Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode One Hundred Forty Three: Juwanna Mann

Transcript

Episode One Hundred Forty Three: Juwanna Mann · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Welcome to episode number one hundred and forty three of the Death of Journalism podcast.
0:04
My name is John Zigler. I'm your host on today's show, The
0:07
News Media melts down over the solar Eclipse. It's the end of the road
0:12
for Caitlin Clark, So what does her future hold? Are there real world
0:17
data points indicating Donald Trump could actually win and some telling right wing media internal
0:23
conflict. As we start episode number one and forty three, I want to
0:28
begin with a little bit of an explanation and a disclaimer about the content in
0:33
this particular episode. I am taping this a day or actually about a half
0:38
a day earlier than I normally would because I have qualified at the last second
0:44
for a major amateur golf tournament here in southern California, which will be taking
0:49
place on Monday and Tuesday of this week Wednesday, if I make the cut,
0:53
but that seems to be a long shot because this is a very significant
0:58
tournament with very stiff competition. But I was not able to tape on our
1:03
normal schedule this week, and so I'm taping on Sunday evening, So if
1:07
anything happened to have occurred late Sunday or into Monday morning. That's why it's
1:12
not on the podcast. I don't anticipate that happening, but in this world,
1:17
you never know, So if that does occur, I'll talk about it
1:21
in the next episode, which will come out as scheduled. Barring some sort
1:25
of cataclysmic event at the golf tournament. That means that I have not witnessed
1:30
any of the actual media coverage of the solar eclipse, but I can tell
1:37
already from the preparations that the media is making for their coverage on Monday of
1:44
the solar eclipse that it's going to be absolutely batshit crazy. I mean,
1:49
this is absolute insanity to the nth degree. There cannot be anything dumber than
1:53
this. I think we have finally reached peak idiocy. This is absurdity on
2:00
so many levels. I thought, well, we started to hear about a
2:05
month ago that there were schools that we're going to be closing down on April
2:10
eighth because of the solar eclipse. That that was about as insane as it
2:15
can get, and maybe it is. I mean, it's hard to top
2:17
that. And that's the type of thing that in cancelation Nation, I really
2:22
believe would not occur before COVID. That COVID changed everything, and now you
2:29
know, no matter what the risk is, alleged, perceived, real,
2:34
or otherwise, it's now legitimate if you're somebody who's mentally ill, that you
2:38
can cancel school under the idea that somehow you're preventing kids from looking at the
2:46
sub First of all, why can't you just tell kids not to look at
2:49
the sun? That's number one. Number two, they're a lot less likely
2:52
to look at the sun when they're in school then they would be if they're
2:57
off, and therefore free to go wherever the hell they want, including outside.
3:01
If you want to keep kids safe from the eclipse, you keep them
3:07
inside of school. They can think about not much better than you can do
3:09
than that. But there are schools I saw New Jersey at the Philadelphia area
3:15
I'm sure elsewhere that have either closed or have decided to let out early,
3:23
all because of fear of this solar eclipse, which is there's so many layers
3:28
of insanity in that that I can't even wrap my brain around it. That's
3:32
what a non serious nation we have become. That's how woosified we are.
3:38
There are schools being canceled and curtailed. Because of a solar eclipse. Now
3:45
I've actually lived through a very similar event, as fate would have it.
3:51
In nineteen ninety nine, I was in the UK playing in a golf tournament.
3:54
Ironically enough, I'm playing when the British min Amateur Golf Championship just outside
3:59
of the London, when in August of nineteen ninety nine they were at the
4:03
center of a solar eclipse and there was a lot of hype around that.
4:09
I remember the media coverage of it while I was over there, and in
4:13
fact, this is a very serious tournament. This is these are the people
4:16
that put on the British Open, and you know this was being held at
4:20
Walton Heath, which where they've played a Ryder Cup before. And I do
4:24
remember that they actually told us because the solar eclipse was happening during the i
4:30
think the first round of the tournament, they actually told us that we had
4:33
the option to stop play if we could not see properly while playing in the
4:41
tournament. I said, okay, wow, I've never been part of a
4:44
solar eclipse before. This is going to be pretty crazy. Who the hell
4:46
knows what to expect. And so we play and you know, the lighting
4:53
got weird. It felt like everything was a like a negative of a black
4:57
and white photograph. That's my memory of it. That's the best way I
5:00
can describe it. It's suddenly everything felt like you were looking at the negative
5:04
a black and white photograph, and so it was weird, and it lasted
5:09
for a few minutes and that was it. There was nothing all that dramatic,
5:15
and you knew not to look up at the suden and it was actually
5:17
a very clear day there. So you know, that's the other part of
5:21
the absurdity of closing schools, because if it's cloudy out, it's a completely
5:27
irrelevant issue. So, I mean, it's just in most of the country
5:31
in the United States on Monday, it's supposed to be at least partly cloudy.
