8
2012
The Aftermath of Megdal Media Day
An article by 
In case you missed it or had better things to do with your day than worry about one independent blogger getting his Mets media credentials revoked, let me hit you with the stunning news: Howard Megdal - who recently released Wilpon’s Folly - a book detailing the Mets poor financial situation, had his media credentials revoked by the Mets .
Some background for you in terms of media credentials. A Major League Team cannot revoke privileges from members of the Baseball Writers Association of America, of which Megdal is not a member. Megdal in terms of his “rights” to have credentials is no different than say Joe D getting a credential.
When a blogger, unaffiliated with the Baseball Writers Association of America gets access to the team, it’s a privilege and NOT a right. It’s a courtesy that is extended rarely by many teams to independent bloggers such as the aforementioned.
There are many reasons for the Mets to extend such courtesy, for example here at MetsMerizedOnline, the Mets acknowledge that a significant part of their fan base comes here to read, and discuss the team. However, make no mistake about it, the Mets do not NEED MetsMerizedOnline to gain media access, therefore if one day one of our writers wrote something they particularly didn’t care for, they’d have every right to revoke that access.
If you have no problem with independent bloggers gaining access, then you shouldn’t have a problem with the Mets taking access away when they do not see the benefit of allowing such access.
Yesterday, a PR nightmare occurred when it was revealed that the Mets decided they didn’t like Megdal’s reporting, so they revoked his access. This, after Megdal’s access was used not only to cover the team, but to publish a book detailing the financial mess.
Maybe I’m in the minority here, but to me, when a reporter publishes a story that is for sale only, it dilutes the story and adds an agenda tone to every word I read. Remember when Selena Roberts published her book in which she outed Alex Rodriguez? It’s the same thing.
A reporter reports a story they think everybody should know. They don’t publish books in an attempt to break news. To me, that is self-promotion, and not in the best interest of the reader, but solely in the best interest of the writer.
Imagine if every credentialed reporter published a book about the Mets, filled with things they see in the clubhouse that you or I do not see on a day to day basis. Imagine a Boston beat writer publishing a book detailing the collapse of last year, rather than just reporting on it. How do you think that reporter would be viewed from that day forward by the team?
For those who have access to my Twitter feed, you will have seen the following statements made to me from Megdal when I made similar statements to what I have mentioned above:
- “Ah, I see you haven’t read my book. Wrote accurately about legal/financial issues facing ownership.”
- “If you think the significant legal/financial issues facing the team should be off limits, we’ll agree to disagree.”
- “And if writing an accurate book that tells that story isn’t respectable in your opinion, we see role of reporter differently.”
- “If you can speak to specifics in my book that are either inaccurate or not germane to the operation of the Mets, do so.”
- “Until you do that, quit wasting my time with nonsense like claiming telling the truth about ownership is somehow not respectable.”
- “Have you read my book?”
- “Like I said, get back to me when you have specific criticisms about the reporting, and actually know what you’re talking about.”
Funny enough, many of these were sent to me after I had ended the conversation, so I must have hit a nerve with Megdal.
Megdal believes that by not having media credentials the Mets are in turn controlling what is written about them. Which is funny because at no point does it appear he used his Mets credentials to write his book since he doesn’t use any team sources.
If you haven’t read his “book”, I suggest you simply read Adam Rubin’s account on ESPNNewYork.com because it will save you money, and Megdal didn’t challenge you to read it.
My issues with his “book”, is that first and foremost, he comes to conclusions about the Madoff-Wilpon case even before a court of law has done so.
There are aspects of the book that suggest Wilpon’s money to buy the Mets in 2002, came “thanks to” his fictitious money with Madoff. Yet, no evidence of that being true is given? No mention of the fact that maybe Wilpon earned money in other places, like being a 50% owner of the Mets for over 15 years. This statement is made to read as though Fred Wilpon had no other way to make money without Madoff, and that is unfair.
My biggest problem with the book is that it comes off as Wilpon being guilty before his day in court. It also draws conclusions to this saga as though they are inevitable, without giving any examples or quotes to support his theory.
For example,
“In all likelihood—whether because of Irving Picard’s lawsuit, the massive debts Wilpon had incurred to keep his financial empire standing, or most accurately, a combination of the two—Fred Wilpon isn’t going to be the owner of the New York Mets anymore. That’s going to happen soon, and it means the business he was certain he would pass on to his children and grandchildren will belong to somebody else. It’s not clear that Fred Wilpon has acknowledged this fact, even to himself.”
