What is krack alackin Hardwar Knocks listeners, I am damn for Valley coming at
you with yet another episode this week. I didn't think I was gonna go
daily. I swore I was gonna give myself at least Thursday or Friday off,
and as of right now, I have planned to do a podcast on
Friday. This is coming out on Thursday. I felt not inspired or even
obligated, but I guess compelled to do a podcast on redacted for clicks.
But before we get started, I just want to remind everyone, please,
that's your first time checking out the podcast, throw us that permanent subscription.
We have a lot of fun around a lot of fun around here. We
do not take ourselves too seriously at Hardwood Knox. We try to thoroughly cover
the entire league, but we also try and have just loads and loads upon
loads of joined our discord. It is in the podcast description. Subscribe to
our YouTube channel, follow us on all the socials, TikTok, Instagram,
what else am I forgetting? TikTok, Instagram? Oh, Twitter? All
those handles are in the podcast description or YouTube description. If you stumble across
there, call this a podcast exclusive because I'm not going to post it on
YouTube. I'm hoping it's going to be a short one because I guess it's
a rant. But like I said, I just felt compelled to talk about
the Knicks. There was hashtag discourse about their decision not to allow external media
at Jalen Brunson's press conference. Quick note the shoes, the color ways,
they were Nikes. I don't know what type of shoes they were, but
that Jalen Brunson was wearing when he took photos in his uniform, those were
fucking clean. And so if if that's maybe the nicest thing I'm gonna say
about the Nicks in this podcast, I just want to get that out of
the way, that those shoes looked pretty freaking cool. I there are a
lot of people that were outraged that the Knicks did not allow external media to
go to jail brun Since press conference, including many people on the Knicks beat.
Molika Andrews said something on ESPN. Kendrick Perkins said it wasn't that a
Knick thing? And then there was outrage at the outrage from Again, I'm
not trying to paint any subset of people with a broad brush here, but
there was outrage from a bunch of Knicks fans, a lot of Knicks fans.
I won't say all of them, I won't say the majority. I
don't know how many it was, but they were outraged at the outrage.
They believe that the Knicks are unfairly covered in the national media. They think
that the beat stinks when you look at the coverage. There's also they did
also though to their credit, they did call out your great, great coverage
like Knicks Film School. Jonathan mcray and Andrew Claudio do a fantastic job over
there. They've both been on the podcast before. You should go check them
out. There were shouts to Chris Herring, who used to be on the
Knicks beat and still will sometimes write about them, but he covers a league
at a national level. He's one of the most informed writers period. Then
Ian Begley, of course of SNY does a great job over there. But
there's critiques being thrown at Stephan Bondi of The New York News, Burman of
The Post. There's you can find it all on Twitter, and I waited
into it because look a couple of things here very quickly is a disclaimer.
I'm not viewing this as a moral high ground or soapbox by me, it's
just something I'm compelled to talk about. One also want to say that my
job is not contingent upon having access, and so this is not coming from
that place. I consider myself the national media. I am not that,
I guess to some extent which I'll get into. Everyone's jobs are dependent on
the people who do have access, because they do provide material even if you're
not acknowledging it for us to cover. But when I did on site stuff,
it took me a while. I had to grow up and just admit
to myself that my anxiety, my insecurities just manifested in just this very toxic
way that was taking a toll on me mentally, physically, psychologically, emotionally,
whatever. And when I had the opportunity to kind of move away from
that and focus more on the coverage where I'm giving opinions. Yes, there's
a lot of lists involved on podcasting more as well seized it and I don't.
I don't regret it. My mental health is better for it. My
point there is not for sympathy to play well is me. It's just that
I found out very early on reporting is not for me. I can't do
the scrums. My anxiety gets gets on tilt and goes to like a twenty
seven out of ten on that I'm not built to do the side amble,
as Howard Beck calls it, because I feel like an intrusion upon everyone's lives.
