Boston Herald Goes off the Deep End

In what should be a shocker to no one, today's Herald editorial jumped off the deep end, coming out strong against a UMASS Dartmouth Law School, with the kind of hyperbole rarely out seen outside of tabloid "journalism." Saying the "skids are greased," they launch an attack at Chancellor of UMASS Dartmouth, Jean McCormick, the UMASS Board of Trustees, Romney-appointed UMASS Prez Jack Wilson and Governor Patrick. Notably missing is almost any reason why they think a UMASS Law School, focusing on public law at reasonable in-state tuition, would be such a bad idea.

A lot of the editorial doesn't even make sense. For example:

But when there are agendas at work - and make no mistake there are - you just can’t keep a bad idea down.

Please, Boston Herald, pray tell, what "agendas" are there at work? UMASS Dartmouth wanting to become a more prestigious public school? The UMASS system wanting a law school? The agendas here seem to be of the noble variety.

The Herald goes on to bash this idea as a bad one, because it failed in 2005. Of course, the only reason why the law school failed to earn the votes last time is because BU, Northeastern, Suffolk and several other high-priced law schools screamed bloody murder. Seems they think a neighbor on the block that costs half as much (literally) may just put a dent into their profits. That was the real hidden "agenda" last time -- the agenda to stop a public law school, led by the private ones.

It only gets more absurd from there.

And the only thing that has changed since 2005 is the state of the Massachusetts economy. In case President Wilson hasn’t read the papers lately, the economy has tanked and it’s not getting any better very soon.

And that's a reason to oppose an accessible, affordable law school?

From there, the Herald goes on to distort the truth. They say the law school "basically wants to give itself away to UMASS." However, that's misleading at best. The law school wants to become part of a major university system so it has the increased resources to become academically competitive. UMASS wants a law school so it can be a more competitive major university system in this country. Herald Board: That's why they call this thing a "merger," jackasses.

The Herald then decides swim deeper, saying the state can't afford this.

Wilson is singing the same old song about what a wonderful asset this will be and how it will eventually make money for the system. That, of course, is predicated on it enrolling nearly twice as many students as the school now serves and that wouldn’t happen unless it got American Bar Association accreditation.

Which the University says it would do in a matter of years.

What Wilson and his enabler UMass/Dartmouth Chancellor Jean MacCormack don’t like to talk about is the millions of dollars it will cost to get ABA accreditation by upgrading the school’s facilities, library and its faculty.

Really? They don't like talking about it? Have ya asked them? The fact of the matter is that while this would cost the school some money, it would cost the state diddley squat. The university has the access to the cash to make this happen. They've had that cash for a long time. Making it happen will make the University a more prestigious public school across the entire country, which in turn would make more people want to go to it.

There are a lot of people in this state, many of them who probably buy ads in the Boston Herald, who are terrified of the UMASS system becoming the type of University system that you find in North Carolina, California and elsewhere: elite, public colleges that are affordable and accessible to in-state students. UMASS has already made many leaps and bounds, getting a law school and making relatively small investments in it would go a long way toward reaching the finish line. The real agenda here is keeping UMASS down. Unfortunately, the same forces that have been successful in that quest for so long are losing the public fight, which is probably why this Herald article tries so hard in its own deranged way at grasping for straws.

Herald Editorial

Surely, the fact that the Herald needs new sources to sell ads has nothing to do with this editorial, or the fact that they're trying to demean those who don't want casinos by labeling them "moonbats."

Saving the Globe Millions, Instantly

Ask the execs to give their bonuses back.

Outrageous - they'd ask the poor schmucks loading the buses take huge benefit and pay cuts, many of them to lose their jobs, all the while they take large bonuses in years their business is tanking.

There's only one solution to the Boston Globe. Local ownership. If the NYT won't sell the paper, even if it's for next to nothing, it probably should close. Maybe a new one would take its place?

