The Press Box - Ukraine’s Media Strategy, Russia’s Ban on Journalism, and the Ongoing Coverage of the War in Ukraine.

Episode Date: March 7, 2022

Bryan and David follow up on the ongoing coverage of the war in Ukraine. They discuss The New York Times’ decision to publish a photograph of Ukrainian civilians who were killed as they tried to flee a battle zone, then weigh in on how both countries’ media approaches could affect the perception of the war (0:28). Later, they switch gears and touch on the debut of the new HBO show ‘Winning Time,’ about the 1980s Los Angeles Lakers, and discuss the ongoing conversation surrounding Adam McKay and Will Ferrell (23:37). Hosts: Bryan Curtis and David Shoemaker Associate Producer: Erika Cervantes Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Bacari Sellers podcast tackles the most pressing current events through conversations and interviews with high profile guests. Building upon his experience in South Carolina government and politics and his experience as a lawyer, Sellers will talk to his guests about all topics from the world of politics. Check out the Bacari Sellers podcast on Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. Hello media consumers. Welcome to the press box. Brian Curtis and David, shoemaker of the ringer here along with producer erika cervantes david i want to start with a couple of thoughts about the way the media has been covering the russian invasion of ukraine and i want to start by drawing everyone's attention to a photograph that was published on the

front page of today's new york times and on top of the paper's website this morning it was taken by times photographer lindsay adario i know you know the photograph i referred to on sunday adario was in Urpin, which is a city right across the river from Keeve, Adario saw a family that was trying to cross a bridge into Kiev to escape the fighting. And here I'm going to pick up the story she wrote with Andrew E. Kramer at the Times. On Sunday, as Ukrainian refugees were milling near the entrance to the structure, that is the bridge, calculating their odds of making it safely over the Erpen River, a family laden with backpacks and a blue roller suitcase decided to chance it. The Russian mortar hit just as they made it across into Kiev.

A cloud of concrete dust lofted into the morning air. When it settled, Ukrainians could be seen running madly from the scene, but not the family. A mother and her two children lay still on the roadway along with a family friend. All four of them died and the photograph of Dario took is absolutely devastating with that aforementioned roller suitcase and backpacks, the warm jackets you would imagine a kid wearing this time of year. What struck you about that photograph, David? Well, I mean, it's, it sort of goes to what we've talked about before in terms of news coverage of this. It's, you know, there's a real power in the detail, right, in the specificity.

And I don't mean to like minimize obviously the loss of life. I think that's certainly the most important thing here. But we've been sitting and watching TV, you know, just sort of borderline indescipherable photos of smoking buildings in the distance and and and having reports of casualties i mean it's not even on like a ticker it's just sort of like people are offhandedly saying these are the numbers that we're hearing on both sides you know combined totals it's very detached right and the and to see a photo like this along with an article that just sort of relish it well relish is the wrong word but really is along with an article that that that really goes into the granular detail of what happened.

It's the sort of thing that can have a really big effect. I mean, obviously, there's, I don't know what the New York Times, you know, editorial guidelines for publishing this sort of photo are. It does seem, I mean, one presumes that they sort of threw the rules out the window to publish this on the front page and the home page and to make such a big deal of it. And it was the right decision. I think also the style that the piece was written in kind of push the boundaries. of what a traditional, you know, piece of this sort would be in the New York Times or just

about anywhere else. And I think that's sort of the decision to publish it in the way that it was published was absolutely the right move. And I think it's probably about as effective as anything else they'll do or they've done so far in covering this war. It's a very particular horror, isn't it? And when you read that story, you understand that these four people were fleeing into Kiev. We've been reading lots of stories and seeing pictures of people fleeing from the city. But these people, their city was being encroached on by Russian forces. So Kyiv was comparatively the safer place to be.

Yeah. Even though getting in there involved crossing this bridge. There's also a really interesting evidentiary value to this story and to this photograph. And I'll quote again from the piece, Russia's president Vladimir Putin, has repeated. denied that his forces are targeting civilians fleeing battle zones. But only a handful of Ukrainian troops were near the bridge when mortar shells began raining down. The soldiers there were not engaged in combat, but in helping refugees carry their children and luggage toward the capital.

So the photograph and the accompanying story stand as evidence that the Russians were firing on refugees, on civilians. And we know from the news reports today that Ukrainians and Americans are, looking for evidence of war crimes here too. I'll just read you the kicker of this story, David, the last paragraph, which is just, again, just sort of had me sort of sitting there this morning in silence for a long time. The group's luggage was scattered about them. A small green pet carrier lay nearby to a dog could be heard barking.

