If you read the Globe's op-ed page in its entirety yesterday, you caught this interesting statement in Alyssa Haywoode's "Editorial notebook": "The SoWa nickname has a wannabe quality, an overeagerness to borrow the cache of SoHo in New York or London."

Never mind that the London neighborhood in question is "Soho"--bravo, Alyssa! You're entirely right. Of course, your employer has probably done more than any other local party to rebrand the area located South of Washington. Consider:

--"Crafters who work south of Washington Street (they call that the SoWa district) host the third annual SoWa Holiday Market today."  Meredith Goldstein, December 9, 2006.

--"Bill Weddleton spends his evenings cruising the South End's gentrifying SoWa area in a Ford Explorer painted with rainbow-colored tiger stripes and equipped with a Sony minicam mounted to the dashboard and rooftop spotlight." Suzanne Smalley, May 26, 2006.

--"Boston's so-called SoWa neighborhood (south of Washington Street in the South End) is coming closer to the cool cultural currency of its more famous New York neighbor, SoHo, with the inauguration of its first film festival." Calendar section, May 18, 2006.

I fear the battle is already lost. But Alyssa, if you can convince the Globe to rethink its institutional endorsement of "SoWa's" existence, lunch is on me.

2/26/2007 1:46:41 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [3] |  

In the wake of Celtics great Dennis Johnson's untimely death, it's natural that his on-court accomplishments are getting loads of attention. But what about the domestic-abuse case that embroiled Johnson in 1997?



That October, Johnson was arrested in Orlando after allegedly grabbing his wife by the throat and threatening her with a knife. Here's a description from the Oct. 21, 1997 Globe:

According to the police report, which was obtained from Channel 4, Dwayne Johnson [Johnson's 17-year-old son] saw the argument as it escalated to the point that Dennis Johnson grabbed his wife in a choking manner with his left hand and held a knife in front of her face.

According to the report, Donna Johnson yelled, "What are you going to do, kill me? Go ahead." Dennis Johnson replied, "You don't think anybody will hit you?"

After a few moments, Johnson let his wife go but was still yelling and holding the knife, the report said. When Dwayne attempted to stop the argument, his father said, "Don't you even, or I'll knock you the [expletive] out." Donna Johnson replied, "No you won't. You won't touch him."

Dwayne Johnson told police he believed his father would hit him, so he ran to a neighbor's house and asked her to call 911. He then returned to the house, saw the argument had died down, and called 911 himself.

In November 1997, though, the various charges against Johnson were dropped when his wife and son refused to cooperate with prosecutors. Johnson apparently reconciled with his family, but the incident compromised his efforts to build an NBA coaching career; when he died, Johnson was coaching the Austin Toros in the NBA's Development League.

Which brings us to today's treatments of Johnson's death. The Herald's Steve Bulpett doesn't mention the knife incident in his obit or "appreciation"--even though he covered it for the Globe at the time, and later chronicled its impact on Johnson's coaching career.

Over at the Globe, meanwhile, columnist Jackie MacMullan alludes to the incident but steers clear of ugly details: "DJ dreamed of being an NBA coach, but a messy domestic abuse incident involving his wife, Donna, hampered his efforts to earn a legitimate shot at such a job." Shira Springer ignores it completely. So does AP, so does Sports Illustrated's Jack McCallum, and so does ESPN's Bill Simmons in an otherwise fantastic homage.

Johnson was an amazing player, and he may have been a good man who just made a terrible mistake ten years ago. But pretending the events of that day never happened--or eliding them as "messy"--is awfully tough to justify.

2/23/2007 2:42:52 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [10] |  

Readers, I have a few options for you this week: a Q-and-A on civil-rights journalism with the legendary Gene Roberts, Marty Baron's explanation of why Tom Brady's love child topped the paper on Feb. 19, and some thoughts on why Jennifer Strange's death has gone almost unnoticed here in Boston.

Feel free to post comments, questions, ad hominem attacks, etc. here.

2/22/2007 3:40:23 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [3] |  

Today in the Globe, Adrian Walker offers an excellent analysis of Deval Patrick's pseudo-apology yesterday (here's the Globe's write-up, and here's the Herald's). Some highlights:

We began with high-road Deval: "I spent all weekend trying to make some very hard choices. And I think it's just impossible to deal with the choices I'm asking agencies to make without making some of my own."

