Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, January 18, 2021

NY Mets GM acknowledges sending unsolicited, explicit images while working for Cubs

New York Mets general manager Jared Porter sent explicit, unsolicited texts and images to a female reporter in 2016, culminating with a picture of an erect, naked penis, according to a copy of the text history obtained by ESPN.

The woman, a foreign correspondent who had moved to the United States to cover Major League Baseball, said at one point she ignored more than 60 messages from Porter before he sent the final lewd photo. The text relationship started casually before Porter, then the Chicago Cubs director of professional scouting, began complimenting her appearance, inviting her to meet him in various cities and asking why she was ignoring him. And the texts show she had stopped responding to Porter after he sent a photo of pants featuring a bulge in the groin area.

Porter continued texting her anyway, sending dozens of messages despite the lack of a response. On Aug. 11, 2016, a day after asking her to meet him at a hotel in Los Angeles, Porter sent the woman 17 pictures. The first 15 photos were of the hotel and its restaurants. The 16th was the same as an earlier photo of the bulge in the pants. The 17th was of a bare penis.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 18, 2021 at 11:06 PM | 184 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: mets

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.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. The Duke Posted: January 18, 2021 at 11:36 PM (#6000400)
Maybe I’m an oldster but does sending a dick pic actually work more often than not? It really doesn’t seem like it would but what do I know ?
   2. Russlan thinks deGrom is da bomb Posted: January 18, 2021 at 11:39 PM (#6000403)
The Mets remain a parody. The images in the article suggest he's definitely a "bro".
   3. Cooper Nielson Posted: January 18, 2021 at 11:42 PM (#6000405)
His Wikipedia page currently reads:

Jared Porter
Born November 23, 1979 (age 41)
Wayzata, Minnesota, U.S.
Alma mater Bowdoin College (BA)
Occupation Genital Photographer
   4. smileyy Posted: January 18, 2021 at 11:44 PM (#6000407)
Maybe I’m an oldster but does sending a dick pic actually work more often than not?


It works for the guy sending it, to stroke (so to speak) his ego and project power over the woman by placing her in an unwanted and uncomfortable position. "I'm doing this because I can do this"...except, well, you can't anymore.
   5. Howie Menckel Posted: January 18, 2021 at 11:54 PM (#6000408)
NYY/MLB/NYM reporter for NY Daily News:

Kristie Ackert
@ByKristieAckert
·
18m
Ugh. This is just gross.

Not sure how he can continue in a job where he has to deal with women reporters after this.
   6. Sweatpants Posted: January 18, 2021 at 11:56 PM (#6000409)
Jared had some kind of Midwestern roots, although he had graduated from Bowdoin College in Maine, but he always seemed Midwestern to me, rather than Eastern. No flash. No sales pitch. No expensive wardrobe; I suppose maybe he had some nice clothes in a closet somewhere, but I never saw them, other than the wedding. No ego; he just wanted to do his job. When we were working on something, we’d send the interns out for food. This other intern, who was Jared’s partner, when they got back to Fenway he would make Jared carry the food in, so that he wouldn’t be seen performing this menial task. (The other guy has had a good career in baseball, too, has a good job with another organization. I always got along fine with him, too.) Anyway, Jared told me about that years later; he always thought that was the strangest god-damned thing he had ever run into, a 23-year-old man who didn’t want to be seen carrying sandwiches into the office. The one guy had a big ego; the other guy had none.
- Bill James, The Mets New GM
   7. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 18, 2021 at 11:59 PM (#6000410)
Porter will be fired, rightfully so. Seems to me whoever does background checks for the Mets should be super ultra double fired. First Beltran, now this.
   8. The Duke Posted: January 19, 2021 at 12:07 AM (#6000414)
Mets have backed him for now - that won’t last
   9. Russlan thinks deGrom is da bomb Posted: January 19, 2021 at 12:08 AM (#6000415)
Sandy Alderson probably needs to retire.
   10. flournoy Posted: January 19, 2021 at 12:42 AM (#6000419)
Maybe I’m an oldster but does sending a dick pic actually work more often than not?


I guess it depends on what you're trying to accomplish... I would assume that it would typically garner a reaction from the recipient, so if that reaction was what you were aiming for, then mission accomplished, I suppose.

Porter's other messages allegedly include:
- "Why aren't we hanging out??"
- "Do you have a boyfriend yet?"
- "Want more of me?"
- "Want to see more...?"
- "Helllloooooo beautiful"
- "Where did you go?"
- "I'm bored"
- "Am I annoying you?"
- "Why won't you answer me beautiful?"
- "You're hard to get"
- "I want to see you"
- "Do you want to see me?"
- "I thought we could have some fun"
- ":-( I'm a nice guy you know"
- "Was it the pictures that made you mad?"
- "You're missing out"



It would seem that Porter's work was ineffective.



Note that this man was hired by the Mets to (in part) communicate publicly and act as a judge of character. Oh, those Mets.
   11. Walt Davis Posted: January 19, 2021 at 12:52 AM (#6000423)
I hope the Cubs were not informed of this at any point over the last 5 years. (When did he stop working for them?)
   12. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 19, 2021 at 12:53 AM (#6000426)

Jared had some kind of Midwestern roots, although he had graduated from Bowdoin College in Maine, but he always seemed Midwestern to me, rather than Eastern. No flash.


