In which I argue that the former is already reshaping the latter--for better or worse.

11/28/2007 4:40:56 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [2] |  

Kudos to the Globe for reporting the Boston Archdiocese's school-reorganization plan on A1, above the fold. This placement makes a strong statement about the paper's determination to serve Boston proper as well as the suburbs, some exceptions notwithstanding.

Having said that, readers who want a deeper look at the archdiocese's plan would do well to review earlier coverage in the Dorchester Reporter, which has been all over this story since February. Click here, for example, and you'll get an article that details recent pushback against the archdiocese from parents, students, and Boston politicians--and also explains the potential social cost of the archdiocese's plan.

Scroll down, meanwhile, and you'll find links to all the Reporter's previous coverage--including an editorial discussing the archdiocese's efforts to bar the press from a parent/parishioner meeting where the reorganization was discussed. Throughout, the Reporter's guiding assumption was that the archdiocese's deliberations needed to be covered before the plan was a done deal. As publisher Ed Forry put it:

It is our job--and our charge--to report on the Catholic school consolidation process now, not at a time of the Archdiocese's choosing in the "weeks ahead" or after a decision on school closings has been handed down by Cardinal O'Malley.

That's good community journalism.

UPDATE: The Herald's Laura Crimaldi notes that her paper got to the subject before the Globe, with a cover story (by Crimaldi) published on Nov. 18 and a column by Peter Gelzinis that ran on Nov. 21. I should have noted that in the original post.

11/27/2007 11:29:39 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [1] |  

Now, it's just one example, so no one should get too excited. (This means you, Bob.) But Slate's comparison of two conference calls recently held by would-be president Mike Huckabee--one for reporters, one for bloggers--makes the latter group look good. The former? Not so much.

Quick summary: "The reporters’ questions were much more concise and polished. But the bloggers’ questions were more substantive by a long shot." Read the rest here.

NOTE: The original title for this post was, inadvertently, a tad too close to the Slate item it discusses; hence my awkward use of a "greater-than" sign.

11/26/2007 3:07:42 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [3] |  

Over at Blue Mass. Group, there's been much discussion of Herald columnist Margery Eagan's conflation of Barack Obama and Osama Bin Laden yesterday.

Therein, my friend and ex-colleague Dan Kennedy says he's sure Eagan's gaffe was accidental, and that he's made a few such mistakes himself. Having made plenty of my own, I'm prepared to give Eagan the benefit of the doubt as well.

That said, it's interesting--in light of Eagan's Obama/Osama slip--to review this exchange from the Sept. 14 installement of WTKK's Eagan & Braude show. The subject of the day was this: what's being discussed more, the NFL's Sept. 13 penalizing of Bill Belichick and the Patriots for Videotapegate or President Bush's Sept. 13 speech on Iraq? Let's pick it up from the 9:15 mark (click here to listen yourself):

Eagan: No one really wants to talk about George Bush, would be my question. You know why? Because if you saw the speech, he was in a full-throttle, Mad Magazine look--

Braude: No, he was. He looked like Alfred E. Neumann.

Eagan: It was the eyes darting, the look of uncertainty, the look of 'Oh my God, can I get through this speech without goofing it up. It’s one of those--and actually, you know who makes me feel that way? Not to the same degree--

Braude: Who?

Eagan: But you know who also makes me feel that way?

Braude: No I don’t.

Eagan: Obama. He makes me very nervous. When he’s doing a speech he’s different; he’s very good--

Braude: He’s not great in debates--

Eagan: But when he’s giving these off the cuff remarks, or if he’s in a debate, it’s the same kind of thing. 'Oh, can you get through this'--

Braude: I can’t believe you could say that. While I agree he’s not good in debates, I think there’s an intellect differential that is about as big as the Grand Canyon. Are you kidding?

Eagan: Well, there may be an intellectual--there may be an intellect differential, but he does not inspire confidence in his words. He makes me very nervous.

Braude: What do you think--what’s the thought--

Eagan: He inspires, you know, wet behind the ear. He reminds me of a kid in 4th grade the same way George Bush reminds me of a kid in 4th grade--can you get through the spelling bee?

Braude: You are out of your mind.

