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.

 

[Kingster]

She is an awful, awful analyst. Babbling about herself, babbling about things that have nothing to do with the game, making inane comments, being wrong 90% of the time on ref calls, taking over as the primary announcer of the game rather than making incisive comments explaining the game, overuse of hyperbole, the incessant use of "right," "right," "right," ad nauseam. This season is bad enough, but to be subject to her is cruel and unusual punishment. One would think that with a team as bad as the Kings management would do everything in their power to ameliorate the pain by hiring excellent announcers, but not this management team. They just keep piling on the pain.

And speaking of pain, whoever decided to add this BS Micky Mouse stat service that flashes the name of the ball handler on the screen should be fired. Whoever hired Kayte to begin with should be fired. Whoever hired the producer/director who directs the camera-work for the game should be fired, as often I find myself looking at a close-up of a coach or player on the bench while play is going on. Overall, it's a crappy product.

 

[Kingster]

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.

Totally agree. If merit was the metric for hiring her, the person doing it should have his head examined.

 

[KainLear]

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.

Well, this presupposes that there's any sort of meritocracy to staffing color commentators in the first place. Play-by-play announcers are media-trained and typically possess a considerable amount of broadcasting experience by the time they end up working for an NBA franchise or a major network. But color commentary is a much more nebulous role, and though there are some exceptions, staffing a sports broadcast is pretty much an insider's game. Franchises across the league typically like to hire former professional players to do the job, whether they perform well on the call or not. What their reasons are for preferencing one insider over another is anyone's guess, but given the generally mediocre-to-poor quality of most local broadcasts, it probably doesn't have much to do with serving the fan's preferences.

Women do face greater undeserved scrutiny in these kinds of roles than men do, but Kayte Christensen is a former collegiate and professional basketball player with enough bonafides to make her a worthy hire if what you value is a former pro's perspective. She's not particularly effective on the call, but again, most of the league's color commentators are rambling types who don't really know what to do with the time they're meant to fill despite their knowledge of the game. And if Kayte is supposed to represent an example of cronyism or unfair patronage to a certain kind of Kings fan, well, once again we could level that kind of accusation at most of the color commentators across the league's local broadcasts. So that's the point at which I would ask Kings fans to check their biases. Watch and listen to more of the league, I say. You don't know what you don't know.

While I appreciate the logical perspectives, this is being framed as a problem to fix when it’s really an experience to interpret. The OP and those who agree have made it pretty clear that, at its core, this is about emotion, especially in a role that doesn’t have a universally accepted “perfect standard.”

It's never really about questions like, what technically counts as “talking too much” for a color commentator and how does she compare, quantitatively or stylistically, to others around the league? Is it actually changing the viewing experience, and if so, in what specific ways?

 

[ShastaKingsFan]

While I appreciate the logical perspectives, this is being framed as a problem to fix when it’s really an experience to interpret. The OP and those who agree have made it pretty clear that, at its core, this is about emotion, especially in a role that doesn’t have a universally accepted “perfect standard.”

It's never really about questions like, what technically counts as “talking too much” for a color commentator and how does she compare, quantitatively or stylistically, to others around the league? Is it actually changing the viewing experience, and if so, in what specific ways?

This is more PC garbage. Read the thread again. There are plenty of tangible points made about specifics