You know, I want to be the last person to put someone in a creative box. So, when Stephen A. Smith decided to start his own production company and began owning some of his own intellectual properties, I understood. It’s important to create that for yourself in this media game.

However, as someone who is most adept at sports debating, I do find that his speaking on political and social issues can’t have the same approach. The world of sports is different from social and political issues. Although they may intersect at times, those moments aren’t the majority of the conversations being had daily on sports shows.

Expanding territory

With Smith’s “Straight Shooter Media,” he’s assuming the role of a no-nonsense pundit whose main tenet is being himself on all sides of political issues. From what I can see, he’s looking to engage with anyone of note who is willing to engage with him. However, in my eyes, his approach to this is flawed again. There aren’t many widespread societal ramifications associated with sports takes. It usually stays right in that sports realm. But when you foray into politics, especially in this volatile climate, make no mistake, lines are being drawn in the sand.

So, the contrarian approach that is often taken in sports debate is rather dangerous to take in the political world. But in my opinion, Smith, with his infinite knowledge of television, believes that he’ll find success in going that route. For the sake of, I believe, staying in the news politically, he has made right-leaning figures more friendly with him by heaping praise on some of the positives our current president has accomplished in his eyes. He has also taken vehement exception to how former Vice President Kamala Harris has decided to promote her book.

Tact is still in style

His tone in addressing the first Black woman to hold the office of Vice President is certainly marred with hubris. His claim that her commentary is essentially “too little, too late” lacks nuance. Harris has prefaced many of the decisions she made with the scenarios she was faced with that necessitated such choices. To not shed light on that is irresponsible. It’s a microcosm of why I believe a contrarian approach to political discussion is damaging.

It’s doubly damaging because Smith, whether you believe it or not, is a Black American figure. There are some who will take his opinions seriously, and it can sway how they decide to vote. He can shape views and listeners will more than likely not do their own research and create their own perspective. When you have such a huge platform, you have to be responsible with it. And inasmuch as Black people are not a monolith, we have to recognize the logical paths to take for our people’s progression. Who in the political spectrum supports that? Who is ready to do that hard work?

My inclination is that it isn’t Smith. I can’t blame him either; it’s tough. He’s reportedly making nearly $40 million per year. With deals that lucrative, it tends to behoove people to tread lightly. In his own words, given the current administration’s attack on free speech, we should “adjust accordingly.” That’s not a sentiment that encourages us as a people to stand for something.

The attacks on free speech that we’re witnessing aren’t hyperbolic. They’re not even covert. They’re happening right in front of our faces, daring us to do something about it. How can we ignore that? It’s incumbent on our own people to feed us the energy to galvanize and fight back. If you choose to take on a more prominent role as a Black political commentator, that’s your responsibility. Well, that’s, of course, if you don’t want to be a part of the problem.

This right here is a legacy moment

For too long, it has been believed that affluence neuters us. It neuters how radical we desire to be. With affluence, we’re left to kiss the ring, so to speak, and just be appreciative to have reached a plateau that we have. However, we can’t fall for it. We need our notable figures willing to stand for something and not only when it directly affects their household. Riding the fence can only work for so long. As they say, “You can fool all of the people some of the time.” But if this is the general approach to political commentary that Smith keeps, then he is acquiescing that we can’t trust him to meet the moment and speak truth to power when we need it most. As it stands, he’s moving exactly as they would like.

This is a defining moment in our lifetime. I’d be the last to tell an athlete or commentator to simply “stick to sports.” We live in a real world where sports is a small part of. You’re allowed to want to have a greater positive impact on your community. But you cannot frivolously not take into account the reach you have, and how those who don’t have your people’s best interest at heart can weaponize what you say. Now more than ever, don’t only be a straight shooter, but hit the right target.