Tom Verducci PEDs column: Should SI be disclosing?

Schefter is not working for both simultaneously.

 

Total conflict of interest. It should absolutely be disclosed.

 

Emptiness is loneliness, and loneliness is cleanliness
And cleanliness is godliness, and god is empty just like me

 

Sure, it's a clear conflict of interest ....

But with SI's declining readership and MLB's hemorrhaging demographics, this kind of thing is becoming "if a tree falls in the forest, does anybody give a shit?"

 

As an SI reader Verducci's lack of credibility is a bigger issue to me than his work at MLB.

 

Exactly.

The "John Canzano is working for a radio station owned by the Blazers' owner!!" discussion of 2007 seems so quaint now.

 

I'm guessing the Obama campaign was happy that media folks stayed in their media roles, where they provided more help to the candidate than anything they could have done stuffing envelopes or knocking on doors for them. Assumed Time liked it that way too, given its audience.

As for Verducci and SI, there shouldn't be a disclaimer. It should be an either/or decision for Verducci to make. Obviously MLB Network is fine with it, because it gets Verducci's street cred while covertly flexing its approval over who works for it. And it gets a major national writer eating out of its hand. [I like Verducci and his work, but the ethical compromise is undeniable and damning.]

From what I've heard, SI in the past has excused itself from various "synergistic" relationships with other enterprises to maintain its appearance of integrity. For example, it distanced itself from at least one of the league's Web sites merely in sharing links to show that it is independent. Yet it allows this.

What, there's no one else who can cover MLB for the magazine? In the whole wide world of sports scribbling?

 

Funny, the thing that most caught my eye was the graphic where they had Melky Cabrera's name on a sticky-note with a photo of Eduardo Nunez next to it (I think it was him, def. wasn't the Melk Man).

As for the whole Verducci-MLB Network-SI issue, of all the league-affiliated networks, MLB seems to be, by far, the most transparent and, perhaps, independent. They have a PED crawl, for goodness sake. Compare that to the NFL Network - they didn't even address the Ray Lewis deer antler spray story (which, coincidentally was also an SI story) - until he was asked about it. They just completely turned a blind eye to it. MLB Network doesn't seem to be doing that (I don't work at MLB Network).

 

Of course MLB Network has a PED crawl. The league's entire M.O. is to portray itself as the valiant defender of a level playing field, while the players - i.e. members of the MLBPA - try to sabotage those efforts.

And now it has a Manchurian candidate carrying its water at Sports Illustated.

 

Maybe the employers should.

 

I agree. And when they do, then their employees should follow their rules.

But if my employer doesn't care about conflict of interest, why should I? If MLB wants to write Verducci a big, fat check (or even a bunch of little checks) for his work, and SI knows about this and continues to employ him, he shouldn't lose a wink of sleep over it. I sure wouldn't.

For the record, I do think there should be a brief note at the bottom of any Verducci story on baseball that appears in SI (or other publications) that discloses his relationship with Major League Baseball. It IS a conflict of interest.

But that's SI's problem, not Verducci's. And certainly not MLB's.

 

Baseball is back and better than ever!

By Tom Verducci.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mlb/news/20130212/spring-training-preview-tom-verducci/index.html

Even his SI bio doesn't mention his MLB Network side gig:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/writers/tom_verducci/archive/