Terry McDermott

HOME
EVENTS
9/11 STORIES
MEMORY
BASEBALL STORIES
CALIFORNIA DREAMERS
MUSIC
SCIENCE
FOOD
COPS
BUILDINGS
CITIES
PERSONAL HISTORY
AIRPLANES
COFFEE
IRAQ
MAPS
TRADE
MISCELLANEOUS
SEATTLE METRO COLUMNS
GATELESS IN SEATTLE: A Se
WATER
POLITICS
Contact Me
About Me
COLUMN ONE
Charles Barkley shoots from the lip and scores
You never know what Charles Barkley is going to say, and that makes TNT's show on the NBA a fan favorite.

By Terry McDermott, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 21, 2008

ATLANTA -- At 10 minutes to 6, Ernie Johnson walks on to the "Inside the NBA" set in Studio J, a Turner Network Television facility. The set's focal point is a desk, where Johnson sits, with empty chairs on either side.

The set is a dizzying, dazzling array of red and blue light. It includes a little living room, a full-height, half-court basketball playing area, enough pennants to outfit a Mardi Gras parade, and a mock night-time high-rise skyline. The set is gaudy and somewhat ridiculous for a venue where what mainly happens is three guys sit around and talk, mostly -- but by no means exclusively -- about basketball.

At five minutes before 6, however, Johnson has no one to talk to. He's alone at the desk.

At three minutes before, he's still alone.

At two minutes, alone.

At 90 seconds to air, Kenny "The Jet" Smith saunters on set and takes the chair immediately to Johnson's left. He's followed by Charles Barkley, conducting a loud and profane discussion with one of the show's staff.

As soon as he sits down, he starts loudly recounting another argument, this one with producer Tim Kiely, who, Barkley says, is censoring free speech and threatening the future of civilization by prohibiting Barkley from using a slang word for feces on the air.

"I'm bitter and angry tonight," Barkley announces almost exactly at the moment Johnson looks up and, in the steady, comforting tones of the professional broadcaster, welcomes several million fans around the world to another edition of "Inside the NBA."

The show, which originates in Los Angeles tonight for the Western Conference finals, is without much contest the world's best show about basketball.

With the NBA playoffs in full flower, we're reminded again that the most entertaining figure in professional basketball, maybe in all of sport, is not Kobe or LeBron or any other mere player. It is Barkley, just one-third, or sometimes one-fourth, of a talking-head panel -- most of it bald -- that introduces and analyzes the games.

In addition to these duties, Barkley, 45, is a declared 2014 candidate for governor of Alabama; a member of the basketball Hall of Fame; co-star of a mobile telephone advertising campaign wherein he, nearly a decade past his playing days, and not the current NBA star who shares billing with him, is clearly the main attraction; a compulsive gambler (on Tuesday he paid off a $400,000 debt to a Vegas casino); an erstwhile hero of the political right, from within which one blogger hailed him as a philosopher, poet, genius and the next president of the United States; inspiration for the chart-topping group Gnarls Barkley; and gracious butt of a thousand jokes.

Barkley, above all else, is someone who will say whatever occurs to him when it occurs to him, whether or not he's on the air.

To wit:

Talking during a game recently about a free throw missed at a crucial time by a high-percentage free-throw shooter, he said: "That 90% doesn't mean nothing when you have a tight sphincter."

Talking about a bad team: "The Nets are like the Democrats . . . they don't win even though the rest of the division sucks."

Talking about whether New York Knicks Coach Isiah Thomas' job is safe: "He's about as safe as me in a room full of cookies. If I'm in a room full of cookies, the cookies ain't got no damn chance."

Ernie Johnson recalls that the first time Barkley appeared on the show, in 2000, Barkley asked Smith during a break what he was going to talk about during the next segment. Johnson recalled, "Kenny said, 'You'll find out.' "

This was perfect, said Kiely the producer. Kiely's notion was to have a show that was spontaneous, dynamic, like an overheard conversation. His ideal was closer to the PBS political shout-fest "The McLaughlin Group" than to conventional television sports post- and pregame analysis.

Barkley was more than accommodating. That first year, he accused the league of giving TNT all the bad games: "NBC gets all the good games. We get the Little Sisters of the Poor." He said he could beat the Detroit Pistons with a team of studio technicians. He said All-Star Grant Hill's ears were too big. He delivered these comments and many, many more in a voice that ranged between a bray and a sonic boom.

His weight became a recurring subject of conversation. By NBA standards, he is not tall; he's slightly more than 6 feet 4 inches, yet he carries more than 300 pounds, much of it in a backside that his wife, Maureen, once said was "the size of New Jersey."

