Daily News Hot after Bernazard

by dcrockett17 on Jul 26, 2009 10:39 AM EDT

Adam Rubin in Saturday's Daily News notes that Tony Bernazard may be a bully. Tony Bernazard may indeed be a major part of whatever the hell is wrong with the Mets. He may indeed need to go as part of a total housecleaning. For the record, I am inclined to think such housecleaning is necessary at this point for a variety of reasons. If Bernazard is fired however, it really oughta be for the role he has played in constructing the monstrosity that's out on the field this season. On the other hand though, I know a journalistic vendetta when I see one -- and this is starting to look a lot like one.

(More below the fold.)

The majority of the original reporting on the Bernazard Follies has come from a single source: The Daily News. Everyone else is really just following up without much new information. I concede that Rubin is telling a compelling tale. Tony Bernazard, unless these incidents are complete fabrications, looks like a classic bully. If he in fact is one this is an important story to unfold, as workplace bullying is an ENORMOUS (and bizarrely underreported) worldwide problem. However, I might note that in the pieces I have read at the News on this matter Bernazard's behavior is neither linked to this broader issue of workplace bullying, nor is it really put into much perspective in the context of baseball or other competitive sports. (Is Bernazard's behavior better or worse than that captured on YouTube displayed by Christian Bale or Chris Berman?) In baseball, an industry where verbal assault is an accepted aspect of the culture, it is difficult to believe that the throwing of hissy fits is limited entirely to the field of play and directed exclusively at umpires and water coolers. That doesn't excuse any of Bernazard's alleged behavior. It is simply to add some perspective that seems missing from Rubin's reporting on Bernazard -- at least what I have read.

It's the absence of such perspective that, for me, makes this story take on the ring of a journalistic vendetta. I'm not even saying that Rubin's reporting is necessarily false. I'm saying that the clear point to the stories are "here are some reasons Tony Bernazard should be fired." There is no wider significance to the reporting on this matter. The entire point seems to be an attempt by Rubin and/or The News to inject itself into the club's decision making. Journalistic vendettas, I suspect, are just part of the NY sports scene. It's the hand you're dealt as an executive for the Yanks or Mets. In this case though, the timing couldn't be worse -- not that it's ever good. First, it's a distraction. Minaya has promised the public an investigation of allegations made exclusively by a journalist -- and to be fair some of the basic facts are still contested even among journalists. But now, Minaya has promised (and promised) an investigation. So, what precisely should it cover? How far (back) should it extend? How precise should it be? And, what should be on the table in terms of outcomes? These are now all legitimate journalistic inquiries into a matter that really should be in house unless alleged victims of Bernazard's abuse file a formal complaint with the club or MLB. This investigation will not end well. It's entirely too open-ended. No one will be satisfied. Further, if the Mets fire Bernazard over this (very doubtful) that certainly would embolden journalists to insert themselves even further unofficially into the club's operations. Whether they have any real influence in this regard is besides the point. Firing Bernazard over these allegations opens the door to more meddling (not more transparency -- there's a difference). I'm convinced that cannot be a good thing.

For my part, I'm never going to say that a reporter should not report or should sit on a potentially embarassing story. (I'm talking to you ESPN.) I'm saying that with this particular story the vast majority of original information has been generated from a single source. Just as Rubin has said about Bernazard, that's enough for me to raise some questions about precisely what's going on.

This FanPost was contributed by a member of the community and was not subject to any vetting or approval process. It does not necessarily reflect the opinions, reasoning skills, or attention to grammar and usage rules held by the editors of this site.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 3 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

As Rubin humbly submitted on his blog the other day,

most of the breaking news about the mets comes from one newspaper.

He delved into the “vendetta” issue pretty thoroughly. This was Thursday, I think? You should check it out.

You’re right that Rubin hasn’t provided much context re the fact that bullying tirades in baseball are as old as baseball. Times change, though, and a lot of things that were once routine become unacceptable. Sexual harassment, for example.

by SupT on Jul 26, 2009 1:32 PM EDT reply actions

Saw the Rubin blog entry...

I read Rubin’s comments as “ReporterSpeak 101.” I wouldn’t expect any reporter to say, “I’m on a vendetta to get rid of this guy.” That Bernazard is a bad guy and a bully is kinda beside the point. Rather, the point is that there are lots of ways to write a story (or series of stories) that include anecdotes about an organizational bully. I read the Rubin stories only serving to make the point that Bernazard is a bully and a jerk. He might have written very stories that had a broader point to make using the same information from the same sources. For the most part, he really didn’t.