The contrite tone, alas, survived but a single question. In response to question number two ("Do you have any regrets?"), things got a bit surly.

"I am sorry that we have all spent the kind of time we have on what we've spent time on, and I'm sorry to have been responsible," the governor said.

In other words, I'm sorry that so many of you need to get a life.

Later:

What is troubling, though, is Patrick's inability to think any problem of his has anything to do with him. If everyone could just be as high-minded, as substantive as he is, everything would be fine....

The thing is, Patrick wants it all. He wants to be deep, yet stylish. He wants to be a populist, just one with an office out of Architectural Digest. He wants public affection, but public scrutiny makes him prickly.

One thing I'd add: Patrick's evolving explanation of why he leased the now-infamous Cadillac DeVille was reminiscent of the way he handled the Ben LaGuer story when it resurfaced last year. Governor, here's some friendly advice: don't comment until you've got the facts straight--and then put everything on the table.

UPDATE: I erred earlier in crediting the Herald with the scoop--that honor goes to Fox-25's Joe Battenfeld, who had the story on the evening of Feb. 13. You can watch Battenfeld's original report here.

2/22/2007 6:55:01 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [2] |  

Last time I tried to put a racial spin on newspaper coverage, it didn't go too well. I wouldn't do it again so quickly except--well, in this particular case I just can't help myself.

So, here's my question: would Tom Brady's soon-to-be-father status be getting different coverage if he was black?

Here's a posting from a Pittsburgh Steelers message board that parses the NY Post's scoop and argues yes:

If this was Micheal Irvin or T.O. the focus would be on irresponsible pro athletes leaving a trail of kids born out of wedlock behind them but since it is Tom Brady the article focused more on Mr. Wonderful moving on to his current supermodel squeeze and providing who knows what was remotely relevant in terms of testimony at Charlie Weis' malpractice trial.

For someone who is so good at his job it is too bad he could not remember to find out who was responsible for the birth control that night. That kid will not want for anything financially but money isn't everything....

Divorce happens after children arrive and dedicated single parents make the best of it - this is altogether different and a disgrace. At least it proves irresponsibility is color blind.

I'll go this far: if Brady was African-American, we might have seen this article referenced by now. And Gerry Callahan might have written a less adulatory column today.

UPDATE: In today's (Wednesday's) Herald, Peter Gelzinis makes a similar argument, closing his column with what reads like a jibe at Callahan:

As for Brady, well, he doesn't look quite so golden anymore. Sure, the same jock show moralists who still rant about casual fatherhood in the NBA, even as they drool over Brady's current underwear babe, can say Tom has it all.

But he will never have his first child. Not in the way most fathers do. No matter how much love or money Brady showers upon this son or daughter, the child will remain separate, an astersisk, alongside the family he will eventually have.

Also, sports columnist Tony Massarotti raises a point worth pondering:

For all the debate the Brady story has prompted, here is one aspect that is truly mystifying: How is it that the Brady story is front page news in the Boston Globe, yet the ugly divorce case involving third-wheel Pats coach Bill Belichick never gets a mention? How is it that WEEI talks about the quarterback’s situation but not about those of the coach? How do we draw the line between a full-blown, gloves-are-off scandal and one we deem frivolous and irrelevant, even if it is true?

Good question.

2/20/2007 5:57:31 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [6] |  

Oh, the humanity! Of course the Herald put the news of Tom Brady's soon-to-be illegitimate child on the cover--it's the Herald, after all. But the Globe? On the front page? Above the fold?!?




There's outrage aplenty over at Boston.com, the Globe's web affiliate. Some highlights:

"Why is this any of our business?  Much less front page news?!"

"Who cares?  Really, who cares?  Leave this kind of tabloid crap to the Herald, please."

"My view is that for the Boston Globe to think this is news of the slightest interest to the public, let alone put it on the front page, is just one more sign of the slow, relentless death of a once great newspaper.  If I wanted to read the National Enquirer, I would buy it.  What I want is a newspaper, a daily journal that covers the meaningful local, national and international events of the day, provides analysis and context, investigates what the powerful wants to hide from us, and helps us be informed and effective citizens. Instead we get this voyeuristic trash.  For shame."

