7 Comments

1. 

   Thomas Friedman on August 25, 2020 at 10:40 pm

   Why didn’t 4th-MA candidates Jesse Mermell and Becky Grossman do the right thing – disavow the Emily’s List PAC attack on Alan Khazei and Jake Auchincloss weeks ago when they first appeared and they knew they were false? This would have been the ethical action to have taken. Instead, the attacks have continue thru social media ads and flyers day after day, with the worse to come. In the case of Mermell, she is the largest beneficiary of these PAC attacks since her campaign and recent TV ad have focused on reproductive rights while she has talked up her former leadership position at Planned Parenthood. Mermell’s lack of action to correct the record for voters is particularly disturbing but consistent with her negative, narcissistic campaign. How can we trust her to be truthful if elected?

2. 

   Greg Reibman on August 26, 2020 at 10:11 am

   The loss of the local editorials and endorsements is a real blow. Back in my days at the TAB, we took this process really seriously, inviting candidates in for endorsement interviews followed by — as Gail can tell you — serious deliberations (frequent disagreements) over our endorsements,

   We didn’t make a lot of friends through the process. Someone was always hurt, disappointed and sometimes angry…and I’m not just talking about the candidates! But I think that extra level of scrutiny is good for the process. It made the candidates better and they discussed issues with more depth than you’ll get from a League of Women voters forum. (And imagine: followup questions!_

   It also meant that editors had a chance to meet the people who were about to be elected or not, which informed our reporting decisions once they were in office.

3. 

   Paul Levy on August 26, 2020 at 10:26 am

   Greg,

   I agree that the process you and other local editors used was helpful to the electorate, but you were engaged and had a wealth of institutional memory about local affairs. Truly, the folks editing papers today often are not and do not. I’d rather not hear from them, as their endorsements would be more likely to come from personal connections or business interests, rather than reflecting the public good.

   • 

     Greg Reibman on August 26, 2020 at 11:00 am

     Totally agree Paul. The erosion of our local press resources has made this untenable. Not only do we have a revolving door of front line editors but these folks don’t have publishers or other managers who are connected to the community who are watching their back.

4. 

   Michael on August 26, 2020 at 10:43 am

   I remember the day in high school when I woke up to Gary Lapierre on my AM alarm clock announcing that the New York Times was buying the Globe. Who could have foreseen that 27 years later, and 17 years after their Catholic sex abuse Pulitzer, the paper would be endorsing candidates selected by Linda Pizzuti Henry, of all people. What hath God wrought?

   Auchincloss, from a Massachusetts clan with long ties to the Kennedys, also has family help in more than name alone. His parents have given heavily to a super PAC that also includes powerful Boston power brokers like Robert Kraft and John Connors and that has spent $139,200 in support of his candidacy so far. The former Marine captain has also come under scrutiny for a recent Boston Globe endorsement that current and former members of the Globe’s newsroom and editorial board described to The Intercept as an unprecedented rupture from the paper’s editorial norms. Auchincloss’s mother, Dr. Laurie Glimcher, who holds the title of president and CEO at Boston’s Dana–Farber Cancer Institute, is a close friend, ally, and frequent collaborator with Linda Henry, the managing director and owner of the newspaper. Henry is regularly involved in editorial board decisions but has failed to offer a disclosure on her relationship with Glimcher or her role in the rocky process that led to the board’s endorsement.

   That also explains Kevin Cullen’s ridiculous puff piece last September, which he based on a single introductory breakfast with Jake. Hmm, I wonder who set up the breakfast?

   Now that Linda has successfully scared away the handful of remaining subscribers like me, Boston is left with two newspapers that nobody reads, so Beacon Hill should henceforth be able to get away with anything it wants.

5. 

   Greg Reibman on August 26, 2020 at 2:59 pm

   @Michael: As far as I know, it’s never been confirmed that Linda Henry had any role in that endorsement, so I’d urge you and others to not state it as a fact.

   On the other hand, owners of newspapers do have the prerogative to have their views reflected on the editorial page. It is, in fact, the way it has worked for centuries. So even if it were true — and again we don’t know that — it would not be unusual or outside standard practice.

6. 

   Michael on August 26, 2020 at 3:27 pm

   Robert Kuttner, former Globe columnist:

   Given the way the world works, it is just not believable that Glimcher, whose family is bankrolling her son’s campaign, would not want to promote his candidacy. Nor, given the close connection between the Globe and the Jimmy Fund, do I believe that Glimcher has only the most casual acquaintance with the Henrys. At the level of elites, Boston is a very small town. And it doesn’t get much cozier than the Sox and Dana-Farber.

   At other great papers, notably The New York Times and The Washington Post, the wife of the owner does not sit in on editorial meetings and look over the shoulders of the editors. When such things occur, explicit directives are not required.