If you believe the headlines--and I would caution against believing any headline from any source--Russell Westbrook "goes off," "blasts" the media in an "agitated" way, makes "fiery" comments, and "fires back" at media members. After Westbrook's Sacramento Kings lost 133-123 to the New Orleans Pelicans on Thursday night, Westbrook spoke to the assembled media for a little more than six minutes. You can judge for yourself the tone and tenor of Westbrook's comments by watching this video (and if the video does not play on your device or if the video is subsequently taken down, you can find another link to the video without much difficulty):
Note that Westbrook did not raise his voice, did not use profanity, and did not personally insult anyone. He asserted that media members who cover the Kings make unfounded statements about him, his teammates, and his team without proper "context," and he challenged specific media members to repeat those unfounded statements to his face. One of the media members singled out by Westbrook is Matt George, who does a Kings podcast. George declined to address Westbrook's concerns at the press conference, and then after the press conference he did a podcast about the situation followed by making the rounds at various media outlets to defend himself and repeat his hope that Westbrook is not on the team next season. There are many words to describe a man who declines to address another man face to face only to speak about him behind his back, but I'll stick with a family-friendly word: coward.
It is not Westbrook's fault that the Kings are having a horrible season. He is playing hard, and he is playing well. The Kings have been a dysfunctional organization for quite some time. Mike Brown won the Coach of the Year award in 2023, and then the Kings fired him in 2024 to hire Doug Christie, who had no prior head coaching experience at any level and who is coaching the Kings about as well as one would expect from someone who has no prior head coaching experience.
The larger context here is that Westbrook is one of the greatest players in basketball history, and his career is being covered by people who are unqualified to comment about basketball at any level, much less the highest level. Westbrook has been honored as a member of the NBA's official 75th Anniversary Team, and he set NBA career records for most triple doubles and most rebounds by a guard.
Westbrook is an all-time great being covered by hacks who accuse him of padding his stats by "stealing" rebounds, a false notion that is unsupported by the numbers. Justin Termine admits that he is "an entertainer, not a journalist," and after listening to him I agree that he is not a journalist but I question how entertaining he is. Termine recently asserted that Westbrook has spent his career accumulating individual statistics that do not correlate with team success. Termine calls himself a basketball historian, but he apparently does not realize how rare it is for a team to reach the Western Conference Finals four times, as the Oklahoma City Thunder did (2011, 2012, 2014, 2016) with Kevin Durant and Westbrook leading the way. Westbrook was an All-NBA Team member in three of those four seasons, and would have made it in all four had he not been limited to 46 games in the 2014 season (he averaged 26.7 ppg, 8.1 apg, and 7.3 rpg during that playoff run to reaffirm his All-NBA status).
It is notable that Hubie Brown--who Doug Collins correctly called the "gold standard" for NBA commentators--consistently praised Westbrook even when other media members like Amin Elhassan and Zach Harper took unwarranted shots at Westbrook.
A major cause of the low quality of media coverage is the low barrier to entry for the profession, a topic that I have mentioned before but is worth discussing in greater depth. I speak from personal experience because I spent seven years as a credentialed reporter in NBA media rooms, so I saw firsthand how news is gathered, how narratives are manufactured, and how often incompetent media members ask ridiculous questions. Before I became a credentialed reporter, I devoted myself to learning the NBA game, learning pro basketball history, and honing my writing skills, but I found out--to my horror--that obtaining credentials and getting writing assignments has much less to do with what you know than who you know. This is in marked contrasted to other professions and endeavors. For example, in the 1990s, I was an ACE-certified personal trainer, in 1995 I earned the U.S. Chess Federation's Expert title, and in 2016 I became an actively licensed attorney.
To become a certified personal trainer, you must pass a certification exam.
To become a chess Expert (top 3% of all chess players in the United States), it is necessary to earn 2000 rating points in officially sanctioned tournaments.
To become an actively licensed attorney, you must score high enough on the LSAT to be admitted to law school, you must graduate law school, and you must pass the bar exam. To maintain actively licensed status, you must earn continuing education credits.
You cannot become a certified personal trainer, a chess Expert, or an attorney based on your connections; to achieve each of those status levels, you must meet objective standards.
In contrast, anyone who knows the right person can show up at a sports event as a credentialed reporter. There is no education requirement and no competency requirement. Reread those two sentences, and then you will understand why the quality of media coverage is generally low--and I am not just speaking about NBA media coverage: the Wall Street Journal's chess coverage is embarrassingly bad, the general coverage of the World Chess Championship is pathetic, and political coverage is riddled with agenda-driven bias and misinformation.
