This release from the Globe speaks for itself. This ain't good, folks. When I called the 888 number at the bottom of the release to check on my status, I was told that the paper would be getting back to folks affected by this in the next 48 hours.

BOSTON, Jan. 31, 2006 – The Boston Globe and Worcester Telegram & Gazette are notifying their home-delivery subscribers who pay by credit or bank card that some customers’ confidential credit card numbers were inadvertently printed on the backs of routing slips attached to newspaper bundles that were sent to retailers and newspaper carriers in the Worcester area this past weekend.

Information on up to 240,000 customers may have been distributed.

The Telegram & Gazette is also notifying its subscribers that routing information for the personal checks of 1,100 subscribers may have been inadvertently released with some of the bundles.

“We deeply value the trust our subscribers place in us and we are working diligently to remedy this unfortunate situation,” said Richard H. Gilman, publisher of the Boston Globe.   “Immediate steps have been taken internally at the Globe and Telegram & Gazette to increase security around credit card reporting.  We regret the disruption and inconvenience that this incident may cause.”

Payment information was mistakenly included on the reverse side of individual routing slips that were attached to up to 9000 bundles of Sunday Telegram & Gazette newspapers.  No single customer name was distributed on any more than two bundles.  The routing slips are typically discarded shortly after the bundles are delivered.

The incident took place when discarded internal reports were inadvertently recycled as the paper for printing the routing slips.  The Telegram & Gazette has immediately discontinued the practice of reusing paper in this manner. Enhanced security measures have been put into place to assure the confidentiality of customer information at both newspapers. 

Representatives of the Globe and Telegram & Gazette are recovering as many of the routing slips as can be located, although most of the slips are likely to have been discarded.  To date there have been no reports of misuse of the payment card data, although the newspapers will continue to monitor the situation.

The Globe has contacted the four major credit card companies  -- American Express, Discover, MasterCard and Visa -- to advise them of the situation.  Likewise, the Globe is contacting the banks of affected subscribers.

The Boston Globe and The Worcester Telegram & Gazette urge subscribers to contact their credit card companies if they are concerned about unauthorized transactions.

The Globe and the Telegram & Gazette have set up a hotline for concerned customers who may have questions regarding their accounts. Customer service representatives will be able to tell customers if their information was included in the inadvertent distribution.   That number is 1-888-665-2644.

The Shorenstein Center at Harvard has just announced the finalists for its annual  $25,000 Goldsmith Prize for Investigative Reporting as well as a special citation for New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. I was one of five judges for this year's contest who examined almost 140 entries. And I can attest to the fact that it was a hell of a field. Here's the release:

CAMBRIDGE, MA - Six entries have been chosen as finalists for the 2006 Goldsmith Prize for Investigative Reporting awarded each year by the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

The winner of the $25,000 prize will be named at an awards ceremony on March 14 at the Kennedy School. The Prize honors journalism which promotes more effective and ethical conduct of government, the making of public policy, or the practice of politics by disclosing excessive secrecy, impropriety and mismanagement, or instances of particularly commendable government performance.

For those paying close attention, the news that Clean Power Now -- a group that supports the controversial wind farm project in Nantucket Sound -- has hired Jack Coleman as a media consultant isn't too surprising. But it's part of an interesting story.

Coleman had covered the wind farm story at the Cape Cod Times, a paper that had become known for its staunch and relentless opposition to the wind farm, primarily on its editorial pages. Some observers also argued that the anti-wind farm animus had leaked onto the news pages, and there was some evidence that it had. One example was a March 2004 story reporting poll results indicating that a narrow majority of people surveyed opposed the wind farm project --without revealing the key fact that 20 percent of those surveyed did not respond to the question. 

When I wrote about that for the Boston Globe, Coleman, who helped write the poll story, went on the record with his concerns. Here's an excerpt:
When Coleman learned the following week about the large number of nonrespondents, he concluded that the paper needed to set the record straight. "I was flabbergasted. It was a sizeable portion," he said. "I talked to Cliff [Schechtman] about it, and I said I think we need to revisit it. He said he didn't think it was necessary. . . . It's not the way I'd prefer to go. But it's not my call."

In 18 years covering the media, I can honestly say that Coleman is one of a mere handful (if that many) of people who had the guts to criticize his current employer on the record. Coleman wasn't long for the Times after that. And last year, he wrote a piece for the Providence Journal strongly suggesting that his candor led to retribution against him and hastened his departure from the Times. Last summer, Times editor Cliff Schechtman also left the paper and headed for Newsday.

