ESPN’s Marc Spears thought he was joining a podcast to discuss new media vs the old media, but he was caught off guard when host and former NBA player Etan Thomas compared Stephen A. Smith to Tucker Carlson.
Generally, the new media vs old media debate has been cordial, aside from some name-calling and the need from Skip Bayless to dramatize anything that includes his name. When Thomas welcomed Spears and David Aldridge, two veteran NBA reporters to the show, they likely expected a somewhat light-hearted discussion about the media landscape.
Thomas, a former NBA player known for his social activism can bring a different perspective to the conversation and was interested in a deeper discussion about the dangers of media members being able to influence the masses. But his hot take on the power that Smith carries over society is what led Spears to eventually state he regretted going on Thomas’s podcast.
“Stephen A. Smith has the same power over the minds of the masses that Tucker Carlson has over the right,” Thomas claimed during his discussion with Spears and Aldridge.
“I respectfully regret doing this podcast,” Spears wrote on Twitter a few days after the podcast was posted. “It was very disappointing that the sports takes from @stephenasmith would be compared to someone who spews racism & mistruths. @stephenasmith is a legendary sports journalist whose job is to tell it like it is from his view. Not spew hate.”
Respectfully Marc you missed the entire point of the analogy. I explained during our debate (which I thought was a great exchange of opposing ideas) I wasn’t comparing the ppl or their content but the level of power over their audiences & yes with power comes great responsibility
— Etan Thomas (@etanthomas36) July 7, 2022
“Respectfully Marc you missed the entire point of the analogy,” Thomas replied. “I explained during our debate (which I thought was a great exchange of opposing ideas) I wasn’t comparing the ppl or their content but the level of power over their audiences & yes with power comes great responsibility”
I agree with Thomas that there was a great exchange of opposing ideas during the podcast. It was nice to have a former player speaking to members of the “old media” for this debate. But the impact Smith has over sports fans could have been expressed without invoking Tucker Carlson.
If you want to argue Stephen A. Smith has influence over sports fans, that’s fine, but comparing him to Tucker Carlson implies that he’s as reckless as the Fox News host. It also assumes the things Smith says on First Take are depicted as facts when in reality, they’re consumed and shared as his opinions.
The other big difference between sports fans and Carlson fans is that sports fans are not all like-minded individuals. Smith’s audience on First Take features as many people who disagree with him as there are people who agree with him. Carlson’s audience, however, is mostly comprised of people who take his word as gospel, which only further inspires the Fox News host to keep rallying his mob of followers.
Now let’s assume that both Smith and Carlson have audiences who equally treat the hosts’ opinions as gospel. What’s the worst thing that happens when Smith’s audience rallies around his words? They root against the Dallas Cowboys? And what’s the worst thing that happens when Carlson’s audience rallies around his words? An insurrection.
Both hosts should be held accountable if they say something reckless, as Thomas noted. That’s fair. Stephen A. Smith was justly held accountable when he said something reckless such as Shohei Ohtani can’t be the face of Major League Baseball. But to compare Smith’s impact on the masses to that of Carlson’s is reckless in itself.