Ouch.

Whatever you think of the Globe's descent info infotainment, though, it's worth noting that the Brady story is currently the most emailed item on Boston.com. Also, "Tom Brady" is the most popular search. So maybe Boston's just getting the journalism it deserves here.

2/19/2007 1:39:02 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [3] |  

Hey, what's the deal with blacks and Cadillacs?!?



I know. "DeVille" sounds like "Deval." And the Herald just whacked Patrick for using a helicopter (!) to fly from one end of the state to the other--just like Jane Swift, except that Swift used a helicopter for personal reasons, and Patrick didn't, but whatever.

That said, there's an obvious thematic similarity between today's Herald cover story and Ronald Reagan's old welfare-queen shtick. The Gipper wanted us to think that black women who should have been living within their means were using government handouts to buy fancy cars. Here, we've got a black governor who should be living within the state's means ("The example of being frugal really needs to start with him," says Republican state senator Richard Tisei) using goverment money to lease a fancy car.

One other thing: the Herald gives us the base price for Patrick's car ($42,000) and for the Crown Victorias favored for government use ($26,000). But they don't give us the base price for the car ex-Gov. Mitt Romney drove--which, according to an unnamed Patrick aide, is no longer in production. That information would be helpful.

2/16/2007 12:30:38 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [13] |  

I didn't know either, until a moment ago. But the Boston City Council has spoken:

globeresolution.pdf (81.13 KB)

The catch, obviously, is that passing a resolution is about all the City Council can do.

2/14/2007 4:31:22 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [0] |  

Back when John McCain hired Rob Gray as an adviser, some people were decidedly unimpressed by the move. After all, the thinking went, Gray was the mastermind behind Kerry Healey's campaign--and look how that worked out!

Now we see why Gray was a nice pick-up. In today's Herald, columnist Ginny Buckingham urges New Hampshire Republican primary voters to protect the country from Mitt Romney, in "N.H. should shun our fiscal phony." Now, Buckingham and Gray go way back: when Jim Kerasiotes was combusting back in 2000, for example, one of the highlights was a Wall Street Journal interview in which he called Buckingham (who was running Massport for then-Gov. Paul Cellucci) a "reptile" and Gray (who was a top Cellucci aide) a "moron."

Maybe Buckingham would have written the exact same column if Gray was working for Romney. But I doubt it. Her piece, in turn, was promptly picked up by the Note in today's Romney-announcement extravaganza, which should give it decent national circulation.

Romney already has a strategy for neutralizing bad press from the Globe. But dismissing negative assessments from Massachusetts's small cadre of conservative commentators will be trickier. If Gray keeps delivering this kind of coverage in the coming months, McCain's decision to hire him will look inspired.

2/13/2007 2:50:58 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [3] |  

Here's my take: WRKO's new A.M. drive-time host was overly deferential to his guests (Terry McAuliffe) and co-hosts (Joe Sciacca and Holly Robichaud). And he talked too much.

For example: just before 9, a guy called up and said, basically, I never thought I'd be calling in to Tom Finneran, but here I am, and I like the discussion you're having about Iraq. Finneran responded with a long soliloquy: We're all entitled to an epiphany moment, I spent 26 years in the Massachusetts legislature, I was the most conservative Democrat ever, blah blah blah. Then he tried to bring the caller into the conversation--but he'd hung up.*

That said, Finneran must have had some opening-morning jitters, and I'm sure he'll improve with time.

Also, note that the show is now the "Finneran's Forum" rather than the "Finneran Factor." My hunch is that a Bill O'Reilly emissary contacted Entercom after the latter title was announced last week and gently suggested a name change.

[UPDATE: according to the Herald's Jessica Heslam, WRKO bigwig Jason Wolfe says "Finneran's Forum" "has always been the name" (Heslam's words, apparently). Of course, Wolfe is the same guy who called ex-RKO host John DePetro's "Fag Matt" quip an example of "racial intolerance."]

What say you, the listening public?

*NOTE: As o-fish-1 noted at Dan Kennedy's blog, the caller may have been released by Finneran's producer. Oafish One, bring your insight over here sometime! Also at Dan's blog, Peter Porcupine neatly captures Finneran's affinity for repition:
"The only thing [I] noticed was a verbal tic, which he's had for years - when asking [Scott] Brown about the studens who posted the obscene messages, he said, "Was any of a them a woman, a girl, a female?" (Pick ONE, Tom!) He repeats himslf like that regularly when nervous." Nice observation, Peter.

