Stephen A. Smith is an idiot

I’m really struggling to understand something. I read some commentary on an interview with Stephen A. Smith – some sports guy I’ve heard talk loud on ESPN. I couldn’t believe the excerpts I read in this commentary. I mean – I was shaking my head that such stupidity and arrogance could be all wrapped into one person. So I tracked to the original publication of his remarks.

I should say something up front. I’ve seen ESPN pump this guy like he was the Bill Gates of sports. I watched his show twice (I think) and found him to be substantially more mouth than intellect. I’m sure he knows basketball or whatever he was blabbing about, but he talks a lot faster than he can process thoughts. Maybe it was just the television shtick.

The two paragraphs that caught my eye are in full below, and were presented in the quotations marks and with the ellipses as shown. He was asked about whether he would consider working for a newspaper again (didn’t know he had - didn't think he could shut up long enough to type), and whether the newspaper industry was dying. I don’t care where he works, so follow the link if you do. On the death and dying part, he said newsprint needed to migrate better to the internet. Then he went off on the internet. Check out these statements (yeah, my commentary abounds):

"And when you look at the internet business, what’s dangerous (that’s a strong word, Stevie) about it is that people who are clearly unqualified (who set the standard, son? Who wrote and approved the qualifications?) get to disseminate their piece to the masses (as in, the “little people”?). I respect the journalism industry, and the fact of the matter is ...someone with no training (those pesky yet undefined “qualifications” again) should not be allowed (allowed? ALLOWED? But, Massa Stephen, I gots to make water …) to have any kind (?) of format whatsoever (?) to disseminate to the masses (?) to the level which they can. (Um, so that whole 1st Amendment thing about free speech, should have read, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech – until such time as said speech can be HEARD or READ by people outside the physical locale of the speaker or writer (except as may be needed for the newsprint industry or the yet to be invented television and radio industries).” Sound about right, Steve-A?) They are not trained. (you said that about 25 words ago. See what I mean, A? If you talked more slowly, you would think more about word choice, and not be so redundant) Not experts. (Ah, the “qualification” come again. So someone needs to be an “expert” before they can publish on the net. Are you an expert, Steve-A? My issue, son, is that an “expert” denotes familiarity with facts, yet the published items on the net are most clearly opinions. Does someone need to be a factually intensive “expert” in order to render their opinion? Really? I think Kobe is a rapist. I think his attorneys took advantage of the victim-shield laws by exploiting the Preliminary Hearing system (which allowed testimony under oath prior to indictment). They made that girl’s name known. She caved. Oh, yeah, I got a law degree and practiced criminal defense for a long time, then lectured it. What’s your response? “I know Kobe. He’s a friend. He’s no rapist.” Who’s got the biased opinion now, little man?) More important are the level of ethics and integrity (you must be joking. Dan Rather? CNN?) that comes along with the quote-unqoute (sic) profession hasn’t been firmly established and entrenched in the minds (that’s a good thing) of those who’ve been given that license (license? You mean like a privilege? Op cit., 1st Amendment, S-A. Speech is a right).

"Therefore, there’s a total disregard (I love it when people talk in absolutes. They are always wrong. Ironic, eh?), a level of wrecklessness (that’s not a word, btw) that ends up being a domino effect. And the people who suffer are the common (common? COMMON? Who are you referring to as “common,” boy?) viewers out there and, more importantly, those in the industry who haven’t been fortunate to get a radio or television deal and only rely on the written word (the poor, innocent people that cannot distinguish between an AP dateline and www.fred.com). And now they’ve been sabotaged. Not because of me (“Because I be an expert!”). Or like me (A little persecution complex happening?). But because of the industry or the world has allowed the average joe (so it’s because I’m not special? I’ve always been told I was special. That’s why they gave me a special football helmet to wear on the short bus) to resemble a professional (trust me, the last thing I want to look like is YOU) without any credentials whatsoever (those damn “qualifications” again!)."

Unqualified Opinion Alert: Stephen A. Smith is an idiot.