Why isn’t is more of a controversy that ESPN, which has massive contracts with the NBA, was clearly favoring one team and owner above all others?

There’s plenty of public outrage over them carrying water for Ballmer, but most of it just seems focused on the fact that he was guilty, but guilty or not, they still shouldn’t be favoring one owner like they have been.

Adam Silver gave them the biggest punishment in NBA history, since he works at the pleasure of the owners, we can only assume that all or most of the other owners supported the punishment. So why was an official NBA affiliate taking the side of the richest owner against the league as a whole?

In my opinion, this should be its own big scandal totally separate from the cap circumvention scandal. The biggest sports network in the world should not be giving the richest NBA owner preferential treatment for any reason, much less in order to defend them against credible and substantiated accusations of cap circumvention.

Media carrying water for rich people isn’t a scandal for the US, it’s the norm

Because the general public doesn’t take journalism seriously and the “victims” (the other team owners) don’t care because ESPN is still lining their pockets

I just kinda assume any opinion coming from ESPN is shit.

“Mega Corporation favors billionaire over truth” isn’t some wild surprising concept to most people 🤷‍♂️

because unless you are ignorant to how modern society works, this is actually expected.

Because journalism barely exists anymore, and 99% of "news" is purely for clickbait.

As long people keep listening/reading, sharing, and engaging with their articles, they don't give 2 shits whether it is accurate or not. And "we" as the public don't do shit to hold them accountable.

The SAS is ESPN's highest paid reporter/analyst/talking head, is all you need to know about their business model.

“Why isn’t more of a controversy that this company making money from these people were favorably editorializing these people?”

Wait, are you saying political parties give money to the media? And how is lobbying relevant here? I think your first sentence is directionally correct but the second sentence seems confused.

Something something can’t make a man see the truth when he gets paid to ignore it something something

Because espn is a broadcaster/partner with the nba and not a real news network. The real question people should ask is why aren’t other owners more upset about what the clippers did.

Bought and owned

It is not taking a side by being a messenger for them and stating it as such. In the nature of the article and listing NBA as unwilling to comment but not the Clippers among the two in the room to know.

They basically posted a Clippers interview and thats apparently not allowed by a news publication anymore. And there are 12+ such articles posted here daily, beyond Shams entire existence that yall find no issue with, and because you cant see the "source says" of it yall are throwing a dozen posts a day tantrum about this as the other dozen told you you were supposed to, whether equipped or not for it.

ESPN are not in the room to know whether Clippers were actually told this by league, but a member of the Clippers administration is a dependable source to tell them to communicate publicly as the report and not official league announcement this is and they stated it as. Truth or intents of releasing it is up to the public to decide especially given, again, the report and not announcement it was but yall being unable to understand that takes others adjusting somehow.

Theres a lot of big takes about this matter as if this isnt the journalism begged for from them and because yall need babysitters theyre a problem.