The End Days of Bill Conlin’s Online Crap Storm: Interview With Bill Baer
The last few days of Bill Conlin madness have devolved into this weird media sociology study: venerable columnist at a daily newspaper gets into an e-mail spat about his anti-sabermetrics column with a reader; reader publishes spat online, which contains some potentially offensive banter from said columnist that becomes popular blog fodder; columnist becomes portrayed as hateful anti-Semite on many sites and faces professional repercussions because of it; reader becomes spiteful, faceless little blogger bitch in many old-media circles. So, today, the blogger in question, one Bill Baer, proprietor of the Phillies-sabermetric-friendly blog Crashburn Alley, explains himself. (Conlin is not commenting on the matter at this time.)
Did you mean to get Bill Conlin in trouble with his employer, the Daily News? You mentioned in one of your exchanges that you published he’d “most likely be fired” and you would no longer read the paper or watch a Comcast program because of his behavior.
Bill Baer: No, I had no intention of getting him in trouble. The e-mail I sent to Conlin where I postulated that he’d be fired was before the Hitler comment, and it was more about his tact than anything he said. I have had a personal boycott on the Daily News for a couple months as a result of the tactless comments Marcus Hayes made (go through my blog archives for the Marcus Hayes issue), have stuck to it, and only mentioned to Conlin that I wouldn’t be buying the paper or watching the show for effect.
In addition, I never did this to bring attention to myself, or to drive readers to my blog. I have two sets of advertisements — Google ads and AdSense — on my blog, and I’ve had almost 10,000 hits on my site since I initially published my correspondence with Conlin, but I’ve made only about $2 total from the ads (no one clicks them). So, hits and revenue from the ads aren’t a priority for me and probably will never be.
You mentioned you had some regrets about how this scenario played out. What would you do differently? Hindsight the crap out of me.
BB: If I had to do this differently, I probably would have made sure that everything I said had no hidden interpretations. More than just a few readers thought I was “snarky” and I never intended to be, but now that I’ve re-read what I wrote, I can certainly see how they saw that.
Also, I initially posted the e-mails in a sort of out-of-order fashion. A reader on Baseball Think Factory kindly pointed out that the way I published the E-mails, it looked like it was “you, Conlin, you, Conlin, Conlin, Conlin” even though it was me, Conlin, me, Conlin, and so on. It probably would have painted a clearer picture.
One thing I would not have done differently is publicizing the e-mails. I didn’t publicize them for revenge on Conlin (I actually published the comments before the Hitler comment) nor for attention for myself — it was simply for a laugh. The situation basically boils down to a bad experience with an employee. If I had called Dell, for instance, and a customer service representative said to me what Conlin said, I’d also publicize that. You know, punish Dell for giving me a bad experience — that’s what all consumers should do. It’s one of the ways to keep them in check.
I’ve talked with quite a few people about both the legal and moral aspect of the situation, and I believe that legally, I’m in the clear to post those e-mails, but I can understand how some people believe that publicizing the e-mails is morally wrong. I don’t agree, but morals are subjective and therefore neither right nor wrong (you’ll disagree with that if you’re a moral absolutist — I am not).
At what point did Conlin have knowledge that the exchange was being published online?
BB: I’m not sure, to be honest. I never said to him, “Your e-mails are on my blog.” Personally, I thought he should assume that they should be publicized, but as I found out, it’s about an even split when it comes to people expecting their e-mails to be publicized. Perhaps I should have explicitly stated that I was publicizing them, but I also gave him the opportunity to clarify his statements in later e-mails.
Do you think there is a larger issue that needs to be addressed? Do you think your fight with Conlin magnifies this tired notion of old media/new media dysfunction? If it does, is that the reason why you chose to publish the e-mails?
BB: I still don’t think I ever “fought” Conlin. I disagreed with his article, kindly stated my reasons why, and asked him to change my mind. I didn’t publicize the e-mails because he’s “old media” and I’m “new media.” I simply publicized them for a laugh. You know, a “Ha ha, look at this guy” kind of thing. I’m still ambivalent on whether or not he should be reprimanded for what he said.
As for the “new/old” issue regarding the media, there seems to have been a false dilemma put in place. The new media can coexist with the old media and vice versa. While it’s true that the stuff that Conlin does — sports editorials, mostly — can be done by bloggers for free and often at a comparable quality, “old” media still has the extended knowledge of the law regarding journalism, the ethics journalists must abide by, and all the nooks and crannies that make up the articles you read in newspapers and magazines. And the “old” media still has the access that lets them get the facts straight from the source. In a sense, bloggers need the “old” media for this, since most don’t have this access.
If more than just the needle-in-the-haystack blogger starts getting the same access professional journalists get, though, I think you can kiss traditional journalism goodbye.
So do you think that’s how stodgy old sports writers should interpret bloggers? As consumers?
BB: They shouldn’t view just bloggers as consumers, they should view anyone reading and responding to their work as consumers.
The e-mail address I used was listed under Conlin’s article, so any e-mails he gets, he is representing his employer, regardless of whether or not he is using that e-mail account for personal purposes or not. Obviously, the Daily News is in the business of selling papers and attracting new readers (or, in my case, convincing me to lift my boycott). Conlin’s behavior was not in the best interest of his employer.