And this one:
“Simply put: Fred Wilpon turns over 100 percent of the New York Mets to the trustee, who would then run the team as an investment to generate profit for the Madoff victims in the medium term—say, ten years.”
This is not reporting, this is editorializing and writing rumors and assumptions and passing them off as facts.
Megdal mentions Arthur Friedman suggesting that he had reasons to be suspicious of Madoff but then the SEC would always be there to put them into “relax mode.” This is significant to Megdal because it suggests the Wilpon’s knew more about Madoff’s dealings since these investigations were not public.
Again, this comes off as Megdal writing the book for Picard against Wilpon and not reporting on events that happened. What if the Wilpon’s knew somebody within the SEC? What if the other investors had heard through the grape vine that everything was okay with Madoff and they relayed that message?
Instead, we jump to the conclusion that the Wilpon’s are liars before they have their day in court.
What I always found so odd about the Picard suit, and Megdal details this in the book is:
If your argument is that the Wilpon’s knew about Madoff, so much so that they created their own separate account called Sterling Stamos, why would they not move all of their funds away from Madoff? As Megdal points out, they moved “approximately half” of it.
So if we’re assuming the Wilpon’s knew that Madoff was up to this scheme and the potential for them to lose everything they had was inevitable, why only move approximately half?
If we’re talking today about how much financial trouble they are in NOT ONLY because of the Picard suit, then are we suggesting the Wilpon’s were so careless with their money that they were willing to lose over half of their money with Madoff? How does that make sense?
I won’t deny that Howard Megdal did a nice job with his book. It was very detailed, but it was also very, very one-sided. Even in the case of Selig striking the provision that could eventually lead to Einhorn owning the Mets, there’s no source mentioned, no apparent attempt to contact the Commissioner’s office for a comment on this accusation. So in turn, what appears to be an informative piece, turns into rumors.
And it appears that Megdal did not have any team source, nor did he reach out to the Mets for comment prior to publishing this piece.
Despite Mr. Megdal’s attempts to act as though the Mets hid behind closed doors when his book was published. Megdal said, “The book’s reporting, incidentally, has not been challenged.”
He must have missed it when a Mets spokesperson said,
“The author’s desperate self-promotional campaign for relevance has led to perpetuating baseless speculation and complete inaccuracies.”
It’s no wonder the Mets “do not care for his reporting.”
Megdal does nothing in his book but assume the worst in the Wilpon’s by presenting one side (his side) and showing little to no interest in finding out the other side of the story, something a reporter does, but something somebody looking to sell books does not.
So I ask, if Megdal is going to write whatever he wants without reaching out for the other side of the story and is looking to make money off of the financial problems of the Mets ownership, what is in it for them to continue to grant him access to their team?
What has he done to prove he deserves access to the Mets?
I don’t know the whole truth to the Wilpon/Madoff saga, but I do know it’s fashionable to be down on the owners right now, and I refuse to take part in an attempt to tell only one side of the story (any story) in an effort to promote one person’s “reporting.”
If the day comes when the Wilpon’s are cleared of Picard’s case against them, it may be a good thing that Megdal sold so many e-books because he may need a lawyer.
About the Author: Michael J. Branda
I work for a non-profit organization, working closely with all of our fundraisers in hope of one day finding a cure. My time with MMO began in July of 2009 when I wrote a Fan Post defending Omar Minaya (before it was cool to do that.) I grew up a Mets fan with the mid 1980's teams. My favorite Met of all-time is (and was) Wally Backman. When it comes to sabermetrics versus old school thinking, I like to think I meet in the middle. I believe thinking of new ways to get answers is helpful, especially when the same way has not produced results. However, I think over-thinking certain situations can get you into trouble. I'm excited for the new regime, because I believe they have pieces in place to focus on several aspects of the Mets organization. I've waited this long for a World Series, waiting a few more years for another chance isn't going to kill me.
55 Comments + Add Comment
NL East Standings
| Team | W | L | Pct. | GB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nationals | 26 | 17 | .605 | - |
| Braves | 26 | 18 | .591 | 0.5 |
| Marlins | 24 | 19 | .558 | 2.0 |
| Mets | 23 | 20 | .535 | 3.0 |
| Phillies | 21 | 23 | .477 | 5.5 |
Last updated: 05/23/2012
Recent Comments
- Des: on The Saga That is the Binghamton Mets and the PDC: For the sake of the CitiField Mets...
