narrative

Tuesday is election day, and, as usual, the pundits are breathless, the predictions are dubious and the consultants are already counting their retainers. But make no mistake: Off-year elections matter. Tuesday’s results will shape the political landscape for 2026 and beyond.

Let’s start in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom has decided to fight Texas Republican gerrymandering with a little creative cartography of his own.

Proposition 50, which began as the “Election Rigging Response Act,” wouldn’t just help level the playing field by handing Democrats five House seats; it would also boost Newsom’s presidential ambitions. Polls suggest it’ll pass.

When it comes to elections involving actual candidates, the main attractions are in New York, New Jersey and Virginia.

In the New York City mayoral contest, Zohran Mamdani — a 34-year-old democratic socialist who seems like the kind of guy who probably buys albums on vinyl — is leading both former Gov. Andrew Cuomo (running as an independent) and Republican Curtis Sliwa.

National Republicans are already making Mamdani the avatar of everything Fox News viewers fear.

President Trump went so far as calling Mamdani a “communist” and threatening to send in the troops if he wins.

One thing is for certain: Mamdani is already a symbol. If he wins, he’ll be evidence for progressives that politics can still be interesting, exciting and revolutionary. To conservatives, he’ll be evidence that Democrats have gone insane.

If you’re paying attention, these arguments are not mutually exclusive.

Across the Hudson, New Jersey Democratic Rep. Mikie Sherrill (whose resume includes having been a naval officer and a federal prosecutor) is a very different kind of politician — the “I’m a competent adult, please clap” variety.

Her gubernatorial opponent, Jack Ciattarelli, is an ex-state legislator who radiates the kind of energy usually found at bowling alleys and diners. He’s the grandson of Italian immigrants, the son of blue-collar workers and the spiritual heir of every guy in a tracksuit yelling at a Jets game.

Ciattarelli came dangerously close to winning the governorship in 2021, which should be cause for concern for Sherrill, who’s sitting on a slim lead.

The main problem for Ciattarelli is Trump, who, despite his bridge-and-tunnel aesthetic, does more harm than good in a state that hasn’t voted for a Republican president since 1988.

Trump’s termination of the Gateway Tunnel project didn’t help either. It’s one thing to be loud and populist; it’s another to cancel something that would make voters’ commutes slightly less horrible.

Speaking of commutes, a few hours south, down I-95, Virginia will also elect a new governor. Here, Democrat Abigail Spanberger — former CIA officer, former U.S. representative, professional moderate — is coasting toward victory against Republican Winsome Earle-Sears, the lieutenant governor.

Earle-Sears, a Marine, trailblazer and gadfly, is about to add “failed gubernatorial candidate” to her resume.

Her biggest headline was firing her campaign manager (a pastor who had never run a campaign before), which sounds like a metaphor for today’s GOP. Her best attack on Spanberger involved attempting to tie her to something someone else (the Democratic attorney general nominee) did (sending a violent text about a Republican politician).

Virginia has a history of electing governors from the party that opposes the sitting president, and Trump’s DOGE cuts (not to mention the current government shutdown) have outsize importance in the commonwealth.

Depending on how things shake out in these states, narratives will be set — storylines that (rightly or not) will tell experts and voters which kinds of candidates they should nominate in 2026.

For example, if Mamdani, who represents the progressive wing, wins, but Sherrill and/or Spanberger lose, the narrative will be that cautious centrism is the problem.

If the opposite occurs, the opposite narrative (radicalism is a loser!) will take root.

The postmortems write themselves: “Progressive Resurgence,” “Year of the Woman” and/or “The Return of the Center.” The problem? It’s unwise to draw too many conclusions based on Tuesday’s election results.

First, it’s misguided to assume that what works in New York City could serve as a national model.

Second, even if Sherrill and Spanberger both win, it’s impossible to know if they simply benefited from 2025 being a good year for Democrats.

Still, what happens on Tuesday will have major repercussions. Within a day of the election, everyone with a stake in the midterms and future elections will claim the outcome means what they want it to mean. Within a week, narratives will have congealed, while heroes and scapegoats will have been assigned.

