Going meta

That bored David? (0.00 / 0)

As Usual just my Opinion

Ethics reform should be more then a dream!
Boycott AIG!Save the children's Future

Edward R. Quinn

---

by: WoburnDem @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 19:40:55 PM CDT

Hey, I've had a long day! ;-) (0.00 / 0)

---

by: David @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 19:42:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

too funny (5.00 / 1)

Have to admit that the comments thread on the original post sounded alot like listening to the Big Show the first time Shilling was cohosting (does the phrase star struck sycophants come to mind?).

---

by: Mike from Norwell @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 19:44:49 PM CDT

Let the Record Show (6.00 / 2)

That the regrettable post in question was written the evening of St. Patrick's Day.  Early in the evening, to be sure, but draw what conclusions you might from that.

.08 Acres
.0000016% of Massachusetts Political Commentary

---

by: sco @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 20:23:25 PM CDT

Now now ... (0.00 / 0)

No unwarranted inferences!

---

Blue Mass. Group
So what politics do you deserve?

---

by: Charley on the MTA @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 20:44:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't get it... (0.00 / 0)

Why would talking to a newspaper about this issue be kosher, but writing a blog post is "ill-advised"?

---

by: NoPolitician @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 20:31:58 PM CDT

because the newspaper (6.00 / 2)

gets pissed off they didn't get the story...

they think they should both be able to trash someone with little to go on & get that person's next-day response.

there are going to be less mass killing of trees going on soon...

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 22:31:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

??? (5.50 / 2)

the newspaper gets pissed off they didn't get the story...

they think they should both be able to trash someone with little to go on & get that person's next-day response.

Ryan, I have to ask: what are you talking about?

The Globe got the Carol Aloisi story. They also gave both Carol and Jim Aloisi a chance to comment before the story ran. Neither Aloisi did. Then--when Jim Aloisi's belated, maladroit response became a story in itself--the Globe covered it.

Where's the bad faith here?

---

by: Adam Reilly @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 05:43:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

and who made it a "story in itself" (6.00 / 1)

The Globe and the MSM. It didn't have to be a story. The media doesn't get that blogs are largely a conversation. Aloisi was responding more to BMG commentary than he was the Globe, even if the Globe precipitated some of that commentary.

The Globe throws a fit that Aloisi didn't write his press release and shoot it straight back to the Globe, so writes a story on a BMG diary instead. It's pretty lame. These lame stories, more than anything, are doing quite a bit to save the trees going into the future. Thanks, Boston Globe and most MSM papers, for making today's journalistic standards so eco-friendly...  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 17:24:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Too bad, really (5.67 / 3)

I really respected that he showed up to defend himself, and his sister, and to try to steer the conversation back to what he's working on. Not that it worked, since people then start talking about him again.

I suspect that the administration has decided that Aloisi's been a little overexposed ... Very wise of them.

---

Blue Mass. Group
So what politics do you deserve?

---

by: Charley on the MTA @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 20:42:45 PM CDT

Aloisi tried to "steer the conversation back to what he's working on"? (4.00 / 1)

Aside from defending his sister, the only thing else he did in his post was try and con the readers of BMG that he's some kind of reformer trying to fix the mess of "people" who sweep the transportation problems under the rug for the last 20 years.  Of course we know that Aloisi was a major part of the problem that he claims to be reforming. He has no creditability. He tried to steer the conversation way from reality and into the world of political spin.

The politics of cynicism appears to be winning out over the politics of hope in Deval's world.    

---

by: FrankSkeffington @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 22:03:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let's say ... (6.00 / 1)

everything you say about Aloisi is true, and we all have our suspicions. He's basically there to sell the governor's plan. Either it's good or not. But in the end, it's not his credibility that's at stake -- it's the gov's.

---

Blue Mass. Group
So what politics do you deserve?

---

by: Charley on the MTA @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 22:06:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

that's why (0.00 / 0)

it's best to generally let stories die. if you talk about it, it's just another day of everyone getting to talk about it. The only reason why Aloisi probably responded at all (and this is pure conjecture, but I've lived through similar things...) is because it was his sister attacked. It's one thing to listen to insults flung at your face, another to see them flung at family (especially when cronyism is a charge - ie she didn't deserve her job).  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 22:33:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think they're afraid (6.00 / 1)

that emotions will get so ratcheted up over this, that it will derail the administration's efforts to implement their plan. That's the reason to try and change the subject, not hurt feelings or a desire to stand up for his sister.

