Hey, there! Log in / Register
The readin' o' the two newspapers
By adamg on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 7:00am
Irish for the day.
According to the Herald, Southie had one parade yesterday ("Revelers in Southie have parade down pat!"). But the Globe, which had three reporters manning the parade beat, reports Southie had two parades ("Two parades play to different crowds").
UPDATE: The Herald did post a couple of photos from the second parade in a photo gallery. And it had a detailed look at the issue of the two parades the day before.
Photo copyright Paul Keleher. Posted in the Universal Hub pool on Flickr.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Westboro Baptist
According to this WBUR article, some folks confused Veterans for Peace with the Westboro Baptist Church: http://www.wbur.org/2011/03/21/st-paddys-parades
Herald covered both
While the news story on page 6 didn't distinguish between the two parades, the full page of photos on page 28 reported on both parades, and gave most of that space to pictures of the second parade.
This is what I get for reading the Herald via RSS
I've added a link to the online photo gallery, which, however, only has two photos from the second parade. Were there more in print?
hmmmm
So 'gay and irish' is bad and gets you banned from the parade. But Darth Vader - yah, that says irish all over it. hmmmm
Boston Freedom Rally on
Boston Freedom Rally on 4/20/11 in the Boston Commons will not exclude anyone based on anything, even if you disprove of cannabis. Any talks of banning or excluding anyone will be met with laughter. No one will be harmed. No one will puke all over the place.
Just saying.
Herald did have this on Sunday, though!
was very pleased to see this.
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg...
I'll guess you'll even have a
I'll guess you'll even have a minute of silense to remember the 32,000 Mexican men, women and children murdered to supply you with your drugs.
well, they're murdered
well, they're murdered because the drugs are illegal. Not many people are being murdered to bring alcohol into the country. So, the rally is mostly to make it so those people will no longer be killed.
keep telling yourself that.
keep telling yourself that. I'm sure it's real comforting to their families to know that your continued drug use is more important than their family members' lives.
You drive a car? Not like oil
You drive a car? Not like oil costs any lives, right?
You drive a car a today? Not
You drive a car a today? Not like oil costs any lives, right?
Nice try
Drugs aren't killing them. Prohibition is.
We sorta, kinda had a problem in the 20's-30's with organized crime due to prohibition too. Once we got rid of alcohol, they turned to drugs.
Get rid of prohibition, tax it, and make the uncool government involved in it and you'll see the crime go away and people using them less. After all, government ain't cool, and so isn't anything they touch, even drugs.
Seems to me the Herald got
Seems to me the Herald got the coverage just about right. There was a big parade, and then there was a tiny protest anti-parade. There's no reason why there should be equal coverage - unless you think it's a newspaper's job to push the interests of the lesser groups.
It's a newspaper's job...
to cover all groups within its coverage area. In this case, the number of attendees at the event isn't in question: It's the event itself. It's why the Globe and Herald sports sections have reporters for both the Sox and the Revolution. There's no such thing as a "lesser group."
I Beg To Differ
Personally, I do think both events, in this instance, deserved coverage. That opinion aside, I find your rationale for why they should be covered absurd.
There's no such thing as a lesser group?
A lesser group is one that, when given coverage, will not result in more papers being sold. Newspapers are not here to serve the public. They are private enterprises. Their first job is to make a profit whenever possible. Newspapers only owe their readers, not the general public. If enough actual readers complain about coverage, then the coverage will probably be changed. Beyond that, they owe explanations to nobody else, and what they choose to cover is their business. Freedom of the press also means not having to print every damn thing somebody else says you should.
The number of attendees doesn't matter? Of course it does. If one person decides to carry a placard stating that the end of the world will occur tomorrow, by your standards it is a newsworthy item. What it is, in reality, is a lone nutjob that most people try to avoid in person and will certainly have no desire to read about.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Funny, I've never seen a
Funny, I've never seen a Revolution headline or picture on the backpage of the Herald.
There certainly is lesser degrees of interest and constituencies for both the 2 parades and the 2 sports teams mentioned.
There were definitely two
There were definitely two parades. This charming gentleman wasn't present for the first one.
heh
Someone should have run up and pants-ed him.
