Shock of the day, Jemele Hill hates the Celtics.

[celticsmaniac]

Gladly.

For a writer with such clear biases, Jemele actually does a good job maintaining a kind of distance from her own prejudices that allows her to write objectively. Sure she hates the Celtics, but she admitted that that hatred comes from her own personal attachment to Detroit and the pain that the C's have historically inflicted on Pistons fans. She readily admitted that there is no logical reason to hate any of the individual players on the Celtics. She admitted that race played into it, but you guys are making it sound like the only reason she ever hated the Celtics was because Boston is a "white city" and Detroit isn't. The prejudice that many Detroit residents may have harbored against Boston and its teams, while bigoted, is not something that offends me either as a white person or a Celtics fan. The fact is, Boston was a racially intolerant city for decades (some would argue that it still is) and the fact that the Celtics were, at one time, considered a "white team" in an increasingly black league made them an easy to identify in connection with the Boston that people associate with Charles Stuart, the '75 Bus riots etc. I imagine that when many african-americans "hated" the Celtics in the 80's, they weren't as much hating the actual basketball team as they were hating what they felt it represents. I feel like Jemele Hill has (maybe not so much in today's article) done a better job articulating this point than I just have.

I also think she has pretty good way with words. Lines I liked from her newest column include stuff like "they've got Gasol in fetal position sucking his thumb," "loaded up with red wine and trail mix" "inflation, unemployment and locusts" and "you risked being Jimmy Hoffa'd." It's not BRILLIANT stuff or anything, but I think she's a better wordsmith the most of the people who have columns "published" here on Celticsblog, which  I almost always find flat and disproportionately favoring substance over style. What's the point of favoring substance over style with a sports column? Unless you've done some serious research, say, to make a connection with an analogous situation from the 50's or 60's, aren't you just stating information that any of your readers can learn by watching Sportscenter or logging onto basketballreference.com?  Hill isn't going to become the poet lauriate any time soon, but she is fun to read, agree or disagree. Oh, and I'm one of these sickos who loves Hitler jokes and Nuclear Holocaust jokes. The more the better. I'm amazed that so many of you are so uptight about things like this. You think that she REALLY MEANS that routing for the Celtics is like saying that Hitler was a victim?
,
As for her being "an embarrassment as a journalist" or not "qualified" for the job she has, you guys are putting unreasonable expectations on her. She writes for page 2. There may have been a time when the page 2 writers were expected to be respectable journalists, but that time (if it ever existed) is long past. Hunter S. Thompson wasn't exactly fair, balanced and objective in his writings either, but I still love reading him. Bill Simmons isn't a journalist. He's a blogger, just as most of the current Page 2 writers are. The thing that separates the good page 2 writers from the bad ones is whether or not they have an engaging, commanding writing style and whether or not they can come up with takes on subjects that others haven't thought up yet, or simply lack the nerve to express for fear of the backlash. She was the first person I read calling out the double standard with which the media and fans have approached Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds (Bonds was widely villainized even before he was charged with perjury while Clemens was widely given the benefit of the doubt). I also thought she did a good job with her "apology" article on the Duke LaX rape case (we can only wish that the Nancy Grace's of the world would be so honorable). It was also refreshing the way she took Karl Malone to task for being a deadbeat dad (something the mainstream media ignores at just about every juncture).

Are there plenty of "more qualified" writers who could have her job? Sure. You can say the same thing about Bill Simmons, Chad Ford, Greg Easterbrook and any number of other big shots on the web, depending on how you define "qualified." But the fact is, in this day and age, sites like Page 2 don't hire writers based on their experience, their credentials or their journalistic integrity. They hire writers who they think people will want to read and talk about. This 6-page thread only proves that they were right to hire Jemele Hill. She's polarizing. She gets people talking. People who hate her writing look forward to seeing what she writes next almost as much as people who love her.

[Finkelskyhook]

I've listened to this brain-dead ignoramus for about 15 minutes on Jim Rome is Burning and dumbed down my IQ to about 46 to read a handfull of her "articles".  (Heavens, how loose a term is using the word "articles" to describe the drivel she puts forth?)   I didn't read the article.  I didn't need to.  Her substance of her articles and speech are akin to the substance of gangsta rap lyrics.  They all sound the same.

The thing is, maniac, is that she's "writing" as an authority on sports when she writing for ESPN.   She, like Smith, are so vacant in their learnedness, they have to turn to euphomisms, bombasticness, and racism to get what little attention they get.  Because in laymans' terms, the more they write or talk, the less they say.   

If I want to listen or read the opinions of an illiterate bigot, there are plenty of publications and television media to fall back on.  I turn to ESPN to get sports news and learned opinions on them from people who should know at least a little more than I do on the subjects.  Some of us have jobs that don't pertain to sports.  Smith and Hill's do.  They know less than I do.  That is amazing to me.

[jimmyt]

The problem with ESPN these days is they no longer do any reporting. They have a bunch of numbskull characters blabbing away trying to talk over each other. Almost every show on ESPN is opinionated and filled with fat head reporters trying to be heard over one another.

Aside from Bob Ley on Outside the Lines, I can't remember the last time I've seen some actual good reporting on ESPN.

Don't even get me started on that E:60 crap. Where they sit around a table in black and white and talk nonsense about kimbo slice. Or they put Miguel Tejada on the spot and ask him how old he is. Riveting stuff!

Jemele Hill knows nothing more than any of us. She is a Pistons fan who somehow landed a job at ESPN most likely because she knew somebody. Her writing isn't funny because she is not liked. When you dont have fans, people arent going to read your writing the same way. People read her articles because they know they will disagree with her.

Also, to celticsmaniac... Although recently my respect for Easterbrook has gone down after his constant nagging about the patriots, I find it hard to believe that many other writers could put together TMQ articles like he does. Also, Simmons is most likely the most popular columnist in America these days and nobody can combine humor and knowledge into their articles quite like he can.

As far as Jemele Hill goes, anyone who likes sports and can put together sentences can do what she does and be better at it. I write better articles than she does for my college newspaper. I mean, I honestly do not know what she brings to the table. You are basically saying that ESPN allows Jemele Hill to write articles because they know everyone will disagree with her. So basically we should write racist remarks to get more hits on our articles and create a buzz?

