Russell Westbrook is a lot of things—amazing basketball player, excellent fund-raiser, fashion connoisseur—but a media relations master he is not.
Westbrook often is standoffish, cocky and just plain rude to the media.
A recent interview following the Thunder’s 127-115 win against the Golden State Warriors was no exception.
Instead of commenting on his amazing game, which consisted of his ninth career triple double, contributing 17 points, a career high 17 assists, and matched his career best rebounds with 15, Westbrook chose to repeatedly give the same answer. He said the team “did a good job executing.”
Westbrook continued answering every question with some version of the “executing” phrase until local sports reporter and columnist Berry Tramel asked him if he was upset with something. That’s when Westbrook gave perhaps the only real answer in the entire interview. He told Tramel, “I just don’t like you.” Check out the interview and full transcript if you haven’t already seen it.
Sadly, the news that followed Westbrook after the game wasn’t his fabulous performance, but his interview response.
Westbrook may not like Tramel, and that’s ok. I should admit here that I know Berry, worked with him, and I think he’s a damn good journalist. I also recognize that Tramel tends to divide people with his sports views. He previously angered pretty much every Thunder fan by headlining a story about Kevin Durant “Mr. Unreliable.” Westbrook isn’t the first person not to like Tramel, and he won’t be the last. But Westbrook making a negative name for himself in the media helps further many people’s opinions that he’s just arrogant. It looks bad on him and the Thunder organization. Someone get this man some media training before his ego gets even more out of control!
That’s PR fail No. 1.
But The Oklahoman, where Tramel is employed, was not to be outdone.
Tramel published a column on The Oklahoman’s website, NewsOK, expressing his views about his conversation with Westbrook. The column was up for a couple of hours before it was removed. When the column, I’m Not the Only One Russell Westbrook Doesn’t Like, was republished, the original last line was missing. The line read:
When Russell Westbrook says ‘good execution’ to every question, what he’s really saying to the fans is, ‘I don’t like you.'”
I guess the editors didn’t think anyone would notice the change. Perhaps they don’t understand the Internet. It doesn’t allow for unringing bells.
That’s PR fail No. 2.
Once readers in the social realm began talking about the conspicuously missing sentence, NewsOK editors apparently felt they needed to respond. Erik Horne, web editor and producer for NewsOK sports, posted this on Twitter:
1. We collaborated as a team and decided to remove the graf. Editors make edits 2. Thunder did not call/contact us 3. Link was truly busted
— Erik Horne (@ErikHorneOK) January 19, 2015
It’s good that Horne responded to readers, but at least some of them wouldn’t know what he was talking about without context.
I understand problems online, and apparently there were some with this link. That really can’t be helped.
But the editors should have edited the column as they deemed fit before they posted it the first time. Yes, editors make edits. And they do so before publication.
If, for some crazy reason, they saw major problems with the last sentence after the column was posted, they should have included an editors’ note explaining why the change was made. But they didn’t then and they still haven’t. So, it just looks like they censored the last sentence after it already had been released, which automatically makes people think they were getting heat from somewhere. This clearly is where the second point in Horne’s tweet comes from.
That’s PR fail No. 3.
I’m a huge Thunder fan. I also worked as a full-time reporter at The Oklahoman and have a lot of respect for the editors and writers there. But this is the second time in recent memory that I think editors have done the wrong thing on the sports page.
The first was when editors apologized for the Mr. Unreliable headline. But, at least in that example they publicly explained and apologized for the mistake, perhaps because it was in print and they couldn’t just remove it? This time they just removed the information like no one would notice.
Bottom line: Westbrook needs to learn media relations and the editors at The Oklahoman/NewsOK need to think more critically about what they publish before they put it out there.
Let’s Talk Nerdy!
What do you think about the changes to Trammel’s column and how they occurred?
bobbyross says
Terrific post, Kenna! I actually tweeted the last line of the column yesterday. I didn’t realize they went back and edited it.
On the “Mr. Unreliable” headline, I remember reading a blog post where Berry noted that he was as surprised as anybody when he saw the headline. He wrote the column, not the headline.
profkrg says
bobbyross Thanks, Bobby!
I actually wondered about the headline thing when I wrote this. I never wrote any of my headlines, so I wondered if he’d even seen that one. I also remember being none too thrilled about some of them. It stinks for the reporter that our name is the only one there when a headline is bad.