And the rest of us will be right here where we started — anxious, exhausted — and dreading the fact that the 2026 midterm jockeying starts on Wednesday.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

The shooting of Charlie Kirk, a right-wing activist and founder of Turning Point USA, has attracted global attention. It didn’t take long for the media to rush to write narratives related to the shooting of Charlie Kirk. This tragedy is not only a sad news, it has transformed into a political stage that reveals the reality of how the world of news works. This, of course, raises a big question: how can a violent tragedy turn into a political conversation?

The Political Dimension of the Charlie Kirk Shooting

In a society often polarized by politics, an event is often responded to not by its substance but by who was involved in it. In this tragedy, the most widely reported information was related to Charlie Kirk’s political identity, his affiliation with Donald Trump and his close ties to conservative groups.

Violence against political figures in the United States is nothing new. However, Kirk’s case has become a turning point, demonstrating how vulnerable the public can be when political identities take precedence over human values. In its official statement on S. Res. 391, Congress honored Kirk’s commitment to the constitutional principles of civil discussion and debate among all Americans, regardless of political affiliation.

Facts about the Charlie Kirk shooting tragedy

On September 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk was shot and killed on the campus of Utah Valley University. At the time of the incident, Kirk was answering questions about transgender shooters and mass shooters at a public debate themed “Prove Me Wrong” and hosted by Turning Point USA. Panic ensued, and security officers immediately carried him out on a stretcher, but unfortunately, Kirk’s life could not be saved because the bullet hit his neck.

The FBI and Utah State Police are working together to gather evidence, release video of the alleged shooter, and even offer a $100,000 reward for information leading to the identity of the Kirk shooter. Campus CCTV footage shows a man jumping from the Losee Center building. Prior to the arrest of Tyler Robinson (the shooter), two other men were detained on the day of the shooting, but were soon released after their innocence was proven.

An affidavit of probable cause from the Utah prosecutor’s office outlines the charges and elements of the charges, one of which is the enhancement of victim-targeting related to the victim’s political views. Tyler Robinson was charged with Aggravated Murder under Section 76-5-202 (F1 Felony), Felony Discharge of Firearms under Section 76-11-210(2)(3C) and Obstruction of Justice-Capital/First Degree Felony Conduct under Section 76-8-306(2)+(3A).

The Shift from Tragedy to Narrative in Public Space

The threat of domestic violence and terrorism in the United States is driven by social, political, and global factors. A divided political environment and the proliferation of digital disinformation have fueled the radicalization of individuals, often targeting political activists, government officials, and ethnic and religious minorities.

In this context, Kirk’s shooting demonstrates how a real tragedy has become a platform for shaping public opinion. Framing Kirk’s position and the perpetrator’s position creates a polarization, with conservatives viewing the shooting as a form of silencing of the values ​​of free speech in the United States. While others view this event as a form of ideological hostility that has led to political violence, they believe it reflects extreme rhetoric. What ultimately creates two conflicting versions of the truth, so that society no longer sympathizes with the event but shifts to its ideological position.

Public Polarization and the Construction of Global Media Reality

Several media narratives also highlighted the affiliation of Tyler Robinson, a 22-year-old college student who was confirmed by the FBI as the perpetrator of Kirk’s shooting. However, public attention was no longer focused on the perpetrator’s motives, but rather on his ideological positions, social background, and political views. This further widened the gap in public polarization. Recurring narratives in the media reinforced certain images, one of which placed Tyler as affiliated with a political party. Most media outlets did not write narratives that showed the motives of the crime and the human aspects that could build public empathy. As a result, many people speculated that this was a political incident, not an ordinary shooting tragedy.

In an increasingly connected world, the line between local events and global issues is becoming increasingly blurred. The news of the Charlie Kirk tragedy has crossed borders and shaped broader debates about freedom of speech and democracy in the United States. This event has then become no longer seen as a domestic US issue but has evolved into a global reflection of narratives that are more often traded than conveying reality.

Kirk’s death should elicit empathy regardless of political affiliation or ideological views. Politics has taken over the media’s sense of humanity. Media plays a crucial role in distributing information, so it should be free from political elements that shape public opinion. When differing views are used as a source of conflict, the public sphere loses its function as a forum for discussion. Ultimately, the public can only be urged to think critically so that a tragedy is no longer used as a political commodity.

