WEBVTT - 'They Can Hate Me' with Christine Brennan 0:00:00.720 --> 0:00:02.960 Welcome to Good Game with Sarah Spain, where we're blowing 0:00:03.080 --> 0:00:05.600 up our entire show format to bring you a very 0:00:05.760 --> 0:00:09.200 long interview with USA Today columnist Christine Brennan. Now, if 0:00:09.200 --> 0:00:12.880 you've been following along, the WNBA Players Association specifically called 0:00:12.920 --> 0:00:16.480 out Brennan, requesting that her credentials be revoked and criticizing 0:00:16.520 --> 0:00:18.920 an interview that she did with Sun player DJ Carrington. 0:00:19.239 --> 0:00:21.960 Carrington made contact with phenom Caitlin Clark with a hand 0:00:21.960 --> 0:00:23.960 to the eye while reaching to deflect a pass in 0:00:24.000 --> 0:00:26.880 Game one of the Sun Fever opening round series. Here's 0:00:26.960 --> 0:00:29.920 that exchange between Brennan and Carrington, Djday. 0:00:30.120 --> 0:00:35.040 Yeah, did you when you went and kind of swatted 0:00:35.040 --> 0:00:38.320 at Caitlin, did you intend to hit her in the eye? 0:00:38.360 --> 0:00:41.040 And if so, could you just or if not, either way, 0:00:41.040 --> 0:00:43.120 could you talk about what happened on that play. 0:00:43.840 --> 0:00:46.640 I just I don't even know why I would intend 0:00:46.720 --> 0:00:47.840 to hit anybody in the eye. 0:00:47.840 --> 0:00:49.199 That doesn't even make sense to me. 0:00:49.320 --> 0:00:51.559 But no, I didn't. I didn't know I hit her. Actually, 0:00:53.080 --> 0:00:54.440 I was trying to make a play on the ball 0:00:54.600 --> 0:00:56.960 and I guess I follow it through and I hit her. 0:00:57.040 --> 0:00:59.640 So obviously it's never intentional. That's not even like the 0:00:59.680 --> 0:01:02.080 type of player that I am. 0:01:02.120 --> 0:01:04.400 So yeah, did you and Marina kind of laugh about 0:01:04.440 --> 0:01:06.440 it afterwards? It looked like you there was later on 0:01:06.480 --> 0:01:08.160 the game they caught you guys laughing about it. 0:01:09.120 --> 0:01:11.120 No, I just told you I didn't even know I 0:01:11.200 --> 0:01:14.039 hit her, so I can't laugh about something I didn't 0:01:14.040 --> 0:01:15.600 know happened. Now. 0:01:15.640 --> 0:01:19.080 While that specific interview and the Players Association calling out 0:01:19.080 --> 0:01:21.640 Brennan has been the focus of much of the conversation lately, 0:01:21.959 --> 0:01:25.520 we actually invited her on the show before the WNBPA statement. 0:01:25.840 --> 0:01:26.960 Her larger body. 0:01:26.720 --> 0:01:28.959 Of work around Caitlin Clark and the league this season 0:01:29.280 --> 0:01:31.880 was something I thought was worth addressing with her, including 0:01:31.920 --> 0:01:34.160 whether or not she's aware of how her intent may 0:01:34.200 --> 0:01:37.000 not align with her impact in such a fraud space, 0:01:37.200 --> 0:01:40.360 and what responsibility journalists have in minimizing harm to the 0:01:40.360 --> 0:01:44.240 players they cover. It's a long conversation, so buckle up. 0:01:44.480 --> 0:01:51.840 You'll hear the interview after the break. She's been the 0:01:51.920 --> 0:01:54.880 national sports columnist at USA Today since nineteen ninety seven, 0:01:54.920 --> 0:01:57.440 a TV sports commentator on multiple outlets, and the. 0:01:57.360 --> 0:01:58.760 Author of seven books. 0:01:59.080 --> 0:02:01.279 She was the first few sports reporter for the Miami 0:02:01.280 --> 0:02:02.960 Herald in nineteen eighty one, the first woman at the 0:02:03.000 --> 0:02:05.200 Washington Post on the Washington football team beat in nineteen 0:02:05.240 --> 0:02:07.720 eighty five, and the first president of the Association for 0:02:07.800 --> 0:02:10.160 Women in Sports Media in nineteen eighty eight. She's currently 0:02:10.160 --> 0:02:12.160 writing a book on Kaitlyn Clark to be published in 0:02:12.200 --> 0:02:15.520 twenty twenty five. It's Christine Brennan. Christine, thanks so much 0:02:15.560 --> 0:02:16.080 for joining us. 0:02:16.480 --> 0:02:18.519 Sara, my pleasure. Thank you so much. Great to see 0:02:18.520 --> 0:02:20.440 you again. So I want to start. 