Sunday, November 06, 2005
'Lucchino's camp responded': Dan Kennedy beat me to the glaring two-word omission in Richard Chacón's ombudsman column today: 'Dan Shaughnessey.' No mention whatsoever of a guy who wrote a highly controversial column a week ago and then followed it up with a second column in which he openly admits: "In Sunday's column, I offered the version held by Lucchino's camp (three sources)... The Epstein camp had its version out there all summer. Lucchino's camp responded Sunday." Here you have a guy openly admitting he's the mouthpiece for the Lucchino camp -- and it's not addressed in Chacón's column? ...
Ah, but what about the other story -- the one in which the Globe got the Theo-is-signing flat-out wrong? Chacón tends to concentrate on attributions. But the other questions are: How did it get the story wrong? And just who are those 'multiple major league sources'? Do they include 'Red Sox' sources? Why not just call them 'former Capital Hill staffers'? (Just joking.) ...
This all leads to my own thumb-sucking theory about what could have happened -- and it has to do with 'access' that comes with both a partnership and being the largest paper in town:
A.) The Sox-Globe relationship/partnership provides special access.
B.) The Globe is aware of this special access and takes advantage of it for competitive reasons. There's nothing wrong with this per se. The Herald, where I work, would do it. I would do it. You would do it. BUT ...
C.) The Globe is and should be on guard about this access and its potential to be abused and manipulated. Therefore reporters and editors (though not necessarily curly-haired columnists) truly do go out of their way to try to be fair and balanced. They don't want to get a story wrong.
But something happened last week. I suspect, in the case of the Theo-signing story, that C.) broke down. It happens. Their overly-relied-upon sources were just wrong. There's no way, in my mind, that the reporters knowingly printed something they knew or suspected to be inaccurate. But it does all point to an over reliance on sources that, in my opinion, comes with access provided by a partnership and being the largest paper in town. At the very least there was some sort of major 'access' malfunction. Ask Judy Miller and the Times. ...
Dan Shaughnessey is a completely different story. He shilled. He's all but admitted it. He wasn't just a messenger. He was practically a press secretary for the Lucchino camp. Theo, knowing how spin works over at Yawkey Way under Lucchino, got the message -- and how. ...
One forgotten point about points A.), B.) and C.): Larry and Charlie et gang are well aware of them and they're not dummies. They know about C.) and fiddle around with it to their spin advantage. ...
One other point: everyone please reread Tony's original column. He didn't say the Globe was smearing Theo. He said straight out it was the Sox who were smearing Theo. The reference to the Globe was about the compromised murkiness of the press in general and the Globe in particular when covering such stories (see my own points A. B. and C. above). Tony's column has held up remarkably well, in my opinion, considering all the subsequent spin and counter-spin and what we now know about Theo's departure. ...
FYI: I am a Herald business reporter who doesn't have a source horse in this race. So dismiss my thumb-sucking theory if you want and perhaps should. But I think what I've written is at least as plausible as what Chacón wrote (and/or didn't write) and probably more plausible because it doesn't deal with 'conspiracies' but rather the inherent and every-day journalistic vortex and dangers of 'access.'
Update -- Scott has a story on how other local deal makers see Theogate and the obvious leak campaign that blew up in the Sox' face. Hey, their theories are as good as any.
Ah, but what about the other story -- the one in which the Globe got the Theo-is-signing flat-out wrong? Chacón tends to concentrate on attributions. But the other questions are: How did it get the story wrong? And just who are those 'multiple major league sources'? Do they include 'Red Sox' sources? Why not just call them 'former Capital Hill staffers'? (Just joking.) ...
This all leads to my own thumb-sucking theory about what could have happened -- and it has to do with 'access' that comes with both a partnership and being the largest paper in town:
A.) The Sox-Globe relationship/partnership provides special access.
B.) The Globe is aware of this special access and takes advantage of it for competitive reasons. There's nothing wrong with this per se. The Herald, where I work, would do it. I would do it. You would do it. BUT ...
C.) The Globe is and should be on guard about this access and its potential to be abused and manipulated. Therefore reporters and editors (though not necessarily curly-haired columnists) truly do go out of their way to try to be fair and balanced. They don't want to get a story wrong.
But something happened last week. I suspect, in the case of the Theo-signing story, that C.) broke down. It happens. Their overly-relied-upon sources were just wrong. There's no way, in my mind, that the reporters knowingly printed something they knew or suspected to be inaccurate. But it does all point to an over reliance on sources that, in my opinion, comes with access provided by a partnership and being the largest paper in town. At the very least there was some sort of major 'access' malfunction. Ask Judy Miller and the Times. ...
Dan Shaughnessey is a completely different story. He shilled. He's all but admitted it. He wasn't just a messenger. He was practically a press secretary for the Lucchino camp. Theo, knowing how spin works over at Yawkey Way under Lucchino, got the message -- and how. ...
One forgotten point about points A.), B.) and C.): Larry and Charlie et gang are well aware of them and they're not dummies. They know about C.) and fiddle around with it to their spin advantage. ...
One other point: everyone please reread Tony's original column. He didn't say the Globe was smearing Theo. He said straight out it was the Sox who were smearing Theo. The reference to the Globe was about the compromised murkiness of the press in general and the Globe in particular when covering such stories (see my own points A. B. and C. above). Tony's column has held up remarkably well, in my opinion, considering all the subsequent spin and counter-spin and what we now know about Theo's departure. ...
FYI: I am a Herald business reporter who doesn't have a source horse in this race. So dismiss my thumb-sucking theory if you want and perhaps should. But I think what I've written is at least as plausible as what Chacón wrote (and/or didn't write) and probably more plausible because it doesn't deal with 'conspiracies' but rather the inherent and every-day journalistic vortex and dangers of 'access.'
Update -- Scott has a story on how other local deal makers see Theogate and the obvious leak campaign that blew up in the Sox' face. Hey, their theories are as good as any.