The unions should hold strong in making sure that the NYT's executives cough up all that bonus pay and take significant (50%?) cuts in salary. The publisher of the Globe, for example, probably doesn't deserve $1.9 million this year, plus the hundreds of thousands in bonus pay and stock options. The deeper one digs in this mess, the worse the Times and Globe management smells.

Yes!!!

The best news I've heard all week:

THE BOSTON GLOBE makes the following endorsements in three competitive Democratic primary races Tuesday:

The Globe endorses challenger Sonia Chang-Diaz.

Allow me to quickly address those who have tried to quell my speech over my support for Sonia: change is inevitable. It's happening this Tuesday in the Second Suffolk, because Chang-Diaz is by far the better pick. Mark my words: most of those who have been fighting against Chang-Diaz will be happy to have her by this time next year.

BTW: The Herald also endorsed Sonia.

Update: The Second Suffolk Trifecta - Sonia Chang-Diaz wins the Bay Windows endorsement, in was the strongest plea of them all. They also borrowed from the title of my guest column in there a month or so ago: Enough is enough. Hat Tip on this update, as well as even more endorsements, to diarist Shirley Kressel over at BlueMassGroup.

Bad Herald, Bad!

Talk about a nasty article!

The headline:

Undercover ‘john’ takes on trannies, pimps

As sensationalist as anyone would expect, coming from the Herald, but a very poor use of words. Not only do they seek to dehumanize people who are transgender or transexual, but they can't even get their terms right. "Trannies," as the paper calls it, or transvestites, aren't transexual. It's two completely different things. But who would expect the Tabloid journalism of the Herald to get that right - or to even fix it, when experts write and call them to correct it.

From the Masssachusetts Transgender Political Coalition:

On July 7, the paper posted an article online about a police operation headlined "Undercover 'john' takes on trannies, pimps" and focused on a Boston-area detective who goes undercover to arrest sex workers. The article repeatedly referred to transgender women as "trannies" and opened the story by describing how the detective has been "trapped inside houses of ill repute by giant naked trannies." The article was also published in the July 8 print edition.

This article repeatedly uses anti-transgender slurs and fails to treat its subjects with basic human decency. These sorts of slurs should be unacceptable in any credible news outlet to publish as quoted matter, much less in a staff writer's article. GLAAD and MTPC separately contacted the Boston Herald reporter, Jessica Van Sack, to ask her to remove the defamatory terminology and descriptions from the article and to offer suggestions and recommendations on how to cover transgender people fairly. The reporter did not respond to calls or emails. GLAAD and MTPC are encouraging people to contact the paper and let them know that this cheap, tabloid sensationalism is unacceptable.

In society, people who are transgender often face particular danger, even far than people who are gay and lesbian. They are very frequently persecuted against on the streets, finding housing and gaining employment. Sadly, the latter two are still legal - even in Massachusetts - until HB 1722 passes.

The group asks people to contact the Herald and its reporter, Jessica Van Sack, so they'll update the story and stop dehumanizing transgender people - or at least get their terms right. Here's a list of people they're asking everyone to contact in order to get the Herald to fix this story:

Boston Herald Contacts:
Jessica Van Sack
City Reporter
jvansack@bostonherald.com
(617) 619-6437

Joe Dwinell
City Executive Co-Editor
jdwinell@bostonherald.com
(617) 619-6177

Kevin Convey
Editor in Chief
kconvey@bostonherald.com
(617) 619-6403

Truly Investigative Journalism

Casey Ross wastes his time and your's (if you read it), trying to dig a few extra inches into the gift that was Patrick's venture into NY. The Governor spent a whole, whopping $400-500 on the trip - we should be outraged!! His details didn't sleep in the streets, like they should have, to save our Commonwealth an extra dollar or two.

Talk about a faux controversy. The Governor has details around him 24/7 - for a reason. Imagine if they weren't there - and something awful happened to the Governor? I'm sure Casey would have been writing a completely different story. The fact is we have police details protecting our Governors for a reason.

