
The behind-the-scenes story of a WNBA controversy: Caitlin Clark, DiJonai Carrington and a journalist's questions
A MESSAGE ON BEHALF OF THE 144
This week was dedicated to celebrating and amplifying A'ja, Caitlin, DiJonai, and Napheesa for their hard work and truly exceptional performances all season long. We were not going to distract from their successes, nor would we dim the glow of the spotlight that centered them. They have earned that focus and celebration. But we will take this moment now to stand up for them and the rest of our members. Every single one of them.
Because we call B.S.
To unprofessional members of the media like Christine Brennan:
You are not fooling anyone.
That so-called interview in the name of journalism was a blatant attempt to bait a professional athlete into participating in a narrative that is false and designed to fuel racist, homophobic, and misogynistic vitriol on social media.
You cannot hide behind your tenure.
Instead of demonstrating the cornerstones of journalism ethics like integrity, objectivity, and a fundamental commitment to truth, you have chosen to be indecent and downright insincere. You have abused your privileges and do not deserve the cre- dentials issued to you. And you certainly are not entitled to any interviews with the members of this union or any other athlete in sport. Those credentials mean that you can ask anything, but they also mean that you know the difference between what you should and should not.
We see you.
Our relationship with the media is a delicate one that we will continue to strengthen because the media is essential to growing the game. No one knows that better than we do. But the players are entitled to better. They are entitled to professionalism.
We call on USA Today Network to review its Principles of Ethical Conduct for Newsrooms and address what we believe is a violation of several core principles, including seeking and reporting the truth. USA Today Sports should explain why a reporter with clear bias and ulterior motives was assigned to cover the league. We also urge the league to review its policies and take measures to prevent such issues, protecting the integrity of the game and its players.
Terri Carmichael Jackson
Executive Director
•
Two hours later, USA Today took its turn posting on social media.
Journalists ask questions and seek truth. At USA Today, our mission is to report in an unbiased manner. We reject the notion that the interview perpetuated any narrative other than to get the player's perspective directly. Christine Brennan is well regarded as an advocate for women and athletes, but first and foremost, she's a journalist.
Roxanna Scott
USA Today Sports Executive Editor
•
How did we get here? This is what happened:
Almost exactly three days earlier, just before 1:20 p.m. on Tuesday, September 24, between Games One and Two of the Fever–Sun playoff series, DiJonai Carrington walked across the court at the empty Mohegan Sun Arena to speak with a knot of reporters there to interview both teams after their respective practices. Social media was running wild with videos and photos of Carrington's fingers hitting Clark in the eye, with unsubstantiated claims and insinuations that Carrington had tried to injure Clark.
There also were other videos making the rounds on the internet in which Carrington and teammate Marina Mabrey were seen laughing later in the game, including Mabrey motioning with her fingers. It appeared that they were mimicking former NBA star Carmelo Anthony's gesture celebrating a three-point shot, but the internet was rife with questions, comments, rumors, and innuendo about all of it, and since social media had driven so much of the conversation around the WNBA this season, there was only one way to give the athlete in question a chance to clear the air, and that was to ask Carrington about it.
So I did.
'DiJonai, when you went and kind of swatted at Caitlin, did you intend to hit her in the eye, and if so—or if not, either way—could you talk about what happened on that play?'
'I don't even know why I would intend to hit anybody in the eye,' she replied. 'That doesn't even make sense to me. But no, I didn't. I didn't know I hit her, actually. I was trying to make a play on the ball and I guess I followed through and I hit her, so obviously it's never intentional, that's not even, like, the type of player that I am.'
I followed up to give her a chance to address the issue of the other videos getting quite a bit of attention online. 'Did you and Marina kind of laugh about it afterwards? It looked like later on in the game they caught you guys laughing about it?'
'No, I just told you I didn't even know I hit her, so I can't laugh about something I didn't know happened.'
In my long career, I've asked hundreds of questions that were far more challenging and potentially controversial than those. This is what journalists do. We ask questions, specific questions, sometimes difficult questions. In all cases, the athlete has an opportunity to take the questions any way he or she prefers, to fight back, to tell their side of the story, whatever they want to do.
