Mike Barnicle -- the facts of the case
Elisabeth Anne Riba
and whether the Boston Globe overreacted in asking for his resignation.
So, I did some digging on the Internet and in the Globe archives.
Here is the story, as far as I've been able to tell.
FACT: 1973: Mike Barnicle started work for the Boston Globe
FACT: 1979: Barnicle "was invited on a congressional trip to Southeast
Asia and offered to write about it for the paper. According to
Barnicle, the Globe declined.
"Barnicle took vacation time and went on the trip anyway, writing
articles for James Bellows, then the editor of The Los Angeles Herald
Examiner. One of those articles ended up on the front page of The Boston
Herald American, the Globe's arch-rival, according to both men.
"Writing for the competition is forbidden by most newspapers."(1)
ALLEGED: 1990: "Attorney Alan Dershowitz had accused Barnicle of
falsely attributing a racist quote to him. Neither Barnicle nor the
Globe retracted the column, but in a confidential legal settlement
reached after his complaint, the Globe agreed to pay Dershowitz
$75,000, according to a lawyer who has been briefed on the matter."(2)
FACT: 1990: During the Charles Stuart murder case, "Barnicle wrote one
article no other reporter could confirm. Under a banner headline, he
reported that the Prudential Insurance Co. had issued a check for
$480,000 to Stuart, in payment of a life insurance policy for his
wife, Carol DeMaiti Stuart. The day the article ran, the company
denied it. No similar check has been found. The Globe, which has
occasionally corrected other facts in Barnicle's columns over the
years, ran no correction.
"Greg Moore, the Globe's managing editor, said last week, 'Our
reporting on the Carol Stuart case after Charles Stuart committed
suicide still stands, except for the $480,000 check. I don't think
anyone involved in that case thinks we shouldn't have corrected it.'"(3)
ALLEGED: 1991: "Boston Magazine examined one of Barnicle's articles
and could find no evidence that two characters in it ever existed. In
the article, Barnicle was quoted as telling the reporter that he had
given one of the people he had written about the magazine's telephone
number. 'If he wants to talk to you, he'll call you,' he was quoted as
saying."(4)
ALLEGED: 1992: Chicago columnist Mike Royko accused Barnicle of
plagiarizing several columns.
That's all history. Although the above incidents bear no relevance to the
current case, it demonstrates that Barnicle's reputation was already
shaky. Those who have said that first time offenders deserve leniency
can see that the Globe has been very lenient towards Barnicle's first
offenses.
Now let's look at how this week's situation developed.
1998:
FACT: June 19th, the Boston Globe asks Patricia Smith to resign for
fabricating people and quotations in her stories. She does. The
Globe announces a review of all columnists' articles for accuracy,
including Barnicle's.
FACT: June 21st, the Boston Globe reports that they completed a review
of all Mike Barnicle's columns back to January 1990, and gives him a
clean bill of health. However, in the wake of the Patricia Smith
scandal, the Globe announces they will be scrutinizing all columns
more closely.
FACT: June 22nd: On the WCVB program "Chronicle," Barnicle holds up a
copy of George Carlin's book "Brain Droppings" and says about it: "A
yuk on every page."
QUESTION: Did Barnicle read the book or not? His language on the show
gave the impression that he had. Barnicle now claims he hadn't. This
means he either misled the viewers of the show or he is lying
now. Either way, he was false.
ALLEGED: Barnicle claims to have gotten a list of jokes, which
included several very similar to lines in "Brain Droppings."
