New York Mets Take Access Away From Reporter (Over Book?)

February 7, 2012
By
Buffer

Jay Horwitz, the Director of Media Relations for the New York Mets, called Howard Megdal’s editor and told him bluntly that Howard’s media credentials would not be renewed this year. In other words, Howard Megdal has lost his media access to reporting the New York Mets in the clubhouse or press conferences. When asked why Megdal was effectively banned from covering the Mets from the inside, spokesman Jay Horwitz said the Mets “don’t like his reporting”. The team refused to discuss the matter further, and refused to return Megdal’s attempts to reach them.

Last December Megdal wrote a book about the inner workings of the Mets poor financial deals. The Mets actually tried to block the book’s publishing, and a Mets spokesman said, “The author’s desperate self-promotional campaign for relevance has led to perpetuating baseless speculation and complete inaccuracies.”

Super powerful MLB lawyer Rob Manfred said, “I don’t believe the account in the book is accurate.”

However, the New York Times and ESPN have used the book as sources in their articles, and have not challenged it.

howard megdel

Here’s what you may not known about Howard Megdel: He had started a parody called Megdel for GM, and was ultra-critical of the Mets, in addition to sometimes ripping them to shreds on the LoHud website (The Journal News). I have no doubt that the Mets have NO sense of humor and they had thin skin about his mock General Manager campaign. It was a six column series, and a book- a satirical look at being GM of the Mets. However, Megdel was credentialed numerous times after that. He only lost his credentials after the book about the Wilpons was published. Repeat: the Mets didn’t deny credentials when Howard did his satire. They did it when they didn’t like his reporting on the financial problems of the team.

A few years ago the Kansas City Royals banned access, and just recently new Houston Astros owner Jim Crane is perhaps the most extreme example of draconian media access. So this will be a growing trend. Teams will take away the privilege of access to reporters if they don’t like what they are writing about.

Press credentials- of course- should be left to the discretion of the team, but incidents like this is bad for baseball.

For the record, if I had media access and credentials I probably wouldn’t mock the team I was working with, nor write a book about its finances. But that’s just me.

Here are the books:

Taking the Field: A Fan’s Quest to Run the Team He Loves and Wilpon’s Folly: The Story of a Man, His Fortune, and the New York Mets

Anyway, here’s what a Mets fan Sam M from Baseball Think Factory said:

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.
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 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.

And the counter argument from  Joe  Kehoskie:

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. 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.  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. 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. 

What do you think?

 
© DailySkew Baseball | New York Mets Take Access Away From Reporter (Over Book?)

RELATED ARTICLES:

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Switch to our mobile site