'They Can Hate Me' with Christine Brennan

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to Good Game with Sarah Spain, where we're blowing
up our entire show format to bring you a very
long interview with USA Today columnist Christine Brennan. Now, if
you've been following along, the WNBA Players Association specifically called
out Brennan, requesting that her credentials be revoked and criticizing
an interview that she did with Sun player DJ Carrington.
Carrington made contact with phenom Caitlin Clark with a hand

(00:21):
to the eye while reaching to deflect a pass in
Game one of the Sun Fever opening round series. Here's
that exchange between Brennan and Carrington, Djday.

Speaker 2 (00:30):
Yeah, did you when you went and kind of swatted
at Caitlin, did you intend to hit her in the eye?
And if so, could you just or if not, either way,
could you talk about what happened on that play.

Speaker 3 (00:43):
I just I don't even know why I would intend
to hit anybody in the eye.

Speaker 2 (00:47):
That doesn't even make sense to me.

Speaker 3 (00:49):
But no, I didn't. I didn't know I hit her. Actually,
I was trying to make a play on the ball
and I guess I follow it through and I hit her.
So obviously it's never intentional. That's not even like the
type of player that I am.

Speaker 2 (01:02):
So yeah, did you and Marina kind of laugh about
it afterwards? It looked like you there was later on
the game they caught you guys laughing about it.

Speaker 3 (01:09):
No, I just told you I didn't even know I
hit her, so I can't laugh about something I didn't
know happened. Now.

Speaker 1 (01:15):
While that specific interview and the Players Association calling out
Brennan has been the focus of much of the conversation lately,
we actually invited her on the show before the WNBPA statement.

Speaker 2 (01:25):
Her larger body.

Speaker 1 (01:26):
Of work around Caitlin Clark and the league this season
was something I thought was worth addressing with her, including
whether or not she's aware of how her intent may
not align with her impact in such a fraud space,
and what responsibility journalists have in minimizing harm to the
players they cover. It's a long conversation, so buckle up.
You'll hear the interview after the break. She's been the

(01:51):
national sports columnist at USA Today since nineteen ninety seven,
a TV sports commentator on multiple outlets, and the.

Speaker 2 (01:57):
Author of seven books.

Speaker 1 (01:59):
She was the first few sports reporter for the Miami
Herald in nineteen eighty one, the first woman at the
Washington Post on the Washington football team beat in nineteen
eighty five, and the first president of the Association for
Women in Sports Media in nineteen eighty eight. She's currently
writing a book on Kaitlyn Clark to be published in
twenty twenty five. It's Christine Brennan. Christine, thanks so much
for joining us.

Speaker 2 (02:16):
Sara, my pleasure. Thank you so much. Great to see
you again. So I want to start.

Speaker 1 (02:20):
You've been on my old shows a million different times,
talking about a ton of different sports. You've been a
national multi sport columnists for decades with experience covering athletes
from all over the sports world. But you're relatively new
to this WNBA beat in your capacity for the USA
Today columns that you're writing. Are you sort of on
the WNBA beat or more of a Kitlyn Clark.

Speaker 2 (02:38):
Focus there for the for the paper. Great question. So
I was not covering women's basketball. I'm not credentialed to
cover the women's Final four either of the last two years.
My colleagues were there and they did a great job.
But I started watching, of course, as I think most
I mean, I've always watched and I've covered many Women's
final fours and NCAA tournaments going back to Don Staley,
which I reminded her of recently at the Washington Post.

(03:00):
You know, Virginia teams that she was on. But I
hadn't been credentialed for a while, which is fine, Like
I was going to Masters and so you know this,
you know, I'm headed to Augusta. So the Women's Final four.
But of course I was watching it and watching for many,
many years. But the last couple of years, of course,
with those incredible TV ratings and all the conversation about
Caitlin Clark and IOWA and of course LSU and Angel

(03:22):
Reese and LSU winning that title and then going into
the last year, and of course South Carolina beating Iowa
and all the things that happened. Amazing, right, eighteen point
nine million, Yeah, unbelievable. I think it was exactly or
close to exactly four million more than the men. Truly,
I never thought I would ever be able to say

(03:43):
that sentence, you know, covering sports as I have for
forty three and covering women's sports and fighting those battles.
So I've been watching it and aware of it as
far as I wrote a column in February. It was
my first column ever on Caitlyne Clark. I did not
ask her a question till June when they came here

(04:05):
to Washington, and when Indiana was here at Washington, and
I didn't actually shake her hand or meet her until
the Olympic swimming trials were in Indy. I remember seeing that, yes,
he had not been in Indie. I would never have
met or talked to Caitlin Clark, you know, in terms
of actually meeting her or asking a question, because I
covered two fever games because USA Today wanted me to

(04:26):
cover those games while I was at the swimming as
of course did quite a few other people going over,
especially the Sunday afternoon of I think was Father's Day
was Chicago sky at Fever, and of course that was
the intense interest in that, and then went and covered
you know, Katie Ledecki and everybody at night. So bottom
line is I wrote a commn in February, I wrote

(04:46):
a column in April wrote yeah, I wrote a column
on the day of the first game, which was May fourteenth,
and Riucada, which was a one mostly title nine or later.
Just this coming of age, in this moment in sports
and then then the Mystics game, I wrote one. I
think I wrote a column on that, or maybe that
was in the height of some of the post Kennedy

(05:12):
Carter foul and all the things that had happened there.
So I wrote about that that day and then went.

Speaker 1 (05:19):
To so is this a directive of the of the
That's all I was wondering, is like, is USA today
when you're like pitching them, are are you pitching them
like I'm going to do this coverage of this superstar
rookie that's bringing all these eyeballs or is it more
of a w NBA focus that ends up focusing a
lot on the changes that happened as a result of
her arrival.

Speaker 2 (05:38):
Yeah, yeah, good question. The first one February it was
also about the Olympic team, and I have so many
Olympic sources. So USA today I probably you know, you
talk to.

Speaker 1 (05:48):
Editors, natural intersection there.

Speaker 2 (05:50):
I didn't just like chat about that then. Yeah, I
think each one would have been conversations with editors a
little bit and very mutual, you know, in other word's
like do you want to do this, yes? Or I
come to them, I'd like to do this.

Speaker 3 (06:01):
Yes.

Speaker 2 (06:02):
Obviously in the midst of this, I'm writing, you know,
more columns about golf, and of course more columns yeah.

Speaker 1 (06:07):
All the other the other sports that you've been at forever. Yeah,
it's it's been interesting to watch this year. You know.
When the season started, a whole lot of the sort
of newer to the w folks who hadn't watched a
lot of WNBA basketball, including a lot of men's players
and talking heads, reacted to the league's physical play and
the trash talk with a lot of kind of pearl

(06:28):
clutching about it being too violent or accusations that some
players were jealous of the attention that Kaitlyn Clark was.

Speaker 2 (06:33):
Getting and creating this narrative.

Speaker 1 (06:35):
And I think it's kind of been a through line
for the season, this narrative that got started that was
that players, veteran players, particularly black players, were targeting Kaitlyn Clark,
and over the course of the season, that resulted in
a lot of coverage of plays involving Clark that look
a whole lot like other games, and plays that get
ignored right, that display the same toughness and competitive play
the tempers you've seen in sport, like there are actual

(06:56):
fights in the w NBA, but flagrant fowls or incidental
content plays on Kaitlyn Clark are sort of treated as
outside the game of basketball, and listening to folks like
Sue Byrd say how insulting it is for athletes to
be first of all, for folks to arrive and not
recognize that that kind of play is pretty common in
the W but also to presume that athletes are trying

(07:17):
to injure other athletes. And one of those plays actually
happened recently. There's a play between Kaitlyn Clark and dj
A Carrington of the Connecticut Sun, and you know, resulted
in a black eye, and there was this conversation around
around intention. You actually interviewed dj A Carrington about this.
What was your intent in asking her if the quote
unquote swat at Caitlyn was intentional?

