[ad_1]
The media controversy surrounding the Chicago Cubs and Addison Russell has taken another turn. Russell returned from a suspension of domestic violence imposed by the MLB this week and was demoted to triple-A status (which led to an unfortunate, albeit brief, situation). Chicago Sun-Times proposed sports front). Before his return, FanGraphs contributor Sheryl Ring and Baseball Flyer editor Mike Gianella tweeted that they had spoken to members of the media who had been pressured by the Cubs on how to cover Russell, with Ring tweeting. The Cubs have privately ordered me to fire Russell and have threatened retaliation if they do not do so. Gianella added, "I heard the same thing". Bill Baer, of Hardball Talk, wrote: "After publishing this book on Sunday night, I received another confirmation from the Ring report from another member of the media who wishes to keep his name confidential. "
This prompted many critics of the Cubs, but also some of their critical writers who criticized the report and said they would never have been under organizational pressure. And the team's president, Theo Epstein says Tuesday night Trying to threaten a member of the media because of unfavorable coverage would be a punishable offense. "If the Cubs had left it there, everything would probably have gone well, Epstein specifically said," J & # I have seen this story, I do not question it other than to say that the threat of retaliation to a member of the media on any subject, but especially of this nature, is not acceptable. I would really be surprised if this happened to the Cubs, and if that happened, I would like to know who it was because they would not work for the Cubs any longer. "
It's a good position; it indicates that Epstein disapproves of this kind of pressure, but it is not him who tries to pretend that members of the media invent the situation, and that could have disappeared there. But Vice President of Cubs (Communications and Community Affairs), Julian Green (seen above in a screenshot of a 2016 video from MLB.com), decided to launch the Gasoline on the smoldering fire on Thursday, not only denying that he personally did, but criticizing the Hardball Talk report, suggesting that all this came from an author's uncorroborated tweet ( this was not the case, as shown by the three examples above), and revealing that he had been pressuring FanGraphs for that he was trying to remove the tweet from Ring know, that's is totally the way you prove that you are not trying to influence the media coverage).
Here's what Green told The 670's Score. Mully and Haugh:
In an effort to find out more, Green contacted a Fangraph publisher, who replied that they could not do anything because "it was a personal Twitter account," said Green. Green was upset by the fact that the allegation was later reported and widely accepted, pointing out that it came from a person who did not regularly cover the Cubs and that she had no evidence or details accompanying.
"A person who has had no known association with the Cubs and has no connection with it and who is not acting on behalf of a credible media they work for or affiliate with – which also requires high reporting standards – can send a tweet without material. Essential facts and do not question it because they sent it from their personal Twitter account – this is egregious, and I think the absolute power is not controlled Green said.
… Green was frustrated by the idea that he could have threatened a member of the media.
"The next tweet that says Julian Green threatened me in the clubhouse …. It is sent out on a Sunday night and can be picked up by a credible media that I have a lot of respect for – NBCSports.com, which first ran the story – then, basically, I become new and that becomes the truth, "said Green. "And I'm very offended by that, because again, that's not controlled. And I can be accused of something when it has not been corroborated and no evidence has been provided. And that's a problem.
First of all, Julian, nobody has specifically accused you of anything, or said it happened in the clubhouse. Teams have all kinds of ways to put pressure on the media, and not all of them come from the communications staff. But it's the disproportionate answer that really hurts Green's case. First, he understands the story very badly; the lack of association or record with the Cubs is not an indictment of Ring, Gianella or Baer because it is clearly about what they tell what other members of the media told them (and these media people were probably smart about keeping their names because of Green's response to that).
Green also claims that it comes from a person when it comes from at least three people. And to say that it is an "uncontrolled absolute power" is ridiculous: yes, people can say things about your organization on the Internet, but it's not absolute power. And it's not unchecked; Relaying a report of this type from an anonymous source transfers the credibility of the report to its author. And these writers all have credibility, which would certainly suffer if they invented things. Even by relaying this report, they run a risk and all the people who did it were later criticized by the supporters of Cubs.
But what is more credible, that a person from the organization of the Cubs has privately commissioned a writer to dismiss Russell, that one or more writers have invented this story and passed it on to three members of the different national media, or that three different national media members created the whole thing up? Some pressure on the part of someone with the Cubs seems to be the most believable of this turning point, and the way Green has responded to this report certainly does not give the impression that their organization is easily able to get rid of a negative hedge.
Oh, and all the reporters who answered "Pressure? Ridiculous! "Simply because they have not seen it, does not necessarily prove Green's argument either. It should be noted that pressure may be exerted on people who are not regularly present, not only on the distribution of time. And maybe some of these reporters are already telling stories good enough not to get a lot of criticism. Anyway, there was an interesting counterpoint Wednesday of Chicago Tribune sports columnist Paul Sullivan:
In waiting for the imminent firing squad. Cubs' Brass (and not Theo or Jed) has been trying to influence coverage for years, constantly complaining to editors of articles and tweets that they did not like not, that it's about Tribune, Sun-Times or Daily Herald. #Has real https://t.co/AcLCTh5pPn
– Paul Sullivan (@PWSullivan) May 1, 2019
And really, a better answer here is much more what we saw from Epstein than from what we saw from Green. Epstein saw the story and did not specifically address those who relayed it, explaining instead that he does not tolerate such behavior and will not tolerate it. And when the team chair acknowledges this, it may suggest to anyone who has exerted the pressure in question here that he or she needs to change his or her approach, and it could also be an opportunity for anyone facing new threats to pass it on. at Epstein. and see what he does. And really, that's all we need. But Green's decision to try to shoot one of the three messengers afterwards (while ignoring the other two) brings the controversy back to life and shows that there could indeed be significant resistance to critics of the team. (And this is just the last example of the Cubs stumbling.)
Overall, this seems to be a master class on how not to handle Green's public relations. He is mistaken in history and his sources, he takes it as a personal insult when the story did not mention his name at all, he reignited a controversy that was largely extinguished and, Even worse, it illustrates His response to a critical message is to call the author's employer, to force him to force him to remove it, and then to complain publicly to the local media s & # 39; They do not do it. Yes, it really shows that you are not putting pressure on members of the media.
[670 The Score; photo from MLB.com]
[ad_2]
Source link