[Rich]

Originally Posted by lawump

Mr. Childress,

(1) I am not a paid subscriber to this site.
(2) Thus, I have no idea if your paid site is one-sided for AMLU or not.
(3) Thus, I have not read the interviews with Mr. Kennedy, whom I have met, work with and have respect for.
(4) Thus, I have no knowledge of what Mr. Kennedy said in those interviews.
(5) I am a former MiLB umpire, and very pro-AMLU.
(6) My "ma" always taught me that there are two sides to every story:

With these points in mind...today, I join Rich, WWTB and others who have called for you to conduct an interview with a Minor League Baseball official...if you have not tried to do so already. I would like to hear their side of the story. I'd probably even pay to join the site just to read what they say.

IMO, I doubt very seriously they will agree to an interview. This doubt is based on past statements they've publicly made (mostly "no comment"), but I think you should try and secure one. Give them an opportunity to be heard on your public forum. Give a chance for both sides of this story to be presented by the actors involved in the story. If you try, and they refuse then you should say so...and then no one could accuse you of being "one-sided".

As an example, the public television network in my state invited the two Republican candidates for governor to come on their network tonight for a debate/interview. The governor refused, the challenger accepted. How did I find out about this? The network listed on their program guide that tonight at 8 will be an "interview with" the challenger. The guide then stated that despite given the opportunity, the governor refused to participate in the show.

Both sides of that story were given an opportunity to speak by the network...one choose not to. So be it. IMO, the network did its job well as the manager of its public forum.

I invite you to do what this network did...you should manage your public forum as this network has. Obviously, you have no duty (legal or otherwise) to do so. I'm just stating that should you obtain such an interview, you may obtain a new subscriber.

To be fair to Carl, he did publish Peter Osborne's series detailing his work as a replacement umpire. However, one would argue that Peter wasn't really on the other side of the dispute -- he was just working the games.

Yet, every chance Carl got he made a point to mention that he (and hence Officiating.com) was squarely on the side of the AMLU. I'd just like to see less editorializing and a little more balance, but I know that isn't going to happen.