Should FCC Investigate the Globe/NYTimes Sox Ownership vs. It's Patriots Coverage?

[shmessy]

I, for one, think it should at least be looked into. The McGrory column yesterday in the Metro/Region section was the last straw for me. Until that moment, I gave the Globe the benefit of the doubt that, despite a few miscreants carrying agendas (Borges-personal, management-17% Sox management) that it wasn't an orchestrated business campaign against the Patriots.

Now, I'm not so sure.

 

[Pats726]

Re: Should FCC Investigate the Globe/NYTimes Sox Ownership vs. It's Patriots Coverage

FCC does not rule over newspapers...IT IS a bit sad..but nothing can be done except NOT reading or subscribing...

 

[shmessy]

Re: Should FCC Investigate the Globe/NYTimes Sox Ownership vs. It's Patriots Coverage

FCC does not rule over newspapers...IT IS a bit sad..but nothing can be done except NOT reading or subscribing...

I thought they had a hand in approving or rejecting ownerships of newspapers and broadcasting, though I may very well be off there. I distinctly remember Rupert Murdoch going through some FCC tribulations when purchasing the Boston Herald and Channel 7 in the 1980's.

The FCC does regulate at least broadcasting and there is the NESN component in all this as the Globe/Times ownership in the Sox includes NESN.

 

[smg93]

Re: Should FCC Investigate the Globe/NYTimes Sox Ownership vs. It's Patriots Coverage

To answer your question, NO.

If you don't like what they write and a lot more people don't like what they write, people will stop buying the paper and either they change to suit the taste of their readership or another paper will take over the mantle as Boston's most widely circulated newspaper.

To have the FCC in effect censor the globe for what they write about the Pats is incredibly ridiculous. Vote with your pocketbook. That's how it works.

 

[abyzmul]

Re: Should FCC Investigate the Globe/NYTimes Sox Ownership vs. It's Patriots Coverage

for those of us not in boston, why are you saying they should be investigated?

 

[patchick]

Re: Should FCC Investigate the Globe/NYTimes Sox Ownership vs. It's Patriots Coverage

You realize that Sox fans are convinced that the Globe is out to get their team too, right? Look...

A newspaper publisher wants to sell newspapers and advertisements.
Newspaper reporters and columnists want you to read and talk about their work.
Both parties want acclaim within the profession for producing a high-quality product.
Those are the agendas, and there's nothing secret about them.

First off, I've met people in the NY Times management and believe it or not they take editorial integrity incredibly seriously. But even if you don't buy that, it makes no business sense for the Globe to conspire to keep the Patriots down. Pats vs. Sox is NOT a zero sum game. Most Boston-area sports fans are fans of both teams and a rising tide of sports fans floats all boats. Pissing off Patriots fans and driving them away is bad news for the whole Globe sports organization. More sports fans, more readers, more better.

People make the same claims about WEEI, that they conspire against football talk because they broadcast Sox games. But they've also been the "flagship station" for, what, Revolution soccer and BC hockey? Have you ever heard a word about either of those teams on the station's talk shows?

There is no conspiracy.

 

[pkb]

Re: Should FCC Investigate the Globe/NYTimes Sox Ownership vs. It's Patriots Coverage

This is preposterous. No one regulates the way private entities allocate their resources; if you don't like the Globe, vote with your feet (and eyes) and cease reading it.

The reason the Sox get more coverage in the Globe is that they are more popular in the Globe's trade area. You may not like that fact, but that's why they do it.

Oh, and McGrory and Borges are indeed morons. But that's neither here nor there!

 

[Fanfrom1960]

Re: Should FCC Investigate the Globe/NYTimes Sox Ownership vs. It's Patriots Coverage

To answer your question, NO.

If you don't like what they write and a lot more people don't like what they write, people will stop buying the paper and either they change to suit the taste of their readership or another paper will take over the mantle as Boston's most widely circulated newspaper.

To have the FCC in effect censor the globe for what they write about the Pats is incredibly ridiculous. Vote with your pocketbook. That's how it works.

Maybe the Globe sees a need for more and more sensationalist/controversial reporting to sell newspapers? Where I live, the San Jose Mercury News has shrunk quite a bit, and has had to lay off a lot of people to keep their head above water. It's probably due to the Internet. Why walk out to the driveway to get the news and sports when you only need to turn on a computer in the warmth of your home?

