I don't think they care for your eBook, Howard.

Sean asked why that was, and Jay responded that the Mets “don’t like my reporting”. The team declined to respond to my multiple attempts to reach them for a fuller explanation.

well it's one of the more honest answers you are going to get.

I have no particular opinion of Howard's work specifically and in general I am underwhelmed by what clubhouse access provides us. Still, this looks like a dick move by the Mets. I don't think Howard is doing the Deadspin/TMZ crap that could be inappropriate and if he is critical of the team...well that's just the job.

and if he is critical of the team...well that's just the job.

IMHO the ONLY journalists actually doing their job are critical of the Wilpons, unfortunately the Wilpons seem to have thinner skins than usual lately

It would be hilarious if something like this was just the last straw and David Wright went on an incredible rant against Wilpon and brought Ike Davis and Johan Santana and Dickey with him.

when does the "megdal for towelboy" campaign start?

IMHO the ONLY journalists actually doing their job are critical of the Wilpons, unfortunately the Wilpons seem to have thinner skins than usual lately

They aren't as insulated by a thick layer of 1000 dollar bills as they used to be.

you can't have reporters doing actual, like, you know REPORTING.

see jim crane and the houston media. wilpons prolly got the idea of banning howard after seeing how easy things are for crane with a yesman media. this way, they can have their PR and releases through the alyson footers.

companies/the US govt are turning into the soviet govt with their tass control

Now who's going to show Howard the Bronx?

companies/the US govt are turning into the soviet govt with their tass control

Disagree...it was ever thus.

The problem with this is that the media world of New York is obviously much bigger than Houston, and everybody hates the Wilpons. Jim Crane only has to corrupt a handful of people, the Wilpons would have to invoke a Damascene conversion on dozens, if not hundreds.

Jay Horwitz might have well have said, "It's that a-hole Jeff that's making me do this."

If Howard were GM, he could grant himself access.

[Dammit - #6 beat me to it - kudos]

Recall the Mets' earlier comment:

“The author’s desperate self-promotional campaign for relevance has led to perpetuating baseless speculation and complete inaccuracies.”

I think the "Megdal for GM campaign" gave them the impression that he is a clown and not a reporter. He did act like a clown in that instance, so I get it as far as that goes. But, he has proven since then that he is a real reporter, and it's petty of them not to let him in. (In fact, the precise reason they don't want to let him in now is because he did what a real reporter does. Quelle irony.)

Try writing some obsequious pro-Bud articles and see how quickly the tune changes. He didn't install his stooge in the front office to be his own man you know.

Flynn Posted: February 06, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4054747)

The problem with this is that the media world of New York is obviously much bigger than Houston, and everybody hates the Wilpons. Jim Crane only has to corrupt a handful of people, the Wilpons would have to invoke a Damascene conversion on dozens, if not hundreds.

Jay Horwitz might have well have said, "It's that a-hole Jeff that's making me do this."

you are dead right about the houston media - plus the fact that the astros had managed to make themselves basically ignored over the past couple years, so nobody really cared real too much. very few fans = nobody can be bothered to say or do anything.

what we need and do not have is something like WFAN. the sports radio around here gets very few ears. and yes i have heard all about how mike francesca is - point is that no matter what he is/says, he gets people listening to and talking about the baseball teams. up until the end of 08 (after the post-Ike meltdown) the astros were the most talked about sports team in houston and we had lots of fans.

seems to me i remember a few years back, the royals denying a reporter access, and this causing a LOT of trouble.

i seriously wonder if jeffy-poo is gonna be able to get away with banning a reporter from the clubhouse.

i seriously wonder if jeffy-poo is gonna be able to get away with banning a reporter from the clubhouse.

I'm a great believer in the value of the Fourth Estate, but unless MLB has some guidelines compelling the Wilpons to shape up, why shouldn't he get away with it?

Serious question.

Why isn't Howard a member of the BBWAA?

I think the "Megdal for GM campaign" gave them the impression that he is a clown and not a reporter. He did act like a clown in that instance, so I get it as far as that goes.

Yup. I totally get why they'd deny access.

tshipman

then why are they denying it NOW and not when he was doing the running for GM thingy?

not that being a clown has been a reason to deny any other reporter access...

Besides, in retrospect, why shouldn't he have been their GM? How much worse could he have done?

not that being a clown has been a reason to deny any other reporter access...

Megdal's campaign was different from other forms of clowning. It wasn't one column or two, it was like a 6 column series.

then why are they denying it NOW and not when he was doing the running for GM thingy?

Because it was up for review now? I don't know. In any case, it's not like he has a right to it. They can deny it at their pleasure. When you act like a clown, that's the risk you run.

Besides, in retrospect, why shouldn't he have been their GM? How much worse could he have done?

Well ... Oliver Perez would be the opening day starter ...

Well ... Oliver Perez would be the opening day starter ...

