Comments on: Pinstripe Bible and River Ave. Blues issue statements about the censorship allegations

By: Craig Calcaterra

Craig Calcaterra — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 20:20:17 +0000

Two things I recall: once I linked to a NSFW site and someone told me not to do that. Another time I made a drug reference and someone told me that it wasn’t in very good taste. On each occasion they were right and — more importantly — I had agreed to avoid that kind of thing beforehand, so it wasn’t unexpected.

No one has ever taken issue with my opinions or assessments on any baseball topics. No one has ever asked me to ratchet things back or take down a post or anything like that. With the exception of that language stuff, nothing.

By: fuggles7

fuggles7 — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 19:36:01 +0000

Just wondering if NBCsports has ever put pressure on you for any of your blogs Craig, and if so, what did you do?

By: Professor Longnose

Professor Longnose — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 12:53:13 +0000

I’m glad he responded, but not only didn’t he address fully the issue at hand, the post on PB with his statement allows no comments.

By: lordd99

lordd99 — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 08:14:23 +0000

Interesting, but I don’t believe a word of it. I’ve been reading Steve Goldman for years, and he’s an excellent analyst. He doesn’t hold back. Sometimes I think he goes a little too far in trying to find the negative, but I’ve never seen him pull down a story and do a substantial revision, as happened with his initial Soriano posting. It was pulled down and came back hours later (I think he posted his initial story faster than he did the revisions), and the copy changes didn’t flow all that easily.

Pinstriped Bible post stories throughout the day. As you noted, if he had additional thoughts, including some on the positives of the Soriano signing, all Steve had to do was post an additional story. That would have made perfect sense.

Even the Pinstriped Bible statement seems a bit forced, and doesn’t quite answer the question of why the changes were made. Colleagues? Really? Perhaps the Yankees front office conveyed their displeasure to these people, who then told Steve. That allows him to deny he was forced to make changes, but it’s really the same thing.

Craig, I sense you don’t buy the answer, but out of respect for Steve you’ll take him at his word. I have great respect for Steve Goldman’s work, too, yet I’m not buying this. In some ways, it makes it worse!

By: Mr. Jason "El Bravo" Heyward

Mr. Jason "El Bravo" Heyward — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 20:59:25 +0000

Acne? I thought that was Charlie Sheen on their backs w/ a suitcase.

By: Old Gator

Old Gator — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 20:47:15 +0000

I don’t believe either one of them. They have acne on their backs.

By: Jonny 5

Jonny 5 — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 20:00:15 +0000

Yes, changing a post afterwards instead of stating in an update afterwards a change of heart, or anything else for that matter is a really quick way to disillusion your readers, and lose their trust. if you made a mistake, don’t get rid of it. Just tell everyone you messed up. It’s simple. It just makes people think right away that you’re trying to destroy evidence. I’d say if Moshe says the “censorship” never took place, I have to take his word for it.

By: Chris Fiorentino

Chris Fiorentino — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 19:46:20 +0000

I agree with you 100% on this Craig. The general feel of a blog post should NEVER be revised. EVER. Stupid typos and stuff like that should even remain, with a strike-through of the initial mistake and the right word next to it. Once you click post or send or whatever it is you click, you should not be able to take what you say back. And if you made a factual mistake, that is as telling as anything else you may have said because it shows that your opinion was based on faulty information.