In responding to a post I read earlier today, I left a comment that I thought was a good stand-alone for a blog post.
If you listened to WFAN this morning, they spent a great deal of time ripping into Adam Rubin if in fact he inquired about a job with the Mets. I also read a couple of articles this morning advocating that Adam Rubin’s actions were inappropriate and a definite conflict of interest.
Here is my rebuttal.
While I appreciate reading a different side to this latest Mets drama, I believe the basis for redirecting blame, or simply faulting Adam Rubin for crossing the proverbial line, is somewhat slanted and flawed.
Lets forget for a moment, whether what Adam Rubin reported was true or not (I absolutely believe that it was true).
A handful of people are implying that there was a breach of objectivity, some impropriety, obvious misconduct, and a conflict of interest where Adam Rubin was concerned. While most are giving little credence to this notion, some are saying that it really is a big deal that shouldn’t be ignored.
In another industry and in another time, that might be true, but welcome to the information age.
The Mets cannot point fingers at journalists who inquire about career choices. The Mets are the majority owners of SNY and one of their top rated shows is Daily News Live, where Adam Rubin is a semi regular guest, as is a dozen other Daily News journalists.
That’s an important fact because the Mets created a gray area where they elected to say, the heck with conflicts of interest, we need to fill our programming schedule, and then hired all these journalists, and pay all these journalists to appear on their network to objectively critique the Mets as they normally would do.
The Mets did this all in the name of advertising revenue and the almighty dollar.
Everyone knows where the newspaper business is going these days as many have already fallen by the wayside.
In this new age we live in, the idea of clarity and objectivity, between sports writers and the teams they cover, have been so blurred, especially in the case of the Mets who did most of the blurring.
Ask Jeff and Omar if they knew of any other journalist who asked for career advice and you’ll hear a dozen other familiar names. They wanted you to think that what Adam did was unheard of and worthy of pointing out, but that was just more distortion and another smokescreen.
How do you think Anthony DiComo and Marty Noble got their gigs on Mets.com? (no offense guys, just a blogger trying to make a point)
Was it objective of them to take money from the team they cover on a daily basis?
I won’t even mention other SNY regulars like David Lennon, Jon Heyman, Bob Klapisch and so many others who appear on SNY on a daily basis.
This is a new world and the rules have been dramatically changed, although not for the better. There’s nothing wrong with a beat writer saying, “So, how does somebody get a job in this place?” In fact it’s more common than you think.
I think it was reprehensible of the Mets to cast some of the negative spotlight away from them and onto Adam Rubin. Their ulterior motive was so blatantly obvious is was almost laughable if it weren’t such a despicable act.
How dare they act in such a manner and attempt to assassinate the character and integrity of Adam Rubin, for simply doing his job and reported about the deplorable acts of a Mets Vice President. His investigative reporting led to the removal of what one source called “a cancer in the Mets organization”, and for that he should be applauded not condemned.
It was the Mets who created this situation, so I find it appalling when they cast aspersions on journalists from the front door, while requesting resumes from them through the back door.