Pay him to pitch or pay him not to pitch, but the previous administration made sure that Perez would get paid.

If Bill Plaschke did the GM gimmick, the Mets would just ask for more.

Besides, in retrospect, why shouldn't he have been their GM.
Probably would have saved the Mets several hundred grand, if not more, making it one of the Mets best moves in the post-Madoff era.

Why isn't Howard a member of the BBWAA?

FTA, Sean:

The Mets can’t very well keep out Adam Rubin, whose right to be in the clubhouse is guaranteed by his membership in the Baseball Writers Association of America. Though I am a full-time sportswriter as my profession, I am ineligible for the BBWAA because I make my living through regular, part-time gigs, not a single, full-time one. So the team is lashing out where it can.

Just to clear up: was credentialed numerous times following publication of Taking The Field, satirical book about running for GM. Mets called my editor, without having asked for credential, following publication of Wilpon's Folly.

And from what I understand, writer needs to be full-time at one spot to be BBWAA-eligible. As a full-time writer who makes a living at several different outlets, I am not eligible under current rules, I've been told. Hopefully, that changes soon.

The nuclear option for the paper is to hire TJ Simers and unleash him on the Mets, shtick fully deployed.

#savehowardmegdal !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If I were the Journal News, I'd tell the Mets that they can also keep the credentials from the rest of my reporters, since they won't be using them. An organization doesn't get to tell a media outlet which journalists they'd prefer to have reporting on them. Could you imagine the outcry if the administration tried to tell FOX news which dudes get a seat in the daily press briefing in Washington?

If the JN doesn't do this, it's the less-cold and seductive part of the chilling effect.

If I were the Journal News, I'd tell the Mets that they can also keep the credentials from the rest of my reporters, since they won't be using them. An organization doesn't get to tell a media outlet which journalists they'd prefer to have reporting on them.

I agree. Ideally, so would other news outlets in the New York area.

Megdal's campaign was different from other forms of clowning. It wasn't one column or two, it was like a 6 column series.

I don't know the spacing of the columns, but it felt like it went on for at least six months. In any case I didn't enjoy it and was glad when it stopped.

If I were the Journal News, I'd tell the Mets that they can also keep the credentials from the rest of my reporters, since they won't be using them. An organization doesn't get to tell a media outlet which journalists they'd prefer to have reporting on them. Could you imagine the outcry if the administration tried to tell FOX news which dudes get a seat in the daily press briefing in Washington?

If the JN doesn't do this, it's the less-cold and seductive part of the chilling effect.

Excellent point. I assume this puts the Journal News in exactly that position unless it's going to publicly agree with the Wilpons' rationale.

If I were the Journal News, I'd tell the Mets that they can also keep the credentials from the rest of my reporters, since they won't be using them.

I like my idea of sending the most obnoxious guy with a BBWAA membership they can find better, as in more fun. But I guess handling it in a serious and adult way is a viable alternative.

@32: the problem is, it's a five hundred-way tie. That's a lot of coin flips.

I agree that press credentials should be left to the discretion of the team, but that does not diminish the idiocy of the team in this instance.

I did enjoy "Wilpon's Folly"...perhaps Megdal will get his credentials restored when the Wilpons are forced to sell the franchise?

Could you imagine the outcry if the administration tried to tell FOX news which dudes get a seat in the daily press briefing in Washington?

I thought we were talking about journalists. Why bring FOX into it?

Back in the 1990s, I got to spend 7 years with a Cardinals press pass, because I wrote every week, about baseball, for the local alternative weekly, The Riverfont Times. As the issue was explained to me at the time, you had to be a regularly-published Cardinals beat writer for 10 years (you could switch outlets, as long as you remained a beat writer) before you got into the BBWAA. However, once you were in, you were in. It didn't matter what you did after your entry. This applied to all teams, of course, so in, say, KC, you have to beat cover the Royals for ten years. The biggest problem with this system, in my opinion, is that it has no mandatory retirement clause. That's why the BBWAA Hall of Fame votes can go so horribly wrong. You've got a LOT of 70-90-year-old guys doing the voting who haven't been covering baseball seriously since they were in their 50s. - Brock Hanke

As the issue was explained to me at the time, you had to be a regularly-published Cardinals beat writer for 10 years (you could switch outlets, as long as you remained a beat writer) before you got into the BBWAA.

I don't think that's true (at least not now). You have to be in the BBWAA for 10 years before you get a Hall of Fame vote (which lasts forever), but you don't have to cover the sport for 10 years before becoming eligible for membership.

If I'm not mistaken, the Journal News could sponsor Howard's BBWAA membership through the New York chapter.

@36: what do you suggest? I can see ten years without credible output being a reason to pull BBWAA membership, whatever "credible" might mean. I don't think it will be to difficult to weed out those who have no professional attachment to the game, and haven't in a decade.

So the JN could hire Murray Chass and the Mets couldn't keep him out of the clubhouse?

