Latest
Jemele Hill is right: WNBA fans expect journalists to be ‘cheerleaders,’ and that’s not how this works
For years, one of the loudest complaints from WNBA players and fans was that nobody took the league seriously.
The coverage wasn’t robust enough. The TV deals weren’t big enough. The salaries weren’t high enough. The facilities weren’t good enough. The media didn’t pay enough attention.
Well congratulations, WNBA. You’ve made it.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE OUTKICK SPORTS COVERAGE
The league is booming, attendance is soaring and ratings are up. Players are making significantly more money under a new CBA tied to a media rights package reportedly worth more than $3 billion. Teams are building state-of-the-art practice facilities that rival — and in some cases surpass — what NBA players have access to.
The WNBA is no longer fighting for relevance. But with that relevance comes scrutiny.
Jemele Hill addressed this issue this week on her “Flagrant and Funny” podcast after she faced backlash for criticizing the WNBA’s restrictive locker-room media access policies. Hill argued that for years, many fans viewed journalists covering women’s basketball as part of the movement rather than as independent observers.
“There’s more people covering the league now, it’s under more scrutiny, and (the fans) have had the expectation that the journalists are supposed to be extensions of teams. And the journalists are not supposed to be that,” Hill said.
“They expect our jobs to be to support the women. And while the support is, to me, in the fact that we have built an entire podcast around discussing women’s sports and all the culture and the issues and all the things that come with it, they expect the journalists to be cheerleaders.”
She’s spot on.
For a very long time, coverage of the WNBA often resembled advocacy more than journalism. That’s not necessarily malicious. The league was smaller. Women’s sports historically received less investment and less respect. Many reporters covering the W genuinely cared about helping grow the game.
Frankly, I understand that instinct. As a woman in sports myself, I know the struggle is real sometimes. I get it. Hell, I interned in the Indiana Fever PR department in 2009 when they couldn’t even give away tickets. So I’ve had a front row seat to watch the growth of the sport.
But somewhere along the way, a portion of the WNBA ecosystem — fans, players and even some media members — started treating criticism as betrayal.
That’s a problem. Because tough questions are not “disrespect,” and pointing out poor play is not “misogyny.” And journalists are not supposed to function as an extension of league PR departments.
That tension has become increasingly obvious as the WNBA grows into a legitimate mainstream sports property attracting broader coverage from outlets outside the league’s longtime inner circle.
You can see it in the outrage over reporters asking uncomfortable questions. You can see it in the league’s restrictive media access policies. You can see it whenever players or fans accuse journalists of “not supporting women” simply because coverage wasn’t glowing enough.
Last year, veteran reporter Christine Brennan faced backlash — including a formal statement from the WNBPA — after asking DiJonai Carrington whether contact with Caitlin Clark during a controversial play was intentional. Critics argued Brennan was “pushing a narrative.”
More recently, reporters criticizing the WNBA’s limited locker-room access policies (including Jemele Hill) were treated with vitriol as if locker-room interviews are pervy and invasive. Even though they are the norm in every single major professional men’s sport.
Last month, Dallas Wings PR abruptly shut down a reporter’s question to rookie Azzi Fudd about navigating the spotlight alongside teammate and rumored girlfriend Paige Bueckers. Dawn Staley slammed a CBS reporter as “biased” because he dared to refer to a couple of Golden State Valkyries players by name.
And then there’s the growing hostility toward media access altogether. Angel Reese recently said she’d rather pay a fine than speak to aggressive reporters, a stance applauded by Megan Rapinoe as empowering.
We’ve reached a point where saying a player had a terrible game can trigger accusations of sexism or “agenda-driven” coverage. Meanwhile, male athletes get ripped to shreds 24/7 on television, radio, podcasts and social media without anyone questioning whether the existence of criticism itself is harmful to the sport.
That double standard does women’s sports no favors. In fact, I’d argue it’s insulting.
Equality in sports doesn’t mean female athletes only deserve positive coverage. It means they deserve to be treated like professionals whose performances, decisions and controversies are worthy of honest analysis — the good and the bad.
