The Press Box - An Equal and Opposite Redaction: Russell Westbrook and Pete Buttigieg | The Press Box

Episode Date: April 23, 2019

The arrival and coverage of Robert Mueller's report (03:00), Russell Westbrook’s feud with reporter Berry Tramel (21:00), and Pete Buttigieg’s boomlet of popularity (40:00). Hosts: Bryan Curtis and David Shoemaker Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

If you've ever stopped at a railway crossing and the signals are flashing and you don't see the train or it looks like it's moving slow and you're thinking maybe you could get across the tracks before the train comes, think about this. In 2018 alone, 270 people were killed at railroad crossings, 270. Press box listeners, listen up. Stop because trains can't. David, this week, a writer named William Bennett. Edinson tweeted that your standard sports writer earns $150,000 per year. What I want to know is, does this describe any sports writers you actually know? No.

I mean, you feel like that tweet should be followed by like why I joined the athletic and I'm also selling used cards on the side by William Benison Patriots. It's pretty spectacular misfire. I don't even understand why that would be like a hypothetical number that you would get to unless you only hung out with like legacy columnists from the Boston area. I mean, maybe that's the case. But that is a unless the sports writer in question is reading multiple ad reads on a weekly podcast. I'm guessing that that number is probably not anything close to the truth. Now, did he claim in the replies that it was a gag that like the standard sports writer was his sort of running bid or something? Keith Law said how is this.

tweet even still up. And the original tweet, it replied, it has been a running joke for some time about the standard sports writer, been a big fan of your work for a long time. I like to get the idea that this guy's at the improv doing his standard sports writer bit every night. A lot of good sports writer bits out there. And America just hadn't been paying attention until now. We are the godfather offer of media podcast. This is the press box, a part of the ringer podcast network. The press box is the media podcast.

We are not allowed to say next question. Brian Curtis and David Shoemaker of the ringer here with three topics for your pleasure and amusement. First, David, after weeks of nervous waiting, the Mueller report finally arrived and it was the media equivalent of a breach berth. We discuss William Barr, cable news coverage and more. Second, and this will surprise you NBA fans, Russell Westbrook isn't being nice to reporters, actually a particular reporter. What should we expect from an NBA superstar when he goes before the best? media after a game. And finally, we've reached the point in the 2020 campaign where everybody loves Pete Buttigieg.

What is behind the media's collective swoon for Mayor Pete? All that plus a notebook dump and the overworked Twitter joke of the week. But first, David, let's start with Mueller. On Thursday, it finally happened. We got a Mueller report. It redacted Mueller report. But a 400 page Mueller report all the same. But an hour and a half before that,

And this is the first thing I want to talk to you about. We got the strange pre-released teaser trailer from Attorney General William Barr. Here's a bit of that. And as the special counsel's report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the president was frustrated and angered by his sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks. what you can't see there David is Rod Rosenstein is sitting behind Barr's left shoulder and has that Ben Affleck

hello darkness my old friend look at his eyes you know that kind of nervous have smile my first question for you what was a more disappointing teaser William Barr on the Mueller report or episode 9 the rise of Skywalker wait you're out on the rise of Skywalker

now you're starting your Star Wars descent early man. I kid the Star Wars fans. What did you make of the whole pre-release bit? I mean, I guess I don't want to say

our worst fears were realized because that's that just phrase opens up a whole can of worms. But yeah, I mean, in so much as there was a feeling that Barr was dragging his feet

initially to sort of frame the conversation before it got off the ground. and I think that was totally, that fear was totally validated by the release where he came out again, had another press conference again to frame the conversation, to frame the debate and left, you know, all of the, anyone that might be skeptical or might, you know, of the findings in the report, or skeptical of the Trump administration vis-a-vis the findings in the report to spend their time debating whether or not there was any there there, as opposed to actually debating the actual there that was there.

It was a pretty, I mean, and we're sitting here talking about Barr still. He was either intentionally duplicitous or functionally illiterate, and I, you know, lean towards the former. And it's just a waste of everybody's energy to be talking about that dude right now, I feel like, but that's how we're covering it. This, of course, was his second shot at spinning. the first one being the highly selective letter he sent to Congress as soon as the Mueller report arrived in his hands.

There's a really good piece in New York Times by Charlie Savage talking about how Barr would sort of take these sentence fragments out of the Mueller report. And I can't really do it here because it's just it's too labored for me to read it. But it would, you know, a sentence would start out from Mueller would start out, although bad thing, bad thing, bad thing, bad thing. we don't have enough evidence to establish X. Well, Mueller would just take the second part of the sentence that says, we don't have enough evidence to establish X and then leave it at that.

Leave out all the bad things at the beginning. It's pretty amazing. This was one of those moments, the bar press conference, where I was really like should, should cable news be covering this live? Is there, his remarks are no doubt newsworthy in some way. but is this a moment where you really need to go live knowing that you're going to have the actual report in an hour and a half

and knowing with a pretty near certainty that there's just no way he's going to truthfully or completely describe what's in the document. I mean, should they have been covering it? I mean, that seems like, I mean, not not not covering it but putting it up live. I mean, that to me is even worse. You know, we talk about that we've had the discussion now for a

year plus about the Trump rally live. Right. And is that a good idea. But this is like, this to me is even lower possible news value than the Trump rally. Yeah. In retrospect, there was no value there. But in, I mean, in the moment, this is the thing that's happening. And all these, you know, news networks are in direct competition with each other.