So the JN could hire Murray Chass and the Mets couldn't keep him out of the clubhouse

FREE HOWARD MEGDAL, MR. PRESIDENT!

So the JN could hire Murray Chass and the Mets couldn't keep him out of the clubhouse?

They deserve each other.

It needs to happen. The Mets haven't had an in-house backne spotter in years.

Because it was up for review now? I don't know. In any case, it's not like he has a right to it. They can deny it at their pleasure. When you act like a clown, that's the risk you run.

You don't know? The hell you don't. The timing makes it obvious. They didn't revoke/deny credentials when Howard (supposedly) acted like a clown. They did it when they didn't like his reporting on the financial black hole that their ownership has become.

The idea that the team should be in complete control of who covers them is abominable. Why on Earth should we be sanguine about a team exercising a veto power over coverage it doesn't like, thus sending a message to any other critic that his or her message better be muted (or silent altogether), or the Mets will make sure they can't do their job? If the media had even a lick of backbone, every paper and outlet covering the team would tell Jay Horwitz and Jeff Wilpon that there won't be ANY coverage of the Mets -- not a single credential sought or used -- until the Mets issue credentials on a neutral basis, without regard to whether the Mets like what the reporter is saying about the Wilpons. Because they ALL have a generalized, mutual interest in not having their coverage censored by the Mets.

The more these clowns (it's not Howard who's the clown here, let me tell you) own the team, the more they alienate the fan base. It's going to be a monumentally uninteresting team already, and now they want to turn it into a cause to NOT watch the team? Nicely done, Mets. Nicely done.

I feel bad for Howard and this is more bad p.r. for the Mets, but I'm not sure this decision is entirely unreasonable. Most of what I read from Howard is regarding the Mets' off-field situation, for which he doesn't need clubhouse access. Unless I'm missing something, Howard is just as able and likely to write about the Wilpons and Mets' finances today as he was yesterday. (And straight out of the department of unintended consequences, Howard might be spurred to write even more about those topics now.)

I'd change my tune if the BBWAA didn't exist and teams tried to have only stooges in the press box and/or clubhouse. But even with the clear whiff of retaliation that exists here, it seems the Mets are merely exercising discretionary control over a media member who doesn't have a BBWAA card and isn't a full-time writer for any media outlet.

Discretionary control? That's pretty rich. It's called censorship.

Discretionary control? That's pretty rich. It's called censorship.

How is it censorship? Shutting down Howard's site would be censorship. Not giving him a press pass isn't censorship any more than it would be censorship to deny me a press pass. I enjoy Howard's writing, but he's neither a BBWAA member nor a full-time staffer for any outlet.

It's not any different in news or politics. The White House doesn't give press passes to all comers.

It's not any different in news or politics. The White House doesn't give press passes to all comers.

This is not an appropriate analogy - they discontinued allowing him access to the clubhouse specifically because they did not like his criticism. That's censorship. Sure, the North Korean style censorship you describe is worse, but that doesn't excuse what the Mets did here. All journalists should condemn this.

They deserve each other.

Hey, now. The Journal News' ability to mine the local police department's 'police beat' helps me stay current on the random petty crimes of Rockland County:

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) A New City man who drew attention to himself by yelling and honking as a funeral procession drove by is facing a misdemeanor drunken driving charge after police pulled him over and found him to be drinking and driving. Edward Tabaracci, 50, was stopped at Lake Road and Old Haverstraw Road in Congers about 12:15 p.m. Thursday as the funeral procession moved through, police said. Tabaracci is accused of honking his horn during the procession and leaning out his car window to yell at the driver in front of him for holding up traffic, police said. Tabaracci was later stopped and subjected to a field sobriety test, which police said he failed. He was taken to Clarkstown police headquarters in New City, where he took a Breathalyzer test, which police said he also failed. Tabaracci was charged with a misdemeanor count of driving while intoxicated and drinking alcohol in a vehicle, a violation, police said. He was later released without bail and is to appear in Clarkstown Town Court on Feb. 22.

This is not an appropriate analogy - they discontinued allowing him access to the clubhouse specifically because they did not like his criticism. That's censorship.

How is it censorship? Howard is just as free to write about the Wilpons and the Mets' finances today as he was yesterday.

I agree the optics are bad, but it's like the recent Komen/Planned Parenthood flap. Just because Komen once gave money to PP doesn't obligate it to do so forever. Likewise, just because Obama allows a small-town blogger onto his campaign bus in Crosshairs, Iowa, doesn't mean the blogger is entitled to a permanent seat at the White House press briefings. (And so on and so forth.)

I admire Howard for writing with, in a sense, reckless abandon (i.e., writing without a guaranteed credential), but I don't see how he's being censored here any more than any non-BBWAA member is "censored" by having a credential application rejected.

It's not any different in news or politics. The White House doesn't give press passes to all comers.

You're saying Howard lacks the journalistic credibility of Jeff Gannon?