March 27 broadcast info

#3
https://www.nba.com/kings/news/sacr...tner-present-exclusively-women-and-non-binary

“Krista Blunk, Kayte Hunter, Laura Britt, Layshia Clarendon and Morgan Ragan to Provide Live-Game Commentary, Pregame and Postgame Coverage and Social Content as Team Hosts Cleveland Cavaliers at Golden 1 Center”
I guess I am supposed to applaud but I can't. The self promotion makes it almost, almost, seem dirty. Just do it. Put females in prominent positions but don't make a show out of it demeaning the whole damn thing. Just make it a normal thing. If they were serious, Kayte would already be announcing. That would mean more than a one day artificial promotion with tomorrow going back to the old norm.
 

Warhawk

The cake is a lie.
Staff member
#5
I guess I am supposed to applaud but I can't. The self promotion makes it almost, almost, seem dirty. Just do it. Put females in prominent positions but don't make a show out of it demeaning the whole damn thing. Just make it a normal thing. If they were serious, Kayte would already be announcing. That would mean more than a one day artificial promotion with tomorrow going back to the old norm.
While I get what you are saying, this is hopefully just one more step (exposure, experience, etc.) for all of these individuals to land those kinds of positions permanently. And, if they didn't advertise it, who would know that doesn't regularly watch their games (probably an ever-shrinking number this season)?

And believe me, I agree with you about Kayte - she should definitely be in that position full-time. Overall, I love what she brings to the table. We used to watch her live on set on occasion over a decade ago on the old HPL show. This is from 2009, for Koz's birthday. :)

DSC03370r.jpg

So, we've been fans of hers since back when my son was still short (he's about 6'2" now, here with his even shorter friend). ;)

DSC03391r.jpg
 
#7
I guess I am supposed to applaud but I can't. The self promotion makes it almost, almost, seem dirty. Just do it. Put females in prominent positions but don't make a show out of it demeaning the whole damn thing. Just make it a normal thing. If they were serious, Kayte would already be announcing. That would mean more than a one day artificial promotion with tomorrow going back to the old norm.
Glad someone else said it.

To me, this is virtue signaling in it’s most obvious form. Something Vivek has become very adept at.

My thing is this, I don’t want to see something like this for the purpose of just trying to “ground break” — which actually isn’t ground breaking because at least one other org beat them to the punch already — or to make a political statement.

IMO, there needs to be a legit justification for it. I mean, did Mark Jones, Doug Christie, Kyle Draper and Jim Kozimor all call in sick or go on vacation at the same time?? If not, this is grandstanding. A publicity stunt. Which cheapens what they think they are trying to accomplish.

If any of these people are the best candidates and fits for the gigs — they should have been hired before the season. But, aside from Kayte, they weren’t. They don’t currently own the job titles. Because the KINGS filled those roles with individuals they felt were better fits. So what the hell are we doing here?

I mean, what’s next? How about allowing all the WNBA players to fill in for the NBA players for a game since that would be groundbreaking too?

Enough already. I don’t want to see anybody get a gig or preferential treatment BECAUSE of their gender, race or age anymore than I want to see them NOT get a gig or preferential treatment due to the same factors.

Hire the best people and let the demographics land where they may. Stand by your decisions until proven otherwise and let those people do their job uninterrupted.

That is all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#8
... Hire the best people and let the demographics land where they may. Stand by your decisions until proven otherwise and let those people do their job uninterrupted.
This sounds like a reasonable thing to say, if you don't look any further than the surface level. But it assumes something as axiom, that isn't actually true: that, for every given job, there is a singular, objectively "best" candidate. For most jobs (one of which being sports broadcaster), there are multiple equally qualified candidates. So, when you do have multiple equally qualified candidates, how do you decide which one gets the job?
 
#9
There's the reality that until enough women get experience doing games on the big stage they will always be less-qualified than some of their peers. Many of whom are truly awful and who's sole qualification came through being an on-court legend. Some struggle to speak coherent sentences and wind up with national gigs.

While I agree it's virtue signalling to some extent, you have to open some doors - so why not do it on a gimmick night like this and if someone knocks it out of the park you promote them to a spot where they can get the gig full time when one opens up?

This doesn't damage the on court product in my eye.
 

Warhawk

The cake is a lie.
Staff member
#10
If any of these people are the best candidates and fits for the gigs — they should have been hired before the season. But, aside from Kayte, they weren’t. They don’t currently own the job titles. Because the KINGS filled those roles with individuals they felt were better fits. So what the hell are we doing here?
All I'll say is that I sure don't think Grant was the best at his position for the decades while he was there (both TV and radio). I'm enjoying the Grant-less broadcasts a LOT more. So certainly, to me, there was room for improvement and therefore may still be room for other voices to participate as well.

And if the Kings are OK with this, maybe that means they also see the value in it?

I don't know how good or bad the broadcast will be, but I'm certainly not adverse to giving it (and them) a shot at trying it.
 
#11
There's the reality that until enough women get experience doing games on the big stage they will always be less-qualified than some of their peers. Many of whom are truly awful and who's sole qualification came through being an on-court legend. Some struggle to speak coherent sentences and wind up with national gigs.

