User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.6105 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
well it's one of the more honest answers you are going to get.
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.
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
Disagree...it was ever thus.
Jay Horwitz might have well have said, "It's that a-hole Jeff that's making me do this."
[Dammit - #6 beat me to it - kudos]
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.
Serious question.
Yup. I totally get why they'd deny access.
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...
Megdal's campaign was different from other forms of clowning. It wasn't one column or two, it was like a 6 column series.
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.
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.
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.
FTA, Sean:
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.
If the JN doesn't do this, it's the less-cold and seductive part of the chilling effect.
I agree. Ideally, so would other news outlets in the New York area.
Excellent point. I assume this puts the Journal News in exactly that position unless it's going to publicly agree with the Wilpons' rationale.
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.
I did enjoy "Wilpon's Folly"...perhaps Megdal will get his credentials restored when the Wilpons are forced to sell the franchise?
I thought we were talking about journalists. Why bring FOX into it?
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.
FREE HOWARD MEGDAL, MR. PRESIDENT!
They deserve each other.
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You're saying Howard lacks the journalistic credibility of Jeff Gannon?
When the maker of the news assumes control of who has access to the news, that is a form of censorship. That is why -- when the Government is involved -- having levers like this raises such serious First Amendment concerns. The Supreme Court recognizes, quite properly, not just the forms of direct, immediate censorship, but forms of government power that create a chilling effect on speech and the press. That is precisely what the Mets' action does here, to the work of other reporters: it sends a message that if they get too critical, ask too many tough questions, refuse to adhere to the pro-Wilpon, Daily News line, they too will have access cut off in any number of ways (the credential is only one of them). Now, since this is a private business, it isn't a First Amendment violation, but the principle is the same.
The issue here is not whether Howard gets to talk to baseball players in the clubhouse. It's whether you as a fan get access to information from someone who is willing to write things the team (or MLB, or the government . . . or whomever happens to be controlling access) doesn't like, and hence doesn't want the public to get to debate. If the Wilpons can punish those who write bad things about them by withholding things vital to acquiring that information. A lot (not all, but a lot) of the information a sports reporter needs is acquired in the clubhouse. If the Wilpons can make it hard for a reporter to do 10% of his job, and impossible to do another 10%, then they have restricted your access to some important percentage of the stories relevant to the Mets' beat. Howard's not the real loser; the readers are.
Tough titties, indeed.
But this is true in every area of life, and even the most restrictive sports teams allow more access than just about any other company or industry. Apple and Google don't allow reporters to walk around their offices for seven or eight hours per day. If the Mets tried to shut down a website, or told a reporter she couldn't stand on the sidewalk in front of Citi Field, or tried to revoke access to a BBWAA member, that would be censorship. But as much as I enjoy Howard's coverage, I don't see this as censorship.
Agree 100%. This move is indefensible.
Of course the Wilpons are indefensible in general, but some people are still trying, for some reason.
The Journal News should suspend all Mets coverage, except Howard's writing on their financial woes, until this is fixed. They shouldn't even carry the Box Score.
I think - being devil's advocate - that it's more about noting what they consider the excessive fault in Howard's run for GM than the Wilpon's actions here. That whole thing engendered a definite level of negative response here. I'd imagine they feel it's comeuppance. The stupidity and unethical behavior of the Wilpons' actions against that kind of internet haterade fervor usually matters little.
I agree it's both petty and awful p.r., but the Mets aren't obligated to credential non-BBWAA members. It's as simple as that.
The article didn't make it clear, but I wonder if Howard is under a blanket ban, or just as the LoHud blogger. I.e., if he were to meet the normal requirements for being credentialed, would they still try to deny him or would he be welcomed back? (I'm guessing the latter.)
(* - This may not seem like much, but it was crystal clear from the outset that the team landed in Canton because Akron wouldn't build them a stadium, and that the owner had very little interest in the Canton portion of the metro area. That was confirmed when they moved up to Akron. Before the move though, dropping Akron from the team name was an overt and deliberate finger in the eye of the team owner.)