5:35
So there's gonna be very few places where you're actually able to see this
5:40
thing, even if you wanted to, in a very clear way. But
5:44
I'm telling you, it's not that big of a deal. It's just a
5:47
weird quirk that happens every twenty thirty years, whatever it is, I mean,
5:54
depending on where you are, but it happens in the world someplace around
5:58
that timeframe. And Okay, it's noteworthy, I guess for its oddity,
6:02
but it is not an emergency. It's not a dangerous situation. It's not
6:08
even that big a deal. I can guarantee you, based upon my experience,
6:12
that people and there are people who are going to extraordinary lens to be
6:15
able to experience the eclipse. I can assure you there are going to be
6:20
people that are going to be exceedingly disappointed, exceedingly disappointed because it's not that
6:27
big of a deal. And by the way, if there is anything worthy
6:31
of seeing, you know, there are media outlets that will take moving pictures
6:38
of this and show it on television. There'll be more than happy to do
6:41
that, and so you can you can sit at home and see what the
6:46
eclipse was all about. And boy is the media willing to jump all over
6:50
this thing. I mean, the worst culprit at this point seems to be
6:55
from what I can tell ABC, ABC's entire day programming Good Morning America and
7:01
then starting in the afternoon, is going to be basically dedicated to coverage of
7:08
the eclipse. They have a multi hour program called Eclipse in America where they
7:15
have all hands on deck, like this is a presidential inauguration or something.
7:20
The coverage of the eclipse. This is this is this, This is like
7:25
out of Idiocracy, the movie which we have basically become. I mean again,
7:30
I got no problem with mentioning it. Isn't this a weird you know
7:34
quirk and the planets and the moon and the sun and it doesn't happen very
7:39
often. Yeah, that's a that's a mention. But now it's become an
7:42
obsession and U and I'm telling you, based upon my experience, people are
7:47
going to be very disappointed, very very disappointed because it's it's not that big
7:51
of a deal, but you know, because it's something that everybody will be
7:57
quote unquote experiencing in America at some level. The news media realizes that this
8:03
is something that they can get ratings from. I'm sure whatever ABC is doing
8:07
in others, they'll get good ratings for it because it's very very very rare
8:13
that we have that level of a communal experience, even though it's not much
8:16
of an experience. I mean, this is this will be bigger theoretically than
8:20
the Super Bowl as far as number of people having some level of experience interest
8:26
in UH and and having at least be at least beyond their radar that there's
8:33
a solar eclipse going on, and so that's what the news media outlets are
8:37
banking on. But it's all bullshit. It's all complete bullshit. There is
8:41
no significance to this at all in any way, shape or form. It's
8:46
just an anomaly that for a few minutes it's going to look weird. That's
8:50
about it. That's all there is. Now speaking of communal experiences, much
8:56
of the nation has been enthralled with the win women's Final Four basketball tournament.
9:01
Over the last several days. We've talked about this a lot on the podcast,
9:05
from really more of a cultural immediate perspective, not so much the basketball
9:09
part of this. But I am a sports fan and actually did broadcast women's
9:13
college basketball games back when I was at Georgetown University back in the nineteen eighty
9:18
so I have a pretty high level of knowledge of women's college basketball, and
9:24
like much of the nation, I've been fascinated by the Caitlin Clark story,
9:26
the superstar from Iowa who led Iowa to the national championship game last year before
9:33
losing to LSU. They avenged that loss in the quarterfinals this year in a
9:37
very dramatic win, and then they made it to the finals against South Carolina,
9:43
who then avenged their loss to Iowa and last year's semi finals, so
9:48
everyone got revenge for last year's losses. South Carolina ended up winning the national
9:54
championship. Before I talk about what happened with South Carolina and Iowa, and
9:58
some comments that South Carolina's coach Don Staley made which are really extraordinary and ought
10:03
to be making even bigger news than they are, I want to go briefly
10:07
back to the semi final game that Iowa played against Yukon. First of all,
10:13
that game as of this taping, although that probably won't be the case
10:18
by the time you hear this because the ratings will have come in for the
10:22
championship game between Iowa and South Carolina. The Iowa Yukon game became the most
10:30
watched women's basketball game of all time, breaking the previous records set with the
10:37
LSU Iowa game and the most watched basketball game in ESPN history, men's or
10:43
women's. A high of seventeen million people watched Iowa beat the University of Connecticut.
10:52
They averaged about fourteen million viewers, which broke the record of twelve point
10:58
three million set in the LSU Iowa game. As far as what they're going
11:03
to get with the South Carolina Championship game, God believe it's got to be
11:05
higher because it's the national championship game. South Carolina was undefeated. So my
11:11
guess is you're going to get at least sixteen to seventeen million on average.
11:16
You might get a peak of twenty you might break twenty million as far as
11:20
a peak goes there, which is just extraordinary. And again, I want
11:24
to just briefly mention the controversy that occurred at the end of the Iowa Ucon
11:28
game because it dovetailed with something I talked about in the last episode of the
11:33
podcast, which is that we're living in this world where popularity is everything.
11:39
I talk about this all the time in the news media, that the coin
11:41
of the realm in media coverage is no longer the truth. It's popularity.
