I once wrote a line in a column that spoofed a player's unusual name with bathroom humor unworthy of a sixth-grade boy. So I know how it feels when you try too hard to be clever or deep or, heaven forbid, writer-ly, and wind up stepping in a big ol' pile of goo.
"You're better than this," my sports editor told me at the time.
He was absolutely right. I was.
And Nancy Armour is better, too.
By now social media has been all up in our faces with its usual performative outrage about what Armour wrote the other day in a USA Today column about Caitlin Clark. The gist was that Clark's own performative victimhood -- i.e., her flopping -- was inciting death threats and possible violence against black players in the WNBA from the lint brains who see white folk as the new persecuted class.
It's an interesting theory, but one that tightropes the rational in the Blob's opinion. And Armour didn't help her cause by pointing out that the WNBA All-Star Game was in Chicago this weekend, and Chicago was Emmett Till's hometown, and there's a display there right now about Till and what his life would have been like had he not been brutally lynched in Mississippi in 1955.
So here's a national columnist trying to make her point about possible threats to black basketball players by invoking one of the most notorious acts of racial violence in American history. It was not only a bridge too far; it was the saboteurs blowing up the bridge over the River Kwai at the end of the movie.
It was, in short, a big pile of goo, and Armour stepped in it. So much so, she issued a statement the next day admitting the Till reference was "unartful" while defending her original point.
Which, again, in the Blob's opinion, contains a grain of truth, but perhaps only a grain. Plus it contributes to the damaging and largely phony black-vs.-white narrative the media and certain performance-art politicians (Come on down, Marlin Stutzman!) seem hell-bent on pushing about the WNBA.
Look. I don't know Nancy well, but I met her at several sporting events, and she always struck me as a kind, soft-spoken and incredibly intelligent person. Someone who doesn't deserve the venom she's drawing from the usual buttheads for whom mining outrage is not only their brand, but their only discernible talent.
As one of my dearest friends and former colleagues pointed out with his usual laser perception, a good copy editor might have saved Armour from herself, or at the very least have said, "Whoa, Nance, Emmett Till? Really?" But, as this friend also pointed out, the vandals who've either destroyed or gelded so many media entities these days -- including Gannett, for whom Nancy Armour works -- have laid waste to copy desks in the process.
You reap what you sow, in other words. Nice goin', dummies.
And Nancy Armour?
Yeah, she blew it this time. But you know how they say if 10,000 monkeys typed for 10,000 years, one of them would produce the works of Shakespeare?
Same applies to columnists, only in reverse. If you write 10,000 columns, sooner or later you're gonna write one that clanks. And Armour's written about 9,999 that didn't.
Even if, human nature being what it is, they only remember the one that sucked.