Finneran embraces the dark side — again

EB3 Here Dan,Now don’t get me going.He has a lobbying business and whenever a subject having any affect on any of his clients he will tell the audience of his conflict. Your example is so outrageous and so far from the obvious. It would be simpler if Finneran just poured gasoline on himself and lit a match? In the real world if Finneran did such a thing he would be outed before the show is over, rightfully assassinated by you and others, receive an earful from management and sponsors, and be in serious danger of losing his job because of this breach in his contract., What Finneran is doing by representing this quasi insurance company is lobbying for a comma here or a word there in legislation that helps this client and the industry it is in. None of this stuff is ever a topic for talk radio, never mind the Boston Globe or the Herald. And if for some strange reason Finneran finds he has to talk about it, then he will disclose to his audience his conflict of interest clouding his opinion.Otherwise ‘RKO would be denying this guy the right to earn other income if the not allow.With that said, RKO should be allowed to forbid Finneran from representing any client (like state police union) whose ordinary course of business results in typical topics for discussion on the entertainment show. They should have veto power but not be allowed to use it unreasonably. Not for any journalistic standards by the way. Just for everyone’s self interest.I think you posted on state police lobbying issue Dan. I didn’t respond because I agreed with RKO on that one. They have to preserve credibility, a necessary factor for an entertainment show such as Mr. Finneran’s and others’. Two things More Things1. What I described above is what the lawyers do. They follow the logical line of reasoning based on a solid knowledge of the facts and a foundation in constitutional, contractual, tort and property law. Not on some willy nilly thing called journalism. 2. Based on my knowledge of the law and experience in reading journalism for many years I have concluded that without a foundation in law, that less than what a first year law student would receive, I am forced to give “journalists” little credibility. Unless of course their journalism school, in conjunction with their law school, prepares their student’s with some legal education. Also are journalist student’s sacrificing much needed core liberal arts courses? Joan Venocchi is a lawyer. She does not practice. But she is in my opinion the best by far local political commentator. Also are journalist student’s sacrificing much needed core liberal arts courses?As far as journalism graduate schools go; what are journalists students taught? I sincerely don’t get it. Just because people call this a “profession” doesn’t make everyone init professional. You have your orders Dan. Now get out there and see to it that graduate schools for journalism requires first year courses in some basic law courses taught by law professors. P.S.I knew as soon as I saw the story in the paper today that Dan and the journalism’s protectors of the flame would fall for this hook, line and sinker.

EB3 HereYes Dan. Independence and Credibility.I am looking for some of that from you right now.I argued against your point and gave precise reasons. In addition I agreed with some of what you said by distinguishing the State Police as a client from this small little quasi-public agency.You just responded with a flippant personal attack and repeated your mantra of credibility and independence. That tells me nothing.

EB3: I attacked you personally??? You’ve got to be kidding.There are no specifics I need to get into. When you’re working as a journalist, or, in Finneran’s case, as someone who performs some journalistic duties, you don’t become a paid advocate for anyone. Period. This isn’t difficult. If the gig from WRKO doesn’t pay Finneran enough, he should find a new job.One of the best lawyers in Boston sent me an e-mail a little while ago. It says in full: “What’s wrong with the ethical compasses on these guys. First, the governor gets over a million bucks for his memoir that is going to count on bulk sales to groups and associations with which he’ll have to be dealing, at arm’s length, while governor. Then Finneran takes on another lobbying client.”

Still, not as outrageous as the idea of WBUR hiring Mike Barnicle. WRKO isn’t presumed to have any integrity in the first place.