2/12/2007 10:40:16 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [1] |  

I'm as sick of all things Mooninite as anybody. That said.... For the love of God, could somebody at the Globe please issue a directive ordering that the bombs-that-were-really-billboards not be described as "art"?!?

Michael Levenson gets it right in today's write-up of the resignation of Jim Samples, formerly GM of the Cartoon Network. The Mooninites were a "marketing campaign that sparked a bomb scare."

Also on the front page, however, John Ellement and Stephanie Ebbert get it exactly wrong. Discussing the graffiti-artist conclave going down in Boston this weekend, they write:  "It was the second time in less than two weeks that authorities had grappled with an underground artistic event. [Emph. added] On Jan. 31, battery-charged light boards promoting a television cartoon set off a bomb scare that confounded authorities and snarled traffic for hour."

AAAAAARGH!

Seriously--why is this so difficult? Billboards "promoting a television cartoon" aren't art, undergound or otherwise. Repeating this canard gives Peter Berdovsky and Sean Stevens more credit than they deserve while simultaneously giving artists a bad name. So please, cut it out. And read Greg Cook's treatment of the subject in this week's Phoenix while you're at it.

2/10/2007 12:46:34 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [1] |  

Word is, the Times Co. president/CEO faced a very tough crowd at Morrissey Boulevard today. Here's what Media Log has heard so far:

It was a very hostile meeting. I would say most of the hostility came from the classified ad* people who're being outsourced to India. This woman--her name doesn't matter--got up and said, she's been there 37 years, she loves the company, and basically, how can you do this? The paper's been cut back; we're kicked out; is this corporate greed or what?

So Janet Robinson right off the bat had to handle this highly indignant, well-spoken classified ad person. And she just kept on talking about how they'd had to make very difficult decisions, they wouldn't be doing them if it wasn't necessary. That was basically the theme: in order to save the village, we have to destroy it.

The union people really kept at her about the outsourcing--that was really the main theme. Dan Totten [the Globe union head] said it was appalling and disgusting, and when did they make the decision--because let's face it, we just agreed to this contract, and right after that they announced this outsourcing. Was that bad-faith bargaining? And [Robinson] never really gave an answer. She said [the outsourcing] had been under consideration for at least a year, but they didn't make the final decision until the terrible results of the final quarter were known. They didn't have a choice.

Somebody said, why do you still want us as part of [the Times Co.] portfolio? And she went on about, you're a beacon of great journalism, people want to buy you and I admire their taste, but you're a very important part of the company.

Anyone else care to chime in?

*NOTE: In a January memo, Globe publisher Steven Ainsley announced in a January memo that the Times Co.'s New England Media Group "outsourcing initiative" would begin "in the finance and advertising operational support departments." Classified ad sales aren't being outsourced right now.

2/8/2007 5:36:49 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [3] |  

But with a twist: this time, he starts by pretending he digs the little fuckers!



Every time I read one of his kids-suck rants, I imagine Scot popping out of his mom's womb as a perfectly formed little version of himself--full head of hair, love of charter schools, the works. And then bitching about how the maternity ward is too noisy.

2/8/2007 9:55:17 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [9] |  

Take a look, and then feel free to suggests modifications, addenda, etc.

2/8/2007 9:17:08 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [0] |  

Mike Barnicle has a column in today's Boston Herald, on the recent death of Massachusetts resident Alex Fuller in Iraq. That alone is noteworthy, since Barnicle's last Herald opus ran on April 28, 2006.

What makes Barnicle's return really interesting, though, is what it suggests about the fate of the Boston Globe. When Barnicle's popped up in the Herald lately, it's been in articles mentioning his collaboration with the Globe's would-be local owners, including Jack Welch and Jack Connors [subs. required, unfortunately]. Now, however, the sense over at Morrissey Blvd. seems to be that the Welch/Connors scenario is going nowhere. Color me imaginative, but Barnicle's sudden resurfacing as a contributor to the Globe's competitor looks like confirmation.