I would ask any male athlete what I asked Carrington, so why wouldn't I ask a female athlete those questions? I posted the video of my questions and Carrington's answers on social media; it received millions of views. By covering this story seriously, I was giving the WNBA the respect it deserved, just like the NFL or the Olympics. I was doing my job.
•
Fifteen minutes after I asked Carrington those questions, ClutchPoints' Matthew Byrne asked Clark during her on-court media availability what she would say to 'the crowd of people that think a hit like that was intentional.'
Clark laughed. 'It wasn't intentional by any means. You just watch the play. It wasn't intentional.'
Byrne's post on X received hundreds of thousands of views. Clark's answer was now available in the public domain for one reason: Byrne asked the question.
•
Just a couple of minutes after Carrington's interview session was over and she walked away, I was standing near the other reporters at the side of the court when her teammate DeWanna Bonner walked toward me.
'You disrespected my teammate,' she said.
I put out my hand and tried to introduce myself, but Bonner did not want to shake it.
'You attacked my teammate,' she said.
I motioned to my phone in my hand. 'Can I tell you what I said?'
I was happy to show her the video I had just taken of Carrington's answers to my questions. I again tried to introduce myself since Bonner and I had never met, but Bonner wanted no part of that.
'You attacked my teammate,' she said again.
I tried to introduce myself once more. 'I asked her a question to give her a chance to respond to a controversy.'
'You disrespected my teammate,' Bonner said again, walking away.
Bonner never raised her voice, nor did I. It was the kind of tense but predictable conversation I have had dozens of times over the length of my career with professional athletes, especially in the National Football League. When a journalist is doing her job properly, and an athlete is doing hers or his properly, they sometimes will not get along.
This happens relatively often in big-time sports.
•
No more than 10 minutes before the Carrington interview, I had chatted with Connecticut Sun head coach Stephanie White on the court. We had both been on an ABC News Live show a few months earlier, talking about the Caitlin Clark Effect, so it was nice to catch up for a few minutes and exchange cell numbers.
Knowing how fraught the playoffs can be, and now possessing White's number, I decided to text her to let her know what happened in case she or her players wanted to discuss it with me.
'Your players are mad at my questions,' I wrote. 'Happy to discuss anytime. My questions gave DiJonai a chance to clear the air on a controversial topic. It was Journalism 101. I tried to introduce myself to DeWanna three times and tell her what happened but she just wanted to criticize me which of course is her right. Just fyi. Thanks.'
Little more than an hour later, White replied. 'Thanks for the heads up.'
Five hours later, a WNBA official called me in my hotel room in Uncasville, about a mile from the arena. The official had been informed by the Connecticut Sun public relations staff about my questions to Carrington and Bonner's response. The league official told me that the Sun PR people had told Carrington that she should not have gone to a teammate to confront a credentialed reporter, but rather should have come to the PR people, who could have handled the situation.
Then the WNBA official brought up my questions to Carrington. 'I have a simple test about whether questions are appropriate or not,' the official told me. 'They should not be vulgar, rude, or inappropriate. Your questions were not vulgar, rude, or inappropriate. Your questions were fine.
'Unfortunately, most of our players have zero idea what real media exposure is,' the official continued. 'They don't know what real coverage is, they have been shielded at college and then they come to the WNBA not knowing what real questions are. Frankly, our players just don't get it.'
The official requested their name not be used due to the sensitive nature of the issue.
•
At 11:30 the next morning, Wednesday, September 25, eight hours before Game Two, Carrington wasn't on the court. She wasn't in the locker room. She wasn't looking at game film.
No, on the day she was named the WNBA's Most Improved Player, Carrington was poking her head through a gap in the black curtains surrounding a catering area backstage at the arena, raising her voice at three journalists sitting at a table.
Indianapolis Fieldhouse Files Fever beat writer Scott Agness, Indianapolis Star Fever beat writer Chloe Peterson, and I were in the otherwise empty catering area, waiting for the Fever shootaround to end on the court nearby, when Carrington surprised us with her appearance between the curtains.
'Why are you talking shit about NaLyssa?' she blurted out loudly, referring to her partner, NaLyssa Smith, the Fever forward.
