Mirjam Swanson: Hey Jim! You wrote a great column Tuesday about USC’s decision to “suspend” (*eye roll*) our USC writer Luca Evans for the crime of being observant at practice and doing journalism – and you weren’t alone. A whole lot of people had criticism about the decision. Now USC has reconsidered and lifted the ban. Wild that they instituted it in the first place, but are you glad that they’ve decided to revoke it now?

Jim Alexander: I’m glad that they came to their senses. I suspect the PR blowback from coast to coast played a major role. It was an immense overreaction, and part of my issue was that no one in the athletic department seemed to be capable of telling the football coach, “no, this is not acceptable.” Evidently the message eventually got through, whether from prodding from the inside or from all of the external criticism.

Interestingly, although I received some critical email from USC partisans along the lines of, “well, he should have followed the rules,” most of the responses I got from my column ran about 2-to-1 in Luca’s favor. That’s heartening, because it means there are readers who do understand the value of independent media and respect the idea that the guy in charge can’t pick and choose who chronicles him on a daily basis.

My point remains: The “rules” – or “policies,” as Riley described them – that were cited to me seem nebulous at best and are more of a flex by a coach who demands control. I thought it was interesting that a conversation between Oklahoma City scribes on the new “Sellout Crowd” website back there noted that Riley was pretty heavy-handed at OU as well, including some bluster aimed at writers from the student paper, but didn’t go as far as to ban a reporter.

And one of the participants in their roundtable, Guerin Emig, made this observation: “Media here stewed over Riley’s OU Daily threat or his refusal to allow first-year players to interview (see: Caleb Williams, an engaging personality we never got to experience because of his head coach’s stubbornness) … but they kept showing up for press conferences. If Riley angers the Orange County Register, LA Times or any media outlet at his new home, they’re liable to go write more about Chip Kelly and UCLA. Or the Dodgers. Or the Lakers and Clippers. Or the Rams and Chargers. And on the occasion those outlets’ columnists do write about Trojan football, it will be to hammer Riley for his petulance. Another example of a bigger picture Riley doesn’t see enough to suit his smarts.”

Maybe this actually was Lincoln’s “Welcome to L.A.” moment.

Mirjam: It’s definitely heartening to hear about the reaction you received in your inbox. And the thing I so want to communicate with the people who seem to begrudge us our jobs, who want to “b-b-b-b-but” and point at the truly nebulous “rules” that Luca apparently broke: The way I look at my job covering sports is that I’m out there for YOU, the fan, the public. My whole thing is trying to be the ears and eyes – as much as I’m permitted – for people who are invested but can’t be in the gym or on the practice field. And to give as clear-eyed an assessment of what’s happening in those spaces as possible, without “fear or favor,” as you put in the column. That’s the responsibility. It’s not to make anyone look good or bad, or to spill any state secrets, but to share with you, the fan, what we’re seeing and hearing and what we understand that to mean. It’s super straightforward. And the more I can tell you, the better. For you. Because I’m telling you: You want this, if you’re a fan.

I’m glad you’ve been hearing from people who get that. It’s important, even in sports.

Jim: I think a segment of the public has gotten accustomed to fan websites and out-and-out rooting on TV and radio broadcasts, not to mention the team-run websites that purportedly spit out “news.” I’m usually hesitant to plug the competition, but the L.A. Times had a piece by our friend Bill Shaikin on Dodgers radio broadcasters Charley Steiner and Rick Monday. They are far more likely to criticize the home team’s play than their TV counterparts, and they both acknowledged they feel like they’re carrying the torch of the late Vin Scully, who learned early on from Red Barber to “Report, not root,” and carried that with him throughout his career. Now, of course, it seems like everybody roots on air.

There have always been those – be they fans or on-field personnel – who believe the media should be “supportive” and don’t understand our role, which includes holding the teams we cover accountable when necessary. Gladly, many still do understand our role.

Speaking of accountability, how ’bout them Chargers? They’re 0-2, and they’ve continued what has become a franchise heritage of not only losing close games but of shrinking away whenever faced with the possibility of success. And I thought it interesting that Coach Brandon Staley, rather than making rationalizations for his players (or his play calls) after last Sunday’s come-from-behind OT loss at Nashville, lashed out at suggestions that the Jacksonville loss in the playoffs was still hanging over their heads.

It’s not just the blown lead in Jacksonville. It’s nearly two decades’ worth of pushing away prosperity. And in all of that, as players and coaches come and go, Tom Telesco is in his 11th year as general manager and could be hiring his fourth coach soon if Staley doesn’t get this thing turned around right now.

