Would you boycott The Boston Globe?

[PatsSteve1]

The reporting from the Golbe is anti-Belichick. No major newspaper should attack any member of the public with reports that tell only 1/2 the story.

The Globe has an agenda when it comes to Belichick and the Patriots.

* You actually think the writers, editors and publisher have meetings about how thier going to "get" BB and the Patriots? I've lived in Mass, Arizona, Georgia, Florida(twice), Denver, Co and now the SF bay area. While some sports sections in each area are better than others, they all have been about the same when writing about the local pro sports teams. If they fndf something that reflects poorly on the local team, it gets written no matter how good or bad that team, coach or player is doing at that time.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

What we have to understand here, is we are in a Pats bulletin board. "In house" we do have dissenters, but for the most part, we drink the kool-aid. I definitely do. It's hard to argue with success, and the Pats, from the Krafts through Pioli and Belichick, and through the players on the field, have exemplified it in the NFL like no other team has this century. May we all return to "centerpiece" status soon, fans, team, management etc. alike, amen.

BUT, telling us what we want to hear can hardly be the entirety of the story. Hey, there's plenty out there that's not in our fairy-tale high-character, smart business, hard physical football paradigm. In this case, we have an issue that might arise from that paradigm.

Of course the general public has no say in who gets to write in the papers. The papers hire reporters and editors. These are not elected positions.

Boycotting a paper for running a story on a disgruntled ex-player? Jeez. Read the story, decide for yourself, even discuss and eviscerate if you like. But you're cutting off your nose to spite your face if you stop reading the dissenting opinions.

By the way, the media in general have a purpose antithetical to Belichick's in one regard; he seems to believe that any information can provide another team an advantage, so he seems to release minimal information. In the case of the injury report, in fact, he seems to randomly release mock information, for whatever reason (I'm sure no opposing club actually even reads them at this point.)

You and I, as fans, want this information... so the media, and the freedom of information in general, is at odds with the team's goals, but in line with our goals as fans. Luckily this is true of all teams.

PFnV

 

[upstater1]

What we have to understand here, is we are in a Pats bulletin board. "In house" we do have dissenters, but for the most part, we drink the kool-aid. I definitely do. It's hard to argue with success, and the Pats, from the Krafts through Pioli and Belichick, and through the players on the field, have exemplified it in the NFL like no other team has this century. May we all return to "centerpiece" status soon, fans, team, management etc. alike, amen.

BUT, telling us what we want to hear can hardly be the entirety of the story. Hey, there's plenty out there that's not in our fairy-tale high-character, smart business, hard physical football paradigm. In this case, we have an issue that might arise from that paradigm.

Of course the general public has no say in who gets to write in the papers. The papers hire reporters and editors. These are not elected positions.

Boycotting a paper for running a story on a disgruntled ex-player? Jeez. Read the story, decide for yourself, even discuss and eviscerate if you like. But you're cutting off your nose to spite your face if you stop reading the dissenting opinions.

By the way, the media in general have a purpose antithetical to Belichick's in one regard; he seems to believe that any information can provide another team an advantage, so he seems to release minimal information. In the case of the injury report, in fact, he seems to randomly release mock information, for whatever reason (I'm sure no opposing club actually even reads them at this point.)

You and I, as fans, want this information... so the media, and the freedom of information in general, is at odds with the team's goals, but in line with our goals as fans. Luckily this is true of all teams.

PFnV

I boycott them for being poor reporters who lie and can't get a story straight. I'm completely OK with a tough critical media. That's not my axe to grind at all in this case, but good old Jackie has been peddling misinformation (which, quite frankly, I suspect she knows she's peddling some untruths) and in the case of the Johnson article, it seems pretty slanted.

Here's what I find most appalling: she's been sitting on the story for 6 months. In that time, she hasn't checked with medical professionals to see if there are any other possible root causes (other than Belichick's behavior) for Mr. Johnson's problems?

If Johnson had just mentioned this for the first time this week (he hadn't) then she would be correct in only presenting his side (after asking the Patriots for input) simply on the basis of timeliness. But she got this story months ago.

When you put it together with her vindictive air on the national shows (when, albeit, she's not in the role of reporter anymore) then readers can draw conclusions about her objectivity. This is a two-way street, after all. If she wants to be taken seriously as a reporter, she shouldn't go on ESPN's loudmouth hour spouting untruths.