THE WNBA’S WINGS CAN’T SHIELD AZZI FUDD, PAIGE BUECKERS FROM RELATIONSHIP QUESTIONS FOREVER
And to be clear, there absolutely are bad-faith actors out there. There are internet trolls who don’t watch the WNBA, don’t care about women’s basketball and only engage with the sport to stir up culture war nonsense or demean female athletes.
But credentialed journalists doing fair, objective reporting are not the enemy.
I say that as someone whose platform hasn’t always had a harmonious relationship with the WNBA. There was a time when getting credentialed to cover games felt like pulling teeth for outlets perceived as unfriendly to the league. Even now, there’s still an undeniable sense that parts of WNBA media culture operate like an exclusive club.
If the WNBA truly wants to be treated like the major professional sports league it has worked so hard to become, then it has to accept everything that comes with that territory.
Million-dollar salaries. Chartered flights. State-of-the-art facilities. Met Gala invitations.
But also scrutiny, uncomfortable questions and accountability.
Latest
BREAKING: US Diplomat Found Dead
An American diplomat assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Myanmar has been found dead under mysterious circumstances, prompting a murder investigation that has already led to charges against a Thai national in the military-ruled Southeast Asian nation.
The State Department confirmed the death of the embassy employee but has remained tight-lipped about the details surrounding the case, citing privacy concerns for the diplomat’s family and loved ones.
“Out of respect for the privacy of the family and loved ones, we have no further information to provide at this time,” the State Department said in an emailed reply to questions from The Associated Press.
American officials stationed in neighboring Thailand, along with representatives from the U.S. Embassy in Myanmar, referred all inquiries back to the State Department, underscoring the sensitivity of the investigation and the limited public information that has been released so far.
According to members of Myanmar’s diplomatic community, the diplomat was discovered dead on May 11 at the Sakura Residence & Hotel in Yangon. The property serves as a long-term residence for diplomats, foreign business executives, aid workers, and other international visitors. Located roughly one mile from the U.S. Embassy, the hotel has long been considered a secure location frequently used by members of the diplomatic corps.
The circumstances surrounding the diplomat’s death remain unclear, and authorities have provided few public details about what investigators believe occurred inside the residence.
However, significant developments emerged this week when a Thai woman appeared in court and was formally charged in connection with the case. According to two attorneys familiar with the proceedings, the woman faces a murder charge as well as a separate immigration-related offense under Myanmar law.
If convicted, the penalties could be severe. Under Myanmar’s legal system, a murder conviction can carry a sentence ranging from 10 years in prison to life imprisonment or even the death penalty, depending on the circumstances of the case and the court’s findings.
Thailand’s Foreign Ministry confirmed that it has been providing consular assistance to the accused woman and has notified her family about the case. Officials declined to comment further on the allegations or the evidence being presented by prosecutors.
The case is unfolding against the backdrop of ongoing instability in Myanmar, which has been engulfed in political turmoil and armed conflict since the military seized power in a 2021 coup that ousted the democratically elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi.
Since then, the ruling military junta has faced growing resistance from pro-democracy groups, ethnic militias, and armed opposition forces. The conflict has expanded into a nationwide civil war that has left thousands dead and displaced millions, while drawing international condemnation from Western governments, including the United States.
The country’s military government maintains strict control over information, making independent reporting and transparency difficult. Authorities rarely release detailed information regarding criminal investigations, particularly those involving foreign nationals or diplomatic personnel.
Consistent with that pattern, police officials, prison authorities, and court representatives have all declined to publicly discuss the case involving the American diplomat. No official explanation has been provided regarding the cause of death, potential motives, or evidence supporting the charges against the Thai woman.
For now, many questions remain unanswered. U.S. officials have offered little information beyond confirming the diplomat’s death, while Myanmar authorities continue to conduct their investigation largely behind closed doors.
As the case moves through Myanmar’s judicial system, American officials, members of the diplomatic community, and the diplomat’s family are awaiting further answers about what led to the death of a U.S. government employee serving overseas in one of the world’s most volatile regions.
