Wilbon is STILL blaming Sean Taylor. Incredible.

[maxjulian]

Wilbon is smart: blacks in the media spotlight (Armstrong Williams, Jason Whitlock, Shelby Steele) get paid mo' money for being hatchetmen on their own kind. He's not going to be fired, he's going to get a raise!

Pathetic. Spineless. Self-hating. Unrepentant. Stooge. Making cash money.

[jbooma]

I think the thread title is misleading and inaccurate. Reading Wilbon's comments as "blaming Sean Taylor" seems to me to miss the point totally.

Please read it before screaming, my god the fans at the game yesterday and on this board posting are making us all look bad.

[jbooma]

Lafayette, Ind.: Hey Wilbon. It was sad enough losing Sean Taylor last week and it was my saddest week as a Redskin fan. What made it even worse were journalists like you who gave the impression that Sean "had it coming to him" and "did not divorce himself from his past." I think you really need to apologize to Sean Taylor's family, all Redskins and football fans, and the readers that have supported you through the years.

I know you are human and you can make a mistake. But this one was horrendous. I will be willing to give you another chance if you apologize and can admit that stereotyping and judging people is just plain wrong. You did not have all the facts. It made you look foolish. Sean was a hero and it is up to you to help spread the word, especially after last week.

Michael Wilbon: You won't read an apology here. Go back and get Wednesday's newspaper and read the column. Don't ever suggest I said anybody "had it coming" or you should be the one apologizing for making up a sentiment that wasn't expressed. I wonder, in many cases, if people doing the criticizing read the piece or simply listened to what somebody told them or listend to somebody who was angry on sportstalk radio.

Those who knew Sean Taylor best very carefully articulated how he changed his life. If he changed it, what did he change it from? The discussion I attempted to lead was about what might have happened in the context of old associated or people on the periphery not changing their lives...Read the piece. If you want to write your own, fine. But don't make up the sentiment mine expressed. It was a tough enough discussion without inserting your own resentment in my words.

[turbrn2007]

The trouble with Wilbon is he uses the sports column to make comments and inferences about circumstances outside of the game that he doesn't fully comprehend.

As it turns out Taylor's demise had nothing to do with any 'street grievances' or 'payback' from guys he met while at the U.

It was rather Taylor's generosity to his sister and his family in letting them use his house and invite friends into his compound that seemingly caused a couple of these idiots to hatch a plan to rob him.

Wilbon is guilty of doing what he claims the 'white' media does all the time, namely stereotype the athlete of color.

You summed it up perfectly!!

[WARLORD1863]

IMHO, he's basically saying that he was wrong, without actually saying it. He used other peoples' comments to show that he wasn't alone in his original comments, stated that he was wrong when he said it was connected to his past, and stated that his original comments should not be interpereted as saying his murder was less tragic or less senseless. He's saying he's wrong, just with a journalistic spin on it.

[Larry Brown #43]

Here's the thing that about Wilbon's comments I still have yet to see anyone explain adequately, including Wilbon himself.

In his chat last week, he passed ST's personal transformation off as a concoction of the Redskins PR operation. Then in his column, he said that "according to all credible accounts" Taylor HAD changed his life.

Someone please explain this contradiction to me, and explain how the first comment doesn't warrant an apology?

[waterwagen]

Here's the thing that about Wilbon's comments I still have yet to see anyone explain adequately, including Wilbon himself.

In his chat last week, he passed ST's personal transformation off as a concoction of the Redskins PR operation. Then in his column, he said that "according to all credible accounts" Taylor HAD changed his life.

Someone please explain this contradiction to me, and explain how the first comment doesn't warrant an apology?

It's just one of multiple inconsistencies, which he's trying to slide out of by being ambiguous and/or slightly changing his story. I'm done with him, mainly because of how he responded to the criticism. If you don't man up I don't respect you, period.