Eagan: I’m not out of my mind. This guy is--I cannot believe--

Unidentified male: Osama Obama--

Braude: That’s the other guy.

Eagan: Very smart people support this man.

I think it's safe to say she's not a fan.

11/21/2007 11:46:20 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [4] |  

The most noteworthy thing about Karl Rove's debut column for Newsweek is that it repeats the query--originally from a woman in South Carolina--that recently created trouble for John McCain:

[T]he question to John McCain from a woman at a town hall in South Carolina last Monday was tasteless, but key: "How do we beat the [rhymes with witch]?" Right now, Republicans are focusing much of their fire on Senator Clinton. Criticizing her unites the party, stirs up the unsettled feelings many swing voters have toward her and allows each candidate to say why he is best able to beat her. For now, that's enough. But when a GOP nominee emerges, he needs to remember no Republican is as well known as Hillary. The Republican has room to grow in the polls as voters get a better sense of who he is and what animates him. Here's what he needs to do. [emph. added]

If McCain deserves criticism for not condemning the question in the first place--and I'd say he does--doesn't Newsweek deserve more for letting Rove rehash it in print?

11/20/2007 10:44:24 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [0] |  

Howie Carr makes his awkward return to WRKO in about 10 minutes. So why is Virtual Howie still on the 'RKO Web site--on the page announcing Carr's return, no less?

Maybe I don't fully get the joke. But if you try Virtual Howie out (scroll to the bottom of the page), it's hard to see it as something Carr would appreciate.

11/16/2007 2:53:28 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [2] |  

As a coworker of mine put it: "Glad to see the Globe was nice enough to run the Red Sox 2008 ticket brochure on A1 today. I guess they need to do something to earn that 17 percent."

Now, the article in question does include a quote from a disgruntled ticketholder, one Jon Freedman, who called the increase in Sox ticket prices "pretty disgusting." But Freedman also says: "[I]f I don't buy them, there at at least 1,000 people who will."

Even better, from the Sox PR department's point of view, is that the article uncritically embraces the notion that the increases are necessary to keep pace with New York, as opposed to a way to make more money. Here's the lede:

The Red Sox, who already have the most expensive tickets in baseball, are raising prices again, this time by 9 percent, in an effort to keep up with a familiar target: the Yankees.

Did I mention that the New York Times Company, the Globe's corporate parent, owns 17 percent of the Sox's parent company? That's good, because the article didn't.

11/15/2007 1:01:30 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [1] |  

Wherein I argue that, while the press may not be totally responsible, we're a big part of the problem.

11/15/2007 11:13:18 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [0] |  

According to CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider, Hillary Clinton's use of a planted questioner evokes memories of Bill Clinton's dishonesty:

"It's the same criticism often made of her husband," Schneider said. "Most Americans never felt Bill Clinton was honest and trustworthy, even when he got elected in 1992 -- with only 43 percent of the vote. His critics called him 'Slick Willy.' ... Will her critics start referring to the New York senator as 'Slick Hillary?'"

Boy, Bill, that's a great question.

Don't get me wrong: the use of pre-screened questioners is completely lame. Sadly, though, stage-managed Q-and-A's are pretty common in politics. If and when another campaign gets caught in the act, will Schneider see it as evidence of a fatal flaw?

11/13/2007 9:35:49 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [2] |  

A while back, I kvetched about the Herald and Globe not following up on the alleged Marshfield massacre plot. So I was especially eager to read this Globe front-pager on convicted plotter Toby Kerns, pegged to a sentencing hearing scheduled for today.

Now that I have, a couple points. First: kudos to the Globe and reporter Emily Sweeney for putting this story back on the public's radar. Second: did Sweeney seek out anybody who was skeptical of Kerns' own account of his involvement (or lack thereof) in the allged plot? And if so, why aren't they in the story?

Early in the story, for example, we get this:

In two recent telephone interviews from the jail, Kerns denied responsibility for the plot while repeatedly apologizing for the disruption his arrest caused. He insisted he was framed by other teenagers and that he never expected any sort of massacre to be carried out [emph. added].

Then, a bit later:

Kerns maintains his innocence and says he was set up by three of his former friends. "I never agreed to, or planned to, kill anyone," Kerns said. "I had nothing to do with these kids at the time of my arrest. In fact. I hadn't for some time. They went to the police and pointed the finger at me because they were afraid that I was actually going to turn them in [emph. added].

