESPN is because many of her co-workers shared her Left-wing viewpoints. But at some point, even her staunchest supporters tired of her continually beating a non-sports drum.
What specifically lit Stephen A. up? On January 6th, Jason Whitlock wrote this: "Stephen A. Smith is the Kevin Hart of the sports media. Smith is a plant. Disney and ESPN installed Smith at the top of sports media because his inadequacies as a journalist make him easy to control."
There's a lot of subtext in that statement. Like Smith or hate him, I wouldn't say he's easy to control. I would say he tries to mostly stick to sports, but parses his words in relation to non-sports topics. Smith makes around $12 million per year. I believe he knows right where the line is in order to keep making that 8-figure salary.
I reviewed Smith's tirade and can sum up what he wanted to say, but couldn't or else he'd get fired. Smith is furious that Jason Whitlock hinted that he sold out. Smith believes that Whitlock has turned into TheBlaze's "House Negro." Most of you know the term, but for those who don't, let Malcolm X explain it to you.
Malcolm X (1963) - "So you have two types of Negro. The old type and the new type. Most of you know the old type. When you read about him in history during slavery he was called "Uncle Tom." He was the house Negro. And during slavery you had two Negroes. You had the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negro usually lived close to his master. He dressed like his master. He wore his master's second-hand clothes. He ate food that his master left on the table. And he lived in his master's house--probably in the basement or the attic--but he still lived in the master's house.
So whenever that house Negro identified himself, he always identified himself in the same sense that his master identified himself. When his master said, "We have good food," the house Negro would say, "Yes, we have plenty of good food." "We" have plenty of good food. When the master said that "we have a fine home here," the house Negro said, "Yes, we have a fine home here." When the master would be sick, the house Negro identified himself so much with his master he'd say, "What's the matter boss, we sick?" His master's pain was his pain. And it hurt him more for his master to be sick than for him to be sick himself. When the house started burning down, that type of Negro would fight harder to put the master's house out than the master himself would.
But then you had another Negro out in the field. The house Negro was in the minority. The masses--the field Negroes were the masses. They were in the majority. When the master got sick, they prayed that he'd die. [Laughter] If his house caught on fire, they'd pray for a wind to come along and fan the breeze.
If someone came to the house Negro and said, "Let's go, let's separate," naturally that Uncle Tom would say, "Go where? What could I do without boss? Where would I live? How would I dress? Who would look out for me?" That's the house Negro. But if you went to the field Negro and said, "Let's go, let's separate," he wouldn't even ask you where or how. He'd say, "Yes, let's go." And that one ended right there."
Stephan A. stopped short of saying he would drive to Dallas and fight Jason Whitlock, but I guarantee you, in his mind, that's on the table. (Again, if Smith says it, then it becomes a threat and he could be fired.) I know Stephan A's politics lean left, but I kind of think of him as a left-leaning populist as opposed to a Staunch Liberal. If Smith says the words House Negro in regards to Whitlock, he's getting fired. If he goes on a rant for an hour describing the concept, but doesn't utter those specific words, I think his job is plenty safe.
Whitlock may have been trying to goad Smith into getting himself fired.
If you had to put an adjective in front of what we do, it would be 'free speech' reporters. We talk about Race, but it's, MAYBE, 5% of the articles we do.
Every article Jamele Hill writes is about race. She pretends to be a sports writer, but she's a 'race' reporter. Her missives veer between the left and the far-left. I don't think she has ever taken even a moderate or centrist position. Jason Whitlock, on the other hand, pretends to be a sports writer, but he's a 'race' reporter also, but for the right-leaning 'team.'
I cannot say that I know every sports reporter in the entire United States, let alone the world, but I believe that Jason Whitlock is the only Black Sports Reporter that talks about race in every article, from a Right-wing perspective.
Right-wingers may love Whitlock, but he is no better than Jamele Hill. Both Whitlock and Hill should be viewed with contempt.
As I watch the Packers absolutely crush the Cowboys, I don't know how every article you write can be about race.
When is the last time I had a straight sports take? 13 days ago...about the Premier League.