Richard Chacon - The Ombudsman: The Globe-Sox connection

This was posted in last Sunday's news links, and I was surprised that it didn't generate any discussion. I'm reposting it, and will add the second installment when the Globe publishes that in next week or so, because the next column will address issues regarding Globe writers and the ownership of the Sox.

Here are excerpts from the first column:

I COLLECTED various questions and comments from Globe readers during the summer about the paper's coverage of the Boston Red Sox. I chose to wait until the end of the season to offer what I originally thought would be a look back at how the Globe followed the World Series champions -- as a sports team and as a major local institution.

After several interviews with Globe executives, editors, columnists, and reporters, it became clear that this issue is more complicated and sensitive than a single column could contain, mostly because of the corporate ties that exist between the paper and the team.

This is the first installment of a two-part examination -- starting with a look at the Globe's corporate ties to the Red Sox. The second column will address readers' questions on the newspaper's coverage.


...

But this investment, now three years old, still irks many newsroom employees, who think it is a conflict of interest for the Globe to have a financial stake in an organization that it's supposed to cover objectively. From a purely journalistic point, they're right.


...


I have found that the Globe's integrity remains -- for the most part -- well preserved on this matter. But I believe there have been some missteps. I'll present the business-side error here; the news coverage will be reviewed in two weeks.


...

Earlier this year, eight Times Co. executives -- including Gilman and Daniels -- received World Series rings from the Red Sox. (The other six were from New York.)

Times Co. policy, which applies to all Globe employees, states that business gifts must be ''nominal in value," not exactly how I would describe a diamond-encrusted ring.


...

The ideal gesture -- and the best example for Globe employees -- would have been for the publisher and president to respectfully decline the jewelry, recognizing the possible harm it could cause to readers' opinions of the Globe.

The next best move would be to give the rings back.

Is it mere coincidence that most of the stories in recent years have tended to be negative towards players who management has decided to move somewhere else? Maybe it is just a mistaken perception that many of us have regarding this issue! Whether it be some comments about Nomar, Pedro, Manny or Theo, there has seemed to this individual somewhat of a bias towards management's point of view. I found it interesting in this Sunday's online version of the Globe that even CBH has gotten into the act, which I find surprising. But, it is about who is giving you the information, what information they are giving you and the purpose of giving you that information, isn't it!
Not only the newpaper but NESN comes into play here as well. What with the firing of Sean McDonough, the access that they have to interview players, etc. The relationship with the major newspaper in the city, the ownership of the television station that brings the vast majority of their games leaves only the radio market for them to control. Maybe they already do that as well for many times the WEEI shows seem to be where a lot of management leaks originate.
Was JH's claim that it wasn't anyone in the team's front office that leaked yesterday's Manny story enough for all of us to say, whoops! Boy did we get that wrong, sorry, JH! I don't think so!

My thoughts exactly... I cannot help but think that there are some leaks about "inside information" to some Globe writers or Boston.com staffers, including the Dirt Dog. The relationship is just too close. It will be interesting to read what the Ombudsman has to say next Sunday about issues concerning the news staff and the Red Sox.

Regarding Sean McDonough, I posted this in the news links on October 2:

John Craig, Globe - Odd man out of broadcast booth; McDonough riled over loss of Red Sox job

McDonough concedes that his frank discussions of the sale of the Red Sox during his stint as talk show host on all-sports radio station WWZN (1510-AM) could have triggered his demise.

After the Henry group purchased the Red Sox in early 2002, McDonough publicly questioned whether the new ownership, after shelling out a record $700 million for the franchise, would be willing to spend the hefty sums needed to field a competitive team. He also speculated that Major League Baseball had rigged the sale so that Henry would prevail over other suitors.

It was tough talk from the mouth of a prospective employee, and the Sox new owner apparently listened closely. One afternoon on WWZN, as McDonough discussed the sale, Henry dropped by the studio unannounced to offer an on-air rebuttal. The new owner was friendly but firm, McDonough recalled.

Lucchino, in an interview last week, emphasized that the decision to drop McDonough was made by NESN.

''I don't recall that his comments on [WWZN] were any factor," he said, adding that financial considerations were the primary issue.

Didn't they get rid of Bob Rogers (I think that is his name) because he wasn't afraid to speak out about the team/organization? He was the NESN host. I have a bad memory so maybe him leaving had nothing to do with anything....

