Update: USA Today editor explains why staffers weren’t retained and changes to sports media group. Here’s the link.

****

Tom Pedulla had been at USA Today since 1995 and worked with Gannett newspapers for 31 years. So when he had to re-interview for a job he already had, he took it as a good sign that both of them were conducted over the phone.

“I thought they were comfortable with what I was doing,” Pedulla said.

It turns out Pedulla was wrong. Yesterday, Pedulla was among the sports staffers who were let go by USA Today. Others include Michael McCarthy and Tom Weir. The layoffs were part of USA Today restructuring its sports group.

Pedulla was stunned, especially at the timing. As the paper’s horse racing writer since 1998, he was looking forward to covering I’ll Have Another’s bid for the Triple Crown at the upcoming Belmont Stakes.

Pedulla is feeling many emotions. High on the list was his anger at not getting a face-to-face interview. As part of the restructuring, all staffers had to interview for their positions. Pedulla stressed he would have gone to Washington to talk in person to editors.

“If you think someone’s job was in jeopardy, you’d want to do it face-to-face to make the best possible decision,” Pedulla said. “I never got a face-to-face interview to keep a job I had for 31 years.”

Pedulla also learned of his dismissal over the phone yesterday.

“I was told they are looking for reporters who can break stories every day,” Pedulla said.

Again, the timing of that statement felt weird to Pedulla. He also covers the NFL, and the day before editors asked asked if he could reach Tom Brady’s father.

“I have a good relationship with him,” Pedulla said. “I made some calls, and he eventually called me back from Prague (where he was vacation). I got the quotes that the paper needed. If that doesn’t prove I’m an effective reporter, what does?”

Pedulla, 55, realizes everyone at a paper is vulnerable these days. His number came up Wednesday.

“I know it’s a business and they made a business decision,” he said. “I have no choice. They lost a lot of good people. They’re going to be hard to replace.”

Pedulla was heartened that his phone started to ring once the news got out. He will be covering the Belmont for America’s Best Racing site.

“I’ve always written with a lot of passion, and (America’s Best Racing) said that comes through in my writing,” Pedulla said. “It means a lot to me that I’ll still be at the Belmont.”

Pedulla then added: “I’m hoping this will be somebody’s else gain and (USA Today’s) loss.”

In case you missed it, Phil Mushnick weighed in again on Jay-Z. However, the New York Post columnist was more politically correct Sunday than in a previous rant about the rapper.

He wrote:

Nets point man, marketing strategist and part-owner Jay-Z last week said he fully supported President Obama’s reversal to support same-sex marriages. Discriminating against gays, Jay-Z told CNN, is “no different than discriminating against blacks. It’s discrimination, plain and simple.”

Agreed.

Of course, CNN didn’t dare ask Jay-Z why his rap songs have included hateful, vulgar references to homosexuals, including a Spanish slur for gays (not to mention violent, unprintably crude slurs of blacks and young women).

Yeah, I know, it’s “cultural.” Good for business, too. But be assured: Despite all the hateful lyrics he raps about women, gays, African-American men — how he makes his living — Jay-Z stands strongly against all forms of discrimination.

Compare that to what he wrote on May 4:

As long as the Nets are allowing Jay-Z to call their  marketing shots — what a shock that he chose black and white as the new team  colors to stress, as the Nets explained, their new “urban” home — why not have  him apply the full Jay-Z treatment?

Why the Brooklyn Nets when they can be the New York N——s? The  cheerleaders could be the Brooklyn B—-hes or Hoes. Team logo? A 9 mm with  hollow-tip shell casings strewn beneath. Wanna be Jay-Z hip? Then go all the  way!

Although I’m sure Mushnick heard from Jay-Z’s fans again, Sunday reference to the rapper didn’t trigger nearly the firestorm that resulted from the first column. Guess it’s all about how you phrase things, right?

This is worth 10 minutes of your time if you ever read Semi-Tough, Dead Solid Perfect, or anything else written by Dan Jenkins.