Speaker 2 (07:36):
Yeah? Yeah, So I was credentialed for both Game one
and Game two by USA today, So I think we've
discussed this. I am writing an unauthorized book on Kitlyn
Clark and this moment in women's sports. The title will
be on her game, Kitlyn Clark and the Revolution of
Women's Sports for Scribner, and Scribner came to me and

(08:00):
and It was put together in July, and I signed
the contract August fifteenth, after I got back from the
Paris Olympics, so you know pretty quick. And of course
that's public and it is unauthorized, and by that I
think probably people don't know it might sound ominous or something.
It means I am not working with Kaitlyn Clark and
Kate is not working with me. It is a journalistic
look at this time title nine Iowa Women's basketball, the

(08:23):
history that led to this moment, Caitlyn Clark, and of
course i'venue read so many people for the book already
and we'll keep doing it, including doctor Harry Edwards. He
is going to be a big part of the book.
I think many people know him, what a wonderful, dear
friend he is and just an incredible advocate civil rights.
Of course, the nineteen sixty eight Black Power salute of

(08:45):
Carlos and Smith on the metal stand, and that's of
course they're great friendship and the leadership of doctor Harry Edwards,
and that Timika Catching's, Eliah Austin's in the book, Kate Martin,
of course, Kitlyn Clark, and but it's important to say
that Sarah because I'm doing this book. USA Today asked

(09:06):
me could I cover and write two columns, you know,
game game one and Game two, and that I was
happy to do that. I was on my own dime
because I'm traveling for the book, and so that was
helpful or whatever for USA Today that I could be
there and cover it for them. So that was I
was credential for USA Today. That doesn't mean it wouldn't

(09:27):
go in the book or not go in the book,
but I was credential and working for USA Today. So
that the incident whatever we would call it with Caitlin
Clark down and her eye and then the black eye
occurred what ninety seconds into that first game, And then
that was Sunday. Then Monday was an off day. We
didn't have any access to to anyone the players. So

(09:49):
Tuesday now we've got availability with both Connecticut and Indiana
and Dje Carrington, I think others had requested her as well.
And here she comes over to talk to us, and
she answers a few questions, and I then, of course
ask her a question that I would ask a hundred
times out of one hundred and have a thousand times
out of a thousand or more of any athlete an

(10:11):
issue in the news, give them a chance to respond,
to talk about it. It's a conduit for them to
take it and run with it, to deal with an
issue that is out there. And clearly this was in
the news, right I couldn't I'm not even on Twitter
that much, and I couldn't avoid it as looking at
all kinds of not people tweeting it at me, but
just in general replays, you're aware of all your viewers

(10:33):
and listeners here are aware of the various replays. There
were also pictures or videos of some laughter with Carrington
and Marina Maybray. And you know what you do as
a journalist. You ask the question and you give them
a chance to take it and run with it. And
that's exactly what was my intention. That's exactly what I did.

(10:53):
Obviously there's been a lot of attention on it afterwards,
but it's journalism one oh one for me, Sarah, And
that's as I said, you know, I've asked those questions
of Michael Phelps. I've asked them again as Tiger Will
asked them if at the Master's one year his doctor
had been the assistant for his doctor had been arrested
at the border of the Canada US border with the
illegal you know, banned substances in other words, like steroids,

(11:16):
And I asked Tiger that question about his doctor and
illegal drugs and steroids at the Master's. I mean, I'm
never going to shy away from asking any question of
any athlete, and I'm happy.

Speaker 3 (11:26):
To do it.

Speaker 1 (11:27):
So you mentioned journalism one oh one, though, I mean,
wouldn't it be considered a leading question to ask if
it was intentional instead of asking her, can you tell
us about the play?

Speaker 2 (11:37):
Well, I think I said whether it was intentional or not,
because that was an issue that was out there. And
then didn't I say could you walk us? I think
I'd have to look at well.

Speaker 1 (11:46):
Then she said that she didn't intend to hit her
and didn't know that she had made contact with her.
And then your follow up was if she was later
laughing about it. But if she didn't know she had
hit her, how would she be laughing about an incident
she wasn't aware of.

Speaker 2 (11:58):
Right, That's a very good and it's why you asked
the question, in my humble opinion, to give her the
chance to deal with To me, the two different and
many people obviously, the two different issues. You've got the one,
the one the actual black eye, right, and whatever happened
with that? And you can hear me trying to figure
out what word to say, like I'm trying to be
I said, swatted, I believe, right, but I wasn't even

(12:20):
quite sure how to address it with her to be
fair and to have a conversation, which of course is
what we do in journalism, is just you ask questions.

Speaker 1 (12:28):
Did it seem like a play outside of basketball play too,
That's what I'm wondering. To me, it looked like a
play where she was trying to deflect a pass and
made contact. It sounds more like your questions by asking
if it was intentional that maybe you saw something different.

Speaker 2 (12:41):
No, I had no idea, That's why I asked yeah.
And then but you asked about the second one. Again,
there's videos and I know it's three to the dome
and all that, but but you give the athlete a chance. Again,
you just give them a chance that you can hit
that out of the park, you know, and and say
just answer the question. Well, I'm her a chance to

(13:02):
answer the question because it was running rampant on the
internet of what that was. And so again you know,
that's just to me, that's absolute journalism one oh one.
And in the sense that it's out there, so let's
ask the athlete so that they can clear the area.

Speaker 1 (13:18):
Yeah, I get that, like giving an athlete an opportunity
to speak to something, particularly something that's gotten that big
on the internet, is super important. But I think also
the language that you use is important. So by asking
if it's intentional, you're already sort of leading them into that.
And same goes with the video of them laughing. You
said they caught you guys laughing. You know, were you

(13:40):
laughing about that? It was three quarters later after the
player had hit a big three.

Speaker 2 (13:45):
Why would they be.

Speaker 1 (13:46):
Laughing about an incident involving an injury to a player
three quarters earlier.

Speaker 2 (13:50):
In that moment? I don't know. That's why I asked.
And again, these are issues that were out there that
I would ask about and I have asked. Right, it's,
for gosh, asking a very valid question. Just I want
to make it as crystal clear as possible. You often
you can bring up the topics, so you ask it

(14:12):
so that whatever the issue is, so that the athlete
knows exactly. I'm never going to beat around the bush
and you know that about me. I think everyone knows
that about me, And so like, let's go right to
the issue and you get a chance. I respect DJ
Carrington so much that she gets a chance to answer it.

Speaker 1 (14:28):
Yeah, I feel like the issue is like operating in
a vacuum versus understanding the larger context. Right, So if
you believe that that's a fair approach to get the
answer that you're looking for, and you believe that's the
best way to ask the question to get the truthful
response and not something defensive or something otherwise, I kind
of disagree. I think you could say people have turned

(14:49):
that play into something that was intentional. What would you
say to accusations that that was intentional? Or you know,
why do you think people would presume that a video
of you laughing later was a response to a play
three quarters earlier, particularly when it's a known celebration of
three to the dome after a made three from your teammate, Like,
I think there's a way to word it that feels
less accusatory.

Speaker 2 (15:08):
But also when you're operating in the.

Speaker 1 (15:10):
Context of a season like this one in the w
there is so much that comes along with the questions
that you're asking and the way that they will affect
the player that you're asking them of.

Speaker 2 (15:22):
Did you consider that at all in.

Speaker 1 (15:23):
That moment, that because the Internet had run rampant, because
there were people trying to slow mow the video and
accuse her of intention on that play, that your approach
to asking the question might actually perpetuate some of the
things that had resulted in her getting death threats and
other responses.

Speaker 2 (15:40):
Sarah I said this on the the other day with
Jake Taper on CNN. I'll say it now, the Internet
and specifically Twitter acts, you know, all these other things too,
but I think twitters, but I think we can agree
that that's, you know, probably the worst. You know, it's
a cesspool. It's terrible for you, it's terrible for me.
But here we are two white women. There is no

(16:02):
way on earth we can know what it's like to
be a black woman and be attacked on Twitter. But
I know what it's like for me, and I know
what it's like for you know what it's like for you,
And I think you and I've talked about this in
the past, and you know, it's awful. It's just terrible.
It's awful. That is a fact, it is a sad

(16:23):
fact of our society today. I think we can probably
all agree that the leadership of Twitter x has done
an absolutely horrible job over these what years.

Speaker 1 (16:35):
But these things are extending beyond social media. Because I
know what you're saying, and I completely agree with you.
There is not a lot of ways to control those
things except to say that the media can perpetuate those
narratives online by asking those questions or by setting things
up to continue those discussions.

Speaker 3 (16:52):
Right.

Speaker 1 (16:52):
And also, these players this year in the w have
talked about people showing up at their hotels, people sending
materials of their family members, like it's gone beyond just
sort of internet trolling. Right, And in fact, clearly the
League Players Association felt similarly because after that interviewed, the
WNBA Players Association had Terry Jackson released a statement alleging

(17:13):
that your line of questioning was intended to quote bit
a professional athlete into participating in a narrative that is
false and designed to fuel racist, homophobic, and misogynistic vitriol
on social media end quote, and they requested that your
credentials be revoked as a result. What was your reaction
to that and did you see or understand it all
why they would believe that your question was causing an

(17:34):
athlete to participate in that.

