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 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.
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.
I just I don't even know why I would intend to hit anybody in the eye.
That doesn't even make sense to me.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Her larger body.
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 national sports columnist at USA Today since nineteen ninety seven, a TV sports commentator on multiple outlets, and the.
Author of seven books.
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.
Sara, my pleasure. Thank you so much. Great to see you again. So I want to start.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 Carter foul and all the things that had happened there. So I wrote about that that day and then went.
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.
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.
Editors, natural intersection there.
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.
Yes.
Obviously in the midst of this, I'm writing, you know, more columns about golf, and of course more columns yeah.
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 clutching about it being too violent or accusations that some players were jealous of the attention that Kaitlyn Clark was.
Getting and creating this narrative.
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
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 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?
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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, 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.
To do it.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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 laughing about that? It was three quarters later after the player had hit a big three.
Why would they be.
Laughing about an incident involving an injury to a player three quarters earlier.
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 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.
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 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.
But also when you're operating in the.
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.
Did you consider that at all in.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
Right.
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 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 athlete to participate in that.
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 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 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. 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. 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.
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 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, 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.
Those are opinions.
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.
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,
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, 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 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
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 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, 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?
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.
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.
Right, I mean that's semantics though, I mean we know that that's semantics, right.
It's the difference between the goat.
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.
So I get that.
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.
A younger player? I guess That's what I'm trying to get it. It feels to me.
Like in sports we see the all the time, the veterans tell the rookies, we're going to show you what's up.
This is a whole new ball game.
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.
Because there's so few spaces.
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 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
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.
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.
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, 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 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.
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 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, doesn't that affect your coverage, even of someone who's doing the great things she's doing.
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.
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.
Like, I don't know what's what's fueling stephen A, who I've known forever.
Right, I'm not talking about stephen A. I'm talking big picture.
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, 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. 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 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. 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.
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 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 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.
And you know that.
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.
Doesn't it feel like that's.
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.
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 to her a couple of times during the season and
at practice. That's just OK.
So, maybe just like the of your career was like just a way of answering of asking the question.
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 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 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, 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.
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
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 the internet sort of dictate the story that's being told.
Here's what the Connecticut Sun coach said.
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.
Unquote.
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.
That's the videos that are been clipped off.
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
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.
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 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, 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 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 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 was it thought about? I mean, I guess we can ask Kathy Engelbert.
So you don't count the media in that no, because.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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.
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 certainly are missing some of the things that I have worked my hardest on and thrown my heart and soul into.
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.
Be hateful about everything.
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 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 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 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.
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 I put that I've written by the way, I think it was two columns on this right too, so one I.
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.
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 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?
That's a thing she was advocating for her own players not being included in promotional materials and not really.
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.
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.
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
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 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, 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.
No one is arguing against your incredible Olympic background.
I'm just asking if I'm a Paris language this is I get it.
No, no, I get it. I'm just saying, like I want to make sure we get to the now, right.
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, 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 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. 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. 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 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 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 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
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. 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 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 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.
We've taken their greatness for granted almost and it's actually impacted our coverage.
And it is a shame and I have said it probably more than anyone on earth.
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.
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.
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 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?
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 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. 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. 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 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.
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, not how many tweets it's been or how many columns.
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, 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 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 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 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, 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 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
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 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.
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 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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Operating in a vacuum and ignoring.
The larger context, or at least deciding not to care what your effect on it.
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 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 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, as I said, a very few columns on Kitlin Clark compared to what I have done this year with the Masters.
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.
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.
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.
There was racism against Tiger and it was not covered as it should have been.
I write against tigers, so right, the focus on of your stories.
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 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 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 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.
Our impact well of our impact too.
Exactly exactly, but that's not.
Just empathetic to their experience, but but aware of whether we're contributed.
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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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.
And I really appreciate.
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.
So as far as you know.
Your credentials are secure and you will be going on to continue covering some of the playoffs.
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 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 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, 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 women's sports. I hope people do talk to you.
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 to each other.
Will happen to both of us.
After this interview, Christine, thank you again for coming on.
Really appreciate the time.
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 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.
Certainly.
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 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.
I want to get to the truth.
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
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 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 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.
So refusing to.
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 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.
This league and.
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 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 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 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.
So when the.
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 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.
We'd really love to hear from you, slices.
Thanks again for listening and we'll see you tomorrow with all your faves back.
And if you're stuck.
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 are Christina Everett, Jesse Katz, Jenny Kaplan and Emily Rudder.
Our editors are Emily Rudder, Britney Martinez, Grace Lynch and Lindsay Cratowell.
Production assistants from Lucy
Jones and I'm Your Host Sarah Spain