Re: Scoop and Whitlock
This is a bit of a tangent, but I remember that interview with Whitlock and I've always found it ironic that one of his criticisms of Scoop is that he plays too much on race. Whitlock has, IMO, gone too far in the opposite direction...his writing voice has become very predictable when it comes to racial issues, giving very similar takes that are consistently (for want of a better term) counter-racial.
Let me try to make my point a bit clearer. Whenever a national incident involving race occurs, I know exactly how Jesse Jackson will react. I know exactly how Al Sharpton will react. This makes them less effective as "leaders", because they have lost their credibility when they react the same regardless of the situation. By the same token, when I see that Whitlock has written an article on a racial situation, I know exactly how it is going to read. His writing voice in simplest terms is "the opposite of Jackson or Sharpton", and because of that (and the fact that he is a black man that seemingly doesn't toe the perceived "company line") it initially reads as fresh. But after years of it, it has lost it's freshness and more importantly (for me) it's credibility, much like Jackson and Sharpton has.
I know this wasn't the point of this thread, but Whitlock's style often strikes me the wrong way and when I see him used as a reference by which to judge Scoop Jackson (who also often bothers me in a different way, but I digress) I just feel like I should respond.