0:02:20.480 --> 0:02:23.120 You've been on my old shows a million different times, 0:02:23.120 --> 0:02:24.919 talking about a ton of different sports. You've been a 0:02:25.000 --> 0:02:28.680 national multi sport columnists for decades with experience covering athletes 0:02:28.720 --> 0:02:31.040 from all over the sports world. But you're relatively new 0:02:31.080 --> 0:02:33.840 to this WNBA beat in your capacity for the USA 0:02:33.919 --> 0:02:36.280 Today columns that you're writing. Are you sort of on 0:02:36.360 --> 0:02:38.720 the WNBA beat or more of a Kitlyn Clark. 0:02:38.480 --> 0:02:41.080 Focus there for the for the paper. Great question. So 0:02:41.520 --> 0:02:45.000 I was not covering women's basketball. I'm not credentialed to 0:02:45.040 --> 0:02:47.280 cover the women's Final four either of the last two years. 0:02:47.280 --> 0:02:48.880 My colleagues were there and they did a great job. 0:02:49.200 --> 0:02:51.239 But I started watching, of course, as I think most 0:02:51.280 --> 0:02:53.359 I mean, I've always watched and I've covered many Women's 0:02:53.360 --> 0:02:56.120 final fours and NCAA tournaments going back to Don Staley, 0:02:56.320 --> 0:02:59.880 which I reminded her of recently at the Washington Post. 0:03:00.160 --> 0:03:03.360 You know, Virginia teams that she was on. But I 0:03:03.400 --> 0:03:05.400 hadn't been credentialed for a while, which is fine, Like 0:03:05.440 --> 0:03:07.960 I was going to Masters and so you know this, 0:03:08.120 --> 0:03:10.880 you know, I'm headed to Augusta. So the Women's Final four. 0:03:11.120 --> 0:03:14.120 But of course I was watching it and watching for many, 0:03:14.120 --> 0:03:16.360 many years. But the last couple of years, of course, 0:03:16.400 --> 0:03:20.040 with those incredible TV ratings and all the conversation about 0:03:20.120 --> 0:03:22.680 Caitlin Clark and IOWA and of course LSU and Angel 0:03:22.720 --> 0:03:26.160 Reese and LSU winning that title and then going into 0:03:27.040 --> 0:03:30.360 the last year, and of course South Carolina beating Iowa 0:03:30.360 --> 0:03:33.320 and all the things that happened. Amazing, right, eighteen point 0:03:33.400 --> 0:03:37.960 nine million, Yeah, unbelievable. I think it was exactly or 0:03:38.000 --> 0:03:41.440 close to exactly four million more than the men. Truly, 0:03:41.600 --> 0:03:43.680 I never thought I would ever be able to say 0:03:43.680 --> 0:03:48.400 that sentence, you know, covering sports as I have for 0:03:47.600 --> 0:03:52.320 forty three and covering women's sports and fighting those battles. 0:03:52.720 --> 0:03:55.560 So I've been watching it and aware of it as 0:03:55.600 --> 0:03:58.360 far as I wrote a column in February. It was 0:03:58.360 --> 0:04:01.800 my first column ever on Caitlyne Clark. I did not 0:04:02.480 --> 0:04:05.280 ask her a question till June when they came here 0:04:05.320 --> 0:04:09.200 to Washington, and when Indiana was here at Washington, and 0:04:09.240 --> 0:04:12.680 I didn't actually shake her hand or meet her until 0:04:12.720 --> 0:04:16.200 the Olympic swimming trials were in Indy. I remember seeing that, yes, 0:04:16.279 --> 0:04:17.960 he had not been in Indie. I would never have 0:04:18.279 --> 0:04:21.520 met or talked to Caitlin Clark, you know, in terms 0:04:21.560 --> 0:04:23.960 of actually meeting her or asking a question, because I 0:04:24.000 --> 0:04:26.680 covered two fever games because USA Today wanted me to 0:04:26.720 --> 0:04:28.760 cover those games while I was at the swimming as 0:04:28.880 --> 0:04:30.760 of course did quite a few other people going over, 0:04:30.880 --> 0:04:33.880 especially the Sunday afternoon of I think was Father's Day 0:04:33.960 --> 0:04:38.440 was Chicago sky at Fever, and of course that was 0:04:38.279 --> 0:04:41.200 the intense interest in that, and then went and covered 0:04:41.240 --> 0:04:43.960 you know, Katie Ledecki and everybody at night. So bottom 0:04:44.000 --> 0:04:46.760 line is I wrote a commn in February, I wrote 0:04:46.800 --> 0:04:51.239 a column in April wrote yeah, I wrote a column 0:04:51.279 --> 0:04:54.240 on the day of the first game, which was May fourteenth, 0:04:54.640 --> 0:04:57.320 and Riucada, which was a one mostly title nine or later. 