Globe reporter critiques Globe coverage

Yesterday, I had to contribute to today's Globe story which was anchored by two Metro reporters who had the state police reports of the incident. I was pulled into the story because I cover local TV news and I wrote an indepth profile on Randi last fall, after she took the reins at Channel 7. She became Boston's youngest (and only female) general manager at a TV station. So I know her. My knowledge of her and Channel 7 was needed for the Metro story and I did my best to do my part.

Besides the police reports, no one knows the other side of the story, which Randi isn't telling because her attorney advised her to clam up, which I don't blame her for doing. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I feel a little uncomfortable by the local coverage of the story. (If this happened to someone you know well professionally, you'd might feel the same way.) [emph. added]

Here's the Globe story Diaz is referring to.

On the one hand, I respect Diaz's sympathy for Goldklank. (As a group, journalists aren't known for sensitivity to their subjects.) Still, given the perils of blogging at or about work, his decision to voice that sympathy online seems imprudent.

UPDATE: Here's what the Globe's newsroom ethics policy says about personal blogging on work-related content:

If a staff member publishes a personal Web page or blog on a site outside the Globe’s control, the staff member has a duty to make sure that the content is purely that: personal. Staff members who write blogs should generally avoid topics they cover professionally; failure to do so would invite a confusion of roles.

And here's a related item from Universal Hub--which, unbeknownst to me, posted on Diaz's post last night.