While I agree it's virtue signalling to some extent, you have to open some doors - so why not do it on a gimmick night like this and if someone knocks it out of the park you promote them to a spot where they can get the gig full time when one opens up?

This doesn't damage the on court product in my eye.
Both views have their points. Bottom line was the Kings were changing their broadcasting team, therefore had an opportunity to be pro-active and yet they chose an all male team. Does Christie's limited experience really put him in a different class than any of these Ladies or does his experience come from the good old boy network because he was a player before?

Another question, why are all the Ladies that are being given this "opportunity" pleasing to the eye? Just part of the hypocrisy.
 
#12
This sounds like a reasonable thing to say, if you don't look any further than the surface level. But it assumes something as axiom, that isn't actually true: that, for every given job, there is a singular, objectively "best" candidate. For most jobs (one of which being sports broadcaster), there are multiple equally qualified candidates. So, when you do have multiple equally qualified candidates, how do you decide which one gets the job?
My wife and I have discussed this exact topic, many times, during much of the social unrest that’s ongoing.

One of my points, which she agrees with, is we’ll never rid ourselves of favoritism, bias and discrimination. Most everything a person does is based upon these factors, conscious or not.

The short answer to your question re: how do people decide among equal candidates is, we typically champion or select the person we like better. Based upon our own personal bias and taste.

Isn’t that how we choose our friends? Our companions? The family members were are closest with?

I jokingly tell my wife that there were a lot of people wanting the husband position I eventually got, but she didn’t choose them. Even though they may been more “qualified” and had more things in common.

I get that is a personal example, not professional, but personal likes and dislikes bleed into everything.

When you interview for employment, or even other things such as a loan, grant or scholarship, much of the process is impressing the panel. Coming across as likeable.

If the merit of your resume, past accomplishments, etc were all that mattered, then coming across as likeable shouldn’t matter. But it most certainly does. Because of the personal likes/dislikes bleed-over that exists.

If an employer has 2 equally qualified candidates — and affirmative action or some other factor isn’t in play — the candidate that was more liked, for whatever reasons, is most likely gonna get the gig.

Realistically, that’s never gonna change.

What I think many of us would like to see, and I know I do, is for the decision makers to be educated and mature enough not to disqualify anyone because of age, race, gender, religion, etc. But, conversely, to also not select someone just because of their age, race, gender, religion, etc.

Unfortunately, there are people in charge of hiring that find candidates likeable or unlikeable due to one or more of those factors. And, possibly, aren’t even aware of it.

IMO best we can do is continue to educate and hope more and more honor the code. And be accountable for ourselves.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#13
... The short answer to your question re: how do people decide among equal candidates is, we typically champion or select the person we like better. Based upon our own personal bias and taste.

Isn’t that how we choose our friends? Our companions? The family members were are closest with?

... When you interview for employment, or even other things such as a loan, grant or scholarship, much of the process is impressing the panel. Coming across as likeable.

If the merit of your resume, past accomplishments, etc were all that mattered, then coming across as likeable shouldn’t matter. But it most certainly does. Because of the personal likes/dislikes bleed-over that exists.

If an employer has 2 equally qualified candidates — and affirmative action or some other factor isn’t in play — the candidate that was more liked, for whatever reasons, is most likely gonna get the gig.

Realistically, that’s never gonna change...
To the extent that this is true, this is exactly why diversity is so important: to bring different voices to the table, so that we can expand our definition of "likeable." All the things that some people like to roll their eyes at, or dismiss as "virtue signaling," or whatever the ****, they all matter. Because, ultimately, we're dealing with people, and not math equations. And, as I said before, there are very few jobs for which there is an objectively "most qualified" candidate. And, if employers never look outside of traditional spaces for qualified candidates, then non-traditional candidates never get a chance to be elevated to decision-making positions, meaning that we always end up with the same group of people, who all have the same narrow values and perspectives, deciding what constitutes "likeable." That needs to change.

As to why they would promote it, in the ways that they are, I think we'd agree that that much is obvious: to get people who wouldn't otherwise watch, or listen, to tune in. There appears to be a disconnect, as it relates to whether or not people should have a problem with that?
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#15
You know, this pre-game makes me think of something: while some people are grousing about the presentation of this broadcast, and want to be cynical about it... To me, if you really wanted to be cynical about this, the place to start would be to ask, "How much of the Kings offering to give Sophia Jones a leg up on the start of a potential broadcasting career do you think played a factor in Mark Jones agreeing to take this job?" I mean, no offense, Kings Fans, but someone with Mark Jones' résumé probably could have held out for a more glamorous gig.
 
#16
You know, this pre-game makes me think of something: while some people are grousing about the presentation of this broadcast, and want to be cynical about it... To me, if you really wanted to be cynical about this, the place to start would be to ask, "How much of the Kings offering to give Sophia Jones a leg up on the start of a potential broadcasting career do you think played a factor in Mark Jones agreeing to take this job?" I mean, no offense, Kings Fans, but someone with Mark Jones' résumé probably could have held out for a more glamorous gig.
It would be a good question for someone else. Didn't know that and don't really care.