- Des: on Why The Ike Davis Decision Must Be Made By Thursday: Metsie -- We know what he should...
- Nathan: on Around The League: This Week In Baseball: I got rid of all my gameing...
- Just Some Internet Guy You Dont Know: on Why The Ike Davis Decision Must Be Made By Thursday: Valley fever took out Conor Jackson...you never...
- Just Some Internet Guy You Dont Know: on Kirk Nieuwenhuis Should Not Lose Playing Time For Anyone: No one is taking Bay or Torres...
Write Your Own Mets Post
The Mets had every right to protect their interests by not affording this opportunist more access to write a sequel. Good for them!
Completely agree that the Mets have a right to deny him with press credentials. I would not invite haters to my dinner table. That’s not my attempt to control anyone’s comments, it’s purely that i am not going to enrich someone how is tremendously unfair and unbalanced in their comments/reporting.
I got a kick out of Megdal’s open letter I saw someone (probably his blog), what a joke – he stretched so many things. like the only the only reason why he’s not in BBWA is because he wants to have multiple jobs – and I’m not dating Gisele because i want short kids.
Rubin should be banned to (i know he can’t be), he’s not a reporter, he’s a shock jock in print. I am fine with people being critical, but when you say zero good things and 100 negative, petty things, you are not a reporter. Take a look at Rubin’s twitter and tell me he is anywhere near an unbiased reporter.
Rich, thanks for the comments. I do have to disagree with you on one thing.
I myself am a fan of Adam Rubin’s writing, and this is coming from a guy (me) who’s very 1st blog on MMO was right after the Minaya press conference and I supported Minaya. (right or wrong)
I do think he’s critical but I also believe he’s more fair and informative. The difference between he and Megdal to me is not one works for ESPN and the other doesn’t. It’s that 1 follows journalism 101 and is willing to present both sides to a story. Also, I have found Rubin to be very approachable and responsive.
Rubin is prone to emotional outbursts, but I think he’s the best beat guy covering the Mets. He works his ass off. If he ever seems cranky or taking shots, it is probably because he is that rare breed of sports reporter that actually loves the team he’s covering.
i love following rubin for the facts, i don’t of a better reporter that has as much insight to the mets. i get annoyed bc he comes across as if he still has an ax to grind. i think it also prevents him from being bigger than he is. he has the talent to be a heyman or a buster olney, but i think he dips into the mud too often. keep in mind, he is espn ny, not espn.
when he went from beat reporter type to expose writer, then he pretty much forfeited his right to special access. that is supposed to be for guys that are covering the games, the players, etc. Not trying to get behind the curtain of the owners finances!
Fantastic piece Jesse! Very informative, interesting, and thorough! You should be very proud of this effort!
quote: “Megdal in terms of his “rights” to have credentials is no different than say Joe D getting a credential.
When a blogger, unaffiliated with the Baseball Writers Association of America gets access to the team, it’s a privilege and NOT a right. It’s a courtesy that is extended rarely by many teams to independent bloggers such as the aforementioned.”
Yes, Megdal is a blogger but he’s employed by a semi-local newspaper; so I don’t know that’s quite on par with independent blogger…Does the Westchester Journal News having anything other than a “blog” format for their baseball coverage?
I can’t really comment much on this because I didn’t read the book and the Mets are within their rights to pull his credentials. Be that as it may, IMO they just fanned the flames hotter. By doing this they brought even more attention and publicity to a book probably not many Met fans were even aware of.
However, I can’t help but comment on one small section of this piece – where you’re quoting a Mets executive as saying:
“The author’s desperate self-promotional campaign for relevance has led to perpetuating baseless speculation and complete inaccuracies.”
I just have to ask….is this the same Mets executive (Howard) who ripped Erin Arvedlund on her book in 2009? The same one who, in response to Erin’s opinion that the Mets will likely have to bring in an investor or two shortly – or even sell,…had this to say about her reporting and said opinion? (and I quote):
‘Outrageous, unfounded, irresponsible, grossly irresponsible’
Fast forward a couple of years and yeah….that ‘investor or two’ is now a reality.
