Media Nation despairs of anyone actually reading this item on the eve of a holiday weekend, but I needed to do some research at the newsstand before writing this. Which is where I am right now.
Today the Boston Herald’s Inside Track tweaks Boston Magazine as “rather tired” and “increasingly irrelevant.” Tracksters Gayle Fee and Laura Raposa report that Boston Common magazine succeeded in getting some celebrity named Bridget Moynahan (no, I really don’t know who she is; sorry) to pose for the cover after Moynahan had previously spurned BoMag’s advances. Fee and Raposa refer to Boston Common as a “fab upstart” and write: “The Moynahan photos and interview are a coup for Boston Common, which has been fighting a turf battle for upscale readers with the older and increasingly irrelevant Boston maggie.”
What Fee and Raposa don’t say is that (1) they are contributors to Boston Common, and have a feature about celebs on Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard in the current issue; and (2) they were recently the subject of a tough piece by Boston Magazine’s John Gonzalez that portrayed the Tracksters as more interested in dish than facts.
But wait. Shouldn’t BoMag have mentioned that Fee and Raposa were taking freelance checks from its archrival, Boston Common? Why, yes it should have, since that would have allowed readers to assess motive. Do two non-disclosures cancel each other out? No, they don’t.
And now, my disclosure: I’m quoted in Gonzalez’s article, though not directly on the Tracksters. Far be it from me to want to piss them off.