When someone famous/powerful is blowing smoke up your butt, of course you are going to like them.
Whitlock told Simmons in that podcast that he sexed up his stories during his ESPN interregnum. You know, to be provocative and get attention. To paraphrase Paul Barman, he is the ne plus ultra of hot-take sports culture. He tries to put things in a historical perspective, but he's not well-versed enough on those historical figures and events, and ignores historical evidence, instead substituting his own created hagiography for actual history. He creates a line between two unrelated things that he likes or dislikes, and calls it "edgy". Not seemingly unrelated, like, "oh, I didn't notice that," but actually unrelated, like no one in their right mind would connect those two points.
I remember thinking when Grantland started that I hoped it wouldn't be a bunch of Bill Simmons acolytes/copycats, and when it first started it sort of was, but quickly it became a place with diverse writing, where writers could flesh out their own identities. He understood that it would get tired if it was all like him, and furthermore he hired people whose writing he liked, and wanted more of that. If Whitlock is basically demanding that his writers reflect him, i don't see this working at all, and he probably wouldn't get a chance to pivot (if he's even aware of the need to). He is the worst prominent writer to be given this kind of responsibility, and it could have a damaging effect going forward, not only for black writers but for writer-centered enterprise in general, especially in sports.
