[ad_1]
On Tuesday, the New York Mets fired newly-hired general manager Jared Porter for cause following an ESPN report from Jeff Passan and Mina Kimes on Monday night about Porter’s explicit texts passed to a reporter in 2016 while ‘he worked for the Chicago Cubs. That report said Porter sent the reporter more than 60 unanswered texts, including repeated requests to meet him at a hotel and ending with a photo of an erect penis. And on Tuesday, Mets president Sandy Alderson and (new) owner Steve Cohen both “decided independently” (according to Alderson’s remarks at a Tuesday afternoon press conference, relayed by Ken Davidoff from The New York Post) to fire Porter for cause, which means he will not be paid for the four-year contract he signed for. But that Alderson press conference contained an incredible amount of gigantic missteps, and it didn’t really suggest that the Mets organization had actually turned a page of all of its recent media embarrassments.
The biggest, and perhaps the most consequential, error came from Alderson pointing out a crucial detail about the journalist’s identity, which was deliberately not included in ESPN’s story to avoid retaliation against her. Several reporters on the call tweeted about Alderson incorrectly providing this information. Granted, this was a conference call with the media rather than a publicly accessible statement, so there is always a possibility that the information will not be released to anyone who would use it inappropriately (and it does is not included in Alderson’s music video of that press conference that was made public at the top of MLB.com’s story on it), but it’s still an incredibly problematic decision. ESPN has this information and has chosen to omit it from its public report for obvious reasons; although the Mets obviously have this information as well, they shouldn’t relay it even to a group of reporters who weren’t the ones reporting this story.
Another key piece here that doesn’t look good came from Alderson’s remarks about the statement the Mets sent last night when this story broke. Here’s that statement, via The Athletic’s Tim Britton:
The Mets forwarded Sandy Alderson’s statement on the ESPN story on Jared Porter: pic.twitter.com/QzZJQVpg2G
– Tim Britton (@TimBritton) January 19, 2021
The timing here is quite important. Britton tweeted this statement at 11:26 p.m. EST, and appears to have been the first to do so. Passan tweeted ESPN’s story about it at 11:04 p.m. EST:
New York Mets general manager Jared Porter sent explicit photos, including a nude photo of a penis, to a foreign reporter in 2016 after ignoring dozens of other messages from her for weeks.
Details in the report with @minakimes on ESPN: https://t.co/gAOzQlTeAf
– Jeff Passan (@JeffPassan) January 19, 2021
If this statement were made to ESPN in response to general questions about Porter’s behavior prior to publishing his story, it might be more understandable (and “your story” makes it seem like this is how it started. ). If the Mets did not have all of the information in the ESPN story until that information was released, a “we do not tolerate” and “we will follow” statement at the point of sale that handles this story to its initial publication makes sense. But the execution here meant something different; it was a statement the Mets sent to all of the media that covered them, and one they sent at least 20 minutes after ESPN’s story went live. But Alderson confirmed at his press conference on Tuesday that much of it was written before they saw the details of ESPN’s story, as Davidoff notes:
Q: Alderson’s initial statement Monday night, which quoted Porter’s contrition and apology from a long time ago, seemed a bit tame. What was going on with that?
A: Alderson explained that he and the Mets made this statement based primarily on what Porter told them and prior to reading and watching the ESPN story. Once they saw “the full extent” of the play, Alderson said, he and Cohen independently decided they had to end Porter. They warned him around 7:30 a.m. Tuesday morning.
This particular moment looks incredibly bad. As mentioned, a “We’re Investigating” would have made more sense if it was a response to ESPN before they published their story. Or it might even have been possible to only agree to this if it was uploaded immediately after ESPN was released, and if it explicitly said “This is based on the information we had before ESPN released this. ; we will analyze the published report in its entirety and announce further actions tomorrow. That wouldn’t have been a good move, as there would always have been questions as to why they couldn’t respond to the material posted within a reasonable time, but it at least wouldn’t have encouraged the idea that their actual statement was giving. , that is, they “take these issues seriously” but do not commit to any concrete action. And that statement absolutely toasted them Monday night. If that was all they were willing to say publicly until Tuesday, it might have been better to leave this as a pre-release statement sent to ESPN rather than a widely sent post-release statement. ‘ESPN.