I don't feel sorry for the Merc (but do for the people who lost their jobs) because for years, they were anti-high tech right in the high tech capital of the world. What they were always for to the max was diversity. Nothing against that but they chose to ignore and slam the people who could most easily vote with their choice of information source, who of course chose the Internet.

 

[Pujo]

Re: Should FCC Investigate the Globe/NYTimes Sox Ownership vs. It's Patriots Coverage

Lol, should the FCC investigate this forum for being too pro-Pats?

The FCC has no business, nor authority, to investigate a newspaper for their content. If the Globe wanted to insert anti-Patriots bias into every article they write, on any topic, that's their right under the first amendment.

 

[Pujo]

Re: Should FCC Investigate the Globe/NYTimes Sox Ownership vs. It's Patriots Coverage

Oh, and McGrory and Borges are indeed morons. But that's neither here nor there!

I always liked Brian McGrory's columns until that very strange one about Belichick shoving the cameraman. But it's his job to gripe. Guess it was a slow newsday.

 

[letekro]

Re: Should FCC Investigate the Globe/NYTimes Sox Ownership vs. It's Patriots Coverage

Of all the defects in news coverage caused by the conflicts of interest inherent in modern media ownership, I don't think this is going to be the one to move the People to action.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

Re: Should FCC Investigate the Globe/NYTimes Sox Ownership vs. It's Patriots Coverage

investigate? regulate? of course not.

if you don't like it don't read it. I've stopped going to their website because I don't want the paper to get my clicks. when I visit NE I don't buy the Globe because I want to read the sports section and I don't want to have to be presented with crap written by Shaughnessy and Borges. They're free to put the garbage out there, and I'm free to not read it.

As for the Sox, if you haven't noticed they're the dominate sports team in the city. It doesn't matter that you don't like it, it's the way it is. Absolutely nothing is happening in baseball right now while the Patriots are in the playoffs and I still might prefer to read about the Sox. It is what it is, and the fact that the Globe panders to it only makes sense.

Besides, they aren't exactly positive towards the Sox either.

First off, I've met people in the NY Times management and believe it or not they take editorial integrity incredibly seriously.

LOL. Anyone can say they're serious. Actions speak louder than words.

 

[texpat]

Re: Should FCC Investigate the Globe/NYTimes Sox Ownership vs. It's Patriots Coverage

What a hoot!!

Coming from a moderator,

"Let's ban all statements and opinions that don't agree with mine!

What a joke!!!!!!!

 

[sieglo]

Re: Should FCC Investigate the Globe/NYTimes Sox Ownership vs. It's Patriots Coverage

McGrory will be duly punished in the afterlife for criticizing Belichick and the Pats...as will Borges.

 

[cstjohn17]

Re: Should FCC Investigate the Globe/NYTimes Sox Ownership vs. It's Patriots Coverage

I, for one, think it should at least be looked into. The McGrory column yesterday in the Metro/Region section was the last straw for me. Until that moment, I gave the Globe the benefit of the doubt that, despite a few miscreants carrying agendas (Borges-personal, management-17% Sox management) that it wasn't an orchestrated business campaign against the Patriots.

Now, I'm not so sure.

Why would you want the government to help you with this? Remember a little thing called "freedom of speech", if you don't like it don't read it. It scares me to death when any government agency controls the commentary of the media. Look at the over the top reaction to the "wardrobe malfunction" during Superbowl 38, it was like Big Brother. I would rather have the government focusing on other issues than how a newspaper reports football stories.

BB acted like a jerk, McGrory got all high and mighty and over-reacted. Big deal.

 

[oldskool138]

Re: Should FCC Investigate the Globe/NYTimes Sox Ownership vs. It's Patriots Coverage

Look, it comes down to one thing and one thing only. Selling papers. Controversy, real or imagined, sells way more papers than "kumbya" stories.

I hate to reference a movie or comic book but J.J. Jamison and the Daily Bugle in Spider-man are basically an accurate caricature of the newspaper business. The Bugle keeps writing negative articles about Spidey to sell papers.

I know it's kind of a crap example but basically, that's what the Globe is trying to do with the Pats and to a lesser degree the Sox. I mean, they were responsible for Theo Epstien quitting his job. So, they pour on the negativity, sarcasm and "unnamed sources" in order to directly influence the Boston sports scene. (I'm sorry, I love the Spider-man movies and comics...sue me. )

 

[patchick]

Re: Should FCC Investigate the Globe/NYTimes Sox Ownership vs. It's Patriots Coverage

LOL. Anyone can say they're serious. Actions speak louder than words.