Somebody's going to be, you know, airing it live. Someone's going to be reading all the tweets of, you know, potential leaks and everything else. I wish that, you know, we had a wish we could have dealt with the entire thing in a more sort of linear way, but that's not the opportunity that we were afforded as a, as a, you know, as journalists and also as a, as a, you know, semi-aware public. So, I mean, I don't, I find it hard to condemn that too much, although I do take your point. I mean, no one gained anything by watching the press conference and certainly gained probably even less from watching the coverage of it before the report came out. But then even when the report came out, I mean, you could make this case about almost any report of this or any subject where people are forced to process this volume of information live on the air. I mean, it's almost, it's almost inherently misbegotten because there's no, no one can be reading it and digesting it fast enough to say anything interesting about it for, I mean, certainly not in real time, probably not for 48 hours, you know. Yeah, we've seen that with Supreme Court decisions. This was definitely one of the best because you have this. giant 400 page document

that cable news talking heads are attempting to talk about instantly. CNN has this giant panel of people who haven't read it, including our old pal Jeffrey Tubin. MSNBC had Ari Melbur in the kind of Adam

Schaefter, Chris Mortensen, information guy spot over at the side. And this comes right. The New York Times is Michael Grinbaum. Vice, the millennial focus news outlet featured a live stream of Michael Calendarian, a writer and producer seated at a desk, reading the report out loud as spooky music played in the background. I actually, Jim, can we play a clip of that? I actually went and found this. This is real. Michael Calendarian reading the report live on Vice.

Wikileaks released the first email stolen from the Podesta email account. In total, WikiLeaks released 33 trenches of stolen emails between October 7th, 2016 and November 7th, 2016. The releases included private speeches given by Clinton, internal communications between pedestrian other high-ranking members of the Clinton campaign, and correspondence related to the Clinton Foundation. I don't know if you ever did student radio in college, but that's exactly what it sounded like. Just somebody just kind of putting a track down and he's just kind of talking for an hour. To me, to me it's very evocative of, and I guess this is a pertinent one right now, when you just click on a random, like, or you're watching some like Game of Thrones. highlight on YouTube and it goes into some like Game of Thrones experts breakdown of like, you know, the Targary and family empire

and it's just like a semi-robotic detached British man who's just like who seems to be reading, doing like an impression of Dan Carlin's hardcore history about but just like reading from the George R. Martin notes or something you know, it's the strangest thing ever. I was really disappointed because when I heard spooky

music, I was like, you know, 1950s local television, you know, monster show with like Bella Legosi or something introducing an old horror movie. Which I think is really probably the best way to cover the news now. One of our listeners, Owen Clark tweeted this to us. He said, is watching live coverage of reporters reading a 400-page word document, the strongest case we've ever had against the 24-hour news cycle,

or is the title still held by wall-to-wall live coverage saying we still don't know where the missing plane is? Thank you, Owen, for that thought. And I'm afraid we don't have an answer at all. It's probably, I think we have a tie. The other subplot here was how the Russian reporting from the mainstream media held up. This is a tweet from the New York Times as Eric Lipton. Again and again and again and again, Mueller report is confirming the accuracy in great detail of stories by the New York Times and Washington Post as reporters helped inform the public of the events related to the investigation in real time. There was one BuzzFeed story, which said that Michael Cohen had been directed to lie by.

Trump about the negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Ben Smith, but an editor's note about that and essentially said this sort of comes down to, you know, Mueller obviously felt he did not have the evidence that Trump had directed Cohen to lie, but Cohen made a pretty good case that he did and, you know, doesn't sound like that was much of a retraction on BuzzFeed's part.

This is, I think, one of the most interesting and probably important effects of the Mueller report. we're way beyond this will change anybody's mind this will lead to you know trump leaving the white house in handcuffs or whatever fantasy is out there but i do think when trump repeatedly says hoax hoax hoax fake news fake news fake news there is some value in somebody like muller who never leaked who never gave an interview during this whole thing coming out with this just as we just heard incredibly boring fact-based document and throwing it out there and adding some backing to all this reporting.

I don't know, again, I don't know if that changes some poll. I don't know if that literally changes one person's mind about the value of the media in our current political era. But that strikes me as one of the more, if not valuable, at least interesting sort of outcomes of this whole thing. Yeah, I mean, Trump, for his part, has, you know, obviously taken both sides of it by saying the report is complete vindication and then by saying that the report is full of lies. But I think that his engagement with it, and I mean, and listen, regardless of what your

takeaway is from the Mueller report and, you know, regardless of what you think of the findings and whether or not you think they're problematic, you know, I think, you know, I think, you think that the fact that Trump has chosen to engage with it to the degree that he has when he could have I mean one would think that the politically expedient thing to do just to be like to tweet you know complete vindication exclamation point and then never discuss it again um his decision to continue to engage with it I think gives it a sort of historical validity I think that it'll it'll certainly um you know it'll it's it is it is clearly and and now formally the reference point for all these discussions going forward for you know weeks and months and years so you know that's i think

a measure of great success on on on muller's part do we care about sarah sanders getting caught in a lie i have the sound clips already but i don't even know if i care um this was may 2017 when she made a claim to the press that she personally had heard from many many FBI people that were happy with Trump firing James Comey? Do we need to go down the street? Was anybody surprised that she lied about this? Really?

No, I mean, but I think that it's, I think that, I think that in the Trump administration, there's been a tendency to tell bald-faced lies and then because they're so transparently false, everyone sort of gives them a pass. And this was actually an instance where, I mean,

I guess just because, because it was included in the report, she was forced to go on television, even in a friendly environment and defend herself, right? I mean, that's sort of interesting. Yeah. The line from the Mueller report was Sanders acknowledged to investigators that her comments were not founded on anything.