Speaker 2 (17:36):
Yeah, I was in a hotel room and was heading
to the airport and someone texted it to me. Or
the first it's like a five page or five post
quote panel. Yeah, yeah, so I think it was the first.
What was the first one? And of course I take
everything seriously and take everything to heart, you know, that's
what I do, That's who I am. And I looked

(17:56):
at it and around the same time I was giving
it a you know, a real look and reading all
five panels. Sarah, my sports editor, Roxanna Scott got in
touch with me and said, let's talk about this, and
and I don't know if I talked to her, maybe
in the car a little bit, and then I said,
got jumped out of the car, got to the airport
and we continued the conversation, and then Roxanna Scott put

(18:18):
out that very very strong defense of me and journalism
and asking questions and and so that was that was
That was basically it. So you were asking a very
very fair question of my reaction, and I certainly was surprised.
I didn't take it lightly. I would never take that lightly.

(18:39):
As I said a few moments ago, I was surprised
to hear from in this case, the Players Association, Terry Jackson,
whomever you know that that they want to ban me,
is you know it's it's I thought it was a
complete overreaction. I think many many people in journalism thought
the exact same thing as we seen in columns and responses.

(19:03):
And that's fine, and I'm heartened by that. And if
people think it's fine and I should be banned, that's
of course, it's a free country they can say that.
But yeah, it certainly surprised me.

Speaker 1 (19:13):
We got to take a quick break when we come
back more with Christine Brennan. It felt like a lot
of responses to folks reacting to the WNBPA statement were
specific to that incident, and they certainly did point to
that incident as the issue. But you know, over the
course of the season, I think there's a body of

(19:34):
coverage that I think people react to, and it feels
to me like there's been a little bit of a
thesis that you've had and tried to prove throughout the season,
and that maybe that's been something that's influenced your questions
and coverage because that piece that you mentioned writing back
in April, the season hadn't started, the games hadn't been played,
and you wrote that players were being frosty to Caitlin Clark,
but you mentioned that you hadn't spoken to Kitlyn Clark yet, right, So,

(19:55):
Liberties Brina Stewart and The Mercury's Dna Trosti in particular,
you disagreed with and Stuart's opinion that in order to
be one of the greatest players in college hoops, Clark
would have had to win a title. And you disagreed
with Dina Trossi saying that she would pick Pagebackers over
Kaitlyn Clark with the number one pick in the draft
in one of her Bird and Trossi multicasts.

Speaker 2 (20:14):
Those are opinions.

Speaker 1 (20:14):
And Stuart did also give you a quote that Caitlyn
is a star and we're excited to have her in
the WNBA. She's unquestionably great for what she has accomplished
on and off the court end quote. So why did
you feel like those established players were required to have
different opinions than those in order to prove that they
understood the benefits that Clark would bring, or in order
to say that they weren't being frosty to her, Well, it's.

Speaker 2 (20:34):
A column, first of all, right, so I'm paid to
give my opinion, and I would say that the word
frosty would be one of the columnst words I've used
in a column on topics over the years. And I'm
not being flip, but you know, you know, I'll give
my opinion. If people are going to spend three, four, five, six, whatever,
seven eight minutes whatever it takes to read a column,

(20:54):
they're going to get my best shot. And so that
one you did mention those two example and by the way,
you know, they had every right to say it, but
of course I have a right to critique it, of course, right, yeah,
of course, But even the one I think that was
even you know, I think I also put this in
the column. I haven't read the column in a while,
but I'm pretty sure that that I did. This, of course,

(21:15):
was add the thing about reality is coming right now,
Diana TROSSI was asked by Scott van Pell, who's a friend,
of course, a friend of yours, who I'm sure asked
about that. And it wasn't just Caitlin Clark, it was
the other players, right, And I point that out on
the column. Of course, it was like this rookie class
is coming, and then of course, Diana trust the reality

(21:36):
is coming, and you know they're going to realize they're
going up against grown women and everyone knows that that statement.
So to me, what I saw, as an observer and
doing this for a long time was, as I said,
frosty was I thought actually a kind word, you know,
I thought it was the appropriate word. That's why I
used it to describe the feeling that these players, at

(22:00):
least these two seemed to have. Well. Sue Bird was
the opposite of that. Like Sue Bird said, she would
have taken Caitlin, and of course Tarazzi. Who's Tarazi? And
I certainly know well, I don't know her well, but
I know of her well, right, was being very clipped
with her answer next question, You know, so DISI of Kaitlin.
It's fine again, Dinah Rossi is a grown adult and

(22:21):
has done this for years, and so for me, it's
just looking at that as a snapshot. And I was
surprised because what we had seen over the many months
of with Caitlin Clarke, with the records and the adoration,
all of a sudden it was like, Wow, this is
a bit of a turn, which I think is absolutely accurate,

(22:43):
and that's fine. Again, I mean, anyone can say anything, obviously,
that's you know, it's I'm fair game, everyone's fair game.
Bring it on, right, But but isn't it go ahead?

Speaker 1 (22:52):
But to characterize it because you wrote in the column like,
isn't this a sign that women's sports have grown to
the point where older players can mistreat younger players? Did
you feel like it was mistreating Caitlin Clark to have
a different opinion about whether you could call someone a
great without a title, or mistreating her to say something
we always hear, which is like, yeah, these rookies are
going to figure out this is a whole new ballgame.

Speaker 2 (23:12):
Now. Yeah, well I wrote it, so I obviously felt
that way. Sure. By the way, the question to Brianna
Stewart that I believe was asked by Nicole Auerbach was
does Caitlyn Clark need to have a title to be
considered one of the greats? Yeah, which I mean you
and I probably sitting here right now could come up
with fifty or one hundred great one of the greats.

Speaker 1 (23:33):
Right, I mean that's semantics though, I mean we know
that that's semantics, right.

Speaker 2 (23:36):
It's the difference between the goat.

Speaker 1 (23:37):
I mean, even when we talk about the goat, people
will sometimes have multiple goats, which then completely removes the
meaning of the language that you're using.

Speaker 2 (23:43):
So I get that.

Speaker 1 (23:45):
I guess what I wasn't I guess what I'm no, no, no,
I know it wasn't. I'm saying greats. It's a semantics.
You could be talking one hundred, you'd be talking five.
In the end, though, why is Brianna Stewart's opinion on
that being mistreating to.

Speaker 2 (23:56):
A younger player? I guess That's what I'm trying to
get it. It feels to me.

Speaker 1 (23:58):
Like in sports we see the all the time, the
veterans tell the rookies, we're going to show you what's up.

Speaker 2 (24:03):
This is a whole new ball game.

Speaker 1 (24:04):
This is a different level of play, particularly the W
which we have so many conversations about expansion being necessary
because great college players either don't even get drafted or
don't even make a roster.

Speaker 2 (24:14):
Because there's so few spaces.

Speaker 1 (24:15):
So the elevated talent there means that it's particularly tough
to stay in it, stick around and thrive. That feels
like just standard sports conversation. I think that's part of
the problem that I've seen in this season is we're
having a different conversation about this league, in this particular
set of women, than we are about any other league
in sports. And you know, you've made such a career

(24:39):
of holding people accountable, of taking you know, speaking truth
to power. You've written about Colin Kaepernick's protest, You've written
about the NFL's failures across a number of spaces. I
had you on my show a million times to talk about,
you know, the way the NFL would drop the ball
on domestic violence, sexual assault, racism, And you're so used
to push back from the powers that be and having
to stand up for stuff that isn't always popular when
people just want to watch their teams, they don't want

(25:01):
to face the tough realities with sports. And it feels like,
in contrast, the reaction to a lot of your w
coverage this year has been that instead of writing to
all of that, you're writing this sort of vacuum and
ignoring the bigger issues and how your coverage might be
contributing to them. To see what I'm saying, like, it's
okay to say I've asked these questions a million times.

(25:22):
But if in this instance that question means something different
because of the context for that team, You're not operating
in a vacuum, and don't you have to consider that
context as part of your journalistic responsibility when you ask them.

Speaker 2 (25:34):
Yeah, you know, I appreciate the question. I guess I'm
looking at it a little differently when you've got a
story like this Caitlin Clark, right, which we cannot deny,
the TV ratings, the full houses we were on, you know,
many many calls about it, even if I was if
I was only writing a couple of columns, as we
both said, you know on USA Today like planning calls,

(25:55):
and I literally said, I don't know that I ever
thought I would see this in my lifetime. Right, that
eighteen point nine million, right? And of course it was
don Stay South Carolina team that won the national title.
Of course, Caitlin Clark, though, is the draw right? I mean,
we have proven it over and over again with these
numbers from the WNBA in college you know that it's

(26:17):
Caitlin's game in the draws for sure. But the biggest draw,
the biggest draw for well, again, the sellouts, right, I mean,
Kaitlyn Clark is the only one who's selling out away
buildings that have to get you.