Latest
Supreme Court Delivers Landmark Midterm Decision With 6-1 Ruling
Florida Republicans notched a major victory this week after the Florida Supreme Court handed Gov. Ron DeSantis and GOP lawmakers a significant legal win, ruling that the state’s newly drawn congressional map will remain in place for the 2026 midterm elections.
In a decisive 6-1 ruling, the court rejected an emergency effort by left-leaning voting-rights organizations seeking to block the map before voters head to the polls this fall. The decision ensures that Florida’s elections will proceed under the congressional districts approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature during a special session earlier this year, bringing much-needed certainty to the state’s electoral process.
The legal challenge was brought by the Equal Ground Education Fund and several allied groups, which claimed the map was drawn to benefit Republicans and therefore violated Florida’s Fair Districts Amendment. That amendment, approved by voters in 2010, prohibits lawmakers from intentionally drawing districts to favor or disadvantage a political party.
The plaintiffs sought an injunction that would have prevented the map from taking effect while their broader lawsuit continued through the court system. However, Florida’s highest court declined to intervene.
Writing for the majority, the court emphasized that the case should proceed through the normal judicial process before the Supreme Court becomes involved.
“At this time, we do not have jurisdiction over that matter,” the majority opinion stated.
The justices further made clear that they would not assume future rulings from lower courts would automatically warrant Supreme Court review, signaling a commitment to allowing the judicial process to play out as designed.
The ruling provides stability for Florida voters, election officials, and candidates as the election season rapidly approaches. With candidate qualifying deadlines looming and election preparations already underway, the court’s decision removes uncertainty that could have disrupted the electoral process.
Justice Jorge Labarga was the lone dissenter.
Labarga argued that the court should have immediately stepped in because of the statewide significance of the dispute and the fast-approaching election calendar.
“Unfortunately, for now, and with a filing deadline and an election fast approaching, we will not have the opportunity to review the issues of statewide importance raised in the petitioners’ efforts to enjoin Florida’s 2026 congressional map,” Labarga wrote.
Notably, Labarga remains the only member of the Florida Supreme Court who was not appointed by a Republican governor.
The decision marks yet another victory for DeSantis, who has consistently argued that Florida’s congressional districts should comply with recent federal court rulings limiting the use of race in redistricting decisions. The governor has maintained that districts drawn primarily around racial considerations face increasing constitutional scrutiny and should be revisited to ensure compliance with federal law.
Following those court rulings, DeSantis pushed for changes to portions of Florida’s congressional map that had previously been crafted with race-based considerations in mind. Rather than waiting for lawmakers to formulate a proposal, the governor’s office took an active role in developing a new map.
Jason Poreda, an aide to DeSantis, drafted the congressional plan that was ultimately presented to lawmakers. Republican legislators later adopted the proposal without making changes, reflecting strong support for the governor’s approach.
Predictably, Democrats and voting-rights activists immediately objected to the new districts, citing testimony regarding partisan voting data and public statements discussing potential Republican advantages under the map. Supporters of the plan countered that the changes were driven by evolving legal standards and recent court decisions, not partisan considerations.
Florida’s 28 congressional seats make it one of the nation’s most influential political battlegrounds. Republicans believe the new map could help solidify the party’s position in the state and strengthen efforts to maintain or expand the GOP majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The Florida case is part of a larger national battle over congressional redistricting as states across the country grapple with court rulings that continue to reshape election law. Republicans have increasingly argued that district maps should be based on constitutional principles and equal representation rather than race-based political engineering.
While the underlying lawsuit remains active and could continue through Florida’s courts, the Supreme Court’s decision ensures that the 2026 elections will move forward under the current map.
Justice Adam Tanenbaum highlighted that point in a separate concurring opinion, emphasizing the importance of certainty as election season nears.
“The people of Florida can rest assured that elections will take place this year,” Tanenbaum wrote.
His statement underscored what many Republicans view as the central takeaway from the ruling: Florida voters now have clarity, election officials can move forward with confidence, and the state’s democratic process can proceed without last-minute judicial interference.