Yeah. This is really great. Yeah, let's play it real quick. Here's Sanders with Sean Hannity trying to explain herself and what she said to the press back in the White House media room. Look, I acknowledged that I had a slip of the tongue when I used. used the word countless, but it's not untrue. And certainly, you just echoed exactly the sentiment and the point that I was making is that a number of both current and former FBI agents

agreed with the president. Have you ever, David, accidentally used the word countless? I'm not sure that I have, no. Have you ever said, you know, I've published countless stories on this topic where you really meant one or two stories? Or I host countless wrestling podcasts rather than one a week. Yeah, that doesn't seem like to slip the time. That's one of those things that reporters just care about way more than actual citizens. They love catching the people they cover in a lie because, and I understand that because there is a certain personal vindication.

It sucks being lied to. It sucks when people lie to your face and anybody covers this White House has a lot of experience with that. But that's one of those things again. I just don't think the public is like, aha, finally we've nailed Sarah Sanders. We got her. Last topic I wanted to talk to you about on this. And you know, I love to ask you about your former life in the book publishing industry.

The Mueller report, the book is coming out from publishers like Scribner, Melville House, and Skyhorse. I saw one of these. I believe it was Scribner that is featuring an introduction by Alan Dershowitz. Now, how much more would you pay for the version that didn't have an introduction from Alan Dershowitz? That's what I want to know. No, seriously. 1998, the Star Report came out in book form and was pretty much an instant bestseller. But that was titillating.

Plus, back then, old people didn't know how to use computers. So who is going to buy the bound edition of the Mueller report? Like, what is the target audience for this? Well, back then, old people didn't know how to use computers. Young people didn't really know how to use, I mean, didn't have the ability to use computers as a reading device. I remember very clearly being in my college computer lab when the Star Report came out, and there were signs posted above every printer that said, like, please, for the love of God, don't print out the Star Report.

I think everybody, even at that point, I think everybody pushed print thinking it would be like a 10-page PDF or something, and then it just ate more trees died in college libraries that week than probably the rest of the year combined. So we all had to go to Borders to buy it? yeah um i remember when the 9-11 commission came out when i was working in the book publishing industry and there was there there's always this sort of like back channel negotiation to see somehow somebody i believe that like some publisher acquired the rights to get this sort of like head start on publishing it so that those books would be in barns and noble or borders like the day that the report dropped or something to that effect it's all it's all a very hazy memory but there was like an official

version of it that came out um even though it's like a public domain document the moment that it that it appears. Yeah, I mean, listen, there's a, there's an, I mean, I just, I just, quit Googling, said that there was a piece that just popped up that the Mueller report has three of the top four spots on Amazon's bestseller list. And people are very interested in, I'm presuming most of these are, you know, people paying a buck or two for the Kindle edition or, you know, that sort of thing. And, and people are, they're interested in it, you know, I mean, with good reason, you know, it does feel like, I mean, I'm not, I'm not quite sure what people think they're going to get, if they're people thinking that they're actually going to get through it,

I mean, more power to them and that they're going to get kind of a clear-eyed look into it by reading it themselves. I mean, that's a good way to feel. It's a, it's an ambitious way, but, I mean, it's, it's smart. But yeah, yeah, it is, it feels like one of those sort of moments in history where you got to get the e-book just to sort of prove you were there. Yeah, I'm going to wait for the graphic novel like I do with the whole government reports. All right, David, it's time for the overwork Twitter joke of the week where we celebrate a gag that was so obvious that all of media Twitter made it at exactly the same time. From the aforementioned Mueller report, Morgan Holzer sends this one in.

You saw David that at least one page of the report was completely blacked out and was rendered with a black gray box that said harm to ongoing matter. It was an overwork Twitter joke to compare that to an album cover and write so excited to hear this Joy Division reissue or please nobody show radiohead this. Thanks to Morgan for that one. How about the convergence of the Mueller report

and the Bobcraft massage video? A tweet from TMZ last week read, Robert Kraft Naked Spa video to be released. Prosecutors said. It was an overall Twitter joke to write. Now, this is what should be redacted. That noted comedian Bill Crystal actually made that joke, by the way. Thanks to co-equal branches for pointing that out.

And finally, David, this one has kind of been circling around for months, but it got new life this week, thanks to another tweet from TMZ, which read, The Brother of Jesse Smollett says he's suffering night terrors over the attack. Jesse Smollett suffering night terrors over the attack. And the attack is in quotes. It was an overwork Twitter joke to say that Jesse Smollett has really got to stop beating himself up over this. That's really bad.

All right, David. Topic number two. On Friday, the Oklahoma City Thunder beat the Portland Trailblazers and climbed back into their first round playoff series. They have since climbed down. But that was an occasion to be happy and generous with your local beatwriters, right? Well, not so for Russell Westbrook. Here he is at the podium alongside Paul George after game three. Barry Trammell with the Oklahoma.

And Russell, the first half, both teams struggled offensively as sort of a slug of a game. Both teams got going in the second half. What happened that sort of reversed the tone of this game? Next question. Yeah, Russ. The fourth quarter, you got a 15-point lead. They catch up. what happened in the last six, seven, eight minutes that reversed the momentum and let you guys burst back away.

