In case you live under a rock and don’t know, Joel Embiid shoved Marcus Hayes after an argument in the Sixers locker room on Saturday night. Journalists explained it as a hand on the shoulder, something in the push/push/stiff arm family of upper body actions, and the Inquirer described it this way in a Sunday morning article by Sixers writer Gina Mizell.:

Joel Embiid punched and shoved Inquirer columnist Marcus Hayes during a profanity-filled altercation in the 76ers locker room following Saturday’s home loss to the Memphis Grizzlies.

Embiid, whose open hand made contact with Hayes’ neck and collarbone area, was angered by the columnist’s recent work criticizing him for missing the start of the 2024-25 season due to a knee condition following surgery last February. .

…

In a statement, Inquirer editor and senior vice president Gabriel Escobar said: “Marcus is a seasoned and accomplished columnist who offers sharp and insightful commentary based on his observations. “You are free to disagree with what he says, but physical aggression is unjustified and unsustainable and we are taking this matter very seriously.”

This thing has been litigated to death for the last 72 hours. The original column that upset Embiid included lines about his son and his deceased brother, and Hayes apologized after the Inquirer removed the original passage and replaced it with a new lede. It seems like most people agree that Embiid was justified in feeling the way he felt, but that pushing/pushing/stiffening the arm was the wrong thing to do because it would lead to a suspension and/or fine.

“Advancing the story,” as they say, the Inquirer’s response is something of an eye-roll. They are the only ones who describe the incident with the combination of “hit and push.” Kyle Neubeck called it a push. Kevin Cooney said Embiid “poked Hayes in the shoulder” and Adam Aaronson said Embiid “became physical with Hayes, placing his hands on Hayes’ shoulder area.The Inquirer’s Keith Pompey He originally called it a punch and used the word “assaulted” before changing his wording to “shove.”“In reading everything that was written about this, I didn’t see the word “strike” or “stuck” used by any outlet other than the Inquirer, so interpret that however you will.

The interesting thing is to think about what the Inquirer thinks about this. The editors should never have allowed that story to be published under the original title to begin with. The column itself was straightforward and completely fair, but any editor paying half an attention should have flagged those first two paragraphs immediately. Just leave the son and deceased brother out of this, a general “best practice” when deciding what is good to print and what is not. Reminder, this is the same newspaper that created a messy employee revolt as a result of the “Buildings matter too” headline, which resulted in a wave of old-white acquisitions and a seismic DEI pivot after a Temple University audit. You would think the leadership would be extremely cautious given how the last half decade has gone there.

RE: Marcus himself, Gabe Escobar writes that Hayes “offers sharp and insightful commentary based on his observations,” I guess that’s how you describe writing provocative columns. Marcus basically has 94 WIP in written form and sometimes literally when he’s on their airwaves. It’s not that I’m an idiot, it’s a statement of truth. Hayes should print what Angelo Cataldi was to radio, or what any talking head is to popular television shows. You take tough stances and criticize players and teams, resulting in direct reactions from both sides while also generating compromise. A few years ago, someone told me that Marcus’s columns work quite well for the Inquirer, at least compared to simpler beat writing, so if they have something that people click on, that generates page views and moves the needle, so yes, They will probably continue like this and defend their employees when things like this happen.

One wonders if he’s worth it in 2024. Marcus has been criticized by AJ Brown and Joel Embiid this year alone. The latter culminated in a physical altercation. If Pagan or one of our freelancers had a problem with a player, I would feel embarrassed and consider quitting, because a dispute that progressed to that point would indicate an editorial failure on my part. So if you’re the Inquirer, at what point do these things start influencing your approach? How many hate clicks and how much engagement does it take to offset the backlash that occurs every time a Marcus column angers an athlete and/or their fans? I’m really curious. If I had Inquirer leadership in front of me, I would ask them “It’s worth it? Is this a net positive?“It’s important to hold players accountable and Marcus is great at what he does, but is this how we’re going to operate in 2024? You tell me.