Q&A with the 'First Take' duo of Stephen A. Smith and Max Kellerman

SPORTING NEWS: Looking at the TV ratings, is “First Take” vs “Undisputed” not really a competition any more? Is your show, pardon the pun, the undisputed king of weekday sports debate shows?

STEPHEN A. SMITH: That’s for somebody else to say, not for me, I’m not going to go there. What I will tell you is that Skip knew when he departed that, as much as I love him, and as much as I consider him my brother from another mother, he moved in his direction and I moved in mine. The quest was going to be complete annihilation. It doesn’t matter who I’m going up against. It’s the same thing. He’s on this side and you’re on that side. That’s the way I am. So it’s not about Skip Bayless, it's not about Fox, it’s not about the NFL Network, it's not about anything. Last time I checked, ‘First Take’ was No. 1 in cable (among men 18-34 and 18-49) for the 10 a.m. to 12 noon slot. So as far as I’m concerned, anybody that’s standing in my way is somebody that I consider to be competition. It just so happens he was Max’s predecessor.

[Skip] is no longer here. Max is here. This is our team. This is who we go to war with every day. Whoever is standing in our way, the quest is annihilation. It’s just that simple. That’s how I approach it. Whether we achieve that, or not, takes a concerted effort on the part of everybody. I need Max and Molly, they need me. We need our producers, we need Dave Roberts, we need Norby Williamson and Connor Schell, the list goes on and on. We need all the help and support that we can get. But we only need the support from people whose mission is the same as ours. If you’re not trying to win, if you’re not trying to engage in sheer dominance, I don’t want you as a part of my team. Because when I’m competing, that’s what I’m after. It’s just that simple.

SN: Max, there was speculation breaking up Skip and Stephen A. would kill “First Take.” Is it gratifying to see ratings go up, not down, with you in the chair Bayless held for nine years?

Max Kellerman: Of course. When you have the opportunity to join this show, that’s a special opportunity. Particularly in a declining TV market. It’s difficult. Cord-cutting, the rise of the Internet, social media, greater and greater choices -- it’s a very difficult environment to even hold a number, or even just decline a little bit. The fact that we’re increasing is something I’m very proud of. I’m very proud to be a part of this team. I never even worry about what anyone else is doing, any other show. I worry about what we’re doing. I know if we’re doing the best job we can be doing, everything else will take care of itself. I don’t see any competition.

SN: Conservative media such as Drudge Report and Breitbart charge ESPN has become too liberal politically. FS1 competitor Jason Whitlock wrote ESPN has become "politically correct" in the Wall Street Journal? What about it?

Stephen A. Smith: That’s a lie. I can speak for that because I’m not a liberal and I’m not a conservative. I’m a registered Independent. Joe Madison of ‘Urban View Radio,' he comes on 6 to 10 a.m. on SiriusXM, I know him. I’m a frequent guest on his show. Karen Hunter, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for the New York Daily News and a best-selling author, she also has her show on that channel. She and I have been friends for 25 years. But I’m also friends with Sean Hannity and Mark Levin [of Fox News]. I’ve been a guest frequently on their shows as well. I’ve been on MSNBC, and CNN, and Fox News. Not just Fox News, not just CNN. ESPN has never discouraged me or veered me one way toward another.

Are there liberals here? You’re damn right. Are there conservatives here? Please, you want me to stop laughing. Of course there are. The problem is that you have folks who are willing to express themselves, and voice their opinions, and it’s usually in concert with what so many people in our society believe, that it may be safer for them to discuss and espouse those certain points of view than it is for others. That gives the impression that as a network we’re this way or that way…

Omitting my two-year time away from here, I’ve been here since 2003. I can assure you there are a whole bunch of conservatives running through the campus of ESPN. Just as much as there are liberals

Max Kellerman:

I would say this. You have to consider where that theme started. Who started that theme? A competitive network, a competitive media company, started that. Why did they say that? Because we’re winning by so much. The fact that there are those in the media who bring that up are playing into talking points of media companies trying to play catch-up. That’s No. 1.