Being forced to sell? Only time will tell.
I agree with you, plus we already know that this front office has no problem lying to the public as they have all throughout their first 15 months in charge.
This interview took place in May 2009 so it was under the last FO but solely Howard in charge of that spin.
All FOs ‘lie’. It’s called Spin. We’d be naive to think otherwise.
Great piece Jesse! I saw your exchange with Medgal on twitter and I’m glad I’m not the only one questioning him. I’ve been saying the same thing about his “book” since it came out. I saw him attack Cerrone because Matt didn’t write a blog about this situation the way Howie wanted him too.
Medgal is great at attracting attention to himself. I never understood why he had access to the team in the first place. I know he likes to call himself a reporter, but answer me this: what type of reporter actively campaigns like a politician to be the General Manager of a team he covers like Megdal did a few years ago?
I’m glad the Mets did this, about time they fire back at people like Howard.
quote: “I’m glad the Mets did this, about time they fire back at people like Howard.”
In going with the same concept of firing back like this…I live out of the NY area, so I don’t listen to the NY radio waves…but what I’ve never understood is: WFAN is the Mets flagship station, yet they seem to attack the Mets constantly…So why do the Mets keep renewing their contract with WFAN? I realize it’s about money; but would the Yankees tolerate YES constantly mocking the Yankees?
WFAN is a CBS station. YES isn’t an actual sports news network, they are a mouthpiece for the Yankees.
But ya, WFAN does seem to revel in attacking the Mets. I wonder what would happen if 1050 had a better signal and won the the broadcasting rights next year when the current deal is up.
A great point by point take down of this opportunist seeking financial gain at the expense of our team. He wants a credential so he could tarnish their brand even more, is he kidding me???
You have to be kidding.
All he did was report on how bad a state the Mets are in — if anyone has “tarnished the brand” it’s the owners and their complete mismanagement of both their personal business and the Mets franchise.
He didnt report anything! Read the book only 3;99 to download. It’s a conspiracy theorist’s take on this whole mess that is slanted and has no facts or quotes to back anything up. Dont quote unnamed sources unless you have a name, and dont call writing a book reporting. It’s not.
i don’t understand how the Wilpons, who have given their GMs more money to spend on payroll the last 20 years than all but a few teams, and were ripped off by a scammer that was so respected the government could not or refuse to find any wrong doing; how that owner can be considered bad.
If anything, much like trusting Madoff, he put his money and faith in GMs that sucked (Phillips, Omar) who hired bad managers and signed players that folded in 2007 and 2008.
Take a look at the acquisitions under the Wilpons the last 10 years and tell me that they aren’t owners committed to providing their fans with the best team they can.
http://metswiqi.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/met-acuistions-from-2002-to-2010/
Yes, the team is in a bad state, but I blame the players and previous regimes, not the Wilpons. I am not that sure that even without the Madoff issue if the Mets wouldn’t be doing the same thing (cutting payroll). they had 90+ wins with a $94mil payroll in 06 and was 1 big hit away from WS. 3 years later and the payroll was $143 mil and they got 70 wins. had not to support a change in philosophy/approach.
I agree the Mets have the right to pull Howard’s access …. it is a privledge and not an entitlement.
However, he has done a great job chronicling the Wilpon’s mismanagement of the Mets …. how anyone could lean toward the Wilpon’s side on this or any issue bewilders me. Megdall is a Mets fan first …. frankly, what he wrote is apparently very accurate. The earlier reference to Erin Arvedlund is an excellent one …. she was dead on — just as Howard is here — and she was chastised by the Wilpon damage control machine.
Howard is a Mets fan …. I am a Mets fan …. I see nothing wrong with what he did and — just like with time Arvedlund — I bet time shows how accurate he is.
By then, hopefully the Wilpons will be gone from baseball and real owners can build this franchise into what a New York franchise should be.
Jessep you make an excellent case for your feelings on this matter.
I didn’t really follow the controversy since it was more a side show than baseball oriented but you make numerous outstanding points. Just being barely cognizant of the issue I thought to myself the Wilpon’s are just being petty but you’ve changed my opinion (not that it was firm or based on anything substantial) 100%.
I’m angry at the way my favorite baseball team has been run through the years but I thought it was so outrageous the way they have been portrayed by Picard and way over the top in the way it was done but almost nothing beats tainting the jury pool with innundo before the Wilpon’s even get to mount a defense and for personal gain? That beats everything.
