We do not need to invent things to be concerned about.
Our planet, our country and our cities all face issues so serious and systemic that they could – and perhaps should – occupy all of our waking thoughts. Or at least all of our waking thoughts that are not already consumed by the possibility that AI will take over the world, or at the very least our jobs.
Yet somehow, in the midst of this seemingly non-stop series of existential threats, I am being asked to worry about something that is entirely hypothetical.
Could the new owners wind up moving the Seahawks?
Just typing that makes me want to kick a garbage can.
Because the answer is, “Yes. Of course they could. They could also decide that they want to be the first franchise to play home games on the moon, too.”
There is a similar amount of evidence for both possibilities, which is to say there is no evidence at all that the Khosla family plans to do anything with the Seahawks other than keep them in Seattle.
This utter lack of evidence isn’t enough to stop someone from engaging in some good old-fashioned fear-mongering, though. But before I elaborate on the scare tactics, let’s get you some links:
There’s a reason our species tends to want payback.
In prehistoric times, back when we first started living in groups, revenge — or at least the threat of it — was a useful way to regulate behavior. In many cases, it was essential for survival.
We see examples of this in the animal kingdom and in the more primitive corners of our own society. Like Major League Baseball.
The first time I heard someone mention the possibility of the Seahawks relocating was after reports that the franchise would be sold following its appearance in the Super Bowl.
At first, it was political commentators trying to warn of the downstream effects of higher taxes.
In the wake of the Khosla family’s agreement to buy the Seahawks, we’ve been subjected to a new round with the good ol’ fashioned mainstream media getting in on the act:
Now, the story itself isn’t entirely bullshit. KOMO News did find actual human beings who expressed concern about potential relocation, which is more than most stories of this ilk do.
But it’s also pretty weak as far as news pegs go.
If you asked me if I was afraid of sharks before getting into the water at Hidden Beach in Aptos, Calif., my answer would be, “Hell, yes! Just like every other time I’ve gotten into the Pacific Ocean.”
That doesn’t mean a shark attack is likely, however. Nor does it make my fear newsworthy.
The Seattle Times then published a story whose first three paragraphs detailed the absence of any evidence or even any rumors of a potential move.
By Bob Condotta | The Seattle Times
I understand why the story was published: to provide the best available information about the situation and thereby assuage any fears of relocation.
This is a fool’s errand, however.
Facts and logic are of limited use when marshaled against a storyline not rooted in evidence.
And right now, there is absolutely no evidence that anyone, anywhere is considering moving the Seahawks.
There is, however, a great deal of evidence that you can acquire some attention by pointing toward this possibility. That Tweet from KOMO did numbers: 129.8K views. Another version racked up 95K.
The Seattle Times ' tweet promoting the story that debunked the possibility of relocation: 2.2K views.
Fear sells. Or at least it attracts attention.
This remains true despite Bob Condotta doing the Lord’s work in The Seattle Times, pointing out all the reasons a move wouldn’t happen.
But like I said, I’m not someone who believes we need to invent things to worry about. We’ve got enough on our plates as it is, and speaking of that, I’ve got to decide whether to wear a mask in Manhattan today given the wildfire smoke that’s clouding the city.