Speaker 1 (26:28):
Know, right, well, TD Garden sold out and that was
a game not involving the fever. There are examples, right, exactly,
But I mean in terms of I mean Washington, right,
you know what's happened, Yeah, I mean, listen, no one's
arguing Caitlin's dominance in Caitlin's draw. I think the question
is how do you cover that without contributing to issues
that have plagued a league for the entirety of its

(26:50):
existence and or feeding into some of the narratives created
by folks who haven't been around, you know, stephen A
Smith and folks like that, who are talking about this
adversary relationship between Clark and her peers that ultimately, once
it got picked up and run with, has been the
reason that there has been so much vitriol and the
literal threats to players. Well, understanding that that context is there,

(27:12):
doesn't that affect your coverage, even of someone who's doing
the great things she's doing.

Speaker 2 (27:16):
So I can't control what stephen A is saying, right,
of course, not right, right, But I mean you're asking
me that that what I could write the sky is blue.

Speaker 1 (27:25):
And you know, no, I'm not asking you to control
I'm asking if you know that that's making I talk
about and or.

Speaker 2 (27:31):
Like, I don't know what's what's fueling stephen A, who
I've known forever.

Speaker 1 (27:35):
Right, I'm not talking about stephen A. I'm talking big picture.

Speaker 2 (27:38):
Well, you know again, I'll go back to what I
said a few minutes ago. I was starting to say
a few minutes ago. So I have always focused on obviously,
you know, big stories, big news, also the minor story,
the person who finishes fourth at the Olympics. Right, of course,
I mean all in a career like mine, you do many, many,
many things. And so in this case, just like of course,

(28:02):
covering tiger Woods the length of his career. You know,
I probably did I write a hundred columns on tiger Woods.
I don't even know, right I And so I would
have ignored other people or you know, not dealt with this.
I mean, unless someone won a tournament, then I'm writing
about Phil Micholson winning the tournament. Whatever would be so
to me, whether it was covering Michael Phelps Tiger Woods.

(28:24):
Katie Ledecki, when you're writing columns about those issues or
those or those those you know, those sports, Well, Caitlin
Clark is right in that category, right, So that's yeah,
for sure. Really it's really simple and each one of
the I think we're talking four or five columns, So
just to keep in mind and perspective for you and

(28:46):
and you know those your listeners and viewers, what you know.
I wrote the February column, the April column, the May column,
did one in June, and then I covered those two
games when I was at the Olympics, at the Olympic
try and those were on Fever in general, and because
the Fever won both those games, they'd beat Chicago and
then they'd be Yeah. And so now we're talking about six.

(29:07):
I think I just counted six columns from February to January. Well,
I don't know, but I'm going to guess, did I
write what twelve or thirteen on Katie Ladecki.

Speaker 1 (29:19):
Yeah, it's not so much about the amount of coverage,
Like I understand, focusing on one superstar that's common, like
we had landing pages at ESPN for like the Big
Three in Miami or Lebron James whatever. The focus on
Caitlin is understandable, especially when you're writing a book like
that's where you're going to center your coverage. But if
Clark is the main character in your research and others
are sort of bit players in the storytelling, are you

(29:41):
able to see the impact that you might have on
them by posing questions a certain way. So, for instance,
in the Fever exit interviews, you asked Temi fact Benley
whether this season was quote a maybe more fun experience
than you've had in your career. But she was injured
for half of the season. She's been on a championship
season before. So when there's this narrative throughout this league,
the black players are not treated as well, that they

(30:02):
have trouble getting the sponsorship deals, that they are not
given the same highlights, that their highlights are reacted to
differently than the white players.

Speaker 2 (30:09):
And you know that.

Speaker 1 (30:10):
Coming in, and that's part of the context of covering
the story, and presumably you understand that, because if you're
going to tell the story of Kaitlyn Clark, you have
to include the context of the league that she arrived
in and how it's changing around her, no matter how
much fun practices might be, no matter how exciting is
to have Caitlin and have the arenas packed a player
that missed a half a season for injury.

Speaker 2 (30:27):
Doesn't it feel like that's.

Speaker 1 (30:29):
A little insensitive to ask is this the most fun
you've ever had before? Like, do you understand how centering
Kaitlin in that context then has an adverse effect on
the players or for instance, like with the Olympics, I
understood your push to try to include Caitlin on the team.
I disagree just because I think the Olympics are a meritocracy.
It's not about viewers or popularity.

Speaker 2 (30:47):
But you're to Temmy and then let's go there. Oh sure, okay, yeah, yeah.
So I've spent quite a bit of time talking to Temmy.
We've talked several times, done some interviews with her about
her about her injuries, and so we've talked about how
much fun it is, and so I wanted to make
sure to get that one more chance of her. So
that was a very logical question within the context of
my various conversations getting to know Temmy, meeting her, talking

(31:10):
to her a couple of times during the season and
at practice. That's just OK.

Speaker 1 (31:14):
So, maybe just like the of your career was like
just a way of answering of asking the question.

Speaker 2 (31:19):
Was I don't even remember what I asked, but absolutely,
I mean, it was a fine question and she answered
it and it wasn't even an issue. You did mention
a few minutes ago about when you're doing a book
on Caitlin Clark. I think it's very important to mention
the timing here, so because Terry Jackson had it wrong
today in the Washington Post. I talked to her on

(31:40):
June twenty seventh, and we did an interview. It was
for USA Today. The first conversation, Sarah that I had
was Scribner wanting to talk to me. Scribner my publisher,
by the way, yeah, or you said in August, Yeah, yeah,
Well I signed the contract August fifteenth. The first conversation
was a zoom on July tenth. So I was never

(32:02):
doing a book. Literally, I was not planning to do
a book I had in June. I had no conversations.
It was scribnerk wanting to talk right essent July tenth.
But it's important to say that because I believe there's
there seems to be amongst some potentially and if not,
that's great. That sense that I've been like working behind
the scenes on a book and of course, people you
and I understand the difference between unauthorized and authorized biography,

(32:27):
but I don't think a lot of you know, a
lot of other people might just I know people have said, oh,
she's working with Caitlin Clark. I am not right, right,
But that's important, that's a very it is important.

Speaker 1 (32:35):
And listen, Like I said, I'm never going to criticize
your amount of coverage on Caitlyn Clark. But I guess
someone who's been in this space for years and understands
the difference that she's made in it, I am all
for highlighting her achievements, the attendance, the viewership, all the
other stuff. I guess part of it is what impact
do you have on the space in what you're working,
and what is the journalistic responsibility of the effect you

(32:57):
have on that space. So Stephanie White spoke about this
after the game the other day, and I think, you know,
it was very smart in the way she approached it.
She talked about basically, you know, when you've got a
league that is not used to this much coverage and
then all of a sudden these people arrive. What has
happened is they're letting the internet and the users on

(33:18):
the internet sort of dictate the story that's being told.

Speaker 2 (33:21):
Here's what the Connecticut Sun coach said.

Speaker 1 (33:22):
I think the thing that frustrates me most is that
we and I say wait because I work in television
as well, we and the media have to do a
better job of not allowing trolls on social media to
become the story. And I feel like we've allowed trolls
on social media to frame the narrative what the story is.
I realize everybody's job is predicated on what's read, what's
clicked on, what's whatever, what's watched. I understand that, but
I also feel like we have responsibility to be better
when it comes to what we're representing.

Speaker 2 (33:42):
Unquote.

Speaker 1 (33:43):
So you mentioned earlier when you were asking those questions
of DJ Carrington, you kept saying, there were these videos, right,
So that's not the larger game footage.

Speaker 2 (33:49):
That's the videos that are been clipped off.

Speaker 1 (33:51):
In our online that you're reacting to and then asking
questions about. I get that we all do that, right,
but what do you think the responsibility is of the
media when it becomes clear that the way those clips
and the way that content is framed will very much
impact not just the treatment of the players, but even
their safety. You mentioned feeling for black players and understanding
that we as white women could never understand what their

(34:11):
experience is. If you understand that and have that empathy
for them, don't you think journalistically, the idea of minimizing harm,
of seeking out truth in most honest and good faith way,
it prioritized that over being able to just say I
would ask that question a million times and ignoring the
context within which you're asking it.

