It's wrong because the Mets said the reason he's not invited back is that he was critical of the team, a fact you keep ignoring in your false analogies.

So if the Mets said they won't credential him because they don't like his shirts, everything would be fine? I agree the Mets are being petty and retaliatory, but it seems illogical to punish them for telling the truth.

What if Howard had said, right upfront, that he was writing about the Mets and Madoff, and the Mets simply refused the credential request, as teams do all the time when media members are known to be working on topics teams don't like? Would that have been censorship?

The point is, by Howard's own admission, he doesn't meet the BBWAA threshold for credentials right now. If the Mets had simply never credentialed Howard in the first place — just as they don't credential dozens if not hundreds of others who'd like credentials — would that have been "censorship"?

Also, #100 isn't even close to a rebuttal to the last paragraph of #89. I guess you believe anyone who ever writes or says something negative about a team should be, by that very act, guaranteed to hold credentials forever, or else the person can invoke a "censorship" claim.

So if the Mets said they won't credential him because they don't like his shirts, everything would be fine?

Yes. Weird, but fine.

The point is, by Howard's own admission, he doesn't meet the BBWAA threshold for credentials right now. If the Mets had simply never credentialed Howard in the first place — just as they don't credential dozens if not hundreds of others who'd like credentials — would that have been "censorship"?

No.

Also, #99 isn't even close to a rebuttal to the last paragraph of #89. I guess you believe anyone who ever writes or says something negative about a team should be, by that very act, guaranteed to hold credentials forever, or else the person can invoke a "censorship" claim.

No.

Are you starting to follow yet?

Are you starting to follow yet?

No. I can't discern any consistent logic or principles in your various replies above.

No. I can't discern any consistent logic or principles in your various replies above.

It's because you persist in ignoring THE REASON Howard was banned from the clubhouse. It wasn't his shirt. It wasn't his lack of BBWAA credentials. It was -- admittedly on the part of the Mets -- the content of his writing. That is censorship, because that is what censorship is. All of your analogies and rhetorical questions are hooey, because they all require you to ignore that Megdal's credentials were revoked -- BECAUSE -- the Mets didn't like what he wrote about them.

Now it's you're turn to respond with an obtuse counterfactual.

All of your analogies and rhetorical questions are hooey, because they all require you to ignore that Megdal's credentials were revoked -- BECAUSE -- the Mets didn't like what he wrote about them.

How do you figure Howard's credentials were "revoked"?* Per the article, Howard didn't have a full-time credential in the first place.

What's the difference between the Mets denying a credential for Joe Blow who's writing about the Wilpons and Madoff, and the Mets denying future credentials to Howard to report on the same topic? It makes no sense to say the former is perfectly acceptable but the latter is an affront to journalism.

(* I've erroneously used the word "revoke" in this thread, too, but that's not really what the Mets have done here.)

We knew the Mets were dumb and broke.

How do you figure Howard's credentials were "revoked"?* Per the article, Howard didn't have a full-time credential in the first place.

IWhat's the difference between the Mets denying a credential for Joe Blow who's writing about the Wilpons and Madoff, and the Mets denying future credentials to Howard to report on the same topic? It makes no sense to say the former is perfectly acceptable but the latter is an affront to journalism.

Thanks for the obtuse counterfactual. I did ask for it.

Is the reporter being denied credentials BECAUSE of his unflattering coverage? Who says that's perfectly acceptable? You'd never find out about it, but nobody would say it was "perfectly acceptable" to exclude journalists -- BECAUSE (the point you're still ignoring) -- of negative coverage. What makes no sense is to say that because this would pass without comment, therefore it must be acceptable to to exclude a previously credentialed journalist -- BECAUSE -- of his negative coverage.

Now it's you're turn to respond with an obtuse counterfactual.

That's funny. Well done.

And then he does it.

Is the reporter being denied credentials BECAUSE of his unflattering coverage? Who says that's perfectly acceptable? You'd never find out about it, but nobody would say it was "perfectly acceptable" to exclude journalists -- BECAUSE (the point you're still ignoring) -- of negative coverage. What makes no sense is to say that because this would pass without comment, therefore it must be acceptable to to exclude a previously credentialed journalist -- BECAUSE -- of his negative coverage.

There's absolutely no consistency or logic to your comments here. A team can't "revoke" something that hadn't been issued in the first place. And if it's not censorship to deny a credential upfront, then it's not censorship to deny a future credential after a writer's focus has shifted from Topic A to Topic B. Writers (esp. non-BBWAA members) don't have a right to walk around the Mets clubhouse every day any more than I have a right to walk around Apple's headquarters and take notes. A company's failure to roll out the red carpet is not the same thing as censorship.