0:04:57.440 --> 0:05:00.600 Just this coming of age, in this moment in sports 0:05:00.880 --> 0:05:04.920 and then then the Mystics game, I wrote one. I 0:05:04.960 --> 0:05:06.680 think I wrote a column on that, or maybe that 0:05:06.760 --> 0:05:12.679 was in the height of some of the post Kennedy 0:05:12.760 --> 0:05:16.960 Carter foul and all the things that had happened there. 0:05:17.040 --> 0:05:19.760 So I wrote about that that day and then went. 0:05:19.680 --> 0:05:21.640 To so is this a directive of the of the 0:05:21.839 --> 0:05:23.840 That's all I was wondering, is like, is USA today 0:05:24.400 --> 0:05:26.880 when you're like pitching them, are are you pitching them 0:05:27.560 --> 0:05:30.440 like I'm going to do this coverage of this superstar 0:05:30.520 --> 0:05:32.880 rookie that's bringing all these eyeballs or is it more 0:05:32.880 --> 0:05:35.560 of a w NBA focus that ends up focusing a 0:05:35.600 --> 0:05:37.640 lot on the changes that happened as a result of 0:05:37.640 --> 0:05:38.080 her arrival. 0:05:38.480 --> 0:05:42.960 Yeah, yeah, good question. The first one February it was 0:05:43.000 --> 0:05:44.880 also about the Olympic team, and I have so many 0:05:44.920 --> 0:05:48.400 Olympic sources. So USA today I probably you know, you 0:05:48.400 --> 0:05:48.760 talk to. 0:05:48.720 --> 0:05:50.680 Editors, natural intersection there. 0:05:50.839 --> 0:05:54.719 I didn't just like chat about that then. Yeah, I 0:05:54.720 --> 0:05:56.880 think each one would have been conversations with editors a 0:05:56.920 --> 0:05:58.560 little bit and very mutual, you know, in other word's 0:05:58.600 --> 0:06:00.160 like do you want to do this, yes? Or I 0:06:00.200 --> 0:06:01.320 come to them, I'd like to do this. 0:06:01.520 --> 0:06:01.719 Yes. 0:06:02.440 --> 0:06:05.160 Obviously in the midst of this, I'm writing, you know, 0:06:05.279 --> 0:06:08.080 more columns about golf, and of course more columns yeah. 0:06:07.920 --> 0:06:12.480 All the other the other sports that you've been at forever. Yeah, 0:06:12.560 --> 0:06:14.599 it's it's been interesting to watch this year. You know. 0:06:15.279 --> 0:06:17.400 When the season started, a whole lot of the sort 0:06:17.440 --> 0:06:19.240 of newer to the w folks who hadn't watched a 0:06:19.279 --> 0:06:22.279 lot of WNBA basketball, including a lot of men's players 0:06:22.320 --> 0:06:26.880 and talking heads, reacted to the league's physical play and 0:06:26.920 --> 0:06:28.599 the trash talk with a lot of kind of pearl 0:06:28.640 --> 0:06:31.159 clutching about it being too violent or accusations that some 0:06:31.200 --> 0:06:33.440 players were jealous of the attention that Kaitlyn Clark was. 0:06:33.360 --> 0:06:35.159 Getting and creating this narrative. 0:06:35.320 --> 0:06:36.960 And I think it's kind of been a through line 0:06:37.000 --> 0:06:39.800 for the season, this narrative that got started that was 0:06:39.839 --> 0:06:43.200 that players, veteran players, particularly black players, were targeting Kaitlyn Clark, 0:06:43.440 --> 0:06:45.320 and over the course of the season, that resulted in 0:06:45.360 --> 0:06:48.200 a lot of coverage of plays involving Clark that look 0:06:48.279 --> 0:06:51.479 a whole lot like other games, and plays that get 0:06:51.520 --> 0:06:54.200 ignored right, that display the same toughness and competitive play 0:06:54.240 --> 0:06:56.320 the tempers you've seen in sport, like there are actual 0:06:56.440 --> 