Speaker 2 (34:32):
Yeah, you know, it's a great point. Certainly, it is
something that I guess every journalist needs to start to
think about and deal with. Most of us don't, right,
which is just you ask questions and you see what
the answers are. So I grant you that point. I
would say that in the case of almost everything that

(34:54):
we've all done over the years, we have been certainly
aware of the criticism, but you know, we're all getting
and of course that means the athletes are getting too.
Some athletes haven't mentioned it or talked about it, or
haven't haven't been concerned about or haven't talked or telld
us about it. Maybe they've had to get security. You know,
who knows, right, But I think it's something that we
haven't focused on, uh that much. I will say this,

(35:18):
I think the league, the w n b A, and
the NBA as it's as it's you know, big brother
or whatever whatever the role has been over the years,
as we know, with the NBA the w n b A,
I think that my sense would be they would play
a huge role in not only the security of their players,
but also the ability to understand and maybe help with

(35:42):
the media training and or the what was about to
hit the w n b A and I think we
can probably agree on this that that what I am
seeing and I say reporting the book, and of course
we'll be dealing with all of this, is is that
the the prize or the lack of understanding of what

(36:03):
we in the media do, or the lack of preparation
or whatever for this moment which would then include Sarah
to your absolutely great point, the trolls and worse right,
the absolute threats to the security of the players. Why
was that not thought about by the people who actually
can control this or at least try to help, or

(36:24):
was it thought about? I mean, I guess we can
ask Kathy Engelbert.

Speaker 1 (36:27):
So you don't count the media in that no, because.

Speaker 2 (36:30):
To me, that's now Sarah, Sarah, I answered your question.
I said at the beginning, you made a great point
and it's something we should be absolutely thinking. Okay, so
you know you heard me say that, So I said no.

Speaker 1 (36:42):
Well, because you had said the people who are actually
in control of and I would make sure you were
including the media in that because there is a role
that that plays in accentuating storylines and elevating.

Speaker 2 (36:51):
Oh listen, every second of my life I play the Yeah,
you know that right right, because I'm a journalists as
we all are, so without a out, you live and
you learn. But I would say there's a real, real
story to be had about was the WNBA prepared for this?
Were their players prepared for this? With security? All of

(37:14):
the issues you're describing are very very important issues. There
is nothing about me, and you know this well that
would slough off any of the things you're asking me
or any of the issues we're discussing. And what has
happened from some out there in terms of their hatred
of me is fine. It's a free country. They can

(37:35):
hate me. If this stuff bothered me, I would have
been hiding under a bed probably in nineteen eighty two
and never gotten out right. So that's okay, you have
every right to it, but I think they all need
to say, you know, you have someone here who has
cared about this cause, the cause of women's sports, the

(37:55):
mistreatment of women in terms of lack of media coverage,
the mainstream sports media right men who always never cared
about the WNBA or LPGA or never even early days
of Serena and Venus. I was there. It was us
opens and the race it either with racism or sexism, misogyny.

(38:16):
I would say that if again, bring it on. If
you don't like me, that is fine, But I think
it's pretty important to look at the body of work
here and five or six columns on Caitlin Clark that
people want to set about. Go ahead and be upset
about it. It's a free country. But my goodness, you

(38:37):
certainly are missing some of the things that I have
worked my hardest on and thrown my heart and soul into.

Speaker 1 (38:42):
I completely agree. That's why I'm having you on, Christina.
I had you on my show so many times because
you fought the good fight on the tough stuff, and
it is very hard to put stuff out there and
have people be critical or give you days, you know.

Speaker 2 (38:54):
Be hateful about everything.

Speaker 1 (38:56):
I just think the disconnect is, like all that work
you just pointed to, all that good stuff that you've done,
some of your coverage hasn't always aligned with that same
intent that I feel was there. So let's talk about
the Olympics for instance. You know, your pursuit or your
tweets and columns about Caitlin being left off the roster,
you've sort of focused on the lack of media coverage

(39:17):
for the US team and how Kaitlyn Clark would have
changed that, and that they deserved to have more media there.
They deserve to have more coverage, and your focus was
on how USA Basketball should be the one required to
fill the press box by putting Kaitlyn in there instead
of calling out the press to give the team the
coverage that it is long deserved. This is a case

(39:38):
where Caitlyn wasn't able to participate in any of the
practices in camps and the rest of the Olympic cycle.
That's been the norm forever, So that would be really
going outside of the regular principles and regulations and rules
that they've used in previous years to select the team.
And then also you're alleging that's then on the onus
side of the basketball team to take merit out of
it and instead focus on eyeballs, which to me feels

(40:00):
like more a plea to the media to cover the
team that does exist, regardless of other Caitlin's on it.
Wouldn't that be more in line with your fight for
women's sports.

Speaker 2 (40:08):
Well, I've got a lot to say about this, as
you well know, you're the Olympic. I think I am
the only person probably you could find who's still vertical
and on this side of the ground, who has covered
and been involved with as a journalist every US women's
Olympic basketball team since nineteen eighty four. And of course

(40:32):
I put that I've written by the way, I think
it was two columns on this right too, so one I.

Speaker 1 (40:40):
Mean, I think social media. You keep pointing that out.
Social media matters too, right, Like the kind of nippicked
at Cheryl Reeve, even though she doesn't ultimately pick the roster,
there's been moments that.

Speaker 2 (40:48):
You made your opinion clear. Well, we'll get back. Let's
go to Cheryl Reeve. Cheryl Reeve, I gave her, by
the way, five straight days. I asked her to speak
to me, and she's going to talk to me for
the book after she said after the season we had
a very nice conversation meeting. She was tweeting about a
twenty two year old as a fifty seven year old woman.
That's you know, that's that's something. And she also was

(41:11):
tweeting about and focusing on Caitlyn Clark while Kaitlyn Clark
was still in this selection pool for the team that
she is not choosing, of course, but she will be coaching.
That is a valid question a hundred times out of
one hundred, Sarah, about what's going on with that? Why
is Cheryl Reeve tweeting talking about her at all?

Speaker 1 (41:29):
That's a thing she was advocating for her own players
not being included in promotional materials and not really.

Speaker 2 (41:35):
Why did she bother to mention and and focus on
Caitlyn and then reply, As you saw, there was a
fan or someone on Twitter that said, well, that's the
illusion the alluding to.

Speaker 1 (41:46):
All that Isn't that what you've been arguing this whole time,
that Caitlyn Clark is different and that's the focus. And
that's what Cheryl was arguing, is like she's different, and
that's the focus, but not at the expense of my players,
who also should be you know, we should be able
to watch the game. Like doesn't that feel like a
natural thing that a coach would advocate for as the
coach of the links that it would be about other
players in the league and not just the superstar rookie.

Speaker 2 (42:06):
I'll stick with what I'm talking about here. You've got
the Olympic coach tweeting in at least focusing on somewhat
negative or at least a negative comment about someone who
was in the selection pool. That is a story any
Olympic journalists would write about any time. That was absolutely
Now let's go back to because these are incredible points

(42:28):
and it's a very important topic to me. Let's go
back to the fact that I have seen the eighty
four team with Annie Myers and others, eighty eight Teresa
Weatherspoon and I in fact, when people say who else
is going to be in the interviewed Teresa Weatherspoon, we
talked all about the eighty eight solo Olympics when I
saw her in Indiana on that I think it was

(42:48):
Father's Day that June game that I was referring to
a little bit ago interview at Angel Reese, then to
Angel Reese will be in the book, of course. Then
ninety two in Barcelona, which was their last loss, which
is incredible, right, and then ninety six in Atlanta that
team of course, two thousand in Sydney. I was at
the gold medal game there two thousand and four, and Athens,

(43:08):
I was at the gold medal game there. Beijing a
silver I mean semis our finals there. Twenty twelve London,
I was absolutely there at the gold medal match and
twenty six. I believe you, Christine.

Speaker 1 (43:20):
No one is arguing against your incredible Olympic background.

Speaker 2 (43:24):
I'm just asking if I'm a Paris language this is
I get it.

Speaker 1 (43:28):
No, no, I get it. I'm just saying, like I
want to make sure we get to the now, right.

Speaker 2 (43:33):
But you asked a question. You asked several questions. I'm
going to answer them for you, and I'm going to
tell you why I wrote what I wrote. It's important
to tell you that because, for example, in London in
twenty twelve, I'm there in the Press Tribune and Bob
Ryan's way at kind of one end, and Jackie McMullen
or is at the other, and there's the other people there,

(43:53):
but otherwise it's appalling. There are no reporters, very few reporters.
And this is what I put in that column in
June criticizing the decision. It was of course I said that,
you know, when you look at it's like tumbleweeds, right,
and then even rio, this team, this is the greatest.
Let's make it crystal clear. I've said it. I'll say

(44:14):
it again on your show here, Sarah. This team, the
US women's basketball team, is the greatest, most dominant team
in any sport, male or female, on the planet, and
it doesn't get the attention it deserves. There's no doubt
about that. I think I probably have said that more
than anyone else. So you know, for whatever that's worth, Okay, yeah,
for sure, right, okay, but let's put that in there.