On second thought...maybe not.
He got the odd drunk
He got the odd drunk high-five but there were also people walking by him and making comments or giving him the finger. One of the Globe photogs stuck a camera right in his face but I doubt that one will make it online.
Looks to me, fatty..
.. is upset that Sweet Tooth was closed.
this case decided by US Supremes
The issue was settled by the US Supreme Court in 1995 in a case brought by the Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston against Hurley. Parade organizers have a 1st amendment right of association. They have the Constitutional right to exclude gay Irish organizations or Veterans For Peace.
Constitutional decisional law determines the bounds of our laws yet it is not always what might seem just. To me it seems just that the Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston would be permitted to march in the parade ... but parade organizers have a first amendment right of association that gives them the right to exclude Irish-American GLBs and Veterans For Peace, and/or anyone else. It seams weird (inconsistent) that a private parade can discriminate even while we have laws that say these same people cannot be discriminated against in other ways... but it is so.
The solution of having parades back to back is not a bad one at all. Everyone marches and it draws attention to the inherently discriminatory (but legal) policy of parade organizers.
Forward!
There is nothing weird about
There is nothing weird about it. We 'discriminate' - that is, make choices - all the time. You have no legal or moral right to come to my party - I am free to discriminate against you all I want. Free association is a bedrock constitutional principle. Presbytarians have the right to associate with each other, as do Freemasons and stamp collectors. The Supreme Court simply upheld that principle. You can petition the city to have your own parade, and invite whomever you like - and discriminate against whomever you like. You have to right to force yourself down someone else's throat. The people in South Boston have done nothing to stop anyone from holding a gay rights parade, or an anti-war parade. Unlike their opponents.
Incorrect basis
You're not free to discriminate when it comes to public accommodation in this state. Nobody is stopping the parade organizers from forming a group in a private hall. However, when they choose to use public resources and provide a common entertainment, we as a society have chosen to make sure it truly is COMMON entertainment by limiting your ability to exclude people from participating in these public venues, entertainment, and events.
You can create a hotel that only rents to Roman Catholics. You can't create a hotel that accepts anyone but Muslims. See the difference?
The Irish-American Gay Group of Boston made a significantly well-justified argument based on the parade organizers not having listed criteria for inclusion or selection (suggesting any public group could march...making it a public entertainment venue/accommodation). It was an argument accepted by the MA state courts (even the SJC).
The U.S. Supreme Court overruled their decisions though. You could make the argument either way and still easily abide by the letter of both the Constitution and the state public accommodations law. That's why we have courts.
So, it's not as crystal clear as you claim. Furthermore, the "opponents" never tried to stop the parade. That would be pretty stupid since they only fought to be included in it. But, hey, the world isn't as simple or white vs. black, red vs. blue, or us vs. them as you seem capable of coping with. It's more of a rainbow...
DING DING DING
When the Allied Veterans fund the entire thing themselves, including privately paying for clean-up and detail pay, I'll be the first to tell the other groups whining to take a hike.
Problem is they're not. A good deal of public tax dollars are being spent on the parade because it's a public, community event. Because of that, discrimination shouldn't be allowed.
I do think they can say no sign's, no politics, ect. Apply it to everyone. But they shouldn't be able to discriminate against legitimate groups of our community who only want to be recognized and march.
Tha' Supremes
Isn't there a question of a private organization using public resources (streets, police details, etc.) to discriminate? Does the private organizations reimburse the city for these events? Rather than a one-off protest march and rally that allows people their freedom to make their opinions known, this is an annual event that results in the City having to change the hours businesses can sell alcohol, change traffic patterns and generally disrupt one part of town (that for the most part appears to love it, so not a question I guess).
Nothing against St. Patty's Day or the parade (or getting sloshed on any day of the year), just thought I'd ask.
I disagree
"Separate but equal" wasn't a valid justification for different lunch counters, water fountains, or schools. I don't see why it's valid here either.
discrimination by the city
One could argue the city itself discriminates against southie during this parade by mandating liquor stores and bars close at a certain hour. There are no mandates for the South End Gay Pride parade, or the marathon (arguably the biggest drinking day). I don't believe there are any mandates during Dot Day either...