To simply call Barkley fat, however, is to disregard the physical power at his command. As a player, he was the shortest man ever to lead the league in rebounding, a skill derived more from desire and ferocity than height.

"If you want to be a rebounder you have to approach it like, 'Let's just beat the hell out of each other all night.' It's all you've got," Barkley said.

Barkley's ferocity notwithstanding, the show treated him like a piñata. A computer graphics guy routinely placed Barkley's big, round, shaven head on top of ridiculously mismatched bodies, which the show's director then played on air almost endlessly.

A weekly feature the first year was Barkley getting on a scale to see how much weight he had -- or had not -- lost. He took it all with good grace and laughter.

Kenny Smith said when he began on the show in 1998 he imagined it was something he would do for a year, maybe two.

"The second year started being something different. Charles took it and exploded it. It just escalated," he said. "Between Charles and I, there's nothing that's going to happen in a basketball game that we haven't seen or experienced. Once we started to trust one another, there was no looking back. We've become part of the game."

Players watch the show carefully. In interviews at halftimes of games, they complain about something said on "Inside" before the game started. You tell Charles and Kenny, they'll say. Or, What Charles said ain't right.

At the same time, the "Inside" cast has become guidance counselors, favored uncles, givers of grown-up advice. Their cellphones receive endless streams of text messages and calls from players around the league seeking advice, critiquing their critiques, angling for guest spots at the desk, complaining about playing time.

Johnson prepares for each show by studying clips and statistics and reading for five or six hours. He arrives at the studio by noon most days, a time at which Barkley is apt to be asleep. "I get up late. I'm in no hurry to get out of bed. I like having free time to do nothing," he says.

After Johnson's opening, Smith and Barkley and sometimes a fourth person, almost always a player or one not long retired, add a minute or two of commentary, then the game starts and they retreat to a viewing room equipped with a 20-foot tall wall of television monitors.

They go back on set to talk for a few minutes at halftime. On this night they get in an argument about proper punishment for players who aren't in the game but rush to the assistance of other players involved in confrontations on the floor.

As often happens, Johnson and Smith have one opinion, Barkley another. The argument outlasts the halftime; they go off-air, the game resumes, but the three of them stay there on the set arguing.

They retreat again to the viewing room until the game is over, when they come back out for the meat of the show, 30 minutes of commentary, highlights and often some bit the crew has cooked up to make one or more of them look foolish.

While watching in the viewing room, Barkley spends a lot of time critiquing everything in sight -- the game, the referees, the coaches, the food, the staff, Smith.

On this night they're watching the surprising Atlanta Hawks taking on the heavily favored Celtics. One of the young Hawks, Josh Childress, has a throw-back Afro hairstyle that Barkley doesn't like.

"Kenny, Kenny," he calls out, "you and Josh Childress look a lot alike."

Smith, who shaves his head and looks nothing like Childress, doesn't respond.

"You do," Barkley says. "You got something in common."

Still no reply. "You're both ugly," Barkley says.

Smith finally rises to the bait, telling Barkley that he and Cleveland Cavalier Coach Mike Brown, who has just popped up on screen, look alike. "You both got Milk Dud heads," he says.

Before Barkley can counter that insult, somebody misses a wide-open jump shot on the big screen at the center of the monitor wall. Smith, who was one of the best shooters in the league when he played, expresses dismay. You can't miss wide-open jumpers, he says.

Barkley says why not? Nobody is going to make more than half of them.

Half? Are you nuts? "A good shooter will make 80 out of 100 of those," Smith says.

"Eighty percent? Nobody makes 80%," Barkley says. Smith, seeking reinforcement, telephones his brother, Vince, who coaches youth basketball and who confirms: 80%.

Barkley's not convinced. The discussion goes on a while, then comes the inevitable offer of a bet. They'll go to the gym tomorrow and Smith will shoot the 100 shots. Although retired for a decade, he has no doubt whatsoever he'll make 80. Barkley says, "I'm going to go to the bank tomorrow and get all my money. I got a sucker bet here." One wonders who the sucker is since Barkley has admitted losing millions in Vegas.

Smith decides he needs still more reinforcement. "Let's call Reggie," he says, referring to Reggie Miller, a colleague who sometimes sits in with the panel and on this night did the on-site commentary for the Cleveland-Washington game.

Miller is regarded as one of the best shooters in league history. Barkley will accept him as an expert witness only if he, Barkley, can frame the questions.