(44:37):
And so the what I said was, you've got an
attention magnet. I don't know if I wrote it this way.
I probably said it on some shows. You've got an
attention magnet the likes of which we have never seen
before in women's basketball. Caitlin Clark. You put her on
the team, even if she's playing three minutes, right whatever,
You put her on the team. Now I understand they
did not put her on the team. I am a realist.

(44:58):
I am very much in the real world. But if
you put her, I have an opinion. I write columns,
some people have some people like them. Oh yeah, right now,
but we're analyzing them. So let's make sure that that
point is made. And so you put her on the team,
and you know what happens. For the first time ever,
ever as someone I was going through the litany, as

(45:19):
someone who's seen it since eighty four, which is pretty
much ever in our lifetimes, if someone who has been there,
you put Caitlin Clark on that team, and you know what,
Asia Wilson finally gets the incredible attention she deserves, and
not just from the US media who are coming running
to watch Caitlin Clark. And then, by the way, she's
sitting the bench and you're seeing this incredible play from

(45:41):
everybody else, right, and they get the attention they deserve.
Now you can argue with me and say, Christine Brennan
is nuts. Fine, I mean, I know you're not. You
may say that you might not. I'm sure there are
people growing things that they're wherever their device right now
going She's no its we agree she is nuts, we
hate her. But the example I am you using is
a factual example based on years and years of covering

(46:06):
this team. Now the next question, why are they not
getting the attention they deserve? Right, it's the second week
of the Olympics. Semi finals are like you know, Thursday,
Final Saturday, or in this case it was Friday Sunday.
Because the women got the last opportunity on the stage
at all these events in the Olympics, including women's marathon,
which is great of Paris to do that give women

(46:27):
the chance to close the show. And you've got all
these events going on that second week of the Olympics.
So now, picture of the sports editor, male or female.
Who's got three or four reporters at an Olympics, right
or maybe only one or And of course that's where
we are these days with coverage of the Olympics, just
because of cost cutting and ETCA. It's a real shame.

(46:48):
So now you've got one or two people and that
same day. And I'm now just giving general I'm not
looking at the schedule from Paris, but in general over
the years in Rio and Beijing and London, etc. Moving
back to Sydney and Athens over the years on that
same day or right around that same time. And when
I'm saying the same time, you can't the logistics of
an Olympics, as you know, often it's like one event

(47:12):
a day. It's not like you can go you're watching
a TV at home. You can't get to two or
three events. So you have to So these sports editors
have to make a decision, and or the columnist or whoever. Well,
if you've got the US women's soccer team, which could
lose at any time as we've seen, I mean we
love them and eight and they won, think good, you know,
amazing story, but they could lose. Whereas you're thinking the

(47:33):
women's basketball team probably isn't going to lose if you're
like looking ahead of your schedule, obviously super close game
they could have.

Speaker 1 (47:40):
We've taken their greatness for granted almost and it's actually
impacted our coverage.

Speaker 2 (47:44):
And it is a shame and I have said it
probably more than anyone on earth.

Speaker 1 (47:49):
So why not focus your columns on that team then
the ones who are on the team. If you think
Asia Wilson deserve to have more of a spotlight, why
not write about her well instead of writing about the
person not selected.

Speaker 2 (48:00):
Well, first of all, the news of the day was
she was not selected, right, So any journalist and any
editor worth his or sult is going to say, late
the news, Sarah, right.

Speaker 1 (48:10):
But then after that, if the goal is to draw
the eyeballs, why continue to tweet about Caitlin and argue
about To me, the Olympic thing I think just bothered
me because it felt like there are so many instances
of women's sports in particular where someone will be selected
because they're like the hottest, like the Maria scherpov is
the world great tennis player, but also got so much
extra stuff because she looked like that. And the Olympics

(48:31):
feels like a space where like you might not get
all the sponsorships, but you're going to make the team
based on merit. And Caitlyn wasn't in the practices, and
Caitlyn wasn't the best, she would have brought tons of eyeballs.
But is that how you pick an Olympic team? And
I guess that's a question for you. Do you think
that's how you should pick an Olympic team?

Speaker 2 (48:45):
Even if, as you saw in the column, I of
course made the point that I understand that who do
you cut off? Who do you take off the team? Yeah?
Of course, I mean, like, hello, I've been doing this
for a while, so I understand that. But I'm also
a columns giving you my opinion, right, So that's what
I do. I don't I do this on every topic
in sports, and so I'm no. I'm sure golf podcasts

(49:08):
want to go after me for hours on whatever I've done. There.
That's that means I'm probably doing my job right. So okay,
so let's go back. Though you have very valid questions.
I will answer, as you know, every single one of
your questions. So you said tweeting a lot about it.
I think I tweeted. I never tweeted about don Staley
and what she said, which was remarkable, right, what she
told Mike Tarico about you know, the way Caitlin's playing.

(49:31):
We you know what gist of it was. You know,
we could have put her on the team or we
need to look at whatever. I never said a word
about that ever ever. Okay. So I mean, and the
reason why is because I'm covering swimming, so I was
not USA today. Roxanna Scott makes decisions, and I as
much as people think I might run USA today, wink wink.

(49:51):
Obviously you not. So I'm covering swimming, which is where
I want to be. And that is from Saturday, the
day after the opening ceremony, all the way through to
Sunday night. And that's what not what we discounted, eight days,
nine days whatever. So I'm not at any women's basketball.
So the basketball was actually out of town and lelle.
So I physically if I were to say, oh, I'm

(50:13):
going to now write a column about Asia Wilson, Roxander
would have said, no. I mean I didn't know. You cannot.
Please keep focusing on Katie Ldecki and Torri Hut whatever. Okay,
so that's a fact and you know that, and I
think if not happy, yeah, for sure.

Speaker 1 (50:29):
So you know, Christine, I want you to finish answering.
I just want you to know I'm not trying to
be adversarial because I do like it. I feel like
so much of your work has been in pursuit of
elevating and spotlighting women in these great ways, and I'm
just finding some of this feels like it's it's dissonant
compared to that. So that's what I'm trying to get at,
is like the larger context within which your work is happening,

(50:50):
not how many tweets it's been or how many columns.

Speaker 2 (50:52):
You know, No, I appreciate it, but I think it
is important to say that I wasn't writing a lot
of columns about and then about Caitlin Clark and the Olympics.
I mean, let's just be factual. If you know, you
can have me on and we can talk about why
I wrote so much about Katie Ldecki. I'm sorry, there's facetious.
I'm just joking a little wait, right, right, right right.
I think she's earned it, maybe yeah, But the point is,

(51:14):
and then as far as tweeting, I may have tweeted
once or twice I think during the Olympics about Kaitlyn Clark.
I didn't have time because I am working on swimming
and then of course other issues, and I also work
for CNN, and I'm doing a lot on gymnastics and
talking about Simone Biles and how amazing she is on
air for Good Morning America for ABC right actually mostly

(51:36):
just ABC streaming. I'm gonna be absolutely accurate. And then
also CNN and both international and domestic. So it's not
I I understand what the argument is I understand what
the complaint or whatever the right word is Sarah about me.
I understand it. What I am pushing back and saying
is I don't think that the facts show that I

(51:59):
was focused don Caitlin Clark during the Olympics, because I
wasn't covering anything involving that until and again, let's be
again brutally honest. Of course, I did go to one game.
It was a semi final game, and as I looked
at the press room and I talked to a couple
of the reporters who had been at the men's they
were shaking their head. They came over and when we

(52:21):
were chatting, no need to name. I mean, it's a
name everyone wouldn't probably know, but you know, it doesn't matter.
I wouldn't necessarily, you know, if I have a private conversation,
I don't need to make that public to share. Yeah, right, right.
But but I did it because I wasn't, you know,
born yesterday and I'm trying to get the sense of
what the men's mix owone looked like the night before,

(52:44):
and it was packed and we there were eighteen people.
I think I haven't read the column recently, but I
think It was eighteen people, eighteen journalists I counted, and
please I stand corrected if people are in my column.
What it was was a very small number, a little
not of journalists. Certainly we knew some of us knew
each other, all from the US. I'm pretty sure maybe
one or two international around Cheryl Reeve and talking to

(53:07):
a couple of the you know, Brittney Grinder. I talked
to Britney Grinder, I talked to Sabrina. Who else did
I talk to? But Cheryl Reef was where I counted
everyone because I thought, well, that's going to be the scrum,
that is the maximum eighteen And this particular journalist just
was shaking his head and said what could have been?
And I said, I know, And of course that was

(53:27):
referring this person to me about Caitlin Clark. And I
did write that column. Again, I know you're not the
first person. I'm not even saying that you are interpreting
it that I was focused on Caitlin Clark. What I
am focused on is getting attention for all of these women.
And I also will say this, Lizzie Schnell did a
fabulous job of covering them, and USA Today was giving

(53:49):
a lot of attention to the players. My role, I thought,
was to once again say this is unbelievable, the missed opportunity.
This was a story. I was on two columns. As
I've said, this was the second one, and I could
speak to it. Got to go pay some bills.

