Speaker 1: Welcome to Good Game with Sarah Spain, where we're blowing
Speaker 1: up our entire show format to bring you a very
Speaker 1: long interview with USA Today columnist Christine Brennan. Now, if
Speaker 1: you've been following along, the WNBA Players Association specifically called
Speaker 1: out Brennan, requesting that her credentials be revoked and criticizing
Speaker 1: an interview that she did with Sun player DJ Carrington.
Speaker 1: Carrington made contact with phenom Caitlin Clark with a hand
Speaker 1: to the eye while reaching to deflect a pass in
Speaker 1: Game one of the Sun Fever opening round series. Here's
Speaker 1: that exchange between Brennan and Carrington, Djday.
Speaker 2: Yeah, did you when you went and kind of swatted
Speaker 2: at Caitlin, did you intend to hit her in the eye?
Speaker 2: And if so, could you just or if not, either way,
Speaker 2: could you talk about what happened on that play.
Speaker 3: I just I don't even know why I would intend
Speaker 3: to hit anybody in the eye.
Speaker 2: That doesn't even make sense to me.
Speaker 3: But no, I didn't. I didn't know I hit her. Actually,
Speaker 3: I was trying to make a play on the ball
Speaker 3: and I guess I follow it through and I hit her.
Speaker 3: So obviously it's never intentional. That's not even like the
Speaker 3: type of player that I am.
Speaker 2: So yeah, did you and Marina kind of laugh about
Speaker 2: it afterwards? It looked like you there was later on
Speaker 2: the game they caught you guys laughing about it.
Speaker 3: No, I just told you I didn't even know I
Speaker 3: hit her, so I can't laugh about something I didn't
Speaker 3: know happened. Now.
Speaker 1: While that specific interview and the Players Association calling out
Speaker 1: Brennan has been the focus of much of the conversation lately,
Speaker 1: we actually invited her on the show before the WNBPA statement.
Speaker 2: Her larger body.
Speaker 1: Of work around Caitlin Clark and the league this season
Speaker 1: was something I thought was worth addressing with her, including
Speaker 1: whether or not she's aware of how her intent may
Speaker 1: not align with her impact in such a fraud space,
Speaker 1: and what responsibility journalists have in minimizing harm to the
Speaker 1: players they cover. It's a long conversation, so buckle up.
Speaker 1: You'll hear the interview after the break. She's been the
Speaker 1: national sports columnist at USA Today since nineteen ninety seven,
Speaker 1: a TV sports commentator on multiple outlets, and the.
Speaker 2: Author of seven books.
Speaker 1: She was the first few sports reporter for the Miami
Speaker 1: Herald in nineteen eighty one, the first woman at the
Speaker 1: Washington Post on the Washington football team beat in nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty five, and the first president of the Association for
Speaker 1: Women in Sports Media in nineteen eighty eight. She's currently
Speaker 1: writing a book on Kaitlyn Clark to be published in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five. It's Christine Brennan. Christine, thanks so much
Speaker 1: for joining us.
Speaker 2: Sara, my pleasure. Thank you so much. Great to see
Speaker 2: you again. So I want to start.
Speaker 1: You've been on my old shows a million different times,
Speaker 1: talking about a ton of different sports. You've been a
Speaker 1: national multi sport columnists for decades with experience covering athletes
Speaker 1: from all over the sports world. But you're relatively new
Speaker 1: to this WNBA beat in your capacity for the USA
Speaker 1: Today columns that you're writing. Are you sort of on
Speaker 1: the WNBA beat or more of a Kitlyn Clark.
Speaker 2: Focus there for the for the paper. Great question. So
Speaker 2: I was not covering women's basketball. I'm not credentialed to
Speaker 2: cover the women's Final four either of the last two years.
Speaker 2: My colleagues were there and they did a great job.
Speaker 2: But I started watching, of course, as I think most
Speaker 2: I mean, I've always watched and I've covered many Women's
Speaker 2: final fours and NCAA tournaments going back to Don Staley,
Speaker 2: which I reminded her of recently at the Washington Post.
Speaker 2: You know, Virginia teams that she was on. But I
Speaker 2: hadn't been credentialed for a while, which is fine, Like
Speaker 2: I was going to Masters and so you know this,
Speaker 2: you know, I'm headed to Augusta. So the Women's Final four.
Speaker 2: But of course I was watching it and watching for many,
Speaker 2: many years. But the last couple of years, of course,
Speaker 2: with those incredible TV ratings and all the conversation about
Speaker 2: Caitlin Clark and IOWA and of course LSU and Angel
Speaker 2: Reese and LSU winning that title and then going into
Speaker 2: the last year, and of course South Carolina beating Iowa
Speaker 2: and all the things that happened. Amazing, right, eighteen point
Speaker 2: nine million, Yeah, unbelievable. I think it was exactly or
Speaker 2: close to exactly four million more than the men. Truly,
Speaker 2: I never thought I would ever be able to say
Speaker 2: that sentence, you know, covering sports as I have for
Speaker 2: forty three and covering women's sports and fighting those battles.
Speaker 2: So I've been watching it and aware of it as
Speaker 2: far as I wrote a column in February. It was
Speaker 2: my first column ever on Caitlyne Clark. I did not
Speaker 2: ask her a question till June when they came here
Speaker 2: to Washington, and when Indiana was here at Washington, and
Speaker 2: I didn't actually shake her hand or meet her until
Speaker 2: the Olympic swimming trials were in Indy. I remember seeing that, yes,
Speaker 2: he had not been in Indie. I would never have
Speaker 2: met or talked to Caitlin Clark, you know, in terms
Speaker 2: of actually meeting her or asking a question, because I
Speaker 2: covered two fever games because USA Today wanted me to
Speaker 2: cover those games while I was at the swimming as
Speaker 2: of course did quite a few other people going over,
Speaker 2: especially the Sunday afternoon of I think was Father's Day
Speaker 2: was Chicago sky at Fever, and of course that was
Speaker 2: the intense interest in that, and then went and covered
Speaker 2: you know, Katie Ledecki and everybody at night. So bottom
Speaker 2: line is I wrote a commn in February, I wrote
Speaker 2: a column in April wrote yeah, I wrote a column
Speaker 2: on the day of the first game, which was May fourteenth,
Speaker 2: and Riucada, which was a one mostly title nine or later.
Speaker 2: Just this coming of age, in this moment in sports
Speaker 2: and then then the Mystics game, I wrote one. I
Speaker 2: think I wrote a column on that, or maybe that
Speaker 2: was in the height of some of the post Kennedy
Speaker 2: Carter foul and all the things that had happened there.
Speaker 2: So I wrote about that that day and then went.
Speaker 1: To so is this a directive of the of the
Speaker 1: That's all I was wondering, is like, is USA today
Speaker 1: when you're like pitching them, are are you pitching them
Speaker 1: like I'm going to do this coverage of this superstar
Speaker 1: rookie that's bringing all these eyeballs or is it more
Speaker 1: of a w NBA focus that ends up focusing a
Speaker 1: lot on the changes that happened as a result of
Speaker 1: her arrival.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, good question. The first one February it was
Speaker 2: also about the Olympic team, and I have so many
Speaker 2: Olympic sources. So USA today I probably you know, you
Speaker 2: talk to.
Speaker 1: Editors, natural intersection there.
Speaker 2: I didn't just like chat about that then. Yeah, I
Speaker 2: think each one would have been conversations with editors a
Speaker 2: little bit and very mutual, you know, in other word's
Speaker 2: like do you want to do this, yes? Or I
Speaker 2: come to them, I'd like to do this.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 2: Obviously in the midst of this, I'm writing, you know,
Speaker 2: more columns about golf, and of course more columns yeah.
Speaker 1: All the other the other sports that you've been at forever. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's been interesting to watch this year. You know.
Speaker 1: When the season started, a whole lot of the sort
Speaker 1: of newer to the w folks who hadn't watched a
Speaker 1: lot of WNBA basketball, including a lot of men's players
Speaker 1: and talking heads, reacted to the league's physical play and
Speaker 1: the trash talk with a lot of kind of pearl
Speaker 1: clutching about it being too violent or accusations that some
Speaker 1: players were jealous of the attention that Kaitlyn Clark was.
Speaker 2: Getting and creating this narrative.
Speaker 1: And I think it's kind of been a through line
Speaker 1: for the season, this narrative that got started that was
Speaker 1: that players, veteran players, particularly black players, were targeting Kaitlyn Clark,
Speaker 1: and over the course of the season, that resulted in
Speaker 1: a lot of coverage of plays involving Clark that look
Speaker 1: a whole lot like other games, and plays that get
Speaker 1: ignored right, that display the same toughness and competitive play
Speaker 1: the tempers you've seen in sport, like there are actual
Speaker 1: fights in the w NBA, but flagrant fowls or incidental
Speaker 1: content plays on Kaitlyn Clark are sort of treated as
Speaker 1: outside the game of basketball, and listening to folks like
Speaker 1: Sue Byrd say how insulting it is for athletes to
Speaker 1: be first of all, for folks to arrive and not
Speaker 1: recognize that that kind of play is pretty common in
Speaker 1: the W but also to presume that athletes are trying
Speaker 1: to injure other athletes. And one of those plays actually
Speaker 1: happened recently. There's a play between Kaitlyn Clark and dj
Speaker 1: A Carrington of the Connecticut Sun, and you know, resulted
Speaker 1: in a black eye, and there was this conversation around
Speaker 1: around intention. You actually interviewed dj A Carrington about this.
Speaker 1: What was your intent in asking her if the quote
Speaker 1: unquote swat at Caitlyn was intentional?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Yeah, So I was credentialed for both Game one
Speaker 2: and Game two by USA today, So I think we've
Speaker 2: discussed this. I am writing an unauthorized book on Kitlyn
Speaker 2: Clark and this moment in women's sports. The title will
Speaker 2: be on her game, Kitlyn Clark and the Revolution of
Speaker 2: Women's Sports for Scribner, and Scribner came to me and
Speaker 2: and It was put together in July, and I signed
Speaker 2: the contract August fifteenth, after I got back from the
Speaker 2: Paris Olympics, so you know pretty quick. And of course
Speaker 2: that's public and it is unauthorized, and by that I
Speaker 2: think probably people don't know it might sound ominous or something.
Speaker 2: It means I am not working with Kaitlyn Clark and
Speaker 2: Kate is not working with me. It is a journalistic
Speaker 2: look at this time title nine Iowa Women's basketball, the
Speaker 2: history that led to this moment, Caitlyn Clark, and of
Speaker 2: course i'venue read so many people for the book already
Speaker 2: and we'll keep doing it, including doctor Harry Edwards. He
Speaker 2: is going to be a big part of the book.
Speaker 2: I think many people know him, what a wonderful, dear
Speaker 2: friend he is and just an incredible advocate civil rights.
