What is the Globe's Obligation to Report the Truth or is it OK for the Globe to Lie?

Thanks for capturing that.... (0.00 / 0)

Because now it looks like they've removed that paragraph from the article.

  - Dan

---

by: danseidman @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 15:55:26 PM CDT

They have no shame... (0.00 / 0)

...those folks at the Globe act like they are Gods looking down at the lowly masses they call "readers".  They are more arrogant then all the egos on Beacon Hill and City hall combined.

I just regret I did not save the page onto my computer. 

---

by: FrankSkeffington @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 16:02:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I've posted before here about this technique and regretted not doing so myself many times... (0.00 / 0)

use screen shots about any web page that seems odd to you

Many times I had that "that's weird"feeling as I read an article and neglected to use screen shots. Now I do.

Trust your gut reaction.

For those that don't know how:
hold Ctrl, Alt, and the PrtScrn buttons at the same time
Nothing appears to happen
Open Paint in the Windows program it will open to a blank screen
hold the Ctrl button and the letter V button at the same time

The screen shot you took appears.

You can then save that page.

---

by: merbex @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 16:55:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you so much! (0.00 / 0)

That is very useful information.  I often wondered how people did that.  I've saved the info for future reference.  Thanks again. 

 

---

by: lightiris @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 19:58:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What's really weird about this (0.00 / 0)

is that the part of the Globe story saying that the Globe also had the story shopped to them -- which I confirmed really did used to be there via a Google News search -- has now been removed from the Globe's page.

Why?  What is the Globe worried about?

Frank, you didn't happen to take a screen shot, did you?

---

by: David @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 16:01:02 PM CDT

Damn it...no! (0.00 / 0)

---

by: FrankSkeffington @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 16:02:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you David for confirmation... (0.00 / 0)

...from Google News search.

My take is a reporter reported the facts and an editor decided to edit the facts.

---

by: FrankSkeffington @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 16:13:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

NAILED! (0.00 / 0)

You nailed 'em, Frank.

The Globe needs to clear the stench about its political reporting department with one simple answer:

When the Globe learned about this story on Friday, did they learn about it from the Healey Campaign or a Republican?

It's a simple answer.  And the adults who work at the Globe should simply, at long last, tell the truth.

---

by: joeltpatterson @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 16:05:23 PM CDT

Quick (0.00 / 0)

Get a screen shot of the cached Globe page.

 Only the cod is sacred.

---

by: pablo @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 16:10:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Got it. (0.00 / 0)

Who wants a JPG of it emailed to them?

---

by: joeltpatterson @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 16:17:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Can you post it here... (0.00 / 0)

Either as a comment or new post?

---

by: FrankSkeffington @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 16:22:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

send it to me (0.00 / 0)

david at bluemassgroup dot com

---

by: David @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 16:29:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Got a screen shot of the Google page not the Globe article (0.00 / 0)

It's time to start shaking the tree.  See if anything falls.

---

by: joeltpatterson @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 16:53:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Back Button on your browser (0.00 / 0)

sometimes takes you back to an un-updated page... it's unlikely now, I know but if you just clicked back you might find it.  Maybe.

---

by: joeltpatterson @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 17:19:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Something odd is going on here..." (0.00 / 0)

ODD? Nothing odd is going on here.  The Globe decided to split the difference between reporting the real truth--whether the Republicans shopped this story to them--and reporting a lie. 

Their solution was to cover up the complete truth from their readers.  Nothing odd about that from the fine institution that is the Boston Globe.

---

by: FrankSkeffington @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 16:20:04 PM CDT

Here's the screen shot - thanks Joel! (6.00 / 2)

(somewhat compressed to avoid killing the screen completely)

---

by: David @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 16:58:40 PM CDT

The Globe is making news, not just reporting it (6.00 / 2)

The Globe is now part of the story, not just reporting it. It was a phone call on Tuesday from a Globe reporter to the state's Criminal History Systems Board that sent the state after Deval Patrick's brother-in-law, ordering him to register as a sex offender.

Fred Thys of WBUR reported at 5:50PM on Friday on the story. He used an audio clip from a named spokesperson from the state's Executive Office of Public Safety who stated that the CHSB initiated their investigation in response to the Globe inquiry, made on Tuesday of this week.

---

by: Jim Marzilli @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 17:02:21 PM CDT

Healey is denying any involvement in leaking this info... (0.00 / 0)

...she was on Channel 7 news saying her campaign had nothing to do with it.

If the Globe knows this is not the case, they great story here and they should run with it.

How can they be "protecting" a source on a story they never published? 

---

by: FrankSkeffington @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 17:41:43 PM CDT

I wish you can edit comments... (0.00 / 0)

Should read: "If the Globe knows this is not the case, they have a great story here and they should run with it."

