New in the Phoenix: Shaughnessy hatred and the Globe's new metro columnists

Romney the technocrat?

Two new Globe columnists, two good calls

13 Comments

• Joe Keohane said:

  Hell, I was just glad you didn't raise the image of someone fucking Shaugnessy. Imagining that mottled balloon face in full orgasmic bloom makes my soul dance in terror.
  June 21, 2007 6:54 PM

• Ron Gilford said:

  Cherry-picking a vile comment about an innocent woman in this matter is beyond disturbing... from message board posters, anonymous ones... what on earth is wrong with you? If you haven't been suspended, you should resign. And make a public apology to Mr. Shaughnessy for such poor judgment. It's just awful.
  June 21, 2007 7:23 PM

• BobH said:

  There are unhinged, nasty, venomous and cowardly posters on blogs all over the web. Giving this particular comment any legitimacy by including it in your column, even in trying to make a point, is a serious misjudgement on your part. I'm surprised you don't get that.
  June 21, 2007 7:44 PM

• paul said:

  Reilly- This piece of filth has shaken my virgin soul. Why must the Internet be such a vile place?
  June 21, 2007 8:48 PM

• rick said:

  I was surprised by the use of the comment because you didn't offer any context as to whether the sentiment was prevalent or isolated. You can get somebody to say anything about anybody (especially on the internet), but that does not mean it is newsworthy.
  June 21, 2007 11:24 PM

• just wondering said:

  Why didn't your column address the fact that the overwhelming majority of tragets for Shaughnessy's venom are minorities?
  June 22, 2007 7:11 AM

• mike_b1 said:

  Adam, the quote didn't bother me as it is no worse than I hear 10 times a night at Fenway -- and in front of little kids, I should add. I was surprised, however, that you apparently didn't query Shaughnessy on why he feels it necessary to find villians around every corner (his subjects are athletes, for chrissakes); why he seems to hate his job; why he flipflops so often and quickly; and on his penchant for nasty interchanges with his detractors, and why he thinks that's appropriate behavior, given the Globe's code of behavior specifically prohibiting such conduct. I think the answers to those questions would shed considerable light on why he comes across as a bitter, angry man.
  June 22, 2007 1:13 PM

• Howard Bryant said:

  I thought the use of the quote about Dan Shaughnessy's wife to be repulsive and gratuitous. If you cared to make a journalistic point about how venomous the interaction between Shaughnessy and his enemies is, then you need to use the name of that person, place it in some form of context, or leave it out entirely. Instead, you played into it, writing, as you did, "But wait. For the sake of the argument, suppose that every single Shaughnessy criticism mentioned above, even in its most extreme form, has some validity." That transition gave the quote its validity _ which I'm sure you know _ and if it were my wife you were talking about, I'd be spending a lot of time trying to sue you for libel, since Mrs. Shaughnessy is not a public figure. The world may be changing, but there are still rules in this business, and you crossed the line journalistically. If you didn't know any better, your editors certainly should have. You undermined your own credibility and your newspaper's, and that says more about you and the Phoenix than the anonymous quote did about Dan Shaughnessy. Howard Bryant The Washington Post
  June 22, 2007 10:48 PM

• mike_b1 said:

  Step back from the ledge, Howard. We'd have an easier time taking you seriously if you weren't part of the problem. One big reason lousy, mail-'em-in columnists like Shaughnessy are still around is because of the media's proclivity to protect its own. Remember the words of the great Tribune sportswriter Bob Verdi: "It's harder to have fun with a subject than to make fun of a subject." Shaughnessy, and others of his ilk, would do well to post that on their Folding Coronas.
  June 23, 2007 12:36 PM

• well? said:

  Howard, What do you make of the fact that the vast majority of Shaughnessy's targets for negativity are blacks and Latinos?
  June 23, 2007 9:48 PM

• howard Bryant said:

  First, I'd have to ask: "Are they?" Secondly, if they were, I'd have to decide exactly what that means. Dan has had running feuds with sports figures across the landscape, just ask Curt Schilling recently... My post wasn't to defend Dan. As I said in a response that I no longer see posted, Dan is a big boy. He can defend himself. And if Dan targets blacks and latinos disproportionately, then I'm sure Dan will have to deal with another story that confronts him on that. When I was at the Herald, I was consistently attacked by readers for writing about race "incessantly," but when I counted my byline with the keywords "race, racism, African American..etc..." just three percent of my articles dealt with those themes. So things aren't always what they seem. But let's not get off point here. The issue of this thread isn't Shaughnessy. It's about the ethical choice that went into using an inflammatory anonymous quote. The Phoenix undermined their own credibility here, and opened the paper up to a potential lawsuit. Reilly messed up. So did his editors. There are still rules to be followed to do this job right.
  June 26, 2007 5:05 PM

• Joshua Glenn said:

  You don't need to apologize, Adam. When I read the story, I didn't think you were trying to insult Shaughnessy's wife -- you were doing your job, showing just how insane the Shaughnessy haters can be.
  June 28, 2007 1:32 PM

• Gonz said:

  If anyone needs to apologize, it's Keohane. Sweet Christ, his comment is filled with some of the most purple prose since, well, his last Contrarian.
  July 2, 2007 3:20 PM

Leave a Comment