Speaker 2: Of course, the nineteen sixty eight Black Power salute of
Speaker 2: Carlos and Smith on the metal stand, and that's of
Speaker 2: course they're great friendship and the leadership of doctor Harry Edwards,
Speaker 2: and that Timika Catching's, Eliah Austin's in the book, Kate Martin,
Speaker 2: of course, Kitlyn Clark, and but it's important to say
Speaker 2: that Sarah because I'm doing this book. USA Today asked
Speaker 2: me could I cover and write two columns, you know,
Speaker 2: game game one and Game two, and that I was
Speaker 2: happy to do that. I was on my own dime
Speaker 2: because I'm traveling for the book, and so that was
Speaker 2: helpful or whatever for USA Today that I could be
Speaker 2: there and cover it for them. So that was I
Speaker 2: was credential for USA Today. That doesn't mean it wouldn't
Speaker 2: go in the book or not go in the book,
Speaker 2: but I was credential and working for USA Today. So
Speaker 2: that the incident whatever we would call it with Caitlin
Speaker 2: Clark down and her eye and then the black eye
Speaker 2: occurred what ninety seconds into that first game, And then
Speaker 2: that was Sunday. Then Monday was an off day. We
Speaker 2: didn't have any access to to anyone the players. So
Speaker 2: Tuesday now we've got availability with both Connecticut and Indiana
Speaker 2: and Dje Carrington, I think others had requested her as well.
Speaker 2: And here she comes over to talk to us, and
Speaker 2: she answers a few questions, and I then, of course
Speaker 2: ask her a question that I would ask a hundred
Speaker 2: times out of one hundred and have a thousand times
Speaker 2: out of a thousand or more of any athlete an
Speaker 2: issue in the news, give them a chance to respond,
Speaker 2: to talk about it. It's a conduit for them to
Speaker 2: take it and run with it, to deal with an
Speaker 2: issue that is out there. And clearly this was in
Speaker 2: the news, right I couldn't I'm not even on Twitter
Speaker 2: that much, and I couldn't avoid it as looking at
Speaker 2: all kinds of not people tweeting it at me, but
Speaker 2: just in general replays, you're aware of all your viewers
Speaker 2: and listeners here are aware of the various replays. There
Speaker 2: were also pictures or videos of some laughter with Carrington
Speaker 2: and Marina Maybray. And you know what you do as
Speaker 2: a journalist. You ask the question and you give them
Speaker 2: a chance to take it and run with it. And
Speaker 2: that's exactly what was my intention. That's exactly what I did.
Speaker 2: Obviously there's been a lot of attention on it afterwards,
Speaker 2: but it's journalism one oh one for me, Sarah, And
Speaker 2: that's as I said, you know, I've asked those questions
Speaker 2: of Michael Phelps. I've asked them again as Tiger Will
Speaker 2: asked them if at the Master's one year his doctor
Speaker 2: had been the assistant for his doctor had been arrested
Speaker 2: at the border of the Canada US border with the
Speaker 2: illegal you know, banned substances in other words, like steroids,
Speaker 2: And I asked Tiger that question about his doctor and
Speaker 2: illegal drugs and steroids at the Master's. I mean, I'm
Speaker 2: never going to shy away from asking any question of
Speaker 2: any athlete, and I'm happy.
Speaker 3: To do it.
Speaker 1: So you mentioned journalism one oh one, though, I mean,
Speaker 1: wouldn't it be considered a leading question to ask if
Speaker 1: it was intentional instead of asking her, can you tell
Speaker 1: us about the play?
Speaker 2: Well, I think I said whether it was intentional or not,
Speaker 2: because that was an issue that was out there. And
Speaker 2: then didn't I say could you walk us? I think
Speaker 2: I'd have to look at well.
Speaker 1: Then she said that she didn't intend to hit her
Speaker 1: and didn't know that she had made contact with her.
Speaker 1: And then your follow up was if she was later
Speaker 1: laughing about it. But if she didn't know she had
Speaker 1: hit her, how would she be laughing about an incident
Speaker 1: she wasn't aware of.
Speaker 2: Right, That's a very good and it's why you asked
Speaker 2: the question, in my humble opinion, to give her the
Speaker 2: chance to deal with To me, the two different and
Speaker 2: many people obviously, the two different issues. You've got the one,
Speaker 2: the one the actual black eye, right, and whatever happened
Speaker 2: with that? And you can hear me trying to figure
Speaker 2: out what word to say, like I'm trying to be
Speaker 2: I said, swatted, I believe, right, but I wasn't even
Speaker 2: quite sure how to address it with her to be
Speaker 2: fair and to have a conversation, which of course is
Speaker 2: what we do in journalism, is just you ask questions.
Speaker 1: Did it seem like a play outside of basketball play too,
Speaker 1: That's what I'm wondering. To me, it looked like a
Speaker 1: play where she was trying to deflect a pass and
Speaker 1: made contact. It sounds more like your questions by asking
Speaker 1: if it was intentional that maybe you saw something different.
Speaker 2: No, I had no idea, That's why I asked yeah.
Speaker 2: And then but you asked about the second one. Again,
Speaker 2: there's videos and I know it's three to the dome
Speaker 2: and all that, but but you give the athlete a chance. Again,
Speaker 2: you just give them a chance that you can hit
Speaker 2: that out of the park, you know, and and say
Speaker 2: just answer the question. Well, I'm her a chance to
Speaker 2: answer the question because it was running rampant on the
Speaker 2: internet of what that was. And so again you know,
Speaker 2: that's just to me, that's absolute journalism one oh one.
Speaker 2: And in the sense that it's out there, so let's
Speaker 2: ask the athlete so that they can clear the area.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I get that, like giving an athlete an opportunity
Speaker 1: to speak to something, particularly something that's gotten that big
Speaker 1: on the internet, is super important. But I think also
Speaker 1: the language that you use is important. So by asking
Speaker 1: if it's intentional, you're already sort of leading them into that.
Speaker 1: And same goes with the video of them laughing. You
Speaker 1: said they caught you guys laughing. You know, were you
Speaker 1: laughing about that? It was three quarters later after the
Speaker 1: player had hit a big three.
Speaker 2: Why would they be.
Speaker 1: Laughing about an incident involving an injury to a player
Speaker 1: three quarters earlier.
Speaker 2: In that moment? I don't know. That's why I asked.
Speaker 2: And again, these are issues that were out there that
Speaker 2: I would ask about and I have asked. Right, it's,
Speaker 2: for gosh, asking a very valid question. Just I want
Speaker 2: to make it as crystal clear as possible. You often
Speaker 2: you can bring up the topics, so you ask it
Speaker 2: so that whatever the issue is, so that the athlete
Speaker 2: knows exactly. I'm never going to beat around the bush
Speaker 2: and you know that about me. I think everyone knows
Speaker 2: that about me, And so like, let's go right to
Speaker 2: the issue and you get a chance. I respect DJ
Speaker 2: Carrington so much that she gets a chance to answer it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I feel like the issue is like operating in
Speaker 1: a vacuum versus understanding the larger context. Right, So if
Speaker 1: you believe that that's a fair approach to get the
Speaker 1: answer that you're looking for, and you believe that's the
Speaker 1: best way to ask the question to get the truthful
Speaker 1: response and not something defensive or something otherwise, I kind
Speaker 1: of disagree. I think you could say people have turned
Speaker 1: that play into something that was intentional. What would you
Speaker 1: say to accusations that that was intentional? Or you know,
Speaker 1: why do you think people would presume that a video
Speaker 1: of you laughing later was a response to a play
Speaker 1: three quarters earlier, particularly when it's a known celebration of
Speaker 1: three to the dome after a made three from your teammate, Like,
Speaker 1: I think there's a way to word it that feels
Speaker 1: less accusatory.
Speaker 2: But also when you're operating in the.
Speaker 1: Context of a season like this one in the w
Speaker 1: there is so much that comes along with the questions
Speaker 1: that you're asking and the way that they will affect
Speaker 1: the player that you're asking them of.
Speaker 2: Did you consider that at all in.
Speaker 1: That moment, that because the Internet had run rampant, because
Speaker 1: there were people trying to slow mow the video and
Speaker 1: accuse her of intention on that play, that your approach
Speaker 1: to asking the question might actually perpetuate some of the
Speaker 1: things that had resulted in her getting death threats and
Speaker 1: other responses.
Speaker 2: Sarah I said this on the the other day with
Speaker 2: Jake Taper on CNN. I'll say it now, the Internet
Speaker 2: and specifically Twitter acts, you know, all these other things too,
Speaker 2: but I think twitters, but I think we can agree
Speaker 2: that that's, you know, probably the worst. You know, it's
Speaker 2: a cesspool. It's terrible for you, it's terrible for me.
Speaker 2: But here we are two white women. There is no
Speaker 2: way on earth we can know what it's like to
Speaker 2: be a black woman and be attacked on Twitter. But
Speaker 2: I know what it's like for me, and I know
Speaker 2: what it's like for you know what it's like for you,
Speaker 2: And I think you and I've talked about this in
Speaker 2: the past, and you know, it's awful. It's just terrible.
Speaker 2: It's awful. That is a fact, it is a sad
Speaker 2: fact of our society today. I think we can probably
Speaker 2: all agree that the leadership of Twitter x has done
Speaker 2: an absolutely horrible job over these what years.
Speaker 1: But these things are extending beyond social media. Because I
Speaker 1: know what you're saying, and I completely agree with you.
Speaker 1: There is not a lot of ways to control those
Speaker 1: things except to say that the media can perpetuate those
Speaker 1: narratives online by asking those questions or by setting things
Speaker 1: up to continue those discussions.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: And also, these players this year in the w have
Speaker 1: talked about people showing up at their hotels, people sending
Speaker 1: materials of their family members, like it's gone beyond just
Speaker 1: sort of internet trolling. Right, And in fact, clearly the
Speaker 1: League Players Association felt similarly because after that interviewed, the
Speaker 1: WNBA Players Association had Terry Jackson released a statement alleging
Speaker 1: that your line of questioning was intended to quote bit
Speaker 1: a professional athlete into participating in a narrative that is
Speaker 1: false and designed to fuel racist, homophobic, and misogynistic vitriol
Speaker 1: on social media end quote, and they requested that your
Speaker 1: credentials be revoked as a result. What was your reaction
Speaker 1: to that and did you see or understand it all
Speaker 1: why they would believe that your question was causing an
Speaker 1: athlete to participate in that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was in a hotel room and was heading
Speaker 2: to the airport and someone texted it to me. Or
Speaker 2: the first it's like a five page or five post
Speaker 2: quote panel. Yeah, yeah, so I think it was the first.
