Or are they just doing their best to emulate the Boston Herald?
With their lackluster reporting on perhaps the biggest Massachusetts election scandal I've ever seen on my 22 years on Earth, I was beginning to get a little worried about the Globe's potential prejudices in regards to the campaign. I mean, they couldn't even follow up on their own OP-ED columnist's reporting. Well, if I had any doubts about the Globe's reporting, today's Globe has me convinced that the only difference between the Herald and the Globe is the size of their pictures (but not the actual pictures, which we'll get to).
While I'm happy the Globe decided to cover Killer Coke today, just read the first paragraph or so of its reporting.
Aggressive moves by gubernatorial candidate Deval L. Patrick's aides and supporters to seize on a misstep by one of his Democratic rivals has put union organizer Ray Rogers under scrutiny by state campaign finance regulators, part of a plan Patrick's strategists hope will blunt attacks on him for his role as Coca-Cola's general counsel....Translation to readers: Deval Patrick's really the one behind the unions. It has nothing to do with the fact that they were disgusted not only by Ray Rogers's tactics, but by his seemingly utter disregard for the law.
The unions' complaint reflects how Patrick's strategists and supporters plan to deal with expected attacks on his record as general counsel at both Coke and Texaco and his role on the boards of Ameriquest Mortgage Co. and United Airlines. (Emphasis Mine)
Notice how the Globe doesn't even mention which unions brought the complaint until... well, never. But I guess that's not relevant to the story because, after all, it's Deval's strategists who are behind all of this - right? It has nothing to do with the fact that Tom Reilly's campaign team was aiding and abetting this guy, it's just Deval Patrick stirring the pot - I mean, who cares about the law when there's politics involved? There's nothing here to see, folks, move along.
Sadly, that wasn't the only article about the gubernatorial campaign in the Boston Globe - just don't expect to find one on Chris Gabrieli or Tom Reilly... because, here at
According to the Globe, Deval Hates the Gays
Deval had a second, more prominent - yet far less important - article in the Boston Globe today. It was on Gay Rights and Deval's record at United Airlines.
Apparently, not the Globe. Not only is it a great story to report, but apparently there's a relevant picture to go along with it. Is the picture of Deval at the Pride Rally in Boston (after all, he was the only candidate for Governor that I knew of there)? Nope. Is it a picture of Deval giving a speech, talking about Gay Rights (as he often does)? Nope. How about one with him standing next to a gay person at all - or even a homophobe?
Nah, that would be too relevant. While the picture has nothing to do with the story, he's looking big and angry with his hands raised just like Hitler... so all and all, it's a great picture. Kinda like how Fox News loves to show pictures of Muslims burning American flags in Iran from ten years ago whenever there's a story about Iran today. I mean, who wants the media to actually report the news when it can just make shit up?
While I should have stopped reading as soon as I looked at the picture, for some strange reason I kept going. After all... I'm a news junkie. And boy did the story look bad for Deval Patrick - he must really hate the gays!
Wow. That sounds damning! So Deval Patrick, the bastard, kept the gays from getting health insurance! Oh, wait, no he didn't...Gubernatorial candidate Deval L. Patrick, who enjoys strong backing from gays
for his support of same-sex marriage, is facing tough questions from some gay rights advocates about his tenure on the board of United Airline's parent company in the 1990s, when the firm refused to grant domestic partner benefits to its employees. (Emphasis mine)
He said he told the board that United was right to fight the ordinance because it would be hard for the airline to operate nationally if cities dictated its employment policies. He also said he urged United to make domestic partner benefits company-wide policy, which it did in July 1999. (Emphasis Mine)So, he didn't want cities dictating policies... but oh, by the way, he also kinda, sorta supported Gay Rights and wanted the company to adopt an international policy to support domestic partnership benefits. Which the company did shortly after. While this short paragraph is buried in the article, the Patrick onslaught continues.