Geoffshackelford.com posted Jenkins’ speech during his induction ceremonies into the World Golf Hall of Fame earlier this month. At age 82, Jenkins shows he still has his fastball.

Phil Mushnick still hasn’t addressed the harsh reaction to his controversial column in a follow-up column in the New York Post. But he did defend himself in an interview with Eric Deggans of the National Sports Journalism Center.

In case you forgot, here is Mushnick’s passage that caused the uproar:

As long as the Nets are allowing Jay-Z to call their  marketing shots — what a shock that he chose black and white as the new team  colors to stress, as the Nets explained, their new “urban” home — why not have  him apply the full Jay-Z treatment?

Why the Brooklyn Nets when they can be the New York N——s? The  cheerleaders could be the Brooklyn B—-hes or Hoes. Team logo? A 9 mm with  hollow-tip shell casings strewn beneath. Wanna be Jay-Z hip? Then go all the  way!

Mushnick has taken considerable flak for referring to the N-Word and stereotyping Jay-Z and his fans. Previously, his only response was in a couple of confrontational emails to his critics.

In Deggans’ column, Mushnick was more restrained, but no less apolgetic for using the controversial reference. He said:

I’ve been condemning it’s return, it’s mainstreaming…I was raised in a household that never heard the word. It was clearly a matter of pointed sarcasm. But the most difficult thing to defend in our business is condemnation as an anti-black racist.

Later, there is this passage:

Mushnick blames coverage on the Internet and in rival publications such as the New York Daily News for much of the criticism he’s received.

“People took this second hand,” he said. “How do I control what people get second hand and third hand and run with it? Nobody who reads me regularly thinks I’m a racist. This is more about the Internet than me.”

Deggans thinks Mushnick was wrong to use the reference, even in sarcasm. He writes:

Still, I think there’s a big difference between quoting someone else’s use of such a jarring racial epithet and a columnist using the word himself, especially in a sarcastic line stuck inside a column largely focused on other topics.

Much as the columnist says he hates the term and wants to constantly point out the Nets’ association with a man who he feels is mainstreaming the word, Mushnick does a bit of that himself by tossing off the word so casually.

Later Deggans concludes with an excellent point:

Defiant as Mushnick remains, I left our conversation hoping he might have learned that lesson at least.

Because, what good is it to deliver a lesson about the danger of mainstreaming one of the worst racial epithets in America, if your language angers everyone so much they never get the message?

Totally agree with Deegans. Mushnick had good intentions, but his message got lost.

Phil Mushnick has earned quite a reputation for blowing up his targets.

So you can bet many of those targets are having a fine time watching the New York Post columnist come under considerable fire for last Friday’s column. It included this highly combustible passage about Jay-Z and the Brooklyn Nets:

As long as the Nets are allowing Jay-Z to call their marketing shots — what a shock that he chose black and  white as the new team colors to stress, as the Nets explained, their new “urban” home — why not have him apply the full Jay-Z treatment?

Why the Brooklyn Nets when they can be the New York N——s? The  cheerleaders could be the Brooklyn B—-hes or Hoes. Team logo? A 9 mm  with hollow-tip shell casings strewn beneath. Wanna be Jay-Z hip? Then  go all the way!

Mushnick is being pounded for using the N-word, even if he didn’t spell it out, and for stereotyping. The worst accusation: people are calling Mushnick a racist.

James King of the Village Voice wrote Friday:

The story of Mushnick’s blatantly racist attempt at satire is getting some attention in the blogosphere — as well it should — and we’re more than compelled to give it a little more.

Then King concluded:

We haven’t heard back. We’ll let you know if we do. Meantime, Mushnick might want to get his lipstick handy — we have a feeling Jesse Jackson’s ass will soon be in need of a smooch.

So now the tables turn on Mushnick. You can be sure over the years many of his subjects/victims have complained to the Post columnist about being misrepresented or unfairly characterized.

Monday, Mushnick did the same to King in a post at Village Voice. Mushnick wrote:

I’m never comfortable using that word [nigger]. That’s the way I was raised.  Shame on my parents. The ONE time I spelled it out – for accuracy – I  was widely condemned as a racist. So either way, I’m a bigot. I know  what’s in my heart and my head, the way I was raised, and the way I  raised my kids. But you’ve painted me a racist. Good work, James. And  good work, if you can get it.