Speaker 2: What was the first one? And of course I take
Speaker 2: everything seriously and take everything to heart, you know, that's
Speaker 2: what I do, That's who I am. And I looked
Speaker 2: at it and around the same time I was giving
Speaker 2: it a you know, a real look and reading all
Speaker 2: five panels. Sarah, my sports editor, Roxanna Scott got in
Speaker 2: touch with me and said, let's talk about this, and
Speaker 2: and I don't know if I talked to her, maybe
Speaker 2: in the car a little bit, and then I said,
Speaker 2: got jumped out of the car, got to the airport
Speaker 2: and we continued the conversation, and then Roxanna Scott put
Speaker 2: out that very very strong defense of me and journalism
Speaker 2: and asking questions and and so that was that was
Speaker 2: That was basically it. So you were asking a very
Speaker 2: very fair question of my reaction, and I certainly was surprised.
Speaker 2: I didn't take it lightly. I would never take that lightly.
Speaker 2: As I said a few moments ago, I was surprised
Speaker 2: to hear from in this case, the Players Association, Terry Jackson,
Speaker 2: whomever you know that that they want to ban me,
Speaker 2: is you know it's it's I thought it was a
Speaker 2: complete overreaction. I think many many people in journalism thought
Speaker 2: the exact same thing as we seen in columns and responses.
Speaker 2: And that's fine, and I'm heartened by that. And if
Speaker 2: people think it's fine and I should be banned, that's
Speaker 2: of course, it's a free country they can say that.
Speaker 2: But yeah, it certainly surprised me.
Speaker 1: We got to take a quick break when we come
Speaker 1: back more with Christine Brennan. It felt like a lot
Speaker 1: of responses to folks reacting to the WNBPA statement were
Speaker 1: specific to that incident, and they certainly did point to
Speaker 1: that incident as the issue. But you know, over the
Speaker 1: course of the season, I think there's a body of
Speaker 1: coverage that I think people react to, and it feels
Speaker 1: to me like there's been a little bit of a
Speaker 1: thesis that you've had and tried to prove throughout the season,
Speaker 1: and that maybe that's been something that's influenced your questions
Speaker 1: and coverage because that piece that you mentioned writing back
Speaker 1: in April, the season hadn't started, the games hadn't been played,
Speaker 1: and you wrote that players were being frosty to Caitlin Clark,
Speaker 1: but you mentioned that you hadn't spoken to Kitlyn Clark yet, right, So,
Speaker 1: Liberties Brina Stewart and The Mercury's Dna Trosti in particular,
Speaker 1: you disagreed with and Stuart's opinion that in order to
Speaker 1: be one of the greatest players in college hoops, Clark
Speaker 1: would have had to win a title. And you disagreed
Speaker 1: with Dina Trossi saying that she would pick Pagebackers over
Speaker 1: Kaitlyn Clark with the number one pick in the draft
Speaker 1: in one of her Bird and Trossi multicasts.
Speaker 2: Those are opinions.
Speaker 1: And Stuart did also give you a quote that Caitlyn
Speaker 1: is a star and we're excited to have her in
Speaker 1: the WNBA. She's unquestionably great for what she has accomplished
Speaker 1: on and off the court end quote. So why did
Speaker 1: you feel like those established players were required to have
Speaker 1: different opinions than those in order to prove that they
Speaker 1: understood the benefits that Clark would bring, or in order
Speaker 1: to say that they weren't being frosty to her, Well, it's.
Speaker 2: A column, first of all, right, so I'm paid to
Speaker 2: give my opinion, and I would say that the word
Speaker 2: frosty would be one of the columnst words I've used
Speaker 2: in a column on topics over the years. And I'm
Speaker 2: not being flip, but you know, you know, I'll give
Speaker 2: my opinion. If people are going to spend three, four, five, six, whatever,
Speaker 2: seven eight minutes whatever it takes to read a column,
Speaker 2: they're going to get my best shot. And so that
Speaker 2: one you did mention those two example and by the way,
Speaker 2: you know, they had every right to say it, but
Speaker 2: of course I have a right to critique it, of course, right, yeah,
Speaker 2: of course, But even the one I think that was
Speaker 2: even you know, I think I also put this in
Speaker 2: the column. I haven't read the column in a while,
Speaker 2: but I'm pretty sure that that I did. This, of course,
Speaker 2: was add the thing about reality is coming right now,
Speaker 2: Diana TROSSI was asked by Scott van Pell, who's a friend,
Speaker 2: of course, a friend of yours, who I'm sure asked
Speaker 2: about that. And it wasn't just Caitlin Clark, it was
Speaker 2: the other players, right, And I point that out on
Speaker 2: the column. Of course, it was like this rookie class
Speaker 2: is coming, and then of course, Diana trust the reality
Speaker 2: is coming, and you know they're going to realize they're
Speaker 2: going up against grown women and everyone knows that that statement.
Speaker 2: So to me, what I saw, as an observer and
Speaker 2: doing this for a long time was, as I said,
Speaker 2: frosty was I thought actually a kind word, you know,
Speaker 2: I thought it was the appropriate word. That's why I
Speaker 2: used it to describe the feeling that these players, at
Speaker 2: least these two seemed to have. Well. Sue Bird was
Speaker 2: the opposite of that. Like Sue Bird said, she would
Speaker 2: have taken Caitlin, and of course Tarazzi. Who's Tarazi? And
Speaker 2: I certainly know well, I don't know her well, but
Speaker 2: I know of her well, right, was being very clipped
Speaker 2: with her answer next question, You know, so DISI of Kaitlin.
Speaker 2: It's fine again, Dinah Rossi is a grown adult and
Speaker 2: has done this for years, and so for me, it's
Speaker 2: just looking at that as a snapshot. And I was
Speaker 2: surprised because what we had seen over the many months
Speaker 2: of with Caitlin Clarke, with the records and the adoration,
Speaker 2: all of a sudden it was like, Wow, this is
Speaker 2: a bit of a turn, which I think is absolutely accurate,
Speaker 2: and that's fine. Again, I mean, anyone can say anything, obviously,
Speaker 2: that's you know, it's I'm fair game, everyone's fair game.
Speaker 2: Bring it on, right, But but isn't it go ahead?
Speaker 1: But to characterize it because you wrote in the column like,
Speaker 1: isn't this a sign that women's sports have grown to
Speaker 1: the point where older players can mistreat younger players? Did
Speaker 1: you feel like it was mistreating Caitlin Clark to have
Speaker 1: a different opinion about whether you could call someone a
Speaker 1: great without a title, or mistreating her to say something
Speaker 1: we always hear, which is like, yeah, these rookies are
Speaker 1: going to figure out this is a whole new ballgame.
Speaker 2: Now. Yeah, well I wrote it, so I obviously felt
Speaker 2: that way. Sure. By the way, the question to Brianna
Speaker 2: Stewart that I believe was asked by Nicole Auerbach was
Speaker 2: does Caitlyn Clark need to have a title to be
Speaker 2: considered one of the greats? Yeah, which I mean you
Speaker 2: and I probably sitting here right now could come up
Speaker 2: with fifty or one hundred great one of the greats.
Speaker 1: Right, I mean that's semantics though, I mean we know
Speaker 1: that that's semantics, right.
Speaker 2: It's the difference between the goat.
Speaker 1: I mean, even when we talk about the goat, people
Speaker 1: will sometimes have multiple goats, which then completely removes the
Speaker 1: meaning of the language that you're using.
Speaker 2: So I get that.
Speaker 1: I guess what I wasn't I guess what I'm no, no, no,
Speaker 1: I know it wasn't. I'm saying greats. It's a semantics.
Speaker 1: You could be talking one hundred, you'd be talking five.
Speaker 1: In the end, though, why is Brianna Stewart's opinion on
Speaker 1: that being mistreating to.
Speaker 2: A younger player? I guess That's what I'm trying to
Speaker 2: get it. It feels to me.
Speaker 1: Like in sports we see the all the time, the
Speaker 1: veterans tell the rookies, we're going to show you what's up.
Speaker 2: This is a whole new ball game.
Speaker 1: This is a different level of play, particularly the W
Speaker 1: which we have so many conversations about expansion being necessary
Speaker 1: because great college players either don't even get drafted or
Speaker 1: don't even make a roster.
Speaker 2: Because there's so few spaces.
Speaker 1: So the elevated talent there means that it's particularly tough
Speaker 1: to stay in it, stick around and thrive. That feels
Speaker 1: like just standard sports conversation. I think that's part of
Speaker 1: the problem that I've seen in this season is we're
Speaker 1: having a different conversation about this league, in this particular
Speaker 1: set of women, than we are about any other league
Speaker 1: in sports. And you know, you've made such a career
Speaker 1: of holding people accountable, of taking you know, speaking truth
Speaker 1: to power. You've written about Colin Kaepernick's protest, You've written
Speaker 1: about the NFL's failures across a number of spaces. I
Speaker 1: had you on my show a million times to talk about,
Speaker 1: you know, the way the NFL would drop the ball
Speaker 1: on domestic violence, sexual assault, racism, And you're so used
Speaker 1: to push back from the powers that be and having
Speaker 1: to stand up for stuff that isn't always popular when
Speaker 1: people just want to watch their teams, they don't want
Speaker 1: to face the tough realities with sports. And it feels like,
Speaker 1: in contrast, the reaction to a lot of your w
Speaker 1: coverage this year has been that instead of writing to
Speaker 1: all of that, you're writing this sort of vacuum and
Speaker 1: ignoring the bigger issues and how your coverage might be
Speaker 1: contributing to them. To see what I'm saying, like, it's
Speaker 1: okay to say I've asked these questions a million times.
Speaker 1: But if in this instance that question means something different
Speaker 1: because of the context for that team, You're not operating
Speaker 1: in a vacuum, and don't you have to consider that
Speaker 1: context as part of your journalistic responsibility when you ask them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, I appreciate the question. I guess I'm
Speaker 2: looking at it a little differently when you've got a
Speaker 2: story like this Caitlin Clark, right, which we cannot deny,
Speaker 2: the TV ratings, the full houses we were on, you know,
Speaker 2: many many calls about it, even if I was if
Speaker 2: I was only writing a couple of columns, as we
Speaker 2: both said, you know on USA Today like planning calls,
Speaker 2: and I literally said, I don't know that I ever
Speaker 2: thought I would see this in my lifetime. Right, that
Speaker 2: eighteen point nine million, right? And of course it was
Speaker 2: don Stay South Carolina team that won the national title.
Speaker 2: Of course, Caitlin Clark, though, is the draw right? I mean,
Speaker 2: we have proven it over and over again with these
Speaker 2: numbers from the WNBA in college you know that it's
Speaker 2: Caitlin's game in the draws for sure. But the biggest draw,
Speaker 2: the biggest draw for well, again, the sellouts, right, I mean,
Speaker 2: Kaitlyn Clark is the only one who's selling out away
Speaker 2: buildings that have to get you.