I appreciate you reading and commenting. I hope my students have some thoughtful things to say about the ethics involved in NewsOK’s decision.
McNeill_Tweets says
By not providing an editor’s note, it seems to sort of insult the intelligence of their readers.
KyleWallace says
Prior to the issues with the Oklahoman, I heard about Westbrook’s terrible post game interview. Originally I was disappointed in how he responded and handled the situation, but now I’m more concerned with the way NewsOK responded.
Thunder fans know how big Westbrook’s ego is. Actually, I’m sure he knows how obnoxious he is. When you represented a brand, you shouldn’t make enemies of the media. They can be both your biggest advocate and your biggest enemy. But legally and ethically, Westbrook didn’t do anything wrong.
Comparatively, what The Oklahoman/NewsOK did was so much worse than a PR fail. They let down the people they’re most accountable to, the public. How can the public trust a news source who decides to “edit” their reporting after it has already been published. When you betray the trust of the people, you lose credibility. In the Washington Post’s Standards and Ethics guide (http://asne.org/content.asp?pl=236&sl=19&contentid=335), the second sentences end with “to serve the reader.” NewsOK isn’t serving the reader if they go back and change what they originally wrote without explaining why they made the change.
JustisHudd says
Prior to reading this I was unaware that the original article ended the way it did. After seeing the interview I’ll admit that I, like many, chuckled and thought to myself “who cares?” this is just another iteration of the Richard Sherman or Marshawn Lynch mentality that, while immature, is fully the right of sports icons to take on. However, after reading Tramel’s post the day after Westbrook’s interview I thought to myself, “well maybe Westbrook is just being a jerk here, Tramel has been defending him all this time!”
After seeing Tramel’s original ending, though, I can’t help but think that perhaps Westbrook was in line with his comments. Sure, it’s incredibly immature to blow off every reporters’ questions. But at the same time, these are the guys that are criticizing Westbrook one week, praising him the next day, then calling for his head the week after. To be honest, I would get fed up with it as well. If being one of the top two players on the state’s most popular team wasn’t enough pressure, Westbrook has to deal with reporters lambasting him for too many shots, or not sharing the ball, or whatever the flavor of criticism of the week is, but suddenly, when he has an incredible game, they sweeten back up and want to know what made that game so good. While Westbrook’s answers seem immature, perhaps they are simply a product of the stress we as a public put on him, a stress that the media only intensifies. Sure, it’s been a rough season, but let’s not forget how good the last four have been to us. But I digress…
Tramel’s original ending was petty. It sounds like a child on a playground whose toy was taken away. The minute he steals it back he breaks it, screaming, “if I can’t have it then no one can!” Tramel had his feelings hurt and decided that “surely it’s not that Westbrook doesn’t like me, everyone likes me, it’s that he doesn’t like anyone!” This is the reason that Westbrook doesn’t like him. He doesn’t come across as a professional reporter. To be frank, most reporters in sports media don’t come off as professional because they believe that any mistake, no matter how minute, is a fireable offense. Tramel referred to OKC’s most reliable, and inarguably, best player as “Mr. Unreliable.” If that’s not going to upset said player’s teammates, then I don’t know what will.
In the case of the editors– meh.
Sure, they screwed up. They should have edited the line out the first time it was published, but then the site went down (allegedly by accident) and they saw a chance to take something out. Of course not publicizing the edit was stupid, but to me, it seems to be the least stupid part of a very stupid sequence of events.
In conclusion give Westbrook and the editors a break. Leave Tramel on the burner.
Richard Mize says
Like. Agree. But even sloppy, unexplained editing is never, ever censorship. Governments and mobs do that.
FeliciaBrown says
In my opinion, just because Westbrook has a poor attitude when it comes to media relations I don’t necessarily believe it makes Thunder look bad. These guys are athletes, and most aren’t concerned on what people think of them which I admire. Yes, we all know Westbrook is arrogant but who cares? He and Durant carry the Thunder team and more importantly stimulate growth and national attraction to our state and economy. Thunder put us on the map.
The article Tramel wrote, “Mr. Unreliable.” Was tacky, inaccurate, and most of all just rude. KD and Westbrook are the most reliable players we have and he slams KD in that pos article. Articles like that are going to make players more likely to accept drafts and desire to change teams. Oklahoma can only offer these players so much in comparison to other conferences.
