Monday Tip-Off: Real Agendas & Virtual Commentary
We’re at midcourt, and the ball is about to go up…it’s Monday Tip-Off! Join me as I begin the week here at the NLSC with my opinions and commentary on basketball gaming topics, as well as tales of the fun I’ve been having on the virtual hardwood. This week, I’m tipping things off with some thoughts on how real agendas have been infiltrating the virtual commentary in basketball video games.
The other day, I saw a social media post praising the positivity of the NBA on Prime crew’s coverage of a Lakers game. It drew comparisons with Inside the NBA, opining that Shaq in particular would’ve been negative in his commentary. It echoes recent remarks from Nick Wright, who at least tried to couch his callout with compliments. Back in November last year, Nikola Jokic wrapped up an interview with the NBA on Prime crew by calling it “much better“; a not-too-subtle jab at the lack of positivity he’s endured from other analysts, including the notoriously petty Shaq.
As much as I have my quibbles with the modern game, I can’t entirely disagree. When I first got into basketball, the NBA and its stars were presented as being part of a great ongoing legacy. That’s how it should be today. The problem is that in recent times, past generations have been disrespected in a way that I couldn’t imagine back in the 90s. Talking heads like Nick Wright have been a big part of that smear campaign – the “plumbers and dentists” rhetoric – so it’s rich to hear him plead for intergenerational peace and respect now. It’s bad enough that agendas like his plague coverage of the real NBA, but these days we have to listen to them in video game commentary too.
Before I get into the virtual hardwood, let’s talk about those agendas and the push for positivity. Again, I understand. The younger generation isn’t going to be won over by the “old man yelling at clouds“, and negative discourse in general grows tiresome. It’s not a good look for NBA analysts to dump on the modern league. However, Wright and his ilk have constantly and shamelessly pushed lying narratives about “evolution”, portraying past players as unskilled and inferior athletes to prop up the current stars. Hearing them complain about toxic discourse brings to mind the Hot Dog Car sketch from I Think You Should Leave: “We’re all trying to find the guy who did this!”
Or perhaps it’s akin to Ellen DeGeneres urging her viewers to “be kind” at the end of every show, while infamously failing to follow her own advice. Whatever pop culture comparison you want to draw, it’s highly hypocritical to demand respectful, positive discourse from those you’ve blatantly disrespected. There’s a certain irony in trying to present something as superior after a concerted effort to lower the bar. See, that’s the funny thing about the “evolution” narratives. By portraying previous generations as majorly lacking in skill and athleticism, it makes surpassing them seem like far less of an achievement. On top of the blatant lies, it’s not an impressive argument to make.
Wright’s passive-aggressive scolding of the Inside the NBA crew for not enjoying the modern game more also smacks of the toxic positivity you’ll encounter in fandoms these days. From traditional media and online content creators to video games and other hobbies, vocal contingents of parasocial fans and shills militantly attempt to shut down any and all criticism. If you don’t enjoy something, then you must be the problem, and so you should keep quiet. I do think it started as an earnest attempt to curb the stereotypical toxic negativity within fandoms, but it’s an overcorrection. Even the fairest or mildest critique is labelled “hating”, so that it can be easily dismissed.
Again, the irony here is that refusing to subject something to scrutiny doesn’t make it look good. It suggests that you can’t actually formulate any strong arguments for its quality or superiority without hypocritically subjecting its competition to the sort of criticism that you’ve deemed unacceptable for what you champion. Nevertheless, it’s become a common and sadly effective tactic of talking heads with agendas, along with acting as though it was the “old heads” that polluted the discourse. The shift in how past eras are discussed has been very noticeable over the past ten years or so, with revisionist history being cloaked in accusations of succumbing to nostalgia.
That’s why it’s laughable when Wright laments the negativity in NBA coverage, and claims that you won’t find it in the other major sports leagues. That may be true, but by the same token, you won’t find the personalities covering those sports dumping on the greats of the past the way that Nick Wright, Tom Haberstroh, and others do with the NBA. They’re among the very last people who should be whining about agendas, unfair criticism, and toxic basketball discourse! Look, I’m not saying that everyone who advocates for previous eras is unbiased or arguing in good faith, but at this point we’re pushing back on several years’ worth of disrespect and lies from those shills.
Of course, at a certain point it’s healthy to disengage and not give people with agendas your time and attention. And so, you don’t watch their shows, listen to their podcasts, or read their articles. You curate your social media feed by muting or blocking their accounts, along with any other Stan accounts that spread misinformation and troll for engagement. Unfortunately, it’s impossible to completely tune out all of that noise if you’re watching the games, since some of the commentators will also try to push those agendas at every opportunity. Still, you can at least try to limit your exposure to the people who are engaging in performative debate and obnoxious hot take culture.
Annoyingly, the discourse has a way of finding you. To that point, basketball video games have become yet another avenue for that chatter. All of the ridiculous talking points about evolution and all-time rankings have infiltrated the commentary of recent NBA 2K games, as well as NBA Live 19. On one hand, there’s authenticity to this, since it reflects real conversations that commentators have during games and on talk shows. On the other hand, the repetitive nature of video game commentary makes it feel all the more like propaganda. Accuse me of preferring an echo chamber if you will, but it’s creating one for people with a different (and warped) view of history.