Dont use the fact that she writes for Page 2 as excuse for overall poor journalism. Page 2 is widely read by many many people.

[ThirtyThreePlusOne]

she's one of the worst bigots in sports today, and nobody should take her too seriously

[colt45s]

The lady is biased and ignorant.  She is ignorant as in unaware of and not as stupid.  After the Celtics, I have generally rooted for the Pistons and the Spurs.  The Pistons elevate the team over the individual.  That is what basketball is all about. Look I am white and not a native Bostonian, but I have lived here long enough to be considered a local.  I can understand how a black person might perceive the neighborhood mentality that kept Boston a viable city (when other cities slowly died) as racsim. However, it was always more than that in a positive way.  Sure it sometimes played out as racism, but often it was no more than I love my neighborhood and my neighbors more than others.

The Celtics have always been the least racist organization in basketball.  How many black coaches has L.A. had besides Magic Johnson?  Zero!!!!!  The Celtics have had four,three besides "Doc."

Black folks can be just as stupid and biased as white folks.  Surprise, surprise!  At least she has enough insight to recognize some of her own biases.  That's actually a good thing.

Hey I have been following the NBA long enough to think that the Detroit Pistons should have had three NBA titles in a row and not just two.  I remember when they got hosed big time by the officials and "the show time Lakers" before they won their first title. However, if she somehow thinks the Celtics were responsible for that she really is beyond redemption. 

By the way my favorite player before LJB arrived on the scene was Wes Unseld.  Its funny how a relatively short (shorter than Cowens), really wiiiide body can make a fast break go by making quick accurate outlet passes.  I actually hated the Celtics (and Bill Russell too) before I moved to Boston years ago.  It wasn't racism, they were better than the Sixers and Chamberlain thatI used to root for and I hated them for it.  Maybe that's what Jesse Hill's real problem is. 

[Thruthelookingglass]

Gladly.

For a writer with such clear biases, Jemele actually does a good job maintaining a kind of distance from her own prejudices that allows her to write objectively. Sure she hates the Celtics, but she admitted that that hatred comes from her own personal attachment to Detroit and the pain that the C's have historically inflicted on Pistons fans. She readily admitted that there is no logical reason to hate any of the individual players on the Celtics. She admitted that race played into it, but you guys are making it sound like the only reason she ever hated the Celtics was because Boston is a "white city" and Detroit isn't. The prejudice that many Detroit residents may have harbored against Boston and its teams, while bigoted, is not something that offends me either as a white person or a Celtics fan. The fact is, Boston was a racially intolerant city for decades (some would argue that it still is) and the fact that the Celtics were, at one time, considered a "white team" in an increasingly black league made them an easy to identify in connection with the Boston that people associate with Charles Stuart, the '75 Bus riots etc. I imagine that when many african-americans "hated" the Celtics in the 80's, they weren't as much hating the actual basketball team as they were hating what they felt it represents. I feel like Jemele Hill has (maybe not so much in today's article) done a better job articulating this point than I just have.

I also think she has pretty good way with words.

Here's acceptable hyperbole then:  your girl Hill is the Joe Goebbels of her time.  Hope you didn't mind like we didn't mind.

[Roy Hobbs]

Okay, folks, let's calm down the rhetoric. Some of the comments are getting fairly political, and are certainly inflammatory.  There's no need for that.

[nickagneta]

Gladly.

For a writer with such clear biases, Jemele actually does a good job maintaining a kind of distance from her own prejudices that allows her to write objectively. Sure she hates the Celtics, but she admitted that that hatred comes from her own personal attachment to Detroit and the pain that the C's have historically inflicted on Pistons fans. She readily admitted that there is no logical reason to hate any of the individual players on the Celtics. She admitted that race played into it, but you guys are making it sound like the only reason she ever hated the Celtics was because Boston is a "white city" and Detroit isn't. The prejudice that many Detroit residents may have harbored against Boston and its teams, while bigoted, is not something that offends me either as a white person or a Celtics fan. The fact is, Boston was a racially intolerant city for decades (some would argue that it still is) and the fact that the Celtics were, at one time, considered a "white team" in an increasingly black league made them an easy to identify in connection with the Boston that people associate with Charles Stuart, the '75 Bus riots etc. I imagine that when many african-americans "hated" the Celtics in the 80's, they weren't as much hating the actual basketball team as they were hating what they felt it represents. I feel like Jemele Hill has (maybe not so much in today's article) done a better job articulating this point than I just have.

I also think she has pretty good way with words. Lines I liked from her newest column include stuff like "they've got Gasol in fetal position sucking his thumb," "loaded up with red wine and trail mix" "inflation, unemployment and locusts" and "you risked being Jimmy Hoffa'd." It's not BRILLIANT stuff or anything, but I think she's a better wordsmith the most of the people who have columns "published" here on Celticsblog, which  I almost always find flat and disproportionately favoring substance over style. What's the point of favoring substance over style with a sports column? Unless you've done some serious research, say, to make a connection with an analogous situation from the 50's or 60's, aren't you just stating information that any of your readers can learn by watching Sportscenter or logging onto basketballreference.com?  Hill isn't going to become the poet lauriate any time soon, but she is fun to read, agree or disagree. Oh, and I'm one of these sickos who loves Hitler jokes and Nuclear Holocaust jokes. The more the better. I'm amazed that so many of you are so uptight about things like this. You think that she REALLY MEANS that routing for the Celtics is like saying that Hitler was a victim?
,
As for her being "an embarrassment as a journalist" or not "qualified" for the job she has, you guys are putting unreasonable expectations on her. She writes for page 2. There may have been a time when the page 2 writers were expected to be respectable journalists, but that time (if it ever existed) is long past. Hunter S. Thompson wasn't exactly fair, balanced and objective in his writings either, but I still love reading him. Bill Simmons isn't a journalist. He's a blogger, just as most of the current Page 2 writers are. The thing that separates the good page 2 writers from the bad ones is whether or not they have an engaging, commanding writing style and whether or not they can come up with takes on subjects that others haven't thought up yet, or simply lack the nerve to express for fear of the backlash. She was the first person I read calling out the double standard with which the media and fans have approached Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds (Bonds was widely villainized even before he was charged with perjury while Clemens was widely given the benefit of the doubt). I also thought she did a good job with her "apology" article on the Duke LaX rape case (we can only wish that the Nancy Grace's of the world would be so honorable). It was also refreshing the way she took Karl Malone to task for being a deadbeat dad (something the mainstream media ignores at just about every juncture).

