Stephen A. Smith Is Under No Obligation to Tell You Want You Want to Hear

In our apparently endless era of conversational combat, Stephen A. Smith has distinguished himself as a virtuoso of the form. As the brightest star of ESPN’s long-running flagship debate show, ‘‘First Take,’’ Smith has helped his show dominate its competition through a combination of insider knowledge, charismatic (or depending on your view, infuriating) confidence, turn-on-a-dime intensity, verbal flair and, at times, winking self-awareness. That success has allowed Smith, who is 55, to become arguably the face of the network, and also to branch out, first with a podcast, ‘‘Know Mercy,’’ which debuted last year, and then a memoir, ‘‘Straight Shooter,’’ which was a best seller after being published in January. And yet, perhaps fittingly for a man attuned to the power of taking the unexpected position, Smith can see — somewhere on the calmer, quieter horizon — a different conversational mode in which he might flourish. ‘‘The opportunity to position myself where I’m making people laugh and having a good time,’’ he says, ‘‘as opposed to being in this contentious format on an everyday basis — it would be a welcome reprieve.’’

In the acknowledgments of your book, you say that your daughters have taught you that “there’s a world out here that extends beyond my occasional narrow-mindedness.” What are you narrow-minded about? If you look at the woke culture that we live in — I’m not a liberal, I’m not a conservative, I’m a centrist that leans heavily toward common sense. Living in the world today where you can get fired for using the wrong pronoun?

Who are you thinking of that was fired for that? No, what I’m saying is, for example, I have a sister that’s a teacher. God forbid if she’s working in the school system and there’s a girl and her name is Cheryl but she wants to be identified as Marcus and she’s a male and you don’t call her by her name, or you say that she’s a female, not a male, etc., etc. That could get you in trouble!

Do you have an example in mind of when someone was fired for using the wrong pronoun? No. I’m saying that the culture we live in today gives that impression. You have to monitor everything that you say. Think about what went on between the state of Florida and Disney, where we had the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. DeSantis was a proponent of it, and then you had folks at Disney who did a protest, and you had Bob Chapek, the former C.E.O., who was silent originally and then spoke out, which elevated the ire of DeSantis. Those kinds of things — you don’t know at times what’s safe to say, what’s unsafe. Which is why people look at me and sometimes marvel at how I’m able to do my job because “First Take” is live every day. I have no cover. But I’m committed to being me.

You didn’t remotely answer my earlier question. I asked in what ways you are narrow-minded, not the culture. I think that the way that I’m narrow-minded — if my daughter or my nieces came to me and I said, “You’re a boy, you’re a girl, and that’s what you were born as, right?” They would say: “No, that’s not true. There’s a different world today.” I ask about stuff like that, and they’ll explain it, and I’ll say: “OK, people have the right to be who they say they are. Who am I to judge?” But they have to have that conversation with me. Because I was thinking along the lines of, “You are born a male or a female.” You understand? “You have a penis, you have a vagina. That’s what it is.” Now, because we’ve been more educated, you keep an open mind. So the narrow-mindedness, to answer your question, is that my belief system has been altered to some degree because I’ve been educated about the changing times.

Are you ever narrow-minded about sports? No, I don’t think so. The closest thing that came to it was the young lady that was swimming at the University of Pennsylvania.

Lia Thomas? Yes. My only issue with that is, if you were once a male who now identifies yourself as a female, that’s fine. It’s an entirely different subject to be competing against women. That’s where it’s a challenge for me, because I’m like, if this is what you identify yourself with now, I support that and support folks not violating your civil rights, not mistreating you, but if you’re competing against ladies and from a physical perspective, you were not born a lady, does that not give you an advantage? We’re just going to ignore that?

You know, there’s a Wittgenstein quote that I’ve been thinking about lately: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” Which is to say that if I don’t have meaningful knowledge about a subject, I probably shouldn’t be talking about it. Exactly. What I would need to do is educate myself about it before I speak definitively, which is why I never have spoken about it, because I don’t know enough.

Here’s something else I was thinking about with you: Early in my career, I wrote a contrarian piece that did well for me. But I didn’t believe the argument that I’d made. Actually, I thought the argument was wrong. So the whole experience — writing the piece and knowing it did well — was hollow. Have you ever had an experience like that? No.

Never? You’ve given something like 35,000 takes. Never. I don’t play that game.

You’ve never thought, “Eh, I probably was wrong about that?” That’s not what you asked. You were asking, Did I knowingly say something for the sake of saying it? That’s not what I’ve ever done. My attitude is that I don’t view myself as somebody who’s ever lost a debate. Because either I’m right, which I usually believe I am, or my counterpart said something that makes me more knowledgeable, which means I never lose. But this is what people don’t realize: It’s not just about the information. It’s about my information compared to your information. I was debating you. Was my argument more potent than your argument? Was my information more poignant? Did it pierce more? If I’m debating Keyshawn Johnson or Dan Orlovsky, do you think I think I know more football than them? Of course I don’t! But as a reporter, I’ve spoken to them, their contemporaries, their coaches, their G.M.s, their owners. The intel that I have, you can try to refute that, but you can’t ignore it.