That turned out to be incorrect.
   13. Howie Menckel Posted: January 19, 2021 at 12:58 AM (#6000428)
I'd have to think about what ESPN should have or could have done.

I understand why they didn't run the story four years ago. but then you sit on the story for all this time while the offender gets a couple of jobs - including the latest more high-profile one.

and then after he gets that gig, it's time to - well, let the lion out of the cage, as it were, because she decided so.

it feels very refreshing that a woman in a scenario like this finally gets treated respectfully, given this country's past history on such matters.

but where do we go on this path?

I don't care about this clown. but how many years does someone get to own all the power?

couldn't that lead to bigger problems down the road?
   14. The Duke Posted: January 19, 2021 at 01:01 AM (#6000429)
Aldersons statement was that this is the first we are hearing of it - that’s a big red flag. They’ll take him out for not letting them know about this.

At least he did the Lindor trade. It might end up being the most consequential thing that gets done under the new regime.
   15. flournoy Posted: January 19, 2021 at 01:08 AM (#6000432)
Aldersons statement was that this is the first we are hearing of it - that’s a big red flag. They’ll take him out for not letting them know about this.


I don't disagree that they'll take him out, since Porter is going to be fired tomorrow once the Mets' brass has a chance to meet in the morning. But my understanding is that he wasn't aware ESPN or anyone other than the woman in question knew about the exchange. So I don't think anyone would reasonably expect him to disclose it.
   16. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 19, 2021 at 01:12 AM (#6000434)
Mets have backed him for now - that won’t last

Yeah, I would not be surprised if there are other women who come forward after this.

But also, Steve Cohen’s fund (like many financial firms) does not have a great track record with women.

I don't care about this clown. but how many years does someone get to own all the power?

I’m not really sure what the above means, but if you don’t want to give up “the power”, maybe don’t send unsolicited dick pics to a reporter? Like, if this was just a random woman he met in an elevator, maybe you could argue it’s pretty creepy but we shouldn’t judge people too harshly for what they do in their personal lives. But doing this with a reporter just shows profoundly bad judgment.
   17. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 19, 2021 at 01:15 AM (#6000435)
But my understanding is that he wasn't aware ESPN or anyone other than the woman in question knew about the exchange. So I don't think anyone would reasonably expect him to disclose.

Sounds like there was at least one other Cubs employee who was aware and who tried to act as a go-between for Porter and the woman.
   18. Howie Menckel Posted: January 19, 2021 at 01:30 AM (#6000437)
I don't care about this clown. but how many years does someone get to own all the power?

I’m not really sure what the above means, but if you don’t want to give up “the power”, maybe don’t send unsolicited dick pics to a reporter?


it means, "I don't care about this clown."

and "the power" in my comment has to do with the harassed reporter, not him.

I thought that was clear, but apparently it was not.
   19. vortex of dissipation Posted: January 19, 2021 at 01:56 AM (#6000439)
After reading the article, I really feel badly for the reporter, and angry at both Porter and the Cubs employee who clearly tried to sweep the entire fiasco under the rug.
   20. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 19, 2021 at 01:59 AM (#6000441)
Sorry, Howie, it sounded like you were questioning the woman’s decision not to come forward sooner or ESPN’s decision not to run the story back then or ESPN’s decision to run the story now after sitting on the information for so long. Sorry if that wasn’t the case.
   21. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 19, 2021 at 02:06 AM (#6000442)
Porter’s pecker pic probably precludes professional pursuits. Can’t see the Mets taking the flak to keep him.
   22. manchestermets Posted: January 19, 2021 at 05:31 AM (#6000444)
":-( I'm a nice guy you know"


There it is.
   23. asinwreck Posted: January 19, 2021 at 08:06 AM (#6000450)
Curious to see if this shapes how background checks for high-level hires evolve. Then again, the White Sox hired Tony La Russa after they knew of his second DUI arrest, so the old boys' network remains strong.
   24. asinwreck Posted: January 19, 2021 at 08:14 AM (#6000451)
Steven Cohen
@StevenACohen2 17m
We have terminated Jared Porter this morning . In my initial press conference I spoke about the importance of integrity and I meant it.There should be zero tolerance for this type of behavior.
   25. The_Ex Posted: January 19, 2021 at 08:15 AM (#6000452)
Confirmed fired this am.
   26. bfan Posted: January 19, 2021 at 08:27 AM (#6000455)
Then again, the White Sox hired Tony La Russa after they knew of his second DUI arrest, so the old boys' network remains strong.


This speaks to hiring the offending person a driver, but not hiring him. I am not a fan of drunk driving, but the punishment in the law isn't "..and you will never get a job again..." If you want to introduce that in the legislature of your state as a remedy for the 2nd drunk driving offense, go ahead. Let's debate it and vote on it, and move on from there. But trying to change the remedy by internet scolding should go nowhere.
   27. asinwreck Posted: January 19, 2021 at 08:51 AM (#6000461)
For a leadership position? For a second offense when after the first one, said candidate said “I accept full responsibility for my conduct, and assure everyone that I have learned a very valuable lesson and that this will never occur again" as he entered a guilty plea? Do you think that's a person who can credibly tell other grown men what to do?
   28. gef, talking mongoose & suburban housewife Posted: January 19, 2021 at 08:58 AM (#6000463)
- Bill James, The Mets New GM


I wonder if he & Bill showered together.
   29. Howie Menckel Posted: January 19, 2021 at 08:59 AM (#6000464)
pass
   30. Rally Posted: January 19, 2021 at 09:12 AM (#6000469)
Selectively reading Bill James shows him to be a prophet:

No expensive wardrobe; I suppose maybe he had some nice clothes in a closet somewhere, but I never saw them


Neither did the reporter.