---

by: FrankSkeffington @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 17:43:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Holding Globe accountable (6.00 / 1)

Will someone who has the screen shot get in touch with the Ombudsman at the Globe, as well as with media reporters like Dan Kennedy?

---

by: BrianMurphy @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 18:08:47 PM CDT

I just e-mailed the campaign (0.00 / 0)

with a link to this diary. The ombudsman is a great idea, but the Globe makes it impossible to find their contact info. Dan Kennedy is a smart pick, too.

---

by: steverino @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 18:36:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ombud at globe dot com (0.00 / 0)

I think that works.

seems like most of their email addresses are just a lastname@globe.com

---

by: joeltpatterson @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 18:42:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I called the Globe Ombudsman today.... (0.00 / 0)

but it turns out they don't have one anymore... 

The intern at the City Desk told me that the ombudsman duties were now a "team effort", and she cheerfully put me into the ombudsman voicemail.  So I left a message for the virtual ombudsman for the Globe to come clean with its readers about how the paper came to know about this story on Friday.  Also said they should provide context to readers by explaining how the filthy game of opposition research works. 

Anyone who's ever been involved in politics or the media knows how it works, and now the Globe should perform a public service by explaining to the public how it works.  Anonymous call with "tips"  --  the envelope left at the front desk for a reporter (no return address).  All of it done so as not to lead to the source  --  which is always the rival campaign or someone working for the rival campaign.

Tracking down the sleazebags who do this kind of work?  Good luck; they are usually third parties hired through consultants who, unlike the campaigns, never have to report what they spend their money on.

Yes, the Healey campaign was behind this  --  and anyone who doesn't believe that is either a Healey supporter, or lying.

---

by: Tom @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 20:14:36 PM CDT

Don't get sidetracked (6.00 / 3)

As usual, you have to read the Healey response to see where they want you to go -- so don't go there.  The effort is to turn Deval's outrage and spotlight on "the politics of Kerry Healey" into a debate about HIS credibility.  Don't waste our time, it can't help.  It can only turn the issue on to: Did Deval have a legit basis for attacking her?

Of course, that question is not even close:

First, folks are right, he never said that in his statement.  But, he certainly implied it.  Their is a legal term called "proximate cause" and another called "reckless endangerment."  Whether or not KH was the "proximate cause", the actual leaker (or leak approver), she started the who climate of focus on rape, murder, mayhem and linked them to Deval.  It is sheer hypocrisy to say that having created the media feeding frenzy about everything remotely related to Deval and the criminal justice system, that she has no responsibility when it gets out of control.  That is like the drunk driver -- you recklessly endangered your victim, don't say "I didn't mean to run him over."

Also, in this administration, where legit research is bottled up to meet Mitt's national agenda, and line agencies are brought to heel for doing their job -- does any believe that the Sex Offender Registry Board got a tip about Deval's brother in law in the middle of a campaign -- and on their own just ran with it?  That they didn't at least give the heads up on a politically charged matter like that to anyone? 

If we still want to dig up the truth, make sure: Reporters need to ask the right questions:  When did the LG first hear of the issue?  From whom?  Who is on this Board?  Who appointed them?  Have they ever spoken to anyone in the Gov's office about a reported sex offender? 

If the Globe called, how did the Herald get the story?  Was anyone else copied on the Board's letter?  Did Healey or anyone under her get a copy?  Certainly Mr. Sigh didn't call the Herald.  So it must be that the Board leaks, or KH leaks.  She should be calling for a crminal investigation of the Board, shouldn't see -- it must be against the law to leak such private information before the offender gets a chance to respond to the demand to register. 

What were they told by the Globe?  Was that the only source?  (I'm very suspicious on this one -- the Globe called us sounds like the cover story.)  How did they research this?  Why are sex offenses committed in another state, prior to the creation of the Board, requiring registry?  How often do they investigate "tips"?

There are a million questions. But the ones to ask are: If she didn't leak this one, she sure authorized the rest of the slime.  And now is the time to rally to say no to that brand of politics. 

---

by: Karl Roving @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 20:55:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Excellent argument. (0.00 / 0)

Someone get that in the hands of the Patrick campaign and let him polish it with his Deval-ness.

You (and Deval) are exactly right about Healey being ultimately responsible for setting the tone of a "politics of fear."  If she hadn't been making accusations left and right for the past three weeks, there would be no reason to tie her to this leak.  That is not the case.

I wonder about a criminal investigation.  I doubt Deval wants this story to be in the public eye any longer than it has to be.  He wouldn't want that for his sister and the rest of his family.  At the same time, the man's sense of justice must be compelling him to strike back hard...