I thought Rodgers was the guy they fired because he left spring training to coach a high school game.

Bob Rogers was fired because he left Spring Training to coach in a high school basketball game. He was supposed to be doing an interview in Ft. Myers, when he took off for a day. NESN may have been looking for a reason to let him go because of his tendency to speak his mind, and this, apparently, was "it".

Anni

I know thousands out there in Red Sox Nation like Mr. Orsillo and I have nothing against him either but the whole presentation of the game to me leaves much more to be desired. I would kindly call it fluff! I remember that one game the owners dropped by to present the Wally doll with a WS trophy, I guess I just miss Sean's willingness to be critical at times when we are all thinking the same thing.
Whether or not the new ownership wishes to control all the news coming out about the team is the issue and if the majority of the fans are content with that I guess we are whistling in the wind. But how much is too much. They have control of the TV, major paper, Yawkey Way now most of Boylston Street near the park and even it looks like some of Kenmore Sq, in the near future. I guess if you were them and you wanted to expand your revenues as much as possible you would do like-wise but there is the other side to all this!

1. Re: The TV coverage -- I say do whatever it takes to lock up Eck to a long term deal as the postgame guy, and I'll be happy. In the end, I think fans generally want their home broadcast to be done by people who sound like they are also fans of the team. Now, to me Orsillo/Remy may not be as critical of the Sox as some of us might be as fans -- but they certainly are more objective about the opponent than many of the other broadcasters around the league.

I always liked McDonough's willingness to be critical of umpires, of players, of managers, or whomever else deserved the criticism. But I do think he became a bit more negative in his later years with the team. So much so that I didn't want him back? No, not at all. I think he's a very good broadcaster. But I can't really object to a team wanting a generally positive spin coming out of its TV/radio broadcasts -- which are essentially a marketing tool and revenue source. And I think that's true around sports, whether or not the team has a stake in its broadcast partner.

2. Re: The Globe - this is more of a concern. A game broadcast isn't necessarily journalism, per se. Newspaper coverage is supposed to be.

I think it's more a concern at the top editorial levels than ground level, though. I don't think Gordon Edes walks into the Red Sox clubhouse with the sense that Johnny Damon and Manny Ramirez are his co-workers.

Speaking from experience: In my past life as a (less rambling than I am today) freelance writer, I know for a fact (unspoken fact), for example, that there were feature stories that I did that were directly tied to advertising. A record label buys a nice full page ad and, well, sure, we'll put your band on the cover. But I wasn't seeing that money (believe me, I wasn't seeing that money), I had nothing to do with the editorial decision, and whether I was writing a story on its merits or simply because of some backdoor payola had absolutely no effect on how I went about my job.

I expect that it's the same for the beat writers and columnists at the Globe. If there is corporate synergy at the top levels, that doesn't mean that it affects the people on the ground level -- any more than a writer for Entertainment Weekly or Time gives a second thought to whether a new movie is a Warner Bros. production. Writers are at the mercy of their editors, and editors more and more are at the mercy of their publishers, though -- so it's certainly not a non-issue. But as long as there is some sort of built-in watchdog, I think there are far more troubling examples of journalistic integrity run amok than the Globe's parent company having a small stake in the Red Sox.

FWIW, if there's a certain spin coming from above at the Globe, I'd be even less surprised to find an alternate spin coming from above at the Herald just for the sake of sticking it to the competition...

I think the Red Sox fans want their announcers to sound like other Red Sox fans, that is to recognize when someone makes a good play and to recognize when someone doesn't. When everyone in the stadium and everyone watching on TV sees that Manny trotted down the line, or Trot struck out on a bad pitch, or that Millar gets eaten alive on a ground ball, it would be insulting for the announcers to ignore it or gloss over it. That is the difference between the REd Sox announcers and those for other teams (like the yankees, like the Braves, like the WSox, and certainly the national telecasts). Red Sox fans want their announcers to know what is happening, what is important and what isn't. I can tolerate some homer-isms as long as Remy and Orsillo are allowed to speak critically at times. It does the franchise no good at all to have the most intelligent fan base and a couple of trained seals in booth.

