7 Responses for "CSTB Questions Mets Bloggers Integrity"

1. Gerard Cosloy August 19th, 2008 at 8:02 pm 1

   I guess we’re gonna have to agree to disagree, Anthony. I don’t think I’m making much of a leap — a TV program on a Mets co-owned channel decided to highlight a handful of Mets blogs. That the bloggers in question accepted an invitation to hang a luxury box does create at the very least, the appearance they’re a complicit, easily impressed bunch. That may not be the full picture, but that’s the impression the “Mets Weekly” segment conveyed. During a period in which the Mets are sending CitiField’s ticket prices sky-high (for a stadium built with $450 million of public dough), i’m not sure why an otherwise smart bunch of guys and gals are so happy to mug for the Wilpon TV cameras rather than flip ‘em the bird.

   “Read our sites, nobody is pulling punches”.

   Perhaps not, though the Daily News’ Bob Raissman did claim otherwise of MetsBlog this past June 24th :

   “Is Matt Cerrone’s entertaining and informative MetsBlog.com (One Team, One Million GM’s) losing some edge - and independence?

   Prior to the start of the season, Cerrone joined forces with the Mets and SportsNet New York in a deal to have MetsBlog.com appear on SNY’s Web site. This was followed by a lot of yap-flapping out of Metsville (and MetsBlog) about MetsBlog being able to continue doing its thing.

   On Thursday, MetsBlog posted a YouTube video of Joe Smith going mouth-to-mouth (”You ain’t s— … I’m in the big leagues you idiot”) with Cubs fans. Spies say when a Mets official was made aware of the video’s presence, he had it immediately pulled off MetsBlog.

   For MetsBlog, and its fans, that’s called livin’ in a corporate world.”

   I have no doubt SNY has done much (in your words) to build relationships with bloggers and there’s nothing preventing them from doing so. They might not be nearly so quick to build relationships (or shine a spotlight) on every independent blog. I’ve not claimed your content has changed because of one day in a luxury box, but what would change, really? The SNY segment is more telling for who WASN’T represented. Don’t get me wrong, Mike Stefanos (just to name one) is awfully talented. But there’s more to the Mets blogosphere than cronies of Mr. Cerrone. I don’t know if Joceyln Pierce has It’s Mets For Me bookmarked or not, but she oughta check it out.

2. Anthony De Rosa August 19th, 2008 at 8:23 pm 2

   As far as I know, I never signed any release that precludes me from being critical of the team once I entered that suite. While I appreciate the hospitality, it isn’t going to sway me one way or the other when it comes to being critical about how the Mets do business.

   I’ve expressed my displeasure about the way the new stadium will lock fans like myself out because of exorbitant ticket prices and I know Matt Cerrone has mentioned that he will not as quickly be able to attend games as he has in the past because those day of game tickets will be in short supply or priced out of the market of fans such as ourselves.

   As far as other bloggers not being represented, and the “cronies” of Matt Cerrone as you call them, I am a huge fan of It’s Mets For Me and many other bloggers that weren’t in attendance. I’ve found that SNY is very open to all sorts of voices, as their new daily video show The Nooner can attest, they’re not afraid of poking fun of the Mets and being ‘edgy’ while doing it. I don’t understand that because every Mets blog in existence wasn’t invited that there is something to infer from it.

   Matt has explained the Joe Smith incident before, you can read all about it on Mets Blog. He’s also explained that SNY has a partnership with his site that does not give them editorial control over the site or what he writes. If anyone with a brain follows his writing on the site, they would realize that no punches are pulled there either, as Matt and his writers are often critical of the team, the front office and ownership when appropriate.

   Keep in mind that neither I am not a journalist, I am a fan who posts his thoughts about the Mets on a blog. As you quoted Michael Wilbon recently, I subscribe to the same angle from which I write:

   “There’s fairness but no objectivity,” he said. “I’m not going to pretend I don’t root for the Bulls. The people we cover are much cooler with that then this false pretense of objectivity.”

3. Gerard Cosloy August 19th, 2008 at 9:27 pm 3

   the pretense of objectivity (in this instance, anyway) is of lesser concern to me than a narrow view of the Mets blogosphere. I totally take you at your word that the odd hot dog and comfy luxury box seat “isn’t going to sway me one way or the other when it comes to being critical about how the Mets do business”, particularly as you have seemingly have no problem with a Mets co-owned TV program summing up the online indie media as something approaching a chummy cookout.

   “I don’t understand that because every Mets blog in existence wasn’t invited that there is something to infer from it. ”

   There’s plenty to infer from it. The cable TV house organ of the Mets — in this case, “Mets Weekly” has to have some criteria for which blogs they’ll highlight, otherwise the show wiould last 12 hours and they’d require the entire upper deck, let alone one luxury box. I get that. But as long as those afforded the TV exposure are either limited to pals of Matthew’s (sorry if the term “cronies” is offensive) or exclude persons who’ve left flaming bags of dog crap on Jeff Wilpon’s front step, each participant is compromised, whether they realize it or not.