I'm going to be I'm not afraid to write certain things. And when
I was around not the Knicks, but other teams and wrote things, there
was criticism from organizations that never bothered me. There was praise some organizations that
also made me feel a little cringey because it felt like I was doing them
a favor when that's not necessarily what I was supposed to be doing. I
just didn't like the dynamic of it all, and so I get that this
is complicated. And the final thing I'll say is that while people were dismissing
me on Twitter by I don't want to say, I don't even want to
say implying I was being condescending, but one of the phrases uses that I'm
punching at Knicks fans, and someone else had said, I'm not considering how
fed up Knicks fans are with the coverage. I am a Knicks fan.
I might be deadly disenchanted at points, but I am a Knicks fan,
and so I don't know that that gives my opinion more weight here. But
I don't think it's fair to dismiss me as someone else who's ten thousand feet
away from the situation, even though I do cover the league at large and
just say, like, oh, Knicks for Clicks. So that's trying to
set the table there where this is coming from the fact that Knicks did not
allow access to this jail and Brunson intro pressor it is a problem. It's
at best not ideal, and it's even worse. I don't look the fan
reaction I get, and we'll go more into that, but to see actual
media members or quote unquote media members kind of come to their defense and say
that this is not a Nick thing, that it's fine, that this doesn't
matter anyway, that was really alarming to me. And again, separate thing
with the fans. I don't understand if you're a part of the media,
why you would feel that way at all, Unless you're a Knicks fan and
you feel like you've been jilted by the media even though you're part of the
media. This is a Nick thing, like they have always been among the
worst organizations when it comes to access and newsflash, it's not only the Knicks.
You talk to people in NBA circles you deal with certain teams, there
are more of them. Another team in New York has absolutely sucked with that,
in the Brooklyn Nets. Maybe they've gotten better recently, but they've blown
with that as well. Oklahoma Steve Thunder have always been notoriously difficult. It
hasn't been talked about as much since Russell Westbrook left him. You've moved into
that era. The Spurs have always been incredibly tight lipped, where if you
want to try and speak with members of the team, it's like, well
you can contact their agents and like you know how that while run around works.
So it's not only the Knicks who are restrictive. They play in a
bigger market, so they probably get more critiques. They've had less success over
the past I don't know, two decades or whatever, then the Thunder and
the Spurs, so they're going to be under probably a tougher microscope. But
they're not the only team that's restricts access. And that's a problem to me
because whether you appreciate it or not. I think some of the criticisms and
look, this is fair. There will be people who attend these things.
And by the way, this is not the first time the Knicks have done
this, and I think the most recent example of I don't I don't want
to say that this for sure, I don't remember them having like any draft
night press conference, and then they did the basically exit interview with Leon Rose
through think I think it was Mike Breen. And to have that type of
policing of your media policy, it's just lame and it's not you know,
it's probably in accordance within the rules of the NBA's overall media policy, but
it's definitely just not jiving with the essence of it where it should be more
open ended. There are outlets that probably even if there is a ton of
access, I would still argue that there are certain podcasters or smaller outlets,
independent writers who deserve act says that they're not going to get anyway. This
is not perfect, So I'm not trying to say that it's perfect, but
to continue along this pattern, I'm talking about the Knicks specifically. Yes,
the fair critiques would be well, there will just be people that ask questions
that are meant to be leading that really aren't fair to the player and team.
There will be people that sit there and don't ask questions at all.
I'll raise my hand there. I used to do that all the time unless
I could get one on one time with a player or a coach or whatever.
Not the Knicks specifically, because I was just I was too much of
a coward whatever you want to call it. Yes, that will happen.
There'll also be the softball questions that don't mean anything. You're also not going
to remember who asked certain questions that led to these really dynamic, awesome answers
when it comes from a scrum or a media availability, introductory pressor availability,
whatever it is. That's also part of the point is that if you know
your act to a team is contingent upon the type of things that you were
saying, that's going to ruin I don't want to say ruined. That's going
to adversely impact the overall coverage of the team. And it can work one
of two ways. Either you get outlets that will still be granted access and
they're not going to ask the tougher questions, or have the harsher analysis,
or you're going to have people come over the top hyperbole on steroids and talk
about how shitty this organization is and maybe say things that are absolutely unfair.
