* Caesar's wife

This one is a toughie.

Omar Minaya took time out in yesterday’s press conference announcing the firing of Tony Bernazard to point an accusing finger at NY Daily News sportswriter Adam Rubin. Aaccording to Minaya, Rubin had perhaps politicked (my phrase) for a player development job some time back and was therefore somewhat predisposed to be anti-Bernazard, who had that position with the Mets.

Rubin addressed the situation at length in today’s Daily News:

"

…instead of focusing on the horrors Bernazard inflicted upon Mets farmhands and team employees, Minaya tried to redirect the story from Bernazard’s reprehensible actions – which were validated or the Mets wouldn’t have fired Bernazard – to me. In an attempt to link my reporting to occasional discussions with Mets front office people about possible careers in baseball, Minaya basically left the impression that I had written the stories with some kind of ulterior motive in mind.

"

His fellow sportswriters are circling the wagons in his defense. Filip Bondy, a colleague of Rubin’s at the Daily News wrote that Minaya took a ‘cheap shot.”

Even the competition, recognizing the import of the issue, put aside their differences to back Rubin.

The headline in George Vecsey’s column in today’s NY Times: “Mets’ latest error comes from front office.”

Vecsey writes, “In a most unprofessional swerve of emotion,… Minaya then tried to deflect blame toward a reporter, Adam Rubin of The Daily News, who has been writing articles documenting the behavior of Bernazard. Minaya said Rubin had been ‘lobbying’ for a job in development with the Mets, suggesting that his ambition had fueled the negative stories.”

The situation strikes me as similar to that of Selena Roberts, when her bio of Alex Rodriguez was pretty much panned by book critics; with few exceptions, you couldn’t find people in the sports media who had anything negative to say about her allegations, the numerous anonymous sources, etc.

Murray Chass, the former Times’ columnist, wrote a column about the Rubin/Minaya situation, which I quote at length below. Following Minaya’s press conference, the media attention turned to Rubin for his rebuttal:

"

Rubin said he had asked people from all 30 teams how one gets into the baseball business, but someone who has covered baseball for more than five years, as Rubin has, should not have to ask how. It has all been there in front of him.

Much of what Rubin said sounded like good old spin. The saddest thing he said was “There is no conflict of interest.”

But of course there’s a conflict of interest. I’m not suggesting that Rubin wrote the stories to undermine Bernazard, but whatever his intention was in speaking to Mets’ officials about working in baseball Rubin created a situation that raised questions about his motives. That’s certainly how Minaya saw it, and he was justified in thinking that way. Rubin was wrong for not understanding it (emphasis added).

I sent an e-mail to Leon Carter, the Daily News sports editor, asking if he thought Rubin was guilty of a conflict of interest. He did not reply. Instead I received the newspaper’s statement from the editor-in-chief, Martin Dunn.

“This was a well-reported, well-researched, exclusive story, and it’s a shame that the Mets deemed fit to cast aspersions on our reporter instead of dealing with the issues at hand. We stand by Adam 1,000%.”

The Mets, of course, did deal with the issues at hand. They fired Bernazard. But the Daily News editor-in-chief did not deal with the conflict of interest so I sent another e-mail on the conflict question but got no further reply.

In the meantime, Minaya and Jeff Wilpon came to the press box for news conference Part II. Minaya apologized not for what he said but for when he said it. ”That was not a proper forum for me to raise those issues,” he said.

I disagree. That was the absolutely right forum. When else? When no one was paying attention any longer?

A few years ago I defended and supported Rubin when a few of his colleagues on the Mets’ beat attacked him for what they considered a soft interview with Art Howe, the team’s manager whom the other writers didn’t like. They were wrong because it was a legitimate interview. In this instance, all of the other writers and columnists are virtually certain to side with Rubin against the Mets because the way most reporters think the writer is always right and the team wrong. In my view, though, Rubin was wrong because yes, Adam, it was a conflict of interest.

"

Chass has a reputation as something of an old-school curmudgeon, the kind of guy who believes everything was better back in his day. I don’t know what kind of history — if any — he has with Rubin. But in this case, being “in the industry” myself, I agree with Chass. Even the perception of using his position to perhaps ingratiate himself with a future employer has to be looked at with a raised eyebrow. Times reporters/writers are not allowed to vote in Hall of Fame or post-season awards election so as to eliminate any question of favoritism or questionable behavior. Like Caesar’s wife, they have to be above reproach.

On the other hand, at what point is a writer allowed to be his own person, rather than represent a profession? As Rubin and Chass both suggested, the newspaper industry is in flux and you can’t predict — perhaps even more so than the general public — how long you’ll be in your current position. So just when would it be all right to start sending out feelers?

I’m just sayin’…