A longtime politico alleges the Globe had a conflict in its Seth Moulton endorsement

Seth Moulton, left, and Ed Markey at Thursday’s Senate debate, sponsored by WCVB-TV, The Boston Globe and WBUR. Photo via YouTube.

As I wrote on Wednesday, The Boston Globe’s endorsement of U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton over incumbent Ed Markey in the Democratic Senate primary was a bit of a surprise, although it fits within a tradition of counterintuitive endorsements dating back through several different ownership groups.

Now, though, longtime Democratic political figure George Bachrach is claiming that Globe owners John and Linda Henry may have been motivated by an undisclosed conflict of interest: Since September 2023, Seth Moulton’s wife, Elizabeth Moulton, has been the chief talent and people officer at Elevate, a sports and entertainment consulting firm. In April 2024, Elevate acquired Fenway Sports Management’s Consulting Group. John Henry is the principal owner of FSM as well as the Boston Red Sox.

Bachrach, a former state senator and two-time congressional candidate, is involved with the Commonwealth Together PAC, which is supporting Markey. In an email to Globe editorial-page editor Jim Dao, editor Brian McGrory and political reporters Matt Stout and Kelly Garrity, which Bachrach shared with me, he cites what he calls “the appearance of a possible conflict of interest between the Henrys and the Moultons. The Henry’s own the paper and have every right to weigh in. But for the sake of transparency and to avoid their readers confusion, there should have been a disclosure with the Globe’s endorsement.”

This came up in the comments to my earlier post as well.

I contacted the Globe and was told that the Henrys have done no business with Elevate since the sale, and that the editorial board decided to endorse Moulton over Markey without the involvement of the Henrys until after it had made its decision. To be clear, as the owners of the Globe, they would have every right to take part in the endorsement process. That’s one of the things that owners do, as Bachrach acknowledges. Here’s the full statement that the Globe sent to me:

The Globe is proactive about disclosing relationships that could be interpreted as a conflict of interest. However, a one-time transaction from a few years ago that did not involve Boston Globe Media, based solely on an employee at an unrelated company, does not meet the standard of disclosure. Neither the Henrys, nor Boston Globe Media, has any relationship or anticipated relationship with Elevate Sports Ventures at this time. The editorial board was unaware of the transaction. They conducted a rigorous process with both candidates and thoroughly debated the candidates and the issues. The board also operates with complete independence from the news operation. The board shared their recommendation of endorsing Seth Moulton to Linda Henry, who supported their choice. There is simply no basis to suggest that this chain of connections played any role in the board’s independent decision.

I find it pretty hard to believe that this rather tangential connection influenced the Globe’s decision to endorse Moulton over Markey. On the other hand, I believe that disclosure is good for the soul.

The question is whether Liz Moulton’s status as the HR person for a company with which the Henrys were involved in a business transaction more than two years ago rises to the level of something that needs to be disclosed. To draw an analogy, I think the Globe has a good record of noting the Henrys’ involvement with the Red Sox whenever there’s a story about the Sox as a business or cultural institution. (Obviously no disclosure is needed when reporting on the baseball team.)

As another example of how the Globe handles disclosure, Linda Henry’s interest in a women’s professional soccer team in Boston was regularly included in news coverage until February 2025, when she sold her stake. Since then, the disclosures have been minimal or non-existent, which seems appropriate. So maybe that’s the best way of looking at this. If the Henrys had any sort of ongoing relationship with Elevate, then the Moulton tie might be relevant. But since they don’t, I’m not quite sure what there is to disclose.

Two semi-related points of interest:

▶️ Elevate is not related to Elevate Communications, a media relations firm that, confusingly enough, is sometimes used by the Globe. To make matters even more confusing, there’s a photo of an event that Elevate Communications did with Fenway Sports Management in rotation on its homepage right now.

▶️ When Bachrach ran for the U.S. House in 1986, the Globe endorsed his rival Joe Kennedy II in the Democratic primary. When he ran again, in 1998, he received the Globe’s endorsement. He fell short of winning the Democratic nomination both times.


Discover more from Media Nation

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

One thought on “A longtime politico alleges the Globe had a conflict in its Seth Moulton endorsement”

  1. Agree. Bachrach is doing a bounce play to show that the Moultons are wealthy. Not a crime, but clever politics to bring it up. I don’t think the Globe is being counterintuitive. I think it is acting in a long Globe tradition of patronizing readers, by telling them what to think. Recent examples are the overstaffed sports department deciding who the local managers should play, pay, or trade. The intense educational process about issues in the Clancy trial. Going back, I’ve questioned how they can endorse in each party’s primary for the same office. In the Moulton-Markey race, the endorsement has little about what each candidate has done in majority and minority times, but all about how the party should be run. It’s sometimes fun about the baseball team, but the Democratic party is an independent organization that make its own decisions. The endorsement criticizes the divisions in the Dems, then praises Moulton for being divisive.

    I am an unaffiliated voter, favor Markey, feel bad for Mrs. Clancy, follow sports, and read the Globe both ways daily. To me, the endorsement says more about the newspaper than the race. As a footnote, I wonder if it might be better to have the publisher play a more traditional role in Editorial. Used to be publishers set endorsements for the prosperity of the newspaper and its large advertisers. That bias was obvious, and you could vote knowing whether or not you cared about those things.

    Mark Zanger

Post a Comment. Real names, first and last, are recommended.