I frankly don't know whether the Times's campaign against the wind farm has eased in the wake of Schechtman's departure. But at least one former Times reporter who once worked that story has now firmly chosen sides. 

There's only one good guy in this whole wildly overblown Oprah/James Frey contretemps over "A Million Little Pieces." (Last night, I made the rounds of the cable news shows hoping for some enlightenment on the stunning Palestinian election results. Silly me. I should have known that Oprah's belated apology and public spanking of her former teacher's pet takes precedence over a momentous geopolitical earthquake.)

The one hero here is the fabulous Smoking Gun web site, which unearthered Frey's fabrications. This of course, is the same great site that had the lowdown on the salacious lawsuit alleging that Bill O'Reilly had some strange sexual habits and also features a mugshot of Bugsy Siegel. (He really didn't look much like Warren Beatty.)

As for the other players here, Frey is just another in a long list of con men who got rich duping the American public. Frankly, I don't care much whether his book continues to sell like hotcakes or whether he vanishes into miserable obscurity. As for Oprah, congrats to her for becoming such a big celebrity that she only needs one name -- like Elvis, Madonna, Bono, Bogey, and Liberace. And perhaps, she really is a feelgood force for positive things in this world. But I had to choke back the gag reflex watching clips of her carefully choreographed performance yesterday. To me, it felt like the secular version of some kind of overwrought televangelism morality play. I think Oprah's amassed too much power and influence for everyone's sake.  

I'm sure this won't sit well with the "all's fair in love, war, and domestic spying" crowd, but the L.A. Times has another terrific story indicating that our phony payola journalism scam in Iraq appears to violate Pentagon policy.

This excerpt from the media watchdog website CJR Daily illustrates why, with every passing day she spends on "Today," Katie Couric makes the potential transition to CBS Evening News anchor more unlikely and harder to sell. (Hint: however she did on the Abramoff scandal, it's the last paragraph -- which I bolded -- that's the damning one.)

Couric Leads With Chin, Then With Butt

Liz Cox Barrett

   It's not the same thing as reporting that most of the Sago Mine disaster victims had been found alive. And it's not Dewey beats Truman. But U.S. newspapers again found themselves in another one of those frustrating deadline traps today in trying to report on the Palestinian elections -- which appear to have led to a stunning Hamas triumph.

   My late edition of this morning's Globe had a "Close Fatah win seen in Palestinian vote" based on exit polling. My Wall Street Journal front page, relying on the same exits, (Let's not forget that John Kerry was president of the United States for about seven hours on election day 2004 based on exit polls.) said "Fatah Survived a strong Hamas challenge in Palestinian voting." My New York Times banner headline read: "Hamas Presses Fatah in Palestinian Vote, Surveys Say." The Washington Post said exit polls showed Hamas "Winning Near-Parity With Fatah in Palestinian Assembly."

Here's what Reuters is reporting now about what seems to be a clear-cut Hamas win. But at least newspapers have Web sites to update information rather than being stuck in a 24-hour holding pattern.

Newspaper deadlines notwithstanding, this result creates the dilemma that everyone knew was inevitable when the U.S. made the export of democracy a cornerstone of its foreign policy. People exercising that franchise may not vote for the people we want them to. Then what.

I'm not a conspiracy buff, but three is positively a trend. In rapid succession, CNN has just hired conservative talkmaster Glenn Beck (for Headline News), former Republican Congressman J.C. Watts, and worst of all, that moralizing pompous gasbag (ask me how I really feel)  William Bennett.

Jeez, Louise. I know the Fox News Channel is kicking CNN's butt in the ratings, but Roger Ailes has already got the Republican base locked up. The San Francisco Chronicle's Tim Goodman says it better than I can.

It seems that by appointing Paula Kerger as its new president to succeed Pat Mitchell, PBS has settled on an insider to steer its ship through troubled waters.

This statement from one of my favorite and most quotable media analysts, Jeff Chester, the executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy , suggests that the only person facing a more difficult challenge than Kerger will be the new prime minister of Iraq:

Good luck.

This quote on the Boston TV News website indicates that Channel 56 (WLVI-TV) will keep its late newscast intact despite the fact that it is going to be the new CW station in Boston after yesterday's switcheroo.

A SENIOR WLVI SOURCE TELLS BTVN: "[This is] a great story for WLVI. We end up with a stronger network, stronger programming, a better news lead-in and one less competitor in town. I'm told the change won't mean anything as far as our news output goes... we will continue our one-hour Ten O'clock News [along with a new on-air look]."