Are there plenty of "more qualified" writers who could have her job? Sure. You can say the same thing about Bill Simmons, Chad Ford, Greg Easterbrook and any number of other big shots on the web, depending on how you define "qualified." But the fact is, in this day and age, sites like Page 2 don't hire writers based on their experience, their credentials or their journalistic integrity. They hire writers who they think people will want to read and talk about. This 6-page thread only proves that they were right to hire Jemele Hill. She's polarizing. She gets people talking. People who hate her writing look forward to seeing what she writes next almost as much as people who love her.

If she was such an accomplished wordsmith and here jokes not untasteful, why exactly again did ESPN feel compelled to edit a decent size portion of the article? Her job is, as you say, more to entertain by eliciting a response to her opinion, no matter how unpopular at times that opinion may be. But writing to the point of bad taste and taking an unpopular position on a matter is completely different than purposely writing something for the purpose of inciting hate or expounding on your own racial views of things.

The last time this city had major racial issues were the 70's. The Charles Stuart situation was a case of a suburban man lying to the police about an incident and trying to blame someone that appeared to be as different from him as he could be. It was a premeditated attempt at thwarting attention in his direction.

When the police first put out the story of what happened they did so because protocol dictated that a description of the perp be put out for the community to assist in retrieving information. As the investigation continued the police targeted Stuart as the evidence started pointing his way. But it was the Boston media that created the racial tension over that incident and continued its promotion for a short time.

The one incident did not accurately portray the social climate in the city at the time. It opened a bad wound or two but did not reflect the racial landscape of the city at the time. Since that time Boston has become a popular cosmopolitan American city with few racial problems other than the fact that the majority of the poor in the city are still minorities. That however has been true of every major metropolitan area in the United States for over 150 years.

Sorry, I don't buy her jokes about the genocide of 6 million Jewish people as being tongue in cheek hyperbole. I don't buy her view as hatred for Boston being racial. That was her view. She hated Boston because they were mostly white players and she obviously at the time harboured much hate for caucasians.

But basketball fans nationwide hated Boston Celtics players because they were Celtics. People hate dynasties especially dynasties that span decades. The Yankees are not liked nationwide and haven't been for decades. Older hockey fans despised the Canadians because they were that dominant. And basketball fans in other cities hated the Celtics because they were the Celtics.

Ask Paul Pierce. He says all the time he hated the Celtics because he loved the Lakers and Boston always beat the Lakers. He has never once even thought of saying he hated the Celtics because the city and players were considered "white". Tons of other black players who were fans in Detroit, New York, Chicago, Atlanta and so on will same the same thing. They hated the Celtics because of the color of the shirts they wore and not the color of their skin.

Perhaps African Americans of the eighties identified with the Lakers but painting the feelings of millions as Celtic hatred being that way because of race is using quite the broad stroke. And it crosses the line from tasteless entertaining articles or journalism to hateful propoganda.

I happen to be a huge Nebraska Cornhusker college football fan. When I became one in the early eighties the Alabama Crimson Tide were always good and contending for national championships. I hated the team. But I hated the team. I'm not going to go out and scribe an article about my hate for the University of Alabama because Bear Bryant was a horrible racist and because of the civil rights stands of the state of Alabama in the 1960's. That would be contrived, racial, prejudicial, propaganda that would only be expounding on a position I hold dear to my heart, which is racial equality and the elimination of racism and prejudice. I hated the Crimson Tide because they stood in the way of a Husker national title. I hated the uniforms. There would be no need to bring up the racial climate of the state 20 years earler simply to explain my hatred, because it wasn't true. And it would only be me making a statement as to the improper handling of civil rights in that particular state, again pushing a personal agenda and not the true feelings of my hate.

I hope this explains why many here have problems with Jemele's article and have voiced their opinions as such.

Oh, and by the way, her writing sucks. Anyone can right corny phrases that they pick up elsewhere. That Hoffa statement isn't the first time I heard that used. And it is an often used euphenism to compare unpopular things to the ten plagues of Egypt cursed upon them by Moses. Not very original stuff there. But if you think so, every is entitled to their own opinion. I just wouldn't be expecting that opinion to be one held by the overwhelming majority.

[Steve Weinman]

Gladly.

For a writer with such clear biases, Jemele actually does a good job maintaining a kind of distance from her own prejudices that allows her to write objectively. Sure she hates the Celtics, but she admitted that that hatred comes from her own personal attachment to Detroit and the pain that the C's have historically inflicted on Pistons fans. She readily admitted that there is no logical reason to hate any of the individual players on the Celtics. She admitted that race played into it, but you guys are making it sound like the only reason she ever hated the Celtics was because Boston is a "white city" and Detroit isn't. The prejudice that many Detroit residents may have harbored against Boston and its teams, while bigoted, is not something that offends me either as a white person or a Celtics fan. The fact is, Boston was a racially intolerant city for decades (some would argue that it still is) and the fact that the Celtics were, at one time, considered a "white team" in an increasingly black league made them an easy to identify in connection with the Boston that people associate with Charles Stuart, the '75 Bus riots etc. I imagine that when many african-americans "hated" the Celtics in the 80's, they weren't as much hating the actual basketball team as they were hating what they felt it represents. I feel like Jemele Hill has (maybe not so much in today's article) done a better job articulating this point than I just have.

