Tag: Boston Globe

Globe loses a political editor

The Boston Globe’s deputy national political editor, Foon Rhee, is leaving the paper this Friday to take a job at the Sacramento Bee, according to a copy of an internal e-mail obtained by Media Nation. The e-mail, from Washington bureau chief Chris Rowland, is as follows:

Foon Rhee, the Globe’s deputy national political editor, will be departing after more than five years at the newspaper to take a job as associate editor at the Sacramento Bee, serving on the editorial board and writing editorials, columns, and analysis pieces. There is no positive way to spin this, so I won’t try: it is wretched news for the Washington Bureau, and he will be deeply missed. Foon is a talented and invaluable editor, lending a strong hand on assignment and story editing of our Washington report, and offering excellent news judgment accumulated over a career that has emphasized political coverage. He also is an Internet news blogger extraordinaire, almost single-handedly writing the Political Intelligence blog on a minute-by-minute basis, all day long. He is blazingly fast, and he routinely gets news out to readers of boston.com much more quickly than the wires or cable television. Foon has occupied his current post since August 2007, joining the national political desk in time to work on the dramatic 2008 presidential election. Prior to that, he served three years as the Globe’s city editor, overseeing coverage of vital metro stories like the Big Dig ceiling collapse and the Haleigh Poutre case. Former metro editor Carolyn Ryan brought him to that job in 2004 from the Raleigh News and Observer, where Foon was local news editor and then political editor. He previously held reporting jobs at the Charlotte Observer. Foon graduated from Duke University and he is a big Blue Devils fan, to the serious dismay of various Tar Heels in the newsroom. As he journeys now to the land of sunshine and movie-star governors, Foon will also be moving closer to family members, who live in Oakland. His last day at the Globe will be this Friday, Jan. 8. Please join me in wishing Foon the best of luck and congratulations before he leaves Morrissey Boulevard and hops on the Pike, westbound.

— Chris

Media round-up: Losing our religion

A few local media tidbits for your perusal:

• The Boston Globe’s Michael Paulson, who may be the country’s best religion reporter working at a mainstream news organization, is taking a new position at the paper. According to the Boston Phoenix’s Adam Reilly, Paulson has been named city editor, reporting to new metro editor Jen Peter. I share Reilly’s hope that this doesn’t mean the Globe has reduced its commitment to serious coverage of religion.

• Local political junkies rejoice: Peter Lucas is back on the beat. A longtime reporter for the Phoenix and the Boston Herald, Lucas disappeared into the state bureaucracy for several decades. He has now re-emerged, and will write a twice-weekly column for the Lowell Sun, according to Jon Keller. I once had the privilege of hearing Lucas’ hilarious retelling of the “White Will Run” incident Keller describes that nearly brought a premature end to Lucas’ reporting career. I look forward to reading his Sun column.

• Sharp-eyed Universal Hubster Adam Gaffin flags a tidbit from Boston Radio Watch hinting that Greater Boston may be getting yet another talk station — WXKS (AM 1430), owned by Clear Channel. Given its weak signal, it presumably would not pose much of a threat to WRKO (AM 680), WTKK (96.9 FM) or WWZN (AM 1510) — the last a liberal station that itself is no great shakes when it comes to having a listenable signal.

    McGrory to return to column-writing

    Brian McGrory
    Brian McGrory

    Boston Globe veteran Brian McGrory is giving up his post as metro editor and returning to writing his column, according to an e-mail sent to the staff by editor Marty Baron, a copy of which was obtained by Media Nation a little while ago.

    McGrory will be replaced by Jennifer Peter, currently the city editor. The switch will take place in January.

    Baron’s e-mail is full of praise for McGrory, who, he says, asked for a promise to return to his column when he agreed to take the metro editor’s job in May 2007. And, indeed, Baron should be happy with McGrory. The Globe’s local coverage has been excellent this year despite internal turmoil caused by the New York Times Co.’s wrangling with the Globe’s unions and its subsequent attempt to sell the paper — an attempt that ended in management announcing it had decided to hold on to the Globe.