Speaker 1: Know, right, well, TD Garden sold out and that was
Speaker 1: a game not involving the fever. There are examples, right, exactly,
Speaker 1: But I mean in terms of I mean Washington, right,
Speaker 1: you know what's happened, Yeah, I mean, listen, no one's
Speaker 1: arguing Caitlin's dominance in Caitlin's draw. I think the question
Speaker 1: is how do you cover that without contributing to issues
Speaker 1: that have plagued a league for the entirety of its
Speaker 1: existence and or feeding into some of the narratives created
Speaker 1: by folks who haven't been around, you know, stephen A
Speaker 1: Smith and folks like that, who are talking about this
Speaker 1: adversary relationship between Clark and her peers that ultimately, once
Speaker 1: it got picked up and run with, has been the
Speaker 1: reason that there has been so much vitriol and the
Speaker 1: literal threats to players. Well, understanding that that context is there,
Speaker 1: doesn't that affect your coverage, even of someone who's doing
Speaker 1: the great things she's doing.
Speaker 2: So I can't control what stephen A is saying, right,
Speaker 2: of course, not right, right, But I mean you're asking
Speaker 2: me that that what I could write the sky is blue.
Speaker 1: And you know, no, I'm not asking you to control
Speaker 1: I'm asking if you know that that's making I talk
Speaker 1: about and or.
Speaker 2: Like, I don't know what's what's fueling stephen A, who
Speaker 2: I've known forever.
Speaker 1: Right, I'm not talking about stephen A. I'm talking big picture.
Speaker 2: Well, you know again, I'll go back to what I
Speaker 2: said a few minutes ago. I was starting to say
Speaker 2: a few minutes ago. So I have always focused on obviously,
Speaker 2: you know, big stories, big news, also the minor story,
Speaker 2: the person who finishes fourth at the Olympics. Right, of course,
Speaker 2: I mean all in a career like mine, you do many, many,
Speaker 2: many things. And so in this case, just like of course,
Speaker 2: covering tiger Woods the length of his career. You know,
Speaker 2: I probably did I write a hundred columns on tiger Woods.
Speaker 2: I don't even know, right I And so I would
Speaker 2: have ignored other people or you know, not dealt with this.
Speaker 2: I mean, unless someone won a tournament, then I'm writing
Speaker 2: about Phil Micholson winning the tournament. Whatever would be so
Speaker 2: to me, whether it was covering Michael Phelps Tiger Woods.
Speaker 2: Katie Ledecki, when you're writing columns about those issues or
Speaker 2: those or those those you know, those sports, Well, Caitlin
Speaker 2: Clark is right in that category, right, So that's yeah,
Speaker 2: for sure. Really it's really simple and each one of
Speaker 2: the I think we're talking four or five columns, So
Speaker 2: just to keep in mind and perspective for you and
Speaker 2: and you know those your listeners and viewers, what you know.
Speaker 2: I wrote the February column, the April column, the May column,
Speaker 2: did one in June, and then I covered those two
Speaker 2: games when I was at the Olympics, at the Olympic
Speaker 2: try and those were on Fever in general, and because
Speaker 2: the Fever won both those games, they'd beat Chicago and
Speaker 2: then they'd be Yeah. And so now we're talking about six.
Speaker 2: I think I just counted six columns from February to January. Well,
Speaker 2: I don't know, but I'm going to guess, did I
Speaker 2: write what twelve or thirteen on Katie Ladecki.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's not so much about the amount of coverage,
Speaker 1: Like I understand, focusing on one superstar that's common, like
Speaker 1: we had landing pages at ESPN for like the Big
Speaker 1: Three in Miami or Lebron James whatever. The focus on
Speaker 1: Caitlin is understandable, especially when you're writing a book like
Speaker 1: that's where you're going to center your coverage. But if
Speaker 1: Clark is the main character in your research and others
Speaker 1: are sort of bit players in the storytelling, are you
Speaker 1: able to see the impact that you might have on
Speaker 1: them by posing questions a certain way. So, for instance,
Speaker 1: in the Fever exit interviews, you asked Temi fact Benley
Speaker 1: whether this season was quote a maybe more fun experience
Speaker 1: than you've had in your career. But she was injured
Speaker 1: for half of the season. She's been on a championship
Speaker 1: season before. So when there's this narrative throughout this league,
Speaker 1: the black players are not treated as well, that they
Speaker 1: have trouble getting the sponsorship deals, that they are not
Speaker 1: given the same highlights, that their highlights are reacted to
Speaker 1: differently than the white players.
Speaker 2: And you know that.
Speaker 1: Coming in, and that's part of the context of covering
Speaker 1: the story, and presumably you understand that, because if you're
Speaker 1: going to tell the story of Kaitlyn Clark, you have
Speaker 1: to include the context of the league that she arrived
Speaker 1: in and how it's changing around her, no matter how
Speaker 1: much fun practices might be, no matter how exciting is
Speaker 1: to have Caitlin and have the arenas packed a player
Speaker 1: that missed a half a season for injury.
Speaker 2: Doesn't it feel like that's.
Speaker 1: A little insensitive to ask is this the most fun
Speaker 1: you've ever had before? Like, do you understand how centering
Speaker 1: Kaitlin in that context then has an adverse effect on
Speaker 1: the players or for instance, like with the Olympics, I
Speaker 1: understood your push to try to include Caitlin on the team.
Speaker 1: I disagree just because I think the Olympics are a meritocracy.
Speaker 1: It's not about viewers or popularity.
Speaker 2: But you're to Temmy and then let's go there. Oh sure, okay, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2: So I've spent quite a bit of time talking to Temmy.
Speaker 2: We've talked several times, done some interviews with her about
Speaker 2: her about her injuries, and so we've talked about how
Speaker 2: much fun it is, and so I wanted to make
Speaker 2: sure to get that one more chance of her. So
Speaker 2: that was a very logical question within the context of
Speaker 2: my various conversations getting to know Temmy, meeting her, talking
Speaker 2: to her a couple of times during the season and
Speaker 2: at practice. That's just OK.
Speaker 1: So, maybe just like the of your career was like
Speaker 1: just a way of answering of asking the question.
Speaker 2: Was I don't even remember what I asked, but absolutely,
Speaker 2: I mean, it was a fine question and she answered
Speaker 2: it and it wasn't even an issue. You did mention
Speaker 2: a few minutes ago about when you're doing a book
Speaker 2: on Caitlin Clark. I think it's very important to mention
Speaker 2: the timing here, so because Terry Jackson had it wrong
Speaker 2: today in the Washington Post. I talked to her on
Speaker 2: June twenty seventh, and we did an interview. It was
Speaker 2: for USA Today. The first conversation, Sarah that I had
Speaker 2: was Scribner wanting to talk to me. Scribner my publisher,
Speaker 2: by the way, yeah, or you said in August, Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: Well I signed the contract August fifteenth. The first conversation
Speaker 2: was a zoom on July tenth. So I was never
Speaker 2: doing a book. Literally, I was not planning to do
Speaker 2: a book I had in June. I had no conversations.
Speaker 2: It was scribnerk wanting to talk right essent July tenth.
Speaker 2: But it's important to say that because I believe there's
Speaker 2: there seems to be amongst some potentially and if not,
Speaker 2: that's great. That sense that I've been like working behind
Speaker 2: the scenes on a book and of course, people you
Speaker 2: and I understand the difference between unauthorized and authorized biography,
Speaker 2: but I don't think a lot of you know, a
Speaker 2: lot of other people might just I know people have said, oh,
Speaker 2: she's working with Caitlin Clark. I am not right, right,
Speaker 2: But that's important, that's a very it is important.
Speaker 1: And listen, Like I said, I'm never going to criticize
Speaker 1: your amount of coverage on Caitlyn Clark. But I guess
Speaker 1: someone who's been in this space for years and understands
Speaker 1: the difference that she's made in it, I am all
Speaker 1: for highlighting her achievements, the attendance, the viewership, all the
Speaker 1: other stuff. I guess part of it is what impact
Speaker 1: do you have on the space in what you're working,
Speaker 1: and what is the journalistic responsibility of the effect you
Speaker 1: have on that space. So Stephanie White spoke about this
Speaker 1: after the game the other day, and I think, you know,
Speaker 1: it was very smart in the way she approached it.
Speaker 1: She talked about basically, you know, when you've got a
Speaker 1: league that is not used to this much coverage and
Speaker 1: then all of a sudden these people arrive. What has
Speaker 1: happened is they're letting the internet and the users on
Speaker 1: the internet sort of dictate the story that's being told.
Speaker 2: Here's what the Connecticut Sun coach said.
Speaker 1: I think the thing that frustrates me most is that
Speaker 1: we and I say wait because I work in television
Speaker 1: as well, we and the media have to do a
Speaker 1: better job of not allowing trolls on social media to
Speaker 1: become the story. And I feel like we've allowed trolls
Speaker 1: on social media to frame the narrative what the story is.
Speaker 1: I realize everybody's job is predicated on what's read, what's
Speaker 1: clicked on, what's whatever, what's watched. I understand that, but
Speaker 1: I also feel like we have responsibility to be better
Speaker 1: when it comes to what we're representing.
Speaker 2: Unquote.
Speaker 1: So you mentioned earlier when you were asking those questions
Speaker 1: of DJ Carrington, you kept saying, there were these videos, right,
Speaker 1: So that's not the larger game footage.
Speaker 2: That's the videos that are been clipped off.
Speaker 1: In our online that you're reacting to and then asking
Speaker 1: questions about. I get that we all do that, right,
Speaker 1: but what do you think the responsibility is of the
Speaker 1: media when it becomes clear that the way those clips
Speaker 1: and the way that content is framed will very much
Speaker 1: impact not just the treatment of the players, but even
Speaker 1: their safety. You mentioned feeling for black players and understanding
Speaker 1: that we as white women could never understand what their
Speaker 1: experience is. If you understand that and have that empathy
Speaker 1: for them, don't you think journalistically, the idea of minimizing harm,
Speaker 1: of seeking out truth in most honest and good faith way,
Speaker 1: it prioritized that over being able to just say I
Speaker 1: would ask that question a million times and ignoring the
Speaker 1: context within which you're asking it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, it's a great point. Certainly, it is
Speaker 2: something that I guess every journalist needs to start to
Speaker 2: think about and deal with. Most of us don't, right,
Speaker 2: which is just you ask questions and you see what
Speaker 2: the answers are. So I grant you that point. I
Speaker 2: would say that in the case of almost everything that
Speaker 2: we've all done over the years, we have been certainly
Speaker 2: aware of the criticism, but you know, we're all getting
Speaker 2: and of course that means the athletes are getting too.
