The media always wants more. More information, more access, more time.
There’s a good reason for this. Having all this makes it possible to tell accurate and robust stories. Stories are significant in the games of sports and the business of sports. Fans, the paying customers who buy tickets, jerseys, and apps to watch the games, consume these stories. The lifelong emotional connections leagues bank on are forged this way.
Journalists were the sole entity bringing these stories to the public for decades. That’s no longer the case with the rise of the internet age and social media; other platforms are available. Athletes, in particular, feel like they don’t need traditional media when they can create podcasts and monetize their stories. However, what hasn’t changed is that reporters and columnists trained in old-school journalism are still the best equipped to tell these stories.
The NBA needs to realize this and do more to assist the media covering the league. ESPN’s Mike Breen and Brian Windhorst have recently complained about reduced player access. Some fans might respond to this grievance with yawning indifference. Others might interpret the grumbling as entitlement. While the public might have a low opinion of the media, the NBA knows how significant the media’s role can be in its business.
This is a crucial time for the NBA.
The league is returning to NBC in October, and this broadcasting partner is hellbent on embracing as much 90s nostalgia as possible. From bringing back Roundball Rock to adding Michael Jordan to its coverage, the network is embracing the past. None of this happens without the approval of the NBA. Part of those throwback vibes should include revisiting expanded media access.
The league and its players’ union seem content with doing the bare minimum. Press conferences and media availability are essential. However, as many beat reporters will tell you, the best stories come from spending time with and connecting with players, sometimes on subjects that have little to do with basketball. Players learn to trust certain reporters, and reporters develop sources. This mutually beneficial relationship might start in a locker room or a more informal setting.
The mining of sources for great storytelling led to “The Jordan Rules,” one of the most famous sports books ever. The bestseller was written in the early 90s by Sam Smith, who covered the Bulls for the Chicago Tribune. This inside look at Jordan and the Bulls was groundbreaking, taking us beyond the mythology. That book contributed to the aura of those Bulls teams that still exist today.
The access Smith had enjoyed then is considerably more difficult to obtain today. Players are more reluctant to go beyond league-mandated sessions. In one sense, who could blame them for the proliferation of hot-take arguments and on-air talent bashing the current state of the game? But the media is not a monolith. Not everyone thinks the same, and many talented people who cover the NBA chose their careers because they love basketball.
Baxter Holmes of ESPN, Adam Himmelsbach of The Boston Globe, Danielle Lerner of The Houston Chronicle, and Mike Curtis of The Dallas Morning News are some of the dogged reporters who have thrived. More players should trust them and others with their stories.
For all the discussion about the NBA’s perceived problems (ratings, style of play), the playoffs have been fun. Parity has made the league more unpredictable than ever. The NBA will try to capitalize on this momentum and its new broadcasting partnerships.
If it’s truly interested in growing the game, it will look to increase media access. While no one should be compelled to talk to reporters, the NBA and the union can do more to educate players on the benefits of talking to the media one-on-one. Great athletes expect the best, and seasoned, knowledgeable reporters are the best at telling their stories.