A new Globe vertical will explore the racial wealth gap

Earlier today The Boston Globe unveiled Money, Power, Inequality, a new vertical dedicated to reporting on the racial wealth gap. It’s got its own section on the paper’s website as well as its own editor-in-chief, Kris Hooks, previously an assistant metro editor who worked at the NPR affiliate in Sacramento, California, before coming to the Globe. He also teaches a course on Race & Gender in the Media at Sacramento City College. Hooks writes:

The Globe has launched a new team that will zero in on the racial wealth gap, why it persists, and what can be done to close it. The team, called Money, Power, Inequality, will explore the city’s history of inequities, probing Boston’s role in the slave trade and tracing the systems that have perpetuated the racial wealth gap since. And we’ll look beyond Boston, to communities where prices are lower, but power imbalances still flourish.

Longtime Globe journalist Milton Valencia will serve as deputy editor. The initiative, announced last January, is being supported with a $750,000 grant from the Barr Foundation.

Money, Power, Inequality comes on the heels of “Nightmare in Mission Hill,” a text-based series, podcast and documentary film that attempts to deal with the racist legacy left behind by the 1989 Carol and Charles Stuart case, in which Charles Stuart murdered his wife and blamed it on a Black man, turning the city upside-down for months.

It also follows the end of the Globe’s involvement in The Emancipator, a collaboration with Boston University’s Center for Antiracist Research. Unlike The Emancipator, whose Globe half was based in the paper’s opinion section, Money, Power, Inequality will be part of the news operation — and will be entirely under the control of the Globe.

Leave a comment | Read comments

Was the Stuart case a wake-up call for the media? The Globe’s answer: Yes, but not enough.

Greg Moore: “In retrospect, I don’t trust anything or anybody.” Photo (cc) 2021 by Dan Kennedy.

The Boston Globe, as promised, has published an epilogue to its series on the Carol and Charles Stuart case that takes on “the media’s sins.” That reckoning takes the form of a commentary by columnist Adrian Walker, one of four reporters on the project and the narrator of podcast version. Super-brief recap: In October 1989, Charles Stuart, a white man from the suburbs, murdered his pregnant wife in Mission Hill and was seriously injured himself. He blamed it all on a “Black man” and jumped to his death from the Tobin Bridge several months later while the police were closing in.

Not surprisingly, a good chunk of Walker’s piece focuses on former Globe columnist Mike Barnicle, who wrote several racist columns as well as a news story that turned out to be false about an insurance scheme Charles Stuart had supposedly concocted. As Walker observes, Barnicle was fixated on trashing the lead suspect in the case, William Bennett, even after Bennett had been exonerated following Stuart’s fatal jump. I quoted from one of those columns last week, and Walker cites another in which Barnicle made much of Bennett’s seventh-grade report card. Barnicle wrote of Bennett:

The man’s pathetic, violent history is so much a part of the unyielding issues of race, crime and drugs tearing daily at America that it is amazing how any black minister or black politician could ever stand up and howl in public that his arrest was a product of police bigotry and a volley of discrimination aimed at all black residents of Boston.

Remember, this was published after Bennett had been cleared. But as Walker writes, Barnicle was carrying water for the Boston Police, including his brother, the late Paul Barnicle, a homicide detective. Barnicle, not surprisingly, refused to give a substantive interview to the Globe.

We also hear quite a bit from Renée Graham, who, like Walker, was a young reporter at the Globe in 1989 and is now a columnist. The perspective of two Black journalists, Walker and Graham, is fascinating, especially since Walker believes the city’s media coverage of race has improved more (but not enough) than Graham does. “I don’t know that journalism has gotten better since the Stuart case,” Graham said. “You know, I think that the media still is attracted to heat, not light. Like you always say, this is what changed everything. But it didn’t change anything. I mean, look, they couldn’t even write a damn correction, a change, nothing.”

Also quoted is Greg Moore, who at the time was the Globe’s assistant managing editor for local news, later rose to become managing editor (No. 3 in the hierarchy), and still later became the top editor at The Denver Post — the most prominent Black editor in the country until Dean Baquet became executive editor of The New York Times. “In retrospect, I don’t trust anything or anybody,” Moore told the Globe. “You know, if somebody tells me something like that, I want to know exactly, what is that based on? And again, I think that’s another legacy of Stuart, at least for me.”