The question surprised the three of us because no one was saying anything personal or derogatory about Smith. Agness and Peterson had been discussing a bit of Fever strategy they had just noticed on the court but had been asked not to divulge publicly—that Smith was going to be replaced in the starting lineup for Game Two by veteran Temi Fagbenle.
'You're saying she's a bad teammate!' Carrington yelled.
Then she looked specifically at me. 'I walked past and I heard you talking shit about NaLyssa! It was you, out of your mouth!'
Carrington, of course, had been outside the curtains while Agness and Peterson had been talking about the change in the Fever starting lineup. I invited Carrington to come inside the curtains to sit down and speak with us. She refused, but she was still talking quite loudly, so much so that her voice was carrying through a back hallway of the arena.
Connecticut Sun manager of communications Alexandra Maund later said that her colleague, public relations specialist Caroline O'Keefe, heard the commotion and told Maund to find out what was happening.
'Caroline comes running over to me, 'DiJonai's yelling at somebody,' so I ran over and grabbed her away,' Maund said.
The Sun's Marina Mabrey also heard Carrington, and she ended up rushing toward her teammate as well. They were on the outside of the curtains around the catering area, but visible to us through gaps in the curtains. We watched them convince Carrington to stop talking and walk away.
Obviously surprised by this development, Agness, Peterson, and I immediately replayed the conversation around the table that preceded Carrington's arrival through the curtains and agreed that no one had said what Carrington said she heard.
•
That wasn't the end of it. Thirty minutes later, with Agness, Peterson, and me now back on the court, waiting to interview the players, Smith walked by, then came back toward the court moments later with her cell phone pressed to her ear. Carrington had left a voicemail for Smith relating her version of the catering area story, according to a Fever official.
Smith strode toward me. 'Do you have something to say to me?' she asked.
'I'm always happy to talk to you,' I replied.
She scoffed and walked away.
Within minutes, back under the stands in a dark hallway, WNBA communications director Sam Tager was standing with Agness and me. Smith walked by us, looking at me. 'What did you say?' Smith asked. 'What did you say?'
I told her that no one – Agness, Peterson, or I – said anything negative about her.
'You are lying,' Smith said to me and walked away.
Tager shook her head: 'This is like a bad game of 'Telephone.''
Minutes later, Maund said she wanted to hear the entire story, and I was happy to tell it, so she gathered Fever PR director Ryan Stevens, Tager, Agness, and me around a backstage table. Each of us taped the conversation. I retold the details, and Agness added his, which corroborated mine. Peterson was on deadline, so she wasn't with us, but she later confirmed the same details.
At the end of our meeting, Maund said, 'Jen (Rizzotti, the Sun president) is on her way in right now, and I'm going to talk to her about it. … I'll see what she wants to do. … You may be hearing from us, but I appreciate your honesty.'
An hour later, a WNBA official who was not in Connecticut called me to say they had listened to the audio recording from our meeting about the incident and were going to follow up with the Sun about Carrington's behavior.
•
The news of the players union wanting to banish me for asking a question and a follow-up exploded not only in sports social media but also in the mainstream media. Over the next few days, I was supported. I was lectured. I was cheered. I was excoriated.
A sampling:
Soccer legend Megan Rapinoe, whom I have known and covered for more than a decade, said this about my questions on her podcast: 'That feels racist.'
Lindsay Gibbs, who runs a women's sports newsletter, posted on X: 'Wild to see reporters I grew up admiring, trailblazers of the industry, become hacks in real time.'
Carrington herself reposted the WNBA players association statement, adding '@cbrennansports, goofy.'
Those who were angry with me believed that the WNBA was not the same as other sports leagues and required different kinds of questions—ones that took into account possible racial backlash before they were asked. There was concern that the two questions I asked could lead to social media attacks on Carrington and other Black players.
Others thought the questions were appropriate, allowing Carrington to deal with a controversial topic on her terms, in her own words.
Tom Jones, senior media writer for The Poynter Report, a daily media newsletter: 'Brennan was doing her job, a job she has done well and fairly for decades. In this case, she went directly to Carrington, as is the journalistically responsible thing to do.'
