Secrets of the Fourth Estate

Richard Sandomir gets all media meta in a column today about Randy Levine (Well, Nick, Sandomir is a media critic. That's his job, idiot. Oh... you're right, Nick.). The unpopular Levine thinks some of the criticism levelled at him-- specifically by Mike and the Angry Puppy, Tom Verducci and John Kruk--is tainted by their relationships with principal players in the story.

For one thing, Francesa and Russo have reason to dislike Levine because, as a YES board member, he has called into question whether their show is worth being picked up by the network. Verducci and Torre wrote a book together ten years ago. And Jon Kruk is Jon Kruk shares the same agent as Torre. All of these pundits were especially scathing in their criticism of Yankees management after the failed negotiations. Levine thinks that their conflicts of interest colored their analysis and that they should have discosed this information to the public. Sandomir wonders about the ethical issues in each case. Then he discloses that Randy Levine once did a big favor for him a few years ago. And we are left wondering if the article was even worth reading.

Okay, Levine has explained away four of his critics. How about the countless others in the media?

Comments

[DAW]

" And we are left wondering if the article was even worth reading."

I wasn't left wondering - no, it wasn't worth reading.

[Paul SF]

The same agent?? Are you serious?

Levine is just blowing smoke up the writer's ass, and the writer fell for it. There's no way Levine is dumb enough to think that people care about each other just because they happen to have the same guy working for them.

[SF]

Phil Mushnick eviscerated Mike and the Mad Dog this weekend in the Post, but for different reasons. I think their conflict is the most tenable: they have financial interests at heart. On the other hand, how does attacking a YES Board member help their chances at getting renewed?

Dumb article.

[Nick-YF]

In fairness to Sandomir, he doesn't take sides. He asks the opinion of an professor of ethics who finds the Kruk example Levine's weakest argument. However, he does think there is something to the other two cases.

[attackgerbil]

> And we are left wondering if the article was even worth reading.

Nick: Levine once worked for the mayor of New York. You lived in New York and that same man was your elected mayoral official. I think you should have disclosed that fact.

[FenSheaParkway]

Full Disclosure: Randy Levine was not kind and did not rewind a copy of "The Muppets Take Manhattan" before returning it to the video store that I was working at. I relinquish all rights to criticize his public business decisions.

[Nick-YF]

I should have disclosed the fact that I'm a Yanks fan. Actually, I think we should always preface what we write with "Full disclosure: I'm a Yanks fan..."

[Paul SF]

When i read through them, I thought Verducci's was the most tenable conflict. He should have revealed that he has made a lot of money thanks to Joe Torre, I think.

Mike and the Mad Dog's potential conflict would be a lot more legitimate if they were PRAISING Levine and the Yankees. Criticizing someone who pays you -- and to his credit which Sandomir does mention this -- really just proves up the leigitimacy of your feelings. It certainly doesn't do anything to discredit them.

[dc]

ah yes, sox fans changing their argument when it's convenient...it seems to me that we had this discussion a couple of times about an journalist's obligation to disclose a potential conflict of interest...murray chass is just one example...

[SF]

dc, this was posted by Nick, a YF.

[dc]

and you and paul agreed to discredit the essence of the levine's objections, or did i misread your comments?...