There is a little sympathy here for the time zone involved, but that doesn’t explain everything. Yes, this story was posted after 11 p.m. EST, and it’s perhaps understandable why Alderson didn’t immediately call Cohen and why they both didn’t decide on a layoff at this time. -the. (While it probably would have worked out better for them, and if there had ever been a moment of “owner’s wake-up call!” This is it.) But the Mets weren’t ambushed here; ESPN let them know ahead of time that a story was coming, which led to them talking to Porter and generating that initial bad statement well before the story was released by ESPN. And it would certainly seem smarter for Cohen and Alderson, knowing that an important story like this is ahead, to read it in detail as soon as it is published and then decide how to respond to it, even if it concerns them ( and their PR department, which arguably did most of the work of writing this statement) by staying up a little later than usual and issuing an actual response Monday night.
But even any response (beyond the pre-post sent to ESPN) Monday night would have been better than what the Mets actually did. The timing of their statement, more than 20 minutes after the story was published, made it seem like it was a statement made knowing everything there was to it. And as such, it was seen as a totally inadequate response. And if Alderson and Cohen both believed they had to end Porter after seeing what was in this story, they should have either announced it immediately after viewing the story or not fully responded. to the story before Tuesday morning. Their timid approach made it seem like they were considering less than pulling punishments right here after seeing the story and only changed their minds after seeing the ferocity of the audience’s response. And if that wasn’t really the case (that’s what Alderson said on Tuesday), they did a horrible job presenting their real reaction.
Another incredible mistake comes from Alderson’s comments about the Mets’ control of Porter. Here are those, relayed by Hannah Keyser of Yahoo Sports:
Sandy Alderson said she received all of the rave reviews for the character during an interview with Jared Porter. So I asked if they consulted women. He said no.
– Hannah Keyser (@HannahRKeyser) January 19, 2021
Sandy Alderson has worked in Major League Baseball since 1981 when he started as general counsel for Oakland Athletics. He became their General Manager in 1983 and held that position until 1997, then became the MLB National Executive Chairman for Baseball Operations from 1998 to 2005, then worked as CEO of the San Diego Padres from 2005 to 2009. , then as General Manager of Mets from 2010-18, then as advisor to A in 2019, then as President of the Mets team from last September. He has spent nearly four decades in Major League Baseball, and during that time he has certainly encountered repeated stories of harassment from players, coaches and executives. While Porter’s peculiar behavior is exceptionally terrible and disqualifying, behavior in this direction has been around for decades. Here are some articles from journalists and columnists that illustrate this:
To many, Porter’s outrageous behavior may seem unthinkable, being so removed from their day-to-day experience. For women who work in professional environments like baseball, Porter’s methodology was familiar, albeit extreme. For me, it hit home.
Column: https://t.co/OeKHZKN4he
– Deesha (eDeeshaThosar) January 19, 2021
Don’t tell me it was isolated. On Jared Porter, ubiquitous problems and a dead system. https://t.co/nfnJzUtBzJ
– Britt Ghiroli (@Britt_Ghiroli) January 19, 2021
Considering that we will inevitably soon be debating the merits of a man ‘canceled’ for his ‘indiscretion’, may I suggest thinking less of him than of the women who work for / around the Mets and who shouldn’t have to fear. to be harassed if they respond to a text from the general manager
– Hannah Keyser (@HannahRKeyser) January 19, 2021
Sports leaders who sexually harass women, whether they are members of the media or team workers, is a well-known problem. And these pieces illustrate why Alderson’s comment of getting all the “rave reviews” on Porter was incredibly flawed given that the team didn’t interview a single woman about him and his character. So they asked his male colleagues what his character looked like, and they said it was okay. And boy, that certainly shows a huge flaw in the hiring approaches of many professional sports teams.
In the end, the Mets made the right decision here. To keep Porter after this story would have been incredibly bad. But they definitely messed up their answer here, and once again made themselves needlessly stupid in the process. And Alderson’s press conference raises many questions about whether the organization will actually learn the necessary lessons from this story.
[The New York Post; Alderson screenshot from MLB.com]
[ad_2]
Source link