I'm with you. I'd love to see Eck do the post game 5 nights a week, and Disarcina the other night. Jim Rice should revert to his playing days and refuse to appear on camera. Sam Horn? Ka-pow! with a 12-gauge shotgun

Exactly, who among us wants a Red Sox version of Michael Kay handling NESN telecasts?

As for the Globe-Sox connection, I wonder how much noise this would be getting if the Herald weren't lobbing inferences of impropriety all the time.

Today's Globe and Herald illustrate the difference that can give rise to what we are talking about here. The Globe is reporting that a deal is done and will be announced soon. Meanwhile, the Herald is reporting that no decision has been made as of yet. Why is there that difference?

Sunday's Ombudman's column ought to be interesting now...

Let's see. There's no relationship between the Globe writers and columnists and the Sox front office...

We'll see how it all shakes out, but I am tentatively prepared to take back everything I said about how "there might be too close a relationship at the top, but I don't think that it's a problem at the ground level."

And, I am tentatively prepared to take back everything I have ever said to the effect of, "I don't think Shaughnessy is really that bad."

We'll see. Right now, I am very much in the denial phase. I am expecting to wake up tomorrow and find out that it was all a misunderstanding, Theo is back, and Pedro never left.

If the info in the Herald is correct, and Theo walked because of information that Lucchino gave Shaughnessy, the Globe is going to have trouble spinning the story. Right now the Globe is hinting that it was about money. The Herald is saying it's about management styles.

Oh to be a fly on the Ombudsman's wall right now...

Well it is no accident that Theo ran to the Herald to make his annoucement, that is for sure. Clearly trying to send a message.

The tone of Shaughnessy's article was so very glib and condescending. Like Theo was really a little boy without much experience who was not being properly deferential to his mentor. I rarely read his articles, even though he writes well, because he's become a legend in his own mind. He's now gone beyond that to become a mouthpiece for management.

The Herald has long taken the rap of not being a legitimate new source, the NY Post of Boston, yet I now find myself questioning the objectivity of guys like Shaughnessy and Edes. How legit can they be?

What a great thread we have here. It is going to make for some interesting reading in the next week or so. I feel guilty about giving the Globe my money but I feel I have to read. Perhaps I'll just stick to online reading.

This is just a big ol' mess. And a horrible one at that.

Have you had a chance to catch Orsillo in his pregame interviews on EEI? VEry honest and even critical. I think it's just his style not to say such things during the broadcast. He is not afraid to speak his mind otherwise.

I suspect the lights will be buring late on Morrissey Boulevard tonight and there's some fancy tap dancing going on in the sports editor's office.

Why is it ok for the Herald to be Theo's mouthpiece? If one is angered by the Globe serving as Ghost Writers for the Red Sox FO, then why not also be upset that the Herald is doing the same thing by basically giving Theo a forum to get his side out?

If the Globe deserves a spanking then so too does the Herald.

How was the Herald Theo's mouthpiece? He doesn't own a portion of the Herald. There's a big difference between a story and a smear/spin campaign. Shaughnessy's article made Theo look bad and that was intentional I'm sure.

One of Theo's greatest qualitites was always taking the high road, always saying the best possible things about a departing player or coach. He ALWAYS said it the right way. Class, dignity and intellect.

This is not the first time the rapacious media has been used. When Nomar left, I thought the disinformation campaign was disgusting. Same with Manny, now with Theo. This leak was ill-timed and unnecessary....an obvious ploy by an egotist to spin public realtions back in his favor. I find it sickening.

The Globe article was there to rip Theo about how ungrateful he is to the ownership who gave him a shot. I think the Red Sox need to stop lowballing everyone because people get pissed off by that.

I know people are going to say thats part of negotiations but how have they gone so far with Pedro and now Theo. How about you give people who deserve it their money and stop messing around. Its like they try to save money by seeing if people will sign under market value only to get burned in the end.

The leak to the Globe was just stupid though - Theo is about to re-sign and you leak that crap about him? It was unprofessional and I don't blame Theo for leaving.

Anyone read Shaughnessy today? I'm guessing he got more than a little hate mail to his inbox. Dude is backtracking BIG time and trying to dance out of it. What a weasel.

The issue is the Globe's tenure propagating the Red Sox ownership's agenda, not one employee speaking with the Hearald. The Herald is on the outside looking in. The Herald has no financial ties to the ownership. Globe/NESN/Red Sox = media monopoly. Big difference.