Anon. 10:30 has it dead-on.Finneran’s cooked. The frequent pairing of him with knee-jerk vigilante Wendy Murphy has been a flop. The only thing that might work is to pair him with a flippant but relatable liberal — but Barney Frank already has a job, Ted O’Brien is off to parts unknown, and Bob Lassiter is dead. Braude is boring and Clapprood would be a disaster exacerbating the biggest problem with the Finneran show — pols who call him Mr. Speaker.What is remarkable is that Entercom has not developed a single new talk show host in nearly a decade of trying. Ozone, Scotto, Blute, Moes, DePetro, McCarthy, Vigneau, Tai, Kramer, Gold, and Katz were all dismal failures. (yeah, OK, some may have been under prior ownership; it’s been a while.) The only thing approaching a success at WRKO since the late 1980s has been Carr and he was a flop at ‘RKO when paired with Victoria Jones under American Radio. Carr only came back from the radio dead when an GM who had run the station during its heyday put Carr on the air when he ran then-competitor WHDH. Instead of innovation we get Finneran’s mutual-ass-kissing and admiration society with every state rep under the sun and a midday guy whose unintelligible jibberish seems little more than a juvenile effort to mask fundamental lack of knowledge about what he’s talking about. The amusing part of this is that when General Tire owned RKO and its FM sister, they used a consultant for the music station who has since reinvented talk radio, starting by turning a sleepy Trenton FM station into a ratings and revenue monster. His mantra: the only people who listen to political talk are “talk-show hosts, newspaper writers, politicians and retired guys. They are all talking to each other. It is an unbelievably closed loop” that excludes “that person who has to pick up their dry cleaning or collect or deliver their kids.”The right-wingers who WRKO management thought would be winners in the conservative world of talk radio had one thing in common. They took themselves and the issues too seriously and saw themselves as crusaders for a political cause. Compare this, believe it or nor, to Michael Savage. His show isn’t about his obnoxious politics; he does a LOT of relating to people about things that relate to people. As a result, he takes a surprising chunk of sdult listeners at night. Look at co-owned WEEI in the afternoon. Same thing; it comes down to relating and not just runs, hits and errors. It is clear that Finneran is lowering the lifeboat. He wasn’t the answer. But his preparation for another career does focus attention on the question: How long will Entercom shareholders put up with the squandering of a once-prestigious property by management both locally and in Bala Cynwyd that plainly has no idea what to do with a 50,000 watt talk radio station?

Anon 2:37: You think he really is Ernie Boch’s grandson? Evidence? I just thought it was an unusually creative handle.

EB3Great banter girls and guys. I will give some thought to anaon 1;30along with other related matters and post on BMG in the near future. In a nut shell, a journalaists’ job is to facts that allow the readers to form intelligent opinions. To do so, ajournalists must always look for facts that are distinguishable to readers so that a reasonable intelligent person can rely on facts were presented to form an intelligent opinion on the facts being reported.Commentary on these facts is not the journalists job. However, his biases can come through with the selective reporting of small but important facts of the quotes used in the story. I also will do a little research, very very little, as to the term “craft” rather than profession. Craft? isn’t that more artistic? creative? made-up?Reporting of facts in an unbias manner is an artform?Not a profession? The more I hear and see about journaism the more I think do not like. Making sausage as they say,I have many questions about this world called journalism.

Am I the only one to remember Jim Dooley’s “come on down” line in the National Airlines advertisements?Ernie Boch Jr., indeed.

Hey Dan, no response to Ernie? Although a jerk he makes some points.Isn’t journalism about reporting facts in an unbias manner?

Northeast Airlines — Yellowbirds

Finneran still has his law license. Lawyers understand the meaning of representation, conflict of interest and apparent conflict of interest. The first they endeavor to do well, and the second two they affirmatively act to avoid as a matter of professional obligation. Why doesn’t Finneran recognize those principles as operative in broadcast media?Lobbying and broadcast media are at best an apparent conflict of interest. I wish Finneran all the best in finding gainful employment. It’s not clear why he continues to step in it, repeatedly. Must be a common peril when you seek income in the $400,000 range.

EB: I’ve written about all this stuff before, going back years. Why don’t you try looking for it rather than demanding that I write the same thing over and over again for your benefit?Briefly — a talk-show host does some things resembling journalism, just like many bloggers do. News, information and commentary. Labels for people are not useful. Finneran’s not a journalist, but he does some journalism — more than most, in fact, but less than, say, Dan Rea or Tom Ashbrook. The ethical standards are different — talk-show hosts aren’t just allowed to endorse products, they’re required to. Journalists would be forbidden at almost any news org. But without independence, there’s no credibility.Is journalism a profession? I’m not sure you’ll find this in any dictionary, but I don’t think something is a profession unless it requires a specific body of knowledge and is subject to regulation by one’s peers and, in some cases, the government. Physicians and lawyers are professionals, and they can lose their right to practice if they don’t adhere to the standards of their profession. But no one who wishes to practice journalism can be stopped, no matter how badly he does it. The First Amendment wouldn’t allow for it.Occasionally I will call my students’ attention to a particular post I’ve written if it touches on a subject matter with which we’re dealing. But I do not force my students to read Media Nation. I’m not that much of an egomaniac.