   I understand that you’re a fan, not a journalist (and one given to plugging “The Nooner”, at that), and I respect there’s no doctrine you’re meant to follow besides your own. But I do think there are far worse things than journalism or more to the point, considering the larger implications of photo ops like this. That it doesn’t bug Michael Wilbon doesn’t trouble me, but at the risk of sounding incredibly precious, I hold certain blogs to a much higher standard.

4. Anthony De Rosa August 19th, 2008 at 9:51 pm 4

   I think again you are making a leap by inferring somehow that the choice of Mets bloggers chosen are somehow ‘SNY Approved.’ Mets Weekly may not be everyones cup of tea in terms of how it jives with your sensibilities when it comes to ‘online indie media.’ and to be frank, as I always try to be here, most of SNY’s television content, or lack thereof, could use some help.

   As entertaining as Guiseppe Franco may be, they have a long way to go in terms of taking the what in my mind is the most creative, most impassioned thing the Mets have going for them, the independent bloggers who live and die with the team, and developing content to tap into it. They’ve done a hell of a lot more than most media outlets have already, but they still have a ways to go.

   …and hey, what the heck is wrong with a chummy cookout among mets fans? Were you hoping for a knife fight behind Gate C?

   In terms of the bloggers they choose to attend, Faith and Fear in Flushing, for example, couldn’t be more critical of Mets ownership, for one. You’ve already expressed your affinity for Mike’s Mets, and vouched for my credibility. We’ve all left flaming bags of dog crap on Jeff’s steps, go back and check the archives, there is enough venom to go around. Most recently I was particularly critical of how they Wilpon’s treated Randolph on his way out, I wrote how I was ‘ashamed’ to be a Mets fan that day. I could go on and on, but you get the idea and can go back and read many more occasions where I’ve let ownership have it.

   I can’t speak for the criteria they choose or who made the list, but most of the people attending have at one time or another been very critical of the folks who invited them. I can’t speak for the others, but I won’t hesitate to be critical in the future if need be.

5. Gerard Cosloy August 19th, 2008 at 10:15 pm 5

   Mets Weekly is no better and no worse than a lot of other TWIB-type programs. SNY-approved might be pushing it, granted, but some criteria, however loose, for whom to feature had to be applied.

   “…and hey, what the heck is wrong with a chummy cookout among mets fans? Were you hoping for a knife fight behind Gate C?”

   I wouldn’t have minded, especially if Ted Berg had been on the losing end. The old expression, “there’s no cheering in the press box” can be amended to “there’s lots of chewing in the luxury box”. I don’t begrudge anyone a fun day out (even under losing circumstances) but I didn’t think it made for great TV or for a very good precedent.

   You’ve been pretty eloquent in expressing your opposition to ownership on multiple occasions. I’d suggest those are all decent enough reasons to turn down an invite to be shown hanging around a luxury box on a club-produced TV show.

   If Tony Bernazard had been available to dish out fruit punch, i’ll admit I would’ve found conceptual humor in the entire exercise. Then again, you were there and I wasn’t. Who WAS grilling the hot dogs?

6. Anthony De Rosa August 20th, 2008 at 12:22 am 6

   I wish Tony Bernazard was there, I would have grilled him like one of those hot dogs.

   You make it sound like I accepted an invitation to a John McCain fundraiser. I’m a Mets fan, I don’t agree with everything the franchise does, does that mean I should stop going to Mets games? Do I stop purchasing tickets in protest of the prices at the new ballpark? Do I boycott the team? Of course not.

   I accepted an invitation from Matt to join a bunch of people who I admire and enjoy the company of. As anyone who has been in a luxury suite before can attest, its comfy, but its not the most ideal place to watch a ball game. That wasn’t exactly the point of the day, it was more of an opportunity to spend some time with passionate Mets fans.

7. Gerard Cosloy August 20th, 2008 at 2:06 am 7

   “You make it sound like I accepted an invitation to a John McCain fundraiser. ”

   My apologies. I hope to never imply that about anyone.

   “I’m a Mets fan, I don’t agree with everything the franchise does, does that mean I should stop going to Mets games?”

   I hope not, otherwise i will be very lonely in the cheap seats. Whether or not you want to continue to appear as an extra (paid or otherwise) in what amounts to a promotional video for the team, is of course, up to you. But that question cuts to the heart of the title of my post —- the notion of autonomy, however arcane, versus the creature comforts of a luxury box (limited though they may be).

   “Do I stop purchasing tickets in protest of the prices at the new ballpark? Do I boycott the team? Of course not.”

   it’s not the craziest idea of all time, Anthony. I mean, civil disobedience has been an agent for change throughout history. Though I personally couldn’t advise you to boycott Mets games (particularly as I’d be looking to snap up your seats), there’s a basketball team playing in midtown Manhattan that won’t be getting another penny of ticket or concession revenue from yours truly until their current owner is either deposed or slaughtered (I’m rooting for a poorly grounded Fender Twin).