Kerry Eggers, Portland, Tribune. Paul, why did you dunk there at the end of the game? Next question. Great moments in quote gathering after the game. I've got like 19 reactions to this. I want you to go first, though. What did you think? The audio doesn't do it quite as much justice as the video does because I think that my, you know, this is a story that obviously has been bubbling for some time.

you wrote about the Thunder organization's relationship with the press corps was that 2015? 2015, 2015. So four years ago so this is obviously That was before Trump was elected.

It's not a new story. I think that when you read the articles about Westbrook next questioning, Barry Trammell and others and Paul George even got in on the this week. And a question about his late game reverse dunk.

Yeah, you could hear that there at the end. Yeah, I mean, he was, it was, it's notable to me how little joy that Westbrook seems to be having with this because when you read about it, it's almost like he has a running gag, he has a bit, you know? No, it's not a bit.

He's miserable through this whole thing. And in that first Trammell thing, he next questions him. And then I believe Trammell asked a second question. question and Westbrook just looks just searchingly out into the rest of the people in the in the in the in the in the mass press court to try to get someone else to ask a question without even saying anything just wordlessly searching for something else he can respond to um it he's it's he's like like like he's like like I said, it would be one thing if he was just like,

like, forget this guy and I'm just going to like continue to embarrass him, but it's more of just like, it's just a, I don't know if this is, if self-owned is too cute a term to be used on a on a, on a, uh, podcast is as serious as the press box, but it just seems to be like, like,

he's losing in the situation, you know? And, and, um, you know, Barry Trammell for, I mean, I mean, you can imagine, you could imagine this being a situation where there is a sort of like, self-agream. sort of like glory hog reporter who was just trying to get himself out there by continually asking questions and getting this response. There's a sort of Trump press conference aspect that some people, to the whole thing that some people might relate it to. But Trammell's like a totally down the line journalist. He seems to be doing, he seems to be like trying his hardest. And he's gone on the record to say, you know, he's not, he knows nothing else will happen. And he knows that he's never going to convince Russell Westbrook to answer his questions. But he just sort of doesn't want, he's sort of doing, he sort of continues to ask so that,

Westbrook doesn't decide to do it to somebody else after him, you know, that the overall relationship between Westbrook or the Thunder and the media doesn't deteriorate further than it is right now. And the whole situation just seems sort of, I mean, it's just deeply uncomfortable. It's just like the look on Westbrook's face. The whole thing is just hard to watch. Yeah, Barry Trammell will not ever be confused with the Jim Acosta of Oklahoma City. He is definitely not that guy.

But his reasoning, and he did an interview I saw with Slate this week, He also wrote a column about it, his interactions with Westbrook earlier this month. You know, I do think it's about at the end of the day, a lot of people say, why is this happening? Why is this so bad? You know, is this something Barry Trammell wrote. It almost certainly is not something Barry Trammell wrote. I think he's even said this. He may have even said it to me.

He can't believe Russell Westbrook has read anything he's ever written. Right. It's about power. These things are always about power. And, you know, they are about the way the world changed from a time when athletes needed newspaper reporters to the time we have now where athletes most certainly do not need newspaper reporters as much as they did back in the past. And it was funny because I was just going back and forth on Twitter about this. I don't think it's that athletes or NBA superstars in this case that there are no incentives. for them to be nice. There are incentives.

LeBron James has figured out that there are incentives to feeding those guys around you. And, you know, with the exception of him picking up his valise and kind of just, you know, kind of walking out of that press conference during the finals last year, he like, he obviously has decided to participate in this process. Russell Westbroke hasn't at all. And, you know, especially where Trammell's concerned. And he just won't do it. He just won't do it.

it's funny. I think I talked to somebody who was in the in the room for that the other day. And, you know, I think there's a couple things here that have been out there that are worth sort of clarifying. I don't think I wrote that piece you referenced back in 2015 was all about how the thunder had sort of created this kind of moat between the reporters and the players, which sort of came out of the Sam Presti view of the media, which is. not to be an open shop to put it bluntly. I don't, I, I'm told and I believe that the Thunder do not like this at all. They do not want this to be happening what is happening between what Russell Westbrook's doing right now.

That's like a nightmare to them. But they don't have any choice because there's nothing they can do about it. And again, this is about, this is about power changing. You know, once upon a time, those guys who were team media officials had a chance of talking the players and saying, hey, can you do this? Hey, can you do this article? They just don't have that anymore. They can't tell him what to do.

He's going to do whatever he wants. So there's no, there's just nowhere to go with that. Were you struck by it as I was about how sort of all of NBA Twitter came to Trammell's defense? That's one of the things that's really changed for me since I saw this like four or five years ago is reporters. And I don't know if this is a. Trump era thing. I don't know if it's

that reporters just have more leeway to talk about this on Twitter than they used to, but I feel there was a lot more vocal support for Trammell now than there was four years ago. Yeah. I mean, I think part of it's just this is, it's, it's,

it became a story this week in a way that it hasn't before. And I, and I think that it's easy for us to kind of overestimate just because of the popularity of NBA and, and, in sports journalism. in the circles that we run in, even in the circles that we run in. It's easy to overestimate how much everybody's paying attention to every little thing all the time. You know, this is a little bit like, you know, someone that, you know, if you, if you fight with your wife a lot in a sort

playful way, it's one thing. And you put, you do that out in public and maybe people have a totally different view on it or becomes really uncomfortable for everyone. It's just, it just put it out there in front of everybody. And I don't think there's, I do think that, there is a more, that there's more freedom of, I mean, you know, there's less reluctance on Twitter, to not say something like that. I think that defending your fellow journalists, there's a premium on that on NBA Twitter and Twitter in general. And I think that that's a net positive. But yeah, I mean, I think that it's not a, it's, it certainly feels like this is, this story, even though it's been going on for years is a, is a, it's, it's