Speaker 2: Some athletes haven't mentioned it or talked about it, or
Speaker 2: haven't haven't been concerned about or haven't talked or telld
Speaker 2: us about it. Maybe they've had to get security. You know,
Speaker 2: who knows, right, But I think it's something that we
Speaker 2: haven't focused on, uh that much. I will say this,
Speaker 2: I think the league, the w n b A, and
Speaker 2: the NBA as it's as it's you know, big brother
Speaker 2: or whatever whatever the role has been over the years,
Speaker 2: as we know, with the NBA the w n b A,
Speaker 2: I think that my sense would be they would play
Speaker 2: a huge role in not only the security of their players,
Speaker 2: but also the ability to understand and maybe help with
Speaker 2: the media training and or the what was about to
Speaker 2: hit the w n b A and I think we
Speaker 2: can probably agree on this that that what I am
Speaker 2: seeing and I say reporting the book, and of course
Speaker 2: we'll be dealing with all of this, is is that
Speaker 2: the the prize or the lack of understanding of what
Speaker 2: we in the media do, or the lack of preparation
Speaker 2: or whatever for this moment which would then include Sarah
Speaker 2: to your absolutely great point, the trolls and worse right,
Speaker 2: the absolute threats to the security of the players. Why
Speaker 2: was that not thought about by the people who actually
Speaker 2: can control this or at least try to help, or
Speaker 2: was it thought about? I mean, I guess we can
Speaker 2: ask Kathy Engelbert.
Speaker 1: So you don't count the media in that no, because.
Speaker 2: To me, that's now Sarah, Sarah, I answered your question.
Speaker 2: I said at the beginning, you made a great point
Speaker 2: and it's something we should be absolutely thinking. Okay, so
Speaker 2: you know you heard me say that, So I said no.
Speaker 1: Well, because you had said the people who are actually
Speaker 1: in control of and I would make sure you were
Speaker 1: including the media in that because there is a role
Speaker 1: that that plays in accentuating storylines and elevating.
Speaker 2: Oh listen, every second of my life I play the Yeah,
Speaker 2: you know that right right, because I'm a journalists as
Speaker 2: we all are, so without a out, you live and
Speaker 2: you learn. But I would say there's a real, real
Speaker 2: story to be had about was the WNBA prepared for this?
Speaker 2: Were their players prepared for this? With security? All of
Speaker 2: the issues you're describing are very very important issues. There
Speaker 2: is nothing about me, and you know this well that
Speaker 2: would slough off any of the things you're asking me
Speaker 2: or any of the issues we're discussing. And what has
Speaker 2: happened from some out there in terms of their hatred
Speaker 2: of me is fine. It's a free country. They can
Speaker 2: hate me. If this stuff bothered me, I would have
Speaker 2: been hiding under a bed probably in nineteen eighty two
Speaker 2: and never gotten out right. So that's okay, you have
Speaker 2: every right to it, but I think they all need
Speaker 2: to say, you know, you have someone here who has
Speaker 2: cared about this cause, the cause of women's sports, the
Speaker 2: mistreatment of women in terms of lack of media coverage,
Speaker 2: the mainstream sports media right men who always never cared
Speaker 2: about the WNBA or LPGA or never even early days
Speaker 2: of Serena and Venus. I was there. It was us
Speaker 2: opens and the race it either with racism or sexism, misogyny.
Speaker 2: I would say that if again, bring it on. If
Speaker 2: you don't like me, that is fine, But I think
Speaker 2: it's pretty important to look at the body of work
Speaker 2: here and five or six columns on Caitlin Clark that
Speaker 2: people want to set about. Go ahead and be upset
Speaker 2: about it. It's a free country. But my goodness, you
Speaker 2: certainly are missing some of the things that I have
Speaker 2: worked my hardest on and thrown my heart and soul into.
Speaker 1: I completely agree. That's why I'm having you on, Christina.
Speaker 1: I had you on my show so many times because
Speaker 1: you fought the good fight on the tough stuff, and
Speaker 1: it is very hard to put stuff out there and
Speaker 1: have people be critical or give you days, you know.
Speaker 2: Be hateful about everything.
Speaker 1: I just think the disconnect is, like all that work
Speaker 1: you just pointed to, all that good stuff that you've done,
Speaker 1: some of your coverage hasn't always aligned with that same
Speaker 1: intent that I feel was there. So let's talk about
Speaker 1: the Olympics for instance. You know, your pursuit or your
Speaker 1: tweets and columns about Caitlin being left off the roster,
Speaker 1: you've sort of focused on the lack of media coverage
Speaker 1: for the US team and how Kaitlyn Clark would have
Speaker 1: changed that, and that they deserved to have more media there.
Speaker 1: They deserve to have more coverage, and your focus was
Speaker 1: on how USA Basketball should be the one required to
Speaker 1: fill the press box by putting Kaitlyn in there instead
Speaker 1: of calling out the press to give the team the
Speaker 1: coverage that it is long deserved. This is a case
Speaker 1: where Caitlyn wasn't able to participate in any of the
Speaker 1: practices in camps and the rest of the Olympic cycle.
Speaker 1: That's been the norm forever, So that would be really
Speaker 1: going outside of the regular principles and regulations and rules
Speaker 1: that they've used in previous years to select the team.
Speaker 1: And then also you're alleging that's then on the onus
Speaker 1: side of the basketball team to take merit out of
Speaker 1: it and instead focus on eyeballs, which to me feels
Speaker 1: like more a plea to the media to cover the
Speaker 1: team that does exist, regardless of other Caitlin's on it.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't that be more in line with your fight for
Speaker 1: women's sports.
Speaker 2: Well, I've got a lot to say about this, as
Speaker 2: you well know, you're the Olympic. I think I am
Speaker 2: the only person probably you could find who's still vertical
Speaker 2: and on this side of the ground, who has covered
Speaker 2: and been involved with as a journalist every US women's
Speaker 2: Olympic basketball team since nineteen eighty four. And of course
Speaker 2: I put that I've written by the way, I think
Speaker 2: it was two columns on this right too, so one I.
Speaker 1: Mean, I think social media. You keep pointing that out.
Speaker 1: Social media matters too, right, Like the kind of nippicked
Speaker 1: at Cheryl Reeve, even though she doesn't ultimately pick the roster,
Speaker 1: there's been moments that.
Speaker 2: You made your opinion clear. Well, we'll get back. Let's
Speaker 2: go to Cheryl Reeve. Cheryl Reeve, I gave her, by
Speaker 2: the way, five straight days. I asked her to speak
Speaker 2: to me, and she's going to talk to me for
Speaker 2: the book after she said after the season we had
Speaker 2: a very nice conversation meeting. She was tweeting about a
Speaker 2: twenty two year old as a fifty seven year old woman.
Speaker 2: That's you know, that's that's something. And she also was
Speaker 2: tweeting about and focusing on Caitlyn Clark while Kaitlyn Clark
Speaker 2: was still in this selection pool for the team that
Speaker 2: she is not choosing, of course, but she will be coaching.
Speaker 2: That is a valid question a hundred times out of
Speaker 2: one hundred, Sarah, about what's going on with that? Why
Speaker 2: is Cheryl Reeve tweeting talking about her at all?
Speaker 1: That's a thing she was advocating for her own players
Speaker 1: not being included in promotional materials and not really.
Speaker 2: Why did she bother to mention and and focus on
Speaker 2: Caitlyn and then reply, As you saw, there was a
Speaker 2: fan or someone on Twitter that said, well, that's the
Speaker 2: illusion the alluding to.
Speaker 1: All that Isn't that what you've been arguing this whole time,
Speaker 1: that Caitlyn Clark is different and that's the focus. And
Speaker 1: that's what Cheryl was arguing, is like she's different, and
Speaker 1: that's the focus, but not at the expense of my players,
Speaker 1: who also should be you know, we should be able
Speaker 1: to watch the game. Like doesn't that feel like a
Speaker 1: natural thing that a coach would advocate for as the
Speaker 1: coach of the links that it would be about other
Speaker 1: players in the league and not just the superstar rookie.
Speaker 2: I'll stick with what I'm talking about here. You've got
Speaker 2: the Olympic coach tweeting in at least focusing on somewhat
Speaker 2: negative or at least a negative comment about someone who
Speaker 2: was in the selection pool. That is a story any
Speaker 2: Olympic journalists would write about any time. That was absolutely
Speaker 2: Now let's go back to because these are incredible points
Speaker 2: and it's a very important topic to me. Let's go
Speaker 2: back to the fact that I have seen the eighty
Speaker 2: four team with Annie Myers and others, eighty eight Teresa
Speaker 2: Weatherspoon and I in fact, when people say who else
Speaker 2: is going to be in the interviewed Teresa Weatherspoon, we
Speaker 2: talked all about the eighty eight solo Olympics when I
Speaker 2: saw her in Indiana on that I think it was
Speaker 2: Father's Day that June game that I was referring to
Speaker 2: a little bit ago interview at Angel Reese, then to
Speaker 2: Angel Reese will be in the book, of course. Then
Speaker 2: ninety two in Barcelona, which was their last loss, which
Speaker 2: is incredible, right, and then ninety six in Atlanta that
Speaker 2: team of course, two thousand in Sydney. I was at
Speaker 2: the gold medal game there two thousand and four, and Athens,
Speaker 2: I was at the gold medal game there. Beijing a
Speaker 2: silver I mean semis our finals there. Twenty twelve London,
Speaker 2: I was absolutely there at the gold medal match and
Speaker 2: twenty six. I believe you, Christine.
Speaker 1: No one is arguing against your incredible Olympic background.
Speaker 2: I'm just asking if I'm a Paris language this is
Speaker 2: I get it.
Speaker 1: No, no, I get it. I'm just saying, like I
Speaker 1: want to make sure we get to the now, right.
Speaker 2: But you asked a question. You asked several questions. I'm
Speaker 2: going to answer them for you, and I'm going to
Speaker 2: tell you why I wrote what I wrote. It's important
Speaker 2: to tell you that because, for example, in London in
Speaker 2: twenty twelve, I'm there in the Press Tribune and Bob
Speaker 2: Ryan's way at kind of one end, and Jackie McMullen
Speaker 2: or is at the other, and there's the other people there,
Speaker 2: but otherwise it's appalling. There are no reporters, very few reporters.
Speaker 2: And this is what I put in that column in
Speaker 2: June criticizing the decision. It was of course I said that,
Speaker 2: you know, when you look at it's like tumbleweeds, right,
Speaker 2: and then even rio, this team, this is the greatest.
Speaker 2: Let's make it crystal clear. I've said it. I'll say
Speaker 2: it again on your show here, Sarah. This team, the
Speaker 2: US women's basketball team, is the greatest, most dominant team
Speaker 2: in any sport, male or female, on the planet, and
Speaker 2: it doesn't get the attention it deserves. There's no doubt
Speaker 2: about that. I think I probably have said that more
Speaker 2: than anyone else. So you know, for whatever that's worth, Okay, yeah,
Speaker 2: for sure, right, okay, but let's put that in there.
Speaker 2: And so the what I said was, you've got an
Speaker 2: attention magnet. I don't know if I wrote it this way.