What struck me more than anything in reading the series was the disproportionate amount of attention given to the murder at a time when people of color were meeting the same fate on a regular basis. Indeed, Walker revisits a story that then-Globe reporter Eileen McNamara wrote explicitly to draw that contrast. As McNamara wrote: “James Moody, 29, was shot to death only a few hours after a robber attacked Carol and Charles Stuart outside Brigham & Women’s Hospital Monday night. But no calls were heard at the State House for tougher sentencing practices.”

Like the Stuarts, I’m white and I live in the suburbs, so I have no direct experience with the racism that people of color continue to experience every day. It seems better, and I guess it is. If an incident similar to the murder of Carol Stuart happened today, I think the police and the media would be much quicker to ask questions about the husband’s role. And yet I’m sure that such incident would still draw outsize attention. Look at how quickly the Black Lives Matter movement that reignited after the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor curdled into renewed fears of crime, even though statistics showed that there had been very little in the way of an upsurge.

Let’s give the last word to Walker: “For a time, the case sparked an unusual spate of self-examination in the press. But the questions it raised — about how to cover communities of color and about whose stories are valued — were never resolved and resonate to this day.”

Leave a comment | Read comments

Globe reporter pushes back at Matthew Stuart’s lawyer

Boston Globe columnist Adrian Walker pushed back Friday at Nancy Gertner, the lawyer who represented the late Matthew Stuart and who appeared on GBH Radio (89.7 FM) on Wednesday. Gertner blasted the Globe for suggesting that her client may have been directly involved in the shootings that claimed the life of Matthew’s sister-in-law Carol Stuart and that severely wounded his brother Charles Stuart. The Globe recently published an in-depth overview of the 34-year-old case, a maelstrom of racism and malfeasance by the Boston Police and the media.

Walker, one of a team of four reporters and numerous other Globe journalists who worked on the series, told “Boston Public Radio” hosts Jim Braude and Margery Eagan that, essentially, the Globe stands behind its reporting.

“Nancy Gertner talked to us at least five times over 20 months in the course of reporting this story. And her point of view is fully represented in the written story. And in the podcast,” Walker said. He added:

There have always been questions, completely legitimate and valid questions, despite what Gertner says, about Matthew’s role in this and whether it was more extensive than we’ve been led to believe. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong — in fact, we firmly stand by raising those questions. And it’s important to say that we don’t draw any conclusions.

You can listen to the interview with Walker by clicking here; his conversation with Eagan and Braude starts a little after the 50:00 mark and lasts about 19 minutes, although the exchange about Gertner is very brief.

Leave a comment | Read comments

The late Matthew Stuart’s lawyer blasts the Globe

The late Matthew Stuart’s lawyer is speaking out against The Boston Globe, saying the paper was “completely wrong” to suggest in its massive overview of the Charles and Carol Stuart case that her former client may have been directly involved in the shootings.

The Globe “has taken on the role of a tabloid” by “mischaracterizing grand jury testimony,” charged Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge, in an appearance on “Boston Public Radio” earlier today on GBH Radio (89.7 FM). You can listen to her remarks here; scroll forward to about 2:02. The segment is about 15 minutes long.

Leave a comment | Read comments

The Globe, the Stuart murder and what lessons the case holds for Boston’s future

Montage of front pages via CommonWealth Beacon

The Boston Globe’s multimedia series on Charles and Carol Stuart, “Nightmare in Mission Hill,” is good and important work. Everyone who wants to understand Boston and its racist past (and present) should read it. Especially impressive is the layered approach: a deeply reported text-based story, audio clips, a podcast, a documentary film, photos, front pages and documents.

Going into it, I wondered what I could possibly learn given how much those of us who were here were immersed in the tragedy at the time. If you’re new to Boston, the Stuarts were a white couple from the suburbs who, in October 1989, were shot while they were driving home from a childbirth class at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Carol Stuart and her unborn child died; Charles Stuart lived and told police they had been shot by a Black man. The city’s Black neighborhoods were turned upside down until, finally, law enforcement identified a career criminal named William Bennett as the likely shooter. But they later came to believe that the actual shooter was Charles Stuart himself and, with the police likely to arrest him at any moment, he jumped off the Tobin Bridge to his death.