I know this is veering off topic, but it astonishes me how it has become fashionable to pretend that the Times is a junk rag. Yes, they unquestionably make more mistakes in serious journalism than most papers. Why? Because they're the only ones actually doing journalism.

Look through your average city newspaper. There is NO investigative journalism, no serious reporting at all. National and international news comes exclusively from wire services. Original writing is relegated to sports and local events -- fires, parades, the occasional murder.

The NYT and a handful of other old-school papers have actual foreign bureaus and White House correspondents. They spend months gathering data for major reports. They're all the real press we've got left, and while they're far from perfect we'd be in a lot of trouble without them.

 

[Pujo]

Re: Should FCC Investigate the Globe/NYTimes Sox Ownership vs. It's Patriots Coverage

I know this is veering off topic, but it astonishes me how it has become fashionable to pretend that the Times is a junk rag. Yes, they unquestionably make more mistakes in serious journalism than most papers. Why? Because they're the only ones actually doing journalism.

Look through your average city newspaper. There is NO investigative journalism, no serious reporting at all. National and international news comes exclusively from wire services. Original writing is relegated to sports and local events -- fires, parades, the occasional murder.

The NYT and a handful of other old-school papers have actual foreign bureaus and White House correspondents. They spend months gathering data for major reports. They're all the real press we've got left, and while they're far from perfect we'd be in a lot of trouble without them.

It's just politics. The Times is liberal and doesn't make any pretenses about it, so conservatives aren't going to like them. At least their rep isn't as bad as the New York Post!

 

[shmessy]

Re: Should FCC Investigate the Globe/NYTimes Sox Ownership vs. It's Patriots Coverage

Everyone seems to be missing my original (my fault - badly worded) point.

The point of my question is: should the FCC allow OWNERSHIP by media of businesses that they cover and compete with.

It was not about regulating opinions. It's a business question, not a mind-control question.

They have, in the past, weighed in and put obstacles in the way of interests that could monopolize the flow of news (i.e. Ruperrt Murdoch in the 1980's re: the Boston Herald, New York Post, Channel 7, etc.).

Recently, the aborted "OJ How I Could Have Done It" interview on Fox, one week before the Murdoch owned HarperCollins was to publish the book was another example of rotten "synergy".

I don't think ANYONE should censor the Globe's writers. However, regulating what BUSINESS interests the Globe has with organizations they cover is a legitimate topic.

If we have any posters in Chicago, I know this has been brought up in relation to the Trib's ownership of the Cubbies.

Turn on CNBC and you see their Wall Street reporters always talking up (parent company) GE's stock, while denigrating GE competitor AOL Time/Warner.

It's something that is everywhere today, but the old FCC under Newton Minnow would never let it happen.

 

[belichickaholic]

Re: Should FCC Investigate the Globe/NYTimes Sox Ownership vs. It's Patriots Coverage

It's not the Globe, Its the Red Sox. It all started when the RS were sold to John Henry and his pal Larry Lowlife. They've got control over the Globe, EEI and Nesn.

They create stories just to keep the RS in the news. IMO they're more intersted in the PR, than the product on the field. They pull publicity stunts like Theo wearing a gorilla suit (a clown suit would have been more appropriate) and pretending to be upset about his contract (on the very same week that Tedy was coming back from a stroke) and then miraculously returning three months later. (the very same week the pats would have been in the afc championship game)

There are a lot of other examples that I don't have time to get into, but the fact is that the RS want total control of the media market in Boston. They have a deal with the Globe to minimize coverage of not just the Pats, but any team (celtics, bruins, revolution, and cannons even) that threatens to take away the headlines. They have a deal with EEI and if you listen to EEI on a daily basis, you know how frustrating it is if you're a pats fan. And don't even try to tell me that the calls are driven by the fans. That's a crock.

There was an article written a couple of years ago about the RS and their "cartel". The writer couldn't have been more spot on, yet he was ridiculed and embarrassed by his colleagues.

Again, it's not about the Globe hating the Pats, or EEI wanting you to think that the fans want to talk about baseball in the middle of January. It all started and is driven by the Red Sox and their quest for total control over the media=fans.

Why the Globe, EEI and other media outlets go along with it? Journalistic Integrity? Sure.