That's why I think the media and team relationship it's mutually beneficial. It's exposure,
it's insight. It does draw up interest. You want to look at
the genesis of trade rumors, transaction rumors that make the world go round,
some of the team beefs that make the news cycle go around. If you
don't like that stuff, fine, but there are people that are enamored by
it, especially when it's not happening to their team. A lot of that
is born from their just being access in general. When you look at some
of the best sourcing or even the best profiles, or even just the best
writers, where would they be writers, reporters, where would they be if
they didn't have the opportunity to be on site and then develop the relationships behind
the scenes that you're not getting the people that they're talking to outside of that
introductory press or after it's over, before it happens. That stuff really does
matter. And I'm not trying to paint what's happening in the NBA is some
gross misjustice because there are bigger things, greater things, more important things to
actually worry about. But that is why restricting access to this point, being
so limited is damaging. It adversely impacts the coverage, I think from both
ways. And the other thing here is I'm not of the mind that the
Knicks can't engage the outlets or the specific media members that they deem unfair that
they consider to be providing incorrect coverage, damaging coverage. Why can't you know
how many conversations do we know that the Knicks on the record are off the
record that they're going to have with Berman of the Post, who's also,
by the way, been used along with other reporters, as a mouthpiece at
times for the team. And so you can say you don't care about that
type of coverage, but there is like a there is a rhyme and reason
to why the access exists. And even think back to some of the your
favorite quotes from a Knicks player this season or at any point, do you
remember who asked that it's not always going to be the internal media who gets
first dab at it. And there are even people that work for the team
or the you know the like the MSG network. Now that I've been critical
in the past. I remember when I think it was Alan Hahn when he
was with Newsday and I read him all the time. He was fairly critical
of the organization's media policy. It's not just this instance. And the reaction
that I got from fans when I said, and this is what I honestly
just couldn't understand. Seeing fans heroicize what the Knicks were doing by restricting assets
was ultra cringey, And the overwhelming sentiment I got back was, well,
you're fucking idiot. You just want them to ask questions about Donovan Mitchell and
fake accountability. That's not what this is only about. One. Yeah,
they should be allowed to ask questions about Donovan Mitchell because there've been leaks coming
out of both sides of those talks. It is topical. It's worth talking
about the Knicks. It's they're progative not to answer it, but they should
have to face Leon Rose specifically. Those questions part of Jalen Brunston coming to
New York. This isn't ruining his intro to the team to the city.
It's asking him about maybe who he wants to play with and that also was
not the only point I'm making here. There should be you should be able
to ask other questions about the mode of operations for the organization, the thought
process behind certain moves, what they were thinking by pickloading, how they felt
about the immediate reaction to what they did on draft night, which was Yeah,
that was another over the top instance. You go back and sort of
dig through it. They kind of deserve credit for what they did. I
don't. I don't think it was damaging again, and anyone to listen to
this podcast though, was I'm not a huge fan. I'm a huge fan
of Jalen Brunson. I think the contract in a different context is fine.
I just don't like what this necessarily shows about the trajectory that the Knicks are
trying to operate on. Again, they didn't do anything as of now that
really hamstrung them downline like at all. I don't. I feel like some
people also over celebrated what they did. We should look at I saw someone
tweating about, well, you know, we should talk about how how lucky
they were, how depth it was for them to get off some of those
bad contracts. I don't really know if any of them were bad in a
nutshell, but they were undoing moves that they already did. I don't know
I can respect them making that decision to cut their losses. And again it
wasn't this substantial opportunity cost unless you care about second round picks, which you
know when you're giving up six of them. I kind of do. But
in the aggregate it was fine. But we don't also need to slobber and
rule all over it like we can. There's more, there's more nuanced out
to where we can understand both angles, and if there is dis jauous coverage
of something, you can call it out. That's fine, but that's also
to restrict access based on that. It's going to hurt or restrict access to
people that deserve it and just to use like Ian Begley or Frank Kats to
the athletic who does a great job. I'm also I'm not an advocate of
well usually just allowed certain outlets who coverage you deem acceptable to get in there.