Wow. Dario did an interview with Katie Couric last week. Here is just one bit she said about the importance of having. having journalists on the ground in Ukraine. At some point, the world leaders have to act. I mean, how long can we sit around? And if you don't have journalists on the ground, if you don't have journalists holding Putin accountable

for what he's doing, then it's just going to be Russian-led propaganda. I mean, I think it's very important for people to see the reality. That's a great sound bite. There's a point in the story that you read where they sort of say what Putin has claimed and then this piece sort of in and of itself stands as evidence to the contrary.

I hope that this, I hope that this piece, in so much as it is evidence, can sort of stand in future pieces to let them be, or to let them be a little bit more straightforward with it, right? I mean, there's almost no reason to even repeat what Putin is saying

when he's not, when he's so plainly not telling the truth, right? I think it's probably more helpful to say, Putin has lied and said this thing when this is clearly what's going on, right? And maybe that's not included in this piece, like I said, because this piece will be provides kind of cover for that to be said in the future. But it is. It's a very important piece.

It's a very important piece. It's a very important photograph. It's a very important. It's a moment that I think that we'll look back on as a turn. point in the way this war was covered and the way this war was perceived, I think, by the general public. Yeah, I just

I'm, I'm, I don't know what else there is to even say about it. Let's jump further into the idea of perceiving the war, the way the war is perceived. Because we know the Ukrainians, who are outmanned and outgunned by the Russian army, have tried to use social media

and web video to further thwart the Russian advance, or at least slow it down. On Thursday, David, something fairly remarkable happened, which is that Ukrainian president Vladimir Zelensky had a press conference. Now, this is somebody whose capital is under siege, who is himself a target of Russian forces. This was the New York Times account.

Inside the building, security officials escorted journalists by flashlight through darkened corridors filled with soldiers. Sandbags have been stacked along the windowsills. At doorways, firing positions were in, place to shoot from inside Mr. Zelensky's office compound onto the street outside. Mr. Zelensky thanked the reporters for turning up. So here is the most ceremonial thing a world leader can do. Have a press conference.

But that's part of the power here, right? The Russians want to say that the Ukrainian government is faltering or is gone. I'm going to do this ceremonial thing, this ritualistic thing, to prove that we are still here. Well, and it stands in such stark contrast to what's going on in Russia, where you have, you know, last week Putin was photographed in a meeting with his military advisors where he was, you know, 50 feet down the table for many of them, which is just so bizarre. And then somehow even more bizarre, he gave, he answered media, obviously state media questions while in the midst of some sort of, luncheon with flight attendants at the end of last week, which is just like the most, I mean, again, not to make light of it, but if somebody was like scripting, scripting a movie about, you know, a leader's descent into madness, it would probably look something like this.

It's, it's, it's just such an impressive, an impressive performance by him to take it in a real, like sort of media reductive sense, but he's just been such a powerful figure through all this. And you're right. You do the bare minimum, and that's a really incredible thing to do in his position, you know, to stand tall and say, this government continues, you know? I mean, it's, it's, sometimes the optics are the most important thing. Well, and the symbolism so interesting with those two, for those two leaders, right? Because on the one hand with Putin, he's saying no that this is not a war this is not an invasion we've heard that right this is what he calls a quote unquote special operation so i need to be seen treating it like it's a mere special

operation where zolensky wants to be seen showing that this is a war but that i am still here right that i am still that i am still the effective government so that's a really interesting contrast between the two of them, too. There's also been a lot made of Zelensky's videos that he's been making and the statements he's been giving to the press. The U.S. offered him, offered to help him get to safety last week, and he said, quote, I need ammunition, not a ride. Quote that was so amazing, by the way,

I looked it up three or four times to make sure it was real. At that press conference, I mentioned, he said, I simply do not have the right to be afraid. He's made several videos. where he is being seen during the invasion outside at night in front of identifiable landmarks. Robin Javon, the Washington Post says it displays the power of vulnerability, the persuasiveness of simplicity, and the public's collective need to believe that modest men can rise to meet any moment. Yeah. Right.