On the speaker phone, Barkley asks the question about the jump shot. Miller, who is at least as voluble and argumentative as Barkley and Smith, asks half a dozen questions about the situation. Good shooter, great shooter? How far? Unguarded? What gym? How much time? When he finally has all the information, he answers: "Seventy-five to 80."

Smith preens. Barkley yells a sarcastic thanks. Smith tells Miller it's too bad he's stuck in Cleveland.

"Hey," Miller says, "we got drunk girls pounding on the door asking if we're coming back for the conference finals."

What's most notable about this small episode is that you could imagine it occurring on the air without the slightest change. It's Kiely's dream come true.

"People say, 'Y'all make me laugh every night.' That's what's important," Barkley says. "This is basketball. We're not going to save the world. When I go on the air, I want people to know I have fun. We got a great job. We get paid to watch sports."

Barkley in his playing days seemed always to be in hot water for something he said or did. Most notably, he vigorously complained that it was worse than ridiculous -- actually harmful -- for black athletes to be proclaimed role models for black youth. It fostered a false sense of opportunity, he said, leading kids to think they could find prosperity on an athletic field, a high-risk strategy at best. That view is now widely shared, but Barkley was pilloried for it at the time.

He traveled by himself, hung out with ordinary people, drank at the bar and would talk to anyone who approached him. He paid a price for his openness. Sometimes arguments ensued. Some of these arguments escalated into physical fights, one of which concluded when Barkley threw a man through a bar-room window. He commented later his only regret was that it hadn't been on a higher floor.

Barkley has a straightforward view of most things: Teams lose games because they miss shots, have bad players or just generally stink; African American kids get into trouble because they go to bad schools in bad neighborhoods and their families have been crushed by centuries of racism.

Barkley escaped similar circumstances and has given millions to schools in Alabama, where he was born, and Phoenix, where he played for years. He splits his time between homes in Phoenix and Philadelphia, but has purchased a house in Alabama to establish residency there (which takes seven years) in preparation for a gubernatorial campaign he says he'll conduct as a Democrat.

It used to be written frequently that he was a conservative Republican. The misunderstanding occurred, he says, because once in conversation with his mother and a reporter, his mother said Republicans were only for the rich folks. To which Barkley replied: "Mom, we are rich folks."

He says he's never voted for a Republican in his life. Talking on CNN recently about conservative Republicans, Barkley remarked: "Every time I hear the word 'conservative' it makes me sick to my stomach, because they're really just fake Christians, as I call them. That's all they are."

"I don't know what a conservative or liberal is," he says. "I'm pro-choice; government should create jobs for people, keep them safe. That's all I want. Keep people safe, give them good schools, jobs."

This, he says, referring to his TNT work, is just a warm-up. "There's got to be more than this. I have a gift. I should use it," he says.

Indeed, there probably is more to life than basketball, but for the time being Barkley has his hands full with just that.

On this night, for example, there is a line of acceptable NBA style that has been crossed by Philadelphia 76er center Samuel Dalembert, who has gotten what appears to be a playoff makeover, a modified Mohawk haircut with his initials in relief. It is clear that Dalembert, an otherwise handsome man, has transgressed. Somebody needs to do something.

"Sucky 'do,' " Barkley says, then after a moment's contemplation adds, "No grown-ass man should have a Mohawk."

Barkley, as usual, is on the case.
 COLUMN ONE
Blogs can top the presses
Talking Points Memo drove the U.S. attorneys story, proof that Web writers with input from devoted readers can reshape journalism.

By Terry McDermott
Times Staff Writer
March 17, 2007

New York — In a third-floor Flower District walkup with bare wooden floors, plain white walls and an excitable toy poodle named Simon, six guys dressed mainly in T-shirts and jeans sit all day in front of computer screens at desks arranged around the oblong room's perimeter, pecking away at their keyboards and, bit by bit, at the media establishment.

The world headquarters of TPM Media is pretty much like any small newsroom, anywhere, except for the shirts. And the dog. And the quiet. Most newsrooms are notably noisy places, full of shrill phones and quacking reporters. Here there is mainly quiet, except for the clacking keyboards.

It's 20 or so blocks up town to the heart of the media establishment, the Midtown towers that house the big newspaper, magazine and book publishers. And yet it was here in a neighborhood of bodegas and floral wholesalers that, over the last two months, one of the biggest news stories in the country — the Bush administration's firing of a group of U.S. attorneys — was pieced together by the reporters of the blog Talking Points Memo.

