What thinking person could believe in the journalistic integrity of a newspaper that produces a gushing hardcover valentine to Ted Kennedy (as if its obsequious daily coverage isn't enough)? The Globe has long abused its monopoly on the Commonwealth's print media. Now, competition from alternative media is toppling the Globe from its heretofore lofty perch. As the old saying goes, today's peacock is tomorrow's feather duster. Au revoir.
PETER J. COTCH
MOST TROUBLED enterprises attempt to identify fundamental problems with their business. But, apparently, not The Boston Globe. Of more than 300 online comments to the April 4 story "Times Co. threatens to shut Globe, seeks $20m in cuts from unions," an overwhelming majority stated that the Globe's pervasive liberal bias is a major problem with respect to the paper's survival. Yet in a follow-up piece on April 5, "Many worry, a few shrug, but most adamant that the city needs its major daily newspaper," the reporters seem to suggest that this is simply an issue for a few conservative cranks: "Critics of the Globe, especially in anonymous comments posted on the newspaper's website, said the newspaper was falling victim . . . to what they called its own 'liberal bias,' though they did not provide specific examples."
Could any other enterprise afford to dismiss feedback of this kind?
An April 5 companion piece "What they're saying" quotes from Senator John Kerry, Lieutenant Governor Timothy Murray, and others, who uniformly bemoan the potential demise of the Globe. Yet each of those quoted has a vested interest in receiving the Globe's editorial blessing.
The Globe's denial regarding the strong liberal bias that permeates all facets of its product is a fascinating study in the destructive nature of institutional hubris.