No. 2, ESPN and the Disney company are great to work for because people are treated fairly and the attempt is there to treat people fairly and to espouse values that all people deserve to be treated fairly. I don’t view that as a liberal point of view. I’d be curious to know who does? I thought that was an American value — and a value that involves basic human decency. And yes, I do find that value at ESPN.

.

SN: Stephen A., is LaVar Ball making a mistake by taking his younger sons to Lithuania? If they were your sons balling, would you rather have them at UCLA and an American high school?

Stephen A. Smith: Without question, I’d rather have my son at UCLA. I don’t like what I’m seeing LaVar Ball do. But in the same breath, he has been unapologetic, and very loquacious, in terms of what his mission is. He’s been consistent with it. He lets you know who he is and what he stands for.

His mentality, and he’s told me this personally, is these entities exploit our kids all the time. What’s wrong with me doing the same? Especially if it’s for their benefit and the benefit of their family. That is his approach. It’s hard to argue with it. But there’s no way in hell I would take the approach he took if I had sons..

SN: You guys like to play rough. So how do you feel about President Trump ripping ESPN, Jemele Hill and protesting NFL players?

​Stephen A. Smith: Do I believe the President should be wasting his time commenting about stuff like that? No. Do I believe the President has been a bit juvenile in his behavior? Yes he has. Having said that, it’s one thing to attack what he does, it’s an entirely different matter to attack him . When you attack him, then we are stepping out of our lane. We are a sports network. We have an obligation to wake up every day with the mindset that we not only speak for ourselves but we speak on behalf of the brand. It is not a brand that we own. It is a brand that employs us. It has entrusted us to represent it just as much as we care about representing ourselves. So with that in mind, we have to be cognizant of all those things.

Yes, the President is going to say what he has to say. Yes, he’s going to venture in our lane to the point where it’s apropos for us to respond. But we also need to be cognizant of the fact it’s incumbent upon us to leave it there and not extend beyond that point. We’re a sports network. You become successful. You sustain a level of success by giving people what they expect. By, figuratively speaking, ‘playing the hits.’ Not deviating too far away from what people turn on the channel and tune in for to hear. As long as we remember those kinds of things, then it’s going to lend itself to us being successful as opposed to us losing our bearings because we get caught up in our emotions, and we do things that ultimately sacrifice the brand and ourselves just to react to something for 15 seconds or 15 minutes. We have to be smarter than that — even if the President doesn’t appear that way sometimes.

SN: So Jemele was suspended by ESPN for violating social media guidelines. On cue, ESPN comes up with another new and revised policy. Was that brass in Bristol telling on-air talent like you to shut the hell up about politics -- and stick to sports?

Stephen A. Smith: I’ll tell you what I said to the honchos. I don’t know about anybody else, but I have no problem with ESPN’s social media policy. Do you know if I found that LeBron James was about to be traded today, and I reported it on Twitter, that’s a violation of the social media policy? Do you know why? I’m not employed by Twitter. I’m employed by ESPN.

When the company insists, and mandates, that you use the platform that you’re employed to use, as opposed to social media to express yourself, I find no problem with that. When the company says when you go on social media, you’re not just yourself as an individual but a reflection of us, I have no problem with that.

I have more than 3.7 million followers on Twitter. I can assure you if I did not work for ESPN, or an entity with its outreach, my social media following would not be that great. Therefore it’s easy for one to deduce that, excuse me, you have this because you work for ESPN. So what is wrong with ESPN reminding you that you work for us, not Twitter? It’s logical. It makes perfect sense.

The only problem that I believe any employee should have with a company’s social media policy is if you have certain policies for certain individuals and different policies for others. But as long as the policy is universal, and everybody is under the same umbrella with the same stipulations, that’s the real world, and that’s the way it goes. If you don’t like it, then get your own company, and your own social media policy, and you won’t have that problem.

Max Kellerman: I would say this. I read an article in "National Review Online" that said something like that. I’m broadly sympathetic to that point of view. I agree with it, in other words.

