July 02, 2009
I've never bought the notion that only Boston natives should cover Boston--which you'd expect, since I'm not a Boston native. But I do think that, when we journalistic outsiders are getting started--and even when we've been doing our jobs for a few years--we can benefit from colleagues and superiors who've spent decades here, if not their whole lives.
If so, where does that leave Boston magazine? As today's Globe story on BoMag's recent turmoil makes abundantly clear, the people running Boston really don't know the city. Owner Herb Lipson lives near Atlantic City. Larry Platt, BoMag's editorial director, is all about Philadelphia. And Andrew Putz, BoMag's new editor, is a Minnesotan who's also spent time in Philly.
True, James Burnett--Putz's recently ousted predecessor--came from New York. But he'd been at BoMag for seven years, and presumably has a richer sense of place than Putz, Platt, or Lipson. (For starters, I'm guessing he knows how to pronounce "DiMasi.")
Putz has a good reputation, and he'll be able to draw on the knowledge of those fortunate BoMag staffers (from Boston and elsewhere) who survived the recent bloodletting at Horticultural Hall. Still, given the intense competition and bleak prospects facing all print media today, I can't help thinking that BoMag will be handicapped by its dearth of deep local roots--particularly at the publication's highest levels.
July 02, 2009
From today's Boston edition of the World's Largest Global Newspaper, nee Boston's Largest Newspaper:
Editor's note: Metro has decided to celebrate the independence of our country by taking a few days off around the Fourth. We're guessing you'll be too, so we'll see you again next Thursday, July 9.
My question is, why Thursday? If you're already taking off Friday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, why not just skip the whole damn week?
June 29, 2009
Update: a reader notes that what I took for the Herald's admission that few sex offenders drive ice-cream trucks was actually the Herald marveling at the dearth of laws preventing popsicle-peddling pervs. (Take that, Laurel Sweet!) The original post follows:
Today in the scrappy tabloid, reporter Laurel Sweet marvels at the dearth of sex offenders driving ice-cream trucks, while simultaneously raising the spooky spectre of sex offenders driving ice cream trucks. From the piece, titled "The heat's on ice cream truck vendors: Pol proposes background checks to weed out pervs":
State Sen. Michael R. Knapik is proposing to outlaw convicted sex offenders from manning ice cream trucks - incredibly, a rarity nationwide. But don’t expect a soft serve when the bill comes up for debate tomorrow afternoon.
That is incredible!
Also noteworthy: Sweet's evocative description of how Knapik's bill would work:
Any offender caught dealing in fudgsicles would face up to 2 years in
jail and heavy fines. Knapik is further asking the state to empower
police to arrest dicey drivers lickety split, without first obtaining a
warrant.
June 29, 2009
Both NECN and WGBH make the list. NECN won in the investigative-reporting category, large market, for The Forgotten Fire, a documentary on a fatal 2000 Newton blaze. WGBH, meanwhile, took top news-documentary honors (also large market, natch), for Boogie Man, its bio of legendary GOP operative Lee Atwater.
Kudos to both. And let's hope that NECN's win keeps Comcast, the station's new sole owner, from messing with the station's documentary unit.
June 29, 2009
Writes a commenter of my defense of the NYT's/Wikipedia's handling of the David Rohde situation:
I'd be more understanding if it wasn't for the NYT double-standard.
When it comes to releasing information about our secret program to
track terrorists finances, they have no qualms about publishing that
info, in essence working against America's safety. So what happens when
terrorism hits home with them? Surprise, it's "hush-hush" to the point
of deleting public information again or again. I'm glad the reporter is
OK, but I'll never trust the NYT, and now wikipedia.
That's an important point, and one I should have addressed in my original post. So I'll do it here instead.
When the Times reports something like the warrantless wiretapping
story, they're operating on the assuption that the threat to privacy
is a massive public ill that outweighs any potential safety threat
stemming from their coverage. Whether you buy that argument or not, it's possible to make it.