11:46
Popularity is everything, Celebrity is everything, ratings is everything. And so Caitlin
11:54
Clark is this phenomenon, and I think even more exaggerated than what happened in
12:00
the NFL last year with the Kansas City Chiefs and the Taylor Swift effect,
12:03
which we talked about a lot and the conflict of interest that that was creating
12:07
for the National Football League. That here you have a situation where everybody knows
12:13
that the NFL benefits greatly if the Kansas City Chiefs make the Super Bowl,
12:18
which they did, that that's going to create at least or create an English
12:22
language create at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. Now, as
12:28
you know, I'm not a conspiracy person at all. However, there are
12:33
real problems with conflicts of interests because people start to think, well, gee,
12:39
if you wanted something to happen and then it mysteriously happens, then maybe
12:43
you made it happen, especially if you're as powerful as the National Football League
12:48
is or the television networks are. And so the Kansas City Chiefs not only
12:54
got to the Super Bowl, but they won the Super Bowl. And I
12:56
don't know how many people, but it was a significant number of people thought
13:00
that there was at least some level of hanky panky going on there because it
13:03
was so obviously in the self interest to the National Football League and the television
13:07
networks for the Chiefs to get there. And I don't understand what what their
13:11
benefit would be for the Chiefs to win, but that's what ended up happening.
13:16
I guess there would be some theoretical benefit because the swift fans, the
13:18
Taylor Swift fans, the Swifties would have had a more enjoyable experience and maybe
13:24
more hooked in the NFL up their team and ended up winning the Super Bowl
13:26
in the first year they ever cared about the National Football League. So I
13:30
guess there was some self interest there. But I think that's actually magnified in
13:35
the Caitland Clark situation because in that semi final against Yukon, you had a
13:39
situation where every single person involved knew that if Iowa won that game and they
13:48
played South Carolina, an undefeated South Carolina game in a rematch of last year
13:52
with very controversial coach Don Staley and the superstar Caitland Clark, that that game
13:58
was going to do baffo ratings. Like I said, we don't have the
14:01
numbers of this moment, but wouldn't shock me if at some point that game
14:05
reached over twenty million fans. You take away Caitlin Clark and Iowa from that
14:11
equation, it's not even half that. It might not even be a quarter
14:15
that even though Yukon is a is a powerhouse in women's college basketball, it
14:20
doesn't have any crossover appeal. So every single person involved in this situation knew
14:26
it was good for the NCAA, good for ESPN, good for everybody,
14:31
you know, all the betting services, because I'm sure way more money was
14:35
bet on this game, because the championship game, because Kaitlyn Clark and IOWA
14:39
made it. So everybody knew, unless you were directly part of Yukon's program,
14:43
it was good for you if Caitlin Clark and IOWA won. And the
14:48
nightmare scenario in that situation, with that level of conflict of interest was what
14:54
happens if it comes down to a referees call? My executive produser Mike at
15:00
Gavino and I talked about this before the game. What's gonna happen? What's
15:03
gonna happen if this comes down to a referees call? Because the conflict of
15:09
interest is so obvious. And again, you know, I hate conspiracies,
15:13
and I'm not alleging any sort of a fix here at all, but the
15:16
reality here is that sometimes perception becomes reality, and it's sure enough it came
15:24
down to one last possession. Yukon had the ball, they were down by
15:28
one. If they score a basket, they win the game, and the
15:31
Iowa fairytale ends. Cinderella's carriage turns into a pumpkin, and all of a
15:39
sudden, the National Championship game goes from maybe twenty million viewers to probably five
15:46
or six million viewers. Who knows, but something in that realm a dramatic
15:50
difference. And so as Yukon is trying to set up the last play,
15:54
what happens. A referees whistle off the ball, not even on the ball,
16:03
not a defensive foul against Iowa. That was never gonna happen because that
16:07
would have put Yukon on the free throw line to win the game and end
16:10
the fairytale. And now I'm going to get to why that's significant in a
16:14
moment. But the call was an offensive foul against Yukon for what's called a
16:18
moving screen. And I gotta tell you, folks, we live in a
16:22
strange world. I never imagine I mean a couple of years ago, if
16:27
you had told me, you know, one of the most controversial things that's
16:30
gonna happen on Twitter in twenty twenty four is a moving screen call in a
16:37
women's college basketball semi final game in college I would have told you you're crazy,
16:41
but crazy things happen all the time. So they call the foul on
16:48
yu Kont, and effectively that was the end of the game. I mean,
16:49
there's people who have been trying to pretend that Yukon still had a chance
16:53
after that if but for all intents and purposes, that was the end of
16:57
the game. And so Yukon never even got a chance to take a shot,
17:00
and the Internet erupted, erupted in a fierce debate, and I have
17:07
to say it got so intense that I ended up and this is hilarious to
17:12
me. I ended up muting and unfollowing several people on Twitter who followed me
17:18
because they were just so enraged by my take that it was a bad call.
17:25
And the reason why it was a bad call was not that it wasn't
17:27
technically a foul. Technically it was absolutely a foul, one hundred percent.