 

[upstater1]

It's always nice to have a link....

A link to what? A television show? She was on that stupid Clock game on ESPN. Have you been reading the last few weeks? This was dealt with in about 3 separate threads.

 

[pats1]

I boycott them for being poor reporters who lie and can't get a story straight. I'm completely OK with a tough critical media. That's not my axe to grind at all in this case, but good old Jackie has been peddling misinformation (which, quite frankly, I suspect she knows she's peddling some untruths) and in the case of the Johnson article, it seems pretty slanted.

Here's what I find most appalling: she's been sitting on the story for 6 months. In that time, she hasn't checked with medical professionals to see if there are any other possible root causes (other than Belichick's behavior) for Mr. Johnson's problems?

If Johnson had just mentioned this for the first time this week (he hadn't) then she would be correct in only presenting his side (after asking the Patriots for input) simply on the basis of timeliness. But she got this story months ago.

When you put it together with her vindictive air on the national shows (when, albeit, she's not in the role of reporter anymore) then readers can draw conclusions about her objectivity. This is a two-way street, after all. If she wants to be taken seriously as a reporter, she shouldn't go on ESPN's loudmouth hour spouting untruths.

How the hell could she have gotten this story "months ago"?

Did you miss the fact that the AP and the NY Times also published VERY SIMILAR stories the SAME DAY, and NOTHING was said about them?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/sp...gewanted= all

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/...on_concussions

I also find it hard to believe that by publishing comments by Ted Johnson, saying that essentially it was at one time "BB's fault," that all the sudden means Jackie MacMullan is saying it's "BB's fault."

 

[pats1]

A link to what? A television show? She was on that stupid Clock game on ESPN. Have you been reading the last few weeks? This was dealt with in about 3 separate threads.

And she was for the most part correct. There was obvious resentment those first two times Mangini and Belichick met. When BB grazes Mangini's hand one day and shoves a photographer out of his way to friggin' hug him the next, it's a story. You'd have to be blind not to see that BB had something against Eric after that first game.

And then there's the whole story about BB locking Mangini out, and the reported resentment there...

(But of course, everything BB does is the media's fault. In fact, AIDS is the media's fault. Cancer is the media's fault. War is the media's fault, right?)

 

[upstater1]

How the hell could she have gotten this story "months ago"?

Did you miss the fact that the AP and the NY Times also published VERY SIMILAR stories the SAME DAY, and NOTHING was said about them?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/sp...gewanted= all

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/...on_concussions

I also find it hard to believe that by publishing comments by Ted Johnson, saying that essentially it was at one time "BB's fault," that all the sudden means Jackie MacMullan is saying it's "BB's fault."

First off, on the radio yesterday they mentioned that she sat on the story until Johnson authorized her to release it. This is done quite a lot in the newspaper business. Writers sit on stories.

Secondly, you can't be so naive as to believe a writer is objective and that they simply present the information given to them. No, it's way too easy to slant a story by arranging the order of presentation, omitting necessary information, or not getting easily available information into the story which might counterbalance our persepctive. This is all so Journalism 101. As a matter of fact, look at the ESPN article. Compare it to the Globe article. Is it a coincidence that the direct quotes from the Patriots are paraphrased in the ESPN article in order to put them in a bad light? Why would a writer do that? Please, just compare the two, and then come back and tell me about reporter's objectivity. It doesn't exist.

 

[upstater1]

And she was for the most part correct. There was obvious resentment those first two times Mangini and Belichick met. When BB grazes Mangini's hand one day and shoves a photographer out of his way to friggin' hug him the next, it's a story. You'd have to be blind not to see that BB had something against Eric after that first game.

And then there's the whole story about BB locking Mangini out, and the reported resentment there...

(But of course, everything BB does is the media's fault. In fact, AIDS is the media's fault. Cancer is the media's fault. War is the media's fault, right?)

You're wrong, man. Now you're repeating LIES. Stop lying. He did SHAKE Mangini's hand. Anythoing else is a lie. Stop lying.

 

[pats1]

You're wrong, man. Now you're repeating LIES. Stop lying. He did SHAKE Mangini's hand. Anythoing else is a lie. Stop lying.