FWIW, I've paraphrased the above from a book about Canton baseball in the '90s, which is absolutely recommended reading if you're from Canton and liked baseball in the '90s.
The article didn't make it clear, but I wonder if Howard is under a blanket ban, or just as the LoHud blogger. I.e., if he were to meet the normal requirements for being credentialed, would they still try to deny him or would he be welcomed back? (I'm guessing the latter.)
If a decent size local media outlet selects Howard as their rep, the Mets should credential him. Full stop.
Why should it matter if he is full-time or not?
Cripes, Fred should know better-one of the smarter rules in life is that one should never ever pick a fight with folks who buy ink by the barrel.
Cripes, Fred should know better-one of the smarter rules in life is that one should never ever pick a fight with folks who buy ink by the barrel.
They could start by talking to every disgruntled former employee of the Mets, Stirling, etc. If even one of them says that Wilpon and Katz knew about Madoff, you take that to Picard, and get supoenas for all their emails. I'm sure someone said something incriminating in an email.
So what's up with the Yankees these days?
I wasn't looking to kick the hornet's nest here. As I've said multiple times, I enjoy Howard's coverage of the Mets and this move seems petty and is sure to generate bad p.r.
My point is simply that the standards for credentials are negotiated by the BBWAA. As I understand it, there are a lot of Mets bloggers who aren't credentialed. I just don't see how this materially impacts Howard's ability to write about the Wilpons or the Mets' finances.
Did the Dodgers credential the Dodger Divorce guy? (Serious question.)
Yes, but that's just the guaranteed credentials. He's not just a random "blogger" he's an official blogger for a mid-size regional paper.
If the Mets had a policy that only BBWAA members would be credentialed, then excluding Howard would be justified. The fact that they have credentialed him before, despite being non-BBWAA, and are now singling him out for exclusion, because they don't like his coverage, is what makes it wrong.
Did the LoHud outlet eliminate their full-time Mets beat writer while keeping their Yankees beat writer? If so, I bet that didn't help Howard's cause.
Maybe, but I still don't believe that having issued a credential in the past obligates the Mets to do so in perpetuity. Per the article, it sounds like Howard didn't have a full-time Mets credential last year; only an occasional credential on a game-by-game basis.
Exactly. As much as I thought Howard's campaign was both embarrassing and damaging to his credibility, the Mets' actions demonstrate that his silliness was not an impediment to him being credentialed. Rather, it was his criticial reporting of him was this year that led to this decision.
The Journal News should attempt to force the issue. And, as I said, it would be nice if fellow New York area papers did likewise. Non-credentialing any local media sponored writer because of critical coverage is not just damaging to this paper, but a threat to all of them.
They’re well past the point of “any news...” because all they’re getting is negative news. They could discover a cure for cancer and they’d still be booed. Really, they should just let poor Horwitz go.
Heck they should let Alderson, DePodesta and Ricciardi go - John Ricco could play ostrich for a few million dollars less.
They can't do that. The Mets have one of the best front offices in baseball.
Oooh, oooh. Time to implement my all-Primate front office.
We'll work cheap, and cut costs to the bone; most of us don't even like the Mets.
Y’all would probably kill ‘lil Jeffy in a week.
Howard, I fear you're cutting off your nose to spite your face. You may be right as rain, but ######## about lack of access is going to gain you even less access in the overall. Most of us have been rejected for creds at one point or another. I've never heard of publicly bashing on a club (and therefore, by extension, a league), helping. It was good publicity to write the column. Completely undermines your chances of getting Mets creds, or possibly creds elsewhere.
With Jeffy running it?
You say that like it's a bad thing?
I wouldn't call it a one or the other. These types of things have a cumulative effect.
I'm not thrilled with the idea of Depo or Ricciardi as GM. Nothing wrong with Depodesta; he seems competent, but I'd like better than that, and it's hard to imagine Alderson sticking around as Mets GM given he'll be 66 when his current deal is up.
Just a callback to a previous disagreement I had with Howard. I wonder if he still holds the same position he did a year ago.
Because they penalized him for the content of his writing.
No, it would be like Obama banned him from the bus because he criticized Obama.