new life, Westbrook breathed new life into it this week. And part of that is that he's a, he's an avatar for a lot of different feelings that we have about professional basketball, but he's also just an incredibly confounding and interesting person. And, you know, the way that their season went and then the way that their playoffs have gone so far, it's left us sort of searching for answers. And as much as he wants to avoid giving them, he's sort of filling in the gaps with this. this, you know, I mean, with, with, you know, a series of actions and press conferences that just, you know, speak volumes, if not explicitly. I mean, they, they, they, they can kind of say whatever you want them to say. So it's, it's not surprising to me that everybody's talking about it now. Yeah, I just, I think he, and again, this is talking to somebody in that sort of war, but I think he hates confrontation is the other secret about him. He may love it on the court. He may, you know, that is the way he kind of works himself, you know, into his, you know,

brilliance and occasional non-brilliance on the court is making everything into a confrontation. I actually think when you really look at this, it's not a confrontation. It's him saying next question because I just don't want to have to deal with this. You know, he's not one of these athletes who's getting in the screaming match, which almost turns into a shoving match in the locker room with a reporter, which happens with all kinds of guys.

And it has throughout time. He's not that. He just doesn't want to deal with it. at all. And Trammell explained in his column in the Oklahoma and when he wrote about this is the press is the one thing Russell Westbrook can't control. He can control everything about how the thunder treats him. He can control how many shots he gets. He can control how that thunder offense is going to run. But, and of course, all of his business deals and all those kinds of things, he can't control the media completely. So here's this one part of his life where he's like, this dude. gets to walk in here every day and ask me a question. And by the way, these are not hard questions. I think this is the other thing when you talk about how the video and how awkward it is is surprising to people. The other thing that's surprising to people is people is people are expecting this to be like a Trump press conference where Trammel is asking him

mean questions or probing questions. He's not asking anything. No. That's sort of like, tell me about this moment in the game. I mean, that that's nothing. That's just a stand. press conference question. I was listening to Simmons and Rissillo talk about this this morning. Yeah, this is good. Okay. Yeah.

So, you know, I think Bill probably, you know, I encourage everybody to listen to themselves. But Bill's sort of question is, should we just blow this whole thing up? Are we at a point where this is just the whole post-game thing, where you've got your superstar up there?

By the way, this looked exactly like James Harder and Chris Paul did during the playoffs last year, if you ever want to see two people who do not want to talk to the media, watch those guys after a game sometime? Mm-hmm. Should we just blow this up

and do something else and figure out another way to get information to the reporters? What do you think about that? I mean, I think it's a great question. I mean, that's definitely, every time I watch a press conference that goes the way it's supposed to go,

I have that feeling. You know, I mean, you watch something like the Westbrook press conference and you don't want to be, or and you're right, the Hardin and Paul last year, the two-star teammates going up there together, it sort of is like a, it seems to sort of reinforce, you know, if you go up there because you want some backup

or you just want to go through this hell with your friend, it never seems to make anything any better for anyone. You know, it just sort of, I mean, I'm sure there's some comfort to it for the players, if that's what they want to do. But you just watch it and you think what's the point, right? I mean, you don't want to look at the bad examples and feel like,

If we blow up the whole thing, are we, are we, is a journalistic, as a journalistic enterprise, are we caving to, to, to, you know, what the players want to do? I'm not sure there'd be anything wrong with caving to what the players want to do. I think that more than anything else, I'd be interested to hear, I don't know that we'll ever get it, but I'd be interested to hear with the league and the players association, and maybe more importantly, like, you know, the agents of the players feel about the whole thing. It seems odd that it can be this broken in so many ways. And frankly, this um you know it's not terribly useful uh and and and that it's still i mean the argument for it's still continuing is what i mean i guess there is this institution of daily papers and this is how

they get their and from this is how they get their quotes this is how they get their their their stuff to write their the reactive pieces but um you know i mean it's i'm more perplexed by why we why it's still going than whether than then then kind of interested in discussing its merits because I just don't I don't quite get it. Well, I do think that's sort of the thing I don't want to preserve is the kind of typical newspaper structure where it's paragraph, paragraph, paragraph, paragraph, quote, mandatory quote from the athlete, paragraph, paragraph, quote from the athlete, which I think leads to bad questions and leads to pointless questions in these press conferences.

I do think there is something to getting information from these guys after a game. Yeah. And, you know, again, I don't want to, I don't want to belabor the Trump political metaphor here. But it does remind me when people say, oh, my gosh, you know, those Trump White House press conferences are such a mess. Why don't we just shut down the White House press conference? Well, we don't do that because if there's a forum where accountability can happen, we would, want the forum to exist and we don't want someone who's not interested in participating to kill it for people who might be interested in participating or are interested in participating a little

bit more than Russell Westbrook is. You know, if we if we figure these things exist on a spectrum. That to me would be the wrong idea. And I also just think, here's another thing I think about this. When people who aren't reporters watch these things, they're always showing. shocked by the fact that there's friction because they are in a part of the journalistic universe where you don't ever really do interviews where people don't want to talk to you. Does that make sense? Yeah. And there's nothing wrong with that.