If your definition of shake is "stick out your hand, graze Eric's, and pull it away and walk away as quickly as possible."

If that's a handshake, then BB and Mangini or BB and Dungy got laid on the field.

 

[pats1]

First off, on the radio yesterday they mentioned that she sat on the story until Johnson authorized her to release it. This is done quite a lot in the newspaper business. Writers sit on stories.

God forbid, journalistic integrity. She waits for confirmation from the interviewee to publish the story. God forbid.

Secondly, you can't be so naive as to believe a writer is objective and that they simply present the information given to them. No, it's way too easy to slant a story by arranging the order of presentation, omitting necessary information, or not getting easily available information into the story which might counterbalance our persepctive. This is all so Journalism 101. As a matter of fact, look at the ESPN article. Compare it to the Globe article. Is it a coincidence that the direct quotes from the Patriots are paraphrased in the ESPN article in order to put them in a bad light? Why would a writer do that? Please, just compare the two, and then come back and tell me about reporter's objectivity. It doesn't exist.

No one isn't biased, that is, not completely objective.

As BSMW points out, check the title of MacMullan's story:

"'I don't want anyone to end up like me'

Plagued by post-concussion syndrome and battling an amphetamine addiction, former Patriots linebacker Ted Johnson is a shell of his former self"

If she (or the Globe) was really concerned with getting out there that BB is "at fault," then she would have put it in big bold text in the title. That's journalism 101.

The story isn't as much about what Johnson did then as it is what he's going through NOW. And there, she DOES present medical commentary:

"The numerous head traumas, said Dr. Robert Cantu, co-director of the Neurological Sports Injury Center at Brigham and Women's Hospital, have left Johnson with post-concussion syndrome as well as signs of early brain damage that Cantu fears is permanent."

But if you want to find places who are really out there to grab an anti-BB story, here are the national headlines, as BSMW again points out:

" Ex-Pats linebacker blames Belichick for depression (ESPN.com and FoxSports.com)

Johnson: Belichick, Pats ignored my concussion (SI.com)

Ex-LB: Belichick made me play with concussion (MSNBC.com)

Report: Ex-Pats LB blames ills on Belichick (NBCSports.com)

Ex-Patriot blames concussions on Belichick (CBS.Sportsline.com)"

I guess someone will have to remind Jackie not to publish any negative quotes on the Pats, because there are obviously some out there who get their panties in a bundle about it.

There's a MAJOR difference between that and simply taking opinionated cheap shots at BB in an irrelevant Dungy article, as TRUE anti-Belichick Borges does.

 

[belichickaholic]

God forbid, journalistic integrity. She waits for confirmation from the interviewee to publish the story. God forbid.



No one isn't biased, that is, not completely objective.

As BSMW points out, check the title of MacMullan's story:

"'I don't want anyone to end up like me'

Plagued by post-concussion syndrome and battling an amphetamine addiction, former Patriots linebacker Ted Johnson is a shell of his former self"

If she (or the Globe) was really concerned with getting out there that BB is "at fault," then she would have put it in big bold text in the title. That's journalism 101.

The story isn't as much about what Johnson did then as it is what he's going through NOW. And there, she DOES present medical commentary:

"The numerous head traumas, said Dr. Robert Cantu, co-director of the Neurological Sports Injury Center at Brigham and Women's Hospital, have left Johnson with post-concussion syndrome as well as signs of early brain damage that Cantu fears is permanent."

But if you want to find places who are really out there to grab an anti-BB story, here are the national headlines, as BSMW again points out:

" Ex-Pats linebacker blames Belichick for depression (ESPN.com and FoxSports.com)

Johnson: Belichick, Pats ignored my concussion (SI.com)

Ex-LB: Belichick made me play with concussion (MSNBC.com)

Report: Ex-Pats LB blames ills on Belichick (NBCSports.com)

Ex-Patriot blames concussions on Belichick (CBS.Sportsline.com)"

I guess someone will have to remind Jackie not to publish any negative quotes on the Pats, because there are obviously some out there who get their panties in a bundle about it.

There's a MAJOR difference between that and simply taking opinionated cheap shots at BB in an irrelevant Dungy article, as TRUE anti-Belichick Borges does.