Mirjam: Look, it’s been two games and the talent on that roster – starting with quarterback Justin Herbert – should be able to win more football games than it loses.

And there’s definitely a world in which the Chargers can turn it around. (Even though I was reminded this week that since the NFL went to seven playoff teams per conference in 2020, only last season’s Cincinnati Bengals have started the year 0-2 and managed to reach the playoffs.)

But it doesn’t necessarily FEEL like a turnaround is imminent, even just listening to Staley’s defensive comments at the podium last weekend – or last season, when he called their epic 27-point collapse a “tight game.” Like, really?

As rough as the Rams’ season was last season, I can’t remember Sean McVay – as taxing as everything going on in his life, personally and professionally, had to be – ever coming across as defensive. He over-owns it, sometimes, to cover up how upset he might be. But he doesn’t come across as delivering spin. He comes across as someone who sees the problems clearly and wants badly to fix them – a mindset that would benefit these underperforming Chargers.

Jim: I thought it curious that one of Staley’s comments in the aftermath was, if I remember correctly, that his defensive backs needed to figure out who the deep threats were. My first thought: Isn’t that why you practice and prepare all week?

Last topic of the week: The cancellation of “Winning Time” by HBO after two seasons. The series based on Jeff Pearlman’s book on the 1980s Lakers, “Showtime,” evidently had reduced viewership in its second year and was hampered by the SAG-AFTRA strike, which prevented the actors from helping promote the series. That’s sad, because even though there was still a good amount of dramatization (and some embellishment) of factual events, it wasn’t as over the top as it was in Season 1, especially in its borderline defamatory depiction of Jerry West.

I’d watched a few episodes in the first season, set it aside, then went back later and watched the rest of Season 1 and then all of Season 2. I thought it was entertaining even as I was ticking off which things really happened and which ones didn’t. But the saddest part: A series that was supposed to celebrate the Lakers of the ’80s ended with the Celtics winning Game 7 in 1984, followed by a closing credits sequence detailing the Lakers’ dominance the rest of the decade (and beyond). Seems to me that someone with New England roots pulled the plug, or maybe it was the Ghost of Red Auerbach.

(Michael Chiklis played Red, incidentally, and was an exceptional villain.)

You didn’t care for it, I take it?

Mirjam: I’ll have to watch it at some point, you know, for work. And because you and so many other people I know have been insisting that I try, try again. So, maybe.

But, yes, I found myself on #TeamJerryWest when it came to his complaints about how he was depicted, apparently (I didn’t watch!) as a hard-drinking, outta-control hick, and not the consummate professional about whom peers like Jamaal Wilkes said: “In all the time I knew Jerry as a coach and as a Laker executive, I never saw him drink alcohol on the job nor did I ever see him intoxicated or impaired.”

That’s such a mischaracterization! And I had friends who, yes, loved the first season despite knowing nothing about basketball – either because they’re not sports fans or because they’re from England and don’t know the Lakers’ story – telling me with glee about this villain Jerry West, because, to them, that’s who he was, and it’s how they’ll always think of him. And that bothers me.

And still, I probably would’ve watched if not for an interview with Tracy Letts, the decorated actor and playwright who plays Lakers coach Jack McKinney on Pearlman’s podcast, “Two Writers Slinging Yang.”

They talked about West’s – and others’ – complaints about the show and Pearlman wondered how to balance the idea that you can put non-fiction and a dramatized series side by side as different entities and be OK with that.

Letts’ response, in part: “Real life isn’t really that interesting. There’s a reason we turn it into stories, that we apply dramatic conflict to everyday situations. That’s what dramatization is, you take the bits that are dramatic and you tell them truthfully and you take the parts that are not dramatic and you make stuff up.”

I couldn’t disagree more: Real life is crazy interesting. People are FASCINATING. We all know truth is stranger than fiction. And to imply that the SHOWTIME LAKERS weren’t interesting enough subjects IRL!?

C’mon. Be for real.

But Letts also said something smart: “You’re either comfortable with it or you’re not.”

And I’m not.

But you think I should try, right?

Jim: I wrote last year that, since the producers were talking about a “Friday Night Lights” concept as applied to basketball, they would have been better off fictionalizing the whole thing, top to bottom. But the Lakers as an attraction are hard to resist, and it’s worth going back to watch as long as you can apply some form of cognitive dissonance – either appreciating the performances while realizing that certain parts of the show are punched up, or else checking off the parts that are true, the parts that look like they may be fiction, and the parts that are total, unadulterated … well, you know.

Anyway, meet you back here next week in the non-fiction zone!