Speaker 1 (54:07):
When we come back, we'll continue the conversation with Christine Brennan.
I think we're getting lost in the weeds, and I
know we've kept you way too long. Thank you so
much for your your generosity of time. I think I
just want to end by coming back to the bigger picture,
because again we're getting in the weeds on the type
of journalism or the number of columns. And when you're

(54:29):
in pursuit of elevating Caitlin and the league, of giving
the league coverage, of giving your opinions on the coverage,
what responsibility do you think you have for how your
opinions and your coverage affects the league and the players
in it. Because there have been players who have approached
you and said, you know, this is perpetuating stereotypes. There
have been people who have read your columns and then

(54:51):
taken away from them that the players are mean to Caitlin,
or that the league is targeting Caitlin Do you believe
that's true? First of all, do you think that the
players were physically trying to harm Caitlyn Clark in the season?

Speaker 2 (55:06):
Uh? First of all, I don't recall I have ever
talked about the targeting of Kitlyn Clark or the harm,
except in the case of what was, of course, the
National conversation that I asked her about and then wrote
about involving the Kennedy Carner Show or whatever we'd call it,
which turned out to be, of course, of flagrant foul. Otherwise,
I have not approached that topic with Kaitlyn Clark, with anyone.

Speaker 1 (55:28):
Or yeah, with Kennedy and Carrington. Right, So those are
to these like pulse points from the season where people
have attached to those moments further narrative. I'm not putting
that word in your mouth at all. No, No, I'm
asking if you believe that to be true.

Speaker 2 (55:41):
Right, But I believe what you were saying. Is there
a lot there have been that Some people have said
there have been a few. I have not been that person. Okay,
So let's let's writ next.

Speaker 1 (55:50):
So let me let me clarify. Then people have used
parts of your coverage as part of a larger narrator
of it being Kaitlin Clark versus the League. Your particular coverage,
other than talking about specific incidents with Carrington and Kennedy
Carter has not been to point out specifically targeting or harm.

(56:14):
But because of that narrative being Caitlin versus the League,
because of the frosty column before the league started, because
of the asking Carrington if it's intentional, those participate in
a larger narrative and it's not just you. Honestly, Christine,
I think the criticism for you comes from an expectation
based on your reputation. Right There are plenty of people
showing up that should be denied credentials. OutKick is one

(56:36):
of them who have never respected women, will never respect women,
and we don't expect anything out of them. I think
the dissonance here is that it feels like at times
your ability to see the larger context and write to
it in really difficult situations has been such a massive
part of your career, and in this league it feels
like you're.

Speaker 2 (56:54):
Operating in a vacuum and ignoring.

Speaker 1 (56:56):
The larger context, or at least deciding not to care
what your effect on it.

Speaker 2 (57:00):
It might be everyone can think whatever they want. Of course,
I think they've missed some of my CNN hits where
we've talked about how awful the discourse is. The other
day on Jake Tapper, I talked to what I said
to you earlier. I made it crystal clear. I make
this a It's a very important point for me to make,
and so I made it on national television. So on

(57:20):
what was that Monday on CNN with Jake Tapper where
I said, again, you know, we have no idea what's
what it's like to be a black woman in the
public eye and dealing with Twitter and this cesspool of Twitter.
I said that I will say it again in expect.
A couple of people, well a couple of people at CNN,
including a black woman, came up to me and thanked
me for saying that. So there is a I am

(57:43):
not disagreeing that there are people who are mad at me,
or people who don't like me, or they're disappointed with me,
or whatever they may feel. I mean, that's just what happens.
You know this too. There are probably people who are
disappointed with you. I think that this narrative that is
being perpetuated is not looking at all my body of work.
I do a ton of TV work. I have written,

(58:06):
as I said, a very few columns on Kitlin Clark
compared to what I have done this year with the Masters.

Speaker 1 (58:15):
But it's the only WNBA coverage you do, so you
understand how people in this particular space will focus on
that part of it as opposed to what you're writing
about other sports.

Speaker 2 (58:23):
Well well if they want to, sure, But of course
Kitlyn Clark is a story very much like Tiger Woods,
and I did do a column on that about covering
Tiger at the very beginning and then covering Kaitlin.

Speaker 1 (58:37):
I mean, the Tiger's success didn't result in attacking other golfers,
and I think that's what I The contact was so
different here.

Speaker 2 (58:44):
There was racism against Tiger and it was not covered
as it should have been.

Speaker 1 (58:48):
I write against tigers, so right, the focus on of
your stories.

Speaker 2 (58:52):
Centering there was placed it in time. There was no
social media back then, right, so I know, like right
now now you and I having this conversation, there will
be people that react to it in all kinds of
different ways right on social we both are looking forward
to that, right I exactly welcome. As I said, I
already go to say like Christine Brennan is an idiot
or something, and then you know they're like, yeah, we

(59:13):
agree and so so that. But we can't control everything
someone's going to be doing on it. We are doing
our level best, you as a professional, me as a professional,
to do our level best to be appropriate and fair
and honest as we are in every syllable we've just
said here over the last X amount of time we've

(59:34):
been talking. Then it goes out to the world and
then people. I think it would shock us if people
all of a sudden did something based on what we said, right,
But we also can't control everything. I am not washing
my hands as I answered that question of years a
while ago. It is a valid conversation. As I said,
I've brought it up on National TV a couple of

(59:54):
days ago, I've brought it up with you. I am aware.
I have said it to many many people. I've said
it on Panels about I said it with Jake a
few months ago when he was talking about something. I said,
we have no idea and we've got to be so
aware of our of our black colleagues.

Speaker 1 (01:00:11):
Our impact well of our impact too.

Speaker 2 (01:00:14):
Exactly exactly, but that's not.

Speaker 1 (01:00:15):
Just empathetic to their experience, but but aware of whether
we're contributed.

Speaker 2 (01:00:19):
Absolutely absolutely, But you have to admit that when you
and I are done here and this goes up, we
cannot know everything everyone will do, and it might be
absolutely it might even surprise us, and then we will
You and I might email our text and say, wow,
let's be careful next time. Yeah, right, think about what
we've heard, the back we've gotten, consider it through the

(01:00:41):
lens of journalism and doing what we think is right,
and also how people react to it, because sometimes impact
is just as important as intent, right, But if your
intent doesn't match your impact, and enough people tell you that,
at some point, there's a reassessment, right, Well, And so
my point is the notion that I am this terrible
verson or whatever it is. And again, it's a free cunt,
and I would absolutely defend their right to say that

(01:01:02):
about joining the club for all of us. You know me,
and you know there's a lot of people out there,
a lot of people who are of course like me
and defending me, and a lot of people who don't.
But the notion that somehow this is all terrible and
I'm out to do something awful or whatever they're thinking, right,
and I'm not minimizing it. I'm just you know, we
don't have all day to talk about what they're thinking,

(01:01:22):
because I'm sure there are many thoughts. You have to understand.
It's that as journalists, we do our jobs. We put
stuff out there, and of course we care and we're
surprised or were shocked. And as you know, as clear
example from the it was last Tuesday was of course
the interview, and I put it right out there, which

(01:01:44):
of course I thought was the right thing to do journalistically.
I wasn't hiding it obviously, right. I put you out there,
including my questions, so might be something for somebody to
consider that I'm you know, I did do that, of course,
and whether they liked it or not, I did. I
was very transparent seeking around, no hiding and then the
anger and whatever that, you know, and the concern and

(01:02:05):
do wanna Brauner coming up and speaking to me, and
of course she right away she was saying, you know,
you just respected my my teammate, excuse me, my teammate,
and I put my hand out I'd like I wanted to,
you know, I said, Hi, I'm Christine Brennan. Would of course,
she didn't want to take my hand. I said, would
you like to, you know, take my hand in the
sense of, you know, shake hands? And I tried to
think twice on that, maybe three times in a minute

(01:02:26):
and a half. And then I also said, do you
want to see what I did? So, Sarah, I would say,
right then and there, as I am being confronted by
do wanna Bonner, I would not call it heated. I
would call it a person coming up to talk to me.
It's happened a lot. Happened a lot to you too.
I welcome that, I absolutely standing there, welcome that I'm

(01:02:46):
trying to introduce myself to her. Do you want to
see the interview? We could have had a little bit
more of a conversation. She didn't want to, and that's
her right. But I also believe that that shows how
much I cared, I understood, I was willing to have.
I didn't walk away way, I didn't leave the arena.
And I think some of the conversation potentially out there.
I'm not seeing that much of it, but some of

(01:03:06):
it might be just what an awful human being I am.
That is Okay, it's their right to say that, but
I think they're missing the fact of what I'm trying
to do. What I am doing, what I understand clearly,
but also as a journalist, asking questions and putting things

(01:03:27):
out there so athletes then can then have an opportunity
to answer issues that are being discussed or out there.
Understanding of course that Twitter is a cesspool, that other
social media is also terrible, and these are real issues
in our society. And know what you know me, Well,
no way am I minimizing any of that.

