Thursday, April 05, 2007

Here's my question about the Herald's new Guardian Angel blog: can the paper cover the Angels with any semblance of objectivity since they're now Herald contributors?

I'd say no. Letting the Angels get their message out via the Herald's web site-and giving their contributions prominent play--strikes me as a de facto endorsement of the group and its methods, the Herald's disclaimer ("All opinions in this blog are those of the Guardian Angels organization and not the Boston Herald") notwithstanding.

UPDATE: Joe Sciacca, the Herald's deputy managing editor for news, says I'm wrong--and that he hopes the Herald gets more blogs from newsmakers in the future.

"It's an opportunity for our readers to directly engage a newsmaker, and I think that I'd like to have more of that," Sciacca says. "Frankly, the beauty of the internet and the beauty of blogging is that you remove the filter; as opposed to a reporter interviewing someone, you have that person being directly interviewed or questioned by readers.... I don't think there's a shred of evidence that the Herald's pulled its punches on the Guardian Angles," he adds. "I haven't had a single reader raise that complaint."

"Today's entry's got Curtis Sliwa saying he wishes the police would stop referring to them as vigilantes," Sciacca adds. "They're making news on our web site, basically engaging politicians, which is great."

4/5/2007 10:36:35 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [0] |