Latest
The Moment Trump Supporters Have Waited For — Happens At 4pm
Here’s a rewritten version in a more engaging, conservative news style:
President Donald Trump signaled Thursday that his patience with Iran has run out, declaring there will be “no more negotiation” after accusing the regime of dragging out talks while continuing to resist U.S. demands.
During an appearance on Fox & Friends, Trump said Iran has squandered multiple opportunities to reach an agreement and warned that the United States remains prepared to increase pressure if Tehran refuses to comply.
“Well, that could happen if we want to keep going,” Trump said when asked about reports that Iran had been given a final ultimatum. “And the deal is a very good deal. The problem with the deal — it could be the greatest deal in history. They could wave the white flag of surrender.”
The president mocked media coverage that he believes has downplayed Iran’s deteriorating military position.
“‘We surrender. We’re finished. Praise be to Allah,’” Trump said, describing what he believes would be required before some outlets would acknowledge a U.S. victory. “And they could do all of this loud and clear, and the fake news would say it was a great victory for Iran.”
Trump then painted a grim picture of Iran’s military capabilities, claiming U.S. operations have crippled much of the country’s defensive infrastructure.
“We’re killing them. They have no navy. No air force. No anti-aircraft,” Trump said. “We are flying planes over the middle of Tehran and they don’t have any idea.”
According to Trump, U.S. actions have severely damaged Iran’s radar systems, missile launchers, drone capabilities, and air defenses.
“We’ve knocked out all their radar, all of their anti-aircraft, much of their missiles — probably less than 20%,” he said. “Most of their launchers, the missile launches, which is quite important. Their drone capacity is way down. Their attacks are very minor. They’re finished.”
The president also blasted major media outlets for what he described as misleading coverage of the conflict.
“And yet the fake news — just like with the election — the fake news is out there saying, ‘Wow, Iran is doing just so well. Trump is doing terribly,’” he said.
Trump specifically singled out MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, saying he recently watched a portion of Morning Joe and was stunned by the program’s portrayal of events.
“I watched it yesterday, one of his shows for five minutes,” Trump said. “This fake Joe Scarborough talking about how well Iran is doing. Where did that come from? It’s just the craziest thing.”
Despite Trump’s tougher rhetoric, Fox News anchor Bret Baier reported Wednesday that the president remains cautiously optimistic that a diplomatic resolution is still possible.
“I talked to him today, and there was this sense of optimism — cautious optimism — that they maybe get to a deal soon,” Baier said during America Reports.
At the same time, tensions remain high. Baier noted that Iranian state media announced a new authority intended to regulate traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical shipping routes. The proposal would require vessels to obtain authorization before crossing the strategic waterway, a move likely to face resistance from the international community.
Additional details emerged Wednesday regarding recent U.S. military operations. Fox News correspondent Trey Yingst revealed that Trump personally contacted him from the Situation Room shortly before American forces launched another wave of strikes against Iranian military targets.
According to Yingst, the president described the operation before it began, underscoring the administration’s confidence in its military strategy.
Following the strikes, Trump took to Truth Social to deliver a blunt assessment of Iran’s condition.
“Iran’s Military is a complete and total mess,” the president wrote.
With negotiations appearing increasingly fragile and military pressure intensifying, the coming days could prove decisive in determining whether Iran returns to the negotiating table—or faces even greater consequences from the United States.
-
Latest2 months agoVance Leaves Meeting, Looks Straight Into Camera, Announces Stunning Arrest
-
News2 months agoAdam Schiff Facing 30 Years In Prison After Bank Records Leak
-
Latest2 months agoSupreme Curt Sides With Trump — He Can Remove The All
-
News2 months agoAll Hell Breaks Loose On Fox When Jesse Watters Asks Fetterman One Question
-
News2 months agoNBC Stops LIVE Broadcast — Breaks Big Trump News
-
Latest2 months agoTrump Pulls Off Miracle Of A Lifetime — It’s Permanently Open
-
News2 months agoSwalwell Facing Jail Time After Sickening New Video Leaks
-
Latest1 month agoBarack Obama Just Made Insane Announcement About His Marriage