The case was one of the most notorious crimes in Boston history, up there with the Boston Strangler and Sacco and Vanzetti. And you might wonder why investigators didn’t alight on the most obvious suspect, Charles Stuart, right from the start. The series answers that question. First, the trauma surgeon who operated on Charles determined that he couldn’t have shot himself given the angle of the bullet’s entry; and second, he nearly died from his wounds.

Given that 34 years have passed, it was hard for me to sort out what I learned from the series and what I might have known at one time but had forgotten. So I appreciate the Globe’s laying out its new findings in the eighth and final part. Among the revelations:

  • Police ignored evidence implicating Charles Stuart and sidelined two detectives who’d suspected him from the earliest days of their investigation.
  • The Stuarts and people around them couldn’t keep their mouths shut. By the time Charles Stuart finally jumped, more than 30 people knew that he had put together the plot himself. Yet the secret, such as it was, held, and at least two attempts to blow the whistle on Charles went nowhere.
  • Matthew Stuart, Charles’ brother, may have been more than an innocent dupe, as he had always been portrayed. The Globe found that “evidence points to Chuck’s brother, Matthew, playing a much larger role in the shooting than previously known, running counter to his claims he was tricked into helping get rid of the murder weapon.”

The series is not perfect. Matthew Stuart’s 2011 death from an overdose is relegated to a separate timeline, which a lot of readers aren’t going to see. More significant is that the Globe makes little effort to deal with the media’s shortcomings and failures. Certainly the media couldn’t solve the crime independently, and the severity of Charles Stuart’s wounds served to insulate him from closer scrutiny. Still, the press at that time, rather than serving as an independent monitor of power, went along for the ride.

I see that there’s an epilogue coming soon called “Media Sins.” I’ll be reading that closely. But even at the time it was clear that the media had failed in several ways, as Alex S. Jones detailed in The New York Times (free link) several weeks after Charles Stuart’s death. Jones’ explosive lead: “The tangled Stuart murder case has been a near-obsession for this city’s news organizations for the past three months, but the character and tone of their reporting coverage have prompted charges that the press has been racist, incompetent and reckless.”

Jones took on the Globe and the Boston Herald, then a much more robust daily paper than it is today, for running with anonymously sourced tips that didn’t pan out, such as a Globe report that Stuart had plotted his wife’s death as part of an insurance scheme so that he could start a restaurant and a Herald story that Stuart had been treated for cocaine addiction. Jones also wrote:

Critics have also said that the city’s news organizations allowed themselves to be manipulated by law enforcement agencies. For instance, during the investigation, two black men were identified at different times in news reports by anonymous police sources as the “primary suspect,” though there was no direct evidence against either one. Critics say this is a tactic investigators sometimes use to advertise for evidence.

Even after William Bennett’s exoneration following Charles Stuart’s death, then-Globe columnist Mike Barnicle wrote a column (available in databases but not on the open web) defending the police and blasting leaders in the Black community who were attempting to shine a light on the racism that undergirded much of the police response.

“Naturally, a pack of publicity hounds within the black community — a few ministers and headline-hunting politicians now passing themselves off as skilled homicide investigators — jumped on Bennett’s arrest as proof of a racist plot by the white power structure to make every black man, woman and child in Boston out as ruthless, bloodthirsty criminals,” Barnicle wrote in a column that appeared on Jan. 9, 1990, five days after Charles Stuart’s fatal jump. He added: “I guess they are upset because nobody thought to beat the truth out of Stuart that night in the hospital after he had shot and very nearly killed himself.”

As I said, I’m interested to see how the epilogue deals with this and other media failures.

“Nightmare in Mission Hill” is a tremendous contribution to Boston’s attempts to come to terms with its well-deserved racist reputation. The team that put this together deserve a lot of credit — including but not limited to reporters Adrian Walker, Evan Allen (the lead writer), Elizabeth Koh and Andrew Ryan. I just signed up for the newsletter, I look forward to dipping into the podcast, and I hope that the series serves to advance the ongoing conversation about how Boston can work toward becoming a better, more inclusive home for all of us.

Leave a comment | Read comments

Evan Allen, a Pulitzer winner and lead writer on the Globe’s Stuart series, is leaving

Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter Evan Allen is leaving The Boston Globe, the paper’s second major recent loss. Allen, a highly regarded journalist who’s the lead writer on the paper’s series about Charles and Carol Stuart, will join her brother John Allen’s digital storytelling company, Ballen Studios, as her father, Scott Allen, did earlier this year. Scott Allen had been a top editor at the Globe.