The source of this list is uncertain:
According to the Washington Post, "before the punishment was decided,
Barnicle said in an interview that a bartender had given him the jokes
and that he did not know they came from the Carlin book."(5)
According to the Boston Globe, "Barnicle told the Globe he had
received the column material from friends and was unaware that it had
come from Carlin's book."(6)
According to the Boston Herald, "Barnicle said he hadn't read the
book and that friends gave him the jokes."(7)
QUESTION: So what was it -- one friend, many friends, a bartender, a
friend who tends bar?? His story doesn't seem to add up. This
discrepency has been noticed by others, as evidenced by the following
quote: "One staffer said Barnicle gave the editors conflicting
accounts of how he got the one-liners: 'First it was two people who
gave him the stuff. Then it was one person. He made a representation
he didn't know about the book. He clearly didn't tell the truth. I'm
stunned that Barnicle shot himself in the temple.' In yesterday's
interview, Barnicle repeated that he still believes the material came
from a bartender."(8)
FACT: Sunday, August 2, Barnicle writes a column titled "I was just
thinking" He intersperses these quotes with his other observations.
The column's title give the impression that the article contains
Barnicle's own thoughts and words. There are 38 jokes in the column,
and ten of them (more than a quarter of the article) came from his
"friend's" list. Barnicle provides no attribution for these quotes,
not even mentioning they weren't his. Several of the jokes use the
first person singular ("I hate it when..." "But I think..." "I don't
get it..." and so on) giving further impression that these are
Barnicle's ideas.
QUESTION: Did he ever ask the friend where these jokes came from?
Everything written has an author, unless you believe there's 1000
monkeys typing away out there. If he knew that his friend didn't write
the jokes, aren't there official fact checkers at the Globe who could
have researched it for him?
FACT: A Globe reader recognizes the quotes from Carlin's book. Monday
night he contacts the Globe, and Tuesday morning notifies the Herald.
FACT: Wednesday: Boston Globe editors meet with Barnicle for several
hours to discuss the incident. Matt Storin, Mike Barnicle's boss,
interrupts his vacation in Europe to attend the meeting via conference
call. Barnicle holds to his story that a friend forwarded the jokes
to him and he was "stupid" to reprint them without checking first.
They agree that one month suspension is suitable punishment for his
offense. Barnicle never mentions the Chronicle story.
FACT: After the Globe announces the decision to suspend him, WCVB runs
the tape of Barnicle with the book.
QUESTION: Did Barnicle forget about his endorsement on Chronicle or
did he deliberately hide this from his editors?
QUESTION: If you were accused of copying from a book you never read,
wouldn't you pick up the book to see if there's any validity? Even if
you hadn't read the book, wouldn't you recognize the cover? Even if
he didn't remember the Chronicle incident, it should've looked
familiar enough to know he had *some* contact with the book.
FACT: After the WCVB tape is revealed, the Globe asks for Barnicle's
resignation. In the words of Matt Storin, he "misrepresented himself
either to his television audience or his editors; this contradiction
is unacceptable."
FACT: The story of Barnicle's plagiarism is reported nationwide on
television, radio and newspapers.
FACT: Thursday, Barnicle announces that he refuses to resign. The
story continues to play in newspapers, television and radio shows.
FACT: Friday morning, Barnicle met with the publisher. Neither party
will comment about what happened, and the status quo remains.
We will probably remain in this standoff (Globe demanding Barnicle's
resignation and Barnicle refusing) until Matt Storin returns from
vacation.
Those are the facts. Here are my opinions and interpretations:
Frankly, It doesn't look good for Barnicle.
If you check the definition of plagiarism in writing books or academic
codes, Barnicle's actions are clearly plagiarism. Students who
plagiarize can be and have been punished by failing grades (for the
plagiarized work or for the entire course), dismissal from the student
magazine (if that's where the offense occurred) and even expulsion.
Barnicle is a veteran journalist with twenty-five years of experience.
Shouldn't professionals be held to the same code of conduct as
students, if not higher?
And, frankly, if a student came to a teacher with a similar story,
would you believe it?
"These quotes in your story are very similar to this book."
"A friend gave them to me; I never read the book."
"This videotape shows you recommending the book to others."
"Yeah, but I never read the book when I spoke about it."
Sorry, but I can't quite buy it. To paraphrase Mary Malmros(9), at
best, Barnicle was recklessly careless. At worst, he plagiarized,
plain and simple.