``The effect was horrible -- it said `we can discriminate,' " Therese M. Stewart, chief deputy city attorney in San Francisco, who helped defend the ordinance in court, said of United's opposition. ``It was basically an anti-equality position. It was inherently discriminatory and they were determined for their own reasons to continue it and it was a battle, a hard-fought battle."
Stewart, in an interview yesterday, said the airline did not have to fight. ``They could have said it's about time we did this on a nationwide basis," Stewart said. ``We want these people's business so we should be treating them equally. That would have been the right and honorable thing to do, in my personal opinion."
I agree with every word she said. However, how does it relate to Deval Patrick?
Oh, that's right, I forgot. He worked for a Big, Bad Corporation. Maybe Therese Stewart should publicly condemn the flight attendants and pilots while she's at it too.
Here's another interesting blurb:
Patrick, who has attracted wide support from liberal Democrats, has found himself defending his role at a number of corporations, including Coca-Cola, Texaco, and ACC Capital Holdings, parent of Ameriquest Mortgage Co.
And why is he defending himself? The Boston Globe. That's fine, the Globe is supposed to be a newspaper and report important issues about the campaign. If Deval Patrick actually had anything to do with covering up a murder in Columbia, I'd want to know that. It would make me not vote for him. However, instead of really researching the subject, the Boston Globe found a mouthpeice in Ray Rogers and reported his innuendo instead.
Like I said, why report when you can make shit up? So suddenly, weeks before the election (coincidentally enough - even though he's been campaigning for over a year), there's a story in the Globe about how Deval worked for Coke and Coke did bad things.
Now, with this whole United business, the Globe's found more mouthpeices - Californian "activists" and "activist" supporters of the Gabrieli and Reilly campaign. Would they be biased in any way? I find it particularly entertaining that a gay state congressman from Western Mass would support Reilly, of all people, though he clearly has the worst record of the three candidates for Governor on the issue. I guess sometimes principals come at the cost of getting ahead.
The Globe continues,
``I don't think Patrick can have it both ways, which is to tout his position on civil rights as a board member and duck this issue," said Mary Breslauer, a prominent gay rights activist who supports Christopher F. Gabrieli in the governor's race.
Oh, how nice, let's ask what Chris Gabrieli's campaign thinks. They won't be biased in anyway whatsoever... Hey, at least the Globe actually readers full disclosure this time around (as opposed to Ray Rogers). But that doesn't matter, because Deval can't have it two ways.
Instead of rising up out of poverty, he should have stayed poor all his life. After all, he is a black man. They're not supposed to be on company boards. He was supposed to become a Civil Rights attorney (correction: oh, wait, he did). He was supposed to work for next to nothing!
Why should Deval have tried to accomplish a lot from within corporations (and he accomplished a lot at Texaco, United and even Ameriquest), when he could have worked at a non-profit for a barely-livable wage and had a lot of success in not convincing the Catholic Church to get condoms in Africa? He would have been especially unconvincing trying to get President Bush to create policies that help the working class and not just the rich. And he would have tried very hard in utterly failing to convince United to allow domestic partnerships and not convincing Texaco to admit that Global Warming is real and bad news - which are things he actually did.
What the Hell is the Globe Thinking?
Anyone find it a little odd that, just a week or so after Frank Phillip's Campaign to Stop Killer Coke article, about how Deval murdered little children in Columbia Deval's role with Coke, there's an article on how Deval tried to screw over gays in San Francisco? Isn't it odd that one week there's an article on how Deval Patrick was evil because he worked for Coca Cola, the next week the Globe prints another "bombshell" about how Deval Patrick worked for United and was evil, trying to hurt the gays? (When, in fact, shortly after the entire company shifted policy as he suggested?) Anyone sensing a pattern here?
Anyone find it interesting that these extremely easy stories to find and research are popping up now, a month away from the election? Apparently, voters didn't deserve to read this news months ago. What, is the Boston Globe just now discovering that Deval worked for United, Texaco and Coca-Cola? Does the Boston Globe just hate Deval Patrick, or do they instantly report anything Tom Reilly sends their way?