    When McGrory gave up his column, he was replaced by Kevin Cullen. But, based on Baron’s e-mail, it sounds like McGrory’s column will be in-addition-to rather than instead-of: “To his fellow columnists: We’ll be working out a new schedule.”

    More from the Boston Phoenix’s Adam Reilly and the Globe’s MetroDesk blog.

    The full text of Baron’s e-mail follows:

    To all:

    When Brian McGrory became Metro editor, he set a clear and ambitious course. Stories would be unique and enterprising. They would not only be important; they would be interesting and entertaining. There would be humanity and no lack of humor. The quality of writing would be top-notch.

    Those were goals in May, 2007. Today, we can honestly say he has accomplished them all, brilliantly so. This is a Metro staff that day after day sets the state and local news agenda. Under Brian’s strong and skilled leadership, the staff routinely beats the competition on major stories. Investigative moxie has been built into its DNA. We’ve dramatically improved our hour-by-hour, minute-by-minute presence online.

    And this is a staff with a wide-ranging repertoire. We have stuff that hits hard when called for. We also have reportorial gems that surface the personality — and the characters — of the community. These are stories of emotion and empathy, of sorrow, joy, and laughter. Whatever the story, one thing is for sure: The writing matters. And it sparkles, often because Brian himself applied the polish.

    Now I have to let you in on something Brian told me when he graciously and enthusiastically took on the job of Deputy Managing Editor/Local News: He wanted advance permission to return to his column after two years. I gave it, of course. If Brian was going to lend his talents to the entire newsroom, this was a loan term I could scarcely refuse.

    We’re well past two years, and we’re nearing three. Brian has reminded me of my commitment, and I’m going to honor it. He’ll be returning as a columnist in early January. (To his fellow columnists: We’ll be working out a new schedule.) I’m sad to have one of America’s best journalists step out of a position that is central to our success. I know, though, what we gain: The return of a superb columnist, also one of America’s best, and just the sort of eloquent and forceful voice for the Globe in the community that is also critical to our success.

    So much of what our newsroom has achieved in recent years is a product of Brian’s ferocious work ethic, deep contacts in the community, his dedication to craft, boundless creative thinking, and a leadership style that is both inspired and inspirational. Think back on a remarkable run of coverage: revelations about corruption at the highest level on Beacon Hill; investigations into abuse of disability pensions; magnificently comprehensive, vivid, and sensitive coverage of Senator Kennedy’s illness, death and funeral; the inner workings of City Hall, and the circles of influence, revealed as never before; and scoops and works of distinctive enterprise that are truly too lengthy to list here. He has set a high standard for us all.

    Another accomplishment — a huge one — is that he has constructed a remarkable team of reporters and editors. From that talented team comes his successor, Jennifer Peter, who as City Editor has been a marvelous leader in her own right: committed, driven, versatile, deeply knowledgeable. You have to wonder at her seemingly limitless capacity for work and her infinite patience. You have to admire her comfortable manner and how easily she listens, drawing out the best in others. I know for a fact that Brian leaned constantly on Jen for some of the soundest judgment in the newsroom.

    Jen knows the Globe well, having led the staff on some of our biggest stories. You’d be hard-pressed to find someone with her range and experience, and her appointment is a good reminder that the Globe newsroom has a remarkably deep reservoir of talent.

    Jen’s professional career in Boston began in 2002, when she was hired by the Associated Press as a general assignment reporter and then quickly moved to the State House. She became the AP’s lead reporter on the legalization of gay marriage and its local reporter assigned to John Kerry’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

    Jen has built an impressive career at the Globe in the last five years. She became co-editor of the Globe North section in 2004, the Globe’s state political editor in January 2007 and then city editor later that year. She has coordinated the local news report and directly overseen coverage of schools, police, transportation, and Boston’s neighborhoods.