For the past couple of months, the billionaire father-son duo of Larry and David Ellison have been making deals involving major media brands. Having acquired Paramount, the parent company of CBS News, they appointed Bari Weiss – an outspoken supporter of Israel – as the network’s editor-in-chief. The moves by the Ellisons are not just about growing their media empire, but about shaping the narrative around Israel in the US, where public support continues to decline.

Contributors: 
David Klion – Columnist, The Nation
Danielle Moodie – Host, The Danielle Moodie Show
Ryan Grim – Reporter, Drop Site News

On our radar:

Israel and Hamas have agreed to the first phase of a Gaza ceasefire, ending two years of genocide. It’s a moment that brought relief to Palestinians in Gaza. But for Donald Trump, it was an opportunity for self-congratulation – with both he and his allies emphasising how pivotal he was in making things happen. Tariq Nafi has been following the story.

In Portugal, the far-right party Chega, once on the fringes, is leading the polls, and its leader, Andre Ventura, has become one of the country’s most recognisable political figures. Ventura’s rise has been spurred by his television background and carefully crafted media persona. The onetime football pundit has become a political showman. And he’s been amplified by the country’s mainstream media, who have been chasing ratings over accountability.  Ryan Kohls reports.

Featuring:
Miguel Carvalho – Journalist
Ines Narciso – Disinformation researcher, Iscte-Iul
Anabela Neves – Journalist, CNN Portugal

Any western worth its dusty boots and big-sky openness should know what’s breathtaking about freedom, at the same time grasping how being tamed is an uneasy, clarifying rite of passage. That men have typically led these stories means there’s a lot still to be mined when women tackle this genre — both in front of and behind the camera — and in “East of Wall,” about a struggling ranch matriarch (Tabatha Zimiga) with a headstrong daughter (Porshia Zimiga), writer-director Kate Beecroft has found a worthy modern story of cowgirl hardiness near South Dakota’s Badlands.

That air of independence and restriction applies also to what “East of Wall” itself is: a narrative centered on first-time actors playing versions of themselves in a story shaped from their lives, in this case the joys and sorrows of the Zimigas’ open-plains existence rescuing, riding and selling horses, and dealing with financial uncertainty after the loss of a loved one.

When Chloé Zhao took the docu-fiction approach with her melancholy 2017 neo-western “The Rider,” the blended realism and dramatic choreography achieved something heartbreaking, reawakening the hybrid’s possibilities. Beecroft’s solid-enough first feature isn’t as effortlessly transcendent — the seams show a bit more. But there’s plenty of lived-in warmth in its accumulation of details and it gives needed voice to the concerns of women forging their own way in an environment that isn’t exactly kind on anyone.

Very quickly, we’re swept up in what’s loose, chaotic and appealing about tough, tattooed horse whisperer Tabatha and her rough-and-tumble operation, which includes her own children — Porshia is already a rising rodeo star — and various teenagers from this strapped region’s broken homes, plus her hard-bitten mom (Jennifer Ehle), who enjoys her peach moonshine. There’s an unruly found-family charm that belies what’s isolating and rundown about their situation and Austin Shelton’s vista-friendly cinematography does a good job contrasting that beauty and severity, especially in Tabatha herself, an earthy, battle-hardened goddess with a head half-shaved and half-draped with golden hair, and kind eyes rimmed with mascara. She always looks ready to calm a bronc, knock back a beer or tell you off.

Tabatha’s reputation for breaking wild steeds and supporting wayward kids is legion and her sales methods lean toward the unconventional: TikTok videos that frame horses at full speed against ravishing backdrops, and at barn sales, showcases that spotlight her girls’ performing skills. Money is tight, though, and the sting of her husband’s suicide a year earlier has put a grief wedge between Tabatha and Porshia as each tries to imagine what the future holds. That’s when an observant, dogged Texas rancher with his own baggage (Scoot McNairy) shows up with a tempting lifeline that puts everyone’s ownership of their fate in stark relief.

“East of Wall” lives in that indie space of wanting to respect and vibe equally, which means there’s a little too much slo-mo montage and, considering how invested we are in this family, not enough memorable scene work. But even with the thinnest of narrative framing and some arty touches that feel superfluous, there’s an overall portrait of authentic grit and resilience here, of knowing when to hold on and when to let go, that is well-nurtured by Beecroft’s admiring eye for these renegade women.

