Well. At least Chicago has one sportswriter who has a clue. The other sheep like to echo the saying of the day: [we need a coach that can teach Derrick Rose the point guard position] [We need a coach who can manage the clock] [Vinnie is dead coach walking] [The decision to fire Vinnie has already been made] Actually what they didn’t say says a lot about them, The same writers use reverse logic when it comes to Lovie Smith. Why? They are reverse racists, that’s why. When anyone publicly calls for Lovie’s firing, they say they are racist because Lovie is black. And when the white coach is having injury and personnel problems he has to go immediately. (Christmas Eve?) When Lovie’s defensive scheme’s are utter failures, they say Brian Urlacher is out, so it doesn’t count.
I love it when they say that Vinnie can’t help Derrick Rose be a better point guard. Why? Because he is white? Like he didn’t play the position for many years? Oh, that doesn’t count.
When they say Vinnie can’t manage the clock, why? Is it because Bernie Bickerstaff didn’t call the timeout? He certainly added his two cents before Vinny calls those timeouts. But they forget that also.
When they say Vinnie is dead coach walking do they explain why? No they just pontificate about the record being 11-18.
When they say the decision to fire Vinnie has already been made, I agree. BY THEM. No wonder Vinnie laughs it off.
Now I know political correctness rules everything today and a white sportwriter cowers in fear to ever be referred to as another Rush Limbaugh and lose their cushy job with perks galore. But how about some even-handed reporting like the above referenced article. And the writer is not white, but a great writer. See another article he wrote on another page on this website. I posted his article on Chicago sports because it was a great article. Fair. Even-handed. Terrific.
Kudos John Jackson!
I know I threw out some broad insinuations in this article, and I know there are beat writers and there are editorialists. But some of the beat writer sometimes are interviewed on tv and sometimes they crow the line that seems the safest. But there is also a lot of cross pollenation where the writers go on TV and spout some of the lines reffered to in this article. Sometmes it looks like they don’t even mean what they say. This is what I refer to. Not just their articles. But the overall gist of what becomes a jingoism and concensus.