0:06:59.680 fights in the w NBA, but flagrant fowls or incidental 0:06:59.720 --> 0:07:02.120 content plays on Kaitlyn Clark are sort of treated as 0:07:02.160 --> 0:07:04.880 outside the game of basketball, and listening to folks like 0:07:04.920 --> 0:07:07.919 Sue Byrd say how insulting it is for athletes to 0:07:08.080 --> 0:07:11.600 be first of all, for folks to arrive and not 0:07:11.720 --> 0:07:14.240 recognize that that kind of play is pretty common in 0:07:14.280 --> 0:07:17.080 the W but also to presume that athletes are trying 0:07:17.120 --> 0:07:19.679 to injure other athletes. And one of those plays actually 0:07:19.680 --> 0:07:21.840 happened recently. There's a play between Kaitlyn Clark and dj 0:07:21.920 --> 0:07:26.720 A Carrington of the Connecticut Sun, and you know, resulted 0:07:26.760 --> 0:07:28.800 in a black eye, and there was this conversation around 0:07:28.920 --> 0:07:31.720 around intention. You actually interviewed dj A Carrington about this. 0:07:32.080 --> 0:07:34.400 What was your intent in asking her if the quote 0:07:34.480 --> 0:07:36.400 unquote swat at Caitlyn was intentional? 0:07:36.720 --> 0:07:40.760 Yeah? Yeah, So I was credentialed for both Game one 0:07:40.840 --> 0:07:45.880 and Game two by USA today, So I think we've 0:07:45.880 --> 0:07:49.560 discussed this. I am writing an unauthorized book on Kitlyn 0:07:49.640 --> 0:07:53.200 Clark and this moment in women's sports. The title will 0:07:53.200 --> 0:07:55.960 be on her game, Kitlyn Clark and the Revolution of 0:07:56.000 --> 0:08:00.200 Women's Sports for Scribner, and Scribner came to me and 0:08:00.200 --> 0:08:01.960 and It was put together in July, and I signed 0:08:01.960 --> 0:08:04.040 the contract August fifteenth, after I got back from the 0:08:04.080 --> 0:08:07.720 Paris Olympics, so you know pretty quick. And of course 0:08:07.760 --> 0:08:10.360 that's public and it is unauthorized, and by that I 0:08:10.400 --> 0:08:13.280 think probably people don't know it might sound ominous or something. 0:08:13.480 --> 0:08:15.400 It means I am not working with Kaitlyn Clark and 0:08:15.440 --> 0:08:18.720 Kate is not working with me. It is a journalistic 0:08:18.800 --> 0:08:23.120 look at this time title nine Iowa Women's basketball, the 0:08:23.200 --> 0:08:26.840 history that led to this moment, Caitlyn Clark, and of 0:08:26.880 --> 0:08:30.000 course i'venue read so many people for the book already 0:08:30.040 --> 0:08:32.720 and we'll keep doing it, including doctor Harry Edwards. He 0:08:32.800 --> 0:08:34.160 is going to be a big part of the book. 0:08:34.200 --> 0:08:36.240 I think many people know him, what a wonderful, dear 0:08:36.240 --> 0:08:40.400 friend he is and just an incredible advocate civil rights. 0:08:40.400 --> 0:08:44.679 Of course, the nineteen sixty eight Black Power salute of 0:08:45.400 --> 0:08:48.040 Carlos and Smith on the metal stand, and that's of 0:08:48.040 --> 0:08:51.720 course they're great friendship and the leadership of doctor Harry Edwards, 0:08:51.720 --> 0:08:56.160 and that Timika Catching's, Eliah Austin's in the book, Kate Martin, 0:08:57.200 --> 0:09:01.600 of course, Kitlyn Clark, and but it's important to say 0:09:01.600 --> 0:09:06.520 that Sarah because I'm doing this book. USA Today asked 0:09:06.520 --> 0:09:10.240 me could I cover and write two columns, you know, 0:09:10.320 --> 0:09:13.640 game game one and Game two, and that I was 0:09:13.640 --> 0:09:15.680 happy to do that. I was on my own dime 0:09:15.800 --> 0:09:19.120 because I'm traveling for the book, and so that was 0:09:19.160 --> 0:09:21.720 helpful or whatever for USA Today that I could be 0:09:21.800 --> 0:09:24.520 there and cover it for them. So that was I 0:09:24.559 --> 0:09:27.880 was credential for USA Today. That doesn't mean it wouldn't 0:09:27.880 --> 0:09:29.320 go in the book or not go in the book, 0:09:29.360 --> 0:09:32.000 but I was credential and working for USA Today. So 