I know you’re a big fan of soap operas. Do they influence how you present your intel? Great question. Never been asked that before. Yes. When you’re on live television, you got to dial it back sometimes, you got to push it forward sometimes. When you see facial expressions that I’m making when somebody else is talking, I know the camera’s on me, and I’m having a good time with it. In that regard, being a part of “General Hospital,” learning from Eric Braeden — you make that applicable to what you’re doing in terms of playing to the camera and being entertaining.

Hearing you acknowledge that there’s self-awareness about the performative aspect of what you do is making me think of something I saw on the show: J.J. Redick and Kendrick Perkins were arguing, and J.J. said, “What we’ve just witnessed is the problem with this show, where we create narratives that do not exist in reality.” When you hear J.J. say that, do you think he’s misunderstanding the extent to which “First Take” is meant to be entertainment? No, he has his own perspective. We don’t sit up there and have an agenda. What we do is we ask a question based on what’s percolating in the news, what’s percolating in the mind’s eye of a particular contributor, and go from there.

But my question is not about whether people can have their own perspective. It’s about the extent to which the show is about performance. Isn’t creating narratives or making things bigger than they are just part of the deal? There’s not really that much to talk about. But why does it have to be creation? “First Take,” with two hours of television real estate every morning, gives you the opportunity to say something and expound upon it. That’s entirely different than the show itself creating some narrative. You’re blaming the show instead of looking at the individual. You feel this way, and you express it. That’s you. That’s not the show creating some narrative.

That seems like an artificial distinction. What is the show if not its individuals? Nothing that I’m saying is artificial. It’s factual.

A quote I’ve seen you give before is that you go to work every day with two missions: How can you make your bosses more money, and how can you get some of it? Yep!

There’s that, and then there’s this: You’re the “straight shooter”; you tell it like it is. Can you think of an instance in which telling the truth would be at odds with making you and your bosses more money? They’re not at odds.

I asked if you can think of an instance in which they could be. It’s a difficult question to answer. If there’s a subject matter that’s counterproductive to the best interest of my employer, then I would go the route of not discussing it rather than taking a false position. That’s the approach that I take: Don’t lie to anybody, but there’s nothing wrong with avoiding subjects that are counterproductive.

So would it be an error on the part of a viewer to be skeptical about how you covered, for example, when Dana White slapped his wife, given the mutual financial interests of ESPN and the U.F.C.? They have a right to be skeptical, but they’d be factually incorrect, because if I couldn’t be true to myself, I wouldn’t have broached the subject. Where they have a right to feel skepticism is if I chose to avoid a subject altogether. For example, I brought up Florida versus Disney. I’m not going to talk about it. Why? Because that involves my employer. What you don’t have a right to be skeptical about is when I choose to open my mouth. You brought up Dana White. How I acted with Dana White is the same way I would have acted about anybody that’s married and got into a situation with their spouse. I would have said if you put your hands on a woman, you’re wrong. There’s no defense for it. But if you’re somebody like Dana White, who stood up and said: I was wrong. I’ve never done this in my life. There’s no excuse for it, then I’m going to concur and leave it at that because there’s nothing else I could say. So when people say, “I’m skeptical,” who else touched on it? I was the one brave enough to tackle the issue. In the process of doing so, I acknowledge everything: that he’s a friend, I spoke to him off the air about how wrong he was, and said by the way, when I go on the air, I’m going to go off on you! When people see that and choose to be skeptical, that’s their problem, not mine.

Because you brought it up, what’s your perspective on Ron DeSantis fighting with Disney over the culture-war stuff? It’s nothing new! If it didn’t impact so many people’s lives, I would find it absolutely comical that people get themselves in a tizzy when politicians do this. What politician do you know hasn’t used something to curry favor with the constituency?

I’ve noticed that relativism is something you’ve leaned on in your arguments. I remember when you were talking on your podcast about the criticism that LIV Golf is a whitewashing tool for the Saudis. You said something like, “The United States government does business with the Saudis, so why are people calling out athletes more so than our own government?” But do you really think “other people do it, too” is a persuasive argument? I’m under no obligation to tell you what the hell you want to hear. I’m under an obligation to tell you what I feel and think when you ask me a question. You might say it’s not convincing, and you’re entitled to feel that way. I don’t take any offense to that. I’m not offended by your question. But I would ask that you not be offended by my answer.

I’m not offended. You asked me a question. I gave you my answer. I’m having a conversation with you where you ask me a question and how I answer is how I answer! You actually make my point by bringing up LIV Golf because you brought up the fact that this is what I do! That’s how I answer questions, because that’s genuinely what I feel.

By the way, thank you for allowing me to enact my fantasy of arguing with Stephen A. Smith. I’m here. I don’t run from anything.

You’re here for the ride. Basically, I think you default to relativism, and it’s rhetorically weak. It’s like, “Lots of people cheat on their taxes, so why shouldn’t I?” Maybe because it’s wrong! No, no, no, no, no. You just misrepresented — you crossed a line!