As far as the sincerity of the Kings, time will tell. If they have this stunt and nothing changes with their hiring practices, then shame on them.

The self promotion is what bothers me. I can say for my employer we have a department that has always been male dominated that is now 30% female. First it was one, then two and now the barricade is down..... those were brave females but had the support of the organization (or at least the part that mattered behind them). No publicity, just became fact. On the other hand, I am one of only two males who has ever done/hired for the job functions I now do. It was/is considered women's work. Been doing it for over two decades...... and I am only one of two with the other one now gone. Discrimination has many forms and shades.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#17
It would be a good question for someone else. Didn't know that and don't really care....
As someone who has been accused of "arguing just to argue," I'd like to ask, whom do you think is served by you taking the time to make sure everybody knows that you don't care about the question?

The self promotion is what bothers me...
Wait... But you just said...

... On the other hand, I am one of only two males who has ever done/hired for the job functions I now do. It was/is considered women's work. Been doing it for over two decades...... and I am only one of two with the other one now gone.
Were the people in charge of hiring for that position and the people hiring for the other positions at your place of employment the same people?
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#19
So I found the Kings broadcast and I'm really enjoying the ladies tonight. Gimmick or not, I could tune in to more of this.
Krista Blunk has been doing play-by-play for a quarter century: she was a Day One broadcaster for the Monarchs, IIRC. And people have been lobbying for Kayte Hunter to get the color job for years. Frankly, I'm borderline offended that anybody was even skeptical about this.
 
#21
Glad someone else said it.

To me, this is virtue signaling in it’s most obvious form. Something Vivek has become very adept at.

My thing is this, I don’t want to see something like this for the purpose of just trying to “ground break” — which actually isn’t ground breaking because at least one other org beat them to the punch already — or to make a political statement.

IMO, there needs to be a legit justification for it. I mean, did Mark Jones, Doug Christie, Kyle Draper and Jim Kozimor all call in sick or go on vacation at the same time?? If not, this is grandstanding. A publicity stunt. Which cheapens what they think they are trying to accomplish.

If any of these people are the best candidates and fits for the gigs — they should have been hired before the season. But, aside from Kayte, they weren’t. They don’t currently own the job titles. Because the KINGS filled those roles with individuals they felt were better fits. So what the hell are we doing here?

I mean, what’s next? How about allowing all the WNBA players to fill in for the NBA players for a game since that would be groundbreaking too?

Enough already. I don’t want to see anybody get a gig or preferential treatment BECAUSE of their gender, race or age anymore than I want to see them NOT get a gig or preferential treatment due to the same factors.

Hire the best people and let the demographics land where they may. Stand by your decisions until proven otherwise and let those people do their job uninterrupted.

That is all.
members here complaining about a whole lot of nothing. the whole argument stems from the lack of opportunity women get in the sports field..which is primarily dominated by men. raising awareness for 1 game doesn't take anything away from their opportunities. maybe instead of speaking for women, allow them to speak for themselves?

btw, I have asked several different women about their opinions regarding this, and all of them have said it's a great opportunity and brings much needed awareness. doing something like this hurts no one, why do others have to be upset over it?
 
#24
Krista Blunk has been doing play-by-play for a quarter century: she was a Day One broadcaster for the Monarchs, IIRC. And people have been lobbying for Kayte Hunter to get the color job for years. Frankly, I'm borderline offended that anybody was even skeptical about this.
As someone that started tuning into and attending Monarchs games from day 1, I always liked Krista Blunk. 1997 sure was a long time ago.
 
#27
I’m gonna give some love for Laura Britt.
She is incredibly versatile. As a fan of the A’s and the 49ers I have enjoyed seeing her man both the anchor desk and being at the games informing us fans of in game goings on.
Laura was the head of the 49ers post games a couple seasons ago and she killed it, especially when the post game was live on the field at Levi’s.
 
#28
Well, I was watching the Cleveland broadcast and decided to peek in on the Sacramento offering. I stayed with Sacramento...the announcers had everything that one could ask in a broadcast.

They stayed on the game events and relevant topics. There was seldom cheerleading, abbreviated names, cute nick-names, tired phrases, cliches, or shouting. Overall, it was a refreshing break from the regular broadcasters. Give us more.

Tonight's broadcast was extremely well done IMO.
 
#29
Well done by all. The Kings did a good job selecting the talent. I was particularly impressed with Lashia Clarendon who has a future in broadcasting after WNBA retirement and of course, Kayte was great. She would have the Kings color job if all things were equitable. Hopefully, the Kings bring this group together again.
 
#30
I can't understand why some people would be bothered by this. At its core, sports is entertainment. Why we need to pine over who gets to help present that entertainment and what the reasons are, is beyond me.

Did these people earn this? As Slim was kinda saying, that is irrelevant and also not really definable. Besides the fact, that the answer is an emphatic yes, it is irrelevant. If the Kings or Vivek or whomever made this decision decided they wanted to promote something different than we are used to, whatever the reason, even if self serving. Who cares?

So the result seems to have been good to great. But even if it wasn't, does it matter?