I also think she has pretty good way with words. Lines I liked from her newest column include stuff like "they've got Gasol in fetal position sucking his thumb," "loaded up with red wine and trail mix" "inflation, unemployment and locusts" and "you risked being Jimmy Hoffa'd." It's not BRILLIANT stuff or anything, but I think she's a better wordsmith the most of the people who have columns "published" here on Celticsblog, which  I almost always find flat and disproportionately favoring substance over style. What's the point of favoring substance over style with a sports column? Unless you've done some serious research, say, to make a connection with an analogous situation from the 50's or 60's, aren't you just stating information that any of your readers can learn by watching Sportscenter or logging onto basketballreference.com?  Hill isn't going to become the poet lauriate any time soon, but she is fun to read, agree or disagree. Oh, and I'm one of these sickos who loves Hitler jokes and Nuclear Holocaust jokes. The more the better. I'm amazed that so many of you are so uptight about things like this. You think that she REALLY MEANS that routing for the Celtics is like saying that Hitler was a victim?
,
As for her being "an embarrassment as a journalist" or not "qualified" for the job she has, you guys are putting unreasonable expectations on her. She writes for page 2. There may have been a time when the page 2 writers were expected to be respectable journalists, but that time (if it ever existed) is long past. Hunter S. Thompson wasn't exactly fair, balanced and objective in his writings either, but I still love reading him. Bill Simmons isn't a journalist. He's a blogger, just as most of the current Page 2 writers are. The thing that separates the good page 2 writers from the bad ones is whether or not they have an engaging, commanding writing style and whether or not they can come up with takes on subjects that others haven't thought up yet, or simply lack the nerve to express for fear of the backlash. She was the first person I read calling out the double standard with which the media and fans have approached Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds (Bonds was widely villainized even before he was charged with perjury while Clemens was widely given the benefit of the doubt). I also thought she did a good job with her "apology" article on the Duke LaX rape case (we can only wish that the Nancy Grace's of the world would be so honorable). It was also refreshing the way she took Karl Malone to task for being a deadbeat dad (something the mainstream media ignores at just about every juncture).

Are there plenty of "more qualified" writers who could have her job? Sure. You can say the same thing about Bill Simmons, Chad Ford, Greg Easterbrook and any number of other big shots on the web, depending on how you define "qualified." But the fact is, in this day and age, sites like Page 2 don't hire writers based on their experience, their credentials or their journalistic integrity. They hire writers who they think people will want to read and talk about. This 6-page thread only proves that they were right to hire Jemele Hill. She's polarizing. She gets people talking. People who hate her writing look forward to seeing what she writes next almost as much as people who love her.

celticsmaniac,

I'm on-the-go right now, so I won't have a chance to fully respond to your post until much later, but I wanted to make sure I took a moment to thank you for taking the time to lay out the reasoning for your support of her in response to my request. 

While I'm hoping to comment more extensively later on if I get a chance, just one quick comment for now.  While I don't know if your comments about the CB content were directed at my work in particular or not, as a writer for this site, I'd like to thank you for (unintentionally, I presume) providing me with one of the greatest compliments I could receive with regard to the work here "disproportionately favoring substance over style."  I'm sincerely thrilled to hear that.

-sw

[celticsmaniac]

don't have time to write any sort of careful response but a few points:

Here's acceptable hyperbole then:  your girl Hill is the Joe Goebbels of her time.  Hope you didn't mind like we didn't mind.

Was that even a joke? Either way I don't get it. I don't "mind." I'm just confused about what the heck you mean

But writing to the point of bad taste and taking an unpopular position on a matter is completely different than purposely writing something for the purpose of inciting hate or expounding on your own racial views of things.

wrong and wrong. Hill was clearly not trying to incite hate but rather was explaining her own hatred. And exploring views on race/social/political issues is well within the sphere of taking an unpopular stance on a given subject.

Since that time Boston has become a popular cosmopolitan American city with few racial problems

this is a different debate entirely and one that is much too large/not appropriate to hash out in this kind of forum.

I don't buy her view as hatred for Boston being racial.

i don't understand this "sentence." are you saying you don't buy the notion of her hatred of boston teams being racially motivated - which would seem to contradict your next sentence?

But basketball fans nationwide hated Boston Celtics players because they were Celtics. People hate dynasties especially dynasties that span decades. The Yankees are not liked nationwide and haven't been for decades. Older hockey fans despised the Canadians because they were that dominant. And basketball fans in other cities hated the Celtics because they were the Celtics.

Sure, but other basketball fans hated the Celtics for exactly the reasons I outlined and they had every right to do so, whether they were being rational or not. Everyone in America has the right to hate whatever they want for whatever crazy, biased reason they want and the people that disagree with them have every right to think that those people are idiots.

Ask Paul Pierce. He says all the time he hated the Celtics because he loved the Lakers and Boston always beat the Lakers. He has never once even thought of saying he hated the Celtics because the city and players were considered "white". Tons of other black players who were fans in Detroit, New York, Chicago, Atlanta and so on will same the same thing. They hated the Celtics because of the color of the shirts they wore and not the color of their skin.

Even if race did have something to do with Pierce's childhood hatred of the Celtics, he's much too smart and grateful for what the Celtics organization has given him to express any view like that publicly. We can't really be sure how he feels, and it doesn't matter because he gives everything he has for the Boston Celtics every time he steps on the court.

Perhaps African Americans of the eighties identified with the Lakers but painting the feelings of millions as Celtic hatred being that way because of race is using quite the broad stroke. And it crosses the line from tasteless entertaining articles or journalism to hateful propoganda.

I didn't do this, and neither did Ms. Hill. Just because you explain the viewpoint of one person or group of people, doesn't mean your discounting the viewpoint of anyone else. Why is seemingly everyone who has posted in this thread so incapable of grasping this concept?

I hated the team. But I hated the team. I'm not going to go out and scribe an article about my hate for the University of Alabama because Bear Bryant was a horrible racist and because of the civil rights stands of the state of Alabama in the 1960's. That would be contrived, racial, prejudicial, propaganda...

that's not necessarily true. In general, propaganda cannot contain any admission by the author or distributor of any personal, irrational bias, which is exactly what Hill did in her piece. If you wrote an article about how you hated Alabama U because of Bear Bryant etc. then you would only seem like a prejudiced, propagating lunatic if you came off like you thought that this was a perfectly good reason for anyone to hate Alabama U. A well-written piece about how your views on Alabama's civil rights history (exemplified by Bryant's behavior) have affected your attitudes about the football team, I think, could actually be an interesting read.

her writing sucks.

says you. Jemele's name is always listed in the top searches at page 2. If she's so god-awful, why are so many people searching for her columns (they're right there on the "front" page anyway)? Do you really believe that everyone is looking for her work so they can play "writer watchdog" and baste themselves in the sheer idiocy of her columns?

celticsmaniac,

I'm on-the-go right now, so I won't have a chance to fully respond to your post until much later, but I wanted to make sure I took a moment to thank you for taking the time to lay out the reasoning for your support of her in response to my request. 