The Marshfield story is complex and troubling, and Kerns may well have been framed; that's certainly the sense you get reading this Boston magazine story from 2004. But as BoMag noted, there are dissenting versions of what actually happened. The Globe should have done the same.

11/13/2007 2:23:41 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [4] |  

The Atlantic's 150th anniversary is occasion for sober reflection. It's also occasion for this highly entertaining Observer story on what sounds like a very strange shindig in New York. (Via Romenesko.)

11/9/2007 1:35:39 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [1] |  

Earlier this week, I accused the Globe of not running an article focused on John Connolly, Boston's newly elected at-large city councilor, until the day of the election. I was wrong. Michael Jonas, who writes the "Political Trail" column for the Globe's City Weekly section, wrote about Connolly on July 1. Apologies to Michael and Morrissey Boulevard for my error.

Now that I've 'fessed up, two related points:

1. The placement of the Globe's sole feature on Connolly's candidacy raises an interesting question: when should the Globe relegate Boston political coverage to the City Weekly section, and when should it run in City/Region? On the one hand, only Boston voters were going to have a chance to vote for Connolly. On the other hand, the politics of Boston have a significance that extends far beyond the city's borders. That's why--to cite one example--the Globe's story on the terrible turnout for this week's Boston election ran on the front page, above the fold.

2. On a more mundane note, the Globe and the people who maintain the ProQuest newspaper database should figure out how to make sure the latter includes City Weekly content. Just, you know, to prevent future confusion or anything.

11/9/2007 10:01:32 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [2] |  

Today's Globe story on the Boston City Council elections blames a bunch of different factors for yesterday's weak turnout: crappy weather, the lack of a preliminary election, a transient population, etc.

How about adding media apathy to the list?

Exhibit A is the invisible candidacy of Carlos Henriquez, who challenged longtime incumbent Chuck Turner in District 7. As far as I can tell, the Globe didn't do a single article about Henriquez; the Herald gave him a column (by Wayne Woodlief) and passing mention in a crime article by Michele McPhee. He did get some nice attention from Boston magazine, but it came immediately before the election. True, Henriquez was a long shot. But the press helped make his race basically invisible.

Exhibit B is John Connolly, Boston's newest at-large councilor. In 2005, the first Globe article mentioning Connolly ran on April 10. This year it came on October 7*. The first piece focused on Connolly, meanwhile, ran on the day of the election--and only because of some ill-advised anonymous attack pieces Connolly sent out the prior week. (The paper's ed page endorsed Connolly on October 30.) Granted, 2005 was a mayoral-election year, with a higher number of viable council challengers (Yoon, White, O'Malley) in the mix. But still.

I could go on, but you get the idea. The slow death of Boston politics isn't all the media's fault. But the press is definitely part of the problem.

*CORRECTION: I initially wrote--incorrectly--that the first article mentioning Connolly ran on election day. Thanks to Mike Pahre of the excellent Brighton Centered blog for catching my error.

11/7/2007 12:20:43 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [5] |  

185,832. That, according to a new Audit Bureau of Circulations report, was the Herald's average paid M-F subscription total for the six-month period that ended on September 30. The equivalent figure for the six-month period that ended in March was 201,513; in March '06, it was 227,582.

The Globe didn't reach a similarly disheartening milestone, but its numbers reflect the industry's disheartening direction. The current M-F subscription average is 360,695; it was 382,503 in March and 397,288 in March '06.

This particular ABC report breaks ground by documenting Web readership. But since the Globe's online readership of 1,008,580 applies to the past 30 days (i.e., that many people have read the paper online at least once in that period) instead of giving a daily readership average, I'm not sure how to square these numbers.

P.S.--Sunday circulation numbers are down too. The Globe's at 548,906 compared to 587,289 a year ago; the Herald's at 108,816 compared to 115,214. Can five figures be far off?

11/5/2007 2:33:05 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [2] |  

There are a couple things worth mentioning about the Globe's new online look, which is part of a bigger redesign of Boston.com, the paper's pseudo-Web site.

First, once you navigate away from the paper's front page, Globe articles now look more like Times articles than then they used to. Here's an old Globe article online. Here's a new one. And here's an online Times story.