Speaker 1 (01:03:49):
Well, I'm very grateful for coming on and talking about it,
for standing by your work and coming on to explain
how you do it and why you do it.

Speaker 2 (01:03:55):
And I really appreciate.

Speaker 1 (01:03:58):
It's tough conversation to have, and I think it's been
it's better to have these conversations face to face and
out in the light. Then, like you said, to be
like she's a terrible person and that's it, and that's
where it ends. There's more to it, and there's more
conversation to be had. I saw in the Washington Post
that your editors had requested credentials for the w NBA Finals.

Speaker 2 (01:04:16):
So as far as you know.

Speaker 1 (01:04:17):
Your credentials are secure and you will be going on
to continue covering some of the playoffs.

Speaker 2 (01:04:21):
Well, I hope so they're gonna USADA is yes, absolutely that.
I told the Post that, and ben Stous wrote that
that USADA will be requesting credential for me at least
for Game one, which is also the Kathy Engelbert press conference.
And I don't think as we're talking right now, I
certainly can update you, but right now I don't know

(01:04:43):
that one they've actually officially been requested yet, you know,
the editor actually doing it. And secondly, if they have been,
have we heard back. So I certainly hope so, because
I like to cover it and like to be at
that press conference. And this is an incredible time in
women's sports and an amazing time in the WNBA, with
obviously cultural issues, major issues, and by the way, all

(01:05:09):
of that will be in the book. This idea, and
I know you didn't say this, but this idea is
that again, this is about the women's sports revolution and
title nine the book would be out, you know, early
on in the WNB season next year. It's about a
time and a place, it's about our culture. Doctor Harry
Edwards is talking very eloquently about all of this. I
want to get more voices, not less. And if anyone,

(01:05:31):
by the way, if I may just say, if anyone listening,
watching wants to talk to me, I want to talk
to you. I'm easy to find. My website is just
my name and you can send me an email there.
So I don't mean to be soliciting, but I'm open.
I do want to hear from people and all these
the various issues that have come around and come about
because of this very interesting and obviously important time in

(01:05:55):
women's sports. I hope people do talk to you.

Speaker 1 (01:05:57):
I think writing about Caitlin requires understanding this like larger
history of the league and the larger you know, situation
within which she arrived. That's so much of what's informed
this season and a lot of the conversations this season
have come from this intersection of new people, old people,
new stories, old stories and all of that. And that
that's why we got to talk about it. We got
to talk about it instead of just tweeting mean things

(01:06:19):
to each other.

Speaker 2 (01:06:21):
Will happen to both of us.

Speaker 1 (01:06:22):
After this interview, Christine, thank you again for coming on.

Speaker 2 (01:06:25):
Really appreciate the time.

Speaker 1 (01:06:29):
Thanks again to Christine Brennan for joining us. I have
some thoughts on the conversation. We just had some quick thoughts,
so be sure to come back after the break. A
lot to take away from this conversation, and we'll continue
to do that tomorrow in the coming days as well.
But I want to end with this for today. I
asked Christine, quote, don't you think journalistically, the idea of

(01:06:50):
minimizing harm, of seeking out truth in the most honest
and good faith way, you should prioritize that over being
able to just say I would ask that question a
million times and ignoring the context within what you're asking
it end quote. And she responded, quote, yeah, you know.
It's a great point.

Speaker 2 (01:07:06):
Certainly.

Speaker 1 (01:07:06):
It is something that I guess every journalist needs to
start to think about and deal with. Most of us, don't,
right Just you ask questions and you see what the
answers are end quote. And I want to say that
I do think about that very much, and I think
a lot of journalists do. I'm very aware of how
I move in this space in the w in particular,
and that if my intent is to cover the players

(01:07:26):
and the league fairly, that I not further narratives that
are damaging and dangerous to the black women of the league. I,
of course strive not to be a cheerleader or a sycophant.

Speaker 2 (01:07:37):
I want to get to the truth.

Speaker 1 (01:07:38):
I want to ask hard questions, but I want to
ask them in a way that doesn't give credence to
internet rolls or those with bad motives. And I think
maybe that's where the issue in this whole conversation with
Christine really lies. It feels like in a vacuum, Christine
can defend her tweets, her TV appearances or columns. And
by the way, we count sixteen on Caitlin Clark, not
six or seven, So it was interesting how she wanted
to minimize the number, and the number was never the

(01:08:00):
importance anyway. But in a vacuum she can defend those
and in a vacuum she can sum up the results
of that content as criticism both of players and her.
But that suggests that the issue ends with online vitriol.
Now that vitriol and the email death threats and the
racist social media memes like those are bad enough, But

(01:08:21):
the truth is the damage that can actually be done
by reporting in a vacuum in this league, by perpetuating
and inflaming narratives about black players is so much greater
than online hatred. It results in people showing up to players' hotels,
in people harassing them and their family members, and it
also gravely affects the success of the league. Focusing on

(01:08:43):
how Caitlin has drawn fans to the league without acknowledging
how her arrival is also emboldened racist and homophobic quote
unquote fans is to attempt to separate the individual player
from the league in which she plays, and Caitlin's success
ultimately depends on the league's success.

Speaker 2 (01:08:59):
So refusing to.

Speaker 1 (01:09:00):
Understand how racism, misogyny, and homophobia have affected the league's viewership, attendance,
ability to turn a profit, not to mention how it's
affected you know, which players get covered and get sponsorship
deals and get credit for their play, is to reveal
a sort of fundamental misunderstanding of the league. And you know,
to just say that you can ask the same questions

(01:09:21):
you've asked a million times in other spaces, completely different spaces,
without causing harm here is, in my opinion, a violation
of journalistic responsibility.

Speaker 2 (01:09:31):
This league and.

Speaker 1 (01:09:32):
These players do not need soft coverage, but they do
need smart coverage, and in the days since the WNBPA
statement was released, I've seen multiple really respected journalists, though
none who covered the WNBA or even cover women's sports
at all, come out in support of Christine, and they've
cited her body of work and her history. Most seem

(01:09:52):
unaware of the season long conversations around Brennan's reporting, and
some even allege that the player's Association statement was solely
about her. In You with DJ Carrington Now, a bunch
of legacy media folks not understanding the larger context of
the WNBPA call out and the greater impact of Brennan's
work is the fundamental issue here. Too many folks speaking

(01:10:14):
on a league and players that they don't know and
haven't done the work to understand, and it's been kind
of the theme all season long, right conversations about the
league led by the loudest voices with the largest influence
as opposed to the most informed voices. Now, I respect
Christine's past work and the fight she's put up for
so many years paving the way for other women, and

(01:10:34):
I get how people might rush to defend her because
of that, But the act of being a journalist is
an ongoing process, and the work she did before won't
mitigate the harm of the work she's doing right now.

Speaker 2 (01:10:47):
So when the.

Speaker 1 (01:10:47):
Players Association, players themselves and other media members are telling
her the impact of what she's doing and she doesn't
seem interested in reflecting or changing, then it feels like
that ongoing process of journalism is over. We want to
hear what you thought of the interview too. What was
your response to what I had to say to what
Christine had to say? Send us email Good Game at

(01:11:08):
wondermedianetwork dot com or we'd really like to hear your
voices on this, so send us a voicemail eight seven
two two o four fifty seventy.

Speaker 2 (01:11:17):
We'd really love to hear from you, slices.

Speaker 1 (01:11:19):
Thanks again for listening and we'll see you tomorrow with
all your faves back.

Speaker 2 (01:11:22):
And if you're stuck.

Speaker 1 (01:11:23):
Around this long your true slice, so good Game Slices.
Good Game with Sarah Spain is an iheartwomen's sports production
in partnership with Deep Blue Sports and Entertainment. You can
find us on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
you get your podcasts. Production by Wonder Media Network, our
producers are Alex Azzie and Misha Jones. Our executive producers

(01:11:43):
are Christina Everett, Jesse Katz, Jenny Kaplan and Emily Rudder.
Our editors are Emily Rudder, Britney Martinez, Grace Lynch and
Lindsay Cratowell.

Speaker 2 (01:11:51):
Production assistants from Lucy

Speaker 1 (01:11:52):
Jones and I'm Your Host Sarah Spain

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Host

Sarah Spain

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}'They Can Hate Me' with Christine Brennan