Jackie MacMullan wrote the story first with the headline "I dont want anyone else to end up like me"

Every other news outlet in the country, copied the same story with a very different headline. Thousands upon thousands of newspapers, all over the country and even the world are running with the headline about Belichick being blamed for Ted Johnson's problems.

10,000 newspaper headlines all blaming Belichick.

The genesis of all those negative Belichick headlines is the MacMullan story.

Is the Globe smearing the coach? Not according to them. Did MacMullan write in the article that Ted Johnson was lobbying Belichick to play just six weeks ago?

Did MacMullan write an ominous story about Asante Samuel being upset with his contract negotiations the same day of the Jets playoff game?

Does MacMullan continue to go on every television sports show around and tell anyone who will listen that Belichick didn't shake Mangini's hand, when in fact he DID shake his hand. Did MacMullan or anyone else in the media bother to find out why both Romeo and Saban after playing against Mangini, shook Mangini's hand only briefly and with no more affection than Belichick?

The timing of the stories and the negative content, clearly show a pattern.

It's very simple. What better way for the Globe/Red Sox to take down the Patriots than to take down the architect of the Patriots.

 

[pats1]

Jackie MacMullan wrote the story first with the headline "I dont want anyone else to end up like me"

Every other news outlet in the country, copied the same story with a very different headline. Thousands upon thousands of newspapers, all over the country and even the world are running with the headline about Belichick being blamed for Ted Johnson's problems.

10,000 newspaper headlines all blaming Belichick.

The genesis of all those negative Belichick headlines is the MacMullan story.

Is the Globe smearing the coach? Not according to them. Did MacMullan write in the article that Ted Johnson was lobbying Belichick to play just six weeks ago?

Did MacMullan write an ominous story about Asante Samuel being upset with his contract negotiations the same day of the Jets playoff game?

Does MacMullan continue to go on every television sports show around and tell anyone who will listen that Belichick didn't shake Mangini's hand, when in fact he DID shake his hand. Did MacMullan or anyone else in the media bother to find out why both Romeo and Saban after playing against Mangini, shook Mangini's hand only briefly and with no more affection than Belichick?

The timing of the stories and the negative content, clearly show a pattern.

It's very simple. What better way for the Globe/Red Sox to take down the Patriots than to take down the architect of the Patriots.

Conspiracy theorists unite!

It's Jackie MacMullan's fault, a function of the Globe's ultimate desire to bring down the Patriots, that Ted Johnson blamed Belichick for his problems! Now because MacMullan and the Globe published these negative comments, the rest of the nation has made it into their stories!

(Now why exactly would you think the Globe would want the Pats' downfall? Enough with this Globe/Sox/Times/WEEI/NESN conspiracy ****. The Bruins and Celtics suck like supposedly the Globe wants the Pats to. Do you think that is helping the Globe right now? Of course not. How many millions of papers did the Globe sell after the Pats won their Super Bowls?)

 

[BradyisGod]

How many millions of papers did the Globe sell after the Pats won their Super Bowls?)

THe paper makes no more money when it sells more papers on one day, or even one week. The ad space is paid for already.

 

[upstater1]

God forbid, journalistic integrity. She waits for confirmation from the interviewee to publish the story. God forbid.

What are you talking about? Now tyou're just being a dunderhead for the sake of being a dunderhead. I've never insulted anyone on this board in all my year's here, but I've also never come across someone who purposely distorts the issue. Journalistic integrity? What are you talking about? What the hell does sitting on the story for 6 months have to do with journalistic integrity? Either the story is correct or it's not. You don't go to the subject for confirmation. You have to go outside the subject for confirmation. You know why? Because people lie. This is journalism 101. It's obvious you have no idea about how the newspaper world operates.

If she (or the Globe) was really concerned with getting out there that BB is "at fault," then she would have put it in big bold text in the title. That's journalism 101.

Man, what kind of damage are you suffering from? That's the LAST thing as journalist would do. You think that if a journalist has an axe to grind they would write, "Belichick is to blame," in the title? Do you really think that? And you're preaching to me about journalism? What are your credentials? At least I have some in this field. Do you know who Judy Miller and Armstrong Williams are?

