[Cross posted from my blog.]
This is why I've stopped reading unsigned editorials.
The upcoming special State Senate election in Middlesex, Essex and Suffolk counties is an interesting, close race. Voters have a tough decision, mainly between an effective, experienced candidate with several DUIs (Anthony Galluccio) and a well-spoken, DUI-free prosecutor who seems thin on issues other than crime (Tim Flaherty).
The Globe parachutes into the race this morning with a few paragraphs that read like a coloring book — they pick a template and fill in some color.
They endorse Flaherty because he has “the right mix of energy, agility, and experience to serve the district.” They suggest his background will be useful in sections of the district with serious drug problems and in areas “where major [real estate] developments are now in play.”
Maybe, but in both of the debates that I went to, Galluccio was the only one able to speak deeply and intelligently about real estate development and community approaches to fighting crime. Flaherty mostly harped on his experience as a prosecutor and assorted cliches that everybody voting next Tuesday agrees on.
I get the impression that the Globe editorial was written by somebody who hasn't followed the race. They read a few articles, had a few of the candidates stop by the office, then picked one because an editorial had to be written.
I could easily be wrong. It's possible the piece was written by somebody who knows the race intimately — somebody who has a far better sense of the candidates than I do and sees a side of Flaherty that I haven't.
But since the piece is unsigned, and lacks any context or voice, there's no way to tell. So I'll probably end up voting for Galluccio.
on Galluccio's depth on “real estate development and community approaches to fighting crime”? Otherwise we're left with not much more from you than the Globe's editorial.
Yes, your're right.
I noted this in a comment on an earlier post, but during the Charlestown debate the candidates were asked something along the lines of “will you get state money for the Charlestown Navy Yard?” Flaherty's response was, “Of course. I'd fight hard, for Charlestown, etc, etc.”
Galluccio had a more nuanced answer. He basically said, “Yes, that's the job of a state senator, and I will do it. But that's not what's going to improve the area. It has to be a broader, more complex solution incorporating zoning, public/private partnerships, etc.”
These answers are consistent with most of those I heard at the Cambridge and Charlestown debates.
As I recall it was Jeff Ross who kept going on about public/private partnerships at the Charlestown debate. Galluccio may have mentioned them, too, but Ross managed to work the mostly meaningless phrase into his response to several questions.
…it is my understanding that editorials that are not signed–as opposed to op-ed pieces, that are signed–are supposed to be taken as the opinions of the publisher of the newspaper. The signed op-ed pieces are to be taken as the opinions of the respective authors.
<
p>
Perhaps a fine distinction, but a very real one. Editorial->publisher. Op-ed->author.
Yes, that's the way it works. What I'm saying is that “taken as the opinions of the publisher” is an anachronistic concept. It's unlikely Steven Ainsley wrote this piece, so why pretend he did? It would be far more usefull to have a signed piece where the author and all his or her context (biased relationships, prior statements, etc) is clear.
They may say “publisher” pro forma, but my understanding is that it's the editorial page editor.
Political endorsements are done by committee, I believe, led by the editorial page editor but likely including the executive editor and a few others, plus heavy informational input from the reporting staff.
n/t
better …?
Merci