The Boston Globe's Tara Sullivan: 'Absurd on its face, and laughingly uninformed and hypocritical in each of its five pages posted to social media last Friday, the statement indicted the WNBPA far more than it could ever hurt Brennan, a trailblazing journalist who has been on the ground covering women's sports for more than four decades. … The WNBA and its players keep fumbling their golden opportunity with a string of ill-advised decisions and PR gaffes exposing them as not being ready for prime time.'
CNN's Jake Tapper and I discussed the players' call to ban me on his show, The Lead, on September 30. Tapper ended the segment this way: 'Whoever wrote that statement for the WNBA players union should probably read a little bit more about Christine Brennan before accusing her of buying into anything having to do with homophobia or racism or sexism, because those are horrible blights on our culture that you have been fighting against for decades.'
Annie Costabile, the Chicago Sun-Times' WNBA reporter, said she understood how race and politics always have played a role in coverage of the league, but that threatening to take a journalist's credential was never the answer: 'Early on covering the beat, I experienced a sense of being protective of the players because I saw firsthand how disrespected the sport was collectively,' she said. 'I thought respecting the sport and the players meant being protective over being fair. I was wrong. Respecting women's sports doesn't mean we should cover the league in a soft manner. These women are athletes, the ultimate competitors, and they deserve the same coverage, including critical coverage, that we give to all sports. That's the mark of true equality. Sometimes when we have these conversations about coverage of the WNBA, you have to ask, are we treating it as a sport, or as a charity?'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

CNN
12 minutes ago
- CNN
Fact check: Debunking 11 of Trump's false claims at Cabinet meeting
President Donald Trump again turned a Cabinet meeting into a wide-ranging conversation with reporters – and again uttered a whole bunch of false claims in the process. Trump's Tuesday remarks at the White House included inaccurate assertions about inflation, immigration, his tariff policy, the massive domestic policy bill he signed last week, China's use of wind energy, US and European aid to Ukraine, the US relationship with South Korea, and other subjects. Here is a fact check of 11 of the president's false claims. This is not a comprehensive list. Inflation: As he has repeatedly, Trump falsely claimed Tuesday, 'We have no inflation.' The US does have inflation – an annual inflation rate of 2.4% in May, an uptick from a 2.3% annual rate in April. That April rate was the lowest since early 2021, and lower than some economists expected for April after Trump imposed significant new tariffs, but it's not 'no inflation' whatsoever. (And on a month-to-month basis, US consumer prices increased 0.1% in May and 0.2% in April.) Tax on Social Security: Touting the new domestic policy legislation, Trump repeated his false claim that it achieves his campaign promise of 'no tax on Social Security.' It does not. The legislation does create an additional, temporary $6,000-per-year tax deduction for individuals age 65 and older (with a smaller deduction for individuals earning $75,000 per year or more), but the White House itself has implicitly acknowledged that millions of Social Security recipients age 65 and older will continue to pay taxes on their benefits – and that new deduction, which expires in 2028, doesn't even apply to the Social Security recipients who are younger than 65. Trump's tariff letters: Trump spoke of the letters he sent to various foreign leaders announcing the tariff rates he plans to impose on their countries beginning in August – and said, 'I just want you to know - a letter means a deal.' That's just not true. Multiple letters the White House revealed on Monday announced tariff rates Trump said he plans to unilaterally place on imports from foreign countries; those letters did not describe negotiated deals. Who pays tariffs: Trump repeatedly spoke of how his new tariffs mean other countries will have to 'pay' the US for the privilege of doing business in the US. Contrary to Trump's frequent assertions, it is the US importers who buy foreign products, not foreign countries themselves, who make the tariff payments to the US government. Tariff history: Trump repeated his regular false claim that the US was 'proportionately' at its 'wealthiest' between 1870 and 1913, when tariff revenue made up a much larger share of federal revenue before the reintroduction of the income tax. Trump didn't explain what he meant by 'proportionately' or 'the wealthiest,' but economists say that by any standard measure, the US is far wealthier today than it was in the early 20th century and prior; per capita gross domestic product is now many times higher than it was then. China and wind power: Trump, asserting that 'smart countries' don't use wind and solar energy, repeated his recent false claim that China, the world's biggest manufacturer of wind turbines, barely