As I've said multiple times, I like Howard and his coverage has been great. I'd agree that the Mets' actions are petty and retaliatory, but I don't see how it will act to inhibit his continued coverage of the Mets, Wilpons, Madoff, et al.
A guy like Megdal would be of interest to any disgruntled Mets employee.
That guy is not going to give a quote.
But he might say, "Keep an eye out for a filing that I hear is coming down later today or tomorrow," enabling Megdal to have it first.
You'd never read anything about that conversation, but it would matter.
Or he says, "Ask around about whether so-and-so still works here." Which would be newsworthy if the guy was involved in off-field financial stuff and suddenly disappears without a trace.
Often just being in the building demonstrates one's bona fides, and prompts that potential source over the top - when he wouldn't make a phone call or send an email.
That's how the business works.
I realize that's not going to be easily apparent to an outsider, but since you asked....
Anyway, I understand how things work in baseball clubhouses and press boxes. I've spent countless time in both. I understand the points you made in #88, but I don't believe they're applicable in an apples-to-apples way. By Howard's own admission, he doesn't meet the current requirements for a BBWAA card or a full-time credential, and, as such, any prior credentials he received were wholly at the Mets' discretion. I understand being in the clubhouse helps "demonstrate one's bona fides," but I don't see the Mets as "censoring" Howard any more than they're censoring a long list of other Mets and baseball bloggers whom the Mets have never credentialed.
If one takes the logic in this thread to its logical conclusion, anyone who secures a one-off credential should immediately write something negative about the team, as a means of guaranteeing their credential request could never be denied in the future for fear of a "censorship" claim.
It seems that the Mets realize that this particular blogger is clued in enough that if he maintains press box credentials, they may not like the result because he has been critical of management.
I wouldn't use the word "censor," either, though.
So I do see that particular point - he can still write as much as he likes.
But we both might agree that it could cost him some leads....
Definitely agree. I guess I see it as a case where the Mets giveth and the Mets taketh away. That is, they gave him a credential when he wasn't necessarily entitled to one — an act that somewhat bit them in the rear end — and now they're exercising discretion that they wouldn't have with a BBWAA member.
Anyway, the whole relationship between sports teams and the media is fascinating. Given the conflicting interests, it's really amazing there aren't more of these little skirmishes.
So yes, we are on the same page here. That all makes sense to me.
And yes, credentialing will become a lot more complicated than it was in the old days.
Now, Howard's not entitled to access, but I think there's a difference between simply not getting access and having access removed out of retribution.
I wouldn't. I've said so before, but if I ran a team, I would go all Belichick, and allow "access" to the team in name only. 'You're with the BBWAA? Sure, go right into the clubhouse. Where is everyone? Oh they are in a private changing area, which has TV's, barcoloungers, xboxes, and a Popeye's delivery service.'
I guess it all boils down to the fact that teams only really accommodate the media for the teams' own interests. If a non-BBWAA writer said he was writing about the Mets finances, Madoff, etc., and the Mets refused the credential request upfront, no one probably would ever hear about it. Meanwhile, the Mets likely credentialed Howard figuring he'd be a net positive to the Mets' p.r. efforts, but soured on him when he turned his focus to matters the Mets prefer to be left uncovered.
To me, the Mets' actions are only worse in the sense that it's always harder to revoke something than it is to simply deny it upfront, but I'm not convinced one is ethically worse than the other. (Even the most wide-eyed, non-cynical J-school grad knows sports teams grant media access for p.r. reasons and not because of a noble pursuit of transparency, right-to-know, etc.)
It will inhibit him from writing about other aspects of the team and deter others from their own criticism. If the government had done the same, any court would find a First Amendment violation. Only under your personal definition does this fail to qualify as censorship.
We're just going in circles now, but by Howard's admission, he's not entitled to a credential right now under the MLB and BBWAA definitions. He received credentials in the past as a courtesy, and that courtesy was revoked. Until you explain how my last paragraph in #89 is wrong, there's no sense continuing.
The Mets are doing no such thing. The Mets have no choice but to allow access to BBWAA writers.
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.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main