Super thrilled to hear my Oscars MVP take getting some run on HOS, made my day.
Here's the thing with Nick Wright...he told us who he was last time on the pod, he sees himself as a defense lawyer or a debate champion. I'm not from NYC, but my ears perked up when he tried to sneak by the "New York has less crime than 35 years ago" take. Wow what an oddly specific data point! I'm sure there's no reason he chose that number...
So you have this dude on, and as always he seems reasonable and normal and then you guys get right to the end and he starts telling whoppers. Why exactly would you concede that LeBron was better than Jordan at 18-22? Michael Jordan was winning NCAA Championships and Olympic Gold Medals! But he tricks you into conceding this.
LeBron has proven he can win with different players and coaches? Ummm...hasn't he mostly proved the opposite? Hasn't he left a trail of destruction everywhere he left? Doesn't Michael Jordan's empowering of Phil Jackson and coexisting with Dean Smith and Bobby Knight at least make this a moot poot? But he gets the listener to concede this.
And this is the brilliance of Nick Wright...even if this were true, it's not a foundational part of the conversation. Nick knows that if he speaks really fast and goes on long runs making subjective statements about things that aren't relevant, you'll be arguing about whether Mark Furman is racist and not the other thing.
Bill Russell won even more IS NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR LEBRON JAMES IT'S AN ARGUMENT FOR BILL RUSSELL. But we're on to the next point and the next point and arguing HOF teammates and era and all this tedious opinion based stuff.
Everyone who experienced the Jordan years can spit out the relevant argument ending details of his Paul Bunyan career, so they don't really need to get in the weeds about how he has the #1 Usage of all time but the 39th TOV%, or how as of January he had 300-some more offensive rebounds than LeBron in 300 less games, or that he's the RAPTOR GOAT before RAPTOR was a thing.
But that's too many stats, this is a Nick Wright conversation after all. On those terms, it is undeniable that every non-big since Jordan has been compared to Jordan and not really anyone else. Vince Carter, Stackhouse, Grant Hill, Penny, Wade, Kobe and LeBron. He has been the standard. Does anyone really think that the next big thing will be compared to LeBron and not Jordan? Why is that?
At Age 21, Michael Jordan was the third overall pick in the NBA draft, won Rookie of the Year, was an All-Star, 2nd team All-NBA, and lost in the first round of the playoffs to a Milwaukee team that got torched in round two by the 76ers.
At Age 21, LeBron James had already won Rookie of the Year, was a two-time All-Star, made All-NBA first and second team, and carried Ronald Murray, Larry Hughes, Big Z and Drew Gooden to a seven-game second round series against the Pistons, who had just played in the NBA Finals the previous year. A year later LeBron carried a handful of misfit toys all the way to the NBA FInals on his back.
The idea that Jordan was a better 18-22 year old is an absolute joke. For the greatness that was Michael Jordan, there is zero data to back up the stance that he was a better player at 21 or 22 than LeBron, who was the most highly-touted amateur player in the history of basketball and by 22 had already achieved more as a professional than MJ.
Next point, LeBron could win with anyone. He did. That's just a fact. MJ had Doug Collins and then Phil Jackson, who with all due respect to Red, Jackson is the greatest head coach in NBA history. The idea that MJ empowered Phil and not the other way around is ridiculous when Phil would go on to win multiple rings with Kobe and Shaq while MJ never won a ring without Jackson and in fact struggled to win playoff games, let alone series, without Phil or Doug calling the shots.
So on one hand, MJ gets Phil Jackson. And on the other, you have Frank Vogel, Tyronn Lue, Erik Spoelstra and David Blatt who have all been to an NBA Finals or won a ring off of LeBron.
And this idea that LeBron leaves this wave of destruction everywhere he goes. Did you not see what happened to the Bulls when Michael abandoned them after 98? When he took his ball and went home because he didn't want to play no more? They spent six years recovering from what he left them with. They never won more than 30 games in that stretch and won less than 25 in five of those six seasons. Talk about a path of destruction.