While I'm hoping to comment more extensively later on if I get a chance, just one quick comment for now.  While I don't know if your comments about the CB content were directed at my work in particular or not, as a writer for this site, I'd like to thank you for (unintentionally, I presume) providing me with one of the greatest compliments I could receive with regard to the work here "disproportionately favoring substance over style."  I'm sincerely thrilled to hear that.

-sw

well, I suppose I am glad that you took it that way, seeing as I am a big fan of Celticsblog and would not ever want to insult anyone who helps operate it. In general, I would caution any writer against favoring style over substance, or vice versa, to any degree that would create a noticeable imbalance. Particularly in this setting. No substance = no new or relevant information so why should anyone want to read it? No style = boring and mundane so why should anyone want to read it? It's different if you're an actual newswriter/journalist. If you're writing about a city council meeting or a congressional hearing it's pretty much expected to be all substance: "just the facts, thank you." But I always understood that to be one of the best (and in some cases, the worst) things about blogs, in general. Unless he/she feels compelled to kid his/herself into believing he/she is a real journalist, a blogger has much more freedom with what he/she writes and how than a journalist would have. I suppose whether or not one chooses to exercise that right is up to the author in question. Again, how much "substance" can you really claim to have when you are just writing about a game that you and all of your readers have just watched the night before. How are we even defining "substance" in this context? (please note:  I am using the royal "you" and not trying to address/criticize you in particular, Mr. Weinman).

[Steve Weinman]

celticsmaniac,

I'm on-the-go right now, so I won't have a chance to fully respond to your post until much later, but I wanted to make sure I took a moment to thank you for taking the time to lay out the reasoning for your support of her in response to my request. 

While I'm hoping to comment more extensively later on if I get a chance, just one quick comment for now.  While I don't know if your comments about the CB content were directed at my work in particular or not, as a writer for this site, I'd like to thank you for (unintentionally, I presume) providing me with one of the greatest compliments I could receive with regard to the work here "disproportionately favoring substance over style."  I'm sincerely thrilled to hear that.

-sw

well, I suppose I am glad that you took it that way, seeing as I am a big fan of Celticsblog and would not ever want to insult anyone who helps operate it. In general, I would caution any writer against favoring style over substance, or vice versa, to any degree that would create a noticeable imbalance. Particularly in this setting. No substance = no new or relevant information so why should anyone want to read it? No style = boring and mundane so why should anyone want to read it? It's different if you're an actual newswriter/journalist. If you're writing about a city council meeting or a congressional hearing it's pretty much expected to be all substance: "just the facts, thank you." But I always understood that to be one of the best (and in some cases, the worst) things about blogs, in general. Unless he/she feels compelled to kid his/herself into believing he/she is a real journalist, a blogger has much more freedom with what he/she writes and how than a journalist would have. I suppose whether or not one chooses to exercise that right is up to the author in question. Again, how much "substance" can you really claim to have when you are just writing about a game that you and all of your readers have just watched the night before. How are we even defining "substance" in this context? (please note:  I am using the royal "you" and not trying to address/criticize you in particular, Mr. Weinman).

Thanks for your response, celticsmaniac.  No need for the formal address, by the way, as we're all on a first-name basis here 

The root of my disagreement with what you said comes here: "Again, how much "substance" can you really claim to have when you are just writing about a game that you and all of your readers have just watched the night before."

If this is the case, forget the actual 'formal writings' on the blog pages of this site for a second, and let's backtrack:  Why do we even bother having forums or, for that matter, talking to others without press credentials about these games?  Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but your comments here sound awfully close to the implications once made by Rick Reilly that it's nearly impossible to provide viable insight on a sporting event without having "been in the locker room."  That simply isn't the case.  We discuss the games on these forums because we all saw the same game, but we all have different perspectives on what happened, and sharing them allows us to both enjoy discussion and commiseration with others and to learn from each other.  There are plenty of people on this planet who have a fundamental understanding of the game of basketball, watch a lot of it and are good writers and articulators of thought -- and don't have a media credential.  To make comments that tacitly imply -- as I believe that you are -- that those people aren't capable of adding 'substance' to a discussion because of their lack of a credential or status as a "real" journalist strikes me as sadly short-sighted.

The best parts of our forums here are about exactly what I mentioned above -- understanding the game, following it closely and being able to articulate thoughts in a captivating manner.  When I want to talk or read about basketball, those are the people whose opinions I seek out, both in online forums and elsewhere in life.  Many of those people come in the mainstream media, and many of them use their access to do some very enlightening stuff, which provides a great bridge from the athletes themselves to those of us currently in the uncredentialed masses.  Undoubtedly, there are certain types of access that I don't have, and by extension, there are certain stories that I -- and the thousands who share my role on different websites out there -- can't write that the credentialed media can.  But plenty of those people who meet the qualifications I described above come in other walks of life, and I'm not comfortable shutting myself off to the idea that these folks don't have anything substantial to add to the conversation simply because they don't have access.

To be honest, the lengthier writing that I do is really just an extension of that.  Writing is a 'conversation' to me, not a lecture.

Of course, I don't suggest that 'style' should go by the wayside, and ideally yes, a balance of 'substance' and 'style' sounds perfect to me.  But in my book, 'style' has to do with one's ability to captivate an audience.  But in the style-substance contrast you put forth, it seems as though 'style' becomes a lot more analogous to 'shtick,' of which I'm rather wary.  At the risk of immodesty, I'd like to believe that I at least have the ability to sound original and to keep some semblance of an audience intrigued through the structure of my writing and word choice -- that's my conceptualization of style.  However, you brought up 'style' in the context of Jemele Hill, whose latest writing seems to indicate that 'style' consists of race-baiting and Holocaust jokes.  If that qualifies as 'style' to some, then thanks but no thanks.  I'll gladly label myself style-less on that account.

Just figured I'd clarify what I was saying earlier.  Any further thoughts would be appreciated.

-sw

[celticinorlando]

detroit and this broad deserve each other.....

[Casperian]

I will answer piece for piece

For a writer with such clear biases, Jemele actually does a good job maintaining a kind of distance from her own prejudices that allows her to write objectively. Sure she hates the Celtics, but she admitted that that hatred comes from her own personal attachment to Detroit and the pain that the C's have historically inflicted on Pistons fans. She readily admitted that there is no logical reason to hate any of the individual players on the Celtics.