 

[pats1]

THe paper makes no more money when it sells more papers on one day, or even one week. The ad space is paid for already.

Right. So that $.50 or $.75 just goes into thin air.

 

[belichickaholic]

dunderhead?

 

[Tunescribe]

Now why exactly would you think the Globe would want the Pats' downfall?

There most definitely is bad blood between the Patriots and the Globe, going back to Will McDonough and McDonough's rift with Bob Kraft over close personal friend Parcells leaving. There have been other "behind-the-scenes" incidents involving Globe sportswriters and the Patriots. Shaughnessy once wrote a very mean-spirited column disparaging Kraft and subsequently was not invited to a Pats-sponsored press function. (You might recall that Shaughnessy, for a time, referred to Kraft as "Thanks Myra," a shot suggesting that Kraft built his empire with his father-in-law's money.) Shaughnessy's Globe colleagues then boycotted the function to show solidarity. And, of course, you have Borges, whose personal enmity toward Belichick is transparent.

McDonough was Jackie McMullen's promoter and mentor. Bob ("I'm a basketball guy!") Ryan dislikes football and often jabs at the Patriots whenever he has to write about them. The same goes for Nick Cafardo, who for years has wanted to be the staff's top Red Sox beat writer.

The icing on the cake for this pompous bunch is the Patriots' tight rein on information dispensed to the media, a policy controlled by Belichick. Top it off with the Globe's vested financial interest in the Red Sox, and you've got plenty of fodder for an anti-Patriots bias at the Boston Globe.

 

[pats1]

What are you talking about? Now tyou're just being a dunderhead for the sake of being a dunderhead. I've never insulted anyone on this board in all my year's here, but I've also never come across someone who purposely distorts the issue. Journalistic integrity? What are you talking about? What the hell does sitting on the story for 6 months have to do with journalistic integrity? Either the story is correct or it's not. You don't go to the subject for confirmation. You have to go outside the subject for confirmation. You know why? Because people lie. This is journalism 101. It's obvious you have no idea about how the newspaper world operates.

Either it's correct or not, yes, But there is a certain moral aspect to making front-page news that someone, who opened up their life to you, has an amphetamine addiction.

Man, what kind of damage are you suffering from? That's the LAST thing as journalist would do. You think that if a journalist has an axe to grind they would write, "Belichick is to blame," in the title? Do you really think that? And you're preaching to me about journalism? What are your credentials? At least I have some in this field. Do you know who Judy Miller and Armstrong Williams are?

Judith Miller is involved in the Libby scandal, Williams was paid off for NCLB.

How about Jayson Blair?

 

[BradyisGod]

Right. So that $.50 or $.75 just goes into thin air.

Despite all your bluster, apparently you don't know much about media. Have you ever heard anything about operating expense? The cost of the physical paper alone is around $.10-$.20. The ink, probably another $.05. Then there's the trucks, b/c the lion's share of the paper's cost is in the distribution.

Ever hear of a thing called gasoline? Yeah, it costs money. And to move thousands and thousands of pounds of paper around, it takes quite a bit of it.

Here's a fun little link that explains all about this thing called a newspaper that you apparently know so much about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper

Paid circulation is declining in most countries, and advertising revenue, which makes up the bulk of a newspaper’s income, is shifting from print to online, resulting in a general decline in newspaper profits.

Papers are a vehicle for delivering profit, not an actual profit center itself.

But now we're just way off topic.

 

[pats1]

Despite all your bluster, apparently you don't know much about media. Have you ever heard anything about operating expense? The cost of the physical paper alone is around $.10-$.20. The ink, probably another $.05. Then there's the trucks, b/c the lion's share of the paper's cost is in the distribution.

Ever hear of a thing called gasoline? Yeah, it costs money. And to move thousands and thousands of pounds of paper around, it takes quite a bit of it.

Here's a fun little link that explains all about this thing called a newspaper that you apparently know so much about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper

Papers are a vehicle for delivering profit, not an actual profit center itself.

But now we're just way off topic.

Truly. One could write a book about how actual paper newspapers will be gone in a few years.

The fact remains the same, though. The more success a team has, the more attention its going to garner, and in turn the fans turn to the media to quench their thirst.

Does anyone even know who covers the Celtics and Bruins for the Globe these days?