Does Rubin have a problem?

If the parties at the newspaper -- the reporter, the editors, the reporters' colleagues -- expect to be taken seriously as journalists, then the answer is yes. There is something wrong with that.

The more schmoozing that goes on, edging into "friendship", the less credible a reporter becomes. Whether it's around a ballpark, a rink or Washington cocktail parties. You want to trade objectivity and detachment for access and inside info, that's a challenging call to make. But when you start to stir your career ambitions, hopes and dreams into the mix, then you clearly are over the line, however blurry it is to start.

This is the reason that, for decades, journalists who "crossed over" to PR-type jobs seldom were given an opportunity to cross back. It's the biggest reason, for me, that former players and former coaches who go back and forth from teams to network analysts have puny credibility -- they're almost always filtering things they say so as not to offend that next employer. Even the thought by a viewer/listener that they might be filtering undercuts their effectiveness.

 

What if a writer has talked to one of the people he covers about doing a book? That's a conflict if interest, but it happens all the time.

 

That was a pretty good job by Chass. He actually reported it, talking to Rubin and others, instead of just pontificating as so many others do. The quote from Rubin "they may dig up an e-mail," suggests that this was more than just a couple of casual conversations he had, which is how he originally tried to portray it. I can't say I disagree with anything Chass wrote.

 

K-Rod got the same kind of attention Joba got, of course it helps if you are making a significant impact down the stretch and help the team make the postseason.

 

Bingo.

 

The apologies thus far have focused on "the forum" in which Minaya leveled his charges against Rubin.

The question is: was Minaya telling the truth when he said that Rubin had lobbied him personally for a job (as well as others), or was he lying?

If it's true, Minaya owes no apology and Rubin has a very serious problem.
If it's false, Minaya should be sued for slander.

(I haven't noticed The Daily News demanding a retraction.)

 

I don't think that's true at all. He talked to Rubin and he contacted Rubin's bosses, who gave him either no answers or evasive ones. He didn't just accept Minaya's version with no questions asked.

 

But the conclusion he draws shows he believes Omar's version -- which differs from Adam's version.

 

As this thread wears on, I wonder how much different this is than the scribes who have been praised for landing jobs writing for college Web sites.

And there was another one out here recently. The publisher of the LANG coastal papers -- Daily Breeze -- just quit and took a job doing PR for the L.A. Harbor, which was in his circulation area. The guy at LAObserved wondered about the conflict of interest this publisher faced applying for that job while in charge of the news entity that covers the Harbor.
I'm siding with Rubin on this one.

 

Right, but he drew that conclusion after talking to people on both sides of the story, or at least trying to. That's not just taking Omar's word as gospel or being one-sided. Judging from the facts we know, Murray's view is completely reasonable.

 

If he believes Omar and not Adam.

 

You can believe Adam's version and still think that he created a conflict of interest, that going to the owner of the team you cover and asking him about career opportunities in his field is inappropriate. It's not necessarily an issue of one person lying and the other telling the truth.