Media members angry about Steph Curry bringing his daughter to press conference

I read at least three columns about it. The better reporters actually observed what was happening and used it in a helpful way. And fans ate it up -- I mean, ATE IT UP. This was a bigger moment than his 62-foot shot.

So what hard-hitting questions was Steph Curry going to get? "Steph, just how awesome are you?"

The idea that he was shielding himself from the media after scoring 34 points in a Game 1 win is possibly the most ridiculous one I've heard on here.

 

I agree. And if this was a regular thing, sure. Be aggravated. But every now and then it breaks the monotony. I get that it makes things a bit more difficult for the reporters, and that can be a pain in the ass, but anyone in this business has to deal with annoyances every now and then. Move on.

 

Understood. That still doesn't mean they're not right.

If you're driving a taxi and can't get through a street because a truck is unloading something, you bitch about not being able to do your job then, too.

 

Christ that's stupid.

There was nothing that happened last night that prevented any reporter from doing his/her job.

Did anyone who was actually there have anything to say about it, or was it just Brian Windhorst and Skip Bayless stroking each other's cocks by satellite?

 

I would expect good reporters to use it. They're good. Hell, I'd use it. If I was consigned to digging ditches with hand shovels, I'd figure out the fucker.

But I'm still confused: What was the larger thing at play here? You mentioned the forest. What's the forest? That fans liked it?

Oh, and seriously: Enough with the "what kind of questions" BS. That's more Pollyannish, navel-gazing nonsense. Curry gets what he gets. Maybe good, maybe bad. Unlike a lot of people here - who seem to relish hating on other journalists, who seem to take deep, abiding pleasure in running down the profession, who sniff at the idea of someone being a little less perfect than they are at the job, who obsess over policing their own to the extent that they argue for ludicrous things like "do we need access?" - I'll go ahead and cast my lot with other journalists when sports celebrities pull circus shit on them in press conferences. I can appreciate that's not very postmodern or modern-uppermiddleclassewhitedude-vaguely-libertarian-millennial of me, to take a broad side and support workaday schmucks - I know how much we all crave the need to line up behind the star/special actor theory of everything - but I will.

If I miss an occasional, philosophically spectacular forest like a 2-year-old kid acting like a 2-year-old - which I have seen 1546,324 times in my life - so be it.

 

Come on. It writes itself.

Sheesh.

 

That's a great little photo.

 

You're posing this with the hypothesis that any question that was going to be asked was a dumb, useless question.

People have been asking questions in press conferences since before you and I asked one. If there were no useful questions, the media would no longer attend these things.

And if it's not a press conference, call it what it is.

 

Yes. That's an enormous part of what sportswriters do.

Also that press conferences are by and large not all that helpful, and this one was.

And ... yeah, that fans liked it. It's a story and a great story. Locally at least, Curry's family -- his foxy mom, his foxy wife, his kids -- has been a huge part of the MVP year. This was another moment in the "this guy, is he too good to be true?" chain.

 

A lot of this goes to the all-access world we now live in. Press conferences used to be the athletes and reporter. they were boring, mundane things we all had to endure. It honestly hasn't even been that long (int he grand scope of the history of sports) that the players and coaches all entered a separate room, sat at a table to answer questions. Now this is commonplace for a meaningless Mariners vs. Tigers mid-June game as it is Game 1 of the World Series. Why? Because of the ESPNs, 24-hour sports channels that want to carry live pressers, because the stupid fans want more access to the event than ever. So the stupid fan see this little girl and thinks it's cute. The reporter sees this little girls and thinks about the deadline/job.
for good or bad, that's what it is today. This all-access fan crap is making those of us who have been doing our jobs for years, tolerating the aholes in the locker room and making them look good for years, look like the aholes.
It really is a no-win for the media.

 

That's really a pretty good takedown of the entire phenomena.

 

Good grief. If this bothers you, get over yourself.

I don't follow the NBA. Never have, don't give two shits about it, no clue who the player is here. When I saw the thread title, I thought it was discussing some media member who dragged his or her teen kid along.

This is the cutest thing I've seen in sports in awhile.

It's really annoying to sit as former media and listen to the whining. Some's legit. This is not.

No-win for the media? Really? You're freaking writing about it. How is that a no-win?

Fans want that hard-hitting question? Really? Since when? All they want is something by Player B, or Player C if he's not available. But come to think of it, if he's not there, D-Z will do, too. And if not, who notices?

The guy brought his kid. Wow, he's human! Stars! They're just like us!

Seriously, if you can't write about something in that, you should consider rethinking your chosen profession.

FWIW, we just had Take Your Kid to Work Day here. Fifty kids participated, and we blocked off half a day of programming for them. Issued them credentials and "visas" as well. Probably 30-40 adults participated, necessitating them missing some of their own work as well. They got over it.

This happened when? And the thread is four pages already? Seems like news to me. Isn't that what sportswriters cover? News?