Thank you for setting the record straight on an issue that many baseball fans may not have been informed about and came to the wrong conclusion on.
Great job.
‘….so outrageous the way they have been portrayed by Picard and way over the top in the way it was done…’
Couldn’t agree more.
I never bought into the Wilpons as being crooks. Naive? Not smart businessmen? Maybe, although you have to wonder how a family builds an empire like that if they’re naive.
Maybe it just does boil down to Madoff being a long standing friend and if you can’t trust a friend, who do you trust?
picard has been paid hundreds of millions of dollars; i am looking for the article, but i think i saw something that it passed the $300mil mark. it is in his best interest to make outlandish claims and have the legal battle go on for years… he gets paid by the hour
take a look at this article from the NY times
http://metswiqi.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/link-daily-news-ny-mets-say-even-irving-picard-could-not-find-fault-in-bernie-madoff-case/
Like many have already said here before me Megdal’s access was a privilege not a right. I am sure he does not like his access taken away but hate it as he may the fact remains the team is under no obligation to give him access.
The accuracy or lack thereof of his book doesn’t change the facts regarding the granting of access based on how I understand it. They don’t want him specifically to have access from my understanding but the LoHud still has access so if that is indeed the case let them send someone else or if they want to stand behind Megdal let them send no one. Either way when you get to the bottom of it the Mets exercised their right to refuse giving him access just as he exercised his right to write a book about the Wilpons.
Would be hard to detail every inaccurate part of this piece, but here’s just a few:
1. As anyone would know if “Jessep”, ie. Michael Branda, had linked to my piece, I was credentialed not as an independent blogger, but as a professional journalist writing for The Journal News. For those interested in the actual story, not Michael Branda’s paraphrasing of it:
http://mets.lohudblogs.com/
As to some of the most glaringly inaccurate things Michael says:
2. “Megdal believes that by not having media credentials the Mets are in turn controlling what is written about them. ”
Nope. I made it clear in my piece that without clubhouse access, nearly everything I write- save the in-depth pieces from direct conversations with players- would be unaffected. In fact, their action’s only affect is to negate a way I’ve been able to more closely connect the fans to the players.
3. “My issues with his “book”, is that first and foremost, he comes to conclusions about the Madoff-Wilpon case even before a court of law has done so.”
Nope. I actually present Wilpon’s side FIRST in the book-the first 7,000 words, incidentally-followed by Picard’s side. And at no point do I draw any conclusions- I would invite you to point out any examples of this.
4. “It also draws conclusions to this saga as though they are inevitable, without giving any examples or quotes to support his theory.”
Wouldn’t even know where to begin. I explain in detail the massive financial difficulties, and everything in my book is cited in the glossary- reporting, financial documents, legal documents. So again, you are either ignoring the content of the book or haven’t read it.
5. “Instead, we jump to the conclusion that the Wilpon’s are liars before they have their day in court.”
Nope. Not once.
And best of all:
6. “And it appears that Megdal did not have any team source, nor did he reach out to the Mets for comment prior to publishing this piece.”
As I wrote in the book, I repeatedly went to the team and asked specifics about every aspect of the book. If something didn’t exist on a legal/financial document, I gave the team every chance to present their account. If it did, I asked for an explanation. And as you’ll see throughout the book, they sometimes did. Because yet again, you are incorrect- I spoke to multiple sources within the CURRENT organization many times.
Then again, the irony of you accusing me of writing something without getting the other side, in a piece you wrote without checking any of your assertions with me, probably speaks for itself.
Anyhow, thought this would be helpful in the discussion.
So help us understand. What was your conclusion? What was your goal for writing the book? Did you present your finished draft to the Mets for comment before publishing? And finally, why did you choose to report this in a book rather than as a reporter for the Journal News who pay you yo report?
Howard is about attracting attention to himself. He likes to be the news instead of reporting it. Don’t forget this is the same guy who campaigned for the Mets to hire him as their General Manager while Omar Minaya was still employed. What reporter does that?
Howard profited and not is crying foul because the Mets called him on this and took away his credentials.
In the spirit of fairness he should be allowed to defend himself and not do so in a hostile environment. The goal is to find the truth and some meaning to all of this.