Herald (!?!) Endorses Tsongas

I just got an email from Team Tsongas; the Boston Herald endorsed her campaign. This, on top of the Lowell Sun's endorsement, is pretty stunning. Even the conservative rags don't see Oganowski fit for congress. Ouch.

The Metrowest Daily also endorsed her campaign today, though I don't know much about that paper's leanings. Add that to the list. Given the endorsements, debates, SCHIP fallout and a few other factors, it's looking like I don't need to be worried about a Tsongas victory after all. Barring some unforeseen disaster, it's in the bank - thanks to the fact that Oganowski rivals Kerry Healey in being the Worst Candidate Ever.

We Must Accept Some Responsibility

The truth hurts - that's a universal saying that's applied to people probably as long as humanity has had language. Some people can't accept criticism, be they 22 or 42, and just won't hear it. Reading today's Dan Kennedy piece only reconfirms that. Still - six years after September 11th, 2001 - people can't say anything critical about America without the American Taliban rearing its ugly head. Well, they reared it right at our Governor, who had a pretty poignant speech that served mainly as a commemoration of 9/11, but briefly examined what we can learn from it too.

Here's the speech:

We meet today to honor the lives and memories of the 206 sons and daughters of our Commonwealth who were lost six years ago in the tragedy of September 11th, 2001 and with them the thousands of others from across our nation and across the globe, who were lost in that tragedy as well.

Our tribute is for each of them and our condolences are with each of you and the families and survivors so touched by that day. Each of us felt the impact of the incidents of September 11th. But the mothers and fathers and sons and daughters, sisters and brothers and friends of those endured perhaps the most profound loss of all. This is your community and your community is with you today and everyday.

We have lived the last six years in the shadow of that tragedy. We carry the vivid reminders of the pain and the anger we felt. But we must also carry the vivid reminders of the compassion and generosity that was shown that day and the days and weeks that followed. The coming together that happened not only in communities that lost a loved one remember them, and not only in New York, Virginia or Pennsylvania and Washington DC or not only in the United States but all across the world.

That is the spirit in which we re-convene today, and that is what must last. Because among many other things, 9/11 was a failure of human understanding. It was mean and nasty and bitter attack on the United States. But it was also about the failure of human beings to understand each other, and to learn to love each other. And it seems to me that that lesson and that warning is something that we must carry with us everyday.

Fortunately, for human beings, the human heart is not designed to carry grief forever. Somehow we manage to move on and that might be in some ways our greatest strength. We live in a rare place, where our ideas, our shared goals, and our common humanity will and must be more powerful and must ultimately win out over intransigence and anger and violence and division.Tempered by these losses, we will emerge a strong and better place. That is how we best serve the memories of those we love. We do that not in anger at the horror of their loss, but in honor of the beauty of their lives. We miss them not because they are gone, but because they were here.

The part that bothered the non-reality based community is the fact that Patrick finds 9/11 a lesson in human understanding. What happened six years and a day ago isn't explicitly America's fault, but in many ways we didn't do enough to prevent it. The Bush administration certainly didn't take terrorist threats seriously, but it doesn't stop there. America itself uses and abuses our Middle Eastern neighbors on a daily basis: we prosper from their resources, all the while we cut most of their aid. We planted unwanted troops there, way before Iraq, despite the fact that it makes their blood boil. We helped the Afghan peoples overthrow their Soviet oppressors, only to abandon it to an even more oppressive force, the Taliban. There are a lot of mistakes in human understanding here - and if we, as Americans, can't accept them and try to learn from them, we're only setting ourselves up for another 9/11 - which is exactly what we're doing by being in Iraq, but that's for another post.

Of course, Dan Kennedy sees some wrong doing on Patrick's part.

