Jason Whitlock, from the sports media point of view, is the latest whistleblower from the black community. As you can imagine, as with most whistleblowers, he’s catching a lot of heat. As it goes, he knew this would be the case, but what gets lost in the heat is the topic he’s speaking of. People dismiss his argument altogether to personally attack how they believe Whitlock himself is “bojangling” for the white media he speaks to through the Kansas City Star and AOL Sports.

A common misconception tends to be that Whitlock is clearing Don Imus of wrongdoing. This is most definitely not the case. Imus should be (and has been) held accountable for what he’s done. Albeit a slow response, MSNBC removed Imus from his simulcast and hopefully sponsors will continue to drop and WFAN will follow suit.

Whitlock’s argument is meant to get people to focus less on Imus as the ultimate, end-all problem. Imus is one of many “shock jocks” who gets his popularity by speaking his ignorance and bigotry. For every Imus there are many, many others waiting in the wings to overtake his old “throne” on-air (Not to mention the countless others without radio time).

It would be more ideal for Whitlock to sit down in an open forum with various other well-respected journalists and leaders and discuss the issue at hand. He had this forum at the World Wide Leader (WWL) but following his interview with TheBigLead.com, he was removed from the best current sports forum.

Another common argument I’ve heard has been that Whitlock is voicing his outrage through the wrong medium. He’s on a popular, national stage with AOL Sports, as well as the KC Star, where he repeatedly writes about how he things the gangster culture is destroying the black image. People in hoods and impovershed neighborhoods cannot always access his work.

Whitlock is speaking through the medium that will access the most people. His medium speaks to many of the leaders and idols kids look up to. He’s speaking a lot to those players in the league who work side-by-side with those 2% of trouble-makers giving the rest a bad rep. Athletes and leaders of communities who have access to Whitlock’s work can make a difference. More importantly, his focus is specifically at the persons who he is particularly angry at — the media who chooses to cover that 2% with all their resources. Why are they giving coverage to these few bad seeds?

The answer is simple: Consumers love to hear about it. We pay more attention to lead stories covering more wrongdoing than charity work.

Whitlock stepped up and takes the heat from the black community as the lead whistleblower. Because of this, he’ll catch heat from various persons and groups, but after more Imus-like issues arise, people will begin to see the light. I don’t doubt he’s went to hoods, suburbs and all types of communities to speak his message, but it doesn’t matter. People will ridicule him and say he’s not “down” enough and hate will follow. And, just like with the Imus, everyone will again stray from what should be the primary focus.

Have a better method for what Whitlock is trying to do? If so, feel free to let the rest of us in on your solution. Sometimes the bold method, with a whistle in hand, is the right path to take.