There's already enough game keeping when it comes to NBA access, and whether
you think this is the organization's end goal or not doing so to that extent
is borderline pr like that's what you're after, and I do think it's why
the independent outlets are so important. But when they are fan driven, there's
always going to be a level of loyalty to the organization there that you're not
going to get from more detached media, whether it's national or localized, And
I think that's important even if you don't agree with their coverage. So I
think that media members should be trolling fan bases specifically. No, It's why
when I troll the Kings, I feel like I've developed a good rapport with
Sacramento Kings fans because as my critiques and my jokes have been aimed firmly at
the organization, I think Knicks fans deserve better than the fucking shit show that
they've gotten over the past couple of decades. I also think that in the
in totality, this regime under Leon Rose, while it's still very incestual,
relationship driven and not something I'm completely sold on, it's been better than a
lot of the other regimes that the Knicks have had. And this also,
I think, you know what we're not talking enough about is this is so
ingrained into the Knicks culture. It doesn't matter who the beat writers are either,
and so we could talk about the writers that you don't think should be
there. Do you think that if we were only talking about John macray and
Fred Katz and Chris Herring was still there, if Zach Lowe was on the
Knicks beat, if we're just talking about those names, do you really think
that this James Dolan control of the organization was would open things up. No,
they wouldn't because they haven't the closest I feel like the Knicks have come
You can correct me if I'm misremembering. When Donnie Walsh was kind of there,
it felt like there was this level of transparency when they were going after
Lebron and you saw the moves they were making, and he was a little
bit more welcoming with the media. It felt like that didn't also that that
also was kind of a fleeting tenure, but like that was the last time
you really felt like you had any insight into what the organization was doing.
Is it the Knicks responsibility to come out publicly and say their exact moves.
No, no organization is doing that. And they can refuse to answer any
question they want. They can answer it with non answers, with empty,
hollow platitudes that we learn nothing. That's still just part of the experience of
rooting for a team, watching the NBA, and then every so often,
even if you're getting insightful answers, one out of twenty five times those insiphul
answers matter. And that's why I do think there is the mutually beneficial relationship
too allowing more access. There are also if you're allowing it you're a more
welcoming organization where your relationship with the media, and it's not just now,
I want to make that clear. This is like predating Enzolo was on the
Knicks beat. It is ingrained into the Knicks that this is a combative relationship
with the media, or that this is a combative market. It's why people
talk. And I think it's lazy analysis that player X can't handle the spotlight
in New York Like, No, it's not. It doesn't have to be
that way. And if you are a little bit more welcoming, I'd argue
that the coverage would probably tilt towards an improvement of quality. I think it's
fine if you have an issue with the quality of coverage. I don't think
the answer is then restricting coverage specifically only internal media, but then really just
getting even more selective than an already selective and I would argue exclusitory process can
be that is like the media elements me why I think it's still important.
I don't think it's the media's job to tout the Knicks for acting like a
normal organization either, even though there's value in that, because Knicks fans have
lived through a bunch of shit, including myself, so to see any sort
of coherent plan, which I am skeptical is necessarily still in place, but
to see evidence of that is encouraging, and yet nothing should be miscontextualized.
My other thing there, though, is if you have a problem with certain
types of coverage, we live in an age where there are so many options
that you can curate your timeline to how you see fit. If you don't
like what ESPN is doing, a few things, I would caution it's different
when you're covering one team versus the entire league, or in the case of
a Stephen A. Smith, every single sport and having a comment on everything.
That's just impossible. He's not going to provide the same level of nuance
as someone who covers the entire league. At large, and someone who covers
the entire league at large is not going to provide the same granular analysis that
a Jonathan mcrey can at Nick's Film School. When he's that's he's specifically following
the team, and that's not an insult to anyone at any level. And
there are people who do a good job under those expansive umbrellas. I've had
conversations with Macary and Claudio about other teams and players that are outside the Knicks.