17:34
Now, it wasn't flagrant, it wasn't blatant. If it had happened in
17:38
the middle of the game, it wasn't called. I don't think anyone would
17:41
have ever been all that outraged about it, But if you look at it
17:45
one hundred percent, it was a foul by the rule book and by the
17:49
way it's supposed to be called. And I've refereed, not college basketball,
17:53
but I've I've refereed at a decently high leveled at Georgetown. I actually refereed
17:57
to Kimbe Mutumbo, NBA Hall of Famer and commercial legend, to Kimbe Mtumbo's
18:03
first organized basketball game in the United States. One of these days I'll tell
18:07
that story because it's freaking hilarious. It's one of the most memorable experiences of
18:11
my entire life, not just my college life. But I have referee basketball,
18:17
and so yes, it was a foul. But my point, and
18:19
I think the point of most people who have really been deeply involved in the
18:25
game, was that there is a difference between how you call that situation in
18:32
the middle or the beginning of the game and at the very very end of
18:37
the game when the game is on the line. Now, there seems to
18:40
be a massive divide in the mindset of people because there are people and it's
18:45
funny because I'm generally a principal guy and the rules of the rules, but
18:48
I'm actually going by what the rules really are. They're just unwritten, but
18:53
there are a lot of people out there just couldn't get passed now. No,
18:56
no, no, the rules of the rules. That's a fouls of
18:59
foul. It's a foul. It's always a foul. No, no,
19:00
no, it's very logical why that foul should not have been called. It's
19:07
a lot like parenting or teaching school. Right, Remember when you were in
19:11
school, I guarantee you've had this experience. When is the teacher the toughest
19:17
the first day of school? Right, generally if you went to a real
19:21
school, and then they try to set the tone, and then they maintain
19:26
that tone as long as they can. But by the end of the school
19:30
year, even the toughest teacher is generally laying back a little bit because they
19:36
know there's nothing to lose. Because the whole point of being tough at the
19:41
beginning, whether as a parent or as a teacher, is you're trying to
19:45
set the rules so that chaos doesn't ensue later on. But once you get
19:52
to the very end, whether it's the end of school or at the end
19:56
of a basketball game, there's no more problem with you being concerned about things
20:02
getting out of hand because the game's going to be over in eight seconds.
20:06
And even in this situation, there wasn't going to be an overtime because either
20:08
Ukon was going to score and win or they were not going to score and
20:11
they were going to lose. So therefore, refereeing to maintain some semblance of
20:18
stability and eliminating chaos is no longer needed because the game's almost over. So
20:26
that's one of the one part of this equation that nobody I heard mentioned,
20:30
but they should have. Some people mentioned it, not in the detail that
20:33
I did. But there's that's the rationale for why you referee differently at the
20:40
very end of a basketball game than you do, say, at the beginning
20:45
or the middle. But then there's another element of this I've already implied it,
20:51
and that is everybody in the world knew. Everybody in the world knew
20:56
there was zero chance of Iowa getting called for a tickie tac defensive foul in
21:02
that situation, zero chance, and rightfully so rightfully, so everybody knows you're
21:07
not going to end that game and potentially end the Iowa fairy tale by them
21:14
getting a reachin call and putting somebody on the free throw line to win the
21:18
semi final game, that's not going to happen. And so because everybody knows
21:22
that you must give the offense a little bit more slack otherwise it's not fair.
21:30
So for two reasons there, you don't make the same call on a
21:37
moving screen at the very end of a basketball game that you would at the
21:41
beginning or the middle. So I acknowledge that it was a foul. In
21:45
fact, you know, I actually think if the Yukon player setting the screen
21:51
had just not had their legs so spread out, why their feet so far
21:56
apart, they would have gotten away with it. But it just made it
21:59
so obvious. It's one of the telltale signs of a moving screen that the
22:03
referee called it. But you don't make that call in that situation. You
22:08
don't take the game out of the player's hands. You let Ukn take one
22:14
last shot to potentially win the game. In my view, but that situation
22:19
created a massive controversy, and you were on one side or the other.
22:25
I mean, there was no in between really in that situation. And I
22:29
found it to be one interesting and two kind of hilarious that this was creating
22:34
so much passion among so many people. But that's the Caitlin Clark effect,
22:38
right, that never in the million years happens without Caitlyn Clark one because people
22:45
don't care, they're not watching, but they also don't have as much passion.
22:48
And my perception just could be I could be totally wrong about this,
22:52
but you know, most of the people in my Twitter feed are fairly conservative
22:57
politically, and I think that if you're you're conservative politically and you're interested in
23:03
this particular women's college basketball tournament, you're probably a Caitlin Clark an Iowa fan,
23:08
because she gives off conservative vibes. She has seemingly conservative values. I
23:15
mean, she got a boyfriend, so she's not gay. She appears to
23:19
be Catholics, she seems to have a good upbringing, she seems to live
23:23
by a sound set of principles. I have no idea what her politics are,
23:27
but Iowa is a pretty conservative place, so I think that people were,
23:33
at least some people were seeing this through the prism of their rooting interest
23:37
in Iowa, which is also interesting because I was rooting for Iowa too.
23:41
I mean, I love Caitlin Clark, and I love what Iowa was trying
23:45
to do, and so I was rooting for Iowa, but I also dislike,
23:51
I tensely dislike injustice, and I really hate bad refereeing, and I
23:56
really hated when a referee steps in and ends a game that ought, you
24:02
know, ought to be ended by the players. I mean, this is
24:03
as big as it gets. You know, most watched women's college basketball game
24:08
of all time at that point comes down to the last few seconds and it
24:11
gets ended because of a moving screen call. You got to be kidding.
24:17
And Charles Barkley thought it was harrend us and Jay Wright I thought it was
24:22
really bad, and other people thought it was and other people disagreed. But
24:25
I'm on Charles Barkley and Jay Wright's side. I thought it was absolutely horrible.