And yeah, LeBron won rings with Wade and Bosh, then won a ring with Kyrie and then another with AD. Seems like he can win with a lot of different kinds of players but I guess that's not good enough for some people.
Bill Russell winning more is not an argument for LeBron, you scream into the night while clutching your red and white 23 jersey, and maybe it's not, but it's definitely an argument against Michael and the Ring Counters, which was his point, and was also his point with Kareem.
Only by ring count has MJ had a better professional career than LeBron. LeBron has done it longer, at a higher level, with more players and coaches, for different teams, and when we look back in twenty years at the guy who finished as the NBA scoring leader and was also third in assists and top 35 in rebounds, with all of the other hardware and accolades that came along with it, who scored more with greater efficiency, it's going to look like a joke debate.
If the only argument I had was RAPTOR rankings and SIX RINGS I'd be quick to dismiss people when they point out my shortcomings too. Well-reasoned on your part.
Really enjoyed the debate. Will come back to the media stuff in another response.
No doubt Nick Wright is a skilled rhetoricist, and makes some interesting contrary takes - his career is clearly based on contrarianism, and I have no problem with that. Also not suggesting he is disingenuous.
But oh lordy did he use a lot of bait and switch, change the goalposts, etc in the MJ vs LBJ thing. There is no-one stopping us discussing MJ in the 80s - we aren't confined "to discussing MJ's 6 championship years" - just as we can't ignore LBJ's first 8 years as he failed time and again to come through when it mattered, and when he reached one Finals and was EMBARRASSED by a Tony Parker-led Spurs. Yes, TP was MVP in a 4-0 sweep over LBJ. Nick failed to mention that, and LBJ's repeated failures from 2009-11, and so on. But I'm fine with that as long as you acknowledge those are LBJ's formative stages, just as the '80s were MJ's, because fairness demands we acknowledge them in both directions.
But MJ's WIzard years? Come on. Does not belong in the debate in any sense. They were an embarrassing abberation, an expression of MJ's competitive vanity and ego and bore no resemblance to his actual core career. Come on Nick.
And btw, MJ was not just "about his scoring" - the guy was an All Defensive Teamer, put up huge rebound totals when the team needed it, did EVERYTHING ON THE COURT. You'd know that if you lived through the era and watched him play. He was an absolute monster in every facet of the game. So don't give me that revisionist bullshit.
PS Not a Bulls fan. Spurs fan. I had to watch DRob play his arse off with a substandard team year after year and get stomped by Hakeem - who I also respect massively - during his one chance to actually get to the Finals (without Timmy). But I believe in calling things truthfully, and MJ was THE DOMINANT PLAYER in an era full of them.
Knocking LeBron for losing in the Finals at age 22 to one of the NBA's best Super Teams before we even called them Super Teams when at the same age Michael Jordan was getting swept in the first round is exactly Nick's point.
You discounting LeBron's achievements and calling them failures to discount his career for getting to the Finals with Larry Hughes and Anderson Varejao but Michael CAN'T EVEN GET TO THE SECOND ROUND without Scottie and Horace Grant is *exactly* what Nick means by the double standard to which we hold LeBron compared to Michael.
And you saying that we can't hold Michael's Wizard years against him when he was the same age at the time that LeBron is right now is exactly why LBJ scoring 29 a game at his age is so unprecedented and should be a part of the discussion, because unlike MJ LeBron has maintained his level of excellence, for longer, and didn't quit the sport for three years only to come back as a shell. LeBron been here doing that to people for twenty years now.
MJ and LBJ both had formative stages in their careers that lasted about the same length of time - they both truly hit their stride mid-career, at about year 8. Wright tried to hold that against MJ while ignoring it for LBJ - didn't make one reference to it, because of course it weakens his argument. Clear double standard. And he did that an awful lot in his LBJ is better than MJ arguments. But that's fine, it's what he does for a living. Some of us out here notice the rhetorical sleight of hand though.