Nothing against McNairy and Ehle who play well with the first-timers, but there are moments when you wonder if Beecroft should have straight-up made a documentary, foregoing the harnessing of scripted incident for the rawness of what drew her to these people and this world in the first place. Which is another way of saying mother and daughter Zimiga are real finds, true-to-themselves keepers of a heartland tradition, and fresh faces getting to tell that story in a nontraditional form.

SAO PAULO — President Trump has made clear who his new Latin America priority is: former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a personal and political ally.

In doing so, he has damaged one of the Western hemisphere’s most important and long-standing relationships, by levying 50% tariffs that begin to take effect Wednesday on the largest Latin America economy, sanctioning its main justice and bringing relations between the two countries to the lowest point in decades.

The White House has appeared to embrace a narrative pushed by Bolsonaro allies in the U.S., that the former Brazilian president’s prosecution for attempting to overturn his 2022 election loss is part of a “deliberate breakdown in the rule of law,” with the government engaging in “politically motivated intimidation” and committing “human rights abuses,” according to Trump’s statement announcing the tariffs.

The message was clear earlier, when Trump described Bolsonaro’s prosecution by Brazil’s Supreme Court as a “witch hunt” — using the same phrase he has employed for the numerous investigations he has faced since his first term. Bolsonaro faces charges of orchestrating a coup attempt to stay in power after losing the 2022 election to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. A conviction could come in the next few months.

The U.S. has a long history of meddling with the affairs of Latin American governments, but Trump’s latest moves are unprecedented, said Steven Levitsky, a political scientist at Harvard University.

“This is a personalistic government that is adopting policies according to Trump’s whims,” Levitsky said.

Bolsonaro’s sons, he noted, have close connections to Trump’s inner circle. The argument has been bolstered by parallels between Bolsonaro’s prosecution and the attempted prosecution of Trump for trying to overturn his 2020 election loss, which ended when he won his second term last November.

“He’s been convinced Bolsonaro is a kindred spirit suffering a similar witch hunt,” Levitsky said.

Brazil’s institutions hold firm against political pressure

After Bolsonaro’s defeat in 2022, Trump and his supporters echoed his baseless election fraud claims, treating him as a conservative icon and hosting him at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Steve Bannon, the former Trump adviser, recently told Brazil’s news website UOL that the U.S. would lift tariffs if Bolsonaro’s prosecution were dropped.

Meeting that demand, however, is impossible for several reasons.

Brazilian officials have consistently emphasized that the judiciary is independent. The executive branch, which manages foreign relations, has no control over Supreme Court justices, who in turn have stated they won’t yield to political pressure.

On Monday, the court ordered that Bolsonaro be placed under house arrest for violating court orders by spreading messages on social media through his sons’ accounts.

Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who oversees the case against Bolsonaro, was sanctioned under the U.S. Magnitsky Act, which is supposed to target serious human rights offenders. De Moraes has argued that defendants were granted full due process and said he would ignore the sanctions and continue his work.

“The ask for Lula was undoable,” said Bruna Santos of the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington, D.C., about dropping the charges against Bolsonaro. “In the long run, you are leaving a scar on the relationship between the two largest democracies in the hemisphere.”

Magnitsky sanctions ‘twist the law’

Three key factors explain the souring of U.S.-Brazil ties in recent months, said Oliver Stuenkel, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: growing alignment between the far-right in both countries; Brazil’s refusal to cave to tariff threats; and the country’s lack of lobbying in Washington.

Lawmaker Eduardo Bolsonaro, Jair Bolsonaro’s third son, has been a central figure linking Brazil’s far-right with Trump’s MAGA movement.

He took a leave from Brazil’s Congress and moved to the U.S. in March, but he has long cultivated ties in Trump’s orbit. Eduardo openly called for Magnitsky sanctions against de Moraes and publicly thanked Trump after the 50% tariffs were announced in early July.

Democratic Massachusetts Rep. Jim McGovern, author of the Magnitsky Act, which allows the U.S. to sanction individual foreign officials who violate human rights, called the administration’s actions “horrible.”

“They make things up to protect someone who says nice things about Donald Trump,” McGovern told The Associated Press.

Bolsonaro’s son helps connect far right in U.S. and Brazil

Eduardo Bolsonaro’s international campaign began immediately after his father’s 2022 loss. Just days after the elections, he met with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

As investigations against Bolsonaro and his allies deepened, the Brazilian far right adopted a narrative of judicial persecution and censorship, an echo of Trump and his allies who have claimed the U.S. justice system was weaponized against him.