So, you think she has clear biases. How do you think so? Maybe because it is obvious if you read between the lines of her articles? Yet, you say she would do a good job of maintaining a "kind of" (pretty vague expression) distance from her own prejudices. If she would really do such a good job at maintaining an appropriate distance, we should not be able to extract her prejudices from her articles.

Or do you think so because of her recent "I hate the Celtics" article? If she already knows that she hates the Celtics, if it´s clear for everyone to see that she is biased, why bother and write about it 2 times? What could be the motivation behind this?

No matter what the reasons are, no matter if she admits her hate or not, to write about it publicly without dissociating herself from this hate makes her article a hate-speech. At least, she could give reasons why it´s allegedly legitimate to hate the Celtics.

But all this is not the real problem, it only distracts from it...

She admitted that race played into it, but you guys are making it sound like the only reason she ever hated the Celtics was because Boston is a "white city" and Detroit isn't. The prejudice that many Detroit residents may have harbored against Boston and its teams, while bigoted, is not something that offends me either as a white person or a Celtics fan.

Please, don´t generalize Celticsbloggers with "you guys". It is not true that "we make it sound" as if race would be the only reason she hates the Celtics. It is not the only reason, as she already admitted in her article.

But that it´s even a small part of her reasoning is a problem, period.
I don´t know if Boston is more racist than other cities, but the Celtics, the franchise, is definitly not, quite the opposite. And even Jemele Hill should acknowledge that. Her article is not about Boston, it´s about the Celtics.

Bill Russell said he never played for Boston, he played for the Celtics.

If Jemele Hill feels the need to bring racism as a reason why to "hate the Celtics", she is plain wrong. Considering the image you get as a franchise if you´re labeled this way, and the size of audience flow at ESPN, I think the word "insult" is not appropriate.
"Defamation" is the right word.

She does not, in no way, shape or form, admit that this line of thinking would be illogical. In fact, she felt the need to compare Celtics fans to Nazi´s.

The fact is, Boston was a racially intolerant city for decades (some would argue that it still is) and the fact that the Celtics were, at one time, considered a "white team" in an increasingly black league made them an easy to identify in connection with the Boston that people associate with Charles Stuart, the '75 Bus riots etc. I imagine that when many african-americans "hated" the Celtics in the 80's, they weren't as much hating the actual basketball team as they were hating what they felt it represents. I feel like Jemele Hill has (maybe not so much in today's article) done a better job articulating this point than I just have.

You make too many assumptions for my taste.

So you think it´s arguable that Boston is a racist city? Then why use it as an angle to write such an article? If it´s arguable, then it is no different to any city in america, to any city in the world. It is definitly not arguable that the "Celtics" are not a racist team. They are not, as proven and reiterated by any black player who ever put the green jersey on, and by history itself.

You "imagine" that things that happened over 30 years ago, things that happened all across America, namely racial intolerance, led people to believe the Celtics would be a racist team. If you can imagine that, then why do you defend Hill for bringing these things up again without dissociating herself from this line of thinking? A simple "Of course, in reality, I hated that they kicked our rear ends all the time" would have been enough.

More appropriate would have been "Of course, I was a fool who grasped for straws to defend his low emotions".

I also think she has pretty good way with words. Lines I liked from her newest column include stuff like "they've got Gasol in fetal position sucking his thumb," "loaded up with red wine and trail mix" "inflation, unemployment and locusts" and "you risked being Jimmy Hoffa'd." It's not BRILLIANT stuff or anything, but I think she's a better wordsmith the most of the people who have columns "published" here on Celticsblog, which  I almost always find flat and disproportionately favoring substance over style. What's the point of favoring substance over style with a sports column? Unless you've done some serious research, say, to make a connection with an analogous situation from the 50's or 60's, aren't you just stating information that any of your readers can learn by watching Sportscenter or logging onto basketballreference.com?

Well, I am thankful for the green-glassed substance approach of Celticsblog. If you think you can do a better job of making a Celticsblog, than I suggest you try it yourself.

Your attempt to compare CB to Sportscenter fails, since CB`s nature as an internet medium makes it much faster than Sportscenter.

Your attempt ot compare CB to basketballreference.com fails because I don´t want to search through meaningless statitistics to find what I need. CB (and some other Celtics blogs) is centered around my favourite franchise, so it fills a niche and provides a service noone else does for us Celtic fans. Of course, you neglect the possibility to discuss these facts with other fans of the same franchise faster than anywhere else, and you neglect the fact that CB is not only for american users.

As for the general conflict of style and substance:
I could care less about style, I want objective fan observations for 29 of 30 NBA franchises (kudos to Detroit bad boys. Right, Steve?). The general statement that Celticsblog would have no style is also wrong. I think you never read one of Gant´s articles or Redz` posts.

I am actually wondering why you bother to visit this site if it´s so-called "lack of style" makes it unappealing for you. Once again, if you think you can do it better, send Jeff an e-mail with one of your articles, I think he would love to hear from you.

btw, this is distracting from the topic at hand, once again...

Hill isn't going to become the poet lauriate any time soon, but she is fun to read, agree or disagree. Oh, and I'm one of these sickos who loves Hitler jokes and Nuclear Holocaust jokes. The more the better. I'm amazed that so many of you are so uptight about things like this. You think that she REALLY MEANS that routing for the Celtics is like saying that Hitler was a victim?

I think you should read this thread again.
Once again, there is a difference of a Hitler joke in a comedy show and a Nazi comparison masked as a joke in a sports column, I will leave it at that.

As for her being "an embarrassment as a journalist" or not "qualified" for the job she has, you guys are putting unreasonable expectations on her. She writes for page 2.

You make it sound like ESPN.com is a local news paper in a small village. Maybe you should click this link:

http://www.websiteoutlook.com/www.espn.go.com

It´s not all about style, sometimes you have to take care of something called responsibility. Especially if you write for the biggest sports information center on the internet, imo. Even if it´s only page 2...

Even if it would be a local news paper of a small village, it doesn`t change the fact we`re actually discussing...