I'll be here all week
   31. winnipegwhip Posted: January 19, 2021 at 09:24 AM (#6000473)
So ESPN had this info 3-4 years ago but it wasn't important at that time?
   32. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 19, 2021 at 09:26 AM (#6000474)
So ESPN had this info 3-4 years ago but it wasn't important at that time?

It sounds like they didn’t have the full story on the record back then.
   33. cookiedabookie Posted: January 19, 2021 at 09:41 AM (#6000479)
So ESPN had this info 3-4 years ago but it wasn't important at that time?

The female reporter didn't want the story published because she was afraid of the impact on her career. She left journalism, and was finally ok with the story being published
   34. SoSH U at work Posted: January 19, 2021 at 09:44 AM (#6000482)

So ESPN had this info 3-4 years ago but it wasn't important at that time?


Building on Dave's comment, if the woman informed them about it but gave them the information off the record, the only options ESPN had were to try to get the information confirmed through other sources or get her to change her mind. Failing either of those, they were stuck with it without the professional grounds to report it.
   35. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 19, 2021 at 09:51 AM (#6000484)
Building on Dave's comment, if the woman informed them about it but gave them the information off the record, the only options ESPN had were to try to get the information confirmed through other sources or get her to change her mind. Failing either of those, they were stuck with it without the professional grounds to report it.

Is that true even if the woman showed them the texts? It seems like "Our source doesn't want to be named, but we've seen the evidence" is used all the time with whistle blowers and leakers of various sorts.
   36. SoSH U at work Posted: January 19, 2021 at 09:52 AM (#6000485)
Is that true even if the woman showed them the texts? It seems like "Our source doesn't want to be named, but we've seen the evidence" is used all the time with whistle blowers and leakers of various sorts.


Yup, it's still true. And not naming the source is different (that's considered not for attribution, in which case the information can be used, but not the source's name). Off the record means the information given by the source is not to be used.
   37. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 19, 2021 at 09:54 AM (#6000486)
It sounds like ESPN obtained the messages through a third party several years ago. I am not a reporter, but if neither party to the messages will confirm their authenticity on the record, I think that’s a tough story to run. Especially when the offender is ultimately not a very consequential person. Hard to argue that there was a compelling public interest in running the story against the woman’s wishes back then.

That being said, we don’t really know what information ESPN had or didn’t have on the record and at what time.
   38. billyshears Posted: January 19, 2021 at 10:21 AM (#6000496)
I'm not sure how the Mets were supposed to have discovered this. Porter harassed a person he met briefly and informally several years ago. It doesn't seem that the information was known to any of his prior employers or through any official capacity. Porter probably forgot about it or was trying to. I'm sure the Mets did a background check. But this is the sort of thing you can't really find unless it finds you first.
   39. Adam Starblind Posted: January 19, 2021 at 10:29 AM (#6000497)
Today would be a good day to sign Trevor Bauer.
   40. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 19, 2021 at 11:02 AM (#6000509)
#38, I agree with that. I would also note that this is Porter’s second job since the incident — he also presumably made it through the D-backs’ background checks without any red flags coming up.
   41. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 19, 2021 at 11:30 AM (#6000514)
I'm not sure how the Mets were supposed to have discovered this.


Yes, but. I mean I agree, but in my experience, this sort of activity is almost never just one set of events. There were very likely other signs, other incidents. These things usually are a pattern of behavior.

I can't know and so I am not saying they absolutely should have known something was up, but I think the likelihood is high that they could have known earlier.
   42. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 19, 2021 at 11:40 AM (#6000516)
Yes, but. I mean I agree, but in my experience, this sort of activity is almost never just one set of events. There were very likely other signs, other incidents. These things usually are a pattern of behavior.

I can't know and so I am not saying they absolutely should have known something was up, but I think the likelihood is high that they could have known earlier.


Unless an incident was publicized, how are they to know? They can't just call up the NSA and ask for his complete on-line history.
   43. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 19, 2021 at 11:47 AM (#6000519)
I would also note that this is Porter’s second job since the incident — he also presumably made it through the D-backs’ background checks without any red flags coming up.
Maybe background checks were in LaRussa’s department.
   44. SoSH U at work Posted: January 19, 2021 at 11:54 AM (#6000520)
Yes, it's embarrassing for the Mets, but unless there were a large number of whispers they ignored, it's hard to see how the club is at fault.

   45. bfan Posted: January 19, 2021 at 12:15 PM (#6000523)
Yes, it's embarrassing for the Mets, but unless there were a large number of whispers they ignored, it's hard to see how the club is at fault.


Right. Someone needs to explain why this didn't blow up when he was affiliated with the Cubs.