After reading about how Deval owns a really big house in the Berkshires - that isn't quite as big as the Globe said, about how Deval screwed over the gays in San Francisco when he really helped get the company to help every gay person who worked for United and about how Deval worked for Ameriquest and screwed over millions, when he was hired by the company to solve the problem... I'm kind of getting a little sick of it.
Tom Reilly allegedly breaks the law - as an Attorney General - and aside from an OP-ED columnist... there's no investigation by the Globe on that story. Can anyone sense any bias here whatsoever?
Update: In just a couple paragraphs, the Herald's Kimberly Atkins reported the news... how interesting. If the Herald abandoned its Tabloid format, added a progressive columnist or two and was less sensationalist... I may be inclined to read it every day. Here's hoping there will be real investigative journalism on this issue in the future - and not just by Joan Vennochi, who's already done a great job.
Also, BMG, Mass Marrier and Lynne all offer very reasonable and thorough looks at the Globe's distortions of reality.
Posts
6 comments:
Excellent analysis and background. Thanks.
I was also pulled up short in that NECN series when the other candidates got kissy-poo questions. The Globe guy was all over Deval for his Berkshires house.
Here's a guy and his wife who have done well and do well. They can afford much bigger mortgages than you or I or any Globe staffer. Yet, the other candidates get the nothing-political-just-personal, while Deval gets raked.
So, as you ask, what's up with this stuff?
It's about trying to divorce the liberal support Deval's getting from the candidate. What stupid people don't realize, however, is liberals are usually (OK not always) smart people and don't fall for malarky.
The campaign against Deval has resulted in two conflicting storylines:
1. Paint Deval (rather unfairly) as super-far-left liberal, too much so to win in the general against a Republican
and
2. Paint Deval as an evil corporate anti-liberal mook whose evil corporate history makes him unworthy of being supported by usually anti-corporate liberal voters.
So. Which one is it?? Anyone??
Lynne, I think your analysis is definately right. And thanks for that insight, Mike, I didn't watch that NECN series.
Hopefully Deval will win and all of this will end. Why the Globe is so against him, I just don't understand.
Ryan, Thank you ! So frustrating. Especially this "gay advocates" stuff. The only gay advocates questioning deval are the ones who heart reilly and gabs.
You're title of a comment on Blue Mass Group: Tom Reilly=Dick Cheney is the most utterly fantastic comparison I have ever heard, and clearly demonstrates your complete lack of ability to comprehend anything that does not fit into your preconceived notions about who is good and who is bad. Tom Reilly has spent his entire freakin' life working for the people of Massachusetts. Deval Patrick has worked for corporations that have contributed greatly to poverty, hunger, and environmental damage. I'm not saying that he's solely responsible for killing people, nor has Reilly suggested that. However, as a candidate for elected office, it is indeed fair that he answer questions about his employment with these corporations. Tom is more than happy to discuss all of his employment affiliations, past and present, and it is fair to ask the same of Deval. You have continued to blow the Killer-Coke thing out of proportion to levels that are truly mind boggling.
One candidate in this campaign has resorted to Swiftboating. I criticize Gabs on spending - but, to his credit, he's run a clean campaign. So has Deval Patrick.
Tom Reilly? Not so much.
Deval Patrick's record while serving those corporations is top notch. He led the fight to get Domestic Partnership benifits at United - for the entire company. It was the first airline to do so.
While I'm glad Deval left Ameriquest (indeed, I blogged appealing to him to do so), he joined the company to help end its predatory lending. Furthermore, when Ameriquest laid off its Massachusetts employees - Deval helped them all get new jobs.
When Deval worked for Texaco, he helped them recognize Global Warming... the first American oil company to do so (to my knowledge). At Coca-Cola he tried to have an independent investigation of what happened at Columbia - and when he wasn't allowed to do so, Deval left the company.
I don't see a record to criticize, I see one of courage: daring to try to change something from the inside. If more people were willing to do that, there'd be less Walmarts and more Ikeas.
Post a Comment