MLB's policy on blogging, part three
Just a quick follow-up on the rash of controversy brought forth by the BCB diary entry mentioned here the other day:
I spoke with a representitive of the MLB Media Relations Department today. Without naming him - since I didn't specifically tell him I was writing an article about what we were discussing - this person told me that the MLB policy toward credentialing hasn't changed, and so far as he knew there had been no specific edict to shut bloggers out. Which isn't to say that they like bloggers. The policy toward credentialing - and granting an interview with a player would probably fall under that category - is this:
People seeking interviews or credentials must represent a national news-gathering agency which employs full-time journalists, produces original content, and reaches a broad audience.
The thing is, when pressed about what a "national news-gathering agency" is, and what a "broad audience" consists of, nobody I've ever talked to (and I've spoken with a a fair number of people affiliated with MLB) has been able to give me a straight answer. Not that it matters, because blogging still doesn't really fit into that category.
So, while I'm still waiting to hear back from somebody from MLBAM, a separate entity from MLB, I'm going to suggest that the gentleman from the Angels organization who told Rev Halofan that teams are directly forbidden contact with bloggers was simply brushing Rev off.
Craig
Well, the gap between official and unofficial is Grand Canyonesque.
So, I wouldn't discount the possibility of this being unofficial MLB policy, while they tell everybody with a straight face that nothing has changed.
It wouldn't be the first time.
kurt
It's no secret that MLB tells baseball teams to leave us be... but baseball teams are granted leeway and can give access if they want. The only difference from what we know and what we heard the other day is that MLB hasn't flatly commanded baseball teams to ignore/avoid us, while the rumor states that they did.
TBone
I would say the only sticking point is if you guys can be considered 'full-time'. You can legitimately argue that you match all of the other criteria.
Pierce
I think I've posted this before, but I was able to get an Interview with Todd Hollandsworth over at CubsHub.com thanks to the media relations guy for the Indians. I've also had some success with the Pirates and Rangers, though the interview fell through because the player was either sent to the minors or wasnt interested in discussing his playing days in Chicago.
Some teams with larger fan bases (Cubs, Yankees, Red Sox, etc) probably get swamped with requests and as such just decide to block all access to smaller sources that cant put up a fight. No one wants to have to deal with some kid writing for his school paper, or a blog, and so they just have a basic "no" answer. Other teams, like the Pirates, Indians, Rangers (in my experience) were fine with it. Notice they're smaller fan bases? Me too.
I bet the DRays would LOVE for someone to ask them for an interview.
Craig
Well, I can't help but wonder if some of it is simply the fact that the Cubs are owned by a media conglomerate.
This, of course, can put a wonderful conflict of interest spin on the whole thing: Tribune is out to sell newspapers (which everybody is struggling to do), and blogs are competition.
cherigrace
Craig has a good point. I used to look at the Tribune (on line, since I don't live in Chicago) for Cubs news; now I just read goatriders. Maybe there is some diabiolical genius in this after all.
Of course, it won't work, because you can't stop the future. "Reading the Sunday paper" will just be something we'll be telling our grandkids about someday.