MJ had a higher peak, and his Finals record shits all over LBJ's. However, I can see the argument that LBJ's prolonged excellence suggests he has had a better overall career. Which one you prefer depends on whether you care more about stats or rings, I guess.
See, this is the problem with the argument, because you can not make a credible case that LeBron had a worse early career, or even an early career on par with what Jordan accomplished.
By age 22 LeBron had a Finals appearance, an MVP, three All- Stars and three All-NBA selections (second team twice, first team once). By all measurements, LeBron by 22 had already established himself.
Jordan at 22 had two All-Stars and made All-NBA second team once, missed almost an entire season with an injury and had gotten bounced in the first round of the playoffs twice.
Both won rookie of the year.
So when you say that they both had "formative periods" that lasted roughly the same amount of time I don't know what you're talking about or what you're looking at to make that claim. And not referencing LeBron's early greatness certainly does not "weaken his argument" at all. If anything, not referencing it is a blessing to MJ stans who want to believe that he was always great forever when in reality, he couldn't get out of round one without Pippen and Grant next to him.
Ethan- could you please talk about the Wiggins situation? It is beyond ridiculous how sportwriters are avoiding talking about a situation that likely has cost the warriors at least five games.
It also is a prime example that it is NEVER worth it to attempt to censor a story. The story will always get out and it will be 10 times worse having twitter and reddit speculate rather than just coming out with it.
The other thing that is driving me crazy is that wiseman was cast out because it was so fucking important to utilize curry’s championship window, but then they make excuses for Wiggins to be away from the team for complete nonsense. Again, a last championship run is likely being fumbled away because wiggins left the team- this is THE story and no one will talk about it.
I agree with you that as an NBA fan, I'm disappointed by how little we know about the Wiggins situation (and the Udoka one as well). But, to call it "complete nonsense" is a bit too callous of a take. While, I can and will criticize the lack of transparent coverage on two of the biggest stories of the year, I'm not going to be so flippant as to act like Andrew Wiggins owes me or anyone anything. That's ultimately up to the Warriors organization...and with the Udoka situation, the Celtics Org. If anything Karma seems to be rearing it's ugly head. As I would put some good money on neither of those teams making the finals this year.
Regarding the news media and truth/bias/agenda/propaganda, I was very interested to hear Ethan comment with his economist hat on and say he didn't like the incentives when media is publically owned. What about the incentives when it is owned by billionaires and shareholders?
When news media is for profit - note I'm specifically referring to NEWS media, not entertainment media - the news is twisted into one of two things:
1. maximising clicks/eyeballs - so, pressing the fear/outrage button in people's heads as much as possible, then finishing the bulletin with a cutesy story to divert them from all the fear manipulation you just put them through;
2. the personal agenda of the billionaire in charge - see Fox and Rupert's Ayn Randian crusade against taxes, government, climate action, action on rampant and growing inequality, etc.
Rather than being about truth, news becomes driven by either profit or propaganda (or both), and everyone loses. Power is not held to account, and everything is framed through lens 1. or lens 2.
Like health, justice and social security, news media is not a sector that should ever be run for profit. Truth should be the primary driver, not money or personal agenda.
My experience of publically owned media is pretty positive. In Australia the ABC (our equivalent of the BBC) is funded by the federal govt but independent with its own board. Unfortunately that board is appointed by the government of the day, but that has not prevented the ABC from being critical of the government. Usually the board seems to do its job with the public interest in mind, even when the government of the day strangles its funding. We also have the part publically funded Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), which was set up to broadcast to minority communities, and is also nt afraid to criticise the government of the day. In contrast, the modern BBC has become very beholden to the Tories.
There is no perfect solution, but I think a publically funded, independent network is the best model we have. It's far better than the profit or billionaire controlled model.
I hope Jokic wins a championship solely to shut Nick Wright the hell up. I don’t watch his show or follow him on any platform yet still come across him way too much.
