In total, eight media outlets including the the LA Times, Sacramento Bee, and NBC Los Angeles, wrote eleven articles on the incident. The most fascinating aspect of the reporting (a term I use very loosely in this context) was the way they chose to depict what was said.

In place of what I wrote, the "F" was quoted as “(bleep)” and “….”. Granted, I know what I tweeted was "edgy", but that doesn’t make misrepresentation of what was said acceptable. I said, “lets Marbury this mother F up”, not "lets fuck this shit up". Clearly saying “F” implies "fuck", but regardless, it was never actually said, and there's a difference. Let me explain.

If using "F" exudes the same meaning and sentiment as the the word I used it to replace, by using another censoring device within the same context in its stead (i.e. "lets marbury this mother .... up" instead of "lets marbury this mother f up") serves the exact same purpose. So when the media chose to replace my "F" with any of the above, they not only said the same thing I did, they misquoted and misrepresented what I said, making it to seem worse than it actually was when in fact, it was identical to what they said.

You may consider this semantics, but put it within context. If you happen to have an overly polite friend, family member, etc, and you've seen them get mad at someone for saying “f’n" this or "f'n" that, would that seem reasonable? Absolutely not because that person spouting semi-profanities clearly showed restraint by not using the actual word. This means there's a difference between the actual use of a word and implied use of a word, and by portraying it as any different is a perfect example of media misinterpretation.

The interpretations of my quote contrast exactly what is wrong with the media today. In an effort to make an otherwise bland piece about the lowly Clippers and their supposedly disgruntled Power Forward more scintillating, they sacrificed journalistic integrity. No matter how small an increment of sacrifice it was, they did so nonetheless. This may seem trivial to you, but consider that most information we get comes from the media, or secondary sources. If they choose to construe what is said in relation to how beneficial it might be to their reader volume and sales, that’s simply unethical. It doesn’t have to be about obscenities and trade talk, the subject matter can be bigger and more profound.