Brazil’s Supreme Court and Electoral Court are among the world’s strictest regulators of online discourse: they can order social media takedowns and arrests for spreading misinformation or other content it rules “anti-democratic.”

But until recently, few believed Eduardo’s efforts to punish Brazil’s justices would succeed.

That began to change last year when billionaire Elon Musk clashed with de Moraes over censorship on X and threatened to defy court orders by pulling its legal representative from Brazil. In response, de Moraes suspended the social media platform from operating in the country for a month and threatened operations of another Musk company, Starlink. In the end, Musk blinked.

Fábio de Sá e Silva, a professor of international and Brazilian studies at the University of Oklahoma, said Eduardo’s influence became evident in May 2024, when he and other right-wing allies secured a hearing before the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee.

“It revealed clear coordination between Bolsonaro supporters and sectors of the U.S. Republican Party,” he said. “It’s a strategy to pressure Brazilian democracy from the outside.”

A last-minute tariff push yields some wins

Brazil has a diplomatic tradition of maintaining a low-key presence in Washington, Stuenkel said. That vacuum created an opportunity for Eduardo Bolsonaro to promote a distorted narrative about Brazil among Republicans and those closest to Trump.

“Now Brazil is paying the price,” he said.

After Trump announced sweeping tariffs in April, Brazil began negotiations. President Lula and Vice President Geraldo Alckmin — Brazil’s lead trade negotiator — said they have held numerous meetings with U.S. trade officials since then.

Lula and Trump have never spoken, and the Brazilian president has repeatedly said Washington ignored Brazil’s efforts to negotiate ahead of the tariffs’ implementation.

Privately, diplomats say they felt the decisions were made inside the White House, within Trump’s inner circle — a group they had no access to.

A delegation of Brazilian senators traveled to Washington in the final week of July in a last-ditch effort to defuse tensions. The group, led by Senator Nelsinho Trad, met with business leaders with ties to Brazil and nine U.S. senators — only one of them Republican, Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

“We found views on Brazil were ideologically charged,” Trad told The AP. “But we made an effort to present economic arguments.”

While the delegation was in Washington, Trump signed the order imposing the 50% tariff. But there was relief: not all Brazilian imports would be hit. Exemptions included civil aircraft and parts, aluminum, tin, wood pulp, energy products and fertilizers.

Trad believes Brazil’s outreach may have helped soften the final terms.

“I think the path has to remain one of dialogue and reason so we can make progress on other fronts,” he said.

Pessoa and Riccardi write for the Associated Press. AP writer Mauricio Savarese in Sao Paulo contributed to this report.

Tuesday is England’s last official fixture in the 50-over format before their World Cup campaign begins on 3 October against South Africa in India.

A regular criticism of England of recent years has been their ability to win bilateral series outside of World Cups, only to lose pressure matches at the major tournaments.

They lost to South Africa in the semi-finals of the 2023 T20 World Cup and exited last year’s event at the group stage after crumbling in a winner-takes-all match against West Indies.

Tuesday’s decider will be as close as possible to such moments outside of the global events.

“We have seen bilateral series where done really but when come to the World Cup games or tournament cricket we have not had the momentum or been clinical in those pressure moments,” Dean said.

“Any chance we can emulate that in bilateral series is perfect practice.

“Obviously we want to win, but even if we don’t we can take those learnings, keep getting better and set ourselves up to have a good 50-over competition. That is the most important.

“No matter how the game goes tomorrow that we really reflect and learn from the situation.”

The news seemed routine.

The ramifications could be resounding.

Late last month, LeBron James exercised his $52.6 million player option with the Lakers for next season. It was an expected transaction that, at first weary glance, appeared to be no big deal.

Of course he would take the guaranteed money, more than anyone else in the league besides Brooklyn could give him.

Of course he would stay in Los Angeles, where son Bronny sits on the bench and his home sits on a hill and his myriad businesses are sitting pretty.

Of course, of course, of course … but …

Bronny James (9) leaves the court ahead of father LeBron after a win over Minnesota, during which they became the first father and son to play together in the NBA on Oct. 20, 2024.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Wait a minute. There was a catch.