No! Let me —

I’m talking louder than you! Let me explain! Let me explain!

I’m louder! [Laughs] Let me explain: When I say you crossed a line, if I sat up there and said, “Everyone does it,” that’s entirely different than me saying, “So it’s OK for you to do it.” I didn’t say it’s OK.

You said the equivalent of it’s OK for LIV golfers to do business with the Saudis because the American government does it, too. Am I missing something? What I’m saying to you is this: People are in an uproar because golfers decide to do business with the Saudi Arabian government when the golfers have no impact on our lives. But our government, they influence policy that controls our lives. We’re not protesting them for doing business with the Saudi Arabian government, but we have something to say about golfers? That’s what I said! I don’t want to be a part of doing business with folks that are associated with human rights violations, but I’m not going to equate golfers getting some of their money — when our government does business with them? And we act like we can shove that aside? I did not say that I would do it. I said that I don’t have a problem with them doing it. You consider that relativism. I don’t!

Can we pick a trivial subject and debate it? It depends on what it is.

Turkey sandwiches! They’re bland and only taste as good as their toppings! They taste good! I like turkey and swiss cheese on a toasted bun with mayo and black pepper!

No mustard?! No mustard. I’m not a mustard fan. I might try a little with a hot dog, but I prefer sauerkraut.

Sauerkraut has a weird texture! So we have the same taste buds now, huh? That’s where you’re going? That’s ridiculous. Everybody doesn’t have the same taste buds. What tastes good to some people might not taste good to other people!

Like crab rangoon and things of that nature? No.

That was a callback. There was that tweet that went viral a couple of years ago that joked about you and crab rangoon. I did not know that.

But you’ve commented on it before. I commented about crab rangoon?

No, you commented about the tweet. I don’t recall ever commenting about crab rangoon in my life! Ever! You’d have to prove it to me because I’d be inclined to tell you that’s a fabricated story.

I just put the link to the story in the Zoom chat. Hold on. “We Showed Stephen A. Smith the Viral ‘Crab Rangoon’ Tweet.” I have no recollection of that whatsoever.

Hey, Stephen A.? Yeah?

Am I passing the audition? What audition?

For “First Take”! [Laughs.] Oh, you got potential. No doubt about that.

Do you ever get tired of getting into arguments? Absolutely. I’m human. We do like 15 segments a day on “First Take.” That’s 75 takes a week. That’s over 3,300 takes per year. At times, you don’t feel like doing that. When there’s a riveting issue that matters, sure, but every day finding the contentious point of view? That can put a strain on your soul. I love to lie down and watch “Law & Order.” I’m a “Martin” fanatic. I like to smile. I don’t like to be in the throes of battle all the time.

Can you envision waking up one day and saying, “I don’t want to argue anymore”? I never look at it as arguing all the time. I see it as a part of my life. Where a little negativity seeps in is when that’s all there is. If I’m laughing an hour from now and at the movie theater three hours from now and then out to dinner with my family or friends, that’s different because it’s a potpourri of things, and you feel like you’re living. But when all you’ve done on a particular day is find yourself debating sports, that’s when you say: “Nah. This is not what I want to do.”

Now I feel bad that I made you argue with me. On the show you accept it, but off the show people want to challenge you. The reality is, I say what I say. Do what you want with it. People try to generate a response from me, and a lot of times they think that I might be rude just because I’m silent. I’m silent because I’m saying, I do this for a living. I’m not going to do this in my off time. Somebody walks up to me, they can get a picture. I’ll never say no. What I say no to is conversation. I won’t have time to live if I talk to everybody that wants to have a conversation with me.

And the people who come up to you want to argue? Oh, my God, it’s on another level. I’ve told this to superstars that are at Lakers games or Knicks games — it could be Chris Rock or Denzel Washington, Jamie Foxx. I said: “People want your autographs and your pictures. Me, they want to debate.” It’s much harder for me.

Is that because sports fans believe that they, at least on some level, know as much as you do? Oh, absolutely. It’s interesting that you say that, because that was one of the differences that I had with Max Kellerman. I’m the kind of person that: “This is what I said. Deal with it.” He was the kind of person that’s trying to convince you to side with him. One time I said to him, “You’re a boxing aficionado, ain’t you?” He said, “Absolutely.” I said, “You know boxing better than anybody, right?” He said, “Yeah.” I said, “Your friends that you grew up with, don’t they argue with you about boxing?” He said, “Absolutely.” I said, “Why do you think that is?” I said, “The sports fan cannot be taught.” They don’t want to learn from you. They want to hear whether you do or do not agree with them and why. Which is another reason I don’t allow them to debate me. Because I’m like, there’s no convincing you! You’re going to feel what you’re going to feel. So watch the show, deduce your opinions and be on your way.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity from two conversations.

David Marchese is a staff writer for the magazine and writes the Talk column. He recently interviewed Emma Chamberlain about leaving YouTube, Walter Mosley about a dumber America and Cal Newport about a new way to work.