I know conspiracy theories are out of fashion now, so the network that in the popular culture is known to favor the Yankees, Cubs and Red Sox sits on a story until it moves from being a Cubs problem to being a Mets problem, and then reports it? Nothing to see here; move along.
   46. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: January 19, 2021 at 12:19 PM (#6000525)
I know conspiracy theories are out of fashion now,
Not until tomorrow, officially.
   47. SoSH U at work Posted: January 19, 2021 at 12:26 PM (#6000527)
I know conspiracy theories are out of fashion now, so the network that in the popular culture is known to favor the Yankees, Cubs and Red Sox sits on a story



And the Diamondbacks. They're clearly one of the big name teams on ESPN's protection list.
   48. Jeff Francoeur's OPS Posted: January 19, 2021 at 12:33 PM (#6000531)
Not until tomorrow, officially.

Nah, Dems embrace all kinds of conspiracy theories, but they never get called on it because they own the media.
   49. JRVJ Posted: January 19, 2021 at 12:37 PM (#6000532)
Way's I see it: 1. If there were rumors about Porter that were somewhat to well known within the industry (e.g., ala Louis CK), and the Mets did not (or would not) take them into account prior to hiring Porter, absolute shame on the Mets.

2. If this is the rare case where it really was the one occurrence, and it was known only by a tiny number of people, there's not much the Mets could have done.
   50. Zonk is now Unified Posted: January 19, 2021 at 12:41 PM (#6000534)
Have you ever sent an unsolicited dick pic to someone as an interview question probably doesn't end such things... but, I suppose, it makes the firing a lot simpler and straight-forward.
   51. bfan Posted: January 19, 2021 at 12:42 PM (#6000535)
seriously.

Despite what lip service ESPN is going to give about the woman's feelings (because ESPN will know that smart people are going to look at the dates here and wonder, so they tried immediately to go where few will dare venture), the only explanation that can possibly fly here is that it wasn't a big story when Porter didn't have a big enough job (i.e., when he was in charge of coffee procurement or whatever else he did for Theo when he was there with the Cubs), but it was a big story when he had a bigger job.

Even if you buy that story (people who do this sort of thing can be an assistant GM, but not a GM), wouldn't the decent thing to do be to go to the person and tell him to withdraw his name from the Mets job or you will run the story? That saves the woman from the embarrassment she tried to avoid for 3 years (if that is the truth), and keeps the predator from getting an even bigger position of power.

   52. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 19, 2021 at 12:45 PM (#6000537)
Will Porter work in baseball again, even as a scout? Could he come back as a eunuch?
   53. winnipegwhip Posted: January 19, 2021 at 12:47 PM (#6000540)
Have you ever sent an unsolicited dick pic to someone


Should I worry about those pics of Rob Manfred I sent to my friend when we discussed the problems with baseball
   54. Howie Menckel Posted: January 19, 2021 at 12:47 PM (#6000541)
wouldn't the decent thing to do be to go to the person and tell him to withdraw his name from the Mets job or you will run the story?

interesting.

I would instead frame it as checking in with the woman and seeing if she wanted them to inform Porter - now a candidate to be Mets GM - that they had this information and they may soon be publishing it, so then they would ask Porter if he would like to comment on the mess.

the timing of this is feels a bit .... odd, as I noted earlier.

now, Porter's months-long creepiness simplifies matters on that front - this isn't a guy who one time had an extra 3 sips of vino and got too frisky. he dug his own grave, repeatedly. it's the flip side that's worth discussion.
   55. Zonk is now Unified Posted: January 19, 2021 at 12:55 PM (#6000544)
Should I worry about those pics of Rob Manfred I sent to my friend when we discussed the problems with baseball


Not if he was limp...
   56. bfan Posted: January 19, 2021 at 12:58 PM (#6000547)
this isn't a guy who one time had an extra 3 sips of vino and got too frisky. he dug his own grave, repeatedly. it's the flip side that's worth discussion.


I agree with you completely; there is no excuse for Porter, and no mercy for him from these quarters.

But that doesn't mean that the story could have been used by ESPN for sinister, agenda driven purposes.

They just put a horses severed head in Steve Cohen's bed, and he now knows, $14 billion in his bank account or not, not to mess with ESPN.
   57. jmurph Posted: January 19, 2021 at 01:39 PM (#6000556)
They just put a horses severed head in Steve Cohen's bed, and he now knows, $14 billion in his bank account or not, not to mess with ESPN.

Did they previously have some reason to be concerned about Steve Cohen?

EDIT: By the way the actual reason it was delayed was already posted hours ago, post 33. But this conspiracy fan fic is certainly more entertaining so I'm just trying to get all the ts crossed.
   58. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 19, 2021 at 01:43 PM (#6000557)
Unless an incident was publicized, how are they to know? They can't just call up the NSA and ask for his complete on-line history.


It hardly requires a full NSA anything.

Again, because I guess you missed it the first time, I am not positive in this particular case, but in my experience, these acts are never just a one time thing. People who do this nonsense do it all the time, it is part of a pattern of behavior, and it is seldom a hidden shame.

Uncovering such behavior is not exactly cracking a massive mystery if you think to actually look for it, care about it, rather than just react to it when you have no other choice.
   59. Howie Menckel Posted: January 19, 2021 at 01:48 PM (#6000559)
Uncovering such behavior is not exactly cracking a massive mystery if you think to actually look for it, care about it, rather than just react to it when you have no other choice.

I would love to hear how the Mets were supposed to be able to find this out.

asking every female involved with MLB if any of the following candidates ever sent you a dick pic, for instance, doesn't seem like a survey that would be well-received....
   60. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 19, 2021 at 01:49 PM (#6000562)
It hardly requires a full NSA anything.