That being said, Westbrook’s response, “I just don’t like you,” was brutally honest but I’m not surprised he said it. KD is one of his best friends and his allegiance lies with him and the team. Not to the media.
Despite what people think of Westbrook, the issue is how The Oklahoman/News OK handled the situation.
To “edit” published material is unethical and unprofessional. Not only that, but you jeopardize the chance of losing the trust and credibility of the people.
MasonJordan says
I think the Oklahoman has been incredibly slow to adjust to having a professional sports team in town, and this situation is making it obvious. It seems to me there is an endless amount of “the sky is falling” or “is this the best team ever” hyperbole from the writers that cover the Thunder. And they are perpetually at odds with the players. Maybe this is because since the beginning of time the only sports to cover of significant import around OKC was OU and OSU football, and that is a truly life or death matter to some people in the state. It lends itself to hyperbole.
An 82 game season with world-wide coverage requires a little more finesse, and I just don’t think that’s something Tramel has ever had in his reporting style. I’m not sure anyone is really surprised that he finally ticked someone off like this. Russell’s response is childish to be sure, but to infer mounds of brooding hatred for writers and fans everywhere is a pretty big leap. A leap I assume is made in self defense by a writer who will never win a popularity contest with Russell. But that leads into another interesting response from the Oklahoman, and my biggest problem with this whole mess:
Darnell Mayberry’s story on a podcast the other day had one line that bugged the heck out of me. He flippantly tossed off Russell’s response and fans’ siding with Russell because (I’m paraphrasing here) “Fans will always side with the player no matter what, and that’s fine.” I think that response is indicative of the Oklahoman’s larger struggles. He refuses to even acknowledge the fact that reporters can suck at their job. Is it so unthinkable that Tramel has asked Russell the same inane question enough times that Russell doesn’t like him anymore? What if fans are siding with Russell because they don’t think he should have to put up with Tramel’s crap? What if they’re siding with Rusell because fans are tired of Tramel?
Kenna, are you sure you want to call Russell’s response a PR fail? I’m not willing to declare it so just yet Given the coverage from other outlets (NBAtv, ESPN, the general feeling from fans on social media), it seems like Russell’s experiencing a net gain in popularity over this. He’s got a persona that includes arrogance, but that’s part of his allure. The only truly harsh criticism I’ve witnessed is from the Oklahoman running damage control. ESPN’s Jalen Rose and Bill Simmons supported Russell’s response. TNT’s Ernie Johnson basically turned Tramel into the butt of a joke while interviewing Russell after last night’s game on NBAtv.
What if PR Fail #1 is instead this: whatever Tramel did to upset Russell. I haven’t heard anyone declare what that is, so it could be perfectly innocent or incredibly egregious. What if it goes beyond his reporting, and he and Barry just don’t get along? I just think it’s pretty weird that because there’s a sound bite of Russell telling Tramel he doesn’t like him, no one has searched for the reason why. It feels like people are just assuming “Well Russell’s historically kind of a jerk, and Barry’s a reporter so he was just doing his job.” The idea that reporters can ask upsetting questions or write about controversial things because it’s worth reporting doesn’t mean they’re free of any negative response from the subjects on whom they report. If Tramel has done something to piss Russell off, the fact that he’s a reporter doesn’t entitle him to sunshine and puppies from Russell after every game because he’s “just doing his job.”
This all feels like backtracking to cover for sloppy work. And it’s not the first time a reporter has done something to piss off a Thunder player. Anyone remember Perk calling out Mayberry on twitter? Does The Oklahoman need to think more critically about what they publish before they put it out there, or do they need to think more critically about the relationships their reporters have with the Thunder organization and who they let report on the Thunder?
BriannaBohland says
My first reaction when I heard the news that Russell Westbrook was “rude” to a reporter, was curiosity. I wanted to know why he was so rude, and when I found out that he told a reporter of The Oklahoman “I just don’t like you,” I was shocked that it was such big news. Reading this post, I realize it became of such importance because The Oklahoman published it in their article about Westbrook, and then later deleted it.
First of all, Westbrook is a great athlete, and it is not his job to be nice to the media or reporters. It is not even his job to have a conversation with the media, but it is in his contract to interact with them, and that is exactly what he did. He has a right not to like the reporter, Tramel, but I also do not think he needs media training. He gives them a short answer and wants to be on his way, he doesn’t like being drilled about everything, and it is my opinion that the way he chooses to handle the media is just fine. But I think that a huge issue occurs when reporters start to believe that they are entitled to information.
