Journalists Blame Caitlin Clark for Division Over All-Star Picks — But Are They Fueling the Fire Instead?

In what was supposed to be a celebratory weekend for the WNBA, controversy once again overshadowed the game itself. Caitlin Clark, one of the league’s most talked-about rookies, has found herself at the center of a new storm — not for something she said or did, but for who she didn’t pick in the 2024 WNBA All-Star Game draft: fellow rookie and frequent media co-star Angel Reese.

A clip from a recent podcast featuring USA Today columnist Nancy Armour and another prominent WNBA journalist reignited tensions, accusing Clark of “pandering to the worst of her fan base” by not selecting Angel Reese for her All-Star team. The assertion quickly snowballed online, with critics claiming Clark is complicit in fostering division within the league — not through overt actions, but by omission and implication.

But here’s where the facts start to unravel the fury.

In reality, Reese was picked early in the draft — not by Clark, but by her co-captain Naphessa Collier, before Clark even had a realistic chance. When it was finally Clark’s turn to choose, Reese was already off the board. The only instance where Clark could have picked her was in a later round, where she instead selected Gabby Williams — a decision that seems more tactical than personal.

The notion that this singular choice reveals some hidden bias or allegiance to a “problematic” fan base is not only speculative, but deeply unfair. In fact, Clark’s own coach selection was criticized — not because it was her idea, but because she agreed to trade Cheryl Reeve at Collier’s request. Yet somehow, Clark still bore the brunt of the criticism.

The “Guilty By Association” Standard

The podcast hosts went further, suggesting that Clark “agrees with the worst of her fan base,” not based on her words, but based on fan behavior. They implied that unless she actively and consistently denounces every toxic post or problematic fan, she is complicit. One commentator sarcastically noted that Clark would practically need tattoos denouncing racism and Dave Portnoy just to prove her point.

But here lies the danger: holding a 23-year-old athlete responsible not just for her performance, but for the online behavior of thousands of people she’s never met — or for imaginary scenarios constructed by media personalities.

“If this level of narrative-building is considered journalism, it’s beyond irresponsible,” said one analyst in response to the podcast. “They’re playing devil’s advocate with no factual basis, and weaponizing hypotheticals against someone who has done nothing but play basketball.”

The deeper issue may not lie with the players at all, but with the media’s growing reliance on conflict-based coverage. After all, as one commentator put it, “It’s more lucrative to fuel the flames of drama than it is to talk about the game.”

And that might be the scariest part. Instead of celebrating a record-setting season for Clark and increased viewership for the WNBA, coverage has devolved into dissecting every move for coded messages and imagined slights. This pattern isn’t new — it echoes last year’s controversy following the NCAA championship game when Reese’s “you can’t see me” gesture sparked polarized reactions depending on which player performed it.

Despite all this, Clark has continued to rise above the noise. She rarely addresses the controversy, focusing on her game, her team, and her role in growing the league. Critics argue that’s not enough. Supporters say expecting more borders on harassment.

Importantly, this isn’t just a Caitlin Clark problem — it’s a sports problem. Angel Reese has her own share of toxic fans. So do other stars like A’ja Wilson, Paige Bueckers, and Sabrina Ionescu. The difference is that Clark is expected to answer for them — constantly.

As the commentator concluded, “Every fan base has trolls. That doesn’t mean the player agrees with them. And it’s not their job to babysit the internet.”

The Bigger Picture

At the end of the day, these media-driven narratives risk distracting from the real progress the WNBA has made — increased ratings, growing fan bases, and electric rookie talent. The league doesn’t need another culture war; it needs unity.

Criticism is valid when based on facts. But when journalists build speculative cases against players, based not on actions but on imagined implications, they cross the line from reporting to inciting.

Caitlin Clark’s All-Star pick wasn’t a political statement. It was a basketball decision. The fact that this needs to be said — again — shows how far off course the discourse has gone.