Why is McPhee sorry?

If the Boston Herald is going to report on Michele McPhee’s on-air apology for seeming to draw a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia, shouldn’t the paper also report what she was apologizing for?

On Thursday, the Boston Globe’s “Names” column included this item on McPhee:

WTKK apologized yesterday for a comment by Michele McPhee that seemed to equate homosexuality with pedophilia. McPhee, the brassy Boston Herald reporter who hosts a daily, two-hour talk show on 96.9 FM, was talking about the trend in the fashion industry toward skinny models. After saying that the industry is largely dominated by gay men, McPhee said: “And who do homosexual men like? Little boys.” Asked about the comment later, McPhee declined to talk to us. But a station official then issued the following statement: “Michele’s comments were made in the context of a fashion industry that designs women’s clothes for atypical body types. She regrets if her remarks were taken to mean anything else, as no other meaning was intended.”

Globe item prompted some further ruminations by John Gonzalez of Boston Magazine.

The Herald finally weighed in today. But though Herald reporter Jessica Heslam quotes McPhee’s apology at length, we never quite learn why she’s sorry.

Heslam does write, “Station officials have refused to release an audiotape of the comment in question.” But surely McPhee could have confirmed the quote reported by the Globe for her fellow Herald staffer. And failing that, the Herald could have have reproduced what McPhee had “reportedly” said. It’s not like she was denying it.

Discover more from Media Nation

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

6 thoughts on “Why is McPhee sorry?”

  1. I do have to tell you, but I am quite concerned that some people are becoming a little too sensitive for their britches. It was obviously meant as a joke, it was in the context of a joke, and it was also in the context of anorexia in the female modeling industry.Gay advocacy operations should fight their battles where the fighting might mean something. In an individual sense, this does not, and I write this as a gay man myself.–raj

  3. Right on, Raj. This is nonsense.A story on Edge Boston…http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=local&sc2=features&sc3=&id=52453…name-checked both Ann Coulter (basically a Barbie doll full of strychnine) and Don Imus (guy who admits on national TV to saying his sidekick Bernard McGuirk was hired “to do nigger jokes”). If anybody who’s actually spent ten seconds talking to Michele McPhee seriously thinks she’s in the same class of radio nasty as those two hatebags, I’ll turn in my gay card.

  4. Quite possibly the worst reporter in Boston. Being agenda-filled will get you a lot of beats, to be sure. But her mutual admiration society with the police patrolmen makes you wonder if the press learned anything from Willie Horton.

  5. Raj and Lissa: I wasn’t trying to suggest that this was a big deal either. It’s not like she did an hour on “Why Gay Men Like Little Boys.” And there are hosts in this town who would do that.

  6. Dan, I didn’t mean to suggest that you were.And, yes And there are hosts in this town who would do that. you are correct. That is where the battles should be fought. By all means possible, and by that I mean complaining to the advertisers.–raj

Comments are closed.