UPDATE: Then again, maybe not. Herald editor Kevin Convey tells me Barnicle writes at his (Barnicle's) pleasure, and that today's column doesn't signal a return to regular-contributor status. "It's entirely up to him," Convey says of Barnicle. "When he weighs in, we're happy to have him. We got a bunch of phone calls on the column today, and that's what we're after.... But he doesn't seem interested in writing on a regular basis."

2/7/2007 11:09:05 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [1] |  

Fellow journalists: why do we embarrass ourselves like this? Why is it so difficult to pat each other on the back and say, "Great job"?

Here's what I'm talking about. On Tuesday, the Herald revealed that Peter Berdovsky had videotaped police response to that wacky Mooninite stunt. But today--if you read the Globe or a zillion other publications, and missed the original Herald story--you'd never know who got there first. Here's the Associated Press write-up as reproduced in the Globe's "New England in Brief" section:
       

Man charged in sign scare taped police

February 7, 2007

One of two men charged after placing cartoon advertisements around the city had videotaped a police bomb squad removing one of the devices, but did not tell officers the object was harmless. Surveillance cameras filmed Peter Berdovsky, 27, videotaping officers removing what they thought was a possible bomb. His lawyer, Walter Prince, said yesterday that Berdovsky "didn't do anything inappropriate." Prince said Berdovsky was unaware the bomb threat he went to shoot at the Sullivan Square T station involved one of the devices that he and Sean Stevens, 28, had hung. "When he got there, he realized what was going on, and he went back to his apartment and called his employer. And they told him they would take care of it," Prince said. Stevens was with Berdovsky , according to the Boston Herald. A spokeswoman for Attorney General Martha Coakley, who is prosecuting Berdovsky and Stevens on charges of placing a hoax device and disorderly conduct, declined to comment. (AP)

What isn't mentioned, obviously, is that the Herald broke the story. Which is utterly predictable, since news outlets everywhere are generally loathe to acknowledge their competitors' successes.

Just because this practice is commonplace doesn't make it any less asinine, however. If editors at AP and the Globe want to scream at their reporters for getting beat on this story, fine. But pretending the Herald scoop never happened is intellectually dishonest.

2/7/2007 10:09:57 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [2] |  

Obviously! That's the conclusion of one Hugh Campbell, who offered his analysis at The Lede, the New York Times's news blog. Here's Hugh's argument:

Unfortunately this will only continue the illusion that a woman President may not be a good idea as only a woman would do something this dramatic. Men and women both know that no man would drive 900 miles in diapers in a fit of passion.

....

Thank God for interactivity.

2/6/2007 5:58:44 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [1] |  

Bay Windows has the scoop: Worcester police are recommending that Larry Cirignano--the anti-gay marriage stalwart and former executive director of Catholic Citizenship--be prosecuted for allegedly shoving pro-gay marriage Sarah Loy counterprotester to the ground. The alleged incident occurred during a Dec. 16 Worcester rally for VoteonMarriage.org.

The Worcester PD is reportedly recommending assault-and-battery and civil-rights charges against Cirignano.

Good for them.

2/6/2007 11:00:16 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [0] |  

*NOTE: Make that "Media Log confuses." A reader has helpfully pointed out that there is, in fact, a CENTRAL place for "intent" in the state law at work here. Here's what I somehow managed to miss:

Whoever possesses, transports, uses or places or causes another to knowingly or unknowingly possess, transport, use or place any hoax device or hoax substance with the intent to cause anxiety, unrest, fear or personal discomfort to any person or group of persons shall be punished by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment. [emph. added]

Today's Herald story reporting that Peter Berdovsky and Sean Stevens videotaped law enforcement's Mooninite freak-out is a great scoop, assuming it holds up. Nice work by Michele McPhee.

That said, I'm puzzled by the "high-ranking BPD official" who claimed that this videotaping provides the proof of "intent" that prosecutors need to make their case. Here's the quote in question:

The minute they knew that police officers were racing across the city, firefighters were racing to the scene, and bomb techs were suiting up, and they did not call 911 [sic]. That--that forms intent. Their being there could provide the proof of intent prosecutors need.

Two problems here:

1. I'm no attorney, but on a common-sense level, this doesn't necessarily work. Yeah, maybe Pete-n-Sean had their videocamera at the ready because they knew exactly what was going to happen and wanted to capture it for posterity. Then again, maybe they're just a couple of tools who didn't expect things to snowball the way they did, thought it was hilarious, and wanted to get it on tape.

