Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Gaping Hole in Online Community? Plus: 3 cheers for Globe

By

1. Emergency room waits not exactly news — smidge of new data thrown in. 

2. Conservatives want a conservative for president — with ginned up sense of “gotcha” of supposedly “secretive meetings.”  Yawn.

3. Governor Patrick’s absentee sax playing dad who died 16 years ago is an intriguing backgrounder, but has zero news hook, hardly front page. 

In ideal world, editor could assign a DOZEN similar sort of “investigative” stories like these to reporters who’d have enough time to chase them down, and then front page the readers only get the two or three which actually turned out to BE legit stories.

For all the virtue of Time Man Of The Year (yay us!), we’re picking off all the Globe profit centers that covered the “loss leader” — the people who got paid to investigate, and then editors who got paid to often tell reporters “Thanks for the digging, what you found really isn’t much of a news story, we’re going to kill it or run it in 5 paragraphs on Page B6.” 

Can the online community replace that — LOCAL independent investigation? 

While someone like Michael Totten does that — reader-funded independent journalism in the Middle East (check him out if you don’t know his work) — that’s because his subject attracts a huge potential audience, a tiny subset of which sends $. 

But you’re not going to find a citizen journalist who can afford to love to read, say, an expose on the lifestyle of a $220,000 per year state trooper.  Or someone to connect two basic realities — we pay cops to drink coffee by pothole repair crews, while we refuse to pay cops to spend time needed to build the network of informants to bypass the “Stop snitching” murder express.

Herald’s in even worse shape.  WBUR, at best, follows the Globe, not leads it.  Local TV investigations are shady car dealers and other consumer items.  Boston Magazine is food and shopping.  Low circ Commonwealth is analysis, not investigation. 

The Globe is increasingly strapped for the cash it takes to pay reporters and editors to investigate things, particularly the seasoned ones who tend to be more judicious since they’re not trying to “make their name” in one 2-year stint before moving on. 

How can we fill this gaping “fairminded but determined investigative local reporting” hole? 

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. on playing armchair psychologist, especially when there’s a disease at hand? I didn’t like it when Jon Keller did it and I don’t like it in today’s Globe. Leave Elizabeth Edwards alone. Her reasons for wanting John Edwards to stay in the race are her’s alone. It’s impossible to know for sure, even if she actually told us.

    <

    p>
    The point remains that they’re staying in the race and that’s their perogative. She’s the one with cancer, not him, so it’s not as though if elected he couldn’t serve his four full years. I don’t even support Edwards, but I feel bad people are making more out of this than they should.

      • works well for you =p

        <

        p>
        The situation is different – partly because I was being ambiguous.

        <

        p>
        Diane Patrick has a case of depression. People have said all sorts of things about that. Yet, she’s not the Governor, so it’s really none of our business either.

        <

        p>
        Elizabeth Edwards has cancer. People decide to speculate why she wants to do one thing or another. She’s not running for President, so it’s really none of our business.

        <

        p>
        President Bush has made infinate poor decisions in office – decisions that have resulted in many people dying. He has no problem throwing those lives away, and lying about why he’s doing it. Furthermore, he IS the President. His decisions have seemed downright crazy and put this country at risk. I submit, therefore, that my questioning is therefore very defensible.

  2. Let’s see if I’ve got this straight:  Joan Venocchi proclaims her own open-mindedness:  “This is not a judgment on the way this family chose to deal with their loss.”

    <

    p>
    But then she claims that everything John and Elizabeth Edwards have done since their son’s death is “running…racing…pushing forward, almost as if they are afraid not to.” 

    <

    p>
    Sounds pretty judgmental to me.  Not only is Elizabeth not allowed to want what she wants–for whatever reasons–but John is obligated to recognize that she wants the wrong things and to drop out of the race for Elizabeth’s own good. 

    <

    p>
    This kind of writing doesn’t constitute a winner in my opinion.  My response to Venocchi’s column was that it’s too bad the Globe hadn’t offered her a buyout, too.

    • …jv just didn’t take it.  i’m glad, i like her writing. 

      <

      p>
      anyway, good point: she shouldn’t have written “this is not a judgment” and then provided just that.  you’re right: it IS judgmental.

      <

      p>
      but surely SOMETIMES it’s the role of a husband to recognize something the wife may not see, and vice versa.  perhaps this is such a case, perhaps not.  in almost every case, it’s nobody’s business but the couple’s.  exceptions include those seeking the presidency, no?

Archives