Kayte C needs to be replaced

[ESP47]

This is an interesting point. If a fanbase is overwhelmingly opposed to a particular member of the broadcast team (I don't know that this is true -- we are a subset of the overall fanbase, but let's suppose it could be true) -- does the franchise have an obligation to listen to the fans? Is there a danger that people will stop watching games entirely just because they don't like the commentator? Should a commentator listen to the fans and take constructive criticism from them or is their job just to be themselves?

What I have observed about the pushback on Kayte since she took over that color commentator role full-time is that there is a perception out there among some of the fans that Kayte is not receptive to criticism, is not improving at her job, and perhaps even knows that she is demographically insulated regardless to the point of feeling self-righteous about it. I don't really understand how or why this perception has come about...

Some of the former NBA players who have moved into broadcasting full-time have similar tendencies to ramble and ignore the actual game (Reggie Miller immediately comes to mind) but they don't seem to attract the same level of ire. Is that because we don't listen to them nearly as often? Is it because we give them a pass for having "earned" their roles by being Hall of Famers? Is it that there is a cultural bias where some are immediately suspicious of people who are (I would say unfairly) labeled as diversity hires?

This is often the type of question which leads to an "agree to disagree" stalemate because it comes across as accusatory. I'm not trying to accuse anyone of anything, but I do think it is fair to say that cultural biases by and large operate at a subconscious level. It takes work to interrogate our own biases and in our current cultural moment the validity of that type of work has itself become an ideological lightning rod. Implicit in this statement -- "This franchise will never replace her" -- is an assumption that being good at the job is not the most important qualification. Is that assumption justified or is it evidence of subconscious bias? I can't answer that for anyone else but I can invite you to watch a few games with the intention of interrogating this belief to see if that changes your mind in any way.

I thought she was a great sideline reporter and didn't have an opinion either way of how she would be as a color commentator since I don't know anything about her other than watching her doing sideline reporting during the telecasts. Because of that, I didn't start out with any type of subconscious bias. What happened is she didn't win me over as a color commentator and eventually became almost as annoying as watching the Kings lose. For the record, I didn't think Doug was very good either but he improved quite a bit as time went on. Plus he just has a likeable personality, which helps make him easier to listen to.

I won't get into it because it will get deleted but we've all seen what Vivek and the Kings have done in the past when it comes to, lets say, "cultural stuff". That bias never seems to get questioned for some reason. Now, is she the best person for the job? Highly doubtful. Did she earn it fairly? She was among the "that makes sense" candidates, so I'd say yes. Is she doing a good job or improving? Not from what I've seen, but I can pretty much say with near certainty that she won't be going anywhere, no matter how few fans she has in Sacramento.