EB3 here.Sorry Dan, you seem to be far from an egomaniac. And a good guy. It is your profession I have problems with and you are the only one I can vent at.Real quick here.I grew up always reading and hearing from the local journalists about the Red Sox being racists. Having racist hiring practices, etc. New ownership said they would address it.Now with popular ownership, nytimes ownership, and sycophant media, I have never read or heard anywhere the disgusting fact that I have raised the past two years:There are only two African Americans in the red sox front office and staff which comprises about 80+ people. When ownership bought the team seven years ago there 40 or so such employees. Including the same two African Americans who were hired years ago by the ole racist ownership.Do you see why I am such a dick head Dan. It is the media I observe. And in this town, especially with NYT owing Bosotn Globe now (how about casino endorsement) I don’t trust most of it.Which is sad, because all I want is an evenhanded reporting of facts so I can form my own intelligent opinions using critical thinking.

EB3:Last month, you stated your support on this blog for Paul LaCamera’s intent to hire Mike Barnicle.Do you trust Barnicle to ‘report the facts, evenhandedly?’

EB3 Here,Barnacle made mistakes. Years ago. On opinion peiueces. Not factual reporting. Paul laCamera did a nice job in pleading his case.Getting back to critical thinking anon. 10:43.Like the differnce between a reporter of facts and a columnist.Why can’t a reporter report facts in an even handed and vetted way so the reader can rely on those facts and use intelligence and critical thinking to form an opinion. AS opposed to Mike Barnicle relying on credible facts to author his opinions. In fact, i don’t care that Barnicle copies some one eleses column. I do care that the facts he relies on in basing the opinion are truthful. And he doesn’t select facts which prove his opinion but only in an anti-intellectual way.Such as saying the new red soxownership is on top of historical claims of rascism yet ignore the facts of zero african american hirings. That pretty much how are local press covers that now. See what critical thinking does to you anon 10;43Totally different. Let’s talk about straight factual reporting. In my opinion, very generally speaking, and quoting Rick Pitino. “In this town it Sucks!”

EB3:Bullshit. Barnicle fabricated the ‘facts’ in his columns, as has been proven time and time again. It goes beyond ‘borrowing’ and the fine line you continue to blur between opinion and reporter pieces.I am glad to learn that you, Barnicle and LaCamera are of the same ilk.

EB3 here.. and Barnicle was presented as a columnist. I knew that going into it. It is straight reporting that is my problem because I, as reader, come into the story seeing it as a straight news story as opposed to opinion piece. Same as movies given a person a good idea of what they will see. Documentary, kids movie, animation, porn.. You know what you are getting into. No deception.Perfect Case in Point is in today’s Phoenix. David Bernstein’s piece on Sal DiMasi the question of whether he is abusing his power. Fair enough piece. fair enough issue to investigate and report on.In it, however, Bernstein writes the following:”And members will frequently tell you that DiMasi never personally leans on them for votes. But, some say, that’s because he keeps his hands clean while letting subordinates do the dirty dealing. “On this past year’s gay-marriage debate, for instance, it’s true that DiMasi made no deals for votes. But he dispatched nine “handlers” with directives to win over a member assigned to them — and another nine to oversee the handlers. DiMasi was kept at arm’s length from details of how the vote-flippers were persuaded.”What Bernstein failed to mention, or did not but should have known, is that “handlers” are called “whips” and have been around since Rome. This is how the legislative process works. Bernstein wants to come along and redefine the vocabulary to support..?(I have know idea. He should be impartial)Depending on the importance of the legislation and the vote numbers whips are told to ramp it up or don’t worry about it. They all have a list of member s assigned to them. Like an organization trying to accomplish a legitimate purpose. Whips can also be anyone else (rep only) who is trusted with an “assignment”. Which in this case is to count the votes and argue them onto his side. Just like in the debates in the Federalists Papers.But reporter of facts Bernstein uses rhetorical devices in suggesting to the reader, who is unaware and looking to him for an even handed reporting of the facts so they can form there own opinions, that Sal DiMasi created a heavy handed force of handlers never the likes before seen in the House and ordered to go out and use unethical tactics in winning people over to his side.It is like a person describing baseball game to a blind person and describing a third base coach in a tone and manner that strongly suggests that the other team is not allowed the same and this is so unfair.Bernstein does report Arlene Issacson saw it differently, but that does not excuse presenting the highly organized effort to defeat the bill.

jesus.

EB3: There’s an old saying about column-writing that you’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts. A columnist has all of the obligations of a straight-news reporter in terms of getting right. Being allowed to express your opinion doesn’t mean you get to make things up or plagiarize the work of other people.I haven’t read David Bernstein’s story yet (love the art!), but surely you’re not suggesting that anything in the Phoenix is a straight-news story, are you? The Phoenix is a newspaper of liberal opinion journalism. The goal of the news coverage is to be fair and accurate, and to express that within the context of a point of view.Perhaps because it’s so difficult to do that well, a lot of critics think the two missions are mutually exclusive. I don’t think they are at all.