Second, Mike Barnicle is a journalist, not an entertainer. He may be
an entertaining journalist, but nonetheless, a journalist first and
foremost. There is a difference between rumor and reporting, between
the tabloid Globe and the Boston Globe. That difference is
credibility, which is earned. Journalists all do their part to
maintain the reputation of the profession, because if there's no
respect for the medium, people will stop listening. If you don't
believe me, think about the news sources you rely upon and the news
sources that you dismiss. Then ask yourself why you trust some and
not others. I suspect it has to do with believability. And if one
column in a newspaper is false, why should you trust anything else
published in the paper? That's why they had to fire him. And even
among entertainers, there is still the notion of "stealing" somebody
else's jokes.
Now, Barnicle was given a column in the news section as a vehicle to
express his views in "his own literary voice"(10) His current actions
were a dereliction of the duties of his job. He was hired to write,
not to borrow others' words.
Frankly, this whole mess reminds me of the Gary Hart debacle. He KNEW
he was being scrutinized, practically challenged observers to point
out flaws, and then pulls this stupid stunt and acts surprised and
astonished that he's in trouble. The "Boston Herald's Inside Track"
column(11) suggests that Barnicle may have purposely provoked the
editors while Storin was on vacation, assuming he'd win any standoff
and the editor would be forced out.
I don't care how many people call or write to complain; the Globe
cannot let him have his old job back. Newspapers have a certain
ethical standard to uphold, and Barnicle violated that.
I can think of one compromise which might appease both sides. Take
away Barnicle's column in the news section, but give him a spot in the
Sunday Globe Magazine. He's still writing for the Globe (to appease
his fans), yet will no longer be in the newspaper proper (to appease
the critics).
How does that sound?
---------
Information from the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Boston Phoenix, New York
Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post was used in compiling this
report.
Some ideas and words in this document have appeared in an earlier form
in other letters and Usenet posts written by me.
----------
FOOTNOTES:
(1) Felicity Barringer, "Globe Columnist Refuses to Resign," New York
Times, August 7, 1998.
(2) Ibid.
(3) Ibid.
(4) Ibid.
(5) Howard Kurtz, "Boston Globe's Mike Barnicle Told to Resign," Washington
Post, August 6, 1998.
(6) Mark Jurkowitz and Don Aucoin, "Barnicle case stirs reaction;
columnist, publisher set to meet," Boston Globe, August 7, 1998.
(7) Ed Hayward, "Writer draws support form some corners," Boston Herald,
August 7, 1998.
(8) Howard Kurtz, "Boston Globe Columnist Refuses to Resign," Washington
Post, August 7, 1998.
(9) See her excellent posts on the subject in ne.general.
(10) Trudy Lieberman, "Plagiarize, Plagiarize, Plagiarize," Columbia
Journalism Review, July/August 1995. Available: WWW URL:
http://www.cjr.org/html/95-07-08-plagiarize.html
[Note: This is an EXCELLENT article about plagiarism and journalism, and
I highly recommend it to anyone interested in further reading on the
subject.]
(11) Gayle Fee and Laura Raposa, "Feud may have led to Storin scraping
Barnicle off Globe," Boston Herald, August 7, 1998.
--
-------------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@netcom.com <-------------------
"Love wouldn't be blind if the braille weren't so damned much fun."
- Armistead Maupin, "Maybe the Moon"
Barry Shein
I think Ms Riba has a handle on what this is all about. Most
importantly, analyzing this latest incident in a vacuum is doomed to
miss the point.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | b...@world.std.com | http://www.world.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Teacher575
investigating this matter? You've got alot of time on your hands....
Fran G. Pani
Teacher575 <teach...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199808080758...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> Who would care so much about this to go through all that trouble of
> investigating this matter? You've got alot of time on your hands....
>
And thank you very, very much, Elizabeth. It is an interesting and
insightful article, from which I have learned much. Mike Barnicle deserves
what happened to him.
Tomarkfn94
>How does that sound?
