Let’s just say Jason Whitlock isn’t a member of the Joe Posnanski fan club.
There have been plenty of harsh reviews about Posnanski’s book, Paterno. But few were more vicious than the one written by Whitlock.
Writing on Foxsports.com, Whitlock writes:
Posnanski’s fluffy, 400-plus-page opus provides sparse guidance. What it inadvertently does, for the highly careful reader, is expose how a coach and a writer can sacrifice their integrity over time, one compromised decision at a time.
It’s difficult to discern what is most shallow in Posnanski’s book — the reporting, the access or the insight.
Later, he says:
Seriously, most puddles are deeper than “Paterno.”
It’s the antithesis of John Feinstein’s “A Season on the Brink” and Buzz Bissinger’s “Friday Night Lights.”
“Paterno” is “A Tuesday with JoePa (and Guido).”
Yet this review goes deeper than the book. Whitlock and Posnanski were long-time columnists at the same time for the Kansas City Star. An impressive 1-2 punch, to say the least.
Apparently, Whitlock has some bad blood towards his former teammate. Here is a highly personal shot in the review:
Posnanski, the storyteller without ego according to his passionate band of sycophants, is center stage throughout “Paterno,” most often without good reason.
Wow, guess that makes me a sycophant. I am a fan of Posnanski’s work, even though I had problems with the book.
Whitlock doesn’t acknowledge his relationship with Posnanski in the review. However, in a tweet, he mentioned his Real Talk podcast in which he discusses “history w/ Posnanski.”
Much of the podcast is an interview with Stefan Fatsis, who also wrote a scathing review of Paterno for Slate.com. Finally, at the 42-minute mark, he addresses the Posnanski relationship.
He begins:
I hope people hear me in context and don’t think there is something horribly negative driving me in this opinion.
No, just negative. He continues:
I don’t dislike Joe Posnanski…I recommended that he get hired in Kansas City. Once I got an up-close and personal view of what Posnanski did in Kansas City, I had some doubts about the authenticity (of his work).
Whitlock then launches into a long story about a Kansas City boxer who died in the ring. He felt Posnanski and the Star sports editor undercut him about a sensitive issue with the boxer.
Whitlock then accuses Posnanski being a mouthpiece for Chiefs running back Priest Holmes during a contract dispute.
Whitlock then delivers his biggest punch at the end:
If you read Posnanski’s work close up–if you’re not some contest judge who only reads the work once a year–(he) reads differently….I see (the book) as loyalty to a paycheck. I see it as par for the course. Standard operating procedure. The promise of information, insight, access that just isn’t there under closer examination.
Whitlock, though, says he isn’t “bitter” about Posnanski. Just listen to the 15-minute diatribe and tell me if you agree.
Sure sounded like some nasty feelings to me.
On Whitlock v. Posnanski as columnists, I think over the long haul of their Kc Star careers, Posnanski proved to be a better, more dependable writer. Whitlock was more provocative and a more real personality. Jason was there first, and as he says, encouraged the paper to bring Joe in, but over time, Posnanski outshone Whitlock as a columnist. Jason was too distracted by the lure of his local radio show and later by a taste of ESPN fame, and he was woefully lacking in sports knowledge outside of football (and even there, his knowledge was suspect). Joe had a short-lived awful radio stint and then retreated to the safety of print only, where his columns were well written and well received, even though often sentimental to the point of saccharine. Plus, Joe was a good guy, and Jason was and is difficult. So Whitlock clearly has an ax to grind, but in my opinion his criticism of Posnanski generally, and with regard to Paterno specifically, is on target. The boxer incident Whitlock mentions was one of several in which Posnanski used his writing skill to paper over the fact that he had few facts and insufficient background to be espousing the seemingly heartfelt opinions he offered in his columns. It’s easier to get away with that in a short column, but a book-length biography requires much more diligent and hardnosed reporting.
The Paterno book reads as if he was writing to fit a preconceived template, and the reporting is not there to convince readers that we are getting the true picture of the subject.
Posnanski wrote every story the same way at the Star. You would have had to be brain dead to think he was worth a shit. Whitlock was at least interesting. The bar seems to be pretty low for sports journalism.