    As political editor, she directed coverage of the tumultuous early days of the Patrick administration and the final gay marriage vote, with all the drama that preceded and followed it. As city editor, she played a central role in coverage of the Tai Ho fire, which killed two firefighters, and the controversies it ignited; the so-called Craigslist killing; and Senator Kennedy’s brain cancer diagnosis and death. She has worked powerfully well with reporters on some of our most memorable enterprise.

    A New England native — born and raised in rural New Hampshire (Gilsum, population 500) — Jen majored in English and Fine Arts at Amherst and then received her master’s degree in journalism from Syracuse University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communication. South Boston is her home today.

    Before coming to Boston for the Associated Press, Jen covered a lot of ground in her early reporting career. She started at a two-reporter newspaper in Sun Valley, Idaho, and then moved on to The Day in New London, Conn., where she covered state politics, the explosive expansion of gambling in southeastern Connecticut, and the region’s troubled nuclear power plants. After taking a position at The Virginian-Pilot in Norfolk, Va., she covered municipal government and the state legislature. She also served on the paper’s investigative reporting team, collaborating on stories about patronage within the state sheriff’s department, routine violations of a law designed to protect the Chesapeake Bay, and Capital One’s role in directly writing a law that allowed it to charge higher interest rates.

    So we’re in for a smooth transition in Metro when it takes effect with the New Year. We’re also in for another period of strong leadership.

    Please congratulate Jen on her appointment as Deputy Managing Editor/Local News. And, Brian, many thanks for your enormous and enduring contributions to a great news organization.

    Marty

    After tumult, status quo for the Times Co.

    Downtown Worcester
    Union Station, Worcester

    With 2009 drawing to a close, it’s now possible to say something that would have been inconceivable six months ago: the New York Times Co. is still the owner of the Boston Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

    Was it all a dream? Starting last spring, and stretching well into the summer, there was nothing but tumult. First the Times Co. demanded — and ultimately got — $20 million in concessions from the Globe’s unions. The drama was high, as management threatened to shut down the paper if the unions refused to meet its demands, while the Boston Newspaper Guild — by far the largest union at the Globe — rejected one set of concessions before finally bowing to the inevitable.

    Then the Times Co. put both papers on the market. And, for a while, it looked like a significant restoration was in the works. A group headed by former Globe executive Steve Taylor emerged as a leading would-be possible buyer for the Globe, and former T&G editor Harry Whitin looked like he might be moving into the publisher’s office at his old paper.

    But Times Co. executives decided to hold on to the Globe. Then, yesterday, they announced that the T&G was no longer for sale, either.

    No doubt the papers were pulled off the market for a variety of reasons, both good and bad. Costs are down, circulation revenue is up thanks to a hefty price increase and, overall, the financial picture at both papers appears to be brighter than it was a year ago. On the other hand, is there any doubt that both papers would have been sold if Arthur Sulzberger and company had been able to get what they considered to be a fair price?

    With things more or less the same as they ever were, members of the community have a right to feel as though they’ve been jerked around. It would be a good idea if the Times Co. devoted 2010 to rebuilding the Globe’s and the T&G’s ties to the community.

    Naming Chris Mayer to be the Globe’s next publisher (he’ll have responsibilities for the Telegram & Gazette as well) was a smart first step. He’s energetic, he’s rooted in Greater Boston and he seems far more likely to be a presence on the local scene than his recent predecessors have been.

    But both papers have a long way to go if they are to recover from the wounds they’ve suffered — wounds that are largely characteristic of what the entire industry is going through, but some of which were self-inflicted. The best thing the Times Co. can do next year in these parts is to make itself invisible.

