Is Whitlock Right about his assessment of Selena Roberts

Jason Whitlock is considered to be one of the most thought provoking sports columnist in the country. His recent article questioned the journalistic integrity of Selena Roberts which is fair game but to link the steroid controversy to the Duke Lacrosse scandal was off base.

Whitlock thinks that Roberts should've offered a retraction to her columns concerning the Duke players Reade Sealigmann, Colin Finnerty, and David Evans. In case you've been under a rock this rape case was a media fire storm caused by an "accuser"(Crystal Mangrum) and the unscrupulous prosecutor Mike Nifong.

His attack of Dan Patrick in his column suggested that he blew an opportunity to question her journalistic integrity because she never "apologized" for her article in the New York Times. In his appearance on the nationally syndicated Dan Patrick show, Whitlock did every thing he could to discredit Patrick's reasoning for not bringing the case up.

In some circles Whitlock is right but by my estimation he is wrong. Here's why.

1. Why should he compare a rape case to the Steroid controversy in Baseball?

It makes no sense to do that. Robert's column on March 13, 2006 never said that the boys were guilty. She did raise valid concerns about privilege, class and the elephant in the room- race. Race is what made us this intrigued about the Duke Lacrosse team in the first place. Most Americans are more likely to confuse the rules of the game with the latest dance craze.

Roberts sources that were granted anonymity may have given her credible accounts about pitch tipping, his alleged steroid use in high school and other A-rod-isms we may not care about. Does it mean that she a sleaze ball? Not necessarily but one could argue that the industry of sports journalism has turned into a 24 hour version of the Enquirer. Americans love it so if she can make a quick buck writing "a tell all" so be it.

2. Portraying Finnerty, Sealigmann, and Evans as "victims" is pretty comical.

These guys were living in the bliss of athletic and social privilege. They had off campus housing and could afford to hire strippers (black ones at that) to show up at their wild party. No one should have to go to jail for a crime that they didn't commit and thankfully these guys did not. However there are poor working class people who aren't so lucky. Many of them do not have the best attorneys at their disposal and the piles of cash it takes to hire them.

I never saw Whitlock or any other columnist come out in "defense" of Kobe Bryant when he lost his endorsements after being accused of rape. Before he went to trial some Americans believed he was guilty. Most columnist Even after that Oscar worthy performance he gave with his wife at his press conference shortly after the story broke. Did he write about Marcus Dixon? The young man accused of raping his white girlfriend after the father found out about their relationship? NO

3. Is the Pot calling the Kettle black?

Whitlock has an affinity for using Al Sharpton as pawn which appeal to political conservatives that are sports fans. When he says that Bonds and A-rod are being singled out because of race that segment of his fan base doesn't find him that "thought provoking". When he wrote about the disparity of black coaches in the NCAA while working at ESPN he got hate mail. When he categorized black violent criminals as the black KKK he was back in the good graces of the establishment. The thought provoking light came back on just like it does when crispy creme has fresh doughnuts.

When he defended Don Imus he was all over the airwaves. After that initial ride of fame he needed someone else to bully . Selena Roberts is a great target which the perfect fodder to "bojangle" in front of his mostly conservative readers. His argument of Roberts being like Sharpton is about as "thought provoking" as attending a funeral. His attack on her is just like what he says Al Sharpton does. Looks like the pot and kettle are two peas in a pod...