---

by: dan.croak @ Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 10:27:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What happened to the Globe's Ombudsman (0.00 / 0)

The last Boston Globe ombudsman was Richard Chacon, who left to become Deval Patrick's Communications Director. They have not hired or promoted anyone  to replace him.

---

by: aml @ Mon Oct 16, 2006 at 10:34:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Whose truth... (6.00 / 2)

is this about? 
Why the effort to go after the Globe on this?  Do we think this is a cover-up?  Protection of Healey?  Maybe they are lazy and didn't ask the right questions and passed on a story and...
Here's the truth that should matter:  by most everyone's measure, the Herald (who do they support?) published an extraordinarily unreasonable and unfair story about Deval Patrick's family.  There are few people, outside of the Hubbies, who find this kind of reporting reasonable.  Patrick understandably flips but rather then lapse into an Eagleton moment, he steadys himself and the campaign (which needed steadying after these two weeks) and lays out a remarkable response that disarms the media and sends the opposition to the woodshed.  No one believes that the Healey campaign WASN'T involved.  They can say anything they want but no one believes 'em (except that clown who's voting for Christy or Gracie).  Yesterday people just didn't like her.  Today they don't like her and they don't trust her.
Deval has reconnected with those voters who drifted over the last two weeks, he emboldened his base and he threw a left hook that knocked Healey through the ropes. 

Did the Globe screw up?  Probably.  Tonight, are they scrambling to figure out what went wrong and why they're where they are?  Yes.  Should their feet be held to the fire?  Indeed.  But this story shouldn't be about the Globe.  I would hate to see a headline tomorrow or Sunday on the cover of that rag they give away at the T stations that says "Globe Caught Ratting Out Deval's Rapist Kin".

Our truth is that today Deval reiterated, very publicly, why he's a leader.  Let's run with that.

---

by: drek @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 21:37:49 PM CDT

My point is... (0.00 / 0)

1) As you write..."No one believes that the Healey campaign WASN'T involved."

2) The Globe admits, the story was shopped to them and they decided there was not there there. 

3) The Globe prints Healey campaign denial that they had anything to do with it.

4) The Globe has a responsiblity to their readers to tell us everything they know about who was "peddling" this story.  Was it slipped under the door in the middle of the night?  Or was it overtly given to them by a Republican oerative or even a Healey campaign person?

What I suspect the Globe editors should be debating tonight is: They know that Healey connected operatives shopped this story to them last week.  So they should be debating whether they will print denials by Healey's campaign manager that the Globe knows to be untrue.  The headline in tomorrows Globe and then echo'd in other media outlets in the coming days should simply tell people the truth.  Therefore the headline should be, "Healey Campaign Lied About Leaking Story To Media".

If the Globe knows this to be the truth--they should print the truth.

---

by: FrankSkeffington @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 22:48:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm curious too,... (0.00 / 0)

Frank, but what if it's not any of those possibilities.  What if the Globe got the information the old fashioned way - a pissed off insider.  Or maybe a reporter at another paper that didn't want to run it, or maybe a Dem operative who doesn't want his or her world to change.  Or maybe they don't know where they got it but it checked out and they chose not to light that fire.

Maybe the Globe did the right thing. 

Either way, I like the speculation and opportunity presented by our current situation.  I feel for the Patricks and their family.  No one should have to go through this.  But you know what, I say Healey's attack ads again tonight and they just didn't have the bite they had last night.
Here we are, so whaddowedo now?
 

---

by: drek @ Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 23:17:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Andrea Estes' story on Saturday morning (0.00 / 0)

The Globe received an anonymous two-page document last week describing the criminal case.

Estes, Phillips, and Dahl at the Globe still aren't telling us much. 

---

by: joeltpatterson @ Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 06:34:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Globe Clarified its Lead Today (0.00 / 0)

From the Globe:

"The Globe received an anonymous two-page document last week describing the criminal case. The Globe immediately verified the rape conviction and Sigh's residence in Massachusetts and then checked with the sex offender registry to determine if Sigh had fulfilled a requirement to register.

"The Globe inquiry prompted state officials to notify Sigh that he had failed to register, but the editors decided against publishing a story after finding no relevance to Patrick's record or qualifications. Responding to inquiries from the Globe, the campaign said Patrick had never intervened on Sigh's behalf and the Globe found nothing to contradict that assertion."

Link to the article: http://www.boston.co...

There is still no doubt in my mind that this came from some Healey operative.

---

by: Kraank @ Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 06:30:58 AM CDT

Clarified or sanitized? n/t (0.00 / 0)

 Only the cod is sacred.

---

by: pablo @ Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 21:23:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]