"...there's still things involving politics, culture...,sports, money, the way that these leagues operate,..."(Jay, ~14:05)

"...deep down everyone knows that a lot of owners operate this way..." (Ethan, ~21:10)

Since there will always be unideal "things" afoot, and since "everyone knows" this now, maybe the question for reporters-of-conscience is: What info is actually relevant, actionable, useful to fans? No boycotts, no heads-in-sand; just slow, incremental progress; basic transparency; small, digestible nuggets; local scale.

i.e. Maybe the problem is less with the "social justice" orientation and more with the cosmic scope. Jay mentioned something about the impact of teams on the cities they are based in. That's part of it. But even the debate over economic impact of new stadiums, e.g., is very abstract, it appeals to long-term data collection and abstract economic analysis, etc. When Jordan Addison got caught going 140mph in a 55, lip service was paid to the idea that he was putting local MSP people (i.e. fans themselves) in danger. But if we're being honest, the interest in that type of story is also, as Ethan says of Udoka, "prurient" (~31:55).

Jay (~33:00) says of the Poole punch, "of course it should be a question of interest to the public." If he really means "the public" writ large as opposed to just "fans" then I don't agree. To the non-fan "public" this is just another "prurient," unactionable story that takes on cosmic proportions once it becomes the lens through which wider workplace issues, e.g., are discussed. Paradoxically, if anyone can coax a larger lesson out of this "story," it's the fans: a guy punched his friend, it pissed off his other friends who were there, and now they all are having trouble cooperating. Third-grade social worker stuff. Violence doesn't solve anything, etc. Almost anyone can apply that to their own life, whereas almost no one can reasonably analogize their own "workplace" to an NBA "workplace."

I think this conflation of "fans" with "the public" neatly encapsulates why some of us have such a hard time when sports reporters play the "journalistic integrity" card, even though there absolutely will be days where the presence or absence of integrity in the sports media is felt acutely.

















"Prurient" (Ethan, ~31:55) is the right word to describe the "interest" 


























=-=-=-=-=-=-=




"...there's still things...involving politics, culture...,sports, money, the way that these leagues operate,..."(Jay, ~14:05)

"...deep down everybody knows that a lot of owners operate this way..." (Ethan, ~21:10)

Since there will always be unideal "things" afoot, and since "everybody knows" this now, maybe the question for reporters-of-conscience is: What info is actually relevant, actionable, useful to fans-of-conscience? No self-righteous boycotts, no heads-in-sand; just slow, incremental progress; basic transparency; small, digestible nuggets; local scale.

i.e. The problem is less with the "social justice" orientation and more with the cosmic scope and blunt force. Jay (~35:10) mentioned the impact of how teams are "doing business" in their cities. That's the kind of thing I have in mind. But even the debate over economic impact of new stadiums, e.g., is very abstract, it appeals to long-term data collection and abstract economic analysis, etc. When Jordan Addison got caught going 140mph in a 55, lip service was paid to the idea that he was putting local MSP people (i.e. fans themselves) in danger. But if we're being honest, the interest in that type of story is also, as Ethan says of Celtics/Udoka, "prurient" (~31:55).

Jay (~33:00) says of the Poole punch, "of course it should be a question of interest to the public." If he really means "the public" writ large as opposed to just "fans" then I don't agree. To the non-fan "public" this is just another "prurient," unactionable story that takes on cosmic proportions once it becomes the lens through which wider workplace issues, e.g., are discussed. Paradoxically, if anyone can coax a larger lesson out of this "story," it's the fans: a guy punched his friend, it pissed off his other friends who were there, and now they all are having trouble cooperating. Third-grade social worker stuff. Violence doesn't solve anything, etc. Almost anyone can apply that to their own life, whereas no one can reasonably analogize the NBA "workplace" to any other place where human beings gather for any reason.

I think this conflation of "fans" with "the public" neatly encapsulates why some of us have such a hard time when sports reporters play the "journalistic integrity" card, even though there absolutely will be days where the presence or absence of integrity in the sports media is felt acutely and beyond sports. The problem is: you can't bank integrity during the slow season; you can't coax cosmic stuff out of slow-season stories; and you can't make any social impact if even fans are helpless to act meaningfully agaist the villain du jour. Gotta let the game come to you!

Also: haven't the advertisers continued with the social messaging so that "the leagues" don't have to? Or has there also been a retrenchment among the advertisers?