I don't know exactly why I find this amusing, but the New York Daily News is reporting that Osama bin Laden is a Larry King fan.  (Scroll down.) And since the chief terrorist is reportedly only 48, he's not really in Larry's core geriatric demographic.

Here's the deal on what the new CW network (the old UPN and WB) will mean in Boston. Tribune-owned WLVI-TV (Channel 56), which was a WB affiliate, will become a CW affiliate. WSBK-TV (Channel 38), which is part of the CBS-owned Boston duopoly and was a UPN affiliate, will now become an independent station with 10 hours of priime-time programming to fill and a lot of options. (Expect it to aim its lineup at something other than the young CW target demographic.)

Here's a statement from the Channel 38 folks today. Not much meat there:

"This is great for CBS to be a partner with Tribune in this new network - The CW.  And, it is also a tremendous opportunity for WSBK-TV 38 because we have a wealth of outstanding programming options to work with (including product from CBS, Paramount, King World, and now Warner Bros.) as well as local program opportunities to consider as we develop our primetime (8-10PM).  The upcoming months will be a very exciting time as we create a unique and entertaining line-up for our channel 38 viewers."

One other thought. Could this realignment cause Channel 56 to rethink its 10 o'clock newscast, which has been getting pretty thoroughly thumped by Channel 25?

Editor & Publisher has some hard numbers on how many folks are forking over the dough for TimesSelect content. Times Co. representatives say this puts them a little ahead of projections and claim to be heartened. I think that number strikes me as pretty respectable, but maybe someone else has a better perspective.

Here's a solid business solution when you have two underperforming television networks. Turn them into one.

      Okay, this isn't as bad as it sounds. (Or as good, depending on your point of view.) The Wisconsin State Journal isn't quite selling off its front page to popular tastes by letting readers vote for the story they'd most like to read on page 1 the next day. For example: here are the choices for tomorrow's paper:

Vote for the story you'd most like to read in tomorrow's Wisconsin State Journal.

Ford layoffs have broader economic implications

What should we do about ex-cons returning to Madison?

Bush defends domestic spying

There will be a new No. 1 team in the AP Top 25 poll.

FDA considers new over-the-counter diet pill

       All of them, with the exception of the gratuitously included sports story, seem like legit page 1 possibilities, and the paper is only ceding a small portion of its front page to vox populi. My guess is the paper's Web site will be flooded with votes.  What is less certain is that the voters will be taking their newfound role as editor seriously.

      So, even as I'm scrupulously trying not to overreact, the slippery slope implications of this kind of thing make me queasy. Any newspaper worth its salt ought to be encouraging and embracing reader feedback through all sorts of mechanisms -- the ombudsman, reader forums, surveys, focus groups, and by having editors and reporters answer the phone or email. But I'm not ready to turn news judgment into a plebiscite.    

      If that's where we're going, would-be journalists can stop spending their parents' money on journalism school and can simply enroll in public polling courses.

Channel 5 has announced today the creation of a nine-member investigative unit. (Although Emily Rooney had that news on last week's "Beat the Press" show on Channel 2.)

There's no way you can't be heartened by the idea of more long-form, investigative journalism on local TV. There are some quality reporters on this team, so hopefully, it's safe to assume there will be a minimum of "sweeps" driven stories on lethal underwear and fast food that causes impotence. Here's the release:

WCVB-TV Channel 5 President and General Manager Bill Fine will announce plans today to launch Team 5 Investigates, a nine-person unit dedicated to uncovering news, developing stories over an extended period and digging deeper into the top news of the day. The local, live investigative team will be the largest unit in the Boston television market when it debuts in early February 2006. 

The dynamic team of reporters include Janet Wu, Susan Wornick, Kelley Tuthill, Rhondella Richardson and Sean Kelly.  Each journalist brings unique enterprise reporting experience to Team 5 Investigates. 

Jen Berryman will serve as Executive Producer of Team 5 Investigates.  She has been Executive Producer of NewsCenter 5 at 11 for seven years.  Medical reporter and producer Rhonda Mann takes over for Berryman on the late news.  Coleen Marren is News Director and Neil Ungerleider is Assistant News Director.

In announcing the initiative, Fine said, “This team intends to uncover and discover news, not merely report on the big news stories of the day.  This impressive group of reporters and news producers reflect decades of enterprise reporting in Greater Boston and beyond.  Our promise to viewers;  Team 5 Investigates will offer fair, balanced and accurate reporting.”

   One thing I'll say as an acknowledged Yankee fan. If George Steinbrenner's front office operation had turned in an off-season like John Henry's boys have, whole forests would have been sacrificed to deliver an unending torrent of ridicule about the anarchic, unruly, squabbling, disorganized, laughable  "Bronx Zoo."