24:30
But then that put Iowa into the final game against South Carolina, and
24:36
I did not think Iowa had much of a chance against South Carolina. They
24:38
were undefeated, they're really good, They're very athletic. It seemed like Yukon
24:42
had kind of showed how to shut down Caitlin Clark, because Clark actually had
24:48
a miserable game for her by her standards against Yukon, and you know,
24:53
the rest of the Iowa team just wasn't good enough with Clark basically in handcuff
25:00
to be able to get any separation from Yukon, and I didn't think that
25:03
they would be able to withstand the charge from South Carolina. Well, Iowa
25:07
came out gangbusters, and then South Carolina slowly but surely ground away and ended
25:12
up winning fairly easily at the end. Although Iowa did give it one last
25:18
go, one last attempt to try to get back into the game. They
25:22
had a run there that almost pulled off a miracle, but it ended for
25:26
Iowa. South Carolina won the game and they are undefeated and obviously a tremendous
25:33
basketball team. It's the end of the road in college for Caitlyn Clark.
25:37
I have to say that Don Staley, who I have a lot of problems
25:41
with, deserves some credit for her statement after the game about Caitlyn Clark,
25:47
where she correctly gave Caitlyn Clark the credit for why it was so many people
25:52
were watching this game and how much she has done for college basketball. So
25:56
I thought that was really classy by Don Staley South Carolina as coach. I'm
26:00
going to get to something that I disagreed strongly with about that with what Dawn
26:04
Staley said in just a bit, and as far as how Caitlyn Clark played
26:08
it, you know, I was really surprised. You know, we had
26:14
Angel Reese play the victim card and I criticized her for that, and you
26:18
know, I was really surprised that Caitlyn Clark decided to go in the same
26:22
direction, blaming all the pressure that she's been under, all the haters that
26:26
have been jealous of her, and you know, all the distractions and the
26:30
media attention, and blaming that as far as why she didn't play her very
26:37
best or why IOWA didn't win, I really kind of expected more from Caitlyn
26:41
Clark than that. Of course, I'm actually kidding. None of that actually
26:47
happened. There was no playing of the victim card by Kaitlyn Clark, to
26:51
the surprise of absolutely nobody who knows her. There was no duplication of what
26:56
Angel Reese did after her last game, you know, playing the victim card
27:00
after losing. Losing. Caitlyn Clark did what she always does. She absolutely
27:06
stayed as classy as anyone could possibly ask her to be. I thought she
27:11
did a fantastic job in her post game press conference and it's why people love
27:15
her, and it's a breadth of fresh air in this day and a especially
27:18
from a superstar, where we have seen so many people, especially in women's
27:23
sports, playing the victim card, usually when they're not really victims. But
27:29
she understands her position as a role model and as a mentor and how significant
27:33
she is to women's college basketball. And she deserves a lot of credit for
27:37
how she handled the loss, because you know, this was a huge deal.
27:42
I mean, this was two years in a row that her team and
27:47
she loses in the national championship game. This is the last chance they'll ever
27:51
have. She's going pro. She's going to be drafted number one in the
27:55
WNBA very very shortly, and you know, this is the end of the
27:59
dream. And for Iowa, they're never going to get back here in all
28:03
likelihood. They just don't have the horses. There's just no way. There's
28:06
not going to get There's no Caitlin Clarks don't grow on trees. That was
28:11
a miracle, the whole Caitlyn Clark phenomenon. This was only that's not going
28:15
to be repeatable. And so I have a lot of respect for Caitlyn Clark,
28:19
both on the court and off the court, and she's not perfect.
28:22
It's not perfect on the court, it's not perfect off the court. But
28:26
considering what she could be and what a lot of her peers are, she's
28:30
outstanding and so I wish nothing but the best for her. Now as far
28:34
as her future is concerned, I am kind of fascinated by what's going to
28:38
end up happening with Caitlyn Clark, and I don't want to get too sidetracked
28:42
on it, but I have some thoughts on this that might be somewhat unique.
28:47
So she's going to get drafted in the w NBA in all likelihood.
28:49
She's also going to be on the Olympic team, which I think is going
28:52
to be key for how her future goes. I think we're going to know
28:56
very quickly how this is all going to turn out, assuming she's on the
29:00
Olympic team, which would be criminal if she's not, be idiocy if she's
29:04
not. But she's not technically on the Olympic team yet. But if she's
29:07
on the Olympic team, NBC is going to give way more coverage to women's
29:12
basketball than they would have without Kitlyn Clark. And if the United States ends
29:18
up winning the gold medal, and she plays a significant role in that.
29:22
That's gonna be huge for the future of Kaitlyn Clark, and I think there's
29:26
a very good chance that that happens. But as far as her turning pro
29:30
and what kind of influence she's gonna have on the WNBA, I'm skeptical.