Later in the post, there’s this passage from Mushnick.

One last fleeting thing, perhaps a defensive thing. Recall Marge Schott, the racist owner of the Cincy Reds who was infamously banned from  baseball for her n-word – sorry, nigger – references to blacks? Know who publicly exposed her, leading to her expulsion? Ah, never mind. You  already know me as a racist. Ever hear of McCarthyism? That’s you.  Ready, fire, aim. Nice job.

It is absurd to think Mushnick is a racist. His regular readers know he is a crusader for social justice in sports and beyond.

Mushnick, though, did make a mistake in making his point about Jay-Z. I don’t think there is any place for that kind of language, even in satire.

Mushnick has yet to address the controversy in two subsequent columns since last Friday, including one today. That’s too bad. It would be interesting to hear his perspective on being at the other side of the table.

Follow-up: Yesterday, I noted Mushnick’s Sunday wasn’t promoted on the Post’s main sports page on the Net. I found it curious since 10 other sports Post columnists were displayed. Probably a coincidence. Still, the omission was rather curious given the timing of the controversial Mushnick column.

Well, I checked today and Mushnick’s column was featured in the column wing, right under my old golf pal, Mark Cannizzaro.

To celebrate Dan Jenkins’ induction into the World Golf Hall of Fame tonight, I thought it would be appropriate to dig up some excerpts from an interview I did with him in 2008. I spoke with the great one at the U.S. Open at Torrey Pines. We discussed his latest novel The Franchise Babe, and branched out to Ben Hogan, Tiger Woods and the profession he helped define.

One of the first items that came up was pants. Or rather short pants. He said there never has been a great sportswriter who wore shorts. Wearing his trademark khaki slacks, he said:

Who is the best the sportswriter who wore shorts? I keep trying to envision Grantland Rice or John Lardner in shorts. It never occurred to me to wear shorts. I’d look too silly to wear shorts.

Thankfully, I wasn’t wearing shorts on that day. But I do break out the shorts more often than not on those hot days during a tournament. Guess that disqualifies me as a great sportswriter.

Not that I, or anyone else, would be in his class.

Anyway, enough from me. Here are some excerpts from my interview:

One-liners: The best humor is bound with truth. I never wrote a line in my life I didn’t believe. I never wrote a joke I didn’t believe. It wasn’t a question of being funny. It comes natural, the way I see it.

On his idols: I was greatly influenced by my heroes, Runyans, Lardners. I wish I had John Lardner’s talent to tweak but not bleed. A few times, I drew blood and didn’t mean to. I don’t think these guys in here (current sportswriters) ever read that stuff.

His novels: I write the same book every time, just change the names. I’ve never been in a war. I couldn’t write about that. I worked in press boxes. I knew athletes. I wrote about that.

Access back then: I knew everybody. I knew Hogan better than anybody. Knew Jack, knew Arnold. I was friends with them. We had dinner with them. They would tell you things they knew you wouldn’t write. There was a relationship.

Let’s say it was a regular tour tournament. The Jackie Gleason. You’d go into the coffee shop and you might see Sam Snead sitting by himself. You’d join him. He’d enjoy the company. That doesn’t happen anymore. You miss a lot of good stories. You miss a lot of deep background. You miss knowledge.

There was a camaraderie We were always in the lockerroom. You don’t have that anymore. I miss the connection.

Covering Ben Hogan: He was misunderstood to the extent he was shy. Very shy. He didn’t suffer fools. If you didn’t understand the game, he didn’t want to talk to you. He knew I understood the game. When I went to a tournament, I’d write two stories. The main story and Hogan, no matter what he did.

I’d walk all 18 with him. He knew I was there. If he had a bad round, he knew I’d be there to ask him about it. It was fun. A great privilege. I was very lucky. If he wasn’t around, I might still be in Waco.

