Jason Whitlock has once again sparked outrage across sports media, and this time, it’s for what many are calling his most shameless and classless rant yet. With Molly Qerim’s abrupt resignation from ESPN’s First Take, Whitlock decided the moment was right to create what he dubbed a “Sports Media Eye Candy Hall of Fame.”
What followed was a three-minute tirade ranking women in sports journalism by their looks, a segment that fans and athletes alike blasted as misogynistic, creepy, and demeaning.
“With the announcement that Molly Qerim was stepping away from First Take, I think it’s now the appropriate time to talk about her first-ballot induction into the Sports Eye Candy Hall of Fame. She is a first-ballot inductee. There’s no question about it.”
“There’ve only been four previous first-ballot inductions into the Eye Candy Hall of Fame. Of course, Carissa Thompson with Fox Sports. Of course, Erin Andrews with ESPN, her work there, and her work at Fox Sports.”
“Then I think you have to include Suzy Kolber, a historical run at ESPN and a first-ballot Hall of Famer, of course.”
“And then someone that I think has to be in the GOAT conversation for Eye Candy, a young woman by the name of Taylor Rooks. She’s young. Her resume is not as filled as some of these other people I’m talking about, but clearly a first-ballot Eye Candy Hall of Famer.”
“And look, when I mentioned Erin Andrews, maybe she wasn’t on my ballot as a first-ballot person, but I have to give it up to Erin Andrews. And I think we’re in the same position with Molly Qerim.”
“Molly Qerim’s case for first-ballot induction is overwhelming. I think it’s unquestioned. The woman is a knockout, and she’s someone that I prefer to listen to and watch with the sound turned down, just so I don’t miss any of her radiant beauty.”
Whitlock’s official “Top 10” rankings went as follows:
“First-ballot Hall of Famers are one thing. My top 10 in terms of Eye Candy, this is my ranking of the greatest sports Eye Candy in television history.”
I have Suzy Kolber at number one. That’s not a controversial pick. Joe Namath backed me up on that. I think he inducted her into the Eye Candy Hall of Fame.”
“I’m going to put and this will be a controversial take, Molly Qerim at number two. Molly Qerim, you guys know how I feel about peanut butter. Molly Qerim’s got it, and she’s first-ballot Hall of Fame. She’s my number two on my list.”
“Number three is the incomparable Taylor Rooks. Taylor Rooks, I can’t say enough about her. Number four, she wasn’t a first-ballot Hall of Famer, but she’s in my Hall of Fame, Holly Sonders. That’s who I would put at number four.”
“Carissa Thompson at number five. Erin Andrews, I have her ranked sixth. This will be another controversial pick, Cari Champion. Got her at number seven. Then Lindsay Czarniak. You guys remember Lindsay. Christine Leahy and Jenny Taft round out my top 10.”
The bizarre, unsolicited list instantly went viral, but not in the way Whitlock might have hoped. Fans and colleagues across the sports world slammed him for objectifying professional women who have built respected careers in journalism, broadcasting, and media.
NBA legend Ron Harper didn’t hold back, tweeting bluntly: “Stupid a**!!!!”
Others echoed the sentiment. One fan wrote, “Seriously Jason… I see the liquor cabinet behind you… Are you hammered when you did this bit? You’re always quoting scripture, judging people based on Jesus’ teachings… and then you go on a five-minute rant ranking sports media eye candy. Which part of the New Testament was this in?”
Another comment cut even deeper: “You diminish these women and all women in sports journalism by objectifying them like this.”
Reactions ranged from calling Whitlock a “creep” and a “piece of s**t” to highlighting how unprofessional and hypocritical his rant was.
“This dude seriously hates women. Molly seems like a real professional. Why does she deserve this?” asked one viewer.
The backlash underscores a larger point that critics have been making about Whitlock for years: his career has been marked not only by hot takes, but by a consistent pattern of tearing others down.
Once a prominent voice at ESPN, Fox Sports, and The Blaze, Whitlock now operates largely on his own platforms after burning bridges across mainstream outlets. Incidents like this are exactly why, many argue, he no longer has a seat at the table in the major sports media landscape.
What makes Whitlock’s segment even worse is how avoidable it all was.
If he truly wanted to spotlight women in sports media, there are countless respectful ways he could have done it, for example, celebrating the most influential or iconic women in the industry, or even putting together a lighthearted “most beautiful broadcasters” list framed with dignity and admiration.
Instead, he leaned into the lowest, most objectifying angle possible, reducing accomplished professionals to nothing more than “eye candy.”
At its core, Whitlock’s rant highlighted the broader challenge women in sports journalism still face. These are reporters, anchors, and hosts who’ve built credibility in a male-dominated field, only to be dragged back into reductive conversations about their looks.
It wasn’t just tone-deaf, it was insulting, especially given that the women he named from Suzy Kolber to Molly Qerim to Taylor Rooks, have carved out respected legacies through years of hard work.
And let’s be clear: to every woman on that list, and to women across sports media, an apology is owed. You shouldn’t have to deal with being objectified in this way, especially not after proving yourselves time and again as professionals and leaders in the field.
The coverage of Whitlock’s rant should never have been necessary, but because it happened, the least we can do is acknowledge the disrespect and apologize for having to revisit this nonsense.
In the end, Whitlock got the attention he clearly wanted, but at a cost. The backlash was swift because people recognized the damage in normalizing this kind of commentary.
Once again, the women he listed were forced to carry the burden of being objectified in public, when what they deserve is recognition for their talent and professionalism.
The whole episode underscored just how classless and disrespectful the take was and why Whitlock’s reputation as a provocateur often overshadows whatever insight he might have left to offer.