You'd never find out about it, but nobody would say it was "perfectly acceptable" to exclude journalists -- BECAUSE (the point you're still ignoring) -- of negative coverage. What makes no sense is to say that because this would pass without comment,

Why would we "never find out about it"? Anyone denied a credential is free to blog about it, just like Howard did.

Would it be better if the Mets simply never issued credentials to anyone other than those meeting the BBWAA requirements? I don't see how it would be, but it would be an easy way for the Mets to avoid this problem in the future.

Joe, I don't think you've made any new points in [110]. Your rebuttal is basically name-calling ("There's absolutely no consistency or logic to your comments here.??"); focusing on the immaterial ("A team can't "revoke" something that hadn't been issued in the first place."); and ignoring the posts you purport to be rebutting ("And if it's not censorship to deny a credential upfront, then it's not censorship to deny a future credential after a writer's focus has shifted from Topic A to Topic B.").

If you'd like the last word, have at it. It's not really fun to debate this with you because, well, you're stupid (see I can call you names too).

Joe, I don't think you've made any new points in [110]. Your rebuttal is basically name-calling ("There's absolutely no consistency or logic to your comments here.??");

That counts as name-calling? At worst, it was a complaint.

After all these posts, I still don't understand how you would thread the needle here. If the Mets aren't obligated to credential non-BBWAA members at all, and they're not obligated to always credential people who have written negatively about the team in the past (per my last paragraph in #89), then I still don't see how this particular incident is "censorship" or an affront to journalism.

As we've seen, Howard has continued writing about the Mets, Wilpons, and Madoff since this article was posted. He never needed clubhouse access to cover the Mets' financial situation, and he probably never would have had clubhouse access if he had declared the Wilpons and Madoff to be the main topic of his reporting.

focusing on the immaterial ("A team can't "revoke" something that hadn't been issued in the first place.");

I don't see how it's immaterial. The Mets are under no obligation to credential anyone who doesn't meet the BBWAA requirements, and they — like all sports teams, political organizations, etc. — probably reject more people than they approve.

As I asked in #110, would it be better if the Mets simply never issued credentials to anyone other than those meeting the BBWAA requirements? I don't see how it would be, but it would be an easy way for the Mets to avoid this problem in the future.

If you'd like the last word, have at it. It's not really fun to debate this with you because, well, you're stupid (see I can call you names too).

Now that counts as name-calling.

Would it be discrimination if they excluded him for being black (which he isn't, but humor me here)?

*crickets*

*crickets*

I thought #113 might have been your way of ending the debate.

Obviously, it would be discrimination if a team rejected a credential request on the basis of race, etc., without even getting to the issue of the person's qualifications, media outlet, rationale for credential request, etc., but I don't see the parallel to Howard's situation.

If using the word loosely, I suppose the Mets are "discriminating" against topics, outlets, etc., they don't like or don't believe are big enough to be a net positive to the team's p.r. efforts, but every team and political organization in America does that on a daily basis.

But if the black guy wasn't a BBWAA member, he doesn't have a right to be in there in the first place.
"There's absolutely no consistency or logic to your comments here."

But if the black guy wasn't a BBWAA member, he doesn't have a right to be in there in the first place.
"There's absolutely no consistency or logic to your comments here."

It appears I made the mistake of believing we were having a good-faith debate here.

If only black guys were rejected for discretionary credentials while others were able to get them, then that would be discrimination. How this relates to Howard's situation or counts as a "gotcha" is beyond me.

UPDATE

not sure what this means exactly

http://mets.lohudblogs.com/2012/02/15/an-updated-note-on-access/

If only black guys were rejected for discretionary credentials while others were able to get them, then that would be discrimination. How this relates to Howard's situation or counts as a "gotcha" is beyond me.

Naturally.

not sure what this means exactly

That makes two of us. Was this much ado about nothing?

After two or three articles about this, I still can't tell how often Howard was credentialed last year. Was he there 50 times and not having credentials would have been a hardship, or was he there five times and the lack of credentials wouldn't have really affected his coverage of the Mets' finances, Wilpons, etc.? I thought Howard had been doing much more of the latter as opposed to covering games. Might be wrong about that (?).

Naturally.

So rejecting people who write about the Mets and Madoff is the same as rejecting all black people. OK. Thanks for clearing that up for me.