    Photo (cc) by Bree Bailey and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

    Sean Murphy responds to Totten

    Boston Globe reporter Sean Murphy, who was the prosecutor in the Boston Newspaper Guild’s ouster of president — now former president — Dan Totten, spoke with me a little while ago. Murphy is highly critical of remarks Totten made in an e-mail reported yesterday by the Boston Herald’s Jessica Heslam. Says Murphy:

    All I want to say is that this was a prosecution, not a persecution. Mr. Totten was not the victim of a political vendetta. He was a victim of his own bad conduct. I was asked to be the prosecutor and agreed to do so. It was done by the book. There was no personal animosity. Any suggestion otherwise is false. Any suggestion that I was biased is false. I was well known to be a “no” vote on both contract proposals, which was in line with the position of Mr. Totten. I did not participate in any recall efforts. I was known to eschew recall.

    Murphy adds that, though he did attend a meeting to discuss Totten’s possible removal, Totten “knows full well I expressed great skepticism.”

    I asked Murphy whether there has been any talk about whether the accusations made against Totten by the union could result in the involvement of law enforcement. Murphy’s response: “I have not broached that subject nor has anybody in my presence.”

    Earlier coverage.

    More on Dan Totten’s ouster

    It turns out the Boston Newspaper Guild did indeed use the term “guilty” in an e-mail to its members about the removal of president Dan Totten; see the update at the end of my earlier item.

    And Adam Reilly of the Phoenix speaks with Boston Globe staff reporter Maria Cramer, who says Totten was ousted strictly because of his misdeeds — and not out of any sense that he’d bungled the Guild’s dealings with the New York Times Co. Reilly writes:

    “I find that suggestion” — i.e., that Totten’s trial represented a form of payback — “to be insulting in the least,” Cramer says. “We spent nearly four hours looking at the evidence, which was lengthy and very detailed…. It’s a duty that we took extremely seriously. We understood that the result would probably meet with this kind of criticism. But at the same time, I definitely feel we made the right decision — I have no doubt about that — and that it was free of politics.”

    And there the matter rests. For now.

    Still more: Boston Herald reporter Jessica Heslam has an e-mail exchange between Totten and his accusers. Looks to me like this is the key quote from Totten:

    BNG / TNG / CWA has designated a member to act as “prosecutor” in this matter who attended a newsroom meeting this past September, 2009 with the purpose of assisting in the distribution and signing of a petition for my removal from office as BNG president. His actions were based on newsroom members opinion of the ratified contract of July, 2009, and their disagreement with its provisions. The jury selected for the trial contains several members as panelists who also attended the September, 2009 newsroom meeting and were signatories to a removal petition. None of these individuals is impartial; in fact, they are seeking to have me removed from office, and using this process as a vehicle to that end. This is in direct contradiction to the letter and spirit of the by-laws, and I will not be party to it.

    Why was Dan Totten ousted?

    Both the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald today report on the ouster of Boston Newspaper Guild president Dan Totten, whose leadership during the union’s months-long standoff with the Globe’s owner, the New York Times Co., was widely criticized.

    Each story raises more questions than it answers, starting with the use of the word “guilty” to describe the internal ruling against Totten on Wednesday. That’s a pretty loaded term, but neither account gives any indication whether it’s one that the union specifically uses, or if it’s just a less-than-legally-precise description of what happened.

    As for the charges against Totten, let’s take a look at the specifics:

    • He was found to have signed the name of another union official to his own paycheck.
    • He was found to have improperly used his union credit card to buy $254 worth of personal items.
    • He was found not to have produced receipts in a timely manner.

    Are any of these accusations the sort of thing that law enforcement would find interesting? Perhaps the second item, although — not to downplay the seriousness of the allegation — it probably wouldn’t be worth the time given how little money was at stake. But it would seem to me that if Totten is not under any sort of criminal investigation, then we should tread carefully before labeling him a union crook.

    As for the two other items, you could argue whether Totten should be punished for signing someone else’s name so that he could cash his own paycheck, but it was, after all, his own paycheck. Not producing receipts in a timely manner? You’ve got to be kidding.

    I want to make it clear that I’m not sitting in judgment of anyone. Perhaps Totten really was, uh, guilty of serious malfeasance. My only point is that we don’t know.