In the Rohde case, in contrast, there's no
comparably grave public ill that followed directly from the
decision not to report. There are more abstract concerns, e.g. the invitation of the hypocrisy charge leveled here.
Then again, the potential downside of reporting Rohde's kidnapped
status--i.e., one man's life, versus (possibly) thousands or tens of
thousands--was smaller, if more imminent. That may sound callous, especially to Rohde's friends/families/colleagues, but it's true.
Readers, any thoughts on whether the Times and Wikipedia did the right thing? I still think the answer's yes, and I'd certainly want my employer advocating just as aggressively on my behalf if I were in harm's way. Still, it's a very thorny question.
June 29, 2009
Richard Perez-Pena reports today that his employer, the New York Times, sought and received the cooperation of Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales as it worked to conceal reporter David Rohde's November 2008 kidnapping. [UPDATE: I originally wrote that the New York Times had "successfully pressured" Wales to delete reports of Rohde's kidnapping, but Wales objected that the term "pressured" was misleading. I've changed the text accordingly; his full objection and my response can be found in the comments.] The Times argued that publicizing Rohde's abduction would increase his value to his Afghan captors and lessen his chances of survival.
Is this problematic? In one sense, yes: if Wikipedia's your first stop for information, the Rohde case might make you less inclined to trust the site down the road. And if you're one of Wikipedia's stalwart contributors, you might be less inclined to contribute your energies.
That said, I find it very hard to criticize either the Times Co. or Wikipedia's conduct here. Rohde's situation was a matter of life and death. The Times simply had do everything in its power to increase his chances of survival. (Fortunately, Rohde escaped.)
Also, while Wikipedia did constrain the freedom of some of its users, it didn't violate their freedom of speech. The individuals who wanted to get word of Rohde's kidnapping out could have contacted countless news outlets, for example; or nabbed a relevant blogspot account to publicize Rohde's situation and Wikipedia's response; or simply stood on the streetcorner handing out leaflets that did the same.
Fire away, Wiki-purists! (Also, here's a more skeptical take on Wikipedia's conduct.)
June 26, 2009
Universal Hub reports that today's Boston Herald cover--featuring Michael Jackson's death, natch--has become the subject of in-person protest:
Just got word of a protest at 1 Herald Square at 4 over the Herald's
"FADE TO BLACKO" cover today. Protesers say it was racist and offensive
to Boston's black community: "Michael Jackson was an icon and should be respected!"
I don't get it. Obviously, "Fade to Blacko" is just a hybrid of "Jacko" and "Fade to Black," neither of which has anything to do with race. Plus, while the Herald's hed doesn't strike me as particularly disrespectful, Jackson's freakish personal proclivities pretty much guaranteed that, when he died, his death would be just as much a spectacle as his life.
Am I being too callous here?
June 25, 2009
Like Dan Kennedy, I'm curious about what "incorrect information" today's much-discussed Times Co. memo is supposed to correct. (Disclosure: my recent comments to NPR's On the Media may be involved, though if they are, I'd dispute said involvement.)
But as a commenter at Gawker notes, the memo--from Times Co. chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and CEO Janet Robinson--doesn't just condemn the (unspecified) bad information peddled by others. It distributes its own bad info, too.
Write Sulzberger and Robinson:
To Our Colleagues,
The month of May came and went and, contrary to the prediction of one writer, we did not stop printing The New York Times. But given all the speculation and incorrect information that has been reported about our Company, we think it is important to create a regular letter written so that you get the facts directly from us — on the record.... [emph. added]
That one writer would be the Atlantic's Michael Hirschorn, who offered a grim assessment of the NYT Co.'s current and long-termprospects earlier this year. Problem is, Hirschorn didn't actually say what Sulzberger and Robinson claim he did. Here's an excerpt from his piece:
But what if the old media dies much more quickly? What if a hurricane comes along and obliterates the dunes entirely? Specifically, what if The New York Times goes out of business — like, this May?
