About the Threatening WNBA Fan Email

What if the tidal wave of "hate" is gambling fueled?

From Subscriber Darryl, with an email titled “Pop this pimple,” which I presume references my gross metaphor for how a compulsion to say what people are thinking (but not yet saying) can feel like the need to address a pulsating zit.

Hey Ethan,

So this article here:  https://www.espn.com/wnba/story/_/id/41816881/threatening-anti-gay-email-sent-wife-liberty-breanna-stewart

They received one threatening, anti-gay email?  I have to imagine that just about every famous person on the planet has a steady stream of hateful emails in their inbox.  Eric Weinstein talked about how the mainstream media often engages in "strategic silence" when they choose to ignore certain issues to portray reality in a way that suits them.  

What should this be called?  When the media cherry picks anecdotes and frames them as if they are abnormal and especially noteworthy?  Articles like this leave their audience with the impression that this behavior is unique to a certain kind of intolerance, but they never mention the other variations of intolerance.

I'm sure Harrison Butker received "threatening, anti-religious" emails, but we don't get articles like that on ESPN.

Thank you, Darryl. I’ll try and come up with a neologism to fit your description but in the meantime, let’s highlight this story as a good example of the chasm between “Group Chat” and public comment. For those who don’t know, New York Liberty star Breanna Stewart had a missed free throw and layup in crunch time of a WNBA Finals Game 1 loss. According to Stewart, her wife Marta Xargay received “threatening homophobic anonymous emails” after the game. The emails are from a yet to be found sender and the full contents have not been released to the public. The New York Police Department’s hate crimes taskforce was notified and is investigating.

So why did I identify this story as a “chasm” example between private and public media conversation. Because, as much as nobody decent wants threatening and/or bigoted emails sent to WNBA players, there’s also quiet “backchannel” befuddlement over why this story was escalated to a main ESPN topic. Giving one troll national level attention can result in more trolls seeking such attention.

I don’t want to say too much because I haven’t seen the actual email. Perhaps the language in there is specifically depraved to a degree of indicating that this is a violent offender, in need of apprehension. Even so, I largely agree with Darryl’s take that there’s an ideological component to escalating the incident to a level of top ESPN headline on an NFL Tuesday.

NBA players receive constant anger from unhinged fans. This is so for NBA media as well, to a lesser degree. For example, a friend of mine once reported a story that Celtics fans didn’t like and it led to a contingent of fans flooding his Instagram with vile comments about his wife and children. It’s sick and it’s horrible. When on the beat I took measures to make my family social media channels private because, while I was used to receiving a certain sort of backlash, I certainly didn’t want it for my wife.

All that said, there’s a lot of narrative fitting in the ESPN coverage, in response to one person’s emails. NBA Today had Stewart on to discuss the incident, wherein she was asked about the email in connection to the “very public discussion about the W. The level of racism and hate that players are receiving.” Stewart said:

What we say to one another, inside of this league, is ‘Why is this happening?’ Because we are the most inclusive league. 

From there Stewart connects the incident to this generalized trend of “hate,” which, well, I don’t know. There’s been a lot of coverage of the WNBA that alleges some new tidal wave of bigotry, due in part to engagement from Caitlin Clark fans, but it’s hard to separate out what’s actually happening from the obvious attention-based resentment many players feel towards Clark.

If I might speculate, I do have a non Clark-based theory for why W players might be receiving more unhinged hatred than they’re accustomed to. Sports gambling has been decriminalized and its barrier to entry has been lowered. Not only are people betting on obvious big events like NFL Sundays, but they’re trying their hand at products that were formerly more niche.

Stewart is referencing an incident that followed her coming up short in a game. In the past, that sort of basketball disappointment would largely happen in a vacuum. Now, there’s a bit more attention on the WNBA, and certainly more people risking their finances on the outcome. It’s plausible that this was an angry gambler. Even if it wasn’t an aggrieved bettor in this specific instance, WNBA players have more exposure to such people than ever before.

That topic is uncomfortable for ESPN to address, since the company is all in on sports gambling. The WWL would love it if more people bet on WNBA action. They are thus not incentivized to reckon with whether their popularization of gambling leads to threats directed at players. It’s that old, forever applicable Upton Sinclair quote, this time applied to a league comprised of women:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

It’s easier for ESPN to indict society writ large than to ask questions about whether their money making venture has brought out a certain element of society.