Using Your Column to Promote a Colleague's Book

okay, bud, we're discussing it. yes, that's part of why we're here.

no conflict. no need for disclosure. vac raved about the book. if you read vac, trust vac, are interested in thurman munson, maybe it compels you to buy it.

that's it. no one is putting a freakin' gun to your head to buy it. lighten the eff up, please. gawd.

 

Ok. Ok.

Not trying to harp on it. I'll lighten up.

 

I can't believe a lot of stuff that goes on around here. Guess that's why I don't stop by very often anymore ...

 

First, full disclosure: I'm Vaccaro.

And to tell the truth, I think it's an interesting, and worthwhile, debate. I will be very honest here: I was going to plug Marty's book in my Sunday column (after having done the same in my daily blog months ago, after reading the galley) for two reasons: first, and most important, because I think it is a terrific book. And secondly because he is a friend. Honestly, the fact that we share a publisher (and I'll go one further: we even share the same editor) wasn't a factor at all. And I can assure you, there's nothing for me to gain by pumping his book (or anyone else's, for that matter; if anything, I would rather people save their nickels and dimes to buy "First Fall Classic," out Oct. 6 ((shameless plug alert)) or one of my other books. In fact, it was only on Friday morning, with Old-Timer's Day looming, that I decided to make it the subject of the column as opposed to one of the four dot-dot-dot items that end my Sunday column).

One of the things I actually enjoy about my Sunday column is that's where I get to go off the board a little bit and write about movies if I want, or TV, or music. Mostly, I focus on books. Sometimes it's meant plugging close friends of mine (Adriian Wojnarowski, Mark Kriegel, Joe Posnanski, Dan Wetzel, Michael Rosenberg, et al). Sometimes it's about authors I've never met (Eig being a nice example here, and I did full-length column about both his Gehrig and Robinson books).

To be honest, to me, it would almost be more relevant in a full-disclosure sense to announce friendships at the top of a column like this, such as, "Before I write about 'The Machine,' I should tell you that I was in Joe Posnanski's wedding party." But I wouldn't do that, either, mostly because I am not a book reviewer; if I write about a book, I can virtually assure you that I will be writing something nice about that book.

All of that said: it is a fair question. And in truth, if I had it to do over again, I probably would have inserted something parenthetical in the tag-line that mentioned that "First Fall Classic" will also be published by Doubleday. To me, even if YankeeFan was the only person who's eyebrows were raised by all of this (and I have to assume he wasn't), then it means some kind of disclaimer, even a small one, could have been useful.

Either way, a worthwhile debate, I think.

-- Mike Vaccaro

 

Stay out of this, we have it under control. 8)

Great post.

 

Mike, thanks for the post and for taking my original post in the vein it was meant.

I'm genuinely intrigued by these kind of issues. I also know that you post here on occasion.

What a neat place SportsJournalists.com is that you can ask a question and get it answered by the writer in question.

As someone who's dad used to take me & my brother's to Old Timer's Day at the Stadium each year, I enjoyed the column & could relate to it. That day in '74 at Shea is part of what baseball is all about.

Thanks again.

Kevin

 

I meant the columnist needs to consider the needs of his employer and readers before those of his friends. Because it's not really "his column" and the position shouldn't be used to reward those who've been nice to him or to punish those who haven't. The books should be written about on their merit, otherwise it's a disservice to the readers and destroys the columnist's credibility and thus his usefulness to his employer. Now, I think he met that standard and said so. But that is not always the case when writers mention someone else's book, and that would be misuse of a space that the writer doesn't own, but merely is paid to inhabit.

 

No, actually, I wasn't kidding. Sheesh that, why don't you? And then maybe you could consider that what may be "crystal clear" to you isn't always quite so obvious to everyone else.

 

It's the writer's column. I see no problem with it, especially since he doesn't stand to profit from it. Vaccaro's reasons are perfectly fine and what I expected. No harm done here.

 

I've known Mike a long time. He is as honest, decent and professional as anyone in this business. he has been around long enough to know that writing a column is a privilege. To question his motives or integrity is inane.