USA Today’s attempts to criticize Caitlin Clark misfired twice, first with a controversial op-ed and then with a mistaken claim about her absence from an All-Star event.
Two recent pieces from the same national outlet landed badly when aiming at one of basketball’s rising stars. Each effort drew attention for the wrong reasons and forced the publication to backtrack in one form or another.
The first misstep came in a column that equated parts of Clark’s fandom with extreme and racially charged behavior, invoking historic violence to make a point about sports coverage. That piece read as if written by someone far removed from the rhythms of the game and the dynamics of modern fandom.
Critics said the comparisons were wildly disproportionate and that the column’s line of argument strained credibility. Observers noted the piece leaned on provocative analogies rather than clear evidence about how fans behave at games.
Beyond the op-ed’s rhetoric, there’s a real, separate issue: Clark and other WNBA players have been the target of abusive messages and ugly on-court treatment. At times officials have missed calls on physical plays, and that inconsistent officiating has heightened tensions and frustration among fans and players alike.
It seems there is a white nationalist element to Clark’s fandom that is deeply, deeply problematic, made even more so because the WNBA is made up predominantly of Black women, many of them queer. When Clark claims fouls that don’t exist, when she goes on profanity-laced tirades at referees, those racists see her as a white woman in need of saving and take matters into their own hands.
Gray posted just one of the messages she got following the Fever game, in which a man called her a racial slur. After fans identified the man, he was fired by his employer, Hilton Grand Vacations.
https://x.com/USATODAY/status/2080706812928749849?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
It shouldn’t need reminding this country has an awful history of Black people being harmed, even killed, in the name of “defending” white women. The WNBA’s All-Star Game this weekend is in Chicago, Emmett Till’s hometown, and a local art gallery is currently hosting an exhibit imagining his life if he hadn’t been lynched. While it’s incumbent on the WNBA to do more to protect its players, there also should be an expectation on Clark to recognize the wider consequences of her actions.
After the backlash, the author issued a statement that many readers took as a guarded apology, one that corrected little and protected the writer’s platform. That response did not satisfy those who felt the original piece had crossed a line by equating fandom with organized extremism.
Not long after, the same outlet published a piece criticizing Clark for skipping the WNBA All-Star Orange Carpet, only to be contradicted by a simple fact: she was not absent without reason. Clark was hosting a charity dinner during the All-Star festivities, a responsibility that explained her nonattendance at the red carpet event.
The correction exposed a pattern of rushed judgment and sloppy fact-checking in coverage that should have double-checked a high-profile athlete’s schedule before assigning blame. Once that error became clear, readers pointed out the mismatch between the claim and the documented reality of Clark’s charitable work.
These two incidents together highlight how quickly narrative-driven pieces can overshadow verifiable detail. When large outlets publish sharp, morally loaded takes without robust sourcing, they risk not only credibility but also doing a disservice to the people involved.
Enough media mistakes like this and observers start to question whether a rush to commentary has replaced careful reporting. The result is avoidable friction between athletes, fans, and the outlets that cover them.