I unfortunately read the “book” and I was just calling him out. Like Jessep said he doesn’t provide facts, he’s editorializing and presenting the book as fact. He has already convicted the Wilpons even though there is no evidence. One has to ask if they knew Madoff was doing a ponzi scheme why did they have personal accounts? Why did they have their close family and friends have personal accounts?
He has attacked and tried to discredit people who dare to question him as he did with Cerrone yesterday and now is attacking Jessep and questioning his integrity and that is what I have the problem with.
Greg,
You have repeatedly called me a liar on Twitter. You have yet to prove a single aspect of my reporting is untrue. I haven’t called names, but I have pointed out where Michael Branda’s writing about me is inaccurate.
If you have proof that I am inaccurate in any way, please provide it. Otherwise, your calling me a liar publicly is the textbook example of libel- saying something false, something you know to be false, and doing so to damage a person’s reputation- and I’ll need to consider my options accordingly.
Your whole book for instance is inaccurate Howard. As Jessep has pointed out you saying the Wilpons knew is a lie. Where is the proof?
Sorry Greg. Never said it. If you read the book, you know that. You really ought to keep that libel definition in mind.
So you never insinuated in your book that the Wilpons knew something was going on with Madoff?
Greg, I reported how the Wilpons view the case, and how the trustee views it as well. You know if you read the book that I never made any such claim.
Sure thing, Brian. All good questions.
1. I didn’t draw a conclusion. I reported the facts as completely as possible, and let the reader decide.
2. My goal in writing the book was to present a more complete accounting of what was going on, legally and financially. There has been some good reporting on this (and some rotten reporting), but any newspaper article is limited by space and scope. A book, I believe, gives a fuller accounting of a story. For something as complicated as this, it was vital. So when Bloomsbury, having read my work for Capital New York, reached out and asked me to do write it, that made sense.
3. I did not present a finished draft. But I spoke to multiple people affiliated with the team about every aspect of my reporting, and how I planned to write it- nothing in the book could have come as a surprise.
4. I addressed this a bit in 2., but I have also been writing about this story for Capital New York, New York Magazine and occasionally for the LoHud Mets Blog. It was that reporting that led to the invitation to write the book, not the other way around. But I am proud of the reporting I’ve done on this, which has been reinforced by subsequent reports elsewhere, frequently cited, and never disputed.
And the idea that the team couldn’t or wouldn’t speak about the case as it goes on is nonsense- they’ve done plenty of talking about it. The case certainly doesn’t preclude them from discussing finances, if they saw something inaccurate being reported. It should tell you plenty that their response has been to attack me personally, rather than find a single fact I’ve reported to dispute.
Thank you, Howard. You are a stand-up guy and I wish people would simply ask more questions rather than making assumptions. As far as I’m concerned you satisfied my curiosity about all of this. I’ll download a copy of your book and draw my own conclusions. Thank you, sir.
I really appreciate that, thanks. Glad I could clear things up.
So instead of trying to clear things up you got him to waste money on your book, well done Howard, well done.
Howard,
They can’t talk about it and you know that. Their in litigation over the issue’s you’ve written about and you’ve risked forming opinions in people who may very well be called upon to weigh the evidence presented in court.
Sure it’s news worthy and requires more than just skeleton coverage in a newspaper article but the stories not finished yet. The fighters are just getting weighed in and you want to stick your nose into the locker room and make the Wilpon’s fight you in public first, let Picard sit back and watch and then take on the Wilpon’s after your done.
You know they can’t do that. They can’t simultaneously give you evidence to weigh in the court of public opinion and then respond to the results of YOUR examination of the facts before the trial. That’s why books get written after everything is said and done, not before.
If you were the defendant in an upcoming trial how would you like it if someone conducted an investigation of the facts and put out a book about them before the trial knowing full well that you couldn’t respond because of impending litigation?
It’s like picking a fight with a guy who can’t fight back and risking possibly screwing him (unfairly) before the fight of his life. Real snake move. Sorry that’s the way I see it.
With all due respect, t agee, the Mets have talked publicly about this for more than a year now. They have also done so about their finances. And they did with me.
If they actually were so restricted, and hadn’t done so, and then I used their silence against them, I would see your point. But none of this is the case.
Howard,
Just because the Wilpon’s spoke with you and others about aspects of the issue doesn’t mean they were at liberty to discuss all the aspects of the impending litigation.
