It’s so very interesting to compare how different media outlets cover the same news story. As you probably know by now, Deval Patrick has announced that he may seek the Democratic nomination for Governor of Massachusetts. This story first appeared prominently in the Boston Globe, and was immediately picked up by WBUR, Channel 5, "Greater Boston" on Channel 2, and the Boston Phoenix (and maybe others that I haven’t found). And that seems appropriate — Patrick’s work in the Clinton administration gave him a genuinely national profile; he would be the first major African-American candidate for Governor in Massachusetts history; and the other likely Democratic candidates (Tom Reilly and Bill Galvin) have significant shortcomings (see related posts here and here).
Despite all of that, there have been no news reports about Patrick’s potential candidacy in the Boston Herald. Until today, that is, when, in an article provocatively entitled "Ex-fed prosecutor’s bid for gov race funds violates law," reporter David Guarino writes that Patrick may have committed a technical violation of state campaign finance law by soliciting funds in a e-mail sent to supporters before his political committee was actually registered with the state campaign finance office.
I haven’t seen Patrick’s e-mail so I don’t know whether or not it is an actual solicitation, nor am I an expert on state campaign finance law. But if this was indeed a violation, it certainly seems to have been of the hypertechnical variety — the integrity of our democracy seems safe. Curious, though, that the Herald thought that this was newsworthy, when the Herald evidently thought that Patrick’s possible entry into the race was not. Even curiouser, in light of the Herald’s apparent view that Michael Capuano’s decision not to run was newsworthy. You don’t think there would be any sort of agenda driving the Herald’s decisions of what to cover and what not to cover, do you?
Ha. Doesn’t Rupert Murdoch own the Hairold? NewsCorp and all that?Whatev. It’s a mark of honor when those guys take after you.
You are right. But “hypertechnical violation” or not, Patrick should have known better. The Herald is wrong in not covering Patrick’s potential run, but knocking them for covering this campaign violation makes you sound like you are whinning. Stick to the facts that make your case.
Chaley Charley Charley. Rupert Murdock does not own the Herald. I am so surprised at you. He did in the past, but you should have known that. If you want to have a Blog commenting on local events please have some institutional memory of this city and state or at least check your facts. You can’t get in the game if you don’t know how to catch a ball.I’m watching you Charley.
John, that’s why there was a question mark — it was not a statement. For the record, News Corporation owned the Boston Herald from 1982-1994. Their editorial policy remains Murdochian.
my point exactly charley. You should know this if you want to be a Boston blogger.
John, get a grip on yourself. Charley wrote “Hairold.” In fact, Murdoch may very well own the Boston Hairold. As for the Boston Herald, everyone knows that Patrick Purcell is a would-be Mini Me to Murdoch’s Powers. The Herald’s slavish imitation of the Fox-Inside Edition-O’Reilly Axis of Distortion is proof positive — like a younger brother trying on his older sibling’s cologne: the smell is similar, but the overall result is ridiculous.
Hairold. I don’t get it.