Again, because I guess you missed it the first time, I am not positive in this particular case, but in my experience, these acts are never just a one time thing. People who do this nonsense do it all the time, it is part of a pattern of behavior, and it is seldom a hidden shame.

Uncovering such behavior is not exactly cracking a massive mystery if you think to actually look for it, care about it, rather than just react to it when you have no other choice.


No matter how many times he did it, if it was never publicized, how exactly is it going to come out in a background check? Do you expect them to interview every person he's ever interacted with?
   61. SoSH U at work Posted: January 19, 2021 at 02:04 PM (#6000567)
EDIT: By the way the actual reason it was delayed was already posted hours ago, post 33. But this conspiracy fan fic is certainly more entertaining so I'm just trying to get all the ts crossed.


You had to appreciate the way the conspiratorial reason behind ESPN's move (to protect the big clubs instead of a little outfit like the Mets) morphed so seamlessly into revealing it because he now had a bigger job.

   62. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 19, 2021 at 02:06 PM (#6000568)
No matter how many times he did it, if it was never publicized, how exactly is it going to come out in a background check? Do you expect them to interview every person he's ever interacted with?


OK, I will try a third time, and then give up.

I have worked with some people who engaged with this sort of thing. Virtually every person who worked them knew this about them. It was never a secret. Yes, they did not put it on their resume. So yeah, since it was not on their resume it must have been impossible to tell something that nearly every person who worked with them knew.

If I was hiring for a high-level position I would check up on stuff I cared about. Then again pretty much everyone checks new hires for stuff they care about.

In this case, maybe it was a one-off. Maybe it was not a pattern of behavior that everyone around him knew about. Maybe baseball is not a small-town community as I have heard multiple times. Maybe there is not huge amounts of networking between front offices, and everyone doesn't know everyone else with at most two levels removed. Maybe.
   63. jmurph Posted: January 19, 2021 at 02:07 PM (#6000569)
You had to appreciate the way the conspiratorial reason behind ESPN's move (to protect the big clubs instead of a little outfit like the Mets) morphed into revealing it because he now had a bigger job so seamlessly.

The part I'm really waiting for is how hurting the Mets is somehow part of the nefarious plan to keep the Braves down, which is, as regular viewers already know, the central operating principle of MLB and Big Media. Looks like this is going to be a good season, no spoilers!
   64. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 19, 2021 at 02:16 PM (#6000575)
OK, I will try a third time, and then give up.

I have worked with some people who engaged with this sort of thing. Virtually every person who worked them knew this about them. It was never a secret. Yes, they did not put it on their resume. So yeah, since it was not on their resume it must have been impossible to tell something that nearly every person who worked with them knew.

If I was hiring for a high-level position I would check up on stuff I cared about. Then again pretty much everyone checks new hires for stuff they care about.


So, you want them to question former associates and ask about what stories are going around the office? I have zero knowledge about the sexting habits, or lack thereof, of any person I've ever worked with.

Probing for this kind of innuendo seems like a witch hunt. You give a couple of people who didn't like a person the ability to torpedo his career.

I think this incident shows the proper way to handle this kind of thing. Until there is a credible accusation with some evidence nothing needs to be done. Once there is, you fire him.
   65. flournoy Posted: January 19, 2021 at 02:21 PM (#6000580)
I have worked with some people who engaged with this sort of thing. Virtually every person who worked them knew this about them. It was never a secret.


How many people have you worked with who engaged in this sort of behavior discreetly, in such a way that you wouldn't find out about it?

What a silly argument.
   66. SoSH U at work Posted: January 19, 2021 at 02:24 PM (#6000582)
I have worked with some people who engaged with this sort of thing. Virtually every person who worked them knew this about them. It was never a secret. Yes, they did not put it on their resume. So yeah, since it was not on their resume it must have been impossible to tell something that nearly every person who worked with them knew.


What did your employers do with this information?

   67. RJ in TO Posted: January 19, 2021 at 02:26 PM (#6000583)
So, you want them to question former associates and ask about what stories are going around the office? I have zero knowledge about the sexting habits, or lack thereof, of any person I've ever worked with.
As you're unlikely to be receiving unsolicited dick picks from your co-worker, you're probably not the person to ask.

I would bet the women around your office are a lot more aware of this sort of bullshit, as they're a lot more likely to be the unwilling targets.
   68. Ron J Posted: January 19, 2021 at 02:31 PM (#6000585)
#62 What you say makes sense. That said, the counter is as simple as the endorsement Bill James posted. James knew him reasonably well and wrote a glowing piece about him -- that admittedly has nothing to say on the subject of character.

Maybe your experience describes the general case and this is an exception. Or maybe some people knew and never got asked. Certainly seen that. People with extremely troubled pasts are able to get past screening processes all the time. Hell, we've seen people get past in depth screening only to run into issues at congressional hearings.
   69. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 19, 2021 at 02:37 PM (#6000587)
I have worked with some people who engaged with this sort of thing. Virtually every person who worked them knew this about them. It was never a secret.
So, why didn’t you come forward?

In any event, assuming anyone who has an incident such as Porter must have left a trail of similar behavior far & wide seems like an overbid. True for some, but likely not for all.
   70. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 19, 2021 at 02:37 PM (#6000588)
What did your employers do with this information?


