Steinbrenners Censoring Blogs? Can They Even Do That?

Have the Steinbrenner Yankees actually reached a point where they're censoring bloggers? In today's Daily News, Bob Raissman thinks so:

"The offseason speculation, triggered by the signing of reliever Rafael Soriano, has been about a rift between the Yankee hierarchy (including Hankenstein, Hal Steinbrenner, and Randy Levine) and Cashman. It was telling when YES didn't air Soriano's introductory press conference. Yankee brass knew Cashman would be asked questions about being overruled by management.

"It appears Yankee suits did not want Cashman's answers - void of company spin - to air on YES even though they would be spread widely across various media platforms.

"Further highlighting management sensitivity to 'in-house' critiques of the Soriano deal was a report in TYU, a Yankee-centric blog, claiming that critical columns in two YES-affiliated blogs (Pinstriped Bible and River Avenue Blues) were censored by YES operatives, perhaps under orders from a voice on high."

I love that "perhaps" that Raissman slips in. If they were censored, of course they were censored by voices on high.

The question is whether there was any censorship at all, and it would have been nice if everyone had contacted Pinstriped Bible and River Avenue Blues before spreading rumors, rumors which smear not only the people running the sites but the Steinbrenners, Levine and YES as well.

For the record, it was Moshe Mandel of the site TYU who got this ball rolling in the first place by suggesting that columns critical of the Soriano deal had been censored. Here's how River Avenue Blues responded to the matter: "The YES Network has no editorial control over the content produced by River Avenue Blues and at no point during our relationship has YES ever asked us to edit or remove any posts we published on RAB." Okay, good enough for me.

Here's what Steve Goldman of Pinstriped Bible says, "The Pinstriped Bible has been affiliated with YES almost since the network's beginning. In all that time, I have never been asked to alter the tone or substance of my commentary. The say that happens is the day we part company ..."

I know Steve Goldman, and I have reason whatsoever to question his integrity. That strikes me as the final word on the deal, and Raissman and everyone who are stirring up doubts should shut up unless they have evidence to the contrary.

That said, Goldman is partially to blame for this flare-up by altering his original post on the Soriano deal. You can read here the updated post.

According to those who read Goldman's original comments, they were more critical of the Soriano deal and the Yankee front office than the updated post. If Goldman wanted to alter or amend his original opinions, he should have done so and explained to his readers why he changed his mind. In fact, it's not too late now to dispel any misconceptions by restoring the original post along with the revised one.

Meanwhile, this is a lot of hot air about nothing at all - except, that is, for writers/bloggers making the waves of commentary that are critical of the Soriano deal. I'll get to that Monday.


Sponsor Content

Newsletters

All-access pass to top stories, events and offers around town.

Sign Up >

No Thanks!

Remind Me Later >