Steve Kerr admits he was ‘wrong’ on Hong Kong, regrets calling Trump a ‘buffoon’

Steve Kerr’s new interview in the New Yorker reads more like a man trying to clean up the mess he’s made over the years than a man eager to teach Americans a lesson. Kerr has appeared in every opener during his coaching career in Golden State. preaching left politics.

But suddenly the Warriors coach sounded more like someone trying to move toward the middle. Or at least that’s what it sounds like.

New Yorker staff writer Charles Bethea had a long and descriptive piece: interview with Kerr. Bethea is not very revealing, as he is an objective journalist who desires to seek the truth. Actually, quite the opposite.

Bethea doesn’t even try to hide his left-wing bias. He opens the piece with fervent affection for Kerr and then makes his position on the longtime NBA coach clear. He writes that Kerr has been “refreshingly outspoken” throughout his career. Does anyone think Bethea would describe a conservative coach or athlete as “refreshingly outspoken”? Of course not.

But the writer took it a step further, calling Kerr’s 2022 Uvalde comments “informed and impassioned advocacy.” When the author agrees, it’s always “informed and impassioned advocacy.” If he doesn’t agree, that’s “dangerous misinformation” or “bigotry” or another word from the progressive rhetoric lexicon for another day.

And the prejudice didn’t stop at the entrance. Even Bethea’s questions were designed to let Kerr know that he was talking to an ally (let alone an enemy) and not an objective journalist. But Bethea’s bias, perhaps contrary to his own intentions, revealed the most interesting part of the interview.

CLICK TO DOWNLOAD FOX NEWS APPLICATION

Steve Kerr changed his tune

When it comes to Hong Kong, Bethea does not characterize the issue as hypocrisy. He said President Donald Trump enjoys what he “perceives as hypocrisy” from Kerr and the NBA. Of course, the “perceived hypocrisy” of constantly lecturing on social justice while remaining silent on China’s human rights abuses in order to cash checks from the Communist regime. How can someone perceive this as “hypocrisy”?

Even when The New Yorker came New Yorker When it comes to one of the clearest examples of the normally loose-spoken Kerr remaining silent when it comes to the league’s business interests, though, he can’t help but soften the premise for it.

But even when talking to a friendly interviewer, Kerr seems like a man who holds back. He says he’s learned he needs to be better at “representing our organization” without getting too personal. He says he regrets calling Donald Trump a “joker.” He says it’s better to focus on policy and values ​​rather than personal insults. Then he does something even more impressive. The former Hong Kong admits his answer was “really weak,” saying, “Yeah. I was wrong,” and admits he was trying to “toe the company line” and not anger the NBA.

By the way Bethea never followed up on this answer. Instead, he turned right and praised Kerr for his Uvalde stance. Modern journalism, right?

CLICK HERE TO GET MORE SPORTS NEWS FROM OUTKICK

There is important context here. Recent reports from NBA reporters Marc Spears and Nick Friedell suggest Kerr’s constant political comments created internally Frustration within the Warriors. Spears said she heard Kerr might be “a little subdued.” Friedell reported that league and team sources say Kerr’s desire to speak candidly on social and political issues has at times led to internal frustration. It’s interesting that such a comment would come from an NBA team in an openly left-wing sports league.

And we’ve seen this model before with Kerr.

Kerr apologizes for ICE language

In January, after the Renee Good shooting in Minnesota, Kerr did what she always does: uninformedly blasted a quote from the progressive playbook. He did not wait for facts or leave room for uncertainty. He said it was “shameful” that law enforcement officers could “commit murder” and seemingly get away with it, and accused the government of lying about what was happening.

He did so again after the Alex Pretti shooting, saying ICE wasn’t actually “taking out violent criminals” but was detaining “5-year-old kindergarteners” and U.S. citizens.

Then came the part that Kerr generally didn’t have to deal with in friendly sports media circles. A follow-up question. Although the NBA and the Warriors were initially reluctant to allow OutKick into the media room, they eventually relented. Kerr backtracked when OutKick asked him directly for his comments.

Kerr, who acknowledged that ICE has arrested some criminals, said, “I was absolutely wrong,” said he “immediately regretted” his comment, and apologized for the “misinformation.” If Kerr deserves to be called a reformer, it’s not because he raises left-wing issues at press conferences. Many coaches and players do this and are hailed as heroes by leftists in the sports media. It was very refreshing to see Kerr admit he made a mistake and apologize.

This is where Doc Rivers comes into play.

Rivers, who was the head coach of the Milwaukee Bucks at the time, did the exact opposite when he got the same opportunity. OutKick followed up on Rivers’ own ICE comments, and Rivers never changed his mind. Actually he doubled.

Unlike Steve Kerr, Doc Rivers doubled down on his comments following an ICE shooting in Minnesota. (Patrick McDermott/Getty Images)

Asked whether calling the Minnesota shooting a “murder” was a legal decision or a moral decision, Rivers said, “It’s both, and I’m not changing it at all.” When asked if U.S. citizens who are Brown should be worried about ICE, Rivers said, “We all should be worried.” This is a coach who got turned away and chose to escalate the tension. Kerr was pushed back and chose to retreat. In a league full of players and coaches who love to moralize, this distinction is important.

Kerr’s new stance is focused on pushback, not moderation

That’s why this New Yorker article is more important than it seems. On the surface, this is exactly what people would expect from a magazine that shares Kerr’s worldview. The piece is tender, adoring, and unashamedly tilted in his favor. Bethea openly praises Kerr’s policy and makes no effort to back down. Instead, he’s trying to smooth out the rough edges in Kerr’s favor. It basically does the opposite of journalism.

And even with all that help, Kerr still seems more hesitant than the version of herself who likes to turn every podium into her own little bully pulpit.

ZERO BS. JUST DAKICH. GET THE DON’T @ ME PODCAST ON THE ROAD. DOWNLOAD NOW!

None of this means Kerr is switching sides. He didn’t. He remains one of the NBA’s most predictable lefties. He’s still much more comfortable lecturing the country when it’s time for selective outrage, and conveniently remaining silent when it comes to NBA interests. Readers may note that Kerr previously said he had given a “weak answer” about China, but didn’t bother to give a new “strong” answer that might upset the CCP and NBA bosses.

And he’s still being rewarded for that stance by outlets like The New Yorker, which treat the progressive activism of sports figures as a sign of courage rather than virtue signaling.

Steve Kerr appears to be a coach backing away from his left-wing lessons in a fawning new New Yorker interview, even admitting his past mistakes regarding China and Donald Trump’s comments. (Kevin Jairaj/Imagn Images)

But he also seems like someone who’s starting to understand that there might be a downside to this move. The old Steve Kerr routine was simple: say the expected left-wing thing and then let the liberal media fawn over his “courage” and never ask follow up questions. It worked for a long time.

Then came the ICE comments, and a media outlet called OutKick did some real journalism and asked a follow-up question. That’s when Kerr’s tune started to change. He apologized. Now, reports are emerging that people around the Warriors are starting to get tired of his move.

Finally there is this New Yorker In the interview, even under the friendliest circumstances imaginable, Kerr comes off as a man trying to give himself more room to fall back.

But no, Steve Kerr is not leaving politics or moving more towards the middle. Instead it does something much more subtle than that.

He varies how far he wants to push his talking points when there’s a real chance of pushback.

And the fact that you can see this shift even in a fawning New Yorker article makes it that much harder to miss.