II am not sure what that has to do with what I am saying. My sole point is that that sort of behavior doesn't require the NSA or Sherlock Holmes to uncover. The vast majority of the time, certainly historically, workplaces condone or at least ignore that sort of behavior.

And yes, #67 has a great point. Maybe I just speak with and listen to my female coworkers more than many.

And again, maybe in this case the hiring people really did their due diligence. Maybe they care about such issues, have a healthy culture on such issues, and make a point to try to screen out bad apples like this and one just happened to get through. I am skeptical though. In most places I have been, they turned a blind eye to this stuff until they couldn't ignore it any longer. It does seem to be changing though.
   71. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 19, 2021 at 02:38 PM (#6000589)
So, why didn’t you come forward?


That is an interesting assumption. Care to elaborate how I should have behaved? Pick a place in my history and a situation and explain what I should have done. Thanks!
   72. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 19, 2021 at 02:39 PM (#6000590)
In any event, assuming anyone who has an incident such as Porter must have left a trail of similar behavior far & wide seems like an overbid. True for some, but likely not for all.


Perhaps had you read any of my posts you would have seen where I did acknowledge this very fact. Several times.
   73. Zonk is now Unified Posted: January 19, 2021 at 02:43 PM (#6000592)
Given our massive social failure in screening processes of late, I'm inclined to give the Mets a pass....
   74. flournoy Posted: January 19, 2021 at 02:45 PM (#6000594)
You promised that you were going to stop after post 62. Why are you going back on your word?
   75. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 19, 2021 at 03:02 PM (#6000598)
That is an interesting assumption. Care to elaborate how I should have behaved? Pick a place in my history and a situation and explain what I should have done. Thanks!

If you knew one person in your office was sending unsolicited sexual content to another person, you should have immediately reported it HR. That's been the policy everywhere I've worked in the last 20 years.
   76. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 19, 2021 at 03:12 PM (#6000600)
If you knew one person in your office was sending unsolicited sexual content to another person, you should have immediately reported it HR. That's been the policy everywhere I've worked in the last 20 years.


Great. Now give me the details of what happened and what I did wrong. Thanks!

EDIT: You see, CLapper asserted what I did (or did not do). And I guess you decided Clapper was right. Since you both seem to know more about what happened in my life than I do I would like more details.
   77. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 19, 2021 at 03:13 PM (#6000601)
You promised that you were going to stop after post 62. Why are you going back on your word?


I didn't go back on my word. I have given up trying to explain. Now I am just arguing. Like most here.
   78. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 19, 2021 at 03:34 PM (#6000606)
Great. Now give me the details of what happened and what I did wrong. Thanks!

You're the one that said this:

I have worked with some people who engaged with this sort of thing. Virtually every person who worked them knew this about them. It was never a secret. Yes, they did not put it on their resume. So yeah, since it was not on their resume it must have been impossible to tell something that nearly every person who worked with them knew.


and:

Maybe I just speak with and listen to my female coworkers more than many.


That certainly strongly implies that people you work with were sending sexual material to female co-workers, and you knew it.
   79. Ron J Posted: January 19, 2021 at 03:50 PM (#6000607)
#78 Yes. Or other creepy behavior. Why do you assume he did nothing?
   80. tshipman Posted: January 19, 2021 at 03:52 PM (#6000608)
Some people on this website seem to have real problems with women.
   81. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 19, 2021 at 03:57 PM (#6000609)
#78 Yes. Or other creepy behavior. Why do you assume he did nothing?

He implied that these people continued to get away with this behavior, despite it being widely known. His story doesn't make sense if these malefactors had been fired for cause.
   82. McCoy Posted: January 19, 2021 at 03:58 PM (#6000611)
I've known guys who were creeps in the workforce and did it one too many times and got fired. I've also known guys who either were good at not being creeps in front of women or were lucky enough for women to not cause a big enough stink.

But generally speaking reference checks involve higher ups talking to other higher ups who are rather oblivious to bad deeds unless they got escalated and of course they are limited as to what they can say.
   83. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 19, 2021 at 04:06 PM (#6000615)
He implied that these people continued to get away with this behavior, despite it being widely known. His story doesn't make sense if these malefactors had been fired for cause.


I "implied it" did I? Where? Did I also "imply" I did nothing?

I think it interesting you are willing to give the front office the total benefit of the doubt - "proper way to handle it" - and give me zero benefit of the doubt. That is kind of a tell I think.

For the record, whenever I have first-hand knowledge of something worthy of reporting I absolutely do so. I am sure my saying so will cause Clapper to retract his vile assertion (when pigs fly).
   84. SoSH U at work Posted: January 19, 2021 at 04:07 PM (#6000616)
For the record, whenever I have first-hand knowledge of something worthy of reporting I absolutely do so. I am sure my saying so will cause Clapper to retract his vile assertion (when pigs fly).


Do you think you are unique in this regard?

   85. McCoy Posted: January 19, 2021 at 04:11 PM (#6000617)
How about second hand knowledge?
   86. JRVJ Posted: January 19, 2021 at 04:39 PM (#6000626)
Jesus, guys, get a room.
   87. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 19, 2021 at 05:01 PM (#6000629)
Do you think you are unique in this regard?