It’s certainly plausible. Earnings reports released by the New York Times Company in October indicate that drastic measures will have to be taken over the next five months or the paper will default on some $400million in debt. With more than $1billion in debt already on the books, only $46million in cash reserves as of October, and no clear way to tap into the capital markets (the company’s debt was recently reduced to junk status), the paper’s future doesn’t look good....
Granted, the odds that The Times will cease to exist entirely come May are relatively slim. Many steps could be taken to prolong its existence. The Times Company has already slashed its dividend, a major source of income for the paper’s owners, the Sulzberger family, but one that starved the company at precisely the moment it needed significant investments in new media. The company could sell its share of the brilliant Renzo Piano–designed headquarters—which cost the company about $600million to build and was completed in 2007, years after the digital threat to The Times’ core business had become clear. (It’s already borrowing money against the building’s value.) It could sell The Boston Globe—or shutter it entirely, given what the company itself has acknowledged is a challenging time for the sale of media properties.... [emph. added]
In other words, Hirschorn floated a dramatic possibility to get our attention; explained why his scenario merited consideration; and then backtracked by saying it probably wouldn't pan out. Inflammatory, sure. But a "prediction" that ain't.
My executive editor, Peter Kadzis, argues that the memo in question is aimed less at correcting mistakes then at imparting calm. That makes sense. Still, this could have been accomplished without fudging the facts.
June 25, 2009
In which I try to separate Twitter's news value, vis a vis the chaos in Iran, from its political efficacy--and generally side with the skeptics. Please take a look.
June 24, 2009
My first thought, when I heard about the tentative agreement struck
by management and the Boston Newspaper Guild last night, was that Guild
head Dan Totten must be patting himself on the back right now. After
all, Totten's non-endorsement of the contract proposal rejected by the
Guild last month was predicated on the assumption that he could get a better offer from the Times Co. if his membership just gave him the chance.
But did he? Yes, the current pay-cut proposal--8 percent when an unpaid
furlough is factored in, as opposed to 10 percent in the contract
rejected last month--is lower. As a result, though, the benefit cuts
are more severe.
Now recall that, earlier this month, some
Guild members were actually arguing that the benefit cuts contained in
the proposal that was rejected on June 8--which were less severe than those contained in the new contract offer--were so onerous that the Times Co.'s threatened 23-percent pay cut was actually preferable.
Guild
members, I'd love to get your take on this. Do you see the latest
contract offer as superior to the one that was rejected earlier this
month,
or inferior, or roughly equivalent? And given that,
what's your take on the representation you've received from Totten and
the other Guild leaders?
June 22, 2009
Just received a rather terse email from Boston editor James Burnett:
Dear media colleagues, ace freelancers, PR specialists, and
assorted professional acquaintances I've had the pleasure of meeting during the
past seven years:
Today is my last day as editor of Boston magazine, and, as is usually the case
with these things, also the last at this email address.
Going forward, please try me at:
xxx@gmail.com
or:
617.xxx.xxxx
If you're thinking that Burnett's exit is linked to the recent appointment of Larry Platt as editorial director at Metro Corp., Boston's Philadelphia-based corporate parent, you're probably right. As a Boston insider put it to me before Burnett's announcement: "New York may own the Globe, but there's no doubt Philly is now running Boston mag."
June 19, 2009
The Eagle-Tribune reports that Herald crime reporter O'Ryan Johnson has been charged with assaulting a small old man with emphysema. At a laundromat.
June 17, 2009
Beat the Press blogger Ralph Ranalli notes an interesting contradiction regarding the ongoing Times Co.-Boston Newspaper Guild negotiations:
My question is this: Since the imposition of the 23 percent wage cut was based on the Times claim of a bargaining "impasse," how Times officials be participating in marathon bargaining sessions yet asserting an impasse at the same time? Someone help me with this.
I can't provide a definitive answer. But it seems to me that two points are worth highlighting here.