The bloggers used the usual tools of good journalists everywhere — determination, insight, ingenuity — plus a powerful new force that was not available to reporters until blogging came along: the ability to communicate almost instantaneously with readers via the Internet and to deputize those readers as editorial researchers, in effect multiplying the reporting power by an order of magnitude.

In December, Josh Marshall, who owns and runs TPM , posted a short item linking to a news report in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette about the firing of the U.S. attorney for that state. Marshall later followed up, adding that several U.S. attorneys were apparently being replaced and asked his 100,000 or so daily readers to write in if they knew anything about U.S. attorneys being fired in their areas.

For the two months that followed, Talking Points Memo and one of its sister sites, TPM Muckraker, accumulated evidence from around the country on who the axed prosecutors were, and why politics might be behind the firings. The cause was taken up among Democrats in Congress. One senior Justice Department official has resigned, and Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales is now in the media crosshairs.

This isn't the first time Marshall and Talking Points have led coverage on national issues. In 2002, the site was the first to devote more than just passing mention to then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott's claim that the country would have been better off had the segregationist 1948 presidential campaign of Sen. Strom Thurmond succeeded. The subsequent furor cost Lott his leadership position.

Similarly, the TPM sites were leaders in chronicling the various scandals associated with Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

All of this from an enterprise whose annual budget probably wouldn't cover the janitorial costs incurred by a metropolitan daily newspaper.

"Hundreds of people out there send clips and other tips," Marshall said. "There is some real information out there, some real expertise. If you're not in politics and you know something, you're not going to call David Broder. With the blog, you develop an intimacy with people. Some of it is perceived, but some of it is real."

Marshall's use of his readers to gather information takes advantage of the interactivity that is at the heart of the Internet revolution. The amount of discourse between writers and readers on the Web makes traditional journalists look like hermetic monks.

Duncan Black, an economist who writes as Atrios on his website, Eschaton, receives hundreds of comments for almost anything he posts. Thursday morning, he posted a short note saying he would not be writing much that day as he was going to be traveling. Within the hour, 492 people posted comments on that. A political reporter at a metropolitan daily might not get that much reader response in a year.

"With Abramoff, I was getting a lot more tips than I could handle," Marshall said. "I thought if I hire two people, pay them, marry them with these tips, what could we do then?"

That led to the creation of TPM Muckraker, which has two full-time, salaried reporter-bloggers and is where many of the stories on the U.S. attorneys were originally published.

In much of its work, TPM exhibits a clearly identified political agenda. In this, it is no different from dozens of other blogs across the political spectrum. It distinguishes itself by mixing liberal opinion with original reporting by its own staff and actively seeking information from its readers.

This was most apparent in 2004-05 when Marshall turned the site's focus to President Bush's proposed privatization of Social Security. Marshall asked readers to survey their own members of Congress on the issue. This distributed reporting helped TPM compile rosters of where every member of Congress stood on the proposal, something no newspaper attempted. By making apparent the lack of enthusiasm for the plan, TPM helped kill it.

The Social Security campaign was straightforward political activism, with strict advocacy for a well-defined position.

"For me, that was sort of a little beyond my comfort zone," Marshall said. "But the underlying issue seemed important enough to do it. There are still a lot of lines I don't cross because of, for lack of a better word, the kind of institution we are. We do opinion journalism, we're not campaign adjuncts."

Blogging has famously unleashed the opinions of multitudes. There are, by very rough count, 60 million bloggers around the world today. Some projections have that number nearly doubling again this year. Depending on which side of a vitriolic divide you fall — that is, whether you think this is good or bad — this represents either the end of civilization or the rise of true democracy.

There are blogs for baseball teams, for fast food, for God and for Satan; there are lots of blogs on politics and Hollywood and at least one that deals exclusively with pharmaceutical industry research. There are hundreds of blogs on Iraq and more than you would imagine in Mongolia.

Though the numbers and breadth of blogging are indeed astonishing, it's not at all clear what the numbers mean, if they mean anything at all. Much of what constitutes the phenomenon of blogging is apt to be inconsequential for the simple but powerful fact that nobody reads most of them. That is, aside from their authors, literally nobody.

Most of these blogs are the creations of individuals who have a passion to write, usually about a single subject, that subject often being themselves. Some of them are truly horrible and, thankfully, short-lived. The passion burns out.

Others, though, are remarkably good. There are sports blogs devoted to single teams that are far more acute in their analysis than mainstream media (MSM) covering the same sport. This is particularly true in baseball, where statistically driven analysis has been adopted wholesale in the blogosphere while the MSM has been slow to recognize its value.