---

by: af @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 22:47:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Blogging isn't "odd" (6.00 / 5)

But I guess to the Boston Globe it is...

The odd series of events began Tuesday night when Aloisi posted on the left-leaning forum Blue Mass. Group.

And even more important, why is it odd for state officials to speak to and ask for support from the people. If you think about it, it really was no diffent than him speaking at a casual event. Except since it's a blog, it became an "odd series of events."
I think it is great that the blogosphere is bringing the government and the people together.  I have always been a little leery of the press.  They like to control the conversation, and are often guilty of spin. I think that may be the biggest reason why they reported on Sec. Aloisi's visit here. Maybe to try to stop the behavior before it becomes popular and accepted.

---

by: liveandletlive @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 21:04:52 PM CDT

Yet somebody at the Globe is clearly watching the oddball blogs closely (0.00 / 0)

And perhaps gaffling the occasional scoop/story.

---

by: Farnkoff @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 21:29:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

no one watches the blogs closer than the media (0.00 / 0)

which is why it's baffling that they get the blogosphere so wrong. but then again, we're the source of all their problems, or something...

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 22:36:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"gaffling" (6.00 / 1)

Fabulous word. Extra points :-)  

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 23:16:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

David, you did a great job on NECN (5.00 / 1)

Instead of trying to defend the behavior of our government officials, you conceded the fact that they need to start doing a better job.  That was so awesome.  Thank You for being real.

---

by: liveandletlive @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 22:28:19 PM CDT

At least for me, Aloisi lost ALL credibility (0.00 / 0)

He attacks the Globe -- and doesn't disclose that he and sister had refused to comment for the story????

Usually, the situation is that the party strenuously objects to the story before publication, challenges a lot of fact and context, and then the story runs anyway (rightly or wrongly).  

I'd assumed that was the situation here -- sort of the minimal level of what you need to accuse paper of bad faith.  

Well, my mea culpa in this instance:

The Globe has been forced to lay off most of their experienced reporters and editors.  So when someone calls up with a few facts and a lot of spin, the newspaper's checks and balances are gone.  The machinery is HEAVILY wired to run with any attack.

Who to believe in this case?  I have no idea.  But I appreciate the Aloisi response.

1. While the Globe has laid off a lot of experienced folks, now seems there was no check and balance issue here.  Certainly I unfairly impugned the reporter and editors by lending credence to Aloisi claims.  

2. I no longer "appreciate" the eguy apology.   He correctly apologized to Globe.   Not to BMG readers he essentially just conceded to misleading.  
 

---

by: GoldsteinGoneWild @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 06:06:40 AM CDT

Well, in Aloisi's defense, this is how it usually sounds when a "busted" individual respond to the Globe: (6.00 / 1)

"Despite having quite obviously run afoul of various ethical rules and perhaps having violated the law, individual X offered the following dubious explanation.
" (Excuse/justification goes here) "
However, expert watchdog Frank N. Furter of the Hightower Group was skeptical. "I'd say he definitely ran afoul of ethics, if not the law. But I guess that's for a jury to decide."

Or you could just post your unedited side of the story at BMG, where commenters might still end up tearing your excuses apart, but then you can always try to respond back to those comments, and so on.

---

by: Farnkoff @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 06:34:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Aloisi: Epic Fail (0.00 / 0)

A newspaper is a single threaded mode of one-way communication.  A blog, like this one, is a multi-threaded, multi-dimensional mode of communication.  Where Aloisi failed epically is in his assumption that he could "control" the communication on a blog in the same way one can "control," or attempt to control (i.e., spin) a single threaded, one-way mode of communication.

Marketers brush up against this dynamic all the time in the brave new world of social networking.  They're used to controlling the message in single threaded, one-way modes of communication (TV, newspapers, radio).  But in a social networking environment, this is impossible to do.  It's bad to do, as well, since those who participate in social networks value honesty and integrity.  A person who seems disingenuous or spin-heavy when delivering a message in a social networking environment is not going to be trusted.

The bright, shining beauty of a blog is that controlling the spin is impossible.  Once again, Aloisi just proved how out of touch he is.  Dean Wermer would give Aloisi a "zero point zero" for his ham-handed effort at "defending" himself and his hack sister.