You could tell they've they're they're really insightfuled. They don't need my approval,
by the way, I'm just using them as an example for sort of
the standard bearer for what great Knicks coverage looks like at this point. Zach
Low having such a great hold on the entire league. Even look at Kaitlyn
Cooper Vindy Cornrows and the draft breakdowns that she was able to do and then
contextualizing fits for players on other teams, and she's talked about the NBA at
large for numerous podcasts and written about teams other than the Pacers. So there's
there's talent all around, and there's a level of nuance where people are really
going to stand out but you can't expect the same amount of coverage from a
steven A that you're going to get from a Kaitlyn Cooper or from a Jonathan
Macary, Like, you can't expect that. That's unreasonable. And I'm not
defending everything that ESPN or steven A or other sites outlets networks have done,
like I'm not trying to do that, but it's important part of the context.
I will dunk on it on Twitter as a joke, but it's also
not going to ruin my day even if they're trolling Knicks fans, because I
have other avenues with which to explore, and the people that know the team
most intimately or care most about following the team, they're going to understand where
the more nuanced coverage will be. And I, like, I think that's
fine. The other thing I will say, and I have more intimate knowledge
of this, a lot of the coverage on a national level, on a
local level is data driven when you're for the most part, not doing it
independently, like it's going to be based on oh, well, this is
what drew the most popular reaction or that's where the Knicks for Clicks comes in,
but the most views the most clicks. The entire name of the game
right now is to incite some sort of a response. Now, if you
have a problem with that, it speaks to a larger issue, the overarching
coverage. The Knicks are not the only team with a fan base that feels
there unfairly covered. And this is where I accidentally waded into the ship.
And I didn't. I wasn't trying to be an asshole. I tried multiple
times to give clarifiers. I'm not even trying to say I'm one hundred percent
right on this matter. I'm just here, I have the mic. I'm
a schmuck communicating my opinion. But I tweeted I'm actually stunned at how many,
but not all, fans believe the Knicks are the NBA's most unfairly covered
team. And I also wrote emphasis on not all, tell that two fans
of Milwaukee in parentheticals Giannis Okacsha Giler, just Alexander New Orleans with Zion,
etc. Who've endured rival teams and media and network slobbering over the thought of
their current stars in other markets in other jerseys. Look at Donovan Mitchell's a
perfect example, and someone I didn't put this in there because I didn't want
to engender even more of a reaction. I'm not mister engagement on Twitter following
is super small. I don't even know many followers I have at this point
that I have like ten point five k, and I've probably been stuck between
ten and eleven for like three years at this point. So I didn't think
it was going to get supertraction. But I didn't want to use this as
an example. Donovan Mitchell to New York that's been in the ether for years.
Jazz fans have had to stomach it, and there are probably real issues
at Mitchell has with the organization that are valid, that's fair, but those
fans have still had to sit there and see Donovan Mitchell photoshop the Knicks jerseys.
We saw it with Zion photoshop the Knicks jerseys. Every single player who
doesn't play for the Lakers who's good gets photoshopped into a Lakers jersey, and
so these fit. Look what just happened. I had to rant the podcast
the other day where the conversation somehow, after Josh Kiddy had a great summer,
league shifted to again, not everywhere, but nationally, it did shift
in some in some ways too well. Would they consider trading Shay Gilder Alexander
and selling high like the Spurs did with the Jeante Murray. SG has not
even played out the first season of a five year extension that the Thunder gave
him that he signed. He said that he wanted to be with the organization.
At exit interviews, he talked about his relationship with Sam Presty and look,
hey, speaking of that exit interview, look at how valuable that stuff
can be. That's probably a really cookie cutter response, but you know that
SGA is taught with Sam Presti and to have that level of communication says how
much respect the Thunder have for him, how engaged he is with the organization,
what the team thinks he can be as a player, and how important
they are. I'm not saying they'll never trade him, but it sure doesn't
seem like they are actively shopping him. We don't need to treat smaller markets.
I said this on the other pod, like farm systems for teams in
you know, more glamorous cities or just teams that are going to be talked
about more, and then they're going to be teams. I see Knicks fans
up again, some not all, and they you have a fair point.
