So, let's just skip to the article and see what's so bad about it. Here's a snippet:
A bill filed by Governor Deval Patrick to speed construction on former tidelands would help a large Cambridge project for which two of his key aides worked before joining the administration.Further in the article, we learn this:
Clarey and other activists are even more upset because Daniel O'Connell, Patrick's new housing and development secretary, helped lead the NorthPoint team before joining the administration. The project's former lead attorney, Greg Bialecki, is now a top aide to Patrick involved in real estate permitting.Yikes! That's pretty damning, huh? Well, maybe not so much...
Both have recused themselves from any dealings related to the project, the administration said.
So, again Boston Globe, what's the answer? Did the former campaign members actually recuse themselves? The answer to that question is extremely relevant. The Boston Globe has resorted into a he-said-she-said newspaper. Worse, it usually skips that whole concept in the press of actually giving the other side an equal opportunity to defend itself. While "the administration" is mentioned in the article, it doesn't mention the actual administration official. No one is quoted; there aren't any words coming out of the administration's mouth at all.
Meanwhile, Richard Cleary - an angry Cambridge resident - is given a very human face, obviously meant to make him out as the "good guy." Yet, we know nothing about Cleary, his organization or any of the details surrounding what's made him so upset. Is his organization a noble one? Are his attacks on Deval even relevant to what's going on? We don't know, the Boston Globe did no digging. (For any of you who think we should just trust all these organizations at face value, I refer you to this blog.)
While this kind of article was clearly intended to be a 'filler' and just take up space in the print, the Boston Globe has an obligation to actually hold to the journalistic integrity that's fitting of "the paper of record." That means it needs to only print well-researched, fair and informative articles. It also means it needs to skip one-sided, truthy articles, primarily featuring one or two speakers of the same cause out to smear anyone - Republican, Democrat or even Mooninite. If the paper wants to continue to be taken seriously, it needs to stop these hackish stories. That doesn't mean it should stop keeping a close eye on the Patrick administration; in fact, it should keep a closer eye on the Governor. It just needs to write fair, comprehensive stories that actually fact-check and preferably are investigative in nature. Otherwise, people should just read the blogs. That way, at least it's free.
Update: The Boston Globe's current news tactics are really doing well, huh? Maybe, just maybe, if they actually wrote real news, instead of he-said-she-said nonsense, readers would come back and the paper would become profitable again. Otherwise, they can continue down Einstien's Path of Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.