Not at all. But since Clapper made his vile assertion I thought I should clarify my past.
   88. Ron J Posted: January 19, 2021 at 05:08 PM (#6000632)
#67 The one time something like that happened with somebody I worked with that's exactly how it played out. Several women made complaints about somebody and those complaints were mighty disturbing. None of us had any indications of a problem before it all went very bad. Maybe we were all oblivious, but more likely the guy picked his spots.

I think McCoy has it right.
   89. SoSH U at work Posted: January 19, 2021 at 05:10 PM (#6000633)
Not at all. But since Clapper made his vile assertion I thought I should clarify my past.


Bitter, I think we're just confused by what you're claiming, and trying to piece together something that kind of makes your assertion track for us.

You said the "likelihood is high the Mets could have known earlier."

But if this kind of behavior is widely known within a workplace, as you said, and it's not unusual to report this kind of conduct, as you also said, then why did he not get fired by the Cubs or why was he hired/not fired by the Diamondbacks? For me, and I think for others, it just seems strange to assert the Mets could have known this information if they wanted to when two previous employers didn't seem to have any idea (or they're simply monstrous), including the place where the offense happened.
   90. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 19, 2021 at 05:36 PM (#6000644)

Bitter, I think we're just confused by what you're claiming, and trying to piece together something that kind of makes your assertion track for us.

You said the "likelihood is high the Mets could have known earlier."

But if this kind of behavior is widely known within a workplace, as you said, and it's not unusual to report this kind of conduct, as you also said, then why did he not get fired by the Cubs or why was he hired/not fired by the Diamondbacks? For me, and I think for others, it just seems strange to assert the Mets could have known this information if they wanted to when two previous employers didn't seem to have any idea (or they're simply monstrous), including the place where the offense happened.


Yes, this.
   91. Howie Menckel Posted: January 19, 2021 at 06:04 PM (#6000647)
The Mouse has been a bit of a tease here - seems like we know more about what he apparently is NOT saying than we do about what he IS saying.
   92. Zonk is now Unified Posted: January 19, 2021 at 06:25 PM (#6000652)
#67 The one time something like that happened with somebody I worked with that's exactly how it played out. Several women made complaints about somebody and those complaints were mighty disturbing. None of us had any indications of a problem before it all went very bad. Maybe we were all oblivious, but more likely the guy picked his spots.


IDK... not nearly an identical situation, but does have some parallels, I guess. Nearly 10 years ago - about 3 years after a merger, I found myself in a conference room with my boss (came over via the merger) and his boss (ditto, from the merger) and two other guys. We were getting chewed out by some product managers on a conference call - both of whom happened to be female and had just recently had their auspices expanded. They were, well, frankly - wrong in their complaints and I was quite vocal on the call about the fact that they were wrong and why... but it had nothing to do with gender; they were just wrong.

Regardless, as the call ends and the 5 of us are left in the room - said top dog, now a director-level, makes a... colorful and distasteful... comment about how it "must be that time of the month in NY". Without even thinking - and frankly, due mostly to the adrenaline of the just-completed argument because I'm (or at least was, 10 years ago) kind of a wimp about such stuff - I opened my mouth and said that I found his statement really inappropriate and although I don't remember specifically "threatening" such, apparently suggested we should discuss his comment with HR.

I honestly recall that I was really more angry with him because his nonsense was a distraction from the matter at-hand and the practical reality of why they weren't understanding the timeline/issues/etc...

Anyway... while I don't know who precisely watercoolered the conversation from among the four other guys present, I did suddenly start to become more privy to a lot of rumors about said weasel I wasn't previously aware of... things far worse than an off-color, sexist comment.

It led to a stormy 18 months - until he got fired (something I'd like to think I helped bring about, although for more mundane shitty management and leadership reasons)...

But anyway, I tend to believe the issue is less "nobody could have known" and more either "well, this guy can help my career" or "is this a boat I want to rock".
   93. sunday silence (again) Posted: January 19, 2021 at 06:51 PM (#6000657)
After reading the article, I really feel badly for the reporter


Seems like an overbid. As Howie sort of alludes to: is there something else going on here? In real life this person gets blocked after I dunno the first 10 or 20 unsolicited messages. Right?

I get the workplace harassment thing, and based on the bare facts that we know, I guess its harassment. And I dont want to blame the victim either. That's not what Im saying.

All Im saying is; you didnt block him? why? and you or ESPN sat on this for three years?
   94. tshipman Posted: January 19, 2021 at 06:57 PM (#6000658)
The Mouse has been a bit of a tease here - seems like we know more about what he apparently is NOT saying than we do about what he IS saying.


Maybe you should explain what you meant by:

I don't care about this clown. but how many years does someone get to own all the power?
   95. RJ in TO Posted: January 19, 2021 at 07:00 PM (#6000659)
All Im saying is; you didnt block him? why? and you or ESPN sat on this for three years?
If you read the article, you'll find these questions are clearly answered.
   96. Srul Itza Posted: January 19, 2021 at 07:11 PM (#6000662)
Thing is, most employers, if you call and ask about a prior employee you are thinking about hiring, if they have counsel or professionally trained HR personnel, will say nothing.

Nothing good, nothing bad.

Because they are concerned about being sued by the former employee if they say something bad, and are concerned about being sued by the new employer if they say something good and he/she turns out to be a stinker.