"Everywhere there's lots of piggies, leading piggy lives.  You should see them out for dinner, with their piggy wives.  Clutching forks and knives . . . to eat their bacon."

---

by: Old Scratch @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 08:21:01 AM CDT

You comment wasn't too strong at all (0.00 / 0)

Good for you.  I agree 100% and see no reason to dilute your original thought.

With a couple of newspapers recently abandoning paper editions for on-line publication (and others to follow), I think the Globe is defensive about Aloisi's decision to post in BMG rather than contact the paper.  This not-so-subtle effrontery is noticeable, I thought, in their follow-up reporting.

---

by: bostonshepherd @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 08:31:41 AM CDT

let's all not try to dislocate our elbows patting ourselves on the back now... (5.00 / 1)

Aloisi didn't do a darned thing to defend himself in his post and kind of made himself look silly in the process.  Sure his legal counsel is out on the ledge at this point.  Witness Joan Vennochi's column this morning:

http://www.boston.com/bostongl...

Rag on the "old media" all you want, but they do have to research and edit their stories first.  Remember too that the original article broke in the Globe, not the Herald.

---

by: Mike from Norwell @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 09:09:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I do actually think (0.00 / 0)

Some of the personal defense came from really good comments IN the post, not from the post itself. Not the least of which was people who had witnessed her back problems, which the Globe tried to paint as possibly...I dunno...faked or something.

Left in Lowell: cuz why read the Lowell Sun if you don't have to? ;)

---

by: Lynne @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 09:48:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah, but (0.00 / 0)

if you're in that much pain that you can't go to your job for months on end, how is it that you can go to conventions thousands of miles away (ever try flying with a bad back)?  Not like she was a firefighter or something, she's in an office.

---

by: Mike from Norwell @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 09:58:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Stupid MSM Tricks (0.00 / 0)

The MSM pretends they merely uncover news stories, rather choose them through editorial direction or discretion. We are just the medium, they say, the ether in which the news floats.

But Estes's Aloisi story, the result of presumed reportial objectivity, quickly turns allows the editors and columnists to bootstrap, and assert the paper's agenda surrounded by an aura of disinterest it never possesses.

Anyone who has ever been interviewed by a reporter intent on filling in his or her chosen narrative (never someone who's been misquoted or quoted out of context) knows why Mr. Aloisi chose to write a blog post (BTW, not his first, Joanie V.), rather than address the paper.


A rose by any other name is still a rose by another name.

---

by: Yellow Dog @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 09:22:40 AM CDT

Oh, Sure (0.00 / 0)

The reason he didn't respond to the paper is because the only question they asked was "Did you help your sister get a job in which she wasn't required to work?"

Once you can't answer that question -- because someone out there will prove you a liar -- no amount of misdirection is going to carry the day.  Think I'm wrong?  Point out the part in Aloisi's blog post where he denies influence in his sister's career.

A few people have parroted Aloisi's claim that the original Globe story reflected a dearth of experienced reporters.  Estes has been a reporter for more than 20 years and writes outstanding State House news.  The allegation says far more about his experience than hers.

---

by: SouthStreet @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 09:32:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not going to stick up (0.00 / 0)

for Jim Aloisi, but if I thought the Globe did a hatchet job on me, I wouldn't count on them to bandage my wounds. You don't have to be, like, or agree with Aloisi to see things from his perspective.

It take your point, but I've had problems with the press, and well-intentioned reporters, when nothing was at stake.

Granted, they weren't Andrea Estes, but many of her peers at the Globe that fill-in-their stories with the same old sources (Michael Widmer, Barbara Anderson, and Jeff Berry) are guilty of knowing what they'll write before they write it. They know what they're going to write and know what they're going to say.

And seasoned professionals, like Judith Miller from the Times, and others from the Post, somehow manage to play games with the truth, intentionally or not. There's always a degree of competition, if not outright hostility, between the press and public figures. Aloisi or not, you miss that point.

A rose by any other name is still a rose by another name.

---

by: Yellow Dog @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 13:41:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"where he denies influence in his sister's career" (0.00 / 0)

How about this?

She has never needed to call on me for help in getting a job or keeping a job.

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

---

by: kirth @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 14:04:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]