1. Yes, crime is down in big cities compared to 30-20 years ago, and slightly up compared to five years ago. But public disorder is way, way up. I know plenty of women who live in the DC suburbs (where I live) who tell me this when they go into DC. Way too many CVS stores in cities like DC have basic products locked up.
2. I think it helps to take the long view on crime, but we can't discount that a large number Boomers remember what life was like before crime starting spiking in the late 60's and how that trajectory lasted until the mid-90s'.
Nick Wright bemoans the loss of local news media but local news media covered crime, especially violent crime, in a pretty aggressive and sensationalistic manner when I was a kid in the 90s!
Nick Wright is a LeBron Homer! But, I found him incredibly insightful and wise in his defense of Kendrick Perkins. Like, WTF JJ?! It's true he stepped on Perk's neck. And why?!? JJ does act a bit too smug for "First Take". That show is for sound-bites. I get there is money in it. But, seriously JJ, stick to Podcasts! There you at least give people a fair opportunity to articulate all their thoughts, not pick on a guy for expressing what a lot of people do think, no matter how clumsy Perk came off expressing it. It was a bad look for the show on the whole. Guess the Duke douchery needs to come out every now and then, huh JJ?
Can't agree on this one. Perk was clearly insinuating, repeatedly and with great emphasis, that MVP voters have historically had a racial bias. And he backed it up with incorrect information. JJ rightly called him on it, and I agree with JJ - there is no evidence of racial bias in the MVP vote. Race is a massive issue, but not everything is down to race.
And Jokic is a rightful MVP candidate just as Giannis and Joel are. I see no issue with either of his past MVPs. It's the regular season MVP, not the playoffs, not the Finals - who is the most valuable player to their team in the regular season? Hard to argue that Jokic has not been that over the past few years.
I'm not denying that Perk is calling out racial bias in the MVP vote. And while I don't exactly agree with him, I don't exactly disagree with him, either. I just thought JJ went for Perk's throat, and it was just like a WTF, moment. Perk wasn't as eloquent as he could have been, but he still would have caused disagreements, even if he was. But, JJ just reacted in a way that seemed like he was way more fragile about the situation then I was expecting from him.
I jumped out of bed with glee when I heard your Westbrook MVP take. I’ve always hated that MVP. Jokic is my favorite player but it will never sit right with me that a player on a 6th seed won MVP.
Nick, albeit a talented take artist, spends way more time picking apart arguments about Jordan than Jordan himself. His go-to is “1 playoff win without Pippen.” What he neglects to mention is pippen averaged 7 ppg as a rookie in the same year jordan averaged 35, won mvp, scoring title, dpoy, all star mvp, and dunk contest in the first year the bulls made round 2, after jordan averaged 45 in round 1. But I guess without pippen none of that would’ve been possible
I think Nick has been insufferable on every other format I’ve heard him on including Colin but your last pod with him made me have a new respect for him. Great pod this go round, I’m with you on Jordan and that end result to me is ineluctable. There’s something about the mystique and mythos of Mike which was emblematic of that pre social media era juxtaposed to Lebron who has just become a vile man. Something horrifying happened on the grounds of his school and as much as he flaps that beak about every triviality and soup of the day social Justice outlier, the one subject he wasn’t poppin off about was the loss of life in his school parking lot. Add in Mike’s closer instinct and classic commercials and one is simply an American hero and historical monument, the other is just an odious fraud everywhere but the court. Nick is a bit dogmatic for my liking but an all around good guy, great episode Ethan.
He's right about Jokic's brothers. That would be looked at quite differently if they were black. But Jokic didn't 'end Morris' season.' And leaving out all the context of the shove is pretty disingenuous.
Super thrilled to hear my Oscars MVP take getting some run on HOS, made my day.
