Clay Travis: “We have a lot of media members out there aggressively questioning anybody who decides to stand for the National Anthem… They have been grilled on their decision-making when it comes to standing for the National Anthem. Fair or foul for the NBA media to make that decision?”
Jason Whitlock: “I’m going to go ‘fair’ and I’m glad they’re doing it. The Jonathan Isaac kid gave one hell of an explanation so I think that’s going to draw more discussion. The more people talk about why they’re standing I think other athletes are going to have their thoughts challenged, so I’m actually glad, and think the media is doing the public a service and sparking a legitimate conversation. I think there’s some hypocrisy in terms of the aggressiveness of making these guys defend their positions when we clearly saw there was no aggression towards Colin Kaepernick and people made up the answers for him. People were acting confused about what Jonathan Isaac said and acted like he didn’t make any sense. The kid couldn’t have been more crystal clear and his answers couldn't have been more succinct and sensical than anything we ever heard from Colin Kaepernick. I’ve heard people say ‘Colin Kaepernick was so eloquent’ – no, he wasn’t. He’s never been eloquent in defending his decision to kneel for the National Anthem. He never gave a consistent answer, or one that made much sense, but the media passed it off like he was the second-coming of Martin Luther King, Jr.” (Full Audio Above)
Listen to Jason Whitlock and Clay Travis discuss the difference in media coverage behind the on-field and on-court statements made by Colin Kaepernick in 2016 and Jonathan Isaac over the weekend, as both Whitlock and Clay highlight the hypocrisy behind the media’s scrupulous cross-examination of the motives behind Isaac’s decision to stand for the National Anthem, compared to their apathetic and cordial coverage of Kaepernick kneeling.
Check out the interview above as Whitlock details why he agrees with the media’s aggressive coverage of Isaac, but says there has to be equal vetting towards all viewpoints to actually get a fair and two-sided debate and discussion going.