     Theo Epstein's return to the fold in this winter of discontent to a yet undisclosed position with an as yet undisclosed relationship with his alleged superior (Larry Lucchino) and his apparent inferiors (Jed Hoyer and Ben Cherington) makes it clear who's really running the Red Sox  these days.

   And that's pretty much the tone of coverage in today's papers. The Globe's Dan Shaughnessy , previously villified for a column that some believe led to Theo's initial decision to leave the Sox, minces no words in his assessment of front office chaos. Although the following passage --  "I spoke with Henry late in the afternoon before he boarded a jet to fly home to Boston. I told him the same thing I had told him in December. I thought it looked as if he could not make a decision. I thought he should either fire Lucchino or tell Epstein to get lost." -- suggests that Dan has forgotten about that bright line between observer and actor.

   Tony Massarotti's column today is crisper, sharper with its punchline of "time for group therapy at 4 Yawkey Way." Here's his ultimate point: "As for the overall health of the Red Sox, we similarly wonder and worry. No matter what nonsense the Sox peddle about Lucchino’s unchanged role, it certainly seems now as if Henry is backing Epstein. The entire series of events that led to Epstein’s departure spun from the fractured relationship between mentor and apprentice, at which point Epstein walked. Now the owner of the club is bringing Epstein back, presumably in an elevated capacity, which only makes you wonder if there is a ticking time bomb in the Red Sox front office.
.

      On ESPN.com, the Projo's Sean McAdam isn't quite as critical, but he's got the best passage and anonymous quote explaining the internal front office dynamic: From the time Epstein shocked the franchise -- which had readied a press release announcing his contract extension -- and the rest of baseball by abruptly resigning his post, principal owner John Henry has been working to bring Epstein back into the fold, hoping to repair the trust issues that Epstein believed were violated when details of his negotiations were leaked to the media.

He hired outside consultants to examine the organization's corporate culture, rebuffed Lucchino's many attempts to install Jim Beattie as Epstein's permanent replacement and kept the lines of communication open with Epstein.

"Look at it this way," said a person from outside the organization with knowledge of the situation. "It's like there was a controversial call on the field [in football], and Larry has been trying to get to the line of scrimmage and get a play off and John has been calling timeout, trying to get it looked at and reversed."

At some point, a few months down the line (and assuming they find a center fielder by then), this Red Sox team will be able to speak for itself on the field. But for now, local news outlets should be tireless in their effort to figure out just who's minding the store. And how things got so crazy. 

More action today in Judge Ernest Murphy's libel case against the Herald as Judge Charles Johnson denied a Herald motion to vacate last year's $2.1 million jury verdict in favor of Murphy in the wake of some intemperate letters the judge sent Herald publisher Pat Purcell seeking payment in the case. (The Herald characterized the letters as threatening and bullying while Murphy's legal team characterized them as part of ongoing confidential negotiations.)

In response to Murphy's motion to attach the Herald's assets -- out of concern over the financial condition of the tabloid, which is up for sale  -- Johnson has asked the Herald's insurance carrier to provide a letter confirming it can and will pay a judgment, if necessary. 

"We're very gratified that Judge Johnson saw fit to deny the motion [to vacate] at the hearing from the bench," says Murphy attorney Howard Cooper. "I think the court was able to see very quickly that the Herald's motion....was just what we called it...a disgraceful publicity stunt."

Herald attorney Bruce Sanford said the paper "didn't find the ruling very surprising. It's not surprising that the judge wants an appellate court to handle it at this point...The Herald has always planned to appeal this verdict vigorously."

Two of the nation's top TV writers (that's print journalists who cover TV) are declaring today that CBS's new news boss  Sean McManus seems awfully sure of landing Katie Couric as his new nightly news anchor. They are the Philadelphia Inquirer's Gail Shister and Bill Carter of the New York Times.

You could certainly understand Couric's motivation. After a career of flashing that toothy smile at a bunch of B-list celebrities and tackling countless news-lite topics on the chatty morning shows that make big bucks for the networks, she'd like to round out her resume and silence the doubters with a "serious" journalism job -- and they don't come any more serious than network news anchor.

As for CBS, it desperately wants to reshuffle the deck, and what better way than with a marquee free agent? (I can't wait to read the quotes from Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite if and when Couric is hired as their successor.)

In any event, CBS will have one serious logisitical issue if it hires Katie. How do you show those gams off sitting behind an anchor desk? Or could she become one of those "walking around" anchors?

This passage from DefenseTech.org, makes a crucial point about Western reporters relying on local stringers in Iraq.

