For two days now, the Herald front page has screamed about the Stomper, the allegedly violent homeless guy who enjoys stomping on other homeless people, who recently got out of jail and who might be a suspect in the death of a homeless man in Downtown Crossing on Saturday (Homeless: Living in fear and Homeless alert issued amid 'Stomper' fears).
The Globe? It ran a one-paragraph brief today about Saturday's death.
Who's got the right amount of coverage on this?
Meanwhile, yesterday, former Phoenix media critic Dan Kennedy had a nice little expose about the lack of full disclosure about the source of an op-ed piece in the Globe (he notes today that the online version of the column now has a clarification on the issue). Compare that with the revelation today from Mark Jurkowitz, Dan's replacement as local media watcher, that the network morning news shows are shallow and stupid (oh, really?).
The Globe today has an op-ed piece by some guy complaining about a teacher-union boycott of Wal-Mart. He's described as "director of the Labor Policy Center for the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a nonpartisan, public policy research organization based in Olympia, Wash."
Dan spends five minutes with Google and discovers that the foundation is, in fact, heavily funded by conservative groups, the sort that just don't like unions - and got $300,000 between 1998 and 2000 from a foundation set up by the late founder of Wal-Mart. Nothing wrong with letting them speak, but the Globe does a disservice by not letting readers know where the author is coming from, he writes:
... Needless to say, full disclosure should have been provided. But I suspect that the Globe editors would rather have killed the piece than admit it was funded with money from the likes of Wal-Mart and Scaife.
... Hey, Boston Globe? There's a reason that these View From the Cube authors are office workers (mostly unemployed ones, from the looks from your archives) and not professional writers. This idea that every office should be like a '90's era dot-com is so tired. ...
... What is going on here? Do Dan Shaughnessy or Bob Ryan take breaks to write about eminent domain, gang violence, terrorism or gay marriage on the sports page?
Shockingly, McGrory plants his lips squarely on Tito's ass cheeks. ...
Not Actually John Bagley reads McGrory's paean to his former summer cottage and wonders:
... It's a good thing he picked a day when there was no crime or tragedy or corruption or public safety issues plaguing the city. Nope, no serious social issues here: Brian has taken it upon himself to bore Globe readers to tears today. Howie Carr at worst at least never uses his column as therapy. Which poses an interesting question: Which is worse: Being actively harmful to society like Carr, or being passively useless like McGrory? ...
The other day, Globe Sports Editor Joe Sullivan penned an "editor's note" in which he invited readers to send their opinions and questions - to a post-office box. David says: How quaint:
... Papers around the country are beginning to experiment with all sorts of interactive platforms to allow users "into the newsroom" so to speak. At NECN (a Globe partner, by the by) they're requesting user-created content. Ditto at NESN (another partner). Bloggers are evolving at various levels and the web is driving all sorts of change and excitement. It's truly a time to push the envelope at every turn. And poor, antiquated Joe Sullivan driven by even more antiquated superiors, are asking for readers to write in with "questions" and "opinions" and send their thoughts to a Post Office Box, with ZERO mention of an email address for same. No email for Sully â€“ un-unh. . .just a passing fad, why jump in with both feet? We'll get letters written by old timers with quill pens instead! ...
Following its "scoop" on Keith Foulke's Alabama orthopedic barbecue trip, Boston Dirt Dogs is once again under attack for allegedly just making stuff up:
Boston Blood Sox: I knew this whole story was a bunch of BS from the moment I heard about it:
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Boston Dirt Dogs is not a news source and shouldn't act like it is.
Bruce at Boston Sports Media Watch (who's long argued Boston Dirt Dogs is a blight, anyway): To call Dirt Dogs a fan site is to slap the true fans in the face:
... Hearing Silva defend his sources during a defensive call-in to the Dale and Holley was uncomfortable, to say the least. There was an email, and a posting on Sons of Sam Horn, and a call to a store owner in Cooperstown. He also said that the story was "out there" so he put on the site. That's hard hitting investigative journalism, folks. High standards as well. So next time you read any story on Boston.com, remember that it could be following that same patternâ€¦because the editorial standards are the same. ...
David doesn't understand why the Globe devoted front-page (or any) space to a story whose main point seems to be that more people showed up at a Mitt Romney fundraiser than organizers expected - and that there is no proof that the candidate has any knowledge of what's going on with the caterers getting paid to feed those extra mouths:
... Look, I want to get rid of Mitt Romney as much as the next lefty blogger. But the star treatment given to this silly story is just a cheap shot by the Globe, and it makes the Globe, not Mitt Romney, look bad. They should know better.
So yesterday Boston Sports Media Watch quoted an e-mail from boston.com Editor Teresa Hanafin on how we shouldn't take Boston Dirt Dogs "scoops" seriously because it's a blog, for God's sake. Today, Bruce over at BSMW pulls up an interesting post from Hanafin from last May, when boston.com announced it was buying Boston Dirt Dogs:
... We are going to hold BostonDirtDogs to the same editorial standards as the rest of the site, but we're going to work really hard NOT to squelch its spirit. ...
Note: To see Hanafin's original comments, click here and scroll past the stuff about boston.com acquiring me (something I think we can safely assume won't be happening).
The Globe today reports that Deval Patrick is thinking of running for governor.
As with their extensive coverage of Boston City Council candidate Sam Yoon, however, the Globe never asks (or reports) why.
Grr! It's such a simple question: "Why do you want to be governor/city councillor/dog catcher?" Why can't the Globe reporters get their noses out of their inside-baseball asses for a moment (Oooh, "he could be Barack Obama of Massachusetts", they quote one insider - who happens to be the guy's advisor, yeah, real objective analysis there) and give us answers to the Five W's first?