Here's the thing with Nick Wright...he told us who he was last time on the pod, he sees himself as a defense lawyer or a debate champion. I'm not from NYC, but my ears perked up when he tried to sneak by the "New York has less crime than 35 years ago" take. Wow what an oddly specific data point! I'm sure there's no reason he chose that number...
So you have this dude on, and as always he seems reasonable and normal and then you guys get right to the end and he starts telling whoppers. Why exactly would you concede that LeBron was better than Jordan at 18-22? Michael Jordan was winning NCAA Championships and Olympic Gold Medals! But he tricks you into conceding this.
LeBron has proven he can win with different players and coaches? Ummm...hasn't he mostly proved the opposite? Hasn't he left a trail of destruction everywhere he left? Doesn't Michael Jordan's empowering of Phil Jackson and coexisting with Dean Smith and Bobby Knight at least make this a moot poot? But he gets the listener to concede this.
And this is the brilliance of Nick Wright...even if this were true, it's not a foundational part of the conversation. Nick knows that if he speaks really fast and goes on long runs making subjective statements about things that aren't relevant, you'll be arguing about whether Mark Furman is racist and not the other thing.
Bill Russell won even more IS NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR LEBRON JAMES IT'S AN ARGUMENT FOR BILL RUSSELL. But we're on to the next point and the next point and arguing HOF teammates and era and all this tedious opinion based stuff.
Everyone who experienced the Jordan years can spit out the relevant argument ending details of his Paul Bunyan career, so they don't really need to get in the weeds about how he has the #1 Usage of all time but the 39th TOV%, or how as of January he had 300-some more offensive rebounds than LeBron in 300 less games, or that he's the RAPTOR GOAT before RAPTOR was a thing.
But that's too many stats, this is a Nick Wright conversation after all. On those terms, it is undeniable that every non-big since Jordan has been compared to Jordan and not really anyone else. Vince Carter, Stackhouse, Grant Hill, Penny, Wade, Kobe and LeBron. He has been the standard. Does anyone really think that the next big thing will be compared to LeBron and not Jordan? Why is that?
I subscribed just to respond to this lunacy.
At Age 21, Michael Jordan was the third overall pick in the NBA draft, won Rookie of the Year, was an All-Star, 2nd team All-NBA, and lost in the first round of the playoffs to a Milwaukee team that got torched in round two by the 76ers.
At Age 21, LeBron James had already won Rookie of the Year, was a two-time All-Star, made All-NBA first and second team, and carried Ronald Murray, Larry Hughes, Big Z and Drew Gooden to a seven-game second round series against the Pistons, who had just played in the NBA Finals the previous year. A year later LeBron carried a handful of misfit toys all the way to the NBA FInals on his back.
The idea that Jordan was a better 18-22 year old is an absolute joke. For the greatness that was Michael Jordan, there is zero data to back up the stance that he was a better player at 21 or 22 than LeBron, who was the most highly-touted amateur player in the history of basketball and by 22 had already achieved more as a professional than MJ.
Next point, LeBron could win with anyone. He did. That's just a fact. MJ had Doug Collins and then Phil Jackson, who with all due respect to Red, Jackson is the greatest head coach in NBA history. The idea that MJ empowered Phil and not the other way around is ridiculous when Phil would go on to win multiple rings with Kobe and Shaq while MJ never won a ring without Jackson and in fact struggled to win playoff games, let alone series, without Phil or Doug calling the shots.
So on one hand, MJ gets Phil Jackson. And on the other, you have Frank Vogel, Tyronn Lue, Erik Spoelstra and David Blatt who have all been to an NBA Finals or won a ring off of LeBron.
And this idea that LeBron leaves this wave of destruction everywhere he goes. Did you not see what happened to the Bulls when Michael abandoned them after 98? When he took his ball and went home because he didn't want to play no more? They spent six years recovering from what he left them with. They never won more than 30 games in that stretch and won less than 25 in five of those six seasons. Talk about a path of destruction.