2. Beyond that, why does "intent" even matter? I ask this because Mass. law defines "hoax" in such a way that "intent" seems utterly superfluous. Here's the relevant passage:

For the purposes of this section, the term "hoax device" shall mean any device that would cause a person reasonably to believe that such device is an infernal machine. For the purposes of this section, the term "infernal machine" shall mean any device for endangering life or doing unusual damage to property, or both, by fire or explosion, whether or not contrived to ignite or explode automatically. [You can read the whole law here.]

What's the deal? there a J.D. in the house?

2/6/2007 10:39:56 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [4] |  

In this week's paper, I explore Morrissey Blvd.'s angst and ask whether the paper's intensified local focus is really such a good thing.

Sorry, no Mooninite content.

2/2/2007 9:25:34 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [2] |  

Earlier today, I griped about how we didn’t learn that all those “suspicious devices” pictured a little dude flipping the bird until it was way, way too late. I still believe that’s the truly confounding part of this story, and I’m still trying to figure out whether the press or law enforcement deserves blame.

Today’s front-page Globe story suggests a technical explanation. Here it is:

For much of the day, police treated the signs, which measure about 1 by 1 1/2 feet and feature protruding wires on one side, as potentially dangerous. But their investigation shifted when they happened to move one of the signs into a darker area. The sudden lack of sunlight prompted the lights forming the character’s image to brighten into color. Sometime between 2 and 3 p.m., according to a public safety official, a Boston police analyst recognized the image as a cartoon character, and police concluded it was likely a publicity stunt. [Emphasis added]

Eureka! But wait: the photo accompanying the story shows a state policeman taking a Mooninite off a McGrath Highway column. The Mooninite seems to be well-lit. And you can still see it’s a Mooninite.




Then we have today’s Herald’s write-up (posted at 2:10 p.m. on BostonHerald.com) of Peter Berdovsky and Sean Stevens’ court appearance today. Reading what assistant AG John Grossman had to say in court today, it’s hard not to wonder if the Globe’s explanation was peddled by somebody looking to save face. Consider:

“Prosecutor Grossman explained the reason Boston reacted as it did is because bomb cops are trained to examine foreign objects for a power source and a circuit board and both were present in the Sullivan Square Mooninite, as well as duct tape attached to a red wire.

“They believed it was very possibly a bomb,” Grossman said, adding that an obscene cartoon leering back at them did little to throw them off.

“Someone with a nefarious intent would do that on top of a bomb,” he said. “There’s a big difference between putting one on a rolled-down gate at Newbury Comics and putting one under the Longfellow Bridge.” [Emphasis added]

Well? Which is it?

BTW, I’ll buy the idea that Mooninite No. 1, a/k/a the Sullivan Square Mooninite, could have been fuckin’ terrifying even if you saw the Mooninite plain as day--especially somewhere that seems like a natural terrorist target. That’s why this was a dumb-ass ad campaign. But No. 1 was discovered at 8 a.m. and pulverized by a water cannon at 10. By noon, when a slew of “suspicious devices” were reportedly discovered around the city, the cartoon imagery should have seemed less like a devious twist by a criminal mastermind and more like a sign that these things weren’t actually bombs.

Anyway, the bottom line is this: at 4 p.m. Wednesday, WBUR’s Dolores Handy was still talking about “suspicious devices” during her top-of-the-hour news break. And 4:10 Thursday afternoon--one to two hours after a “Boston police analyst recognized the image as a cartoon character,” according to today’s Globe--a story at Boston.com still quoted a law-enforcement source alluding vaguely to a “commonality” between several of the mysterious objects, which were described as “electronic circuits with LED lights attached.”

Right. In the shape of a little guy. Who was giving us the finger.

2/1/2007 3:33:01 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [1] |  

Any chance this whole stupid thing would have played out differently if--instead of referring to multiple "suspicious devices" discovered around the city--the Boston media had referred to multiple "pictures of a little guy giving the finger"?

And here's a follow-up: if so, is the fact that they didn't the fault of A) the press, B) public officials, or C) both?

Discuss.

2/1/2007 9:26:02 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [13] |