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

[shmessy]

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

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.

Completely miss the point. It's not about Freedom of Speech. It's about media ownership of organizations they cover. I have nothing against McGrory spouting his opinion. I have a problem with his employer OWNING a business competitor of the organization he's spouting against.

As an example, I had no problem with Kevin Mannix formerly of the Herald calling BB "duplicitous pond scum". That was his opinion. No prob. His employers didn't own a business competitor of the Patriots in the same marketplace. Kapische?

I love how some who are defending "Freedom of Speech" are defending what the Globe is doing - - which is the ANTITHESIS of Freedom of Speech. I believe they are SQUELCHING Freedom of Speech and encouraging their writers to toe the NYTimes corporate line. Why do you think Dan Shaughnessy's daughter got a plum internship with Tom Werner's production company in LA? Open your eyes, folks!

If you want to see only the superficial cover without understanding the dynamics beneath it, that's your prerogative.

 

[shmessy]

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.

Can't speak for the other outlets, but to answer your last question regarding the Globe, it's obviously because of the business relationship.

 

[shmessy]

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!!!!!!!

This is a perfect example of how clueless you are. if I believed what you said, your post wouldn't still be up, would it?

Texpat, read the business side of this thread in the posts just above this and you may learn a thing or two about how the world operates.

 

[Pujo]

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

Completely miss the point. It's not about Freedom of Speech. It's about media ownership of organizations they cover. I have nothing against McGrory spouting his opinion. I have a problem with his employer OWNING a business competitor of the organization he's spouting against.

As an example, I had no problem with Kevin Mannix formerly of the Herald calling BB "duplicitous pond scum". That was his opinion. No prob. His employers didn't own a business competitor of the Patriots in the same marketplace. Kapische?

I love how some who are defending "Freedom of Speech" are defending what the Globe is doing - - which is the ANTITHESIS of Freedom of Speech. I believe they are SQUELCHING Freedom of Speech and encouraging their writers to toe the NYTimes corporate line. Why do you think Dan Shaughnessy's daughter got a plum internship with Tom Werner's production company in LA? Open your eyes, folks!

If you want to see only the superficial cover without understanding the dynamics beneath it, that's your prerogative.

They're allowed to do that, too, especially since they disclose their relationship. If the Patriots wanted to put out their own newspaper, and it only printed nice things about them, it would also be allowed. The only place where the government gets involved is mergers to make sure a monopoly doesn't form. Being that Boston has 2 major newspapers, that's not an issue. Newspapers have no legal obligation to be fair or unbiased, even when writing about their own business interests.

Besides, that horse left the gate already. The newspaper is already owned by the NYT, which already owns the Sox. The only way the government could step in now (and it wouldn't be the FCC, but rather the FTC and the DOJ) is if there were a violation of the Sherman Act baring multiple entities from conspiring to shut out competition. So if the Red Sox stopped granting interview requests to the Boston Herald and only allowed access to the Globe, there might be an issue.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

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.

I love a good OT jaunt. And no Pujo I am not conservative. A pox on you for the suggestion.

I completely agree that the state of journalism in this nation is sad. TV stations run ads disguised as stories because it makes more monetary sense than producing a piece yourself. newspapers pick up everything from the wire or one of the few newspapers which actually do their own stuff.

This doesn't excuse the hole the Times has dug itself, though. I am not very knowledgable about the Times and the newspaper industry. You know what I know, though? I know that I lived in Albany for awhile and had daily access to the Times and I hated reading the paper because snobbery exudes off of its pages. And then when stories come out about the Times employing someone who makes up sources the irony is delicious. I forget (and could mostly care less), but I remember there being one or two other fairly big NY Times controversies while I lived there. When you carry the air of "I'm better than you" you better be, which the Times wasn't.

So I mock the Times. Not a very deep or overwhelmingly knowledgable viewpoint, but valid nonetheless.

 

[Pujo]

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

I love a good OT jaunt. And no Pujo I am not conservative. A pox on you for the suggestion.

I never even saw your original post, I was only answering patchick generally.

 

[shmessy]

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

Newspapers have no legal obligation to be fair or unbiased, even when writing about their own business interests.

I understand what you are saying. I just don't agree with that policy. Turn on any financial show and every analyst/commentator is required to disclose in the interview whether he/she or their family/employer have any stock ownership in the company about which they are commenting. It is to lessen (I know, you can't eliminate) stock manipulation.

Well, what is going on the the GlobeSox and the Patriots. Not only in the Sports Section, but also in the Metro/Region and Lifestyle sections?

 

[Pujo]

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

I understand what you are saying. I just don't agree with that policy. Turn on any financial show and every analyst/commentator is required to disclose in the interview whether he/she or their family/employer have any stock ownership in the company about which they are commenting. It is to lessen (I know, you can't eliminate) stock manipulation.

The Globe does that too. I've seen them say a hundred times "The Boston Globe is owned by the New York Times Co., which has a partial stake in the Boston Red Sox". It'd be different if they tried to hide it, but they don't. You know what you're getting with them: biased pro-Sox news. Just turn on your media filter.

 

[shmessy]

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

The Globe does that too. I've seen them say a hundred times "The Boston Globe is owned by the New York Times Co., which has a partial stake in the Boston Red Sox". It'd be different if they tried to hide it, but they don't. You know what you're getting with them: biased pro-Sox news. Just turn on your media filter.

Funny, I never saw that anywhere in Jackie MacMullen's article nor in Brian McGrory's column. I'll have to read that over again.

Nor did I see it on Boston.com during the breathless reportage of the Matsuzaka plane's live progress on its way from California to Logan Airport.

Breaking News: The Charter Jet Carrying Dice K Has Entered Nebraska Airspace!

 

[Pujo]

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

Funny, I never saw that anywhere in Jackie MacMullen's article nor in Brian McGrory's column. I'll have to read that over again.

Nor did I see it on Boston.com during the breathless reportage of the Matsuzaka plane's live progress on its way from California to Logan Airport.

Breaking News: The Charter Jet Carrying Dice K Has Entered Nebraska Airspace!

They don't do it in every article, but they do it. And neither of those articles even had anything to do with the Sox. It's a conspiracy theory to start suggesting the Globe disclose their relationship with the Sox when reporting on the Pats.

 

[oldskool138]

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

Funny, I never saw that anywhere in Jackie MacMullen's article nor in Brian McGrory's column. I'll have to read that over again.

Nor did I see it on Boston.com during the breathless reportage of the Matsuzaka plane's live progress on its way from California to Logan Airport.

Breaking News: The Charter Jet Carrying Dice K Has Entered Nebraska Airspace!

The plane actually landed at Hanscom AFB like most of the team charter flights...

 

[shmessy]

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

They don't do it in every article, but they do it. And neither of those articles even had anything to do with the Sox. It's a conspiracy theory to start suggesting the Globe disclose their relationship with the Sox when reporting on the Pats.

I agree with everything you wrote except for "neither of those articles even had anything to do with the Sox."

Tom Werner and Larry Lucchino look at the Patriots like keen business competitors would. They have cultivated their owner/partners, by employing Shaughnessy's daughter, feeding the Globe Lucchino's inside view of Epstein - - causing Epstein to rip up his contract at the last moment, and holding sway over the lack of Pats coverage in their Sports Section as evidenced by editor Joe Sullivan's reply to a query from bostonsportsmedia.com regarding the lack of Patriots coverage(you can see the quote rotated from time to time in the upper left hand corner of that website).

John Henry may be above the fray, but Lucchino is a sharp aggressive operator who knows exactly what he's doing with his media partners.

When the Globe does actually turn its attention to the Pats, we get what we've been fed the past few days.