There may have been a time when the page 2 writers were expected to be respectable journalists, but that time (if it ever existed) is long past. Hunter S. Thompson wasn't exactly fair, balanced and objective in his writings either, but I still love reading him. Bill Simmons isn't a journalist. He's a blogger, just as most of the current Page 2 writers are. The thing that separates the good page 2 writers from the bad ones is whether or not they have an engaging, commanding writing style and whether or not they can come up with takes on subjects that others haven't thought up yet, or simply lack the nerve to express for fear of the backlash. She was the first person I read calling out the double standard with which the media and fans have approached Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds (Bonds was widely villainized even before he was charged with perjury while Clemens was widely given the benefit of the doubt). I also thought she did a good job with her "apology" article on the Duke LaX rape case (we can only wish that the Nancy Grace's of the world would be so honorable). It was also refreshing the way she took Karl Malone to task for being a deadbeat dad (something the mainstream media ignores at just about every juncture).

It is nice that you enjoy her gossip articles. As you can see in this thread (and in several others on this board with "Jemele Hill" in the title), you`re in the minority.

So you think the good page 2 writers should come up with topics noone else thought of? Like, uhm, the Celtics are a racist franchise?

I agree...

Are there plenty of "more qualified" writers who could have her job? Sure. You can say the same thing about Bill Simmons, Chad Ford, Greg Easterbrook and any number of other big shots on the web, depending on how you define "qualified." But the fact is, in this day and age, sites like Page 2 don't hire writers based on their experience, their credentials or their journalistic integrity. They hire writers who they think people will want to read and talk about. This 6-page thread only proves that they were right to hire Jemele Hill. She's polarizing. She gets people talking. People who hate her writing look forward to seeing what she writes next almost as much as people who love her.

In my humble opinion, all your credibility goes out the window with an article like this. No need to define "qualified".

Does she succeed at her job as a person who should be talked about? Obviously

So why do you think did ESPN censor her article? According to you, she did exactly what the bosses of ESPN want her to do.

I´ll tell you why:
Because ESPN is the most visited sports information site on the internet, and you only obtain that status with credibility, not with polarizing rants. It´s not about polarizing alone, it´s about polarizing while maintaining your credibility. Everybody can write something stupid and call it polarizing, that is no art.

If you have no credibility, you can say polarizing things all the way you want: nobody will listen to you.

She is like the old woman at the corner of your street, telling you "the end is near". The first time you see her, you feel uncomfortable and don´t know what to think. "What does she mean?", "Does she know something I don´t know?". But after some time, you realize she is just crazy and angry at the world. Whenever you meet her, she screams "The end is near", but you are just annoyed and pity her.

But this time, she has a knife, and is running full speed in your direction.

She is like the boy who cried wolf, only she is a woman who cries racist.
These things should be kept for topics where they really apply, otherwise real racism might go unnoticed.

I think it´s fascinating how you simplify her statements and exaggerate the statements made in this thread to justify her Hitler comparison.

6 million dead jews are different than cheering for a basketball team, period. A sports article is different than a comedy show.
This is her second article in a short time about her hate for the Celtics, how am I supposed to know this article would ooze sarcasm? Even a page 2 writer should know how well sarcasm translates to the written form (sarcasm!).

The real topic is that she brings up old, wrong stereotypes, mixed with not so obvious sarcasm in a sports related article. Stereotypes that are way too serious to not make clear that they are wrong. The topic is that she trivializes the horror of the Holocaust to make herself heard and sell her product (and her obvious and publicly admitted agenda). Someone like that should not get a forum as big as ESPN.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and think you just expressed your opinion, and that you´re just a fellow Celticsblogger like the rest on here, but I seriously think you´re way off if you think Jemele Hill did a good job here and should keep her position without relativizing her statements.

[nickagneta]

don't have time to write any sort of careful response but a few points:

Here's acceptable hyperbole then:  your girl Hill is the Joe Goebbels of her time.  Hope you didn't mind like we didn't mind.

Was that even a joke? Either way I don't get it. I don't "mind." I'm just confused about what the heck you mean

But writing to the point of bad taste and taking an unpopular position on a matter is completely different than purposely writing something for the purpose of inciting hate or expounding on your own racial views of things.

wrong and wrong. Hill was clearly not trying to incite hate but rather was explaining her own hatred. And exploring views on race/social/political issues is well within the sphere of taking an unpopular stance on a given subject.

Since that time Boston has become a popular cosmopolitan American city with few racial problems

this is a different debate entirely and one that is much too large/not appropriate to hash out in this kind of forum.

I don't buy her view as hatred for Boston being racial.

i don't understand this "sentence." are you saying you don't buy the notion of her hatred of boston teams being racially motivated - which would seem to contradict your next sentence?

But basketball fans nationwide hated Boston Celtics players because they were Celtics. People hate dynasties especially dynasties that span decades. The Yankees are not liked nationwide and haven't been for decades. Older hockey fans despised the Canadians because they were that dominant. And basketball fans in other cities hated the Celtics because they were the Celtics.

Sure, but other basketball fans hated the Celtics for exactly the reasons I outlined and they had every right to do so, whether they were being rational or not. Everyone in America has the right to hate whatever they want for whatever crazy, biased reason they want and the people that disagree with them have every right to think that those people are idiots.

Ask Paul Pierce. He says all the time he hated the Celtics because he loved the Lakers and Boston always beat the Lakers. He has never once even thought of saying he hated the Celtics because the city and players were considered "white". Tons of other black players who were fans in Detroit, New York, Chicago, Atlanta and so on will same the same thing. They hated the Celtics because of the color of the shirts they wore and not the color of their skin.

Even if race did have something to do with Pierce's childhood hatred of the Celtics, he's much too smart and grateful for what the Celtics organization has given him to express any view like that publicly. We can't really be sure how he feels, and it doesn't matter because he gives everything he has for the Boston Celtics every time he steps on the court.

Perhaps African Americans of the eighties identified with the Lakers but painting the feelings of millions as Celtic hatred being that way because of race is using quite the broad stroke. And it crosses the line from tasteless entertaining articles or journalism to hateful propoganda.

I didn't do this, and neither did Ms. Hill. Just because you explain the viewpoint of one person or group of people, doesn't mean your discounting the viewpoint of anyone else. Why is seemingly everyone who has posted in this thread so incapable of grasping this concept?