"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin

by dcrockett17 on Jul 26, 2009 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions

Why does it need to be a vendetta?

He got a juicy story and is making the most of it. That’s what the NY tabs do.

by SupT on Jul 26, 2009 8:31 PM EDT up reply actions

Vendetta and "juicy story" aren't mutually exclusive

All I’m saying is that Rubin has gone after the guy for the purposes of stirring up a shitstorm. His reasons for doing this are his own.

"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin

by dcrockett17 on Jul 26, 2009 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions

Vendetta or not, Bernazard must go.

I’m basing this solely upon the B-Mets incident, which no one has denied. It’s unclear whether he was asked to address the team or took it upon himself. But the fact remains that he chose to address unprofessional behavior that threatened to reflect badly upon the organization by, well, acting in an unprofessional manner that reflected badly upon the organization.

If it were my call (as if), I would “reassign” him to other duties immediately and quietly fire him in the offseason on a day when no one’s paying much attention to baseball news (e.g., the day before or after Thanksgiving).

by madisonmetsfan on Jul 26, 2009 7:20 PM EDT reply actions

Actually it was denied. By the BMets players and manager. Funny that the mainstream media decided against reporting that.

by T Pac on Jul 26, 2009 8:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Of all the reasons the whole braintrust needs to be let go...

I’d put these particular allegations somewhere in the middle of the list. It looks bad. It’s tacky. But at the end of the day it amounts to an executive who curses folks out. I prefer to fire folks because they aren’t very good at what they do. I’m not so willing to say that any reason is a good enough reason. Firing people because they ostensibly embarrass the family name, but quite possibly because a reporter set out to stir up a shit storm and succeeded, is a dangerous precedent.

"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin

by dcrockett17 on Jul 26, 2009 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions

Willie Randolph is writing a book with the Daily News

Enough said no? Nevertheless Tony B must go

by Endys Game on Jul 26, 2009 7:37 PM EDT reply actions

Yes, there is an agenda

Clearly they have been waging a campaign against Bernazard. And many of the attacks have in themselves been unfair. I have to give Rubin credit though in that in this one, at least he finally got a couple of sources willing to go on the record.

The heavy spin that has been coming with some of the facts has led me to doubt at least some of these stories. The stories trashing the farm for instance, were obviously not fair and seemed to be deliberately misleading. It turns out the agenda was that, since Bernazrd is director of player development, they felt the need to disparage the job he is doing there before reporting these other allegations. Was that really necessary?

What I don’t like here either is the group think and scapegoating when it seems the press has decided to go after one guy they don’t seem to like. I don’t buy the idea either that where there’s smoke there must be fire. I have no doubt the severity of some of these individual incidents has been exaggerated. I need facts, not innuendo, if I am going to judge.

But in the end, the basic facts are either true or not. Woodword and Bernstein also seemed to have an agenda in 1973. They kept writing articles about the same thing. They kept digging for more dirt on the same one story. Their reporting was one sided. But in the end, they got the story that was there.

Here, the basic story, that Bernazard is a hot tempered bully, seems to be correct. If this guy really is close to becoming the next GM, as some stories have suggested, and the agenda is to expose this before that happens, that’s not a bad agenda to have, really.

by acerimusdux on Jul 27, 2009 12:43 AM EDT reply actions

Evan Roberts

On a long car ride this Saturdy I tuned in to hear Roberts on the FAN just going off about Bernanzard. Something about how Ricco had said the Mets were investigating the Bernazard incident. And Roberts trashed this, ranting again and again that what’s to investigate, the guy did whatever it was he supposedly did and should be fired, disciplined, etc.

It was just odd, the assumption that a newspapaer article must be trusted by management in making a decision to fire a guy.

Not that I know much about this incident or bernazard in general. It was as though Roberts is unaware about the basic modus operandi of PR Departments, Human Resources or general corporate governance. It’s somehow shocking that a corporate face man or exec would say “we’re gonna investigate this and wait until the facts are in and then make a decision?” he should say “If Adam Rubin says it it must be so, Tony B. is gone.” ?

by wobatus on Jul 27, 2009 2:39 PM EDT reply actions