As for the part that the Herald and the Republicans are upset with, I'd call it a sloppy bit of rhetoric. I'm all for peace, love and understanding, but Patrick's words lend themselves too easily to being interpreted as meaning that the attacks came about, at least in part, because we failed to love our enemies.

So, basically, Kennedy thinks Patrick's at fault because the Governor didn't foresee people taking offense to his critical point. Huh? Either what Patrick had to say is true, or it isn't. Unlike a lot of other things in life, when it comes to criticism there often isn't a lot of gray area - or a good way to criticize. A lot of people become even more guarded when someone tries to politely make their point. Heck, to some of these people, being polite is only a weakness (and could Patrick have made his point any easier?). They just don't want to hear it. ["They," in this case, can refer to the 33% or so of people who still think Saddam Hussein planned 9/11, those who think America can do no wrong and, apparently, the Boston Herald.] Sometimes the only way to reach people is to really challenge them; we've tried the whole Mother Goose routine and it didn't work.

What Kennedy doesn't seem to consider, unfortunately, is something that even a kid ought to be able to understand (it was even a major theme in Harry Potter!). Sometimes, we make our own enemies merely by choosing them. Part of the problem that exists, now more than ever, is the fact that many Americans have decided Arab Muslims are now the enemy. Anyone else suspect that there'd be a lot less tension - and IEDs - if this us-vs.-them mentality didn't exist? I don't know who started it, but the American conscience has certainly embraced it. Arab Muslims are the new Soviet Union. Except for the fact that they aren't: they're a mostly poverty stricken people who deal with things such as a world that cares more about their oil than their persons, wars, and let's not forget a few nasty dictators. America wouldn't have been on their map if we didn't do our best to put ourselves there. The people who can't take criticism on this point could just be right on one note - terrorism is a real problem - but if they never gain the ability to accept criticism, it will be a problem that's continually exacerbated by them.

Update: As David Berstein notes, there's a second attack being directed at Deval. Apparently, he wasn't being foaming-in-the-mouth crazy enough over how we should perceive people who have taken up terrorism. "Nasty and bitter" doesn't quite suffice, apparently Deval needs to throw in "murdering bastards" and a fat momma joke to appease the Howie-Carr types. It's a great country we live in.

Hilarious

Seriously, some laughs will ensue.

I'm So Sick of Anonymous Sources

It used to be that anonymous sources were used rarely and gave people the opportunity to reveal secret information about abuse, often government abuse, when they otherwise couldn't. Now? They're used to trick the public into wars and give politicians the opportunity to launch personal attacks without any worry about the consequences.

Today's Globe and Herald stories on Deval Patrick adjusting his position to give himself more personal time to help his wife both feature anonymous sources. Why? Seriously, what were these people talking about that was so earth-shattering that they couldn't go on the record? I wasn't going to bring this issue up after reading Lisa Wangsness's article because, on the whole, it was fair. Yet, to be honest, this part did bother me:

"The most important part of a new administration is the first six to nine months," said an aide to a former Massachusetts governor.

"You want people to develop a positive view of the administration," said the former aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Right now, they have a negative view."

The former aide said people would probably feel sympathy for Patrick, but even so, if Diane Patrick's condition is serious, "then it's going to be a distraction for him at a very bad time."

I'm sure that a former aide of a Republican administration was only too keen to provide Ms. Wangsness with a few quotes. However, I ask the following question: were those statements so crucial to the story that including them were more important than insisting on divulging the source? None of it was terribly poignant. Ms. Wangsness couldn't even get the aide to allow her to divulge either the aide's level within the administration or even what administration the source was in. Surely neither information would have revealed the former aide's identity, yet would have given readers more information to determine whether the quotes came from someone who had a personal agenda.