The abduction of 28-year-old Christian Science Monitor reporter Jill Carroll in Baghdad on Jan. 7 has had a profound effect on the city's Western press corps. More so than ever, unembedded media in Baghdad are fortified in a handful of besieged hotels that are under constant surveillance by insurgent groups. Few Western reporters ever leave these hotels, instead relying on local stringers to gather quotes and research stories. And some reporters are finally throwing in the towel, forever abandoning this relentless and unforgiving city.

According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Iraqi journalists and support workers are bearing the brunt of the war-related carnage. Of the 60 journalists killed in the line of duty in Iraq since the war started, 41 of them were Iraqis. And CPJ believes that all 23 of the media support workers killed on the job there were also Iraqis. The U.S. press doesn't pay nearly as much attention to their deaths as it does to cases involving Western journalists. But the grim reality is that it is mostly natives dying in the noble pursuit of war-zone reporting.   

The Christian Science Monitor has the latest on a growing number of Muslim voices condemning the kidnapping of freelance journalist Jill Carroll, who is now being threatened with death unless her captors' demands are met.

The Monitor has experienced its share of drama and trauma with reporters covering the conflict in Iraq. In 2003, the paper's reporter, Philip Smucker, was escorted out of Iraq by the U.S. military after it claimed he had revealed the location of a unit. Last summer, another journalist working for the paper, Steven Vincent, was abducted and killed in Iraq, generating this tribute from the paper's editor Richard Bergenheim.

I doubt if Monitor officials are thinking about this right now. But in a way, this is testimony to the commitment and ambition of a paper that is losing money and has seen its circulation slip to the 50,000 neighborhood -- but is still determined to devote resources to covering the world.

Here's the paper's statement on the Carroll kidnapping:

"Jill Carroll's colleagues at The Christian Science Monitor and journalists around the world appeal to her captors to release her immediately and without harm. They have seized an innocent person who is a great admirer of the Iraqi people. She is a professional journalist whose only goal has been to report truthfully about Iraq and to promote understanding. As an intelligent, dedicated, open-minded reporter, she has earned the respect of her Arab and Western peers. Since arriving in Iraq in 2003, Jill has always been treated as a guest by Iraqis and has sought to reflect their views and their hearts to the world. She has doggedly pursued stories for a variety of news organizations from several different countries. She began to file stories to The Monitor early last year.

"Jill is in our prayers."

Ever since Dr. Laura made a mint hectoring her poor, misguided callers, I've been skeptical of talk radio advice shows. But I am intrigued by the news that WRKO is about to introduce what the station says will be a groundbreaking show on substance abuse and recovery that will include recovering alcoholic Peter Simon (brother of Carly) and abuse counselor Woody Geissman, who once played drums for the Del Fuegos. Apparently,  John Belushi's widow will kick off the first show.

Here's the release:

WRKO AM 680, Boston’s talk station creates the country’s first East Coast major-market show based on substance abuse and recovery when “Recovery Road” debuts on Sunday, January 22.

The show will air every Sunday from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m., and will feature the poignant experiences of recovering alcoholic Peter Simon, the clinical knowledge of licensed abuse counselor Woody Giessmann, and input from callers.

“Recovery Road” will highlight a wide range of topics, including drug and alcohol use and other addictions like cigarette smoking, and food and eating disorders. The show will feature experts in abuse and recovery, and also high-profile guests who have experienced abuse. The first show is expected to feature Judy Belushi Pisano, whose husband John Belushi died of a drug overdose.

Simon lives on Martha’s Vineyard, and is a well-known professional photographer. He has extensive radio experience, hosting music shows on the Vineyard and in the Boston area and Rhode Island. Peter Simon sought treatment for alcoholism in 2004 and continues his recovery.

“This show is going to be entertaining, helpful informative and funny. A lot of it will be sad, a lot will be urgent, but it won’t be dull. There’s just so much joy in knowing there so much life on the other side,” Simon said. “My sister Carly, who is very helpful in my recovery process, wrote the most amazing song on the subject I have ever heard, ‘Waiting at the Gate.’”

Giessmann was the drummer for the rock band Del Fuegos and other national acts. In 1993, he started Right Turn, an outpatient substance-abuse program for artists in New England. A licensed addictions specialist, Giessmann has a master’s degree in human services management and is a member of the Advisory Board of the state Bureau of Substance Abuse.

“This show is going to provide a wonderful service to the community, and supply a plethora of information on addictions and living,” Giessmann said. “I toured around the country for 15 years, and I saw a lot of amazing talent wasted because people did not know treatment was available.”