They're probably overexposed to Knicks coverage and they think it's shitty Knicks coverage. That
it's the word would probably be I'm trying to think of what the word would
be here, That it's performative, that it's mocking the fans, and not
only just the team, but the fans. Again, I don't think it
should be the job to mock fans. When we speak about fan bases,
we need to be careful that there are these qualifiers where we're not generalizing everything
and painting with such a broad brush. So I understand that, but there
are teams that are annoyed they're not getting more coverage outside of you know,
when we're talking about Team X trading for their star who might want out because
they are in you know, Memphis, or they're in Oklahoma City or New
Orleans as opposed to New York or Laure's. There are teams that are undercovered
in that regard. Do you think that enough people honestly, on a national
level, we know the people that follow the team and cover the team are
going to watch, but when we're talking the NBA is so it's I guess
it's not unique. But when you're talking about when you have diehard fans of
a team, like really die hard fans, you are going to have a
pulse on the league, or at least an interest in the rest of the
league to some regard. How many people do you think we're watching Thunder games,
Rockets games last year, especially towards the end of the season, Pistons
games? How many? Honestly? And I'm not accusing people of just not
watching, but I'm saying that's where it's sort of the some of the ire
fan base is born from that their teams don't receive enough attention, or people
are commenting on those teams without actually watching them or properly contextualizing their moves.
I'm sure I've done it here. I try to watch every single team as
much as possible, but I also understand that I need to defer, and
I need to read, and I need to listen to podcasts, and I
need to hat tip and credit other people where their analysis is coming in.
That helps me a ton in doing what I do. And they are probably
national medium members that don't, I would argue, respect localized covers enough.
That could be another sort of thing here is the rivalry between like national media
members and then then more localized coverage. I just even fandom when you are
given a license to in a good way, and I mean this in a
good way, to be irrational, to overreact, because when you really think
about it, you are so attached, your emotions are so tied to what's
happening in a game played by grown adults. The whole thing is kind of
hysterical. I get that it's escapism and it's important, but like the idea
of fandom in itself, the concept is irrational. That's great, it's fine.
Every fan is going to think maybe their team is undercovered, covered or
underrated relative to relative to other teams, or that they're unfairly covered. Like
there's always going to be that element in there. But we also have to
recognize it's not a well, this is the worst, just flat out no
team has it worse than us. You think Kings fans think that they get
a fair deal. There was an argument I saw on Twitter the other day.
There was a writer who covers the Pistons that talked about how much he
disliked Sacramento in relation to Detroit. I think and that sparked this whole war
of words, So like, this is happening all over the place. The
Knicks are not unique. If you have a coverage problem with the way the
national media is doing or the local media, get in line. And I'm
not saying that you should take it on the chin and just move on,
but you have to understand if you have if you're not in a like,
this isn't anomalous to the Knicks, and I think it's important to understand that.
And I don't think the solution to it. Yeah, if you want
to have a conversation about how broken the coverage of the NBA is at large,
if that's what you believe, I'm absolutely here for it and we'll have
it. But I don't think I always am going to argue that open dialogue
is better unless it's detrimental to where people are being condescending. And yeah,
I didn't dunk on who knows if I even won. But I went a
little bit towards the heated end of the spectrum on Twitter where someone accused me
of not caring about the Miles Bridges domestic violence case because I was talking about
the Knicks, Like where are my tweets on that that like that stuff is
damaging, but open dialogue in general, like I should be allowed to convey
this opinion and have it back and forth without feeling shamed for having said dissenting
opinion or stop punching at Knicks fans. And I could be over sensitive to
just the phrasing there as well, But I go out of my way to
make it. I try to go out of them away, or I think
I go out of my way to say I'm not painting this fan base with
a broad brush or saying they can't feel this way or telling them how to.
And if I don't get it back, then yeah, there's going to
be times where I might go over the top or just be dismissive and stop
answering because it's not worth it. I just I don't understand why we can't
even acknowledge that much. And I think even some of the sentiment was,
well, yeah, it's probably not ideal that the Knicks are so inaccessible,
but we're just so fed up with the coverage in general. That's like,
that's actually fine to admit, and I think it shows like a really productive
self awareness. But I don't think being frustrated with the coverage warrants being so
so starkly on one side of the spectrum to where you're just fine with their
being such limited access. That's impacting again outlets or media members who do a
good job covering the team and will adversely impact the product again on both sides
of this equation. That's sort of where I land at that, and it's
just weird, how okay. A lot of fans seemed with what the Knicks
did, even though it's become and maybe it is because it's become the norm,
or they don't see the value in media. That's a lot of people
told me. I don't think at least, I wasn't asking you to be
mad on the media's behalf. I wasn't asking anyone to feel anything. My
opinion was just that this is not the best way to run an organization.