But there are a lot of people in this part of the world where it's like the interviews I do where somebody wants to talk to me. And for 95% of reporters, a big number of the interviews you wind up doing are people who don't want to talk to you or who maybe kind of want to talk to you. And those interactions aren't going to be smooth. Those people aren't going to be performing for you. And I think it's, it's no coincidence. We always talk about this during the playoffs because this is the one time we all actually watch these things. But this is just how, this is how locker rooms go, man. You know, locker room has not come in and it's like, okay, let me get some some great material here from a

bunch of willing subjects about what just happened to the game. It's a lot of people who may not want to talk about it, who may be emotional, who may not even, maybe they don't even have the Russell Westbrook, you know, I'm out man on this whole thing. They just are not in the mood or didn't have a great night and they're just like, I just don't like the way that question sounded or that just rubbed me the wrong way. I don't know. So just I think part of this is the takeaway for me is news gathering is messy and it's awkward and it's occasionally hostile. And to see this happen again and again, doesn't strike me as a reason to get rid of it on its face. No, I just feel like it's already at this point of, I mean, I guess my suspicion is that it's

already at this point of like incredible compromise, right? That this is like the most painless way to achieve this sort of necessary thing. And yeah, and I agree. I mean, I realize that it's a, you know, messy art form and there's concession, every, you know, concessions are made every step the way. We're never going to get, or very rarely are journalists going to get the sort of access that someone might imagine that they get or the journalists themselves would dream of getting. But yeah, I mean, it does just transform into something else when, you know, when such a higher percentage of sports fans, basketball fans are watching a game and it trails directly, leads

directly into inside the NBA, which goes directly to the press conferences and, you know, suddenly this sort of, whatever, I mean, this sort of interaction, this sort of performance is on, is a national going concern. It's, it's a, it becomes something else. And I, and like you said, you don't, you think the thunder don't, aren't, aren't happy with, with the way, you know, with the way things are going. I mean, maybe somebody got into his ear before the last game, because his reaction was a little bit different, but. do we want to hear that? Yeah, we can do that.

Russell is in full fine form after game three. Then they lose game four to the Blazers. Go down 3-1 in the series. And here's what he sounded like when Barry Trammell came back with yet another question. Yeah, Russell, Barry Trammell with the Oklahoma. You guys did a great job on Lillard in the first half. He didn't score until the last 75 seconds of the half. Were you pleased with the defense you played on him?

And how did it change when, when he got going in this third quarter? It's a good question. Not sure. Do we think Russell Westbrook is going to take some time to think about that and maybe walk up to Barry Trammell later in the locker room and give him a fuller answer about the defense on Dame Liller? That's going to happen?

Yeah, probably not. I think not. But a little less confrontational, so that's something. All right, David. Topic number three. Let's talk about Pete Buttigieg. and yes, you're going to hear me overpronounce his name a bunch because I'm still getting used to this.

Buttigieg. Budajedge. Say it with me. Budajedge. The question I think we can tackle here is why are we having this boomlet and by we I mean the media? I think reason number one and this is

this to me is the kind of undercover part of this is that this is just bound to happen because of the way the timing works out in the primary. Biden's not in the race yet. Bernie is doing well, but is relatively static. Beto's going nowhere. And reporters just need someone to get excited about and to write about.

And Buttigieg is the guy filling that hole right now. And related to that, he's saying yes to all the interviews. You know, he's got a little momentum and he's giving every interview. So I think part of this is just structural. agree? Yeah. I mean, we have a large and growing democratic field. There's, you know, we're still a ways or moved from any sort of debates or any sort of, I mean, and, I think a deliberate and, and sort of institutional, you know, aversion to going after fellow candidates this early on. So there's not a lot of narrative built into the, to the contest so far. And in so much as the, the, the, the, the, the national

narrative at this moment is just getting reactions from all of the candidates on the Mueller report or, you know, the Trump controversy of the day. We are sort of like wanting for, um, for news, right? I mean, we're wanting for the, the 24 hour news cycle is looking for things to cover. And, um, Buttigieg is just waiting, you know, he's just waiting with open arms for, I mean, for him to be the story himself. So that's the structural part of this. The other part is his relatability in a very white Ivy League polymath slash polyglot kind of way. Buddha judges did his favorite books for New York magazine.

And dude, this reminded me of when you and I used to go to those Brooklyn house parties and the hosts would have their books arranged in a very casual but not casual way on the shelf. so that everyone could see the titles they wanted to show off. This is from Buttigieg's list. Wolf Hall, of course, the Quiet American, for sure. And then we need something, David, that's a little more on the nose. Just a little more obvious. Ah, yes, the Odyssey and Ulysses.

Perfect. So that's great. Buttigieg also did a My Favorite Things list for New York. And I got to be honest, I saw socks and green chili beef jerky from New Mexico. And I was like, I want that stuff. I want to be more like Pete Buttigieg. I really do. I almost got online and bought it.

Here's the other thing I think is part of this. He is an ambassador to red America, even though he's in this very democratic little city in Indiana, right? And there is something, I think, chic for the mainstream media about finding ambassadors to red America. It's like our own little Trump, it's our own Trump safari. So we go and say,

this guy can explain you know Trump country does this guy through this guy we can see the parts of America we don't live in and I think that's fascinating

what do you think about that yeah I think that's right I mean I don't I think that he's a inoffensively interesting character right and I don't mean that as a knock on him but I feel like why not go ahead

no I mean I think he's I think that he's a I mean, all signs point in being a very interesting thinker. And I'm not an expert on Midwestern or Indiana politics, but it seems like he's been an effective politician, an effective leader on the platform that he's been given. His backstory is obviously very, it makes for a great lead in a profile. But there's, you know, there's a lot of interesting ticks about his,