Covering Tiger Woods: I can’t talk to him. I don’t know him. I tried for 10 years to get a one-on-one. You know what (Woods’ agent) Mark Steinberg says? ‘We have nothing to gain.’ I said Mark, ‘You can read it before you print it. We’ll take things out.’ He says, ‘We have nothing to gain.’ Can you believe that?

Covering college football: (When he joined Sports Illustrated in 1962) They asked why do you want to cover college football? I said because I know more about it than anyone here. If you grew up in Texas, it was either college football or drowning.

I changed the way they cover college football. In those days, when Sports Illustrated covered college football, it was Yale-Harvard. It was a social thing. I said there’s this thing called No. 1. And we should gear our coverage to the big game of the week.

Success of Semi-Tough: It was good news, bad news. I made some dough. It helped my lifestyle. But it was the reason why they (SI) moved me to pro football. They said, ‘You’ve got this fuckin’ best-seller on pro football. You’ve got to cover pro football for us.’ I hated it. I didn’t respect it. It wasn’t as much fun to me as college football.

On daughter Sally becoming a noted columnist: We had two boys and Sally. They were all interested in sports. I didn’t say anything to Sally. She was covering the Final Four one year when she was a rookie. She told (legendary Dallas sportswriter Blackie Sherrod), “I’m going to be a sportswriter.” Blackie said, “You can go to a doctor and have it cut off.” A great line.

I love reading her column. I hardly ever find myself disagreeing with her. I say she’s the best writer in the family. Hell, she went to Stanford and I went to TCU.

His main goal: I’ve always been a beat guy. I covered college football, pro football, golf. Ruling out the seamheads in baseball, it’s hard to find anybody who wants to be a caretaker of the sport. I always wanted to take care of the sport. I wanted to caretake golf. I wanted caretake college football. Tell things to people they didn’t know. Inform them.

Last word: To the people who say I’m an old curmudgeon, I say you’re right.

Saw this tweet from Howard Bloom of Sports Business News:

Anyone notice that Phil Mushnick’s weekend New York Post column is NOT online?

Technically, Mushnick’s Sunday column is not posted on the main page of the Post’s sports site.  Mushnick did write a column Sunday, asking what would have happened if James Dolan hired New Jersey Devils GM Lou Lamoriello to run the Knicks way back when.

However, in order to find it on the Post’s site, you would have to go to Mushnick’s column page. Meanwhile, 10 other Post sports columnists (who doesn’t have a column at the Post?) are featured on the main page along with many, many other stories.

Yet not even a headline on the main page for Mushnick’s column.

Mushnick is under fire for writing in a Friday column that the Brooklyn Nets should change their name to the  “New York N——s” because they are co-owned by Jay-Z.

Now is it unusual for the Post not to include Mushnick among its roster of Sunday columnists? After all, he has a huge following, and there definitely would be room to add one more to the roll call.

Maybe there’s nothing to it. His column exists in its regular spot in the print edition.

However, if the Post was writing about this treatment for somebody else, it certainly would question, if not infer, whether the paper is trying to downplay Mushnick in the wake of Friday column. This is the Internet equivalent of being buried back with the classifieds.

Obviously, it made Bloom wonder. And perhaps Mushnick too.

Interestingly, Mushnick didn’t make any mention of the critical reaction he received in his Sunday column.

Not a good day for Joe Cowley, a columnist for the Sun-Times.

Apparently, his plane was delayed this morning, and instead of reading a good book, he did some tweets that weren’t nice to women. His tweets questioning the capabilities of a “Chick pilot” started an exchange with sport reporter Sloane Martin that I’m guessing he now regrets.

As a result, Cowley’s tweets have become a Sunday afternoon topic for Deadspin. And that’s not a good thing. The site did an original post and two follow-ups, including a report that Cowley de-activated his Twitter account.

As folks in Chicago know, Cowley is very active on Twitter. He enjoys being edgy, and ticking off people.

However, there’s always that line in everything, and it looks as if Cowley might have crossed it.

I’m more likely to see a Squatch before I see a hot flight attendant. Then again, I think the airlines are hiring Squatch’s to do that job.