Jay Williams is one of the worst when it comes to pushing agendas through virtual commentary. Although I’ve warmed up to NBA Live 19 quite a bit, Williams and Ed Cohen being on the call is easily one of the weakest parts of the game. Not only do they lack the enthusiasm that Mike Breen and Jeff Van Gundy brought to the table, but it means we’re periodically subjected to one of Jay Williams’ awful takes. His commentary related to LeBron James is terrible, always smugly framed in a way that suggests that anyone who disagrees is clueless, or a hater refusing to admit the truth. Even when he has a point, the condescending delivery makes it utterly unbearable.
As far as NBA 2K is concerned, Doris Burke, Stan Van Gundy, Brent Barry, and Richard Jefferson have been some of the worst at pushing agendas in their virtual commentary. Much like Jay Williams, there’s authenticity there in that they’re the same views you can expect to hear from them during real broadcasts. To that point though, it’s replicating one of my most disliked aspects of modern NBA coverage, and I don’t enjoy hearing that rhetoric multiple times a game, every single game. As in real life, it feels phoney, contrived, and disrespectful. It’s a far cry from commentators who could hype up the current stars without insulting the greats who paved the way.
I understand why the games do it, of course. They’re appealing to the younger crowd that’s happily bought into the narrative that so many analysts spout. Again, these are views that the commentators in question are expressing during real broadcasts, so it’s authentic for those opinions to be part of the commentary on the virtual hardwood as well. Along with the anecdotes about players, it adds more character and life to the commentary than the analysts simply interjecting some generic reactions to highlights and basic observations about how the game is going. When it comes to the agendas, no one’s going to deviate from the script in an officially-licensed NBA product!
That doesn’t make it any more enjoyable to listen to, though. Also, one could point out that in terms of authenticity, it would be more realistic to have a few different viewpoints and dissenting opinions; yes, even some negative ones here and there! As The Speakeasy noted when responding to Nick Wright’s comments about Inside the NBA, honesty is important. Sure, Shaquille O’Neal, Charles Barkley, and Kenny Smith have bad takes like everyone else, but they won’t mindlessly praise players or shy away from criticism. Jokic may prefer to be buttered up by the NBA on Prime crew, but that doesn’t mean they’re providing better basketball analysis and insight.
Yes, positivity is important, but it can be just as toxic as negativity. Moreover, it’s completely possible to enjoy something while still being critical of certain parts of it. Basketball video games are a great example here. We can enjoy the gameplay while expressing disappointment with recurrent revenue mechanics. We can praise a mode while still pointing out ways that it could improve, or a serious bug. The same goes for the NBA and real basketball. We can love the sport and follow the league closely, but not enjoy everything about it. If we can back up our point of view with logical arguments and well-reasoned observations, it’s ridiculous to classify it as “hating”.
It’s easy to dismiss criticism of the contemporary as the grumbling of grumpy old people blinded by nostalgia, and certainly not everything was better “back in the day”. At the same time, that’s actually proof that not everything new is better, since the blunders of the past were themselves once novel. Also, consider that one of the key arguments that the “we’re done with the 90s” crowd loves to make is that expansion watered down the talent during the decade. Of course, if we hold that to be true, then that would be an example of how new isn’t always better! By their own admission, there are factors that lead to regression and fluctuations in quality over the years.
Why am I bothered by these arguments and agendas when I believe so strongly in my point of view? Well, it’s bothersome to be bombarded with them at every turn. It’s insulting to have your perspective dismissed out of hand as myopic nostalgic, either by people who weren’t even around to see it or those who are committed to spreading a lie. It’s dismaying to see what should be an interesting and nuanced conversation between passionate basketball fans reduced to performative debate and hot takes for views. It’s the gall to complain about a lack of respect and positivity from the same people who are unashamedly, disrespectfully negative about so many all-time greats.
What also bothers me is that these agendas feel like an attempt to push older fans out of passions and hobbies that we’ve grown up with, and should be for all ages. After all, as we get older we develop the ability to be more discerning about our likes and dislikes, and critical of our entertainment while still enjoying it. It becomes harder to get us to buy into narratives, or succumb to the peer pressure to hop on trends. Young fans are easier to influence, and obviously there’s value in being the trendy thing that the youth wants to get into. With that being said, this approach is alienating to long-time fans. It also makes celebrations such as the league’s 75th anniversary fall flat.
Ultimately, I don’t care for the narratives that disrespect decades of history of a sport and league that I’m passionate about, from talking heads with clear agendas. It’s bad enough that they’ve made the discourse so toxic, but now we’ve got to hear them push those agendas while playing video games as well. At least the commentary can easily be muted in video games, though in doing so you also lose the broadcast atmosphere that I otherwise enjoy. In real life and video games alike, I miss commentary that was nuanced, respectful of history, and lifted up modern stars without tearing down past eras. Again, if you have to lower the bar, it doesn’t say much for what you’re praising.
The post Monday Tip-Off: Real Agendas & Virtual Commentary appeared first on NLSC.