BBWAA vote on MLB.com

[Mighty_Wingman]

i know and respect many of people who work for mlb.com... but if you get your paycheck from the people you cover, you're in public relations, not journalism

Hoops makes a good point. But substitute "the Globe" or "the Trib" for "mlb.com," and how big is the difference?

 

[HoopsMcCann]

it does make it a slippery slope... after next year, trib is moot, but globe is still there. as is nyt. but i also think leo makes a good point as well

and chris' anti-media bias is pretty apparent. mlb.com the best baseball coverage by a mile? ha! we know, we know. he doesn't like dan shaughnessy. we get it. he wishes he had our job. we get it. but oh yeah, he makes millions and millions. we get it. but his main point aside from the shaughnessy rant and the red sox the only part of the nyt company to turn a profit fiction, is a valid question and point

i've talked to mlb.com people who have said their copy has been edited to take out anything that could even be perceived as "negative" -- not subject to mlb or its employees -- we all know that's a joke.

 

[Mighty_Wingman]

i've talked to mlb.com people who have said their copy has been edited to take out anything that could even be perceived as "negative" -- not subject to mlb or its employees -- we all know that's a joke.

If that's the case, then obviously mlb.com isn't close to the same thing. I was under the impression they could -- and did -- write whatever they wanted. I stand corrected.

 

[Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L)]

Hey Hoops - how is what MLB.com does any different that the NYT instructing their writers to try and make Augusta not having any female members a major story when the readers could care less? When the NYT or any other outlet pushes an agenda on the writers - what's the difference? They're all just as tainted. All are equally subject to the whims of their employers.

A big difference is that MLB is run like a business whereas the NYT, Boston Globe, Chi Trib are drowning in red ink. So the BBWAA can keep their voting privileges while the writers at MLB.com sites get to keep their paychecks.

I stand by my statement that the best place for info on baseball is the MLB site itself.

 

[Moderator1]

Info, maybe.
Insight? No way.
Maybe that's just me.

 

[henryhenry]

How would getting a paycheck from Major League Baseball affect the way you vote on Hall of Famers? I mean, as discussed above, isn't that the main responsibility of the BBWAA? If there are other facets that would become a conflict of interest, why don't you just let the MLB.com'ers be HOF voting members, and that's it?
At least give some of these more-than-deserving voters their vote back...

Side-note: Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't ALL electronic media prohibited from membership in the BBWAA?

what about the "perception" of conflict?
how can the public take serious a journalistic organization with members who are paid by the subject of its coverage?
look around your newspaper - would news reporters accept such an arrangement? hell no they wouldn't.
so aren't baseball writers just opening themselves up to the old "toy department" ridicule?

think of it this way - if the bbwaa confers more credibility on mlb.com does it not erode the market position of newspapers? i mean, if mlb.com writers are equal to newspaper writers, then what's the difference? why read a newspaper?

 

[Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L)]

Info, maybe.
Insight? No way.
Maybe that's just me.

Newspapers were created to - you know - disseminate news. Now that function is largely taken over by the web.

As far as insight - what do you mean? MLB.com runs many perspective type stories that go in depth. Also every MLB.com beat writer does a regular mailbag which often gives excellent inside baseball information. Ian Browne who covers the Red Sox for MLB.com and his pieces are always filled with insight whereas Bill Ballou of the Worcester Telegram is the epitome of predictable. Yet Ballou has a vote for the HoF and Browne does not. That just doesn't seem fair to me.

When it comes to voting for awards - is the fear that the MLB.com will be homers who just vote for the players they cover? Because that seems already to be the case today (remember the NY writer who left Pedro off his MVP ballot because he said pitchers had their own award - even though he voted Yankee pitchers as MVPs the years prior?).

If you mean insight as in long features - well correct me if I'm wrong but SI always seemed to have the market cornered on those types of pieces - yet SI writers aren't eligible for the BBWAA any more than MLB.com guys are.

 

[Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L)]

How would getting a paycheck from Major League Baseball affect the way you vote on Hall of Famers? I mean, as discussed above, isn't that the main responsibility of the BBWAA? If there are other facets that would become a conflict of interest, why don't you just let the MLB.com'ers be HOF voting members, and that's it?
At least give some of these more-than-deserving voters their vote back...

Side-note: Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't ALL electronic media prohibited from membership in the BBWAA?

what about the "perception" of conflict?
how can the public take serious a journalistic organization with members who are paid by the subject of its coverage?
look around your newspaper - would news reporters accept such an arrangement? hell no they wouldn't.
so aren't baseball writers just opening themselves up to the old "toy department" ridicule?

think of it this way - if the bbwaa confers more credibility on mlb.com does it not erode the market position of newspapers? i mean, if mlb.com writers are equal to newspaper writers, then what's the difference? why read a newspaper?

henry - as I type this Gordon Edes is doing a report on NESN (which is owned by the Red Sox). Edes is paid for these appearences - so in effect he's being paid by the Red Sox (the very subject he supposed to cover). I think Edes is great but according to your world view - he would be just as tainted as the MLB.com writers.

As far as your last statement - just because newspaper writers say they are special doesn't make it so. In fact most of the writing talent is going away from print and into electronic media.