She even talks about the things he's wearing, right? T-shirts, you know, not a suit, right, with a pocket square, but a T-shirt. small things like this that this former actor is using to communicate with both the Ukrainian public and with the world. Yeah, I mean, to talk about it and sort of, like I said, reductive sort of, you know, media-centric terms does diminish it. But, you know, there's the old saying that, that, you know, the plural of anecdote is not data or whatever. And I think that that you could say that in the conversation about the photo we had at the top of the show or these these moments. that you know these these Zelensky appearances but the symbolism really does matter at a time like this because it is educational it helps people to understand right it helps people to draw

to to see to see to understand what's happening on a sort of granular level even if it's an incomplete view this sort of thing helps that that's that's why symbolism is important because all of our views are going to be incomplete right to see something like that that sort of speaks to a bigger idea is what helps us understand from this sort of, you know, this sort of distance. Our listener, Lindsay Thornton, also sent us this Washington Post story by Drew Harwell. Really interesting story. Harwell writes on telegram, Twitter, and YouTube, Ukraine's Ministry of Internal Affairs

since Sunday has posted a constant stream of extremely graphic images, showcasing the horrors of war and inviting Russians to examine them to determine whether the images feature a missing loved one. In many of the images, soldiers' corpses can be seen burned, ripped apart, mangled in wreckage, or abandoned in snow, and some their faces are featured in bloody close-ups, frozen in pain, and others' prisoners are interrogated by captors about the invasion as they shake with emotion. Some of the men sent crumpled, hands-bound, eyes blindfolded with tape. As Harwell points out, the audience there is Russians, Russians who we've seen protesting, right?

We've heard have been arrested for protesting in the streets in Russia, saying, here's what's really happening. Here is the carnage of war. Here is what your leader has led you into. And trying to sort of do that through the media too. David Vladimir Putin has countered, in a way, with his own law. NPR notes that Putin signed a law making the airing of what the government calls false information about the armed forces illegal.

Journalists could be jailed for up to 15 years. Russian officials assert it's false to call their military operations in Ukraine a war or invasion. And this isn't just Putin trying to crack down on his own press, which has been going on for years and years. CNN, ABC, CBS, and the BBC temporarily stopped broadcasting from Russia, lest their own reporters be thrown in jail. Standing up there, doing your stand up and saying, this is a war, this is an invasion. and then, oh, sorry, that's against the law now.

Yeah, I mean, there's, there's not much to say about it, except that, you know, there comes a point where Putin's unwilling or unable to even hide what's going on anymore. You know, he might still be clinging onto the military operation language, but that just sort of seems like a formality to give, you know, in so many ways, international diplomacy is just sort of lip service, right? And so you can actually get away, if you're, you know, in his position, you can get away with a lot more just by calling a thing, a thing that it's not. But in every other way, this is pretty straightforward. It's a really good column by Lorraine Ali in the LA Times, which a couple of people also sent us.

The title was, in Ukraine reporting, Western press reveals grim bias toward, quote, people like us. Oh, yeah. I want you to listen to one example from Lorraine Lee's column. Listen to this quote from correspondent Charlie DiAgada of CBS News. Now with the Russians marching in, it's changed the calculus entirely. Tens of thousands of people have tried to flee the city. There will be many more. People are hiding out in bomb shelters.

But this isn't a place, with all due respect, you know, like Iraq or Afghanistan, that has seen conflict raging for decades. You know, this is a relatively civilized, relatively European. I have to choose those words carefully, too. city where you wouldn't expect that or hope that it's going to happen. So it's partly human nature, but they are not in denial. You can hear him in the middle of that. Just being like, oh, whoops, I said something that was incredibly offensive. I have to choose my words carefully after not choosing his words carefully at all and in fact saying the offensive thing. people were pointing this out the fact that you know this was preemptively i mean before before the invasion

even began i saw people on twitter saying this is going to get more attention than anything we've ever done the middle east because the victims are white you know i mean the people people were saying we're predicting this and it's come true and even though that was predicted predicted it has not stopped some of the commentary from saying those things pretty straightforwardly right right, from saying, from, from delineating Ukrainians, as opposed to to people in other countries that we've had military involvement in. It's been pretty disturbing and disgusting at times. Now, the fact that we're having this conversation, I mean, I would like to think it means it's a valid conversation to be having, but it's a difficult one to have, you know, because it does, it, it's, it, it, it, it, because it's, it, it, because it's, it's, because it's, it's, because it's, it's, it's a