0:09:32.480 --> 0:09:36.520 that the incident whatever we would call it with Caitlin 0:09:37.000 --> 0:09:39.679 Clark down and her eye and then the black eye 0:09:40.320 --> 0:09:43.760 occurred what ninety seconds into that first game, And then 0:09:44.280 --> 0:09:46.800 that was Sunday. Then Monday was an off day. We 0:09:46.840 --> 0:09:49.840 didn't have any access to to anyone the players. So 0:09:49.960 --> 0:09:53.480 Tuesday now we've got availability with both Connecticut and Indiana 0:09:54.120 --> 0:09:57.720 and Dje Carrington, I think others had requested her as well. 0:09:58.120 --> 0:09:59.760 And here she comes over to talk to us, and 0:09:59.800 --> 0:10:02.040 she answers a few questions, and I then, of course 0:10:02.120 --> 0:10:04.679 ask her a question that I would ask a hundred 0:10:04.679 --> 0:10:07.559 times out of one hundred and have a thousand times 0:10:07.559 --> 0:10:11.080 out of a thousand or more of any athlete an 0:10:11.120 --> 0:10:13.880 issue in the news, give them a chance to respond, 0:10:14.240 --> 0:10:17.280 to talk about it. It's a conduit for them to 0:10:17.360 --> 0:10:19.679 take it and run with it, to deal with an 0:10:19.720 --> 0:10:21.400 issue that is out there. And clearly this was in 0:10:21.440 --> 0:10:23.520 the news, right I couldn't I'm not even on Twitter 0:10:23.520 --> 0:10:26.400 that much, and I couldn't avoid it as looking at 0:10:26.400 --> 0:10:28.680 all kinds of not people tweeting it at me, but 0:10:28.800 --> 0:10:33.400 just in general replays, you're aware of all your viewers 0:10:33.400 --> 0:10:36.320 and listeners here are aware of the various replays. There 0:10:36.360 --> 0:10:42.319 were also pictures or videos of some laughter with Carrington 0:10:42.360 --> 0:10:45.320 and Marina Maybray. And you know what you do as 0:10:45.360 --> 0:10:48.000 a journalist. You ask the question and you give them 0:10:48.000 --> 0:10:49.840 a chance to take it and run with it. And 0:10:49.880 --> 0:10:52.600 that's exactly what was my intention. That's exactly what I did. 0:10:53.440 --> 0:10:55.719 Obviously there's been a lot of attention on it afterwards, 0:10:56.000 --> 0:10:58.760 but it's journalism one oh one for me, Sarah, And 0:10:59.440 --> 0:11:01.439 that's as I said, you know, I've asked those questions 0:11:01.480 --> 0:11:03.520 of Michael Phelps. I've asked them again as Tiger Will 0:11:03.760 --> 0:11:07.960 asked them if at the Master's one year his doctor 0:11:08.080 --> 0:11:10.880 had been the assistant for his doctor had been arrested 0:11:10.880 --> 0:11:12.920 at the border of the Canada US border with the 0:11:12.960 --> 0:11:15.839 illegal you know, banned substances in other words, like steroids, 0:11:16.080 --> 0:11:19.600 And I asked Tiger that question about his doctor and 0:11:19.800 --> 0:11:22.719 illegal drugs and steroids at the Master's. I mean, I'm 0:11:22.720 --> 0:11:24.680 never going to shy away from asking any question of 0:11:24.679 --> 0:11:26.679 any athlete, and I'm happy. 0:11:26.440 --> 0:11:26.839 To do it. 0:11:27.200 --> 0:11:29.280 So you mentioned journalism one oh one, though, I mean, 0:11:29.559 --> 0:11:32.120 wouldn't it be considered a leading question to ask if 0:11:32.160 --> 0:11:34.480 it was intentional instead of asking her, can you tell 0:11:34.559 --> 0:11:35.520 us about the play? 0:11:37.120 --> 0:11:40.280 Well, I think I said whether it was intentional or not, 0:11:41.200 --> 0:11:43.040 because that was an issue that was out there. And 0:11:43.040 --> 0:11:44.920 then didn't I say could you walk us? I think 0:11:45.080 --> 0:11:46.120 I'd have to look at well. 0:11:46.160 --> 0:11:48.560 Then she said that she didn't intend to hit her 0:11:48.800 --> 0:11:50.880 and didn't know that she had made contact with her. 0:11:51.280 --> 0:11:53.040 And then your follow up was if she was later 0:11:53.120 --> 0:11:55.440 laughing about it. But if she didn't know she had 0:11:55.520 --> 