In the end, the case never went to trial. The ISB dropped its expanded lawsuit in May of this year, two months after Fitaihi left the board of trustees. At the same time, James C. Policastro — a Boston resident who had brought his own lawsuit against the city of Boston, arguing that its low-cost sale of land to the ISB violated the separation of church and state, and who, according to the ISB, was actually acting as a surrogate for the David Project — agreed to drop his suit, as well. Jeffrey Robbins, an attorney for the David Project, called the outcome “a rebuff of those who thought they could intimidate the media and . . . citizens into staying silent.”
No-news days
But was it? Again, consider the fact that no major Boston media outlet took note of Fitaihi’s departure and return earlier this year. (Only two local conservative blogs, Solomonia and Miss Kelly — solomonia.com and misskelly.typepad.com, respectively — seemed to notice.) What’s more, a conciliatory meeting Fitaihi had with a group of Jewish leaders in April was covered only by the Jewish Advocate.
None of these developments has an unambiguous meaning; what you make of them depends, in all likelihood, on whether your sympathies lie with the ISB or its detractors. But there’s one unifying thread: reporting on anything that involves Fitaihi would require explaining why, exactly, he’s a significant figure. And this, in turn, would have meant delving into some of the same details that helped put the Herald and WFXT on the receiving end of a lawsuit. Which brings us to the heart of the matter: has the Boston press decided that aggressively covering the ISB is too risky?
The answer, according to Herald editor Kevin Convey, is “No” — but there’s an asterisk. “When we were involved in the suit,” Convey tells the Phoenix, “we were very, very careful about what we reported, for obvious reasons, and we really haven’t gotten into the swing of keeping an eye on it. It isn’t like there’s any policy, spoken or unspoken, not to cover the subject. We just haven’t done it.” But, Convey adds: “I don’t think anybody in the business would deny that major lawsuits . . . can have a chilling effect — not only on us, but on other people, as well.”
The Globe stayed on the ISB story even after the October 2005 lawsuit, paying particularly close attention to irregularities involving the ISB’s purchase of city land. But since the ISB’s suit was dropped in May, the Globe’s coverage has tapered off. In June, the paper ran a feel-good story on the ISB mosque’s official opening, titled “Canopy’s Rise Signals End of Mosque’s Plight.” And the September 12 paper featured a story by reporter Michael Paulson on a courteous joint statement from local Jewish and Muslim leaders pegged to the beginning of Ramadan and Rosh Hashanah. The ISB land purchase hasn’t been discussed since April.
According to Globe metro editor Brian McGrory, it would be a mistake to read too much into this. “We covered the lawsuit very aggressively,” he says. “We didn’t back off on that at all. From what we’ve seen, there haven’t been any major news developments. We’ve dedicated a lot of resources in the past to looking at issues around the ISB. . . . Any perceived lack of news coverage . . . is only the result of a lack of news.”