difficult subject because it's like it to watch to try to interrogate our own biases while we're you know trying to to cover something this significant it's it's difficult to reconcile those two things maybe at the same time but it's important that we do absolutely and as ali writes a number of correspondence consciously or not frames suffering and displacement as acceptable for arabs Afghans and others over there, but not here in Europe, where the people, quote, have blue eyes and blonde hair, end quote, and where they, quote, look like us, end quote. And yes, she writes, those are actual quotations from news clips. Highly recommend that column, which is. Yeah, I mean, and again, some, I mean, it's so difficult, uh, because I'm sure some of those

quotes were used with people trying to make this point really inarticulately or whatever. But it's just, it's really telling, right? There's a lot of people who would, who would wince or protest the use of the term like Savage to describe someone in a foreign country, right? But then you actually like, but functionally you just, you described them that way by putting them in a separate category, right? By delineating between two cultures based on whatever ephemeral motion of them that you have is just as bad.

And I think that it's important that we all sort of take a look at how these things are discussed. A couple more notes, David, before we leave this subject, you mentioned Putin's gigantic table. Now, we're not doing the only in journalism words bit anymore. But if we were, I would bring up this tweet from ABC News. Russian President Vladimir Putin huddled with officials. Huddled, being the key only in journalism word there, to discuss the economic turmoil amid his invasion of Ukraine. Ukraine, and he is sitting what looks like a football field's length apart from his advisors.

So you are huddling in the headline sense of the word, but you are not actually huddling, because you're nowhere near your advisors. David from one of your particular focuses here, the Wall Street Journal reports that World Wrestling Entertainment is ending its partnership with Russian broadcaster match and shutting down the WWE network in the country. I noticed that from the list of sanctions and economic. reactions. I mean, yeah, I mean, wrestling fans can see how sort of silly that is. I mean, just a sort of insufficient that is. But I guess, you know, everybody sort of has to go through

with this at this point in time. And listen, it's important. You know, if companies like W you don't do it, then maybe a bigger, more significant company would be tempted not to as well. So, you know, I'm not sure that, that, you know, preventing Russians from watching WrestleMania 2 is really going to do much good. But, you know, like I said, sometimes symbolism matters. Then, David, we had a TV debate go to a very strange place. The host was talking about Ukraine, was interviewing two people, which is always tricky. And the host was really getting on one of the guests, Daniel McAdams, the director of the

Ron Paul Institute. Mr. McAdams, don't go there. Mr. McAdams, don't lecture us. Meanwhile, the second guest was sitting there in the TV screen with a kind of confused look on his face. Listen to what happens when that second guest finally managed to get a word in.

And if he feels so strongly, he should go and fight alongside Ukrainians who are being killed. I have not, dear host, I have not said a word yet. I don't know why you're yelling at me. I'm not yelling at you. I'm talking about Mr. McCadams. I'm talking about Mr. McCadams. I am Mr. McAdams. I am Mr. McAdams. If I haven't said a word, so stop yelling at me. Okay, sorry. I got that confused. I got that confused.

I got that. Okay, not me. Yes, I got that. I got that. That's board and a hall. Probably a bad sign when you have to say dear host. The first time I saw this, I myself was slightly confused at the beginning because the way that identifying, like, chirons are set up, they're above their heads instead of what you would assume to be below.

So I'm guessing I know how he made the mistake, but, you know, probably would help, I guess. They've been switched, right? No, it was just, I think that Mr. McAdams was like in the middle between the two talking heads

and the other guys was up on the top or you could barely see it. But yeah, it was, it was, yeah, I guess there's room for levity even in times like this, right? The crazy thing was that how the, the host The guy who was yelling, I don't even know what his name was,

but the fellow would just seem to be like monologing. I mean, just screaming, yelling his point of view without any break, but he was basically muted the entire time and the host was just lecturing him, giving his own monologue, which just seemed, he seemed to sort of enjoy it. I mean, I don't know if that, if, you know, but the whole performance was just pretty incredible.

And the degree to which Mr. McAdams, Mr. McAdams, was just, apoplectic by the time his microphone got turned on was just amazing. I hope Mr. Mac Adams has a big career in U.S. media after this. David, let's do the overword 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. Send your nominees to at the press box pod where they are always, always gratefully received. David, this week's winner comes to us from listener Ben.

We've been talking about the tension between Russia and the rest of of the world. The head of Russian foreign intelligence, Sergei Naryshkin, described that tension by using a familiar buzzword. Narishkin said, this is about an attempt

to ruin our government to cancel it. Russia is being canceled in this formulation. It was an overwork Twitter joke to write. Great. Now Russia's going to join Substack. Thanks again to Ben.