And I think that there are these larger implications extending beyond the Knicks where it
gets damaging and we could see the coverage slip or skew too far in one
direction or just too far outside of reality if this keeps up already, just
the super prohibitive access when it comes to locker rooms now post COVID, I
understand that. I think some teams have taken advantage of the way that they've
conducted interviews since then. I don't. I don't think any medium member needs
to be self righteous necessarily about this. But if that's your job, and
your job is to some extent pride and on accents access as it is for
the coverage of of beat writers specifically, yeah, you really should be pissed
off that the Knicks, especially when you're working for these sort of legacy publications
and there if the Knicks have an issue and I'll just reiterate this, if
the Knicks specifically have an issue with how their team is being covered in a
way that they think is unfair, criticism does not count as being unfair,
by the way, saying the Knicks should be more welcoming of not just legacy
publications but also independent publications. And I know they've sort of opened up the
door a little bit to some, But as much as I love the fan
driven publications like you also need people who are a little bit more removed from
the situation. In my opinion, and I say that as an actual Knicks
fan too, but the Knicks can speak like nothing is stopping them from having
a dialogue, whether it's off the record, on the record, and yeah,
on the record can settle things. You don't have to be petty about
it because you're gonna get dunked on if you start being super contentious in press
conferences. And the other thing asked the players how they feel about Burman of
the Post and see if he actually really them off. See the answer is
probably Mitchell Robinson tweeted like Burman, you need to chill or whatever it was
on Twitter when Burman of the Post point out that the Knicks didn't let people
external media into the Jaalen Brunton presser, that's like, it didn't seem like
he was angry. It just seemed like he was making a joke. And
so I don't think just from what I understand that the players, at least
in the in the macro, I'll use that word again, like, yeah,
on certain Knights you're probably pissed off, But in the aggregate, I
don't think that they despise the Knicks media as much as the fans despised the
Knicks media. And do I think that the genesis of that view among many
Knicks fans is warranted. If you again, if media outlets, or if
you feel like they are actually trolling you or they're being dismissive of your thoughts
and opinions. That's absolutely a fair stance to take, because we forget that
the fans as and I'm saying this is someone who does the league at large.
Sometimes we can forget like that's who we're covering the league for. That's
who we're trying to have a discussion with. I don't want to be yelled
at. I don't want people thinking I have an agenda to where I'm purposely
ranking their favorite team lower on the competitive spectrum just because I want to incite
rage. I also don't want them to think that I'm just, you know,
being one sided and saying their team should trade all their good players or
shitty players. That's something the Orlando not the sum Orlando Magic fans have said
about me on stuff I've written and about this podcast. That's not what I'm
trying to do. So I'm I don't think this is a matter of Oh,
the media is being too self righteous and wants us to feel bad for
them. It's that they're complaining about their jobs getting harder, their jobs being
adversely impacted, and their jobs being dismissed quite frankly, and I do think
that's a fair stance to tank take. I don't think you need the empathy
of the fan base, but I don't really appreciate the sentiment among any any
fans, however large of a portion it is that the media doesn't matter,
or that the Knicks are totally right to do what they did. And this
goes so far beyond you know, oh, they just wanted to keep it
about Jien Brunson. No fuck off with that take. Honestly, that's as
condescending as I'll be. This isn't just about Donovan Mitchell and Jalen Brunson.