uses such equipment itself - wrongly saying, 'They don't have a lot of wind farms, I'll tell you; very, very few.' In reality, China is the world leader in the generation of wind power and has massive wind farms onshore and offshore; it continues to install additional wind capacity much faster than the US. California and energy: Trump, reviving a previous inaccurate complaint about California's use of renewable energy sources, falsely claimed: 'They have blackouts and brownouts every week.' The state simply does not; its power system has improved significantly since the rolling blackouts of a 2020 heat wave. Daniel Villasenor, a spokesperson for Gov. Gavin Newsom, said in a Tuesday email that Trump is again 'lying about California.' Villasenor wrote: 'The state has not experienced any rotating outages since 2020 – and in the last three years, no Flex Alert calling to conserve power has even been issued. Not only has our grid been increasingly resilient, it's also cleaner than ever – clean energy provided for 100% of demand on our grid for at least some part of the day 167 out of the first 180 days of the year.' US and European aid to Ukraine: Trump repeated his frequent false claim that the US has provided 'far more' wartime aid to Ukraine that Europe has, saying the US is 'in there for over $300 billion; Europe's in there for over $100 billion.' Those numbers are not close to accurate. According to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a German think tank that closely tracks international aid to Ukraine, the US had committed about $139 billion in military, financial and humanitarian aid to Ukraine from late January 2022, just prior to Russia's full-scale invasion, through April 2025 – well short of about $298 billion committed by European countries and the European Union. The gap was much narrower in terms of aid actually allocated through April 2025 – about $183 billion for Europe to about $134 billion for the US – but even those figures clearly disprove Trump's claim. South Korea's military cost-sharing: Trump repeated his false claim that South Korea convinced former President Joe Biden to let it stop making payments to help cover the cost of the US military presence in South Korea, saying Biden 'cut it down to nothing.' In fact, Biden's administration signed two cost-sharing agreements with South Korea, one in 2021 and one in 2024, that included South Korean spending increases – meaning South Korea agreed to pay more than it did during Trump's first term. US troops in South Korea: Trump again exaggerated the US troop presence in South Korea, falsely saying, 'You know, we have 45,000 soldiers in South Korea.' Official Defense Department data, published online, says the US had 26,206 military personnel in South Korea as of March 31, 2025, with 22,844 on active duty. Migration and mental health: Trump falsely claimed that unnamed foreign countries 'released their insane asylum – the insane asylum population into our country.' Even Trump's own presidential campaign could not produce any evidence for his frequent claims, which he has repeated for more than two years, that foreign countries deliberately emptied their mental health facilities to somehow get patients to migrate to the United States.


CNN
12 minutes ago
- CNN
Newsom blasts Trump during South Carolina tour as California governor stokes 2028 speculation
California Gov. Gavin Newsom embarked Tuesday on a two-day swing through rural South Carolina as the high-profile Democrat seeks to position himself as a leader for a party in rebuilding mode while simultaneously stoking fresh speculation about a potential 2028 presidential bid. Newsom alternated between defiance toward President Donald Trump and familiarity with voters in the early primary state during his roughly 15-minute address at a stop in Bennettsville, sharply criticizing the administration and referring to the opening of Trump's second term as 'an alarming six months.' 'It's not what happens to us, it's how we respond to it. And our opportunity presents itself anew. In 18 months, you have the power to end Donald Trump's presidency,' Newsom said, to loud applause from the full room. 'We'll have to deal with the tweets, we'll have to deal with the attacks and the bullying. But the legislative agenda is effectively over,' Newsom continued. 'You have that power in these midterms.' Throughout his remarks, Newsom touted his own efforts to stand up to the Trump administration and help rebuild the Democratic Party. He made repeated references to his efforts to support the Democratic presidential ticket in 2024 and promoted California as 'the most un-Trump state,' while also slipping in the occasional 'y'all' in a nod to the South. He commented on several recent news developments, including the Trump administration's latest immigration crackdown in his state and the tragic flooding last week in Texas, taking both opportunities to lambaste the president's leadership. 