Following orders
To the general public, the Globe’s reticence might not seem like a big deal. At best, the paper was victimized by a mentally unstable opportunist; at worst, this is just another case of the media showing itself to be less than trustworthy (see Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, Dan Rather, Judith Miller, etc.). But in Boston’s political and media circles — inside Morrissey Boulevard and Herald Square, in the State House, among lobbyists and PR flacks — it remains a subject of great interest. Granted, this episode doesn’t involve repeated fraud or malignant intent, at least on the part of the paper. But it does involve the city’s dominant media institution and the biggest public-works project in US history.

It also offers a telling glimpse into the methods of Marty Baron, the Globe’s editor. Baron is, by all accounts, an extremely talented newsman. In 2001, when he was editor of the Miami Herald, the paper won a Pulitzer for breaking news reporting; that same year, Editor and Publisher named Baron its editor of the year. In Baron’s five years at the Globe, meanwhile, the paper has won two Pulitzers, one for public-service reporting on the sex-abuse scandal in the Boston Archdiocese, and one (awarded to Phoenix alum Gareth Cook) for explanatory reporting.

His interpersonal skills are another matter. Baron won the respect of many Globe veterans when, soon after arriving at the paper, he secured the release of 10,000 pages of church documents that had been protected by court order. Since then, though, he’s gained a reputation as an extremely tough boss, quick to criticize and slow to praise. One Globe veteran coined the phrase “The joyless pursuit of excellence” to describe Baron’s tenure.

Why is this noteworthy? Because Baron seems to have been instrumental in the decision to run the Keaveney story on July 26. According to one source with knowledge of the story’s path to print, after Murphy wrapped up his interview with Keaveney late in the evening on July 25, it was Baron who decided the story should run the next day, even though the parties implicated in his account wouldn’t be able to weigh in.

In other words, even if Baron wasn’t solely responsible for the Globe’s mistake, he’s implicated in the paper’s decision to trust Keaveney and rush the story to publication. And now, at least from the outside, Baron appears unwilling to apply the same tough standards to himself that he does to other Globe employees.

ADVERTISEMENT

Baron declined comment for this article, and referred questions to Globe spokesman Al Larkin. Larkin, meanwhile, declined comment on Slack’s vanished follow-up and Baron’s role in quickly publishing the original story. Slack referred the Phoenix to Larkin as well. And neither Murphy nor Carolyn Ryan, the paper’s assistant managing editor for metropolitan news, responded to requests for comment. (The Globe currently has no ombudsman.)

Clearing the air
This limited collective response is probably prudent, from an institutional standpoint: if Baron wants to close the books on Keaveney, he should do it in the Globe, not in the Phoenix.

Also, in fairness to Baron, most journalists would probably have made the same decision he did — or at least seriously considered it. Competition between the Globe and the Herald was especially fierce at the time: the Herald had beaten the Globe by getting a picture of the accident scene onto its later front pages on July 11, but the Globe rebounded with a series of outstanding in-depth pieces on the technical aspects of the tragedy. Furthermore, there had been a few cases in which reporters from one daily planned scoops based on sensitive documents they’d obtained, only to have the same documents fall into the competition’s hands later the same day.

If the Keaveney memo had been legit — and if the Globe had printed it first — it would have given the Globe permanent bragging rights in this ongoing newspaper war. In addition, since Massachusetts attorney general (and then-candidate for governor) Tom Reilly had suggested that a negligent-homicide charge could be appropriate for Del Valle’s death, the Globe’s scoop could also have been a legal bombshell. Finally, it might have given Baron a crack at another Pulitzer — which, in turn, could have helped him leave the Globe for the New York Times, a move Baron is widely thought to be interested in making.

Maybe Baron is waiting for the right time to run Slack’s Keaveney profile. Then again, he might simply have decided to let the Keaveney story fade away. This would be a mistake. Compared with other recent journalistic misdeeds, the Globe’s sins here are minor: a great scoop turned out to be bogus. Still, the longer the paper waits to acknowledge this, the less trustworthy it looks to its readers. Factor in the frustration Baron’s silence could engender inside the Globe, and it’s clear that some kind of coda is desperately needed. Whether it will ever come is anyone’s guess.

On the Web
Adam Reilly's Media Log: //www.thephoenix.com/medialog