And if you have a problem with negative coverage, your tough questions like,
that's just sort of the nature of this business. I'm not resigned to coverage
staying the same. I want to make that clear. I have adapted the
way that I cover the league. There are people that should do a better
job of adapting the way they cover a league cover the league. I should
do a better job of adapting the way that I cover the league. But
we can't pretend that as Knicks fans. You can't pretend that this is only
happening to you. No, every team has a problem. Every team's fans
or a subset of other fans has an issue with the way their team is
covered. And I think a lot of those points, including some of the
ones that Knicks fans made, are fair. I just don't understand why we
can't compartmentalize this better. I think that I that's where I sort of wind
up. I don't begrudge any fan base for having real issues with Ridge,
but I'm also not a fan of extremism and absolutes when they're being conveyed with
sincerity. Like if you're being over the top as a joke and people can't
detect that, that's kind of on them. If people don't understand that Twitter
isn't always the place for nuance, that's going to be on them too.
I'm not a fan of the sentiments that verge on we have it the worst,
or you disagree, so you're attacking us, and this is Look,
this is not I wrote to some sort I'm not trying to be as serial
well actually ast here. Every form of coverage is going to exist for a
reason, negative, positive, over the top, incandescence, straws, eyeballs,
favorable reporting helps access, but there are also enough different forms of coverage
that you can curate the ones you're consuming and enjoy the most. And I
also look, I think it's unreasonable to have a uniform idea of good coverage.
Some people really want the xs and os, the nitty gritty of the
rotation. Other people want to know about player stories and profiles and the work
ethic they're putting behind the scene, or why they might be struggling about something.
Some people just want a more gener realized overview. They want the gamers,
They want the interviews or the postgame pressers to get a sense of the
team. They want to talk about trades and transactions and free agency and cap
space. They want to talk about the hilarious stuff or the off court drama
or what Mitchell Robinson is posting on his ig stories. Everything, so long
as it's not actively detrimental or mean is I think that's fine. And if
you think that Stephen A is a Knicks fan plan at ESPN and that they're
capitalizing on that by means of demeaning Knicks fans, I will listen to it.
I think that you're probably assigning too much forethoughts of what goes into that
process. If you're thinking, there's a reason that network, the ESPN,
that other networks, that's Fox Sports, that all these all these websites that
these articles come out where they're really focusing on the Knicks, the Lakers,
the bigger markets, that's what's going to draw the most eyeballs. And yeah,
that that does kind of suck that we're so behold and to those metrics.
That doesn't mean that what's happening to your team is criminal. It also
doesn't need to be personal to where I think that when media members actually are
criticizing the organization, and granted I did criticize some I criticized part of the
fan basis reaction. I thought it was cringey how they left to the Knicks'
organization's defense. But when the criticism is aimed at the organization itself, it
doesn't it's not also aimed at the fans unless they said fuck the Knicks organization
and fans. If we're criticizing the Knicks for their media policy, it's not
something that fans are obligated to come and defend. I get that will be
a part of fandom. When you're talking about moves and transactions, but this
is veered too far off the rails in general, and again it's not just
the Knicks. It's a lot of MBA coverage can feel that way sometimes.
I think Lakers fans feel that they're probably unfairly covered at this point. So
that's where I landed on the Knicks stuff. I know I was sort of
rambling, but I wanted to get those thoughts in a podcast form. I
don't even know if I'm going to promote this podcast, because in so far
as people will listen to it, I don't know that I necessarily want to
deal with the backlash. I'm just I'm not a fan of carrying so much
water for an organization that frankly has not earned it. If it's more about
how you feel about the coverage of the fan base itself rather than the organization,
I get it, but I think we still need to be able to
admit that a fan or a national media member, but even a Knicks fan
like myself having a dissenting opinion being treated as like a borderline trader, or
people just assuming you're not a fan or that you have an agenda, or
being condescending. I don't think that's fair either. It's not always me thing,
that's just my thoughts on it, and I'm not trying to come off
as pious here. As the final thing, I'll say thank you for anyone
who made it through all of this. If this is your first time checking
us out, consider following us on social media. All the handles and whatnot
are in the podcast description. Join our discord where we have a bunch of
respectful and instructive and informative and thought provoking conversations. The link to that is
in the podcast description as well. You can also, as I mentioned,
throw us that permanent subscription and come return to talk with me. I'm on
to a dance valley as well. Until next time, and as always,
employ do I miss when all of us Knicks fans could have come rallied together
around the injustice that was his inconsistent role in playing time the legend Frank Heal