29:34
Now, there's no question her level of celebrity and her level of popularity among
29:40
young girls is going to have a massive impact on the WNBA, at least
29:45
for the team that drafts her, which I think she's going to be fortunate
29:48
that she'll be drafted in Indiana, which culturally fits very very well with Kaitlyn
29:52
Clark, and obviously it's the home of Larry Bird, to whom she's been
29:57
compared quite a bit. So it's perfect that she's going to Indiana. But
30:02
using the Bird example, which I've heard a lot of people use, I
30:07
want to push the brakes on this on a couple of different ways that no
30:11
one else is mentioning. You know, there's been a lot of comparison to
30:15
what Larry Bird and Magic Johnson did for the NBA in the nineteen eighties after
30:19
they played in a very similar NCAA basketball tournament that Caitlin Clark just did,
30:25
where Bird and Magic made of the finals. It was huge. To this
30:27
day, it's the most highly rated college basketball game in history, probably will
30:33
be forever because of the nature of television having so dramatically changed and then Magic
30:40
and Bird re worked and revamped and revitalized the NBA. There's no question about
30:45
that. I agree with that view of history. But there's a couple of
30:49
huge differences. Number One, Obviously, you're dealing with men's basketball versus women's
30:56
basketball, and that's always going to be a big difference. Even though there's
30:59
a chance that this year's women's championship game gets more ratings or higher ratings than
31:04
the men's championship game, which is against two number one seeded teams, two
31:08
Juggernauts, Yukon and Purdue, it'd be very interesting to see which game gets
31:14
higher ratings. But obviously the men's game is always going to be more popular
31:18
in a mainstream audience than the women's game. But part of that equation is
31:25
the Boston Celtics where Larry Bird went and the Los Angeles Lakers where Magic Johnson
31:32
went, already had extraordinarily deeply rooted huge brands within the American consciousness. Every
31:42
single sports fan, every person really in America knew who the Boston Celtics were
31:48
and who the Los Angeles Lakers were, and they had an identity and people
31:52
cared about it. Now interested in the league had waned for a lot of
31:56
different reasons before Magic and Bird got in there, but they were going to
32:01
well known brands. The WNBA doesn't have anything remotely similar. There are no
32:08
Boston Celtics or Los Angeles Lakers in the WNBA, so it's just Caitlin Clark
32:15
now. And her personal popularity is significant. I'm not undervaluing that. I'm
32:22
not saying it doesn't exist. I think it might be a little overrated.
32:27
For instance, she only has like two hundred and some thousand Twitter followers,
32:31
not that she's that active on Twitter. But there's no question she moves the
32:36
needle. There's no question she's a huge celebrity. But I don't know that
32:40
she completely remakes the WNBA, even if she's as great a player as we
32:47
think she might be. And I have questions as to whether or not her
32:51
style of play will translate to the WNBA. I mean, Jason Whitlock the
32:57
black conservative commentator on The Blaze thinks that she's gonna have a horrible time in
33:00
the WNBA simply because of jealousy and all these women hating on her, and
33:05
the lesbian factor in the WNBA and the race factor in the WNBA, and
33:09
everyone's going to be out for her. And I can certainly see a situation
33:14
where, you know, when she's at Iowa and taking thirty five foot jump
33:19
shots and she happens to miss a few, Iowa doesn't care. The girls
33:23
at Iowa keep feeding to the ball. In the WNBA, that might not
33:27
be the case because you got a lot bigger egos and a lot more jealousies.
33:31
And these are women we're talking about here. So it's bad enough on
33:35
the men's side when superstars get out of hand and everyone gets jealous. On
33:39
the women's side, my guess is probably even worse. So there's gonna be
33:45
some challenges here. And I you know, the Las Vegas WNBA team has
33:49
already changed their venue. This is amazing. They've already changed their venue for
33:54
a game in July against the team from Indiana because they're in tens of painting
34:00
a massive crowd because Indiana will draft Caitlin Clark. That's I've never heard of
34:07
that anything like that before. I'll be curious to see whether or not it's
34:10
the right decision. It probably is. In the short run, there's gonna
34:14
be a curiosity factor. And obviously this she's as hot as it gets as
34:19
a commodity. So in the short run I have no doubt that the WNBA
34:23
is going to get a massive increase in attendance and interest in maybe TV ratings.
34:30
But there's another part of this from a branding standpoint that I feel strongly
34:35
about, and it kind of goes to my opinion about NIL name image and
34:38
likeness and why it's illegitimate. I have always said that one of the primary
34:45
fundamental problems with the nil argument is that somehow people are mistaking where the value
34:52
is coming from, in my view, other than in the Superstars, and
34:59
Clark is clearly won one of those. Other than in the Superstars. The
35:02
vast majority of value being created by college athletes is in the brand of the
35:08
school they represent, and people just don't want to accept that. I mean,
35:15
it's absolutely true. There are only a handful of college athletes that actually
35:20
move product on their own. The rest they might be famous and popular for
35:27
a very short period of time, but they're not really moving product on their
35:31
own. They're getting attention because they're bringing glory to the school and it's the
35:37
school branding that provides the platform. And see I think schools of you know,
35:43
typical of wopness and academia. They've done a terrible job of defending themselves
35:49
in this whole situation. They're the ones that provide the value. I mean,
35:52
whether it's Notre Dame or Michigan, Ohio, State, USC Alabama,
35:58
that's where the value is. It's except for the superstars. The people that
36:04
are actually playing in the sport provide almost no economic value. They can be
36:08
replaced immediately, and in a weird way. I think Caitlin Clark is proving
36:14
my point. And here's why. Have you noticed something odd about the commercials
36:21
the Caitlin Clark is in. I bet you haven't, because I haven't heard
36:24
anybody else mention this. But she does commercials for State Farm and Gatorade and
36:30
Nike. Now, part of the reason people would never pick up on this
36:34
is because this is so new to us to see college athletes doing commercials.