'Donald Trump,' Newsom said of the immigration raids in Los Angeles, 'decided to send hundreds and hundreds of military troops into the park, into the playground, in the middle of the day, where kids this old were at summer camp.' Newsom went on, 'Not one arrest was made. But what he was doing – he wanted to make a point. Cruelty is the point. Cruelty is the point.' And commenting on Texas, Newsom continued criticizing Trump's leadership. 'Do you remember his response to the disaster in California? He blamed every single person – not a peep of blame in Texas,' Newsom remarked, referencing his clashes with the administration during severe wildfires that devastated Los Angeles earlier this year. Speaking at the White House on Tuesday, Trump didn't mention Newsom by name but called him 'one of the worst governors in our country, who I used to get along with, actually.' Trump also defended the federal response to the wildfires. 'If we didn't step in, Los Angeles would have been burned to the ground,' he said. At one point, while invoking his support for former President Joe Biden, Newsom noted that included the 'not so easy' role of being a surrogate on the night of the first presidential debate hosted by CNN in June 2024. 'I say this with love in my heart – with love in my heart – but love for my party and love for my country.' Newsom also touted his recent defamation lawsuit against Fox News, drawing applause from the audience. 'Lies. Myths. And misrepresentations. You think I'm lying? Take a look at what I did last week – I sued Fox News,' he remarked. The California governor's visit to the key presidential primary state is the latest in a series of moves laying the groundwork for a potential 2028 campaign, with several high-profile contenders already making visits to longtime early primary states. Attendees at Newsom's midday event in Marlboro County underscored the anticipation. 'I came to see the next president of the United States, who should really be the current president, if we are being honest,' said Samantha Sherman, who drove from her home near the state line with her 10-year-old son Patrick to see Newsom. Ken Stroman, a Bennettsville native, told CNN he didn't know much about Newsom coming into Tuesday's visit. 'I knew people described him as a potential front-runner. Now I see why,' said Stroman. 'I don't know if he will be the nominee, but if he is, I could support him.' 'The way Trump has treated California, we get that. Poor Black people in the South, that is how we are treated. He sees that.' Trump improved his performance in Marlboro County in each of his three campaigns. In 2016, he lost it to Democrat Hillary Clinton by about 16 points. Four years later he cut his deficit to less than 11 points against Biden. Last November, he lost it by less than 3 points against former Vice President Kamala Harris. South Carolina Republicans responded to Newsom's trip on social media by mocking him and the state of California. 'Gavin Newsom in South Carolina today is like a kale salad at a Waffle House — confused, unwelcome, and about to get sent back,' said Republican Rep. Russell Fry on X.


Fast Company
13 minutes ago
- Fast Company
‘No Tax on Tips' is now the law: What workers should know about timeline, how paychecks will be impacted
The ' No Tax on Tips ' provision, passed and signed into law on July 4 as part of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, allows eligible tipped workers to deduct a portion of their income from tips on their federal income taxes. There is a catch: It's only a temporary provision, expiring in 2028 when Trump leaves office at the end of his second term. But the good news is that eligible workers can start deducting up to $25,000 of reported tip income for their upcoming 2025 tax year. Here's what else to know. How 'No Tax on Tips' affects tax filing and paychecks This is a deduction, not an exemption, which means tipped workers will still need to report their tips when filing their taxes, instead of having the tips automatically taken out of taxable income, per Kiplinger. The No Tax on Tips provision also does not eliminate payroll taxes (like Social Security and Medicare) on tips, so you'll still need to pay those. Who qualifies for 'No Tax on Tips'? The No Tax on Tips deduction applies for those earning income up to $150,000 a year, or $300,000 for joint filers, which will be adjusted each year for inflation. Furthermore, it applies for 'customarily tipped' workers. The U.S. Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have yet to issue guidance on which jobs and occupations qualify, so stay tuned. However, the bill is likely to apply to workers that rely on tips, such as hair stylists, nail techs, restaurant servers, and bartenders, per Kiplinger. As Fast Company previously reported, No Tax on Tips also expands the business tax credit for the portion of payroll taxes that an employer pays on certain tips, to include payroll taxes paid on tips received in connection with certain beauty services, just like for restaurants. No tax on overtime pay Finally, the No Tax on Tips provision also applies to overtime pay, and a deduction will be available to eligible taxpayers regardless of whether they itemize. However, filers will have to provide their Social Security number on their 1040 form (or that of their spouse when filing jointly) in order to claim the deduction.