If you can't, wait to subscribe to Russia's newsletter. Congrats. You made the overwork Twitter joke of the week. By the way, somebody sent me this this week, too. There was a shot of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar who was appearing on MSNBC as a guest, and the Kairon

said Kareem Abdul-Jabar substag columnist. I saw that. That's so great. Speaking of which, David, in the notebook dump, let us get a media segment out of winning time. New show that debuted last night on HBO. The show

is about the birth of the showtime LA Lakers of the 1980s and it promises to show the birth of one of the greatest rivalries of our time. The one between Adam McKay and his former creative partner, Will Ferrell. Now, just kidding. But,

but that rivalry which came out in a November Vanity Fair profile has weirdly blotted out a lot of the pre-release publicity for the show. weirdly added to it if my listening of several sports radio segments that have mentioned the McKay-Farrell riff is right?

What do you think? Well, I mean, if it was a deliberate move to sort of get early attention for the show, it certainly worked. I mean, I'm not sure how much it really helps the show. I just want to say, I'm not saying it's deliberate, but has just weirdly become this sort of part of the interest in the show. Oh, yeah. No, I'm not sure. that it was deliberate either. Well, okay, it did seem like, I don't know if it was a deliberate move to publicize the show, but it did sort of feel like it was a deliberate move by Adam McKay to

like apologize to his old partner in public, starting in November. Like, maybe that was the only way he could get him to pick up the phone or whatever. But regardless, it is interesting how it subsumed the show. And it's not particularly, I mean, you, you know, make the rivalry parallel and okay, but it's not particularly like relevant to the show, right? I mean, Adam McKay has, a lot of his sort of creative tics are present in the show, but, you know, I think that the vast majority of people are going to turn it on and be interested in, you know, the Lakers and less so the creative process, right? So it's, it's, you know, it's an interesting, it's an interesting point of focus for sports radio. And yet, you know, Will Farrell, who is, who is just sort of the

absent, you know, the missing big name in all of this pre pre pre airing put, you know, publicity push, Will Ferrell's probably about, has about the highest approval rating on, you know, American sports radio is of anybody in the world. So I can understand why people would be, would be, you know, drawn to discuss his off-screen relationship with this old production partner. Yeah, it's right in the sports radio Venn diagram because stepbrothers and anchorman. and everything Will Ferrell does, everything Adam McKay and Will Ferrell did together is right like in the sports radio,

just cultural touchstone category. So the reason this rift happened and the reason it is at all relevant to this show is that the main character in the first episode and presumably in most of the series is going to be Jerry Buffs, former Lakers owner. Okay?

Will Ferrell wanted to play Jerry Bus. and Adam McKay, this is according to Joe Higgins Vanity Fair profile, says this. The truth is, the way the show was always going to be done, it's hyper-realistic. And Farrell just doesn't look like Jerry Bus, and he's not that vibe of a Jerry Bus. And there were some people involved who were like, we love Farrell. He's a genius, but we can't see him doing it. It was a bit of a hard discussion. In the end, he, this McKay, cast John C. Riley in the role anyway, without telling Farrell

first, Farrell was infuriated. I should have called him and I didn't says McKay and Riley did, of course, because he's, because Riley, he's a stand-up guy. So. So, I mean, listen, that's, I take all that at face value. I think it sort of says just enough, you know, and it doesn't seem to be too biased in way or the other. It is interesting, though, because, I mean, Will Farrell's Jerry Buss would have basically just been Ron Burr. I think to a lot of people, if you're not doing a strict, serious, straight-faced biopic, maybe that would have been enough. But it is, you know, it feels like they probably made the right call on this one. There is something really weird that happens when we take people who are recent people in the news or in the culture and we try to make a television show about them. People who we have a really defined sense in our minds of what they look like. I don't have a great sense of Dr. Jerry Buss, despite seeing him on the sidelines of a thousand NBA games in my youth.