So the most they will do is confirm dates of employment, and then state that this is all they are authorized to provide. That is the precise advice they receive from their employment attorneys.

Does this often provide cover for reprobates who move from job to job? Yes. But from the point of view of the former employer, that is someone else's responsibility, and their job is to watch out for the company they work for.
   97. McCoy Posted: January 19, 2021 at 07:17 PM (#6000664)
I think it would be very hard for a young reporter to block a higher up in the field they’re working in. This wasn’t some guy at a club annoying her but somebody she could very well have to interact with as part of her job.
   98. Srul Itza Posted: January 19, 2021 at 07:24 PM (#6000667)
If you read the article, you'll find these questions are clearly answered.


I don't know that the answer to why she did not block him is all that clear from the article. What is clear is that she was from a foreign country, not fully fluent in English at the time, supposedly, and did not catch on at first that he was hitting on her. The really offensive material did not appear until well after he first started texting her. I think it is implied that she did not block him, possibly because she was naive or possibly she was concerned about creating an issue with him. But it is not fully clear.

Why she sat on it, as I read the article, was that she was concerned that it would come out and be a scandal in her native country, and that she would be blamed in some way, because that is how her (unnamed) society works.

Why ESPN did what they did? Who really knows with those bozos.
   99. Howie Menckel Posted: January 19, 2021 at 08:24 PM (#6000677)
Maybe you should explain what you meant by:

I don't care about this clown. but how many years does someone get to own all the power?


set this case aside for a moment, and let's make this common journalistic practice, you know something damning about a person, but you don't want to report it based on the request of the victim. so far, okay. and years go by.

at a certain point, you're liable to wind up having the sort of case (and this is not gender-specific) of one person being in a position to blackmail the hell out of the other person - repeatedly. 5 grand to stay quiet and keep this job, 15 grand for the new one because it pays more.

and again, our first gut reaction is, "Screw [the offender] - they had it coming."

sure. but at that point a journalist winds up getting intertwined in a way that, well, really shouldn't happen, in the old theme of "you want to report the story, not BE (in) the story."

that's what I mean by "odd."

now, maybe you should explain what you meant by:

"Some people on this website seem to have real problems with women."

I figured I must have missed some posts, so I re-read the thread.

the comments are not only overwhelmingly in support of the woman in question, they are emphatically so.

now, since I finished, post 93 might have been part of yor (reed-thin) case - if it had been posted before your comment.

I posted a tweet in Post 5 that I thought worthwhile because it gives us a veteran female reporter's point of view on this situation.

elsewhere I added:

"it feels very refreshing that a woman in a scenario like this finally gets treated respectfully, given this country's past history on such matters."

"now, Porter's months-long creepiness simplifies matters on that front - this isn't a guy who one time had an extra 3 sips of vino and got too frisky. he dug his own grave, repeatedly."

my journalism question has nothing to with gender, but about a reporter potentially getting too enmeshed in a story.
   100. Brian C Posted: January 19, 2021 at 08:30 PM (#6000679)
Guys, leave Mouse alone. All he wanted to do was make a substance-free, innuendo-filled post to make him look like one of the Nice Guys. And here you all are asking him follow-up questions and stuff.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Brian
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogFull Transcript of Mariners President Kevin Mather’s Remarks to Bellevue Breakfast Rotary Club
(145 - 12:57pm, Feb 27)
Last: .

NewsblogSlimmer Vlad a sight to see: 'I feel quicker'
(30 - 12:54pm, Feb 27)
Last: depletion

NewsblogOT - Soccer Thread - Winter Is Here
(880 - 12:42pm, Feb 27)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale

NewsblogSeattle Mariners prospect Jarred Kelenic says team is punishing him for refusing to sign contract extension
(42 - 12:00pm, Feb 27)
Last: JRVJ

NewsblogKris Bryant Open to New Deal, Knows Time as Cub Could Wind Down
(7 - 11:12am, Feb 27)
Last: JRVJ

NewsblogWho is the MLB logo?
(36 - 9:45am, Feb 27)
Last: Jose Needs an Absurd Ukulele Concert

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1936 Discussion
(7 - 8:21am, Feb 27)
Last: kcgard2

NewsblogSinclair readies new sports video app, pushes on gamification
(11 - 4:43am, Feb 27)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogOakland A’s outline ballpark plans in environmental impact report
(4 - 12:35am, Feb 27)
Last: salvomania

NewsblogTD Garden, Fenway Park Can Open At 12% Capacity For Fans Starting March 22
(19 - 10:30pm, Feb 26)
Last: Pirate Joe

NewsblogTwins prospect Royce Lewis, the No. 1 pick in 2017 draft, tears ACL and will likely miss 2021 season
(21 - 9:49pm, Feb 26)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogNBA 2020 Season kick-off thread
(1772 - 9:29pm, Feb 26)
Last: asinwreck

NewsblogDetroit Tigers top prospect Spencer Torkelson cuts finger, will miss spring training games
(10 - 8:29pm, Feb 26)
Last: BDC

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1935 Ballot
(5 - 5:19pm, Feb 26)
Last: Yardape

NewsblogThe Negro League Stars That MLB Kept Out — And Is Finally Recognizing
(17 - 4:45pm, Feb 26)
Last: Walt Davis

Page rendered in 0.6941 seconds
48 querie(s) executed