​Stephen A. Smith defended his credibility as a journalist by leaning on the perspectives of Draymond Green and Jemele Hill, rather than on factual demonstrations of his reporting. Earlier this week, Hill joined Green on his podcast as the four-time NBA champion challenged whether Smith should still be considered a journalist on First Take, given that he isn’t routinely in the locker room to face players after commenting on them on ESPN.
“He’s arguably the best at what he does,” Green said of Smith. “But I also think where the lines get blurred in a negative way for journalists is he throws out the journalist tag all the time… but to your point, there isn’t the going in the locker room. He comes in the arena, you really don’t get next to him. You don’t see him… you say all of these things on television, and then you throw out the word ‘journalist,’ which almost makes people, especially athletes, not respect journalists.” Hill echoed Green’s point, even including herself in the critique by saying, “I don’t think people look at us as that anymore, and that’s not to say journalism 20 years ago was perfect…but there was just more respect that went both ways.”
“I’m a little disheartened with how personal it seems to get,” Hill added. “Because my rule of thumb always with television is I’m not going to say anything on TV I can’t say to your face.” Smith heard both opinions and took them personally. His first line of defense in defending his journalistic credibility was to mock Hill’s laughter. His second was to misinterpret what she was saying.
“Somebody that’s not in the locker room? Are you implying that you’ve been in the locker room more than me in my career?” Smith asked in his rebuttal. “Is that the implication here, Jemele Hill? I beg to differ. I was a beat writer and an NBA columnist for 15 years.” But that was not the implication. Hill never claimed she’d spent more time in locker rooms than Smith. She didn’t even question his credentials as a journalist. She echoed Green’s sentiment that players often don’t appreciate criticism from someone who isn’t available for direct, in-person conversation in the locker room. And Hill reiterated her stance in a post responding to Smith’s tirade, noting that he was “swinging at ghosts” by comment on implications.
“You just gonna sit up there and listen to Draymond Green and forget the fact that I was a beat writer in high school, college, pros for the first 20 years of my career?” Smith continued in his critique of Hill. Smith asserted that he earned the right not to have to be in the locker room all the time, and he’s not wrong to claim that ascent. He climbed from reporter to TV host, eventually earning a lucrative position that pays substantial money without regularly being in locker rooms or at press conferences.
Yet in defending himself as a journalist, Smith’s approach—relying on the authority of others’ opinions and on his own career trajectory—raised questions about whether credibility was being built on substance or on status and perception. He has clearly carved out a path that enabled him to operate successfully without the traditional, constant proximity to players that historically underpinned journalistic legitimacy. In this sense, his case reflects a broader debate about what it means to be a journalist in the current era: whether credentialing comes from years of on-the-ground reporting and access, or from the ability to shape narratives, analyze trends, and deliver compelling commentary from a television stage.