 

[Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L)]

Hey Hoops - how is what MLB.com does any different that the NYT instructing their writers to try and make Augusta not having any female members a major story when the readers could care less?

Did you get that memo, too? I coulda sworn I read those instructions wrong. Maybe you can show it to me so I can check. What were those instructions again?

From the December 4, 2003 NY Post

Editors of The New York Times killed a column by Pulitzer Prize winner Dave Anderson that disagreed with an editorial about Tiger Woods and Augusta National's refusal to admit women as members. A column by sportswriter Harvey Araton also was zapped, sources said, because it differed with the paper's editorial opinion about the golf club standoff."

If Dave Anderson is having his stories zapped by the editors at the NYT because they don't match up to the company line - how is that any different than MLB.com writers having their stuff have to match up with MLB.com directives?

 

[KnuteRockne]

Here's the thing - it's their club and they can let in whoever they choose. Tough luck, I guess.

Also - I was fairly certain that SI writers were in, are they not? Verducci's BBWAA, right?

 

[Thanks for comin' out]

How would getting a paycheck from Major League Baseball affect the way you vote on Hall of Famers? I mean, as discussed above, isn't that the main responsibility of the BBWAA? If there are other facets that would become a conflict of interest, why don't you just let the MLB.com'ers be HOF voting members, and that's it?
At least give some of these more-than-deserving voters their vote back...

Side-note: Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't ALL electronic media prohibited from membership in the BBWAA?

what about the "perception" of conflict?
how can the public take serious a journalistic organization with members who are paid by the subject of its coverage?
look around your newspaper - would news reporters accept such an arrangement? hell no they wouldn't.
so aren't baseball writers just opening themselves up to the old "toy department" ridicule?

think of it this way - if the bbwaa confers more credibility on mlb.com does it not erode the market position of newspapers? i mean, if mlb.com writers are equal to newspaper writers, then what's the difference? why read a newspaper?

Apparently you haven't seen any circulation numbers lately... I think people are asking the same question.

As far as perception goes, I 'perceive' that the IRS would like to get every dime they can from me, but that doesn't mean they do. That's a horse**** argument.
Use logic. Just beacuse my check comes from a sister group of Major League Baseball, that means I'm voting Bud Selig's brother-in-law into the hall of fame? Please.

 

[Smasher_Sloan]

<i>"In fact most of the writing talent is going away from print and into electronic media."</i>


The issue isn't print vs. electronic, it's actual journalism vs. in-house coverage.

 

[BYH]

it does make it a slippery slope... after next year, trib is moot, but globe is still there. as is nyt. but i also think leo makes a good point as well

and chris' anti-media bias is pretty apparent. mlb.com the best baseball coverage by a mile? ha! we know, we know. he doesn't like dan shaughnessy. we get it. he wishes he had our job. we get it. but oh yeah, he makes millions and millions. we get it. but his main point aside from the shaughnessy rant and the red sox the only part of the nyt company to turn a profit fiction, is a valid question and point

i've talked to mlb.com people who have said their copy has been edited to take out anything that could even be perceived as "negative" -- not subject to mlb or its employees -- we all know that's a joke.

You're wrong hoops. I know a Reds writer who says that's not true at all.

 

[Nathan Scott Phillips]

The difference is, no matter how you try to pretend mlb.com is independent from MLB (and therefore the team), it isn't.

It's like giving BBWAA membership to the guy who would have edited the team newsletter/paper in the pre-Internet era.

Although I get the distinction you're making, one could argue that Tribune reporters should not be in the Chicago chapter and Globe reporters should not be in the Boston chapter. (I think there are also a couple other media companies that still own parts of teams.

BTW, the reason to include MLB.com and not others is that the criterion for membership is often that you're a beat writer for a specific team. AOL, Yahoo, etc., don't cover teams.

 

[Smasher_Sloan]

<i>"Edes is paid for these appearences - so in effect he's being paid by the Red Sox (the very subject he supposed to cover). I think Edes is great but according to your world view - he would be just as tainted as the MLB.com writers."</i>


Only if the Red Sox control what he says. If that's the case, then Edes needs to dump the gig. He's a pretty principled guy, so I suspect that isn't the case.

The issue with mlb.com is MLB has direct control of the content.

 

[henryhenry]

rationalizing incest does not make it right or healthy.

globe/nyt/red sox and trib/cubs is not and never was healthy for those markets. the globe is in economic freefall - the financials are public - it is the titanic of regional newspapers. who is to say that its credibilility was not damaged - and its revenue base eroded - by its incestuous relationship with the red sox. not to say it was the only reason for the globe's decline, but one of the 'perceptions' that harmed it. (the others being that its website was clunky and obsolete, and that is is the Triple A farm club of the Times)

look, sports journalism is incestuous almost by definition
the networks are PARTNERS with the leagues - no matter how loudly the networks proclaim "the wall between church and state" it's bull**** - time and time again it is proven to be bull**** - anybody who swallows it is just plain gullible - just read george solomon's ombudsman columns

independent newspapers are the last bastion of credible sports journalism - that credibility is invaluable - it is priceless

but if the bbwaa allows mlb.com in as members it is giving away the family jewels - selling manhattan for $24

 

[Baba_Booey]

magazine writers are not bbwaa members. verducci is a gold card member, though, through his service at newsday.