Sounds like you work for Howie Carr and the Herald.
pat
Elisabeth Anne Riba
>>I've seen a lot of posts recently asking what Mike Barnicle did wrong,
>(long article snipped)
>>How does that sound?
>Sounds like you work for Howie Carr and the Herald.
Actually, I've been a Globe subscriber (on and off) since I first came to
Boston in '86. I've probably read less than a dozen issues of the Herald
in that time, and many of those were somebody else's copy that I picked up.
Elisabeth Anne Riba
>Who would care so much about this to go through all that trouble of
>investigating this matter? You've got alot of time on your hands....
Frankly, it was easier to write it all down in one long post than write a
separate answer to every misconception that gets posted to the net.
Besides, I wanted to understand the case; if I found information that
exonerated Barnicle, I would've posted that and probably would've changed
my mind. Instead, the more digging I did, the worse his story looked.
As far as time... This took me maybe an hour to research, and I probably
spent another hour polishing it up, adjusting verb tenses and so forth.
[How I did it:]
I had been reading all the articles in the newsgroup about Barnicle, so I
already had most of the basic details. I knew the Globe and Herald would
have the most news coverage on the case, so I checked their websites.
Each had maybe three articles on the story, which I skimmed.
I have access to the online New York Times and Wall Street Journal at
work. A full text search of those databases revealed three articles on
Barnicle, of which only one was really relevant (where I got most of the
pre-1990 history from). I looked up the online Washington Post because
I remember seeing/hearing something interesting in their article (I
either saw it on c-Span or in alt.fan.don-imus)
Then I copied and pasted the relevant quotes, put them in order, voila.
It was really no big deal.
Which is another reason to be disappointed in Barnicle. If it takes me
only an hour or two to compile my article merely for my own satisfaction,
why can't he do the same thing when he's getting paid for it??
sheepdog
teach...@aol.com (Teacher575) wrote:
> Who would care so much about this to go through all that trouble of
> investigating this matter? You've got alot of time on your hands....
Why would anyone be such a pinhead [but I mean that in a NICE way] as to
disparage a thorough, objective [leaning toward being critical of Mr.
Barnicle, but this in the section clearly labeled "opinion"], scholarly
and intelligent overview of the situation.
Congratulations, Elisabeth Anne Riba, and thank you.
--
sheepdog
<wsne...@ethergate.com>
John
Riba) wrote:
>...
>Then I copied and pasted the relevant quotes, put them in order, voila.
>It was really no big deal.
>
>Which is another reason to be disappointed in Barnicle. If it takes me
>only an hour or two to compile my article merely for my own satisfaction,
>why can't he do the same thing when he's getting paid for it??
I had followed about the same course in "researching" this
mini-scandal and it took about the same amount of time. The
difference is the skill you showed in assembling and annotating
the data. And, although my first inclination was to support
Barnicle, the more I read, the shakier his excuses sounded.
I don't think he's a bad evil guy. He is entertaining, but he's a
little less credible a source of facts than I might have thought.
I like your compromise. Have Mike write features in the Sunday
insert.
Regards,
John
sheepdog
One of the problems working-class heroes will always have is that the
[often less-talented] upper-crusties absolutely despise them, see them as
a threat to the status quo, and will lurk forever in order to get the
knife in when the opportunity presents itself. Too bad having one's heart
in the right place is no substitute for having the proper pedigree.
MB acknowledges his error, may have fudged when first called on it, but
has more integrity in his cigar butt than many of his highpowered enemies
have in their entire bloated, pampered, self-indulgent, -righteous,
-absorbed, and -centered; two-pager-wearing, seen-at-all-the-right-places
bodies.
The world would be a better place with several more Mike Barnicles, and
one fewer Alan Dershowitz.
And that's the facts of THAT case.
--
sheepdog
<wsne...@ethergate.com>
Imagine963
>From: "Fran G. Pani " <dgloe...@worldnet.att.net>
>Date: 8/8/98 10:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <01bdc2da$75e76540$2eda4d0c@carolyn>
>> investigating this matter? You've got alot of time on your hands....