And yeah, LeBron won rings with Wade and Bosh, then won a ring with Kyrie and then another with AD. Seems like he can win with a lot of different kinds of players but I guess that's not good enough for some people.
Bill Russell winning more is not an argument for LeBron, you scream into the night while clutching your red and white 23 jersey, and maybe it's not, but it's definitely an argument against Michael and the Ring Counters, which was his point, and was also his point with Kareem.
Only by ring count has MJ had a better professional career than LeBron. LeBron has done it longer, at a higher level, with more players and coaches, for different teams, and when we look back in twenty years at the guy who finished as the NBA scoring leader and was also third in assists and top 35 in rebounds, with all of the other hardware and accolades that came along with it, who scored more with greater efficiency, it's going to look like a joke debate.
This is neither a persuasive or logical argument on any level.
If the only argument I had was RAPTOR rankings and SIX RINGS I'd be quick to dismiss people when they point out my shortcomings too. Well-reasoned on your part.
Really enjoyed the debate. Will come back to the media stuff in another response.
No doubt Nick Wright is a skilled rhetoricist, and makes some interesting contrary takes - his career is clearly based on contrarianism, and I have no problem with that. Also not suggesting he is disingenuous.
But oh lordy did he use a lot of bait and switch, change the goalposts, etc in the MJ vs LBJ thing. There is no-one stopping us discussing MJ in the 80s - we aren't confined "to discussing MJ's 6 championship years" - just as we can't ignore LBJ's first 8 years as he failed time and again to come through when it mattered, and when he reached one Finals and was EMBARRASSED by a Tony Parker-led Spurs. Yes, TP was MVP in a 4-0 sweep over LBJ. Nick failed to mention that, and LBJ's repeated failures from 2009-11, and so on. But I'm fine with that as long as you acknowledge those are LBJ's formative stages, just as the '80s were MJ's, because fairness demands we acknowledge them in both directions.
But MJ's WIzard years? Come on. Does not belong in the debate in any sense. They were an embarrassing abberation, an expression of MJ's competitive vanity and ego and bore no resemblance to his actual core career. Come on Nick.
And btw, MJ was not just "about his scoring" - the guy was an All Defensive Teamer, put up huge rebound totals when the team needed it, did EVERYTHING ON THE COURT. You'd know that if you lived through the era and watched him play. He was an absolute monster in every facet of the game. So don't give me that revisionist bullshit.
PS Not a Bulls fan. Spurs fan. I had to watch DRob play his arse off with a substandard team year after year and get stomped by Hakeem - who I also respect massively - during his one chance to actually get to the Finals (without Timmy). But I believe in calling things truthfully, and MJ was THE DOMINANT PLAYER in an era full of them.
Knocking LeBron for losing in the Finals at age 22 to one of the NBA's best Super Teams before we even called them Super Teams when at the same age Michael Jordan was getting swept in the first round is exactly Nick's point.
You discounting LeBron's achievements and calling them failures to discount his career for getting to the Finals with Larry Hughes and Anderson Varejao but Michael CAN'T EVEN GET TO THE SECOND ROUND without Scottie and Horace Grant is *exactly* what Nick means by the double standard to which we hold LeBron compared to Michael.
And you saying that we can't hold Michael's Wizard years against him when he was the same age at the time that LeBron is right now is exactly why LBJ scoring 29 a game at his age is so unprecedented and should be a part of the discussion, because unlike MJ LeBron has maintained his level of excellence, for longer, and didn't quit the sport for three years only to come back as a shell. LeBron been here doing that to people for twenty years now.
MJ and LBJ both had formative stages in their careers that lasted about the same length of time - they both truly hit their stride mid-career, at about year 8. Wright tried to hold that against MJ while ignoring it for LBJ - didn't make one reference to it, because of course it weakens his argument. Clear double standard. And he did that an awful lot in his LBJ is better than MJ arguments. But that's fine, it's what he does for a living. Some of us out here notice the rhetorical sleight of hand though.
