When does aggressive but acceptable behavior on the part of editors cross the line into workplace abuse? Back when I was covering the media for The Boston Phoenix, I heard some hair-raising stories emanating from the newsrooms at The Boston Globe and the Boston Herald.
But though the targets of that abuse were shaken up, consequences for perpetrators were few. There was a sense at least among some folks that it went with the territory, and that if you didn’t like it, you should suck it up. I’ll hasten to add that I didn’t accept that line of thinking, and I’m fortunate to have never been yelled at by an editor — at least not one I worked for. (A few editors I’ve reported on let me have it, but that’s OK.)
Over time, that changed, and managers who abused their employees either amended their ways or were shown the door. The best-known case in Boston occurred in 2018, when Tom Ashbrook, the host of WBUR’s nationally distributed “On Point” program, was dismissed for having “created an abusive work environment” despite a long record of on-air excellence. As I said, the question is where we should draw the line. Ashbrook was very good at what he did. Should that have spared him from the consequences of his angry outbursts at colleagues and underlings? On the other hand, “On Point” has done just fine with Meghna Chakrabarti at the helm.
If you read the Semafor media newsletter that comes out Sunday evenings, you know where I’m going with this. Max Tani reported on the outcome of an internal investigation into The Boston Globe’s Spotlight editor, Brendan McCarthy, who was the subject of complaints to the human-relations department about abusive treatment that included having “berated two Globe journalists over perceived editorial differences,” “cursing at his team and at staff working on Spotlight-related projects” and having “punished employees who complained about his management by reducing their roles in journalistic projects.” McCarthy was cleared, with Tani writing:
Earlier this spring, the Globe concluded its investigation. McCarthy, the organization found, had not broken the rules, and would not be disciplined in any way. The leadership of the paper, and others within Spotlight interviewed during the investigation, felt that McCarthy had behaved appropriately, and was in fact focused on guaranteeing the accuracy of sensitive, high-stakes projects.
Globe editor Nancy Barnes supported McCarthy in a statement to Semafor, saying in part: “I am fortunate to have him on my team.”
Tani attributes management’s support for McCarthy to a shift toward the right in workplace culture, which has accelerated since Donald Trump returned to the White House. He also found that even some Globe staff members who find McCarthy abrasive nevertheless consider him to be a talented and valuable editor, writing of the dozen or so insiders he interviewed: “The camps were more or less divided between people who think McCarthy crossed a line with staff in several instances, and others who see him as a top-tier editor with a passion for journalistic results and less patience for staff who fall short. (There’s some overlap in these categories.)”
What goes unmentioned is that even when a hard-charging manager is cleared, the very fact that there was an investigation can lead to a change in behavior. No manager wants to be investigated a second time. Spotlight, needless to say, is the Globe’s crown jewel — the recipient of multiple Pulitzer Prizes over the years, including the 2003 Public Service award for its exposé of how Catholic Church enabled and covered up the pedophile priest crisis.
As Tani notes, Spotlight also won a Pulitzer in 2021 under McCarthy’s guidance. Given that, it wouldn’t be surprising if HR’s confidential investigation ended in a stern talking-to and an admonition to go forth and sin no more.
ICE’d out in the Herald
The Boston Herald ran a three-page package on ICE’s rampage through the Boston area over the weekend, including a ridealong by reporter Lance Reynolds and photographer Stuart Cahill as well as a Howie Carr column that begins: “These are the pictures that are worth a thousand words.”
Howie’s right. Because his column is accompanied by three ICE agents taking someone into custody. The suspect’s face is fully visible. The ICE agents’ are blacked out.
Why? The use of face masks by ICE agents to hide their identities has become enormously controversial, with some members of Congress pushing for a ban. You don’t have to be a critic of ICE to expect that they will operate openly; after all, police officers not only show their faces but display their badge numbers when they go about their business. That’s how law enforcement is supposed to work in a democracy.
If obscuring the identity of the ICE agents was a condition of the ridealong, well, the Herald should have just said no.
Muzzle watch
I’m not yet ready to give a New England Muzzle Award to Boston Mayor Michelle Wu. But her administration’s decision to turn down a public-record request from the Globe bears watching.
The Globe is seeking records pertaining to internal cost projections for the city’s share of the renovation of White Stadium in Franklin Park, which would be used by a professional women’s soccer team in addition to school programs. The Globe reported on the Wu administration’s decision to deny access to those records on Aug. 28, although the story didn’t make the print edition until Sunday.
The possibility that the costs are spiraling out of control is one of the few issues that Wu’s rival, Josh Kraft, has been able to find any traction on. Unfortunately for Kraft and the Globe, the Wu administration is citing ongoing bids as its reason for rejecting the Globe’s request, which may indeed be a legitimate rationale under the state’s public-records law.
Still, the Globe should keep pushing. Boston voters deserve an accurate approximation of what taxpayers will be on the hook for prior to Election Day.
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.