First, as I wrote in this week's Phoenix, at least one labor-law specialist--Professor Angela Cornell, who directs Cornell University's labor-law clinic--believes the Times Co.'s impasse claim may have been questionable from the outset. Thus far, however, no legal authority has kept the company from making the claim and proceeding accordingly. So if you're the Times Co., why not press on with the claim of impasse and the ensuing wage cut, even if circumstances have changed?
Second, it seems that the Times Co. and the Guild are only negotiating now because the 23-percent wage cut was implemented. If the Guild had rejected the Times Co.'s last contract proposal, and the Times Co. hadn't ramped up the pressure by implementing the cut in question, the Guild would be operating from a position of far greater strength than it currently is. Rescind the cut, in other words, and the talks could break down altogether.
June 16, 2009
So reports WGBH-TV's Ralph Ranalli--who also suggests that those pesky lifetime-job guarantees will get the axe if a deal is done.
June 16, 2009
At the end of May, Globe metro editor Brian McGrory told his staff that metro political editor Chris Rowland was leaving to take an editing job in Bloomberg's Boston office. But now it turns out that Roland--who's been replaced as metro political editor by Scott Helman--won't be leaving the Globe after all; instead, he's going to Washington to fill the DC bureau chief position recently vacated by Peter Canellos.
Here's the note sent by Globe editor Marty Baron earlier today.
To all:
Last Thursday, we raised our glasses at the Blarney Stone to toast Chris Rowland and wish him well as he prepared to leave the Globe. Today, let’s raise a glass again – much higher (and right here in our own newsroom) – because Chris is staying with the Globe after all.
He’s taking on a very important new assignment.
Chris will become our Washington bureau chief, succeeding Peter Canellos, who last week was named editor of the editorial page.
This is a perfect job for Chris, and Chris is a perfect fit for the job. Over the past two years, he has been Metro political editor, directing a team of six Massachusetts State House and Boston City Hall reporters who have produced some of our most high-impact stories. Today, as you know, a former Speaker of the House is under indictment because of an investigation by the Globe into influence-peddling. Today, too, the Legislature is finally addressing abuses of the public pension system because of Globe stories that documented one outrage after the next.
Chris, 47, brings to this post of Assistant Managing Editor/Washington an impressive range and depth of experience. He was a State House reporter for The Providence Journal, where over four years he covered national, state, and local politics, including the presidential primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina in 2000, the parties’ nominating conventions, and several congressional and gubernatorial races.
Chris, a native of New Haven, Conn., has an intimate knowledge of New England and the Boston metro area – as well as strong ties to many of the newsroom’s biggest departments.
Early in his career, after graduating in 1985 from the University of Arizona with a journalism degree and reporting a year for the Associated Press in Denver, Chris moved to Vermont to cover politics and nuclear power for The Brattleboro Reformer. While at the ProJo, prior to his State House job, he covered Rhode Island cities and towns. (His Rhode Island knowledge and connections were a big plus for us in 2003 when he played a leading role in our coverage of the Station nightclub fire, which killed 100 people. That work won the ASNE’s Jesse Laventhol Prize for Deadline Reporting by a Team). Chris was the ProJo’s Newport bureau chief for two years, supervising several reporters and covering the U.S. Navy, marine issues, and the coastal environment.
Chris started at The Boston Globe in 2001 as our Globe West bureau chief, and in short order he was snapped up by the Business section. From 2003 to 2007, he covered Boston’s academic medical centers, physicians, and companies in the fields of insurance, biotechnology, and pharmaceuticals. He became expert in Medicare, Medicaid, and the intricacies of the medical-industrial complex. His work in that area was a major part of a Globe series in 2004 that documented GOP domination of the legislative process in Congress, a reporting effort that was recognized with a special project award by the Society of American Business Editors and Writers.
Chris, as you can see, has immersed himself in many of the key issues that are central to the mission of our Washington bureau and our entire newsroom. Wherever he has worked at the Globe, he has excelled.
Please join me in thanking Chris for remaining at the Globe and congratulating him on his new assignment.
Marty