I mean, obviously about his personal life, about his pre-politics career. and even about his political career and just his ambition and sort of understated ambition is a sort of it's a nice salve to the way that we treat politics

in the in the current era right? I mean he seems to be obviously he's incredibly ambitious because he would be the youngest president ever if elected but he has this very Midwestern

and if you want to cling to the cliche a very kind of Midwestern self-effacing quality that that makes him seem like just sort of a, you know, an aweshoxy sort of like Forrest Gump that just wandered backwards into the presidential race. And I think that it's, it's, you know, maybe it's not like a traditional, like, feel good story, but it's just, but it sort of just takes a lot of boxes for journalists that are looking for a story to tell at this point in the cycle. Jack Schaefer noted this in his political column, that we love people who we can feel like we

made a discovery, a journalistic discovery. You didn't know who this guy was. And let me bring him to you. I feel that way about that guy, John Federman, who was the mayor and is now lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania. I feel that I've been presented with the discovery of John Federman for like 10 years now. But I feel that's a little bit of what's happening in a fast forward with Buttigieg. It's like, oh, there's this guy. Let me tell you about him. Let me explain. And I think journalists like that when it's not an overfamiliar topic. The other thing is he is legitimately clever. I was reading a little bit of the Olivia Nuzzi New York magazine profile. We learned that Buttigieg told voters outside an event in New Hampshire, I heard the way you

ingratiate yourself to voters is to stand on things. So I found this park bench here, referring, of course, to Beto O'Rourke. One of his other lines on the trail is, what will America look like in 2054 when I reached the current age of the current president, referring to the fact, Of course, the Trump is actually kind of old. Yeah. He has this way of slamming people with a wry smile about it. It's almost like Adam Gopnik is running for president. You know, it's never, it's never the hammer.

It's always a, it's the velvet glove. And that is that is kind of winning to me. Um, and that's sort of interesting. The pushback and this was this I saw quoted in Nuzzi and elsewhere. Jason Johnson, editor of the route said that most. Mostly white reporters are, quote, kissing his butt and, quote, looking for a white guy who makes them feel good about themselves. That's not wrong on some level, right? No, I mean, I think there's definitely some of that.

I don't know that it's, I mean, I think human beings are always looking for a candidate that will make them feel good about themselves in different ways. And I think that with as much sort of internal strife is the Democratic platform and the primary is going to have this year. I'm sure that there'll be a lot of people volleying for different levels. of feel goodness, you know, of affirmation towards the, towards the various pieces of the electorate. But Justin Charity wrote a very interesting piece about on a related subject for the ringer not too long ago where he's like, he can't think of Pete Buttigieg without thinking of better or work, without thinking of John Edwards, without thinking of Bill Clinton, without thinking of Gary Hart, you know, just sort of tracing it all back to this, to this sort of great white,

hopey, you know, all shucks in a form of politics. And, uh, and, and, and, and, and, and, And there's certainly something there. I think that there's a lot of reasons why people might be abnormally or idiosyncratically interested in Pete Buttigieg, starting with his name, you know, and going forward from there, that we can spend time on before we get to the sort of, you know, real raised eyebrow, look into the cauldron or looking to our souls about why we're doing it. But I think that's always an important thing to keep in one's mind when, deciding how to cover a situation like this.

I also think it's worth remembering why he's doing this. We talked last week about running for president as a career move. And somebody tells Nuzzi and her New York magazine piece, he has no way out of South Bend other than doing this, really. He ran for DNC chair a couple years ago and lost. And, you know, he's running for president because he can't win and in fact has lost statewide office in Indiana. So look, there is, you know, no matter, and on the one hand, you can believe this guy thinks

he's qualified to be president. This guy thinks it be a good president. He's got ideas about stuff, though fewer ideas than Elizabeth Warren. But he is also somebody who is running for president because it's a good career move for him. He clearly realizes that. And again, that doesn't mean he's going to be a bad president or should be drummed out of the race. just think it's worth putting in there. I want to close by reading you this funny David Brooks line. Brooks wrote about Buttigieg earlier this week. He said, or excuse me, earlier this

month, he said, I can't tell you how many Democrats in places as diverse as Nebraska, Indiana, New York, and Washington have come up to me over the last few weeks raving about Buttigieg. Now, is this like the Sarah Sanders countless FBI agents thing? Are there diverse? Are there really tons of Democrats? coming up to David Brooks and raving about anything, especially a candidate for president. It does sort of have the framework of a exaggeration. The, of a, yeah, sort of literary,

an excessive sort of literary tick there. Yeah, but I don't think that the impulse is wrong. I mean, I think if anything else, look around at the other people in the primary and you can, I mean, you see that just from, from platform to demeanor, I mean, he's, it's, it is nice to have someone that feels like an outsider. And I think that the Democrats especially are looking for, you know, they're looking for something different. They feel like they've been losing to Trump for some time and that, and that, you know, a name that you've heard a thousand times before, if they were going to be the answer,

maybe we wouldn't be in the situation that we're in. I mean, that's what I, that's obviously extrapolation. But listen, I've heard lots of people talk about it. We've talked about him more in, I mean, you hear his name more dropped in conversation in New York City than I would have ever expected to. And he jumped into the race. I didn't, you know, and, and there's obviously some sort of, he's, he's, he's, he's hooked on to something, you know, he's got, he has our sort of, he has the interest of those who are paying attention to politics. And for Democrats in particular, there is a sort of, you know, aspirational something that he's tapped into. And at least for the moment, he's writing that wave. Let's do a quick notebook dump. The Trump Game of Thrones thing is still going on. On Thursday,