0:11:57.840 hit her, how would she be laughing about an incident 0:11:57.880 --> 0:11:58.600 she wasn't aware of. 0:11:58.960 --> 0:12:01.000 Right, That's a very good and it's why you asked 0:12:01.000 --> 0:12:03.680 the question, in my humble opinion, to give her the 0:12:03.760 --> 0:12:05.640 chance to deal with To me, the two different and 0:12:05.920 --> 0:12:08.800 many people obviously, the two different issues. You've got the one, 0:12:09.080 --> 0:12:13.080 the one the actual black eye, right, and whatever happened 0:12:13.120 --> 0:12:15.440 with that? And you can hear me trying to figure 0:12:15.440 --> 0:12:17.600 out what word to say, like I'm trying to be 0:12:18.480 --> 0:12:20.240 I said, swatted, I believe, right, but I wasn't even 0:12:20.320 --> 0:12:22.600 quite sure how to address it with her to be 0:12:22.679 --> 0:12:25.199 fair and to have a conversation, which of course is 0:12:25.240 --> 0:12:28.520 what we do in journalism, is just you ask questions. 0:12:28.559 --> 0:12:30.600 Did it seem like a play outside of basketball play too, 0:12:30.640 --> 0:12:32.199 That's what I'm wondering. To me, it looked like a 0:12:32.240 --> 0:12:34.640 play where she was trying to deflect a pass and 0:12:34.760 --> 0:12:38.160 made contact. It sounds more like your questions by asking 0:12:38.200 --> 0:12:41.040 if it was intentional that maybe you saw something different. 0:12:41.520 --> 0:12:44.760 No, I had no idea, That's why I asked yeah. 0:12:44.840 --> 0:12:48.199 And then but you asked about the second one. Again, 0:12:48.240 --> 0:12:50.280 there's videos and I know it's three to the dome 0:12:50.360 --> 0:12:53.199 and all that, but but you give the athlete a chance. Again, 0:12:54.320 --> 0:12:56.240 you just give them a chance that you can hit 0:12:56.280 --> 0:12:58.520 that out of the park, you know, and and say 0:12:58.720 --> 0:13:02.240 just answer the question. Well, I'm her a chance to 0:13:02.280 --> 0:13:04.600 answer the question because it was running rampant on the 0:13:04.600 --> 0:13:08.760 internet of what that was. And so again you know, 0:13:08.920 --> 0:13:11.640 that's just to me, that's absolute journalism one oh one. 0:13:11.679 --> 0:13:15.920 And in the sense that it's out there, so let's 0:13:15.960 --> 0:13:18.040 ask the athlete so that they can clear the area. 0:13:18.679 --> 0:13:22.160 Yeah, I get that, like giving an athlete an opportunity 0:13:22.200 --> 0:13:24.800 to speak to something, particularly something that's gotten that big 0:13:24.880 --> 0:13:27.440 on the internet, is super important. But I think also 0:13:27.480 --> 0:13:30.600 the language that you use is important. So by asking 0:13:30.679 --> 0:13:33.559 if it's intentional, you're already sort of leading them into that. 0:13:34.120 --> 0:13:36.760 And same goes with the video of them laughing. You 0:13:36.800 --> 0:13:40.000 said they caught you guys laughing. You know, were you 0:13:40.080 --> 0:13:43.600 laughing about that? It was three quarters later after the 0:13:43.640 --> 0:13:45.040 player had hit a big three. 0:13:45.600 --> 0:13:46.360 Why would they be. 0:13:46.360 --> 0:13:49.079 Laughing about an incident involving an injury to a player 0:13:49.120 --> 0:13:50.719 three quarters earlier. 0:13:50.600 --> 0:13:52.960 In that moment? I don't know. That's why I asked. 0:13:53.120 --> 0:13:56.640 And again, these are issues that were out there that 0:13:56.760 --> 0:14:00.640 I would ask about and I have asked. Right, it's, 0:14:00.360 --> 0:14:06.360 for gosh, asking a very valid question. Just I want 0:14:06.360 --> 0:14:09.440 to make it as crystal clear as possible. You often 0:14:09.480 --> 0:14:11.839 you can bring up the topics, so you ask it 0:14:12.080 --> 0:14:14.800 so that whatever the issue is, so that the athlete 0:14:14.840 --> 0:14:16.840 knows exactly. I'm never going to beat around the bush 0:14:16.840 --> 0:14:19.760 and you know that about me. I think everyone knows 