“Evan is off to produce strange, dark, and mysterious stories for her brother’s burgeoning media empire,” Brendan McCarthy, the Globe’s assistant manager editor for projects, said in an email to the staff, which was forwarded to me by a trusted source. “It’s a bit of a family affair, and Evan will be running the creative department, where her spookiness will undoubtedly flourish.”

Earlier today I reported that Jason Tuohey, the Globe’s managing editor for audience and new platforms, was leaving for parts unknown.

Evan Allen was a winner of the 2021 Pulitzer for Investigative Reporting, as she was part of a team of Globe journalists who produced a series on dangerous drivers. She’s won a number of other awards as well, according to her Globe bio.

Leave a comment | Read comments

Jason Tuohey, the Globe’s top digital editor, is moving on

Boston Globe veteran Jason Tuohey is leaving the paper on Dec. 22. Currently managing editor for audience and new platforms, Tuohey has been the Globe’s go-to person on the digital side for quite a few years.

“I know this news will hit some of you hard, because I have seen first-hand how many people seek out his guidance and support, both personally and professionally,” Globe editor Nancy Barnes said in an email message to her staff, a copy of which was forwarded to me by a trusted source. “Brian McGrory [Barnes’ predecessor as editor] told me before I got here that he was the best in the business, and he has been invaluable to me upon joining the newsroom earlier this year.”

No word in Barnes’ memo about what is next for Tuohey, but best of luck to him.

Leave a comment | Read comments

The Boston Globe’s new media reporter covers crypto for The Information

Aidan Ryan. Photo via LinkedIn.

The Boston Globe has hired its first full-time dedicated media reporter in nearly 20 years. Aidan Ryan, who currently covers crypto for The Information, will start in January, according to an announcement he posted on X/Twitter. He’s on Bluesky at @aidanryan.bsky.social, and I hope he’ll join Threads, which is where most of the Twitter diaspora seems to be landing.

According to his LinkedIn profile, Ryan was president of The Harvard Crimson when he was in college and did a stint as a summer intern covering politics for the Globe in 2019. So what will he be doing as the Globe’s media reporter? Here’s how his new beat was described when the Globe advertised the position:

Part tech beat, part culture writing, part buzzy local scoops, this job calls for a journalist who’s eager and able to explore the many ways that media shapes modern life, in Boston and beyond. They will cover our region’s advertising and publishing industries and keep an eye on the bold-faced names of local TV, yes. But they’ll also dive into the endless evolution of social media, debates over digital privacy, and the roiling challenges of misinformation in all its forms, from Twitter and Threads to TikTok and new platforms using artificial intelligence.

That’s a lot. Regular media coverage is a welcome addition for the Globe, and it will be interesting to see what Ryan can do with it.

Leave a comment | Read comments

Boston Globe editor on covering the Israel-Hamas war: ‘None of this is easy’

Boston Globe editor Nancy Barnes has sent a message to her staff that speaks to the strains of covering the war between Israel and Hamas. The Globe doesn’t have any journalists who are actually reporting on the conflict from the Middle East, but it regularly publishes news from wire services, and that leads to complaints from readers about tone and emphasis. Her message, provided by a trusted source, follows.

Dear all,

The war between Israel and Hamas has had far-reaching consequences, with strong sentiments and emotions rippling throughout communities around the world. It is being felt by every major institution in the country, the media writ large, our own newsroom, and our colleagues.

Questions have been raised by readers, subscribers and staffers about how we are framing the conflict, the choice of photos we make, the headlines we write, and the adjectives we use to describe these awful events. Every decision is scrutinized.

We want you to know that we take these questions very seriously as we grapple with how to tell this important story carefully and fairly, knowing that our choices will not make everyone happy,

We are discussing this as a leadership group. We have reached out to other newsrooms and standards and practices editors around the country to hear how they are weighing these issues. We have been listening to concerns staff members have raised with us, and we appreciate your willingness to bring those to us. Based on that input, [managing editor] Jen Peter and [senior assistant managing editor for production] Mary Creane have convened a small group to debate on an ongoing basis whether we need to issue any new style guidance. We generally follow the Associated Press stylebook, but not always.

None of this is easy, and we know it’s especially hard on those of you whose personal and family histories are enmeshed in this conflict. My door is open, and I will make myself available to anyone who has thoughts they want to share.

Nancy

Leave a comment | Read comments