Speaker 2: I probably said it on some shows. You've got an
Speaker 2: attention magnet the likes of which we have never seen
Speaker 2: before in women's basketball. Caitlin Clark. You put her on
Speaker 2: the team, even if she's playing three minutes, right whatever,
Speaker 2: You put her on the team. Now I understand they
Speaker 2: did not put her on the team. I am a realist.
Speaker 2: I am very much in the real world. But if
Speaker 2: you put her, I have an opinion. I write columns,
Speaker 2: some people have some people like them. Oh yeah, right now,
Speaker 2: but we're analyzing them. So let's make sure that that
Speaker 2: point is made. And so you put her on the team,
Speaker 2: and you know what happens. For the first time ever,
Speaker 2: ever as someone I was going through the litany, as
Speaker 2: someone who's seen it since eighty four, which is pretty
Speaker 2: much ever in our lifetimes, if someone who has been there,
Speaker 2: you put Caitlin Clark on that team, and you know what,
Speaker 2: Asia Wilson finally gets the incredible attention she deserves, and
Speaker 2: not just from the US media who are coming running
Speaker 2: to watch Caitlin Clark. And then, by the way, she's
Speaker 2: sitting the bench and you're seeing this incredible play from
Speaker 2: everybody else, right, and they get the attention they deserve.
Speaker 2: Now you can argue with me and say, Christine Brennan
Speaker 2: is nuts. Fine, I mean, I know you're not. You
Speaker 2: may say that you might not. I'm sure there are
Speaker 2: people growing things that they're wherever their device right now
Speaker 2: going She's no its we agree she is nuts, we
Speaker 2: hate her. But the example I am you using is
Speaker 2: a factual example based on years and years of covering
Speaker 2: this team. Now the next question, why are they not
Speaker 2: getting the attention they deserve? Right, it's the second week
Speaker 2: of the Olympics. Semi finals are like you know, Thursday,
Speaker 2: Final Saturday, or in this case it was Friday Sunday.
Speaker 2: Because the women got the last opportunity on the stage
Speaker 2: at all these events in the Olympics, including women's marathon,
Speaker 2: which is great of Paris to do that give women
Speaker 2: the chance to close the show. And you've got all
Speaker 2: these events going on that second week of the Olympics.
Speaker 2: So now, picture of the sports editor, male or female.
Speaker 2: Who's got three or four reporters at an Olympics, right
Speaker 2: or maybe only one or And of course that's where
Speaker 2: we are these days with coverage of the Olympics, just
Speaker 2: because of cost cutting and ETCA. It's a real shame.
Speaker 2: So now you've got one or two people and that
Speaker 2: same day. And I'm now just giving general I'm not
Speaker 2: looking at the schedule from Paris, but in general over
Speaker 2: the years in Rio and Beijing and London, etc. Moving
Speaker 2: back to Sydney and Athens over the years on that
Speaker 2: same day or right around that same time. And when
Speaker 2: I'm saying the same time, you can't the logistics of
Speaker 2: an Olympics, as you know, often it's like one event
Speaker 2: a day. It's not like you can go you're watching
Speaker 2: a TV at home. You can't get to two or
Speaker 2: three events. So you have to So these sports editors
Speaker 2: have to make a decision, and or the columnist or whoever. Well,
Speaker 2: if you've got the US women's soccer team, which could
Speaker 2: lose at any time as we've seen, I mean we
Speaker 2: love them and eight and they won, think good, you know,
Speaker 2: amazing story, but they could lose. Whereas you're thinking the
Speaker 2: women's basketball team probably isn't going to lose if you're
Speaker 2: like looking ahead of your schedule, obviously super close game
Speaker 2: they could have.
Speaker 1: We've taken their greatness for granted almost and it's actually
Speaker 1: impacted our coverage.
Speaker 2: And it is a shame and I have said it
Speaker 2: probably more than anyone on earth.
Speaker 1: So why not focus your columns on that team then
Speaker 1: the ones who are on the team. If you think
Speaker 1: Asia Wilson deserve to have more of a spotlight, why
Speaker 1: not write about her well instead of writing about the
Speaker 1: person not selected.
Speaker 2: Well, first of all, the news of the day was
Speaker 2: she was not selected, right, So any journalist and any
Speaker 2: editor worth his or sult is going to say, late
Speaker 2: the news, Sarah, right.
Speaker 1: But then after that, if the goal is to draw
Speaker 1: the eyeballs, why continue to tweet about Caitlin and argue
Speaker 1: about To me, the Olympic thing I think just bothered
Speaker 1: me because it felt like there are so many instances
Speaker 1: of women's sports in particular where someone will be selected
Speaker 1: because they're like the hottest, like the Maria scherpov is
Speaker 1: the world great tennis player, but also got so much
Speaker 1: extra stuff because she looked like that. And the Olympics
Speaker 1: feels like a space where like you might not get
Speaker 1: all the sponsorships, but you're going to make the team
Speaker 1: based on merit. And Caitlyn wasn't in the practices, and
Speaker 1: Caitlyn wasn't the best, she would have brought tons of eyeballs.
Speaker 1: But is that how you pick an Olympic team? And
Speaker 1: I guess that's a question for you. Do you think
Speaker 1: that's how you should pick an Olympic team?
Speaker 2: Even if, as you saw in the column, I of
Speaker 2: course made the point that I understand that who do
Speaker 2: you cut off? Who do you take off the team? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Of course, I mean, like, hello, I've been doing this
Speaker 2: for a while, so I understand that. But I'm also
Speaker 2: a columns giving you my opinion, right, So that's what
Speaker 2: I do. I don't I do this on every topic
Speaker 2: in sports, and so I'm no. I'm sure golf podcasts
Speaker 2: want to go after me for hours on whatever I've done. There.
Speaker 2: That's that means I'm probably doing my job right. So okay,
Speaker 2: so let's go back. Though you have very valid questions.
Speaker 2: I will answer, as you know, every single one of
Speaker 2: your questions. So you said tweeting a lot about it.
Speaker 2: I think I tweeted. I never tweeted about don Staley
Speaker 2: and what she said, which was remarkable, right, what she
Speaker 2: told Mike Tarico about you know, the way Caitlin's playing.
Speaker 2: We you know what gist of it was. You know,
Speaker 2: we could have put her on the team or we
Speaker 2: need to look at whatever. I never said a word
Speaker 2: about that ever ever. Okay. So I mean, and the
Speaker 2: reason why is because I'm covering swimming, so I was
Speaker 2: not USA today. Roxanna Scott makes decisions, and I as
Speaker 2: much as people think I might run USA today, wink wink.
Speaker 2: Obviously you not. So I'm covering swimming, which is where
Speaker 2: I want to be. And that is from Saturday, the
Speaker 2: day after the opening ceremony, all the way through to
Speaker 2: Sunday night. And that's what not what we discounted, eight days,
Speaker 2: nine days whatever. So I'm not at any women's basketball.
Speaker 2: So the basketball was actually out of town and lelle.
Speaker 2: So I physically if I were to say, oh, I'm
Speaker 2: going to now write a column about Asia Wilson, Roxander
Speaker 2: would have said, no. I mean I didn't know. You cannot.
Speaker 2: Please keep focusing on Katie Ldecki and Torri Hut whatever. Okay,
Speaker 2: so that's a fact and you know that, and I
Speaker 2: think if not happy, yeah, for sure.
Speaker 1: So you know, Christine, I want you to finish answering.
Speaker 1: I just want you to know I'm not trying to
Speaker 1: be adversarial because I do like it. I feel like
Speaker 1: so much of your work has been in pursuit of
Speaker 1: elevating and spotlighting women in these great ways, and I'm
Speaker 1: just finding some of this feels like it's it's dissonant
Speaker 1: compared to that. So that's what I'm trying to get at,
Speaker 1: is like the larger context within which your work is happening,
Speaker 1: not how many tweets it's been or how many columns.
Speaker 2: You know, No, I appreciate it, but I think it
Speaker 2: is important to say that I wasn't writing a lot
Speaker 2: of columns about and then about Caitlin Clark and the Olympics.
Speaker 2: I mean, let's just be factual. If you know, you
Speaker 2: can have me on and we can talk about why
Speaker 2: I wrote so much about Katie Ldecki. I'm sorry, there's facetious.
Speaker 2: I'm just joking a little wait, right, right, right right.
Speaker 2: I think she's earned it, maybe yeah, But the point is,
Speaker 2: and then as far as tweeting, I may have tweeted
Speaker 2: once or twice I think during the Olympics about Kaitlyn Clark.
Speaker 2: I didn't have time because I am working on swimming
Speaker 2: and then of course other issues, and I also work
Speaker 2: for CNN, and I'm doing a lot on gymnastics and
Speaker 2: talking about Simone Biles and how amazing she is on
Speaker 2: air for Good Morning America for ABC right actually mostly
Speaker 2: just ABC streaming. I'm gonna be absolutely accurate. And then
Speaker 2: also CNN and both international and domestic. So it's not
Speaker 2: I I understand what the argument is I understand what
Speaker 2: the complaint or whatever the right word is Sarah about me.
Speaker 2: I understand it. What I am pushing back and saying
Speaker 2: is I don't think that the facts show that I
Speaker 2: was focused don Caitlin Clark during the Olympics, because I
Speaker 2: wasn't covering anything involving that until and again, let's be
Speaker 2: again brutally honest. Of course, I did go to one game.
Speaker 2: It was a semi final game, and as I looked
Speaker 2: at the press room and I talked to a couple
Speaker 2: of the reporters who had been at the men's they
Speaker 2: were shaking their head. They came over and when we
Speaker 2: were chatting, no need to name. I mean, it's a
Speaker 2: name everyone wouldn't probably know, but you know, it doesn't matter.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't necessarily, you know, if I have a private conversation,
Speaker 2: I don't need to make that public to share. Yeah, right, right.
Speaker 2: But but I did it because I wasn't, you know,
Speaker 2: born yesterday and I'm trying to get the sense of
Speaker 2: what the men's mix owone looked like the night before,
Speaker 2: and it was packed and we there were eighteen people.
Speaker 2: I think I haven't read the column recently, but I
Speaker 2: think It was eighteen people, eighteen journalists I counted, and
Speaker 2: please I stand corrected if people are in my column.
Speaker 2: What it was was a very small number, a little
Speaker 2: not of journalists. Certainly we knew some of us knew
Speaker 2: each other, all from the US. I'm pretty sure maybe
Speaker 2: one or two international around Cheryl Reeve and talking to
Speaker 2: a couple of the you know, Brittney Grinder. I talked
Speaker 2: to Britney Grinder, I talked to Sabrina. Who else did
Speaker 2: I talk to? But Cheryl Reef was where I counted
Speaker 2: everyone because I thought, well, that's going to be the scrum,
Speaker 2: that is the maximum eighteen And this particular journalist just
Speaker 2: was shaking his head and said what could have been?