Scott Van Voorhis on the topic in today's Herald:

Cozy Sox-Globe ties called into question

The Globe’s reporting, including an apparently premature story yesterday that Epstein had reached a three-year deal, raises serious questions about the role those ownership ties may have played in the paper’s reporting, media experts said.

“It is an inherent conflict of interest,” said Andrew Schwartzman, chief executive of Media Access Project. “There is a tension between the demands to generate business synergy and the increasing pressure that media companies have to maintain public trust.”


...

“This is the problem with conglomerated media. When the ownership of media companies have separate interests . . . there is a tendency to compromise the reporting,” said Timothy Karr of Washington, D.C. media watchdog group Free Press. “A lot of journalists will tell you there is a Chinese wall that separates the newsroom from the corporate side. We have found repeatedly over the past few years that that is not the case.”

CHB called in to Dennis and Callahan... and they are killing him.

Good.

callers are going to weigh in now with Shaugnessy

I honestly think that Steinberg was the inside source that supplied the information to CHB. I have a major problem with the guys at WEEI criticizing the Globe. Isn't WEEI the flagship station of the Sox? Do people really know what that means? It means that WEEI is the largest sponsor of the Sox. They have to pay millions of dollars for the air rights to the Sox games. It's basically the pot calling the kettle black.

<insert mean-spirited comment about that trio here>

I must confess... I did turn it on in the car. And thoughts of pots and kettles danced through my brain.

Scott Van Voorhis in the Nov. 2 Herald:

Globe, Sox put ‘sin’ in synergy

The Boston Globe may now be finding out what other newspapers and media companies have already discovered: Owning a professional sports team can be bad news.

....

The gathering consensus in Red Sox Nation – as judged by talk radio, angry bloggers and even some media critics and business scholars – is that the spoon-fed story, along with Lucchino’s missteps, combined to throw the Sox front office into disarray.

It’s a case of corporate synergy turned upside down.

“In a large market like Boston, it’s hard to understand why you would take the heat that comes with owning a . . . piece of the Red Sox,” said Marc Ganis of Chicago-based Sports Corp., a sports business consulting firm.

Doesn't the Herald also have a vested interest in running stories which make their chief competitor look bad? If the Globe's credibility is damaged, the Herald will definitely benefit.

JD

No question. Think of the Herald and Globe as the Republicans and Democrats, literally. The Herald is seizing the obvious political/public relations opportunity of attacking the Globe on this. Just keep that in mind when reading their version of things.

Except that there IS a conflict of interest, because the Globe DOES have a stake in the Red Sox. You can't dispute that much.

They clearly do. My purpose in posting links from "both sides" is to provide balance. If I posted one side only, I'd be guilty of the same thing...

Anni

I had no doubt about that, Anni. I was only trying to point out that the Herald has its own reasons for going after this story in a big way and for potentially taking an anti-Globe, anti Lucchino angle, yet some folks are acting as if they are the second coming of Edward R. Murrow because they are supporting Theo's side. Let's all be realistic about what is going on here.

JD

From my cursory reading of the Herald and Globe over the last week, it seems that there are some serious deficiencies in the Globe's reporting, which deficiencies point directly to its partnership with the Red Sox.

COZY RELATIONSHIP #1. The CHB drive-by, wherein CHB basically calls Theo an immature brat who has never done anything and who probably shouldn't even have the job because his entire athletic career consists of playing 2nd base for the Brookline HS Warriors. Oh, and he adds some new info about the Colorado deal, fails to cite sources and then goes on the radio today claiming multiple sources even as he admits that he thinks Lucchino is getting a raw deal and his side should be out there.

On top of this link (admitted by CHB) we have another link between CHB and HWL. Boston Sports Media reported that CHB's daughter got an internship at Werner's production company. I mean, come on. Should we really expect this guy to be anything but a management shill? This is a guy who has done a fair number of rip jobs, some deserved, but many have been 100% inaccurate. Jose Offerman and Carl Everett were shredded by CHB. But David Ortiz's signing was ridiculed by him. Epstein was eviscerated by him. Jerk.

COZY RELATIONSHIP #2. The Chris Snow/Edes article wherein they suggest an agreement on a 3 yr contract had been reached. Obviously, not true. The source on this was obviously someone in the F.O.

