ARTICLE: "Luka Doncic and Rick Carlisle: The dissolution of their relationship"

[mavsluvr]

The problem is that it's all filtered through someone else's agenda, or at the very least someone else's memory. 

For example, "if DSJs departing Dallas was indeed a significant factor in Luka's supposedly becoming disaffected with the organization" then couldn't that be reframed to make the point that Luka would rather play with DSJ than with KP? Personally, I just don't believe that, and I'm not KP's biggest fan (shocking, I know). 

That's really my point. To the extent that DSJ was a source for the article, we are hearing a story filtered through his agenda/memory, and there didn't seem to be any pushback on that in the rest of the article. 

I personally don't particularly buy that Luka was extremely disaffected with the organization as an overall matter. Or that, even if he was, it was primarily because he was mad about the treatment of DSJ. Or even if he liked playing with DSJ, that that necessarily means he preferred playing with DSJ over playing with KP or any other particular talent in the league. 

I don't doubt that there were aspects of the situation that Luka didn't like, of course. That would be true of most everyone who holds a job. 

I don't detect that McMahon had any particular agenda here, other than the important one of dramatizing his article, which he has imo tried to achieve by presenting some particular situations as possibly more conflictual and/or critical than they really may have been. 

The two main examples he uses of Luka's dissatisfaction with Rick's harsh treatment of his friends involve Salah and DSJ. The one involving Salah happened before Luka was even associated with the team. The ones involving DSJ are presented as curiously central to Luka's view of the organization, considering DSJ's level of importance compared to the totality of everything going on, and even as compared to Luka himself. Which is just to say that they warrant some thought regarding where all this is coming from. 

I am not saying that anything McMahon reported didn't actually happen. But, as you point out, this type of story has to be read with a consideration of the agendas of the reporter/sources.