But I do know what Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar look like. Yep. And Jerry West was also a big character in episode one. And it is very funny to watch, this was the same way with that. Remember the O.J. Simpson movie, a couple of years. years ago. Oh, yeah. It's very weird to watch a movie. And I think it takes like 28 minutes. That's my very, very serious calculation there before you just start giving yourself over and stop thinking that person doesn't look exactly like the person they're playing. Yeah. Or have the same

kind of just way they walk, way they talk and all that kind of stuff. And it took, I swear, it took me like halfway through the first episode. And then I kind of start going, okay, okay, I can roll with this. I can sort of believe that that person is Magic Johnson. Sure. Yeah, I mean, it's, we see, it's not just that. You know, I mean, we see there's a million movies that you could find on, you know, various streaming services right now about people playing the Tiger King characters or, you know,

various startup founders or whatever else. But there is something very particular about how our famous athletes are portrayed, right? Because they're so iconic, but they're also for basketball players. We do know them. And we do see them in a lot of different ways and at a lot of different points of their life and their careers. So it's not just a one note, you know, it's not just a Saturday Night Live caricature or something, right? everybody has a different subconscious idea of what makes Magic Johnson, Magic Johnson. And it's an incredibly difficult part to cast, as they've written about in some of the pre-pressed stuff, too, that was overshadowed by Adam McCain and Will Ferrell's falling out.

By the way, I just want to say, if you hear a sports radio, if you hear a sports radio segment about this, listen closely and see if they don't give a little bit, a little bit more slack to Adam McKay and Will Farrell, or a little bit more, a little bit more, a little bit of, more, you know, just give them a little bit more, put a little bit more insight into digesting that falling out than they do, you know, a professional athlete who has a falling out with his team or wants to leave his team. I think, I think Adam McKay and Will Ferrell are treated with a little bit more humanity. That's very funny. And a lot less side-taking, perhaps than in the other fallout. It's also, it's also funny to me how much, you know, I've talked about this before, sports radio has become a ringer podcast. or vice versa.

I'm not quite sure which way it went. But there is so much, like, let us talk about a television, a serialized television show, one that's happening right now or one that happened 20 years ago and go episode by episode and do a segment every day about it. Whatever distinction there was between those two audio forms has completely collapsed, as far as I can tell. Oh yeah. Everybody knows I listen to Philly Sports Radio here now that I live in... God bless you, David.

Philadelphia adjacent part of New Jersey, but it's always amazing when I like turn on Angelo Cotaldi in the morning and just like accidentally find them talking about power of the dog or just some like... There's a lot of... There's a lot. It's not like, as far as I can tell, not a deliberate segment, but they'll just go into talking about whatever TV show or movie it is that they decided to watch and it's it's always entertaining so this series winning time shows a lot of the great things the flattering things about the showtime lakers and also a lot of the unflattering things or slightly embarrassing things that happened during that period i think i have cracked the p r code oh for the makers of winning time i want to give you a few quotes and tell me if

you notice a theme emerging here john c riley who we noted plays jerry bus said this i hope every who knew these people in real life and loved them will feel that this is a love letter. A love letter. This is from Jeff Perlman, the sports writer who wrote the book, Winning Time is based on. It's a love letter to the Lakers. Max Bornstein, one of the co-creators of the series, says, it's my love letter to that era, it's my love letter to basketball, and it's my love letter to L.A.

I can keep going here, David, executive producer Rodney Barnes. This is done out of love and appreciation for the Lakers in the game itself. Quincy Isaiah, the actor who plays Magic Johnson, very well, I might add. You don't do a show like this without a deep admiration and love for what they did and who they are. Please turn to page 54 in your... Oh my gosh. That's fantastic. It strikes me as that's exactly the way to play this.

both with the series and then a book like this. Because by the way, nothing wrong with doing a series that is real and has some stuff that the participants, the people who were there would not have, their first choice to have been in the series, right? They would have,

they would have not have put those things in and show. But you don't come out and say, this is how it really is. This is a rough, this is a treatment that everybody's going to win set. You come out and say, you tack the other way. This is a love.

Yeah. So the people who want that will tune in and people who want the other thing will also tune it. Sure. Yeah. I mean, it does. It is important to frame it, right? Because the show, even if you're, even if you're apathetic to Magic Johnson and, you know, Pat Riley and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's complaints about the series, even if you're like, whatever, I want, you know, I wouldn't care what they thought either way. Watching a show that's just like a takedown is much less fun. You're watching a show that, you're watching a show that. at a bare minimum sort of revels in the madness, right? And certainly, like, you want to show that's celebratory. Even if mid-celebration, you're seeing a lot of, you know, sketchy things going on in the background, that's part of the joy, I guess, in some of this.