36:38
This has only been legal for a couple of years, and there's only been
36:42
a few athletes that have been doing big time commercials. But the athletes that
36:47
have been, the athletes that have been have not been doing those commercials generally
36:55
some exceptions, generally in the uniform of the school they represent. And I
37:02
assume the reason for that is that that costs a lot more money because then
37:07
you got to pay the school as well for their branding. Well, in
37:10
Caitlin Clark's commercials, she is always in an Iowa uniform. She doesn't need
37:19
to be in an Iowa uniform. Her face is well known now, especially
37:22
for her target demographic. She doesn't need to be wearing an Iowa uniform to
37:28
be selling product. Yet they put her in an Iowa uniform every single time,
37:34
which I think is brilliant and I think is an indication that people in
37:38
marketing understand what her real appeal is. Her real appeal. There's a couple
37:45
of things. One, no one's ever seen a girl shoot the way that
37:51
she does in games. I mean, that's the that's the magic sauce right
37:54
there. I mean, no one's shooting thirty five foot jumpers on a regular
37:59
basis pressure and making them. We never seen that before. So we're always
38:04
thirsty for seeing things we've never seen before. And so that's the magic,
38:07
that's the gold as far as on the court for Caitlin Clark, But underlying
38:13
that is the story of a plain looking girl from Iowa who plays at Iowa
38:21
and is leading this let's face it, they'll never say this, this group
38:24
of white girls and going up against let's say it because no one else will,
38:30
mostly black girls, and winning and doing so in spectacular fashion. That's
38:37
the brand. That's the value. Now, that's not all the value,
38:40
but that's a huge part of the value, and that's gone now. Now
38:45
maybe they can recreate some of that with the Indiana vibe. I don't know,
38:50
But as soon as she is separated from Iowa, I think she loses
38:54
a lot of her charm and a lot of the narrative and a lot of
38:59
what not. And again, it's not going to diminish your popularity personally.
39:02
I'm talking about the impact that she can have at the next level in the
39:07
WNBA. I just don't see it, either on the court or off the
39:12
court, being a massive game changing situation. I don't think they're gonna be
39:15
able to translate these kind of numbers in a college basketball situation to a professional
39:22
league that no one cares about, no one's invested in, because no one
39:27
cares about the branding. The people of Iowa loved the Caitlin Clark because she
39:34
was representing Iowa and she's from Iowa. That was the gold from a marketing
39:42
standpoint. That's gone now and again, part of the reason I'm passionate about
39:45
this is because there's been a complete misunderstanding of where the value comes when it
39:51
comes to college athletes. By the way, I've mentioned in the last couple
39:54
episodes somewhat snarkily, that's even a word. Another nio L female athlete,
40:00
Olivia Dunn. She's the very attractive gymnast from LSU. She Caitlin Clark probably
40:07
makes more NIL money now than Olivia Dunn does. But for a while,
40:14
Olivia Dunn was making more money than any female athlete in all of college athletics.
40:19
Not because she's great as a gymnast. She's fine, but she's not
40:22
one of the best gymnasts. She's not going to the Olympics. She's making
40:25
the money because she's blonde, beautiful and looks great in the leotard. But
40:31
she looks great in an LSU leotard, She'll looked great in any leotard,
40:37
but it sells because it's an LSU leotard. Now that there's a whole different
40:44
vibe as to why the LSU leotard matters there, But it still matters because
40:50
once she's no longer at LSU, which apparently is going to be at the
40:52
end of this season, the end of this year, then I don't know
40:55
where her value comes from because now she's just a super sports illustrated swimsuit model,
41:01
which is what she is. But she's not the best sports illustrated swimsuit
41:06
model. She's only a great sports illustrated swimsuit model, if Sports Illustrated even
41:10
exists still at this point next year, But she's only a sports sports illustrated
41:15
swimsuit model because she's an LSU gymnast. That gives her the cachet that makes
41:21
it a little bit more interesting, forbidden fruit type of thing. Oh wow,
41:25
look at this, this is interesting, this is new, this is
41:30
enticing. Well, once she's no longer an LSU, I think she's in
41:35
for a rout awakening. Now she has enough celebrity that she'll be fine.
41:37
She'll have a career. But I think she's in for a rout awakening.
41:40
Is what's gonna happen to her social media following and her endorsements and what have
41:45
you. I think they're gonna dry up pretty daring quickly because the value wasn't
41:50
all in her. The value was in that she was a gymnast for LSU
41:54
or whoever it was. Didn't really matter the school. It just was that
41:59
she was a college gymnast competing. And so I do think that that's being
42:06
misunderstood this whole marketing business, the nil and where the value really comes from.
