Forty Minutes with the GM

[G-Fafif]

Mets PR hooked up approximately 15 bloggers on a conference call with Sandy Alderson Friday night. Lots of good coverage, including painstaking transcription by several participants. They're all linked with the Faith and Fear story (a rare Greg & Jason collaboration), here.

Alderson's an impressive dude. Perhaps you'd come to that conclusion independently. If anybody can transcend Wilponism, I came away believing he could. And if he can't...hoo boy.

[Valadius]

What, no questions about Asian players?

[Ceetar]

Valadius wrote: What, no questions about Asian players?

I wonder if someone had asked that if he would've laughed.

Mine

Yah conference call.

[metirish]

Love it...

I once had to transcribe a lengthy interview with a top executive in the industry I covered. He concluded just about every answer to just about every question with a sentence that began, �At the end of the day�� The deeper into the tape I got, the more he said it. Boy, did I wish that day would end as soon as possible.

Really great stuff , glad you got the opportunity Greg. His telling you guys that the coaching staff is all set was a first official yes on that?

[A Boy Named Seo]

Just read the quick & dirty highlights. Good job, dudes. So much to like about this little pow-wow, I think. Loved that Greg asked how it feels to have to let a player go from the team. Not sure what kind of answer we would expect to get from an ex-Marine working in pro sports on a question about his emotions, but I thought it was a great Q (and the answer was good, too). Yall make me proud. /sniff

Gonna settle in for the long transcript now.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Love the questions-- especially both of y'all's, and Eric Simon's about the process of learning an organization-- and candor. Kudos to G, Cee, and Sandy.

[G-Fafif]

Thanks all. Two more writeups since last night worth checking out:

� NY Baseball Digest
� Always Amazin'
� Mets Today.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

"BAH! Bad idea! Co-opting the "blargosphere!" I'm not annoyed I didn't get an invite!"

-It's Mets For Me

[Ceetar]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: "BAH! Bad idea! Co-opting the "blargosphere!" I'm not annoyed I didn't get an invite!" -It's Mets For Me

yeah, saw that. Martino had a post today about it too. And then a followup post responding to my (and some Twitter guy that i don't follow)'s response.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: "BAH! Bad idea! Co-opting the "blargosphere!" I'm not annoyed I didn't get an invite!" -It's Mets For Me

I love that piece.

[metirish]

That was a very interesting read.........was it the Mets or Sandy that reached out, does it matter?

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Alderson did stuff like this at San Diego... but the Mets instituted Blogger Days last year, and had begun the e-reachouts before Alderson was hired.

All of which is besides the point... of course it's a PR move. Barring personally-motivated stuff like the Veteran's Project, why else would a corporate entity reach out/do ANYTHING unless it's directly-- or at the very least plausibly-- in their interest?

I don't think that if, say, something like the Werth signing happened here after a season of conference calls, those bloggers would refrain to criticize said signing.

[G-Fafif]

The Mets could offer up an opportunity to talk to Sandy Alderson and one could decline it citing the need to maintain a level of purity and distance -- but then you'd be missing a chance to talk to the individual who, arguably, has the most influence on the direct of the thing you're most interested in in this world. Or one could prove he's not in the tank by declaring Alderson's answers abysmal and manner manipulative whether one thought they were or not -- just so one's independence is clear...but then you'd be dishonest with anybody reads what you write.

Yes, of course we're being used. Same as the papers have always been used. It's more novel for us at the moment that we're part of the process. After a while, the novelty will wear off, and Alderson will be judged on more than a bit of access and his not being Omar (the latter is more why he's enjoying an extended honeymoon period, I believe...that and the Mets' record is 0-0 since he was named GM). And if the Mets decide they don't want this or that blog on the next call -- and by this or that I mean Faith and Fear -- fine. We had a blog before we were reached out to and, as far as I'm concerned, we'll have one regardless.

But as a Mets fan who writes about a) the Mets and being a Mets fan, I can't envision not wanting to sample every aspect of Metsdom and tell about it. Every December I've read about the team holiday party. This year I was extended an invitation to attend it (it's tomorrow). I take it as an opportunity to write about what this annual ritual is like when you're actually there. I realize it's something most fans don't get to participate in, and I appreciate the chance to say, "You know what happens? This is what happens..." If I don't get that opportunity a year from now, so be it. I will have gotten to write about it once.

Not that the whole thing's not a little weird to me. Addressed it as part of a larger "year in Mets" type post pre-Alderson call on FAFIF here:

Mets Reach Out to Bloggers Admittedly this is a boutique concern within the greater universe of Mets priorities, and certainly something of more specific interest to the likes of yours truly than to all Mets-lovers, but I wouldn�t undersell its significance. What are we Mets bloggers except fans who channel their passion with constancy, intensity and an audience? Very few of us make any kind of living from wielding this particular megaphone. We express ourselves about the Mets because we care too much not to. You read us and interact accordingly for the same basic reason. Those who write these blogs and those who read them form a critical mass of what in marketing are called heavy users. The loosely knit blogging community � which very much encompasses the reader population (you there on the other side of this screen included) � are the Mets fans who are going to watch the most Mets games, who are going to attend the most Mets games, who are likely to invest in the most Mets stuff and are most readily going to offer their opinions, their applause and their criticism of everything about the Mets. Somewhere in the past year, the Mets picked up on what had become a thriving segment of the media that covers their product. We started our blog in 2005. It wasn�t until 2008 that we learned anybody associated with the Mets knew (or acknowledged) we existed. It wasn�t until 2010 that anybody tapped us on the shoulder in an official capacity. By traditional media standards, it wasn�t much: press releases e-mailed to us; limited credentials issued to cover batting practice a couple of times; and the assurance that if we had a question, somebody somewhere would try to answer it. This would be no big deal to the guy at the Times or the News or ESPN New York. It was a huge deal to us, because we are not traditional media. We�re fans. None of us, I suspect, started our blogs as an entr�e to working for the Times or the News or ESPN. We do it because we�re into the Mets in ways that transcend professional niceties like a paycheck. We�re into the Mets in ways that beat reporters probably couldn�t fathom while trying to meet their deadlines. The relationship between our community and the Mets organization is a work-in-progress on both ends. I�d like to think because there is a relationship that I�m learning a few things that will inform what I write and that you�re a little better served as a result. But that�s the detached media analyst in me speaking. The fan in me thinks it�s cool I got to go on the field a couple of times, got to interview a couple of players, got to write about the experience because it was something different. But the thing is I�m still a fan. I don�t really want to have �sources� and cultivate �access�. I like that the Mets reached out to me and about a dozen of my blolleagues � talk to us, you�re talking to every Mets fan who reads our work. I suppose the same equation goes for talking to beat reporters, but with us, the proverbial middleman is eliminated. We process what we see, hear and learn as fans. Otherwise, because it�s not our job, we wouldn�t be doing it. It couldn�t hurt, I�m almost certain.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

G-Fafif wrote: This year I was extended an invitation to attend it (it's tomorrow). I take it as an opportunity to write about what this annual ritual is like when you're actually there.

So you're going, then? Nifty!

(I'd refrain from sitting on SugarPants' lap, though. That might be a little untoward.)

[Benjamin Grimm]

Can you bring Anna Benson as your date?

[G-Fafif]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Can you bring Anna Benson as your date?

Mrs. Fafif might object.

[Ceetar]

Enjoy, wish I could get there.

More so than the other things bloggers have done, the party will probably have the bloggers and media guys in the same place at the same time. I wonder if they're gonna stand on separate sides of the room and nervously eye each other like a high school dance?

[G-Fafif]

Ceetar wrote: Enjoy, wish I could get there. More so than the other things bloggers have done, the party will probably have the bloggers and media guys in the same place at the same time. I wonder if they're gonna stand on separate sides of the room and nervously eye each other like a high school dance?

They know their way around the gymnasium, so to speak.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Guilt over my own laspses in bloggy enthusiasm (infrequent updates, bouts of poorly concealed boredom with the subject matter [just as Metwise as numberwise], frustration over a limited time & skill to devote to the project, etc etc) and I think, a kind of related sadness that all of that is causing the whole thing to be forgotten and unconsidered (i.e.: univited to these events, even if I'd never make them; I haven't renewed my SABR membership; I'm late and dragging on an assignment to write an article on Mets history) all combined in a very weird dream I had this morning.

I was taking 5 or 6 people to a Mets game, not sure who they were (kinda like an online audience, hmmmm) but when we got to our seats (Shea, not Citi btw) I discovered our perch offered an extremely obstructed view of the field, to the point where all you could see was a strip of field, running from the dirt to the left of home plate and up toward the pitchers mound, but not beyond the infield. In addition, the seat directly in front of mine was occupied by a fat man whose weight was causing the whole seat to expand into my legroom. The game hadn't begun, but there was a promotion going on on the field for Australian Night*, where the PA announcements were repeated by a mascot wearing a dragon costume (The dragon was like a guest from Australia). The dragon then died suddenly when his big mask was knocked off revealing only a black stub where his face should've been, resembling a burned match head. The next thing I knew, Wifey was telling me I was snoring.

Spooky.

* - I'm pretty sure Australia is a representation of my increased interest in music over the last year for reasons that are kind of complicated to explain here. Not sure what the dragon or his black head was all about.

[metirish]

Shoot, I can never remember my dreams in any detail at all.......if the Mets have Australian Night that would be spooky.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Yeah, I don't know what to do with that, good sir.

As to the conversation we were having a few days ago, though, I.M. Forme is actually turning out to be a pretty cogent-- and civil-- debater.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that my main point is being missed. The objectivity or judgment of any one blogger isn't the key to understanding how corporate influence will or will not "defang" manipulate or otherwise impact content and editorial choices in the newly empowered Mets blargosphere. All I am saying is: 1) the dynamic of the shift towards blogs from paid media will interact with 2) the corporation's efforts to sell their product in any way they can (short of producing a reliable, entertaining product--ZING!) in what are potentially damaging ways. Also, 3) I have no solutions to offer.

Well, cogent, as in, "forceful-and-raises-interesting-pointed-thoughts"... but not cogent insofar as being outright convincing. For one, he brushes off the peer-review-for-accuracy/non-compromise as something like "wisdom-of-crowds-anecdotal-internet-triumphalist" BS. (Either he's just being dumb and horseblinded or-- more likely-- willfully ignorant because it serves his vague point about the "dynamic" changing.)

For another, well... he's ignoring the fact that readers make the blog as much as the authors do... and they can suss out-- over time-- who's got access/lets it affect his or her work, and make decisions accordingly. That the dynamic is shifting is no great news-- the same sorts of shifts in how this sort fo news is reported aren't exactly precedent-less (see: the growth of media companies into multiplatform corps that share team ownership, team-owned networks; turning news arms of such companies into profit centers; etc.). Most intelligent consumers of news/blog product have come or are coming to accept that the ultimate editorial function's long since been outsourced to the reader. What's legit? What's compromised? Well, as long as the corporate ties/blogger giveaways/conference call invitations are more or less disclosed... isn't that for us to decide?

He may be right about the dynamic-- or at least about the potential for it-- but wrong, I think, about it being a "problem" requiring "solution."