I hated the team. But I hated the team. I'm not going to go out and scribe an article about my hate for the University of Alabama because Bear Bryant was a horrible racist and because of the civil rights stands of the state of Alabama in the 1960's. That would be contrived, racial, prejudicial, propaganda...

that's not necessarily true. In general, propaganda cannot contain any admission by the author or distributor of any personal, irrational bias, which is exactly what Hill did in her piece. If you wrote an article about how you hated Alabama U because of Bear Bryant etc. then you would only seem like a prejudiced, propagating lunatic if you came off like you thought that this was a perfectly good reason for anyone to hate Alabama U. A well-written piece about how your views on Alabama's civil rights history (exemplified by Bryant's behavior) have affected your attitudes about the football team, I think, could actually be an interesting read.

her writing sucks.

says you. Jemele's name is always listed in the top searches at page 2. If she's so god-awful, why are so many people searching for her columns (they're right there on the "front" page anyway)? Do you really believe that everyone is looking for her work so they can play "writer watchdog" and baste themselves in the sheer idiocy of her columns?

celticsmaniac,

I'm on-the-go right now, so I won't have a chance to fully respond to your post until much later, but I wanted to make sure I took a moment to thank you for taking the time to lay out the reasoning for your support of her in response to my request. 

While I'm hoping to comment more extensively later on if I get a chance, just one quick comment for now.  While I don't know if your comments about the CB content were directed at my work in particular or not, as a writer for this site, I'd like to thank you for (unintentionally, I presume) providing me with one of the greatest compliments I could receive with regard to the work here "disproportionately favoring substance over style."  I'm sincerely thrilled to hear that.

-sw

well, I suppose I am glad that you took it that way, seeing as I am a big fan of Celticsblog and would not ever want to insult anyone who helps operate it. In general, I would caution any writer against favoring style over substance, or vice versa, to any degree that would create a noticeable imbalance. Particularly in this setting. No substance = no new or relevant information so why should anyone want to read it? No style = boring and mundane so why should anyone want to read it? It's different if you're an actual newswriter/journalist. If you're writing about a city council meeting or a congressional hearing it's pretty much expected to be all substance: "just the facts, thank you." But I always understood that to be one of the best (and in some cases, the worst) things about blogs, in general. Unless he/she feels compelled to kid his/herself into believing he/she is a real journalist, a blogger has much more freedom with what he/she writes and how than a journalist would have. I suppose whether or not one chooses to exercise that right is up to the author in question. Again, how much "substance" can you really claim to have when you are just writing about a game that you and all of your readers have just watched the night before. How are we even defining "substance" in this context? (please note:  I am using the royal "you" and not trying to address/criticize you in particular, Mr. Weinman).

I'm not going to go back and do what you did which was pick out small areas of my voiced opinion and try to discredit the entire jist of the post by nitpicking on pieces specifically.

Instead, what I think you are not grasping is that Jemele Hill wrote an article discussing her hate for Boston and then, possibly without even knowing she was doing it, allowed her personal opinions on race to become entwined. You say she has every right to do so and you are correct. But that does not mean that her writing doesn't then become racial propaganda.

Sure, racial propaganda has to come in the form of a detached view trying to promote facts as the reason for the outcome of the propaganda's point of view. But that is the literal meaning and has become passe to all those other than those who want to dispell an argument that something isn't propaganda because the material had a bit of a personal view. Today's society does not distinguish propaganda in that way.

I also think you miss the point of calling her jokes and writing quality but dismissing the fact that she is using racial humor that is offensive and since it is offensive it is then considered by the majority as poor quality. She allowed her personal racial prejudice to become a part of her article and then used offensive humor. Discussing hatred of a team and a city because of her own personal racial views is akin to promoting your point of view if you know you have an audience.

I wonder if Jemele Hill had read an article discussing the hatred for the Pistons and city of Detroit because they are a black city and town and then the writer used humor discussing the genocide of the people of Rwanda, Dafur, and the Sudan or humor using black slavery as a background as being a quality read and very funny. Here's a guess. She wouldn't. She would call it racist, elitist, Nazi propaganda and accuse the writer of being in the KKK.

And so would I.

Writing of this type is inciteful when discussing sports rivalries. These subjects do not belong intertwined. People do have their rights to write this material, it's a free country. But like you said, they are idiots, and to consider writing of this type quality is absurd, ridiculous and insulting to real quality. And just because people search for her work does not make her a good writer.

Example:

Mein Kampf may have been a well written book but it's anti-semetic content made it nothing more than an autobiography wrapped into propaganda and race hate. It is not a quality piece of writing. And just because just about everyone older than 15 knows about the book and because millions of copies have been published worldwide does not mean that Adolph Hitler is a quality writer.

Maybe that is taking the example to the extreme but the basic elements of the arguments are exactly the same.

If Jemele Hill wishes to mix her racial views in with her reasoning for her hatred of the Celtics, she can do so. But prior to doing so she might want to consider what her view would be of a person taking a similar stand only on something she would consider racist.

She might just pause before giving that article to her editor.

An article, by the way, that her editor must have had change of mind over whether how much quality work was in it because within 12 hours it became extremely editted.

Maybe ESPN didn't think it was such high quality writing or as humorous as Ms. Hill did.

[bbc3341]

I feel the terms "racist" and "bigot" are casually tossed around at times. Let's be clear on the meanings:  A racist is not only someone who has hatred for certain races, it is also someone who believes that race determines cultural or individual achievement or potential, and that certain races are inferior to others. It is also someone who advocates for policies and practices based on this theory. A racist is active. A racist wants to see others oppressed.

A bigot is someone who is intolerant of others who belong to either races, religions, or really any group other than their own. A bigot can be passive and simply ignorant. A bigot doesn't necessarily push for or even want others to be oppressed, he's just intolerant of them and indifferent to their plight.

I don't think Hill fits either of these categories and just because she writes something on the topic of race that I disagree with, or that I find to be outrageous (the Hitler comparison) it doesn't make her a racist or a bigot. I'd need to see much, much stronger evidence than this. btw the same is true of Imus. Were his remarks ridiculous? Yes. But were they racist? Not to my mind.

There are real racists and bigots out there and we diminish their evil when we lump those who do not fit the crime in with them...

We can accuse Hill of the crime she is actually guilty of: Poor writing.

Sorry to get up on my soapbox - OK, back to bball and the C's!!!