But it does. To frame the show as a, not just a positive thing, but this is like, the show itself is all of us having a good time, you know? I mean, I think that makes, that does affect the way that you view it. probably related Jeannie Bus and Magic Johnson I believe did not comment about the series are doing their own documentary project for Apple and Hulu

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar tells the New York Times to a spokesman that the series is quote based on a fictional account taken from a book end quote that it was written by an outsider that is the book and the story is best told by those who lived in you would think that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar would not be on the side of, you know, if you haven't taken a hit going over the middle, you don't deserve to be coaching football.

You know, that's basically the point of view here, right? Like, if you weren't there, this is a guy who's written a number of books. If you weren't there to see it, then you have no business writing about it. I mean, that come on. Just because I guess you can make the case that if the participants are alive, then they can you know, then there's better first-hand evidence, but that's the point of writing a book because you kind of accumulate all that

and tell the story such as you perceive it to be true, right? So, I mean, I don't know. Obviously, they're just trying to, they're just trying to denigrate Jeff Perlman's account, which, you know, maybe that would have been more the thing to do after when the book came out and not just now that it's being made into a TV show that people, that everybody's going to see, right?

Well, you're damned if you're damned if you're doing damn you don't, right? Because you're like, this is full of lies. This is a dangerous thing. That all people are going to do is watch the series. You do an anti-advertisement that is just effectively an advertisement for the series. It's true. The more people, I mean, I'm someone who says, let the journalists roam, let the filmmakers do their thing. But if you're the principal in this, really you're in kind of a tough one, right? Because if you endorse it, you're endorsing a whole bunch of stuff. And this is, as the filmmakers admitted, this is drawn from the book.

You're right. And no comment. But not every moment in here really happened like this exactly, right? There's a lot of creative license, which is fine. But if you also say, don't watch this series, everybody's going to watch it. Sure. I mean, no comment would probably be more effective. It's always probably more effective in situations like this,

especially when, like, you know, some of these HBO shows are just, just take over all of our conversation. But the bar is, like, relatively low in terms of what sort of viewership it would take to make this a success, especially compared to what would have been a success five, ten years ago or something. I don't know. I just see, you're absolutely right that magic and Kareem and all those people saying, this

is full of lies, we'll probably just make the show. I mean, that could be the direct cause of the show being just a wild success. Yeah. Do you think they're going to use that on the poster that the show Kareem Abdul-Jabbar doesn't want you to see? The show Kareem Abdul-Jabbar would prefer be made by people who were there? they should just go overboard with that just make every episode

like every episode just have one outlandish caricature you know have like Larry Bird walk in and like a cowboy hat and a jock strap and just sorry just be like be a total like cartoon character just so Larry Bird will be forced to come out and be like this show is full

of lies you know that that would be a great great PR decision my favorite moment from the first episode was they had they recreated Karim Abduljabbar one of his scenes in the movie Airplane he's the pilot and then the camera goes from that to the director's chairs

and they actually had Zooker Abrams and Zucker the directors of airplane and the naked gun and a hundred other funny things sitting there directing the movie. They're real guys. Wow.

We didn't have to go over that strange thing. We see somebody playing the Zaz boys. It was a real guys right there. That's a kind of attention to detail I appreciate. shit. It's time for David Shoemaker

guess is the strain pun headline. Oof, okay, let's do it. Thursday's headline about a typewriter collector's abiding passion was courty deeds. Forty deeds. I love that one. Today's headline comes from Larry Gast, David. It's

from the economist. Actually, The Economist Podcast Network. They did an episode on what China's aims are. Read the invasion of Ukraine. China's been an ally of Russia, but not totally an when it comes to Ukraine. You should remember, David, when guessing this,

that China's president is Xi Jinping. Oh, my God. She Jinping. This is terrible. What was the economist's strained pun headline? I feel like I'm just going to get in trouble for trying to answer this. Is what China's aims are. Yes.

Sort of a halfway friend. she is it a ping? Is it a ping pun? It's she. Oh, it's she, okay. What if I, what if I direct you to a

1999 song? Nothing about a she thing. Do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do. I have no idea what song you're singing. All right here. We're just going to give it up right here so I will stop singing. All that she wants. all right all that she wants

congratulations economist he is david shenaker i still i still think nothing but a she thing would have been a better headline i'm brian curtis production magic by erika cervantes i'm back later in the week and then choumaker and i'm back monday more lukewarm takes about the media see you then david see you later brian