For the first time since James arrived here seven years ago, there was no second or third or fourth year attached to his contract.

The Lakers didn’t offer him an extension. They refused to guarantee him a spot here after next spring.

For the first time in his Laker career — actually, the first time in his entire 23-year career — James will thus play this season on an expiring contract.

In NBA speak, that means two words.

Trade bait.

Except James has a no-trade clause, and it’s unimaginable he would agree to go to another team that would have to gut their roster to match his salary.

So for the first time, the wiley, elusive, flexible LeBron James is stuck.

He’s stuck on a team clearly catering to the needs of a different superstar in Luka Doncic.

He’s stuck on a team that might be viewing his contract not as an asset but an albatross.

He’s stuck on a team that might be looking to get rid of him but can’t.

He’s stuck on a team where he said he wants to end his career, but where that ending might eventually be out of his control.

He could perhaps free himself by thinking about Nov. 29, 2015.

That is the date that Kobe Bryant, a month into his 20th season, officially announced his retirement.

You remember it, right? What happened next was the most surprisingly delightful farewell season-long tour in the history of sports.

“I thought everybody hated me,” Bryant said at the time. “It’s really cool, man.”

Hate him? America loved him, and showed him that love in every NBA arena across the country, standing ovations from coast to coast as he cruised his way toward that stunning 60-point career finale.

The Lakers were generally terrible, the hobbled Bryant was mostly awful, but the nights were wholly magical, the stone-faced bad guy opening himself up to a national respect and admiration that he never knew existed. It was important that he saw this before he retired. It became infinitely more important that he saw this before he died.

LeBron James flexes for the crowd during a game against the Hornets.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

At the end of the tour I wrote, “… a final act that, in typical Kobe Bryant fashion, was unlike any other in the history of American sports. Opening up to a world he never trusted, becoming accessible and embraceable after years of stony intensity, Bryant used the last five months to flip the narrative on his life and career, erasing the darkness of a villain and crystallizing the glow of a hero.”

Bryant had said before the season that he would never do a farewell tour, that he didn’t want to be lauded like baseball fans lauded the prolonged retirement journey of the New York Yankees’ Derek Jeter.

“We’re completely different people; I couldn’t do that,” he said.

Yet saddled with an expiring contract just like James, Bryant ultimately wanted to do something that James might consider, giving the organization a head start at rebuilding while controlling his own narrative.

Before Bryant’s decision could be leaked, he announced it himself in an open letter to basketball that was so touching it became an Oscar-winning film. He even arranged for a copy of the letter, sealed in an envelope embossed with gold, to be placed on the seat of every fan attending that night’s game at then-Staples Center against the Indiana Pacers.

Not exactly a T-shirt, huh? It was elegant, it was classy, it was perfect, just like the tour, initially criticized in this space as being selfish before your humbled correspondent finally realized that Bryant was right, it was really, really cool.

“It’s fun. I’ve been enjoying it,” Bryant said. “It’s been great to kind of go from city to city and say thank you to all the fans and be able to feel that in return.”

You hear that, LeBron?

This is not a call for James to retire, but a call for James to begin considering how that will happen, and how the classy Lakers would nail it if it happened here.

Lakers star LeBron James battles three-time MVP Nikola Jokic of the Nuggets for rebounding position during a playoff game in Denver.

(Wally Skalij / Los Angeles Times)

Granted, the James and Bryant situations are not comparable. Even though James is 40, and Bryant was 37, James is still one of the league’s best players while Bryant was statistically one of its worst. And while James is still physically powerful, Bryant never fully recovered from his torn Achilles and was battered and broken.

James might have more gas in the tank while Bryant was clearly done.

But James himself has indicated that he probably has, at most, two years left. And every season his injuries become more insistent and debilitating.

And now that the Lakers are under new ownership with no ties to James, and now that current management has already given this team to Doncic, James doesn’t have much of a future here.

He has made noise about going back to Cleveland, and maybe after this season he’ll want to return to where his career started.

But if he’s even thinking about retirement after this year — a legitimate option for the first time — he shouldn’t wait to do so while walking off the court following an early-round loss by a mediocre Laker team.

Nobody does retirement tours like the Lakers. And nobody has ever done one like Kobe Bryant.

Decidedly in the twilight of his career, LeBron James can learn from both.