The blogs that have captured the most attention are those that devote themselves mainly to politics and public affairs. These are almost always run by partisans of one side or the other. In that, they are nearly the opposite of the sort of coverage presented in traditional media, whose coverage at least attempts to be neutral on questions of policy.

This neutrality is a favorite target of bloggers who say that mainstream journalism objectivity disguises hidden biases of the form, if not the writer. The bloggers contend that these biases can render neutrality into bland, even neutered reporting that rewards those intent on manipulating it.

Many critiques from both sides of the blogging-MSM divide are accurate, if sometimes misplaced. The chief criticisms of blogging from defenders of the MSM are, one, the pajama charge — that is, bloggers are not professional journalists and don't do much reporting (thus the image of them sitting at home in their pajamas) — and, two, the incivility charge, that many bloggers use impolite language.

Most bloggers, in fact, are not journalists and do little if any reporting. But most bloggers don't claim to be journalists. They're bloggers. The incivility charge is true too. Many bloggers use bad language, but so occasionally does the New Yorker, and no one accuses it of lacking manners.

"I'm familiar with the critique," Marshall said. "I don't feel it has a great deal to do with us, what we are doing. There's a ton of stuff out there, and a lot of it is screechy and angry and undisciplined. I don't have a problem with it, but it's not stuff I'm particularly interested in reading.

"It's totally in the tradition of political pamphleteering. … Individually, I think some of it isn't necessarily that pretty, but I think the whole thing altogether is a great thing."

Neither side in the blog-MSM debate seems to have great appreciation for what the other brings to the party. Simply put, while mainstream media does the heavy lifting of careful, day-to-day and occasional in-depth reporting, bloggers have revivified political commentary, mainly through their exuberance.

If the traditional media see their roles as delivering lectures on the news of the day, blogs are more of a backyard conversation, friendlier, more convivial. Bloggers publish in variable lengths at uncertain and unscheduled times. Blogs tend to be informal, cheap to produce, free to consume, fast, heavily referential, self-referential and vain because of it; profane, accident-prone yet self-correcting.

To say that traditional media were slow to appreciate the power of this form is to belabor the obvious. Even bloggers were slow to appreciate the import of what they were doing. The phenomenon appeared in its embryonic form in the mid-1990s. The term "blog," a mash-up of "Web log," was coined in 1997. By 1999, blogging software was widely available, and free, and the first political blogs appeared.

By that time, Marshall, a 38-year-old who has a PhD from Brown University in American colonial history, had become a freelance journalist, selling pieces mainly to small opinion journals. He wrote his first blog post in November 2000, commenting on the role of GOP lawyer Theodore Olson in Florida's Bush-Gore recount.

"It just seemed natural. I liked the informality of the writing. The freedom of it appealed to me," Marshall said. "It just looked like fun. I saw it as a loss leader for my journalism."

Once he started, however, he never stopped. He continued to freelance, but gradually moved more and more of his attention to the blog, living in near poverty as a result. When he needed money to do something for the blog, he asked his readers for it. Remarkably, they gave it to him.

His economic turning point came in 2003 when he received a phone call from a man named Henry Copeland, who had an idea for selling advertising on blogs. Copeland saw a way to aggregate blogs and broker advertising to them. Essentially, he created a remote back office and a revenue stream for the mainly sole proprietors who blogged.

"He had the concept of Blogads, which turned out to be the funding mechanism for what I was doing. Within six months it was supporting me," Marshall said.

It wasn't until Copeland came along that anyone seriously contemplated making a career as a blogger. Since then, advertising has grown to such an extent that dozens of blogs are now profitable enterprises. They are also major sources of information for thousands of readers.

Copeland said the relatively small world of left-of-center political blogs now receives an estimated 160 million page views a month, in the same ballpark as some major newspapers and far more than any opinion magazine.

This professionalization of the blogosphere has been abetted by mainstream media's increasing practice of hiring independent bloggers or deploying staffers to blog duty. No one in the blogosphere seems particularly worried about the competition.

Copeland, for one, doubts that the MSM will be able to stem the blogging tide, or even swim very far in it.

"We're big believers that the Internet's rule is 'the outside is the new inside.' That means that bloggers, with low overheads and nimble structures, can outmaneuver everyone else….

"A newspaper is a boat, a highly evolved mechanism designed and built to float in water. Blogs are bikes, built to cruise in another environment. Now, you can pull a bunch of planking off a boat and add wheels and pedals, but that won't make it as light and maneuverable as a bike."