I'm fine with the new, Times-esque font. But I wish I didn't have to slog through all that Boston.com content on the right-hand side before seeing today's most-read and most-emailed stories, dammit. Also, the Globe seems to have a little font ambivalence, since the front page remains unchanged and the headlines and section tabs up top don't match the actual story text. I'm no designer, but the Times's consistency in this area is way easier on the eyes.

Second, despite the Times's recent decision to allow moderated reader comments with some stories, the Globe apparently isn't following suit. That comment box at the bottom is just there in case you want to email the story. This shouldn't be a surprise; after all, this is the same paper that won't allow reader comments on blogs. Still, what on earth is Morrissey Blvd. afraid of? Get with the Zeitgeist, people!

P.S.--Dan Kennedy counters my hate with love.

11/5/2007 8:43:58 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [3] |  

Last time WRKO floated the possibility of hiring ex-Imus sidekick Bernard McGuirk, things didn't go too well. The station quickly changed its tune, "clarifying" that McGuirk would only be guest-co-hosting, not auditioning for a regular gig. Then the WRKO brass decided not to bring McGuirk in, period.

Today, though, the Herald's Jessica Heslam reports--in a piece on Imus's impending return--that WRKO may hire McGuirk after all, and not just as Tom Finneran's co-host:

Former Don Imus sidekick Bernard McGuirk could get his own radio show in Boston, sources told the Herald, even as Imus himself announced plans yesterday to return to the air Dec. 3, eight months after his racist remarks sparked a national furor.

Sources say McGuirk could eventually get his own radio show based in Boston, most likely WRKO (680 AM), with the possibility of syndication. McGuirk, who was canned with Imus in April, is set to be part of Imus’ new radio show but could leave if he gets his own gig, the sources said.

Now, a few big things have changed since WRKO backed away from McGuirk. Imus is coming back, and Howie Carr is floating in radio limbo after botching his attempted jump from WRKO to WTKK.

But the core problem with McGuirk remains the same.  He's the guy whose use of the word "ho"--or, more accurately, the phrase "hard-core hos"--prompted the banter that led to Imus's ouster from CBS. Not coincidentally, he's also the guy whose responsibilities on Imus's show included doing "nigger jokes," according to Imus himself.

You could take Heslam's story as a sign of WRKO's poor taste, but I'm more inclined to treat it as proof of the station's desperation.

11/2/2007 3:45:05 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [3] |  

Today's issue of the Hill has a front-page story on the reaction Hillary Clinton's last debate performance elicited among campaign staffers and supporters. The reporter, Sam Youngman, listened in on a recent conference call; here's a smidgen of what he heard:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) top advisers, doing damage control after the candidate’s debate performance Tuesday, told supporters on a conference call Wednesday that the campaign needed more money to fight back.

Mark Penn, Clinton’s senior strategist and pollster, and Jonathan Mantz, the campaign’s finance director, told the supporters on the call, which The Hill listened to in its entirety, that they expect attacks from Clinton’s rivals to continue, and she will need the financial resources to deflect their attacks [emph. added].

Clinton came under withering assault in the Philadelphia debate, and some supporters on the call agreed with analysts that she stumbled.

“I wouldn’t say she lost her cool,” one caller said. “But I would say she lost her footing.”

Now for the catch: the conference-call participants apparently didn't know a reporter was lurking in the background. Earlier today, I asked Youngman if people knew he was on the line. "Well, no," he said. "I was given the number by a source. I didn't misrepresent myself; when they asked for my name and the city, I told them my name and city."

Youngman also said he'd done something analogous earlier this year, when he listened in to a conference call featuring Bill Clinton. "Believe me, it's something we thought about," he added. "We didn't want to be unethical, by any means."

I understand Youngman's desire to get inside precious insider dirt. But by listening in to a non-media conference call, and not fully identifying himself, Youngman violated a tacit contract that bound the call's organizers and participants--i.e., that their exchange would be private. This is different than, say, overhearing a conversation in a restroom, where there's no such expectation of privacy.

Then again, plenty of important stories involve violations of expected privacy. So is this one any different?

Readers, what say you?

11/1/2007 12:37:41 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [2] |