Trump tweeted out, no collusion, no obstruction for the haters. I cannot believe the president of United States using the term haters. For the haters and the radical left Democrats game over in Game of Thrones font, HBO said in a statement that we under, well, we can understand the enthusiasm for Game of Thrones. Now the final season has arrived. We prefer our intellectual property not be used for political purposes. Can we get Trump to move on to killing Eve or something else? Do you think there's, do you think that Trump will, we'll take another show or is this really the only, the only one he'll latch on to. Yeah, this is the, I mean, who would have thought that like, after all, you know,

endless numbers of recording artists have asked that, that, that, you know, presidential candidates or presidents, usually on the Republican side, not use their music and rallies, who would have thought that prestige television would be the next frontier in this culture war? It's sort of shocking. The NFL draft is Thursday, David. There are two telecasts running concurrently, ESPN and ABC. were you aware that the ABC telecast will star both Luke Brian and Bobby Bones? No, I'm hearing about this for the first time.

That is fantastic. I really don't have anything about this. Bobby Bones is serving as a roving reporter, according to the press release, from the streets of Nashville, sharing the enthusiasm of the city, fans' passions, and providing a behind-the-scenes look of the NFL draft for viewers at home. So congratulations to America's new sideline reporter Bobby Bones. I was interested in the Nira Tandon controversy.

Nira Tandon is a former Bill and Hillary Clinton staffer, and now the head of the Center for American Progress. And the New York Times is Elizabeth Williamson and Ken Vogel were writing about her to illustrate this internacing battle between Clinton Democrats and Bernie Democrats. Sanders, that is Bernie Sanders, thought and still thinks that Clinton people are working against him. Tandon denies the charge. and in writing the story, Williamson called Tandon's mother as a quote.

And Tandon's mother says she, meaning her daughter, is not going to let anyone rule over her. And she has loyalty to Hillary because Hillary is the one who made her. Mom goes on to say, those Bernie brothers are attacking her all the time and she lets them have it too. She says Sanders got a pass in 2016,

but he's not getting a pass this time. also describing her role at the Center for American Progress, Tandon's mother says, that's what she does. She shows up at rich people's places because she needs funds from them. That place runs on Nira Tandon. Well, Nira Tandon got really mad that the Times had called her mom. Her mom said in a statement she didn't understand the conversation was on the record, et cetera.

Lots of Democratic apparatchiks got pissed off. I didn't see anything wrong with this. And I really think the reason that, people in the Neurotan orbit and friends of Neurotan were upset is because mom actually told the truth. Yes. Mom said, of course she's going to let the Bernie Bros. have it in this election. And her job doesn't let her say that. But that's so clearly what's going on here.

And the Times was sort of able to get at that, at least a little bit, by dialing her up. Yeah, I think it's exactly right. Listen, I think that, you know, there are many instances in which calling someone's mom to, you know, to fish for a retweetable quote, is, you know, not in anyone's best interest or not in the best interest of even of good journalism at times. But you're right. I mean, that's why people are mad. If her response had been, you know, something totally anodyne that you would expect a loving mother to say, then, and if it had somehow magically made the piece, I can't imagine. I can't see how anyone would be that riled up about it. You know, it's the content of what she said and the fact that, like you said, it was true. She said, my daughter is an utmost professional. And she will absolutely call this election down the middle and, you know, give equal,

an equal hearing to Bernie Democrats and every other Democrat would near a Tandon have a problem with that quote. Absolutely not. finally David Schuemaker guesses the terrible pun headline UK edition Are you ready for this? Oh no I was reading The Observer on Sunday By the way, so wonderful to have so many British newspapers

To thumb through This is my favorite part about being in London This is the cover of the Observer magazine on Sunday I'm going to read you the subheadline This is the cover story Meet the Frenchman Who sailed around the world with a pet hen A pet hen

H-E-N. And there's a picture of a guy in a rain slicker with a hen perched on his shoulder. So, David, what is the pun headline for the story? Meet the Frenchman who sailed around the world with a pet hen. Oh, my gosh. So hen, also known as... Is it a chicken? Mm-hmm.

Is it a sailing? A boat? A chicken boat? famous phrases perhaps I know chicken with his head cut off famous jokes perhaps involving a chicken

oh oh why did the why did the chicken cross the Atlantic yeah why did the chicken cross the globe the globe okay why did the chicken cross the club good job we're going to give you credit for that one all right that's a press box he is David

Shoemaker I'm Brian Curtis Jim Cuttingham is our producer, Chris Almeida, helps with the research. More hot media takes next week. See you then, David. See you later, man. David? Mm-hmm. Should we just blow this up?

Yeah. And do something else. No. I didn't see anything wrong with this. Yeah. What do you think about that? Next question. What do you think about that?

Next question. What do you think about that? I mean, I think it's a great question. And I think that's fascinating. What do you think about that? Oh my gosh. Yeah. That to me would be the wrong idea.

Oh, no. It's about power, man. Yeah, and I agree. I mean, I realize that I'm not a aweshoxy sort of like Forrest Gump expert on... Should cable news be covering this live? I mean, the video really, I mean, the audio doesn't do it quite as much justice as the video does. But this is just how, this is how locker rooms go, man. Yeah.

It's left us sort of searching for answers and chicken with his head cut off, robotic detached British man or something. It's the strangest thing ever. Hello, darkness, my old friend. This was definitely one of the best. Here's the good news. The number of collisions involving a train at a railway crossing is down 83% from its peak in the 1970s. Now here's the bad news.

There are still more than 2,000 incidents a year. Pressbox fans listen up. Stop because trains can't.