MJ had a higher peak, and his Finals record shits all over LBJ's. However, I can see the argument that LBJ's prolonged excellence suggests he has had a better overall career. Which one you prefer depends on whether you care more about stats or rings, I guess.
See, this is the problem with the argument, because you can not make a credible case that LeBron had a worse early career, or even an early career on par with what Jordan accomplished.
By age 22 LeBron had a Finals appearance, an MVP, three All- Stars and three All-NBA selections (second team twice, first team once). By all measurements, LeBron by 22 had already established himself.
Jordan at 22 had two All-Stars and made All-NBA second team once, missed almost an entire season with an injury and had gotten bounced in the first round of the playoffs twice.
Both won rookie of the year.
So when you say that they both had "formative periods" that lasted roughly the same amount of time I don't know what you're talking about or what you're looking at to make that claim. And not referencing LeBron's early greatness certainly does not "weaken his argument" at all. If anything, not referencing it is a blessing to MJ stans who want to believe that he was always great forever when in reality, he couldn't get out of round one without Pippen and Grant next to him.
Ethan- could you please talk about the Wiggins situation? It is beyond ridiculous how sportwriters are avoiding talking about a situation that likely has cost the warriors at least five games.
It also is a prime example that it is NEVER worth it to attempt to censor a story. The story will always get out and it will be 10 times worse having twitter and reddit speculate rather than just coming out with it.
The other thing that is driving me crazy is that wiseman was cast out because it was so fucking important to utilize curry’s championship window, but then they make excuses for Wiggins to be away from the team for complete nonsense. Again, a last championship run is likely being fumbled away because wiggins left the team- this is THE story and no one will talk about it.
Its nuts.
I agree with you that as an NBA fan, I'm disappointed by how little we know about the Wiggins situation (and the Udoka one as well). But, to call it "complete nonsense" is a bit too callous of a take. While, I can and will criticize the lack of transparent coverage on two of the biggest stories of the year, I'm not going to be so flippant as to act like Andrew Wiggins owes me or anyone anything. That's ultimately up to the Warriors organization...and with the Udoka situation, the Celtics Org. If anything Karma seems to be rearing it's ugly head. As I would put some good money on neither of those teams making the finals this year.
Regarding the news media and truth/bias/agenda/propaganda, I was very interested to hear Ethan comment with his economist hat on and say he didn't like the incentives when media is publically owned. What about the incentives when it is owned by billionaires and shareholders?
When news media is for profit - note I'm specifically referring to NEWS media, not entertainment media - the news is twisted into one of two things:
1. maximising clicks/eyeballs - so, pressing the fear/outrage button in people's heads as much as possible, then finishing the bulletin with a cutesy story to divert them from all the fear manipulation you just put them through;
2. the personal agenda of the billionaire in charge - see Fox and Rupert's Ayn Randian crusade against taxes, government, climate action, action on rampant and growing inequality, etc.
Rather than being about truth, news becomes driven by either profit or propaganda (or both), and everyone loses. Power is not held to account, and everything is framed through lens 1. or lens 2.
Like health, justice and social security, news media is not a sector that should ever be run for profit. Truth should be the primary driver, not money or personal agenda.
My experience of publically owned media is pretty positive. In Australia the ABC (our equivalent of the BBC) is funded by the federal govt but independent with its own board. Unfortunately that board is appointed by the government of the day, but that has not prevented the ABC from being critical of the government. Usually the board seems to do its job with the public interest in mind, even when the government of the day strangles its funding. We also have the part publically funded Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), which was set up to broadcast to minority communities, and is also nt afraid to criticise the government of the day. In contrast, the modern BBC has become very beholden to the Tories.
There is no perfect solution, but I think a publically funded, independent network is the best model we have. It's far better than the profit or billionaire controlled model.
I hope Jokic wins a championship solely to shut Nick Wright the hell up. I don’t watch his show or follow him on any platform yet still come across him way too much.