The very purpose of a book is to provide a thorough examination of ALL the facts, not just the one’s the Wilpon’s may have sought to highlight or were willing to discuss in public.
You have interjected yourself into the complaint and in essence conducted your own investigation with the result being a trial in the court of public opinion before the real trial even begins when you must know perfectly well that every defendant, in every trial is always urged by their council not to say anything before the trial.
The fact that the Wilpon’s did respond publicly or privately to some of the allegations against them doesn’t serve the interests of justice to present the case as you see it against them when they cannot fully respond to all of it.
The book should have been written after the all the facts and responses were able to see the light of day, not before.
You have undertaken a road that runs the risk of costing people their fair day in court and you’ve done it personal gain. I really can’t think of anything more reprehensible.
So you believe that people in a lawsuit should be able to say what they want publicly, truthful or not, prior to trial, but accurately reporting which of these things are true and which are false prior to trial is reprehensible? Let’s just say we disagree on the basic nature of reporting and role of the press.
I think the public’s right to know is a distant second to a person’s right to a fair trial.
Any through examination of the facts before all parties can respond to all of them runs the risk of perverting justice. If it were to be proven that the Wilpon’s lied that would be evidence and would be taken into consideration by a jury of their peers and in the penalty phase of any judgement against them. That determination though cannot and should not be determined before all the evidence by the complaint has been produced and the defendant has responded and it should be determined by the jury, not anyone else.
The book should have waited until all the facts were in and the defendants had a full and fair opportunity to respond in an untainted environment.
Regardless of how diligent your examination has been there is no way to know for sure that you’ve been able to unearth 100% of both sides in the matter and the defendant should not have to defend themselves piecemeal before the trial even begins.
Like I said, I just disagree that accurate reporting, in a book or other venue, should somehow be avoided until a trial is concluded, or that it would prejudice a potential jury.
Accurate reporting after undertaking a thorough investigation of a very complex matter in which even you would have to agree that there may be aspects on at least one side of the courtroom you may not be aware of. How could you? Not everything’s come under the light of the courtroom.
Even if you knew 100% of one side’s case how can you be assured you know 100% of the other’s in a case of this complexity and have people form an opinion and then expect people to keep an open mind in a month?
Howard,
Thanks for reading!
#1 I guess I as just a reader have a hard time agreeing to somebody being a “professional journalist” when they are responsible for this site http://megdalforgm.com/
#2 Your point was “Nope. I made it clear in my piece that without clubhouse access, nearly everything I write- save the in-depth pieces from direct conversations with players- would be unaffected. In fact, their action’s only affect is to negate a way I’ve been able to more closely connect the fans to the players.”
Because I said “Megdal believes that by not having media credentials the Mets are in turn controlling what is written about them. ”
Then why did you say this to me last night:
“If you think Mets shouldn’t be dictating their own coverage, you’d take a different view”
#3 We’ll skip the part where you think you presented the Wilpon’s side of the story because we both know in every aspect you presented anything on their behalf you did so by following it up with remarks that made their sentiments seem unreasonable.
But “And at no point do I draw any conclusions- I would invite you to point out any examples of this.”
To me “In all likelihood—whether because of Irving Picard’s lawsuit, the massive debts Wilpon had incurred to keep his financial empire standing, or most accurately, a combination of the two—Fred Wilpon isn’t going to be the owner of the New York Mets anymore. That’s going to happen soon, and it means the business he was certain he would pass on to his children and grandchildren will belong to somebody else. It’s not clear that Fred Wilpon has acknowledged this fact, even to himself.” — That’s a conclusion.
Regarding contacting the Mets… when a reporter HAS a story they present it to the other side. They don’t ask them to contribute. Did you go to the Mets with ALL of the info you had, and ask them to comment or did you ask them to provide details on the subject for which you had holes?
Also, I am not a journalist, I’m a guy on a Mets blog site who saw through something I found to be BS and wrote about it.
However, lets not pretend that we didn’t have a conversation about your work last night.
Question: “When you received your creds, were u appreciative? Specifically because they didn’t HAVE to give u creds?
Answer: “Never took for granted, always thank teams who issue them, if that’s what you mean. Never sent a fruitcake.”
From a guy who asked the question: Snark. That’s what I got from that response.