    I’d like to see someone dig into this and find out whether we are truly talking about malfeasance, or if instead Totten was sacrificed because his members are unhappy with the way he dealt with the Times Co.

    The Guild-Times Co. standoff was the biggest local media story of the year. Totten’s fall is an important element of that.

    Update: One question has been answered. According to a copy of an e-mail from the Guild that has been forwarded to Media Nation, it is indeed the Guild itself that used the term “guilty.” Here’s the full text:

    Dear Boston Newspaper Guild Member,

    A jury of members of the Boston Newspaper Guild today found President Daniel Totten guilty of charges that he improperly signed a paycheck and ignored directives to turn over expense receipts in a timely manner. The jury voted to expel Mr. Totten from the union, and also ordered him to pay a fine of $254. The jury heard several hours of testimony from Union officers and office staff. Mr. Totten declined to participate in the trial process. The five members of the jury were chosen by random selection.  Mr. Totten has the right to appeal the verdict.

    Sincerely,

    Scott Steeves
    Acting President, The Boston Newspaper Guild

    Welcome, Romenesko readers. There’s a lot more where this came from here.

    Ghostbusting the Globe’s op-ed page

    ghostbusters picI like it when politicians have direct, unfiltered access to the public. The media have plenty of opportunities to posit themselves between candidates and voters. If a pol lies, twists or omits relevant facts and there’s no one from the Fourth Estate to call him or her on it, well, so be it. There will always be another opportunity.

    That said, I don’t think the Boston Globe did enough to make sure that the four Democratic candidates for U.S. senator actually wrote their own op-eds in Sunday’s paper. If words are appearing under the bylines of (in fair-and-balanced alphabetical order) Mike Capuano, Martha Coakley, Alan Khazei and Steve Pagliuca, I’d like some assurance that they were written by the candidates, not those of some paid spinner.

    But when I asked editorial-page editor Peter Canellos what precautions the Globe had taken, he replied by e-mail that he had checked with op-ed editor Marjorie Pritchard and, essentially, none had been taken. “I spoke to Marjorie, and the answer is that we simply requested that they write pieces for the op-ed page,” Canellos told me. “There were no further restrictions imposed on them.”

    Granted, short of some sort of forensic investigation, it would be impossible for a newspaper to make sure candidate op-eds were actually written by the candidates. But I think the candidates should have been asked directly to write their own statements, with no assistance from staffers other than editing. That way, they’d have been put on notice that if they didn’t, then they were cheating.

    I realize that I’m holding a candidate’s written words to a higher standard than I am spoken words. But the role of speechwriters is well-established, and the very fact that a candidate has to speak the words changes the equation. A ghostwritten op-ed, in contrast, might never even be seen by the candidate — we simply have no way of knowing.

    Besides, when a newspaper such as the Globe solicits op-eds, it is taking responsibility for what it publishes in a way that’s entirely different from running a story about a candidate’s speech.

    It’s time to banish the ghosts from the op-ed page. Who you gonna call?

    An additional thought: Several of the commenters make the point that ghostwritten op-eds are a long-established practice throughout the newspaper business. So let me clarify. Yes, I know that. Not reading obviously ghostwritten op-eds is an equally established practice. It’s time for a change, don’t you think?

    More on the cost of GlobeReader

    What is the Boston Globe now charging if you want to get home delivery of the Sunday paper plus GlobeReader? When I called the subscription department yesterday, I got an answer that was so confusing I chose not to report it. But now it looks like rozzie02131 has figured it out.

    The answer: $5 a week after an introductory offer. That’s an increase of nearly 43 percent over the old price of $3.50. But the new GlobeReader is a lot better. And it still works out to half the cost of seven-day home delivery.

    Interestingly, the Globe appears to have turned its pricing model upside-down. Previously, you got GlobeReader for free if you were a Sunday subscriber. Now — given that GlobeReader by itself costs $5 a week — you get the Sunday paper for free if you sign up for GlobeReader.