Journalism and reporting is about making ethical decisions about what exactly to publish, or how to spin a story or how to ask for an answer. And though it is fairly well known among sports journalists that Westbrook is not into giving more than the same one sentence answer to every single question, they still spend time interviewing him when they could make the choice to talk to a different player. But instead they almost play victim because Westbrook did exactly what they knew he would do.
It is a reporter’s job to relay the information and the facts from an interview, and although Westbrook did say, “I just don’t like you,” the reporter took it far too personally, when a reporter should have thicker skin than that. In respect to Kant’s ethics, it is the sports reporter’s duty to relay the facts of the game, and how the team pulled through and won. It is not the reporter’s duty to tell the reader’s what the player thought of him. If this was put into Kant’s categorical imperative, then every reporter who interviews someone would have the right to say what the person they were interviewing thought of them, and that would be absurd.
Russell Westbrook may be seen as an immature person or extremely rude to not be as forthcoming as reporters would like him to be. But he still does his job of playing basketball, and if he does not like reporters, he is has a right to not like them. The Oklahoman though, should never have allowed Tramel to post the original sentence because it was unethical, as was then deleting it without an editor’s note. Yet it is my opinion that the real PR problem is not Westbrook’s response, but the fact that Berry Tramel decided to go through with publishing the sentence.
mgouker says
ThinDifference russwest44 was actually right about all of this. The media is relentless. They are BB players not objects of public abuse.
profkrg says
@mgouker ThinDifference russwest44 Well, as professional basketball players, they are public people, which leaves them open to public comment and criticism.
profkrg says
BriannaBohland It’s important here to note the difference between news and commentary. Berry Tramel was writing a column, which is his opinion. Therefore, it is acceptable for him to insert his views into the piece.
I disagree about your views on Westbrook’s job. Yes, his primary job is to play basketball. But, as an outstanding team leader, public relations is a huge part of his job. Media relations is a part of that. By being rude to a reporter (who he doesn’t have to like, but must be able to deal with professionally), he negatively represented the Thunder organization.
I think we both can agree that the focus on media coverage following this game should have best Westbrook’s amazing performance. Instead, it was on the things I wrote about above. All of that could have been avoided.
Thanks you, Brianna, for reading and commenting.
profkrg says
MasonJordan I assume what Tramel has done to make Westbrook mad is to be critical of his play in his commentary. This, of course, is his job as a columnist and local commentator.
I think it’s totally fine for Westbrook not to like Tramel. As I wrote about, a lot of people dislike Tramel. I happen to like him, but my husband doesn’t. He’s divisive. That’s ok.
However, even if Westbrook doesn’t like Tramel, his response was unprofessional. I do think it’s a PR fail. He should have responded differently in that situation. He represents his organization, not just himself. The coverage following that game should have been about his play, not his crappy attitude.
Thanks so much, Mason, for reading and commenting. You make some interesting points. I”m not sure if the public always sides with the player. I think some of that depends on the situation and the player. If it’s KD, I’ll bet the public is more likely to side with him than a journalist because he has a perfect public persona. Others, maybe not so much…
profkrg says
FeliciaBrown Vernoica, you need to respond as yourself. This is unfairly representing your sister with your opinion.
Also, remember the difference between commentary and news. The column about KD was Tramel’s opinion, which is what he is paid to present. Also, he did not write the headline.
profkrg says
I’m going to disagree with you, Richard. Censorship can come in many forms. For example, if the Thunder organization contact The Oklahoman and the editors then edited Berry’s commentary because they were mad, I consider that censorship. Censorship can happen within organizations, although I agree with your sentiment that editing isn’t censorship.
profkrg says
JustisHudd You seem to focus more here on personalities than the ethics of the changes and comments.
Perhaps how it might make Berry look was the reason the editors deleted the last line. However, I’d say he gets to look how he wants in his own column.
Thanks for reading and commenting, Justis.
profkrg says
KyleWallace I’m not sure I could agree more, Kyle. Thanks for reading and commenting.
profkrg says
McNeill_Tweets It’s as if they assumed no one was looking. Why on earth would a media outlet want to make that assumption?