>>
>
>insightful article, from which I have learned much. Mike Barnicle deserves
>what happened to him.
>
>
to be more to this. Interesting.
Liza
John
detractors, and that Dershowitz make even most other lawyers look
good I must ask ...
On Sat, 08 Aug 1998 09:12:24 -0700, dogseatspam&ba...@moon.com
(sheepdog) wrote:
>
>One of the problems working-class heroes will always have is that the
>[often less-talented] upper-crusties absolutely despise them, see them as
>a threat to the status quo, and will lurk forever in order to get the
>knife in when the opportunity presents itself. Too bad having one's heart
>in the right place is no substitute for having the proper pedigree.
What the hell does that mean?
The problem is, that illogical statements like the diatribe above
are not anymore helpful to Mike's case than were Mike's little
evasions.
Bubba claims to have his heart in the right place, it isn't a
very strong argument in Mike's favor to "have his heart in the
right place" because it begs the question, "Does that justify
everything?"
Regards,
John
John Reder
>
> I've seen a lot of posts recently asking what Mike Barnicle did wrong,
> and whether the Boston Globe overreacted in asking for his resignation.
What Barnicle did, quite simply, would be equivalent to Al Gore today,
being alone in a room with an intern. Barnicle let himself become the
journalistic Gary Hart.
Considering the low standing of journalists today, the globe had a
right to let him go, just for being a moron. If the job description is
to express intelligent ideas and learned comments , you unqualified
yourself by being stupid.
If Siskel and Ebert reviewed films they didn't see, you would have a
problem with that. What is different about recommending a book you
didn't read. He got paid, I would hope, to read the books and comment on
them.
I have more problem with 5 keeping him than the Globe dumping
him. Now I know that they don't care if he reads a book before
recommending it, maybe I have to think they don't really care how much
"investigation" they put into an investigative report. They put
themselves in the position of me having to ask, "Did you really check it
out, or did you just go on what you think happened?". Journalism can't
afford to do that.
Twodobes
>Date: 8/8/98 2:15 PM EST
>Message-id: <35CCA3...@yahoo.com>
You are correct sir. WCVB's ability to do an investigative report is nil.
Peace
John Kenney
Boston MA USA
Ron Hardin
hardly affects his column, which is pure sappiness aimed at women.
Look at it this way: once you have a huge population, everything
that can happen, happens somewhere. Every story is true.
What's lacking isn't the truth of a this or that matter but any
idea of its importance.
What the Herald should to is do a superBarnicle column, even sappier
than Barnicle's, as satire of this genre.
The idea of serious journalism is another fiction, but that's another
matter. Think of seriousness as just one way to be frivolous,
one of its varieties. ``As anyone can see, I am a serious journalist.''
Please.
What seriousness pretends to be does occur, but only by accident,
and rarely, and even then it is not final.
--
Ron Hardin
r...@research.att.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
Leslie
>
> Elisabeth Anne Riba wrote:
> >
> > I've seen a lot of posts recently asking what Mike Barnicle did wrong,
> > and whether the Boston Globe overreacted in asking for his resignation.
>
<<<snipping some good and thoughtful stuff, which I enjoyed reading>>>>
I lived in Boston for 15 years, and was a Globe reader. In Boston,
white collars read the globe, blue read the Herald, except that when
there's a particularly gorey murder or generally icky breaking news
(like the Barnicle story) everybody reads both papers.
Mike Barnicle was the Globe's nod to blue collarism. Nobody could tell
a two-cops-Dunkin' Donuts - poor street person - sleazebag lawyer-
anguished widow story any better. Notice I do not say "write" those
stories better. His column was often a talking point for the day.("Did
you see
Barnicle about that poor homeless kid who got thrown out of Back Bay
Station for looking dirty?" or whatever.)
Thing is, Barnicle wrote from a righteous indignation point of view.