Given the fact that the "fire Ron Borges" emails were still trickling in to at the end of the long MLK weekend, I figure it's time for my final -- and this will be the final one, I promise --comment on the petition drive on Boston Sports Media Watch to create a powerful grassroots uprising against the Globe sports writer.

In some ways, this episode is being framed as a classic new media vs. old media contest with the "fire Borges" crowd representing the vanguard of the new democratized participatory media and Borges -- and anyone who didn't overtly support his firing -- depicted as out of touch media dinosaurs soon to be wiped off the map. (By the way, some of the postings to this site suggest the battle is more along the lines of online "get a lifers" versus big media "pros" who actually get press credentials to major events. That seems to me to be an unduly and unfairly harsh assessment of sports bloggers.)

Since I didn't come out and endorse Borges's dismissal and suggested that his perceived anti-Pats viewpoint might have contributed to the outpouring of fan sentiment on the eve of a playoff game, some folks may see me as one of those mainstream journalists circling the old media wagons --I guess maybe for one last stand. Here's a relevant BSMW passage:

What is disappointing to me, is that the few media members that did comment on the article seem to have missed the point of it completely and were more interested in circling the media wagons than they were in presenting an accurate rendering of the facts of the article. Mike Felger and Mark Jurkowitz in particular seemed more intent on making it seem like the two of us, as well as fans, don't like Borges simply because he doesn't write positive articles about the Patriots all the time.

As someone who served as Globe ombudsman for two  years, I can tell you that BSMW didn't invent the idea of pressuring media outlets. That's been around for a long time. I'd get hundreds of complaints whenever the paper switched comic strips and once was presented with a petition (the old fashioned kind, not online) signed by 600 people who were offended by the way a certain article depicted their ethnic group. My recollection was that somewhere in the range of 1,000 people once barraged the paper with complaints over a single controversial page-one photograph. And about 2000 readers sent back a questionnaire -- one that they clipped out of the paper -- asking them to grade the Globe's handling of several controversial stories. Those weren't new media versus old media battles, just examples of good-old fashioned customer feedback, which is how I look at the Borges petition. (The technology that delivers that feedback doesn't imbue it with any special properties or powers.)  

So good for BSMW for giving the Globe a piece of its mind and stirring the pot with Boston's always passionate sports fans. It's a tried and true tactic. But at the same time, here's an AdAge.com piece that explains why this new media vs. old media paradigm is overblown.

I'd guess the number of anti-Borges emails reaching me are around the century mark now. Here's a recent sample and one I liked because  it's honest in its declaration that what really pisses peple off about Borges is the perception that he's anti Patriots.

 While the anti-Borges emails just keep on comin', I  just got one from a Borges supporter. I am posting it, but omitting his name in the interests of humanity and safety.

To all concerned:
   Today's unwarranted internet attack on one of the Globe's finest writers is equal parts juvenile and based on jealousy. I urge you to ignore it. Newspapers very badly need writers with both skill and independent thinking and Mr. Borges has both in abundance.
   Hero-worshipping fans who happpen to have blogs have no business lecturing professional journalists.

This posting should in no way be construed as an endorsement of the sentiment but Boston Sports Media Watch has posted a manifesto calling for the firing of Globe sports writer Ron Borges, who has infuriated many local sports fans with his Patriots coverage. (That, in and of itself, is no sin.)

Leaving nothing to chance, the manifesto includes a form email and an email list of interested parties to send it to. I would conservatively estimate that I've received about 40-50 copies of that email -- or emails with similar sentiments -- so far today. I wish I had saved the one email defending Borges's rights, but it fell victim to my very active delete key.

In today's Boston Phoenix story on the Boston Globe, I mentioned the New York Times Co.'s "staggering stock price." Here, posted today on the Poynter Web site, is a considerably more detailed look at the company's Wall Street woes.

After an unnerving round of buyouts mandated by an out-of-town owner at a time of gloom and decline in the newspaper business, the Boston Globe may be at a crucial crossroads. Read about a nervous institution facing an uncertain future in "Globe-al Anxiety" in this week's Boston Phoenix. 

Channel 5 (WCVB-TV) announced today that the likeable Anthony Everett  has officially been name co-anchor of the nightly newsmagazine "Chronicle," taking over the old comfortable shoe Peter Mehegan role.

Lawyer, civil libertarian, and Boston Phoenix contributor Harvey Silverglate goes head-to-head with the bloviating bully of the airwaves, Bill O'Reilly, tonight on the Fox News Channel. Harvey will be discussing his piece in this week's paper, "The Gray Lady in Shadow,"  about the administration's domestic spying activities unearthed by the New York Times.

