.
“We're in this together,” Russell Westbrook said.
Instead of the media accepting what he said, their media mob mentality bully mentality continues.
Let's just say the media has the right to ask whatever question they deem appropriate. If so, then those being asked also have the right to respond in any way they deem appropriate.
Based on historical and ongoing examples, the media doesn't like it when they don't get their way.
The media has an unrealistic fraternity just like the police who “protect their own,” right or wrong.
The media is one of the most unbalanced perspective groups of people on this planet. They continuously try to justify their behavior of asking mostly asinine boring ridiculous questions under the guise of “legitimacy.” This is why the media is so desperate in trying to find a different story and angle. This is why there is always a pouncing and feeding frenzy and overdoing of any story line outside the usual.
Proof: On NBA.com, the media labels Russell Westbrook's comments mentioned above as a “rant.” and do not label their continued insistence to get a response as an “attack” or “harassment.”
Instead the media goes on to try to create confusion and division, by saying Westbrook treated teammate Steven Adams like a toddler.
First of all, Westbrook is the leader of the team and it is appropriate for Adams to defer to Westbrook just as it would be appropriate for Westbrook to defer to Billy Donovan, the coach.
Second of all, what Westbrook and Adams did is exactly what should take place in any healthy relationship. For example, parents. What one parent says, speaks for both parents. It is a child mentality that goes to the other parent, in hopes of getting a different answer. It is a child mentality that seeks to get her/his way by dividing and conquering the parents. It is a child's mentality for the media to not like the answer given by one person in the relationship and then go to the other person.
When one adult parent speaks for the other parent, that does not mean the other parent is being treated like a toddler.
It is inconsistent, a contradiction and counterproductive to expect players to function as a team on numerous levels, even hang out together sometimes after games and practice, but yet expect them to function without the team mentality, while still in the team setting. An interview is still the team setting. It is an extension of the playing field, the arena and theater of operations.
The media wants to wear the hats of questioners, referees, arbitrators and debaters of the full range of media theater. They want to be in total charge of their place of work, thus self validation. The media wants to be the sole determiners of what is legitimate and appropriate in the media space and furthermore want their assessment to supersede what is legitimate and appropriate in the human being social behavior space.
The media praises the players and Memphis Grizzlies coach Fizdale for supporting each other, despite Fizdale “breaking the rules” by challenging the credibility of the on-court referees. On the other hand, the media begins their discrediting campaign against players and teams who “stick together” and “break the rules” of how the media thinks you can respond to them, because, after all, the media is just “doing their job.”
And what a pack mentality, alpha individualistic, low scholarship, high memorization of facts, fragmented thought process, erroneous conclusion, job it is in service to the status quo.
Max Kellerman, seconded by Molly Qerim, on ESPN's First Take on 4/24/17 was absolutely correct in his assessment of what Russell Westbrook said and did.
All is not lost.
Not Impressed By The Media: The media has the illusion that just because some of us might want to know something that that translates into a right to know. This is paired with the illusion that just because they ask a question that that translates into an obligation to answer the question. The media loves to keep asking the same question and keep trying to ask the same question in different ways and keep trying to lead people towards certain types of responses. In many instances, their interviews are more like interrogations and setups. In most instances, interviews are a poor method of getting to the heart of the matter and bringing forth understanding. Interviews should be more like conversations where both parties have the right and respect to ask and answer questions. It does not work well when one person can just ask any question and not be held accountable for their logic and for what comes out of their mouth and not have to face questions themselves. We learn best through dialogue and conversation rather than monologue, coercion and rather than a mentality that says, I'm going to make you either answer my question or I'm going to make you look bad for not doing so.
Far too often, a microphone is used like a gun, “comply with my questions, or else.” Who really enjoys a bunch of microphones being shoved in their face and a gang of people pressing you?
Everybody knows, that regardless of what you say or don't say to the media, the media can make it seem any kind of way by what they choose to publish and the parts they point out, highlight, focus on and repeat. The media is always looking for ways to extract something without giving “in-kind”ness back, absent their editing, spin and influencing commentary.
The media expects people (athletes in this case) to just give them content without the media having to give up any respect. The media is quick to point out athletes are obligated to talk to them per their player contracts. And the media sucks players dry with a ridiculous number of interviews per week, mostly repetitive drivel. It works best when its win-win and mutual respect. Respect can only be ascertained on a relationship by relationship basis. There is not one type of relationship and there is not one type of respect. Whatever two people agree upon in the relationship is what it is.
Like all things human generated, media reflects human behavior. There are thousands of media outlets who need content everyday of the year and they are competing with each other to differentiate themselves, thus get viewers/listeners, thus get adverting dollars, thus fund their payrolls. Do you think it is first and foremost about journalism, or professionalism or good, honest reporting? No, it's always the money and the power – at least it's that way in the more popular media outlets. Follow the money trail and you will find where Second Truth prevails.
Bottom line: The media covers who they want to cover. They don't like it when they need the person being covered more than the person being covered needs them. The media only wants to cover famous people, stars. So then, by giving these people preferential attention and coverage more than they would to us “no-names,” the media automatically must defer to those famous popular people and give them preferential treatment. The media wants viewers to fawn over them and give them preferential consideration, yet the media doesn't want to fawn over famous people and give them preferential consideration.
Newsflash to media: It's the nature of the relationship. It's unequal.
The media, being second-most in the relationship with famous people, shows their mean streak when the media doesn't get what the media wants.
By The Way: The NBA administrative group controls its narrative. This season, 2016-17, the NBA has decided to rebrand itself in a reverse KFC kind of way, by having the media refer to the NBA as “the Association..” This phrase is being used far too often this year for it to have originated from the media.
The NBA muzzles players and coaches by fining them for speaking ill of the NBA, especially the referees. In doing so, the NBA is trying to hide one of its biggest flaws, its officiating, which of course speaks to its administration.
NBA is No Balance Allowed.
By The Way Part 2: The media is like a middleman who convinces (tricks) the people on either side that a middleman adds value, when, in fact, the middleman only makes things more costly. The large group of media we call 'mainstream media,” could reduce its information output by 50% and we would not notice it or miss it. This would be partly due its value and partly due to other media quickly filling the void.
Secondly, the media is like the people under the stairs. They've been there so long you think it's normal and that they're holding up the stairs, thus a structural necessity.