However, if there’s an issue that touches sports, and there frequently is that is outside of the realm of strictly on-the-field stuff, that’s the reality of modern sporting life. It always has been. It’s been a reality of sporting life, particularly with the New Journalism wave. Certainly Muhammad Ali in the '60s and '70s — and the social and political issues that touched sports. You don’t have to seek those out. Nor do you have to run from them. You need to be equipped to handle them when they are raised. I believe we are equipped.

Stephen A. Smith: Max’s point is very important from this standpoint. Look, if something touches on the world of sports, ESPN has never told me that I cannot discuss a sports-related matter. It's never happened.

If I have the platform two hours a day on live TV for ‘First Take,’ why would I feel the need to go on social media and discuss something I never discussed on the very platform that I have available to me courtesy of ESPN? If they’ve given me two hours a day to use the platform, and it’s a sports-related item, and I’m not prohibited or restricted from discussing that item, why would I choose Twitter or social media to do something that I didn’t do on my own nationally televised show? Makes no sense..

SN: Stephen A. and Max, you’re both native New Yorkers. Sporting News broke the story ESPN is building an expensive new studio location at South Street Seaport in Manhattan. Do you want to eventually move “First Take” to the Big Apple?

Stephen A. Smith: We don’t discuss it much but I fully expect us to be there whenever that’s going to happen. There’s no timetable on it or anything like that. But when all is said and done, I expect ‘First Take’ to be one of the shows that’s going to be there.

We’re both native New Yorkers. Obviously we’d both love to be in New York. They haven’t talked to us about it. There’s no definitive decision on it. But do I believe that ultimately the show will end up in New York? That is my hope and that is my expectation.

SN: You both love the NBA. Should the NFL pass a rule making all players stand for the U.S. national anthem, ala the NBA? Or should leagues just stop playing the anthem before sporting events -- as Max and Tony Kornheiser suggested?

Stephen A. Smith: In this day and age, I wouldn't’ say get rid of the anthem. If it were not for Colin Kaepernick’s protest, and the furor it created, that would be different. But in the times that we’re living in, strictly from a business perspective, I would not advocate anybody getting rid of playing the national anthem.

In this particular age, particularly with this administration in the White House, that hijacked the issue successfully I might add, and made it about something absolutely that it was not about. It was not about the flag, it was about oppression and racial inequality and police brutality. But the President made it about the flag. He successfully politicized it to his advantage. I don’t think anybody can argue with that..

But because he has done that, we have seen the rippling effect it has had on the National Football League. The stadiums are not as full as they once were. Sponsors and advertisers are not throwing money at the league the way they once did. The bottom line has been compromised.

If you are in the world of business, that means you are in the business of making money. Stopping the playing of the national anthem at this particular juncture would send the wrong message. It would compromise the brand. As a result, there are millions upon millions of Americans who happen to be football fans who would be highly offended by that taking place. They would make sure to exact their retribution by insuring the NFL feels it in its wallet.

Max Kellerman:  I’d like to clarify my position. What I advocated for is to keep the anthem — but don’t make it compulsory for the players. If you don’t want to participate, you can stay in the tunnel. That way you’ve actually ended the protest. Then people like me would have to say, ‘Look guys, it's not your forum for a protest.’

If you’re being forced to be on the field, then you shouldn't have to stand. But if you’re allowed not to be there for participation in the ceremony, then you have every right to stay in the tunnel. Not make a show of it. It would not only address the protest, but I think it would also satisfy people like me. It would be in the best interest of everyone involved to not make it compulsory.

Stephen A. Smith: I say it should be compulsory. The reason why I say it should be compulsory is because exactly the points I articulated before Max spoke. If the fallout had never taken place, then I would completely agree with Max’s position. But because we’ve seen the negative impact it’s had on the bottom line, I’m going to do, as a businessman, whatever is good business for me. If you’re asking me to make it compulsory, then that’s what I’m going to do.

Max Kellerman: I don’t think it would affect business. What most people would notice is not the missing players. Most players would participate. What most people would notice is a lot of people standing for the anthem. What they wouldn’t see are people kneeling. Because those people would be in the tunnel.