The media members who hate Westbrook and slander Westbrook do so not only because they are incompetent but because they are outraged that he is not afraid to expose them as unqualified hacks. Westbrook is not feuding with Hubie Brown or Tim Legler or Doris Burke or any competent NBA commentator; he is feuding with people who are unqualified to do their jobs. There is a major difference between objectively being one of the greatest basketball players of all-time versus having a media platform because you know a guy who knows a guy; deep down, these media members know their real value and their real level, and they resent being reminded of those truths.
Russell Westbrook is a real man who works hard every day without making excuses. He is loyal to his team and to his teammates, even when that loyalty is not returned. He is not afraid to call out anyone's nonsense. There is a cliche suggesting that one should never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel (or, in today's parlance, have unlimited access to multimedia platforms)--but Westbrook does not think about his protecting his image or trying to be popular: he protects his teammates, and he challenges media members who ask dumb questions and who make unfounded assertions.
Westbrook deserves better media coverage than he receives--and, as the listening and viewing public, we deserve better media coverage than the slop that is provided to us.
I would say that Westbrook was somewhat “agitated” and “fiery” in the interview but it wasn’t because he completely lost his mind or temper. He is tired of media members who say awful things about him publicly but won’t say those things to him directly. I don’t think I would want to meet the type of person who wouldn’t be a bit “fiery” and “agitated” about that.
ReplyDeleteI vividly recall you predicting that the media coverage of Westbrook would be identical to the way that the media treated Kobe Bryant. They use textbook “heads I win, tails you lose” logic where regardless of how well they do or don’t play, it’s proof that they’re overrated and the various media members will have something snarky to say about them.
I remember with Kobe that he would be accused of being a “ball hog” when he had a lot of shot attempts but would then be accused of “sulking” or “quitting” when he didn’t shoot as much. With Westbrook, he’s a “stat padder” when he plays well but then he’s also “trash” when he doesn’t play well.
Kobe Bryant said it best when addressing whether or not he could coexist with Steve Nash when they were teammates:
“Here’s the thing: Some people are just very, very dumb. I keep hearing it from some people that I just want to score and that other stuff. Nobody has won more championships than me in my entire generation. I’ve got five of them. You can’t be selfish and win one championship, let alone five. That argument should be in the coffin by now. I don’t like having the ball.”
Michael:
DeleteI do not think that Westbrook was agitated and he certainly was not fiery.
I wish that my negative predictions would be wrong, but usually they are right. I saw from the start that many media members assailed Westbrook for supposedly not being a “true” point guard, and I knew where that nonsense would go.
Minor correction: not all jurisdictions require continuing legal ed (e.g., MA doesn't); and even where required there are no tests of comprehension of course material. Also most or all require the MPRE (ethics exam) to get licensed
ReplyDeleteAnonymous:
Delete“Correction” implies that I made a mistake, but what I wrote is true regarding where I am licensed (Ohio). As clarification, it can be noted that at least 45 states require continuing education. You are correct that MA is one of the few that does not have that requirement.
I would say that the MPRE is part of the overall bar passage process. In Ohio, you must pass it first before you take the bar exam.
The larger point is that in many professions there are barriers to entry, but that is not the case for journalism.
same anon (re law): that's a valid pt re CLE in most states and a valid larger pt re barriers to entry. however, to be technical, even in CLE-requiring states, it's no barrier to entry: CLE is passive -- so a 7-year-old (blessed with patience or, more likely, doing something else while the courses run on an electronic device) could sit through CLE courses. your overall point, though, is correct
ReplyDeleteAnonymous:
ReplyDeleteA seven year old will not have the opportunity to sit through CLE courses, unless he is the legal profession's version of Doogie Howser and has already done well on the LSAT, graduated law school, and passed the bar.
The legal profession has high barriers to entry, and even after an applicant surpasses those high barriers he or she still must make some deliberate effort regarding continuing education. You are correct that obtaining CLE credit is not as challenging as scoring well on the LSAT, graduating law school, or passing the bar--but CLE is required on top of all of those other barriers. In marked contrast, someone who wants to be a journalist is not required to have any educational attainment, let alone being required to continue that education. Anyone who knows the right person or right people can obtain a media credential, and that is how we ended up with credentialed reporters who write nonsense and who scream nonsense.