Again, the article wasn't bad and I wasn't going to bring it up - until I read the Herald's report. Does the Herald even bother asking people to get on record anymore? They bring up two "sources" to smear the Governor, one on a largely unrelated issue. Let's take a peak:

A source close to Patrick’s administration told the Herald his early missteps have been a nagging source of frustration for even die-hard supporters.... Like Republican Gov. Mitt Romney before him, the source said Patrick is fast learning the pitfalls of being a political outsider on Beacon Hill.... “These business people who think they can run government like a business, it just doesn’t work,” the source said. “The things you can get away with in a private business aren’t allowed in government and people are watching your every move.”

A second source said Patrick’s admission that he made a call on behalf of his controversial former employer, Ameriquest Mortgage, was the “zenith” of his freshman stumblings that have left many questioning just who he’s taking advice from - if anyone.

Now, why those attacks need to be featured in a story about Deval Patrick's wife needing his help and support, I don't know. It doesn't really have to do with the story, but the media thinks these kinds of things sell stories (despite evidence to the contrary: their declining numbers). I find it ironic that the media won't report on certain topics, when it was all too willing to call anonymous sources for quotes about an issue that was extremely personal. For example, the fact that former Congressman Mark Foley was gay wasn't a big secret in the media; they just protected his privacy until bloggers dug up the truth about both Foley and his unscrupulous practices. Imagine the media calling up anonymous sources before the bloggers broke the story? I can't.

The points that these anonymous sources brought up would have been more relevant if they weren't anonymous. None of the insider perspective the articles provided was so important that it warranted the protection of anonymity. Since it's rather likely these attacks are coming from Beacon Hill insiders, I ask the following question: do we really need to give politicians a soap box and a mask? I have no problem with them going out on the attack and making critical points, but by the gods of Kobol, if they don't have the gumption to do it publicly then just don't print it.

Anonymous sources and the journalists who protect them were complicit in getting this country to go into Iraq. They have contributed to the decline of journalism. It's become a norm to have anonymous sources - so much so that we see them in articles, like today's batch, that certainly don't require anonymity to report the story. While anonymous sources can be very important, newspapers need to learn how to use them sparingly - which will not only improve the journalistic integrity of a newspaper, but will end up in those anonymous sources actually meaning something when they're used.

Update: David beat me to the story and brings up the point that the NY Times - the Globe's parent company - changed its policy on granting anonymity after the Judy Miller fiasco. The Globe certainly didn't follow those new guidelines in this story.

"I won't give up on Massachusetts."

Misquoting is fun, isn't it? In making amends with a very poor decision, Deval Patrick said something to the effect of "don't give up on me, because I won't give up on Massachusetts."

Now, to most people, that's an eloquent apology. To the Boston Herald and attack dogs everywhere, though, he's begging people not to give up on him. To them, they can't even get passed the dishonest juicy taste in their mouths from writing "hey, look, Deval just begged everyone not to give up on him!" Just ask Margery Eagen. Sadly, there have been several of her columns that I've linked to on this blog because I thought they were surprisingly sane and rational for the Boston Herald. I can even remember one where she poked fun at Howie Carr for using the term "moonbat."

Today, however, she embraced the word and the art of misrepresentation. When I started reading her latest column this morning, I thought surely it was sarcasm. She had to be making fun of the glee her Republican fiends friends were having, right? I mean just read the first few sentences:

The moonbats are in mourning. In meltdown. In the muck, the mire. De-mooned. De-pressed. De-swooned. Ma-rooned.

The alliteration, the meter, the pure poetic nature of it; it's like a cheesy poem for extra credit in an English literature class. Surely, that's over-the-top joking, right? Or not.

Sadly, this column was the Boston Herald's Big Story today. There Tabloid picture was a photoshop of Deval essentially howling to the moon (which is probably still a nicer picture than the Globe's random mugshot). I don't think they even bothered writing a straight news article about "the call" (it's times like this were I miss Ms. Atkins), they just skipped straight to the nasty column - which is particularly bad since most readers probably don't even know the paltry facts available in the Frank Phillips story (a pun if there ever was one).