Speaker 2: And I said, I know, And of course that was
Speaker 2: referring this person to me about Caitlin Clark. And I
Speaker 2: did write that column. Again, I know you're not the
Speaker 2: first person. I'm not even saying that you are interpreting
Speaker 2: it that I was focused on Caitlin Clark. What I
Speaker 2: am focused on is getting attention for all of these women.
Speaker 2: And I also will say this, Lizzie Schnell did a
Speaker 2: fabulous job of covering them, and USA Today was giving
Speaker 2: a lot of attention to the players. My role, I thought,
Speaker 2: was to once again say this is unbelievable, the missed opportunity.
Speaker 2: This was a story. I was on two columns. As
Speaker 2: I've said, this was the second one, and I could
Speaker 2: speak to it. Got to go pay some bills.
Speaker 1: When we come back, we'll continue the conversation with Christine Brennan.
Speaker 1: I think we're getting lost in the weeds, and I
Speaker 1: know we've kept you way too long. Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for your your generosity of time. I think I
Speaker 1: just want to end by coming back to the bigger picture,
Speaker 1: because again we're getting in the weeds on the type
Speaker 1: of journalism or the number of columns. And when you're
Speaker 1: in pursuit of elevating Caitlin and the league, of giving
Speaker 1: the league coverage, of giving your opinions on the coverage,
Speaker 1: what responsibility do you think you have for how your
Speaker 1: opinions and your coverage affects the league and the players
Speaker 1: in it. Because there have been players who have approached
Speaker 1: you and said, you know, this is perpetuating stereotypes. There
Speaker 1: have been people who have read your columns and then
Speaker 1: taken away from them that the players are mean to Caitlin,
Speaker 1: or that the league is targeting Caitlin Do you believe
Speaker 1: that's true? First of all, do you think that the
Speaker 1: players were physically trying to harm Caitlyn Clark in the season?
Speaker 2: Uh? First of all, I don't recall I have ever
Speaker 2: talked about the targeting of Kitlyn Clark or the harm,
Speaker 2: except in the case of what was, of course, the
Speaker 2: National conversation that I asked her about and then wrote
Speaker 2: about involving the Kennedy Carner Show or whatever we'd call it,
Speaker 2: which turned out to be, of course, of flagrant foul. Otherwise,
Speaker 2: I have not approached that topic with Kaitlyn Clark, with anyone.
Speaker 1: Or yeah, with Kennedy and Carrington. Right, So those are
Speaker 1: to these like pulse points from the season where people
Speaker 1: have attached to those moments further narrative. I'm not putting
Speaker 1: that word in your mouth at all. No, No, I'm
Speaker 1: asking if you believe that to be true.
Speaker 2: Right, But I believe what you were saying. Is there
Speaker 2: a lot there have been that Some people have said
Speaker 2: there have been a few. I have not been that person. Okay,
Speaker 2: So let's let's writ next.
Speaker 1: So let me let me clarify. Then people have used
Speaker 1: parts of your coverage as part of a larger narrator
Speaker 1: of it being Kaitlin Clark versus the League. Your particular coverage,
Speaker 1: other than talking about specific incidents with Carrington and Kennedy
Speaker 1: Carter has not been to point out specifically targeting or harm.
Speaker 1: But because of that narrative being Caitlin versus the League,
Speaker 1: because of the frosty column before the league started, because
Speaker 1: of the asking Carrington if it's intentional, those participate in
Speaker 1: a larger narrative and it's not just you. Honestly, Christine,
Speaker 1: I think the criticism for you comes from an expectation
Speaker 1: based on your reputation. Right There are plenty of people
Speaker 1: showing up that should be denied credentials. OutKick is one
Speaker 1: of them who have never respected women, will never respect women,
Speaker 1: and we don't expect anything out of them. I think
Speaker 1: the dissonance here is that it feels like at times
Speaker 1: your ability to see the larger context and write to
Speaker 1: it in really difficult situations has been such a massive
Speaker 1: part of your career, and in this league it feels
Speaker 1: like you're.
Speaker 2: Operating in a vacuum and ignoring.
Speaker 1: The larger context, or at least deciding not to care
Speaker 1: what your effect on it.
Speaker 2: It might be everyone can think whatever they want. Of course,
Speaker 2: I think they've missed some of my CNN hits where
Speaker 2: we've talked about how awful the discourse is. The other
Speaker 2: day on Jake Tapper, I talked to what I said
Speaker 2: to you earlier. I made it crystal clear. I make
Speaker 2: this a It's a very important point for me to make,
Speaker 2: and so I made it on national television. So on
Speaker 2: what was that Monday on CNN with Jake Tapper where
Speaker 2: I said, again, you know, we have no idea what's
Speaker 2: what it's like to be a black woman in the
Speaker 2: public eye and dealing with Twitter and this cesspool of Twitter.
Speaker 2: I said that I will say it again in expect.
Speaker 2: A couple of people, well a couple of people at CNN,
Speaker 2: including a black woman, came up to me and thanked
Speaker 2: me for saying that. So there is a I am
Speaker 2: not disagreeing that there are people who are mad at me,
Speaker 2: or people who don't like me, or they're disappointed with me,
Speaker 2: or whatever they may feel. I mean, that's just what happens.
Speaker 2: You know this too. There are probably people who are
Speaker 2: disappointed with you. I think that this narrative that is
Speaker 2: being perpetuated is not looking at all my body of work.
Speaker 2: I do a ton of TV work. I have written,
Speaker 2: as I said, a very few columns on Kitlin Clark
Speaker 2: compared to what I have done this year with the Masters.
Speaker 1: But it's the only WNBA coverage you do, so you
Speaker 1: understand how people in this particular space will focus on
Speaker 1: that part of it as opposed to what you're writing
Speaker 1: about other sports.
Speaker 2: Well well if they want to, sure, But of course
Speaker 2: Kitlyn Clark is a story very much like Tiger Woods,
Speaker 2: and I did do a column on that about covering
Speaker 2: Tiger at the very beginning and then covering Kaitlin.
Speaker 1: I mean, the Tiger's success didn't result in attacking other golfers,
Speaker 1: and I think that's what I The contact was so
Speaker 1: different here.
Speaker 2: There was racism against Tiger and it was not covered
Speaker 2: as it should have been.
Speaker 1: I write against tigers, so right, the focus on of
Speaker 1: your stories.
Speaker 2: Centering there was placed it in time. There was no
Speaker 2: social media back then, right, so I know, like right
Speaker 2: now now you and I having this conversation, there will
Speaker 2: be people that react to it in all kinds of
Speaker 2: different ways right on social we both are looking forward
Speaker 2: to that, right I exactly welcome. As I said, I
Speaker 2: already go to say like Christine Brennan is an idiot
Speaker 2: or something, and then you know they're like, yeah, we
Speaker 2: agree and so so that. But we can't control everything
Speaker 2: someone's going to be doing on it. We are doing
Speaker 2: our level best, you as a professional, me as a professional,
Speaker 2: to do our level best to be appropriate and fair
Speaker 2: and honest as we are in every syllable we've just
Speaker 2: said here over the last X amount of time we've
Speaker 2: been talking. Then it goes out to the world and
Speaker 2: then people. I think it would shock us if people
Speaker 2: all of a sudden did something based on what we said, right,
Speaker 2: But we also can't control everything. I am not washing
Speaker 2: my hands as I answered that question of years a
Speaker 2: while ago. It is a valid conversation. As I said,
Speaker 2: I've brought it up on National TV a couple of
Speaker 2: days ago, I've brought it up with you. I am aware.
Speaker 2: I have said it to many many people. I've said
Speaker 2: it on Panels about I said it with Jake a
Speaker 2: few months ago when he was talking about something. I said,
Speaker 2: we have no idea and we've got to be so
Speaker 2: aware of our of our black colleagues.
Speaker 1: Our impact well of our impact too.
Speaker 2: Exactly exactly, but that's not.
Speaker 1: Just empathetic to their experience, but but aware of whether
Speaker 1: we're contributed.
Speaker 2: Absolutely absolutely, But you have to admit that when you
Speaker 2: and I are done here and this goes up, we
Speaker 2: cannot know everything everyone will do, and it might be
Speaker 2: absolutely it might even surprise us, and then we will
Speaker 2: You and I might email our text and say, wow,
Speaker 2: let's be careful next time. Yeah, right, think about what
Speaker 2: we've heard, the back we've gotten, consider it through the
Speaker 2: lens of journalism and doing what we think is right,
Speaker 2: and also how people react to it, because sometimes impact
Speaker 2: is just as important as intent, right, But if your
Speaker 2: intent doesn't match your impact, and enough people tell you that,
Speaker 2: at some point, there's a reassessment, right, Well, And so
Speaker 2: my point is the notion that I am this terrible
Speaker 2: verson or whatever it is. And again, it's a free cunt,
Speaker 2: and I would absolutely defend their right to say that
Speaker 2: about joining the club for all of us. You know me,
Speaker 2: and you know there's a lot of people out there,
Speaker 2: a lot of people who are of course like me
Speaker 2: and defending me, and a lot of people who don't.
Speaker 2: But the notion that somehow this is all terrible and
Speaker 2: I'm out to do something awful or whatever they're thinking, right,
Speaker 2: and I'm not minimizing it. I'm just you know, we
Speaker 2: don't have all day to talk about what they're thinking,
Speaker 2: because I'm sure there are many thoughts. You have to understand.
Speaker 2: It's that as journalists, we do our jobs. We put
Speaker 2: stuff out there, and of course we care and we're
Speaker 2: surprised or were shocked. And as you know, as clear
Speaker 2: example from the it was last Tuesday was of course
Speaker 2: the interview, and I put it right out there, which
Speaker 2: of course I thought was the right thing to do journalistically.
Speaker 2: I wasn't hiding it obviously, right. I put you out there,
Speaker 2: including my questions, so might be something for somebody to
Speaker 2: consider that I'm you know, I did do that, of course,
Speaker 2: and whether they liked it or not, I did. I
Speaker 2: was very transparent seeking around, no hiding and then the
Speaker 2: anger and whatever that, you know, and the concern and
Speaker 2: do wanna Brauner coming up and speaking to me, and
Speaker 2: of course she right away she was saying, you know,
Speaker 2: you just respected my my teammate, excuse me, my teammate,
Speaker 2: and I put my hand out I'd like I wanted to,
Speaker 2: you know, I said, Hi, I'm Christine Brennan. Would of course,
Speaker 2: she didn't want to take my hand. I said, would
Speaker 2: you like to, you know, take my hand in the
Speaker 2: sense of, you know, shake hands? And I tried to
Speaker 2: think twice on that, maybe three times in a minute
Speaker 2: and a half. And then I also said, do you
Speaker 2: want to see what I did? So, Sarah, I would say,
Speaker 2: right then and there, as I am being confronted by
Speaker 2: do wanna Bonner, I would not call it heated. I
Speaker 2: would call it a person coming up to talk to me.
Speaker 2: It's happened a lot. Happened a lot to you too.