O'Reilly likes to control that microphone, but Harvey's a pretty damn good lawyer. Should be fun.

The Globe's Alex Beam executes a nice hit  on Niche Media boss Jason Binn today. It's hard to root for Boston Common magazine.

Like eveyone who saw the incredible film "The Killing Fields"  I will forever have a reservoir of respect for Sam Waterston...I mean Syndney Schanberg, who is currently writing the Village Voice's famous "Press Clips" column.

But Schanberg's new column  critical of New York Times public editor Byron "Barney" Calame -- who wrote a Jan. 1. column trying to hold Times executives to account for their long delay in publishing the domestic spying bombshell -- is a bit-wrongheaded. Sure, Schanberg has a point in saying the overarching issue is the administration's abuse of power and that the Times is already under assault from so many quarters that it doesn't need Calame piling on by playing internal affairs cop.

But as a former ombudsman, I beg to differ. Calame is not a political columnist or a national security reporter. His job is to represent readers' interests and hold the paper accountable for what it does. (Let's face it, news organizations aren't exactly the most transparent institutions.) Calame needs to do that job without thinking of the broader social/cultural/political implications and he did so -- even if the Times bosses stonewalled him anyway. Schanberg should understand that.

In any event, it looks like the American people are getting the point anyway. This new poll indicates that a pretty solid majority of Americans don't approve of warrantless spying -- even in this 24/7 "war on terror" era.

Is there any doubt that this story will make Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby's annual "hate from the left" column?  Who else but a lefty would throw "tofu cream pies?"

It's hard to believe.  But right there on page A24, in the National Report in today's New York Times, is none other than a story on, get this...the Oscars of porn.

The Great Gray Lady herself not only has a good-sized piece on the AVN Awards , it is accompanied by two good-sized photos (one emphasizing cleavage), and the story dominates that page of America's paper of record, literally crowding out a piece about an important legal challenge by a Yemeni detainee in Guantanamo Bay.

Now of course, coverage of the video version of the world's oldest profession has to be justified in the pages of the Times so get ready for the world's most self-conscious "nut graph." 

The program highlighted that pornography is, at least in a sense, at a crossroads. The sex-film industry shows signs of gaining some mainstream acceptance - spurred in part by its leading diva and business success, Jenna Jameson - and it is reporting record sales. According to AVN Publications, which organizes the awards, it generated $4.3 billion in sales and rentals last year. That amounted to about half the size of Hollywood's box-office receipts of nearly $9 billion last year.

At the same time, prospects for the industry have been tempered by fears that the Justice Department is poised to add to a handful of obscenity prosecutions recently brought against makers of hardcore films.

Oh, that explains it.  

From the postings on the anti-union blog and the pro-union blog, it appears that the organizing effort at the Eagle-Tribune operation has fallen short.

In a kind of perverse way, you've got to admire the Globe's Ron Borges. In case you missed it, here was an item from his Sunday "Football Notes" column regarding the Pats-Dolphins regular-season ending contest:

Regardless of what you thought about Bill Belichick's bush league decision to let Doug Flutie dropkick an extra point in the meaningless (yes, we can say that after the way Belichick approached the game) season finale, the whispers that Belichick might have discussed the possibility with Dolphins coach Nick Saban before the game seem ludicrous.

If Saban knew it was coming, why didn't he tell his team to (A) avoid burning a timeout because they were confused as to what was happening and (B) rush the heck out of Flutie when he dropped back? If the coaches did have such a discussion, is that not collusion if Saban went along with it and left his team in the dark?

"We couldn't figure out what was going on," said Saban. "They've got a quarterback in, four tight ends, and a receiver -- I might be off by one on that -- and there was no kicker. I thought they were going to run some kind of quarterback sweep or go for 2.

"I'm kind of pleased to know someone can still dropkick. When I was a kid, we all practiced that. I thought it was a lost art."

Belichick is free to do what he wants in any game -- including tank one if he feels it's better for his team's playoff chances -- but in the future he can spare us all the speeches about how he plays every game the same and every game is as important as any other game and so on, because the only thing he didn't do after Matt Cassel air-mailed that 2-point conversion pass was high-five him for it.

This is where credibility comes in with Belichick. Losing to the Dolphins to face a team with a quarterback problem and three starting defensive players hurting rather than face the high-flying Steelers in the first round is fine. The Bengals certainly appeared to be doing something similar.

