Boston Dailies Ignore Intercept’s Baker Bomb$hell
I thought we were supposed to be partisan.
Please share widely!
Why Hasn’t Anyone on BMG noticed This?
Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
My immediate answer to your perhaps rhetorical question is a half-facetious “Because you haven’t written a diary yet”.
The stewardship of this site is in transition. There is no staff, paid or otherwise. There are about a half-dozen of us, including you and me, who post comments with any regularity.
In all seriousness, there is no BMG to notice this unless people participate. People will not participate unless there are thread-starters that people want to comment on.
I agree with you that this story merits a full-blown thread. I invite you to write and publish a thread-starter that creates that thread.
I’d prefer to start with something other that The Intercept, which I’m not sure I trust any farther than I can throw, as a source.
You really trust Charlie Baker, Christopher, or are you just trolling?
I didn’t comment about Charlie Baker. I am high skeptical of The Intercept.
You’re being a purist, Christopher. Here at BMG we don’t take kindly to purists.
Here at BMG we also don’t take kindly to bullies. 🙂
Since I’m sure you were joking, a smiley would have made your comment less hostile.
?
Well, there is someone on this blog who periodically goes off on “purists” I don’t know how that person defines purist, but to me someone who turns up his nose at negative information about this state’s Republican governor because the source is from the left is being a purist.
Do you have some reason to believe that the story in the Intercept is made up?
My experience with The Intercept is that it makes mountains out of molehills and finds scandal where it doesn’t really exist. A purist is someone who demands ideological fealty at all times, but I don’t see this as being about that.
Fair enough. But this article is pretty straightforward and based on public information. John Carrol, who is the one I actually linked to, pointed that out. This is a story that reflects pretty badly on both Charlie Baker and the rich people pushing for charter schools. I don’t understand the reluctance.
I’m sure that the Intercept has been wrong from time to time, but I suspect that the general objection is not to their alleged lack of credibility but to their progressive political agenda.
I won’t speak for others, but since I generally favor outlets with a progressive political agenda it’s definitely about credibility with me. Lack of credibility if anything ultimately hurts the agenda. I am, however, going to wonder how big a story something really is if it’s being “ignored” by more mainstream outlets.
Why don’t you read the story then?
Since you HAVE read the story (presumably), the entire community will benefit if you either edited your thread-starter or created a new thread that presented what you view as the key points.
BMG is YOUR community. It is only as good as you make it.
John Carroll’s post is concise. The Intercept article is a little longer but not that long, and not that complicated.
The upshot is that Charlie Baker seems to have a cozy relationship with a couple of hedge fund guys who funded his pet project of expanding charter schools. The hedge fund guys seem to be making out pretty well for themselves, but not for the commonwealth.
You can read the full story in either the Intercept (which is so unreliable that it doubted the Putin/bounty hunter story last fall, months before the government admitted it wasn’t true), or from John Carrol, who doesn’t have any political bias that I’ve been able to discern.
It’s not irritating as much as it is amusing that after years of demanding that I provide links suddenly doesn’t want the link. He wants me to summarize an already concise article in my own words because. . . .
He seems to get some enjoyment out of inventing little rules that I’ve broken. A couple days ago it was failing to use emoji’s.
Thanks for the advice, Tom, but I’ll stick with the guidelines that were in place when I signed up. And I’ll post the way I want.
The guidelines are unchanged, as is your intransigence.
I have, and I’m not insisting it’s wrong. It’s just that based on experience I’d prefer not to have the Intercept as the only source.
Looks like someone just did.
By the way, people do not seem to question why the super rich, the .01% push charter schools. Their children attend private schools. Why would it matter to the .01% where hoi polloi sent their children? Taxes stay the same.
Ah, but there is this: With a Charter, it can be structured so the public rents the building, the desks, the computers, even the employees are contract workers, not public employees…and “rents” are where it’s at with the .01%. Even better, since all children must go to school, those rents are now guaranteed! Recession, depression, high interest rates, low rates, bonds are up, bonds are down….none of that matters if one owns the building, the books, the employees, the rest rooms, the chalkboard and the chalk….and the public must pay the rents.
Here’s another bit of anecdotal trivia. In the town of Franklin, where I lived, I asked each person running for the school board “What does dissemination mean, relative to our Charter school”, and not one could answer.