NOTE: Boston Common is no longer being updated. For the latest Boston-area blog posts, please see Universal Hub
Yesterday, I wrote that it was interesting that the Herald wrote all about the allegedly racist Metro executives without mentioning its direct interest in the case (it wants the government to block the New York Times from buying a stake in the free paper). I should learn to read more carefully. In fact, the story I cited does mention the Herald interest:
The Times Co. last week unveiled plans to acquire 49 percent of Metro Boston for $16.5 million - a deal that Herald Publisher Patrick Purcell has said he will fight on antitrust grounds.
So for screwing that up, I apologize. And give the Herald a point for mentioning the anti-trust ramifications of the deal, which is more than the Globe did in its story (although the Globe does mention it today).
However, I still doubt the Herald would be giving the story what Dan calls World War III style coverage if it didn't have a financial (and, for the newsroom, competitive) interest in the outcome. Is it really worth a second front-page story in a row?
Otter says (on January 12, 2005 11:18 AM):
As frequently happens with these controversies, the wildly disproportionate demands for attention from "local black leaders" drive out any indignation I might have for the original offense.
"This is a publication aimed at young people. What's the message here?" WTF? An executive at the paper's overseas parent corporation made (allegedly) offensive jokes. This has nothing to do with the Metro Boston staff, let alone with the content of their paper.
garym says (on January 12, 2005 03:57 PM):
I pretty much agree with Otter. There are enough seriously bad things happening in the US and the world that a Swede's making a racist joke in a boardroom has too much competition for what I should be indignant about.
Post a comment