I can relate to Nick’s challenges around having a very attractive spouse and people wondering why she married me.
Two big things when it comes to crime.
1. Yes, crime is down in big cities compared to 30-20 years ago, and slightly up compared to five years ago. But public disorder is way, way up. I know plenty of women who live in the DC suburbs (where I live) who tell me this when they go into DC. Way too many CVS stores in cities like DC have basic products locked up.
2. I think it helps to take the long view on crime, but we can't discount that a large number Boomers remember what life was like before crime starting spiking in the late 60's and how that trajectory lasted until the mid-90s'.
Nick Wright bemoans the loss of local news media but local news media covered crime, especially violent crime, in a pretty aggressive and sensationalistic manner when I was a kid in the 90s!
Nick Wright is a LeBron Homer! But, I found him incredibly insightful and wise in his defense of Kendrick Perkins. Like, WTF JJ?! It's true he stepped on Perk's neck. And why?!? JJ does act a bit too smug for "First Take". That show is for sound-bites. I get there is money in it. But, seriously JJ, stick to Podcasts! There you at least give people a fair opportunity to articulate all their thoughts, not pick on a guy for expressing what a lot of people do think, no matter how clumsy Perk came off expressing it. It was a bad look for the show on the whole. Guess the Duke douchery needs to come out every now and then, huh JJ?
Can't agree on this one. Perk was clearly insinuating, repeatedly and with great emphasis, that MVP voters have historically had a racial bias. And he backed it up with incorrect information. JJ rightly called him on it, and I agree with JJ - there is no evidence of racial bias in the MVP vote. Race is a massive issue, but not everything is down to race.
And Jokic is a rightful MVP candidate just as Giannis and Joel are. I see no issue with either of his past MVPs. It's the regular season MVP, not the playoffs, not the Finals - who is the most valuable player to their team in the regular season? Hard to argue that Jokic has not been that over the past few years.
I'm not denying that Perk is calling out racial bias in the MVP vote. And while I don't exactly agree with him, I don't exactly disagree with him, either. I just thought JJ went for Perk's throat, and it was just like a WTF, moment. Perk wasn't as eloquent as he could have been, but he still would have caused disagreements, even if he was. But, JJ just reacted in a way that seemed like he was way more fragile about the situation then I was expecting from him.
Ethan, please make Nick one of your more regular guests. He's great!
I jumped out of bed with glee when I heard your Westbrook MVP take. I’ve always hated that MVP. Jokic is my favorite player but it will never sit right with me that a player on a 6th seed won MVP.
Unrelated, Strauss, you got scooped:
https://youtu.be/IBP5NUDP28A
Nick, albeit a talented take artist, spends way more time picking apart arguments about Jordan than Jordan himself. His go-to is “1 playoff win without Pippen.” What he neglects to mention is pippen averaged 7 ppg as a rookie in the same year jordan averaged 35, won mvp, scoring title, dpoy, all star mvp, and dunk contest in the first year the bulls made round 2, after jordan averaged 45 in round 1. But I guess without pippen none of that would’ve been possible
I think Nick has been insufferable on every other format I’ve heard him on including Colin but your last pod with him made me have a new respect for him. Great pod this go round, I’m with you on Jordan and that end result to me is ineluctable. There’s something about the mystique and mythos of Mike which was emblematic of that pre social media era juxtaposed to Lebron who has just become a vile man. Something horrifying happened on the grounds of his school and as much as he flaps that beak about every triviality and soup of the day social Justice outlier, the one subject he wasn’t poppin off about was the loss of life in his school parking lot. Add in Mike’s closer instinct and classic commercials and one is simply an American hero and historical monument, the other is just an odious fraud everywhere but the court. Nick is a bit dogmatic for my liking but an all around good guy, great episode Ethan.
He's right about Jokic's brothers. That would be looked at quite differently if they were black. But Jokic didn't 'end Morris' season.' And leaving out all the context of the shove is pretty disingenuous.