You said, “Not interested in re-litigating this. Pretty clear where we agree and disagree.”
“If you can speak to specifics in my book that are either inaccurate or not germane to the operation of the Mets, do so”
So don’t tell me you don’t want to discuss the matter anymore, and then come on here and act like you were not given any chance to defend yourself against my views. I was crystal clear how I felt, and you chose to not discuss it further. Then you challenged me to find things specific to your book that I took issue with, and I did.
If you want proof that I read your story, I’ll send you the receipt and you can send me a refund.
Your book is a story, it’s a very detailed view of one side of the story and gives no regard for caring about what the other side is or was… and when the other side lashes back at you and takes something away from you that was given as a courtesy, you revert to what you know best, and that is to put yourself in the spotlight.
I for one won’t fall for it. I know the difference between a guy reporting on something because he’s a fine journalist and thinks people need to know something, and a guy reporting on something because it’s fashionable and he can make a buck by doing so.
One is credible to me, the other is agenda driven.
Well, “Jessup”, as I said before, we can agree to disagree. I know you believe because I wrote a satirical book, writing seriously is somehow off limits to me. Not how I see it. Clearly, not how the publishing or journalism world sees it.
Beyond that, you are clearly determined to make statements that aren’t true, like “he doesn’t use any team sources” and “giving any examples or quotes to support his theory”. I’m proud of Wilpon’s Folly, stand by my work, and have been gratified by the overwhelming support I’ve received, along with my work being cited in media outlets I respect.
Clearly, you hold a different view. I told you on Twitter not to waste my time anymore, if all you were going to do was cast aspersions on my work instead of actually pointing out something I’ve written that wasn’t true.
You’ve failed to do so. Again. And you’ve written multiple things about me that I’ve pointed out are untrue, and you’d have known were untrue if you’d read the book. So either you ignored them, or you didn’t read the book.
Either way, the reflection on the value of your opinion here is clear. So, agree to disagree.
You did tell me to stop “Wasting your time” and then tweeted me 4 times when I didn’t reply to you, so I’m not sure who was wasting who’s time.
I understand that when somebody is used to being praised, they have trouble dealing with critiques. I see things a little differently than others maybe. It’s “cool” to be anti Mets and Wilpon, and I’m not suggesting what you said was right or wrong. I’m suggesting if you call that a “report” it’s a terrible job. If you call it one man’s “opinion” on things, then that is fine. But you pawn it off as 100% fact. Does this mean if the Wilpon’s are seen as not guilty in the Picard suit you will retract everything and return the money you made? I highly doubt it.
So we’ll call a truce here. I’ll write my opinions here and not charge people a dime to read them. You write your opinions, tell 1 side of the story and charge people for it and call it reporting.
And we’ll go our separate ways. Just as you are entitled to write your opinion about things, I will write my own opinion.
I thank you for commenting on this piece though. Best to you and yours
I chose to follow up here because you wrote things about me that were untrue. You’ve had multiple opportunities to point out specifics in my work that were false, and failed to do so. You are entitled to your opinions, not your own set of facts.
Sorry you didn’t like the book. That’s materially different from pretending anything in the book is false. It’s why I responded. This is, as you’ve pointed out, what I do for a living. So I have a professional stake in the book being accurate. I’m in my early 30s with a family, and this is how I support them. If you think that stake somehow taints my work, you are out of touch with reality. It’s precisely why it matters so much that I am professional and accurate.
I’m happy to let others judge our exchange, and the book, accordingly. But if you persist in writing untrue things, and fail to correct them, your claims ring hollow. Just my opinion.
Honestly I dont really care who’s right or wrong, I hate this money talk crap. But I will say that this site is the greatest show on earth right now and it sure beats the Knicks game..
Holy Crap Jesse! You have alot of time on your hands don’t you LOL.
I don’t know if I agree, but I do feel sorry for him abit. I realize they can take the access away, however one thing that puzzles me is that they can’t tell Megdal the reason for the revocation to his face when he requests an explanation.
To his face? You think teams drive down to blogger’s homes and tell them to their face they wont be getting a press credential? They called his editor and told him they dont like his reporting. End of story.
I have one question. Who is that in the image with the Mets Foam finger Branda or Megdal?
ha… that’s Howard MNJ
Megdal vs. Wilpons = two bald men fighting over a comb. Yawn. Call me when one of them learns a change-up.