Journalists should view bloggers as they would anyone else — human beings. I can understand that some journalists, Conlin perhaps included, feel that bloggers are competition and are moving in on taking their jobs away. If I knew there was someone who was trying to take my job, I probably wouldn’t want to be best friends with him, either. Maybe that’s how Conlin views bloggers.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Seems to me “Conlin” is one of those people who has to be right. He can’t take someone seriously who has a different oppinion which is sad/rude. Bill Baer did not verbally attack or insult him in any way. He was just expressing his thoughts on who he thought the NL MVP should have been.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
SabremetrzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZzzz
November 27th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Bill Conlin is a known idiot. Bill Baer, you rock for outing this guy, don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. you just did when any other person in your situation would’ve done.
November 27th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Props, Baer. And nice blog, by the way.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Bill Baer is one sexy mofo
November 27th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
I’d love to spend a night alone with Billy B. He seems like such a nice guy.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:57 am
I sent Conlin an email about ten years ago about an article he wrote comparing the ‘97 Phillies to the ‘97 Yankees - a real stretch - full of anectodal “evidence” and unmeasureable bullshit. He never responded. I’m not sure he knew what email was at the time. Or the Internet, for that matter. At least Baer got a response. Lots of them.
The thing about his Hitler comment that I find sort of morbidly amusing is not that his statement suggests that he is an anti-Semite (it doesn’t) but that HE WISHES THAT SOMEONE WOULD KILL ALL THE BLOGGERS!! I mean, isn’t that bad enough?! Forget whether or not he likes the 12 million Jews in the world! (Well, don’t forget it, exactly, but that’s not what he meant anyway.) They’re small potatoes compared to the literally billions of people in the blogosphere! That alone should be enough to get the man fired.
And if not that, then the fact that he has absolutely no idea what the hell he’s talking about.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Hopefully Bill Conlin has now learned what many bloggers have also learned….when dealing with Bill “UltraMeg” Baer, don’t show up to a sword fight with a balloon. From Conlin’s emails, it’s obvious that he underestimated Baer’s IQ, sports-knowledge, and the uncanny ability to support opinion with fact.
Conlin vs Baer….Baer by TKO in 1st Round
November 28th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
I’m one of the people who disagree with Bill Baer, printing somebody’s emails is dry gulching them.
On the other hand I can tell you Bill Baer has always been a worthy and gracious adversary in any argument.
The question unasked is how did posting the emails advance his argument David Wright deserved the MVP more than Rollins?
Finally, while using hitler in an argument is deplorably stupid reprinting it for no better purpose than tittilation doesn’t seem far enough away from the blast zone to keep the lethal radiation of stupidity from killing you also…
November 28th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Well, this is certainly interesting. Mr. Baer’s blog and reputation has been sufficiently planted in the “must read”, or at least “must check it out” category, regardless of whether you agree with him or not or take the time to leave a comment. He’s usually as thorough as anyone around with regards to his viewpoints of the game of baseball. I haven’t read the email exchange between the two, but I’m pretty sure I have a handle on the situation. It’s probably little more than new school vs. old school, which in many cases results in both parties quite sure that they are right and steadfast in their opinions. Without having read the exchanges, I really can’t comment more than that.
November 28th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
I just read the email exchange between Baer & Conlin. That Conlin fella’s quite a piece of work.
November 29th, 2007 at 12:15 am
I am sympathetic to Ed Hardiman’s point regarding the reprinting of someone else’s emails without notification. Perhaps Mr Baer would have been better served by notifying Mr Conlin of his intentions in the beginning. Yet, I’m not convinced that this mistake on Mr Baer’s part comes anywhere near Mr Conlin’s gaffe of speaking so blithely about Hitler and his deplorable actions.
Mr Baer did not suggest that posting the emails had anything to do with furthering his arguments regarding Wright v. Reyes. His arguments on that front stood on their own. It seemed clear to me that the posting had more to do with the idea that Mr Conlin simply refused to consider an alternative viewpoint simply because the method used to obtain that viewpoint was not his own method. In other words, “don’t confuse me with the facts, I know what I know.” And Mr Baer’s posting of the emails amounted to, “look, boys and girls, an ostrich with his head in the sand. And as a bonus feature, watch the ostrich say something stupid.”
November 29th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
There’s one aspect missing in all this: Respect. Granted, we are only hearing one side in this debate, but trusting Baer’s account of the exchange to be accurate, I believe that Baer was respectfully trying to approach Conlin as a peer (or at least as an equal) and used such a tone in his e-mails. Conlin, on the other hand, was downright nasty in his replies.
Whether Conlin believed his comments were being published or not, is this really appropriate behavior? Should anyone who disagrees with Conlin be subjected to such ire and disrespect? It seems Conlin would be well served to treat others as he would like to be treated.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
I am no Conlin fan, I am not a regular reader of his, but from what I have seen in print and on ESPN I think I would disagree with him upwards of 80% of the time.
But Baer baited him. Plain and simple. Conlin is an idiot, stuck in the 1970’s, and wasn’t smart enough to know that blogs are published. I feel no remorse, but I do think Baer knew all along the e-mail chain would be published and intended to lead Conlin astray. Again, Conlin is a joke, but I am glad I don’t know Baer personally.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Good job Mr. Baer…another Goliath vs David story. IMO it is always amazing how the dinosaur old media fat-cats are so defensive! Obviously they know they have so much to atone for…the fools and liars prevalent in the MSM should be exposed.
Typically these roaches will scatter when the lights come on!
November 30th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Oh, please. Bill Conlin has made a career of quoting people out of context. This isn’t some guy on the street that shouldn’t realize that anything sent an e-mail is the same as anything said in front of a tape recorder. Conlin knew exactly what he was doing. He’s so arrogant and happy with himself that he simply does not care about the ramifications of his words.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Baer is a genius and i agree with Big T
December 28th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Did Bill Conlin actually get in trouble over this?