0:14:19.760 --> 0:14:22.520 that about me, And so like, let's go right to 0:14:22.600 --> 0:14:25.080 the issue and you get a chance. I respect DJ 0:14:25.280 --> 0:14:27.680 Carrington so much that she gets a chance to answer it. 0:14:28.400 --> 0:14:32.320 Yeah, I feel like the issue is like operating in 0:14:32.360 --> 0:14:35.800 a vacuum versus understanding the larger context. Right, So if 0:14:35.880 --> 0:14:38.360 you believe that that's a fair approach to get the 0:14:38.360 --> 0:14:40.200 answer that you're looking for, and you believe that's the 0:14:40.200 --> 0:14:42.200 best way to ask the question to get the truthful 0:14:42.240 --> 0:14:46.000 response and not something defensive or something otherwise, I kind 0:14:46.040 --> 0:14:49.240 of disagree. I think you could say people have turned 0:14:49.240 --> 0:14:51.560 that play into something that was intentional. What would you 0:14:51.640 --> 0:14:55.960 say to accusations that that was intentional? Or you know, 0:14:56.680 --> 0:14:58.880 why do you think people would presume that a video 0:14:58.880 --> 0:15:01.040 of you laughing later was a response to a play 0:15:01.080 --> 0:15:04.000 three quarters earlier, particularly when it's a known celebration of 0:15:04.040 --> 0:15:06.360 three to the dome after a made three from your teammate, Like, 0:15:06.400 --> 0:15:08.000 I think there's a way to word it that feels 0:15:08.080 --> 0:15:08.960 less accusatory. 0:15:08.960 --> 0:15:11.000 But also when you're operating in the. 0:15:10.920 --> 0:15:13.560 Context of a season like this one in the w 0:15:14.120 --> 0:15:17.320 there is so much that comes along with the questions 0:15:17.320 --> 0:15:20.040 that you're asking and the way that they will affect 0:15:20.080 --> 0:15:21.520 the player that you're asking them of. 0:15:22.120 --> 0:15:23.640 Did you consider that at all in. 0:15:23.600 --> 0:15:27.240 That moment, that because the Internet had run rampant, because 0:15:27.280 --> 0:15:29.520 there were people trying to slow mow the video and 0:15:29.560 --> 0:15:33.160 accuse her of intention on that play, that your approach 0:15:33.200 --> 0:15:36.760 to asking the question might actually perpetuate some of the 0:15:36.760 --> 0:15:38.920 things that had resulted in her getting death threats and 0:15:38.960 --> 0:15:39.800 other responses. 0:15:40.760 --> 0:15:43.840 Sarah I said this on the the other day with 0:15:44.080 --> 0:15:47.560 Jake Taper on CNN. I'll say it now, the Internet 0:15:48.160 --> 0:15:52.080 and specifically Twitter acts, you know, all these other things too, 0:15:52.120 --> 0:15:53.640 but I think twitters, but I think we can agree 0:15:53.680 --> 0:15:55.760 that that's, you know, probably the worst. You know, it's 0:15:55.760 --> 0:15:59.520 a cesspool. It's terrible for you, it's terrible for me. 0:16:00.320 --> 0:16:02.800 But here we are two white women. There is no 0:16:02.960 --> 0:16:07.160 way on earth we can know what it's like to 0:16:07.200 --> 0:16:12.080 be a black woman and be attacked on Twitter. But 0:16:12.120 --> 0:16:13.520 I know what it's like for me, and I know 0:16:13.560 --> 0:16:15.200 what it's like for you know what it's like for you, 0:16:15.240 --> 0:16:16.440 And I think you and I've talked about this in 0:16:16.440 --> 0:16:18.720 the past, and you know, it's awful. It's just terrible. 0:16:18.760 --> 0:16:23.040 It's awful. That is a fact, it is a sad 0:16:23.160 --> 0:16:27.120 fact of our society today. I think we can probably 0:16:27.120 --> 0:16:30.400 all agree that the leadership of Twitter x has done 0:16:30.400 --> 0:16:35.160 an absolutely horrible job over these what years. 0:16:35.600 --> 0:16:38.000 But these things are extending beyond social media. Because I 0:16:38.000 --> 0:16:39.440 know what you're saying, and I completely agree with you. 0:16:39.480 --> 0:16:42.240 There is not a lot of ways to control those 0:16:42.240 --> 0:16:46.360 things except to say that the media can perpetuate those 0:16:46.440 --> 0:16:50.600 narratives online by asking those questions or by setting things 0:16:50.720 --> 0:16:52.440 up to continue those discussions. 