What's worse than anything in this article is the fact that yet another columnist in the Boston Herald is embracing "moonbat." With regular mentions of that word in a paper, such a paper ceases to be categorized as "news." The Boston Herald is the real moonbat here - with too many writers who crazily think that all Star Bucks drinkers are a) liberal (they're not), b) believe crazy ideas (they don't) and c) are nancy sissies (not true) who d) own Ipods (okay, maybe that's true, but still!).

Misrepresentation is the Herald's bread and butter - and apparently Margery Eagan wants a taste of some cheese to go with it (however, I'm sure she'll skip the bree - too french for her homogonized, non-mooonbatty tastebuds). However she, along with the rest of the media, attack dogs and citizens everywhere, would do well to remember the most important part of Deval Patrick's mea culpa in the aftermath of his phone call. Despite gaffes that have made his job harder, he hasn't given up on Massachusetts. Let's not give up on him - and get back to work on the very important policy changes that Deval Patrick has decided to champion.

An Example of Why the Herald Sucks

So, my very conservative and registered Republican brother and I have an email exchange that's gone on for 25 replies now. I'm sure number 26 is imminent. What's so important that we're going back and forth like a pair of four year olds on a see-saw?

He's peeved that Deval Patrick is ________.

A. Popular.
B. Solving real problems.
C. Fixing Mitt Romney's budget crisis.
D. Making sure he visits the entire state in a timely manner.
E. All of the Above.

The correct answer is E.

My bro is mad that Deval Patrick used a helicopter to get to official state events, is currently driving a Caddy - leased by the state. My bro's pissed Deval is proposing to stop tax loopholes (the businesses will flee!) and is going to allow towns the option to create a meals tax (who will be willing to pay that extra dollar or two to eat in Nantucket?!).

Apparently, my brother has been reading the Herald a little too frequently. Sadly, it's easy to be angry at the world when reading the Herald; stirring up everyone's emotions is how they sell newspapers. So it's no wonder this story really bothered my brother. After all, why wouldn't it? Let's examine the article:

It's about the fact that Deval Patrick now has a state-leased Caddy, which is worth a cool $46,000. He's driving in style. In the story, the only people quoted are:

1. The State Republican Chairman
2. State Sen. Richard Tisei, the minority leader, a Republican.
3. State Sen. Bruce Tarr, another Republican.

I'm shocked they didn't even manage to find a Democrat - with just a handful of Republicans in the entire State House, their phone lines must be going off the hook with all these calls from the Herald. However, noticeably missing from the discussion are:

1. Anyone relevant to the facts
2. The manufacturer.
3. The State Police, who I assume are responsible for Patrick's transportation.

Heck, the Herald couldn't even manage a single differing opinion. Of course, they did bury this little nugget in there:

A Patrick aide said the car was selected from a short list of vehicles that meet state police security specifications. The aide said the governor had sought to obtain the same kind of car used by Romney but claimed that vehicle was no longer in production.

But it was in between a barrage of Republican-hate. Basically, the entire article was just a platform for the Republicans to complain about Deval Patrick. It wasn't about the news, because the Herald refused to follow up on the key debate: did Deval Patrick even choose that car? The Patrick administration says no. Isn't that an easy thing to follow up on? Instead of going right back to the Republican State Chairman, who wouldn't have any expert knowledge on the subject whatsoever, how about calling the manufacturer to fact-check the Patrick administration? How about calling the State Police, or whoever is in charge of carting around Deval Patrick? How about calling anyone who is actually relevant to the story - not just Republicans who would love to take any opportunity to make a swipe at the Governor.

It's now been almost an hour since my brother last emailed me. This was the last point I made to him. Apparently, he had no way to refute it. Neither will any Republican, conservative, Herald-reader or Howie Carr fanboi. Why? Because the truth hurts. What an appalling Republican hit-piece, written directly by the Boston Herald. Even that tabloid-of-a-newspaper ought to have some standards.