Not to mention the never-ending parade of Globe personalities commenting on NESN - also Red Sox/Globe media. When did Chris Snow become the go-to guy on all things Red Sox? Ugh. It's so unseemly, it's hard to take anything they say seriously. Every Red Sox story may well as have been written on Yawkey Way. It's like PRAVDA.

That said, Bob Ryan has managed to maintain his dignity (again). As has Jackie M.

Other cozy relationship: What about Channel 7's relationship with folks in the Sox baseball operations staff? Wendi Nix and Ben Cherington are married, are they not? How credible is her reporting going to be, if she files any reports at all.

It seems that Wendi Nix has stayed out of this story so far.

Don't know if this has been posted yet(sorry if it has), but it's another devastating look at the CHB...including a rather interesting allegation about his daughter and Tom Werner.


http://www.sheriffsully.com/2005/11/01/a-few-bad-men/

I agree.

I have no problem reading the Globe knowing that they have a stake in the Sox, I love their sports coverage and various writers, I guess one must simply take their opinions with a grain knowing the relationship they have.

I was really hoping that Wendi was somehow involved in a love triangle. It didnt matter who the other two were.

But, alas, there was nothing.

interesting indeed.....

if true (and i'm not saying it isn't) shaughnessy should offer to resign....IMO, a clear violation of professional ethics......or is that a contradiction?.......


edit: spelin

To me Schilling is a god for throwing CHB under the bus on sportcenter and Dennis and Callahan. Love the guy more now than when he pitched game 6 with a bloody freakin ankle.

Oh, and if true, Shaughnessy should have to resign for integrity purposes if his daughter got an internship job b/c of Werner.

Then CJ, I would assume that you were upset when Sean McDonough landed the Red Sox play by play job? He got a huge assist from his Dad Wil, who used his considerable gravitas to convince the Sox they should give Sean a chance.

Really? Is there a link to an audio?

Yeah I'd love to hear what was said.

WEEI's Audio Vault. Enjoy.

The new ombudsman column...

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...vering_red_sox/

In a nutshell...



Notably absent in the column - an analysis of CHB's role in the leaks.

of course not Ghost......and i am, in general terms, all for the old boy network ....i just despise shaughnessy .......gifted writer using his talent, not to better mankind, but to destroy it.....and to profit while he's at it......he is evil i say, EVIL!...and must be stop through any means necessary.....

okay, that felt good.....what where you asking?......

From the Sunday, Nov. 6 Globe - the second installment of the Ombudsman's discussion of Sox ownership issues at the Globe. Since he wrote the first column two weeks ago things changed a bit after l'affaire Theo.

Richard Chacón - The Ombudsman: Ownership creates challenges in covering Red Sox


FOR AN ombudsman, last week was pretty close to The Perfect Storm.

The beloved general manager of the Red Sox resigned. Critics accused the Globe of supporting the owners who let him go. Angry e-mails descended like hungry locusts.

All this happened while I was already preparing an examination of the Globe's coverage of the team in which the newspaper's owner, The New York Times Co., holds a 17 percent stake.

...

Globe sports editor Joe Sullivan summed up the general newsroom attitude.

''We're uncomfortable with the relationship, but that's never been a factor in our coverage of the Red Sox," Sullivan said two weeks ago. ''I challenge anyone to say we don't cover the team aggressively."

Readers upset over Theo Epstein's resignation as Red Sox GM blamed the Globe for publishing leaks sympathetic to Sox owners that prompted his departure. Epstein told a press conference on Wednesday that the coverage was not the reason he resigned.

...

However, the sourcing and attribution on some of the Globe's Epstein-related stories were often vague, leaving readers to wonder if an assertion was true or if the Globe was reporting someone's spin.

The private nature of the negotiations forced reporters to rely on secondary sources for information. But the early editions of Monday's story that Epstein and the Red Sox had agreed on a contract -- which turned out to be wrong -- had no attribution at all. Later editions of the story were updated citing ''multiple Major League sources," a description some readers noted could have included Red Sox owners.

...

Those disclosures did not appear in last week's news stories on Epstein's contract talks. Since such developments can impact the team's finances, the disclosure should be required in stories about Red Sox contracts.

The rule should also apply to the stories written by the staff of the Globe's website, boston.com, which didn't mention the disclosure in any of its pieces.


And NOT a word about Shaughnessy's column....