42:12
And I'm skeptical that Caitlin Clark is going to be able to be able
42:15
to be able to bring that to the WNBA in a way that changes the
42:21
world. She'll have an influence one hundred percent significant, but I don't think
42:25
she's going to be able to change the world for a number of reasons more
42:29
than even what I just mentioned. But I'm getting too far afield here for
42:32
a podcast called the Death of Journalism. More back to topics that are more
42:38
likely thought of as fodder for the death of journalism. I want to go
42:44
now to what Don Staley did say before the national championship game. That is
42:49
definitely worthy of discussion on this podcast, and that is she was asked,
42:53
and this was the day before the national championship game, she was asked at
42:57
a press conference about her opinion on whether or not transgendered women, in other
43:05
words, biological males who think they're women or are identifying as women, should
43:14
be allowed to play in women's college basketball. Now, it's remark it feels
43:22
like she's never been asked about this in a big platform before. I find
43:25
that hard to believe given how much coverage this subject has gotten. But the
43:30
way she responds to this sounds like it's the first time that she's ever weighed
43:37
in on it. And the reaction to what she said certainly was consistent with
43:40
the idea that she's never made a major statement about this previously. She certainly
43:45
has never gone as far as she did in answering the question the way that
43:49
she did, because she did not leave any any room at all. If
43:57
you interpret what she said properly, she'd not leave any room at all for
44:02
there to be a compromise here. She basically says, flat out, if
44:08
you think you're a woman, you should be allowed to play women's basketball and
44:15
then she even goes on to say, well, now I've really done it
44:17
and I've created a distraction. But listen carefully, not just to what she
44:22
says, but how she says it, the pause, the pondering, and
44:27
then how she tries to play the card of oh boy, I've really done
44:30
it now. But you know, basically, I have to tell it like
44:34
it is and I'll take the consequences as they are. And here's what that
44:37
sounded like the day before the Iowa South Carolina National Championship basketball game. I'm
44:44
on the opinion of, if you're a woman, you should play. If
44:57
you considered yourself a woman, or and you want to play sports or vice
45:01
versa, you should be able to play. That's my opinion. You want
45:07
me to go deeper. Do you think transgender women should be able to participate?
45:15
That's your question I want to ask. I mean, you want to
45:16
ask, So I'll give you that. Yes. Yes. So now the
45:21
barnstorm of people are going to flood my timeline and be a distraction to me
45:28
on one of the biggest days of our game. And I'm okay with that.
45:36
I really am. Wow, I mean, that is just amazing.
45:40
Now, don Staley is extremely woke. She's a black female. We've talked
45:46
about her on this podcast last year when she played the race card, related
45:52
to again the victim card that I've referenced numerous times the last couple of episodes,
45:57
where whenever somebody loses in female sports, it seems like I got to
46:00
play the victim card in some way, shape or form, and usually she
46:04
plays the race card. But she's very, very liberal, very very woke,
46:08
and you know, some people interpreted that statement as her not even really
46:13
believing what she was saying, but that she felt like she had to pledge
46:17
allegiance to the woke religion. And there may have been some of that,
46:22
because I can't believe me. She's not a dumb person, and she's a
46:27
very good coach, and she's not won three national championships, and sometimes I
46:31
actually agree with the things that she does, like for instance, her very
46:35
classy statement about Caitlyn Clark after South Carolina won the national championship. I praised
46:40
her for that, and rightfully so. So I don't hate don Staley,
46:44
although I vehemently disagree with her politics and how she plays that card. But
46:50
here I could not possibly disagree with her more on every level. And here's
46:57
why I think it's plausible that she doesn't really believe it, because she's smart.
47:01
She has to know that. If you take what she just said and
47:07
make that the rule in women's college basketball, the sport is over. It's
47:15
done. Stick a fork in it. You've just taken the hottest, most
47:21
quickly growing, the speediest growth the sport has ever experienced. This is the
47:25
hottest women's college basketball has ever been or may ever be in history. So
47:31
you've you've caught lightning in a bottle. You just want to know, you
47:37
know, on this point, she's about to win a national championship. She
47:38
wins her third national championship the next day. So women's college basketball has never
47:44
been bigger, never been hotter, never been growing faster. And now you're
47:49
going to set the rule. And she is the most powerful voice in the
47:53
sport by far, by far, she's the most powerful voice in the sport.
48:00
You're gonna set up a situation where a six foot nine white dude who
48:07
doesn't have a lot of athletic ability, and you know, would like to
48:13
have some attention and make some money, or maybe even just wants to upset
48:17
the apple Cart can simply claim to be a woman. Claim to be a
48:23
woman. We're not even talking about like transitioning or they got to get rid
48:29
of the petis and the balls or I mean nothing. Just believe. Just
48:32
believe. That's the rule. That's what she said. Just believe you're a
48:36
woman. Just pretend you're a woman. So some six foot nine white guy
48:42
that knows he's never gonna play in the NBA orre never gonna play major college
48:45
basketball, and there are a lot of them out there. All it takes
48:49
is one of those guys for the white bole to go off and go,
48:54
holy shit. If I just pretend to be a woman, it can be
49:00
the women's college basketball player of the year. Thanks for listening to today's free
49:05
drop of the abbreviated show. If you're interested in listening to the entire show,
49:08
you must become a patron. Please go to Patreon. That's p A
49:14
t R e O N dot com. Patreon dot com slash the Death of
49:22
Journalism with John Ziggler. My name is j h N z I E G
49:27
L e R. That's patreon dot com. Slash the Death of Journalism with
49:35
John Ziggler. Good luck to you on that but that's how you can subscribe.