0:16:52.520 --> 0:16:52.720 Right. 0:16:52.960 --> 0:16:55.360 And also, these players this year in the w have 0:16:55.400 --> 0:16:59.360 talked about people showing up at their hotels, people sending 0:16:59.440 --> 0:17:02.120 materials of their family members, like it's gone beyond just 0:17:02.160 --> 0:17:05.520 sort of internet trolling. Right, And in fact, clearly the 0:17:05.600 --> 0:17:09.080 League Players Association felt similarly because after that interviewed, the 0:17:09.119 --> 0:17:13.160 WNBA Players Association had Terry Jackson released a statement alleging 0:17:13.160 --> 0:17:15.160 that your line of questioning was intended to quote bit 0:17:15.200 --> 0:17:18.159 a professional athlete into participating in a narrative that is 0:17:18.240 --> 0:17:22.160 false and designed to fuel racist, homophobic, and misogynistic vitriol 0:17:22.200 --> 0:17:25.320 on social media end quote, and they requested that your 0:17:25.359 --> 0:17:28.200 credentials be revoked as a result. What was your reaction 0:17:28.280 --> 0:17:30.959 to that and did you see or understand it all 0:17:31.000 --> 0:17:34.560 why they would believe that your question was causing an 0:17:34.560 --> 0:17:35.679 athlete to participate in that. 0:17:36.040 --> 0:17:39.280 Yeah, I was in a hotel room and was heading 0:17:39.280 --> 0:17:41.439 to the airport and someone texted it to me. Or 0:17:41.600 --> 0:17:44.520 the first it's like a five page or five post 0:17:44.960 --> 0:17:47.600 quote panel. Yeah, yeah, so I think it was the first. 0:17:47.920 --> 0:17:49.800 What was the first one? And of course I take 0:17:49.840 --> 0:17:52.920 everything seriously and take everything to heart, you know, that's 0:17:52.960 --> 0:17:56.560 what I do, That's who I am. And I looked 0:17:56.600 --> 0:17:58.840 at it and around the same time I was giving 0:17:58.880 --> 0:18:01.040 it a you know, a real look and reading all 0:18:01.080 --> 0:18:05.520 five panels. Sarah, my sports editor, Roxanna Scott got in 0:18:05.560 --> 0:18:08.760 touch with me and said, let's talk about this, and 0:18:08.760 --> 0:18:10.840 and I don't know if I talked to her, maybe 0:18:10.840 --> 0:18:11.920 in the car a little bit, and then I said, 0:18:12.000 --> 0:18:13.760 got jumped out of the car, got to the airport 0:18:13.800 --> 0:18:18.800 and we continued the conversation, and then Roxanna Scott put 0:18:18.840 --> 0:18:24.119 out that very very strong defense of me and journalism 0:18:24.240 --> 0:18:27.840 and asking questions and and so that was that was 0:18:27.960 --> 0:18:31.239 That was basically it. So you were asking a very 0:18:31.320 --> 0:18:34.719 very fair question of my reaction, and I certainly was surprised. 0:18:36.160 --> 0:18:38.960 I didn't take it lightly. I would never take that lightly. 0:18:39.000 --> 0:18:42.120 As I said a few moments ago, I was surprised 0:18:43.200 --> 0:18:48.760 to hear from in this case, the Players Association, Terry Jackson, 0:18:49.960 --> 0:18:52.600 whomever you know that that they want to ban me, 0:18:52.960 --> 0:18:55.600 is you know it's it's I thought it was a 0:18:55.600 --> 0:18:58.920 complete overreaction. I think many many people in journalism thought 0:18:58.960 --> 0:19:02.680 the exact same thing as we seen in columns and responses. 0:19:03.160 --> 0:19:05.280 And that's fine, and I'm heartened by that. And if 0:19:05.320 --> 0:19:07.600 people think it's fine and I should be banned, that's 0:19:07.600 --> 0:19:09.520 of course, it's a free country they can say that. 0:19:10.720 --> 0:19:12.520 But yeah, it certainly surprised me. 0:19:13.760 --> 0:19:15.200 We got to take a quick break when we come 0:19:15.200 --> 0:19:22.320 back more with Christine Brennan. It felt like a lot 0:19:22.359 --> 0:19:26.840