Speaker 2: I welcome that, I absolutely standing there, welcome that I'm
Speaker 2: trying to introduce myself to her. Do you want to
Speaker 2: see the interview? We could have had a little bit
Speaker 2: more of a conversation. She didn't want to, and that's
Speaker 2: her right. But I also believe that that shows how
Speaker 2: much I cared, I understood, I was willing to have.
Speaker 2: I didn't walk away way, I didn't leave the arena.
Speaker 2: And I think some of the conversation potentially out there.
Speaker 2: I'm not seeing that much of it, but some of
Speaker 2: it might be just what an awful human being I am.
Speaker 2: That is Okay, it's their right to say that, but
Speaker 2: I think they're missing the fact of what I'm trying
Speaker 2: to do. What I am doing, what I understand clearly,
Speaker 2: but also as a journalist, asking questions and putting things
Speaker 2: out there so athletes then can then have an opportunity
Speaker 2: to answer issues that are being discussed or out there.
Speaker 2: Understanding of course that Twitter is a cesspool, that other
Speaker 2: social media is also terrible, and these are real issues
Speaker 2: in our society. And know what you know me, Well,
Speaker 2: no way am I minimizing any of that.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm very grateful for coming on and talking about it,
Speaker 1: for standing by your work and coming on to explain
Speaker 1: how you do it and why you do it.
Speaker 2: And I really appreciate.
Speaker 1: It's tough conversation to have, and I think it's been
Speaker 1: it's better to have these conversations face to face and
Speaker 1: out in the light. Then, like you said, to be
Speaker 1: like she's a terrible person and that's it, and that's
Speaker 1: where it ends. There's more to it, and there's more
Speaker 1: conversation to be had. I saw in the Washington Post
Speaker 1: that your editors had requested credentials for the w NBA Finals.
Speaker 2: So as far as you know.
Speaker 1: Your credentials are secure and you will be going on
Speaker 1: to continue covering some of the playoffs.
Speaker 2: Well, I hope so they're gonna USADA is yes, absolutely that.
Speaker 2: I told the Post that, and ben Stous wrote that
Speaker 2: that USADA will be requesting credential for me at least
Speaker 2: for Game one, which is also the Kathy Engelbert press conference.
Speaker 2: And I don't think as we're talking right now, I
Speaker 2: certainly can update you, but right now I don't know
Speaker 2: that one they've actually officially been requested yet, you know,
Speaker 2: the editor actually doing it. And secondly, if they have been,
Speaker 2: have we heard back. So I certainly hope so, because
Speaker 2: I like to cover it and like to be at
Speaker 2: that press conference. And this is an incredible time in
Speaker 2: women's sports and an amazing time in the WNBA, with
Speaker 2: obviously cultural issues, major issues, and by the way, all
Speaker 2: of that will be in the book. This idea, and
Speaker 2: I know you didn't say this, but this idea is
Speaker 2: that again, this is about the women's sports revolution and
Speaker 2: title nine the book would be out, you know, early
Speaker 2: on in the WNB season next year. It's about a
Speaker 2: time and a place, it's about our culture. Doctor Harry
Speaker 2: Edwards is talking very eloquently about all of this. I
Speaker 2: want to get more voices, not less. And if anyone,
Speaker 2: by the way, if I may just say, if anyone listening,
Speaker 2: watching wants to talk to me, I want to talk
Speaker 2: to you. I'm easy to find. My website is just
Speaker 2: my name and you can send me an email there.
Speaker 2: So I don't mean to be soliciting, but I'm open.
Speaker 2: I do want to hear from people and all these
Speaker 2: the various issues that have come around and come about
Speaker 2: because of this very interesting and obviously important time in
Speaker 2: women's sports. I hope people do talk to you.
Speaker 1: I think writing about Caitlin requires understanding this like larger
Speaker 1: history of the league and the larger you know, situation
Speaker 1: within which she arrived. That's so much of what's informed
Speaker 1: this season and a lot of the conversations this season
Speaker 1: have come from this intersection of new people, old people,
Speaker 1: new stories, old stories and all of that. And that
Speaker 1: that's why we got to talk about it. We got
Speaker 1: to talk about it instead of just tweeting mean things
Speaker 1: to each other.
Speaker 2: Will happen to both of us.
Speaker 1: After this interview, Christine, thank you again for coming on.
Speaker 2: Really appreciate the time.
Speaker 1: Thanks again to Christine Brennan for joining us. I have
Speaker 1: some thoughts on the conversation. We just had some quick thoughts,
Speaker 1: so be sure to come back after the break. A
Speaker 1: lot to take away from this conversation, and we'll continue
Speaker 1: to do that tomorrow in the coming days as well.
Speaker 1: But I want to end with this for today. I
Speaker 1: asked Christine, quote, don't you think journalistically, the idea of
Speaker 1: minimizing harm, of seeking out truth in the most honest
Speaker 1: and good faith way, you should prioritize that over being
Speaker 1: able to just say I would ask that question a
Speaker 1: million times and ignoring the context within what you're asking
Speaker 1: it end quote. And she responded, quote, yeah, you know.
Speaker 1: It's a great point.
Speaker 2: Certainly.
Speaker 1: It is something that I guess every journalist needs to
Speaker 1: start to think about and deal with. Most of us, don't,
Speaker 1: right Just you ask questions and you see what the
Speaker 1: answers are end quote. And I want to say that
Speaker 1: I do think about that very much, and I think
Speaker 1: a lot of journalists do. I'm very aware of how
Speaker 1: I move in this space in the w in particular,
Speaker 1: and that if my intent is to cover the players
Speaker 1: and the league fairly, that I not further narratives that
Speaker 1: are damaging and dangerous to the black women of the league. I,
Speaker 1: of course strive not to be a cheerleader or a sycophant.
Speaker 2: I want to get to the truth.
Speaker 1: I want to ask hard questions, but I want to
Speaker 1: ask them in a way that doesn't give credence to
Speaker 1: internet rolls or those with bad motives. And I think
Speaker 1: maybe that's where the issue in this whole conversation with
Speaker 1: Christine really lies. It feels like in a vacuum, Christine
Speaker 1: can defend her tweets, her TV appearances or columns. And
Speaker 1: by the way, we count sixteen on Caitlin Clark, not
Speaker 1: six or seven, So it was interesting how she wanted
Speaker 1: to minimize the number, and the number was never the
Speaker 1: importance anyway. But in a vacuum she can defend those
Speaker 1: and in a vacuum she can sum up the results
Speaker 1: of that content as criticism both of players and her.
Speaker 1: But that suggests that the issue ends with online vitriol.
Speaker 1: Now that vitriol and the email death threats and the
Speaker 1: racist social media memes like those are bad enough, But
Speaker 1: the truth is the damage that can actually be done
Speaker 1: by reporting in a vacuum in this league, by perpetuating
Speaker 1: and inflaming narratives about black players is so much greater
Speaker 1: than online hatred. It results in people showing up to players' hotels,
Speaker 1: in people harassing them and their family members, and it
Speaker 1: also gravely affects the success of the league. Focusing on
Speaker 1: how Caitlin has drawn fans to the league without acknowledging
Speaker 1: how her arrival is also emboldened racist and homophobic quote
Speaker 1: unquote fans is to attempt to separate the individual player
Speaker 1: from the league in which she plays, and Caitlin's success
Speaker 1: ultimately depends on the league's success.
Speaker 2: So refusing to.
Speaker 1: Understand how racism, misogyny, and homophobia have affected the league's viewership, attendance,
Speaker 1: ability to turn a profit, not to mention how it's
Speaker 1: affected you know, which players get covered and get sponsorship
Speaker 1: deals and get credit for their play, is to reveal
Speaker 1: a sort of fundamental misunderstanding of the league. And you know,
Speaker 1: to just say that you can ask the same questions
Speaker 1: you've asked a million times in other spaces, completely different spaces,
Speaker 1: without causing harm here is, in my opinion, a violation
Speaker 1: of journalistic responsibility.
Speaker 2: This league and.
Speaker 1: These players do not need soft coverage, but they do
Speaker 1: need smart coverage, and in the days since the WNBPA
Speaker 1: statement was released, I've seen multiple really respected journalists, though
Speaker 1: none who covered the WNBA or even cover women's sports
Speaker 1: at all, come out in support of Christine, and they've
Speaker 1: cited her body of work and her history. Most seem
Speaker 1: unaware of the season long conversations around Brennan's reporting, and
Speaker 1: some even allege that the player's Association statement was solely
Speaker 1: about her. In You with DJ Carrington Now, a bunch
Speaker 1: of legacy media folks not understanding the larger context of
Speaker 1: the WNBPA call out and the greater impact of Brennan's
Speaker 1: work is the fundamental issue here. Too many folks speaking
Speaker 1: on a league and players that they don't know and
Speaker 1: haven't done the work to understand, and it's been kind
Speaker 1: of the theme all season long, right conversations about the
Speaker 1: league led by the loudest voices with the largest influence
Speaker 1: as opposed to the most informed voices. Now, I respect
Speaker 1: Christine's past work and the fight she's put up for
Speaker 1: so many years paving the way for other women, and
Speaker 1: I get how people might rush to defend her because
Speaker 1: of that, But the act of being a journalist is
Speaker 1: an ongoing process, and the work she did before won't
Speaker 1: mitigate the harm of the work she's doing right now.
Speaker 2: So when the.
Speaker 1: Players Association, players themselves and other media members are telling
Speaker 1: her the impact of what she's doing and she doesn't
Speaker 1: seem interested in reflecting or changing, then it feels like
Speaker 1: that ongoing process of journalism is over. We want to
Speaker 1: hear what you thought of the interview too. What was
Speaker 1: your response to what I had to say to what
Speaker 1: Christine had to say? Send us email Good Game at
Speaker 1: wondermedianetwork dot com or we'd really like to hear your
Speaker 1: voices on this, so send us a voicemail eight seven
Speaker 1: two two o four fifty seventy.
Speaker 2: We'd really love to hear from you, slices.
Speaker 1: Thanks again for listening and we'll see you tomorrow with
Speaker 1: all your faves back.
Speaker 2: And if you're stuck.
Speaker 1: Around this long your true slice, so good Game Slices.
Speaker 1: Good Game with Sarah Spain is an iheartwomen's sports production
Speaker 1: in partnership with Deep Blue Sports and Entertainment. You can
Speaker 1: find us on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts. Production by Wonder Media Network, our
Speaker 1: producers are Alex Azzie and Misha Jones. Our executive producers
Speaker 1: are Christina Everett, Jesse Katz, Jenny Kaplan and Emily Rudder.
Speaker 1: Our editors are Emily Rudder, Britney Martinez, Grace Lynch and
Speaker 1: Lindsay Cratowell.
Speaker 2: Production assistants from Lucy
Speaker 1: Jones and I'm Your Host Sarah Spain