Sharp-eyed observers may have noticed an interesting juxtaposition on the Boston Globe's op-ed page today. There right next to a column by Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation president Michael Widmer arguing against the payroll tax for employers who don't provide health insurance is an ad by Massachusetts Businesses for Real Healthcare Reform arguing against that payroll tax.

Needless to say, the idea of the message in an op-ed being reinforced by the same paid message alongside it is embarassing and awkward -- and sure to spawn conspiracy theories. But, says Globe publisher Richard Gilman, it's sheer unlucky coincidence.

"There's always the possibility that coincidences occur and there's journalistic content on the op-ed page and an ad that are on the same topic," he says. "I've always believed that the chances of it occurring are slim and none. As it turns out, none is not the answer."

Asked if the Globe would change policy to avoid such an occurrence in the future, Gilman responded that the journalists who edit and work on the opinon pages "explicitly don't want to know the content of ads." They may want to now.

Over the years, I've enjoyed listening to the distinctive, articulate, and classy Keith Jackson do his "Whoa Nellie" thing during college football games as much as anyone. But, after hearing him on last night's Rose Bowl telecast (What a game!), I think that Jackson should -- and probably will -- have the good sense to pack up the pipes and go home. He's had a tremendous run. But the sharp reflexes and unerring instincts necessary for today's fast-paced, graphically spectacular football broadcasts are fading noticeably. Thanks for the memories, Keith.

Assuming Mitt Romney launches his widely expected bid for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, will he need the Massachusetts media to help craft his political bio or will he do just fine on his own? In this week's Boston Phoenix,  "Romney's First Draft"  examines whether our governor can circumvent the aggressive local press corps on his way to Washington.

The media mea culpas are already rolling in after the tragic set of circumstances that led news organizations to trumpet -- however briefly -- the bogus news that there had been a miraculously happy ending to the coal mining accident in West Virginia.

Here's a typical and reasonable response from a newspaper editor picked up in today's post-mortem in USA Today.

"This is not a good day for news organizations," said George de Lama, deputy managing editor for news at the Chicago Tribune, where 373,000 of Wednesday's 656,000 copies went to readers with a front-page story stating the miners had survived. At his newspaper, "we're all sick about this...conversations are underway across the newsroom on how to prevent it from happening again."

Sure let's talk about how to avoid such a scenario again. But honestly, how often will there likely be such an incredible confluence of events?

I'm not inclined to bash news outlets -- many of which went to extraordinary efforts to ultimately get the right story out -- on this count. My brief is with another matter related to the coverage of the mine disaster -- and that is the sheer voyeurism that is part and parcel of the coverage of such made-for-media -- in particular TV -- events.

Yes, a mine disaster in which a dozen men lose their lives is a significant news event. But is it the biggest ongoing story in the entire world? Sure, if you go by the cable news coverage and the sheer volume of TV trucks that descended on the scene.

What the story undeniably has is all the ingredients of irrresistable ratings-driven drama -- men suffering a potentially horrible fate buried in the earth; a dramatic race to rescue them from the surface; terriifed loved ones and a huddling, emotional community waiting under unimaginable pressure for some word. (And as is the case in many coal mining venues, this was not a community of upscale white-wine suburbanites, but a place where rough-edged, plain-talkin' folks on the other side of the economic divide live. Such a venue gives the TV news industry something it can't resist, a chance to show it knows how to connect and share the pain with the "real Americans" who don't live on either coast.)

The horrific reality that these folks were put on an emotional roller coaster that went from tears of joy and ringing churchbells to tears of sadness and ringing condemnations of those who "lied" to them makes the TV drama all that more compelling. And the cameras and microphones were quick to seize on the rage and sense of betrayal.

 I heard and saw dramatic video of one woman questioning the existence of God after the story turned tragic. Is that kind of sentiment -- blurted out in the midst of incredible emotional trauma -- really newsworthy? Does it offer some profound revelation about people's relationships with God? I don't think so. It was a cry of pain, one that might have best been uttered away from the glare of the cameras.

I remember one other notable scene in this whole drama when one distraught woman, comforted by a man, was literally walking through a gauntlet of reporters with mikes and cameras lining her path. With a look of palpable disgust, the man firmly, but surprisingly gently, brushed a probing micropohone away with the back of his hand. He had the gall to reassert the basic right that not all grief has to be shared with the American public looking on in their living rooms and dens.

 I admired his point and his self control. 

The Globe now reliably informs Media Blog that it managed to publish at least 145,000 papers with the corrected account of what happened in that mine in West Virginia.  

Addendum -- From editor Marty Baron, here's the latest Globe tally on today's front page miner story. (I had gotten headline #2 delivered to my house this morning.)