Are you an underdog? Barnicle's your best friend. He could have
written a real tear-jerker about some poor comedian, who has seen more
successful
days, writing terrific funny stuff which then gets ripped off and
unattributed by a fat, big-market feature columnist who calls himself a
journalist, yadayadayada.
Boston must be really buzzing about this one. Makes me quite homesick
for a ride on the Greenline from Boston College to Park Street, just for
the convo.
By the way, I'm very greatful to Elisabeth for sharing her assemblage of
the story
facts. Elisabeth, I hope you're putting all that together for a piece
and shopping it around. Salon, on the Web, would be a perfect place for
it.
Leslie Harder
John
I haven't been able to listen to a political speech for fifty
years without cringing and "hard news" has become a matter of
reading lots of stuff and mentally flushing 95% of it, hoping to
retain some "truth."
Regards,
John
John
>On Sat, 08 Aug 1998 21:11:18 GMT, jbg...@lancnews.infi.net (John)
>wrote:
>What so sad about the truth...
>
>
>B@N.L? - I Like'Em Bodacious Never Loquacious
Is that a trick question?
John
>On Sat, 8 Aug 1998 03:08:48 GMT, l...@netcom.com (Elisabeth Anne Riba)
>wrote:
>
>>I've seen a lot of posts recently asking what Mike Barnicle did wrong,
>
>[snip]
>
>This is one time I can deal with the violation of crosspost
>netiquette. Very well done. The Barnicle incident is just a small
>example of the clusterf*ck that the media of this country has got us
>in. Tamp up the solids and let's expose the more serious offenders and
>not just the merely careless. Who's next?
>
>
>B@N.L? - I Like'Em Bodacious Never Loquacious
Now that's a shot amidships! You got 'em BLT, dead center.
Sloth is on thing, Carville is another.
John
(John) wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Aug 1998 18:41:05 -0400, B@N.L wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 8 Aug 1998 03:08:48 GMT, l...@netcom.com (Elisabeth Anne Riba)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I've seen a lot of posts recently asking what Mike Barnicle did wrong,
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>This is one time I can deal with the violation of crosspost
>>netiquette. Very well done. The Barnicle incident is just a small
>>example of the clusterf*ck that the media of this country has got us
>>in. Tamp up the solids and let's expose the more serious offenders and
>>not just the merely careless. Who's next?
>>
>>
>>B@N.L? - I Like'Em Bodacious Never Loquacious
>
>Now that's a shot amidships! You got 'em BLT, dead center.
>
>Sloth is on thing, Carville is another.
one thing, one thing, one thing
There I think I have it.
Twodobes
>Date: 8/8/98 11:21 AM EST
>Message-id: <35d27974...@news.norfolk.infi.net>
John's right. MB has little integrity left (& I like the guy!)
He's an entertainer, not a newsman. Not a credible columnist. I've bumped
into him a few times and he's a regular guy (even if he did grow up with a
silver foot in his mouth.)
Ta.
Twodobes
>Date: 8/8/98 5:41 PM EST
>Message-id: <35ced322...@news.erols.com>
>
>On Sat, 8 Aug 1998 03:08:48 GMT, l...@netcom.com (Elisabeth Anne Riba)
>wrote:
>
>>I've seen a lot of posts recently asking what Mike Barnicle did wrong,
>
>[snip]
>
>This is one time I can deal with the violation of crosspost
>netiquette. Very well done. The Barnicle incident is just a small
>example of the clusterf*ck that the media of this country has got us
>in. Tamp up the solids and let's expose the more serious offenders and
>not just the merely careless. Who's next?
>
>
>B@N.L? - I Like'Em Bodacious Never Loquacious
BLT----one can only hope it's Dershowitz.
Twodobes
>Date: 8/8/98 3:37 PM EST
>Message-id: <35CCB7...@alaska.net>
>
>John Reder wrote:
>>
>> Elisabeth Anne Riba wrote:
>> >
>> > I've seen a lot of posts recently asking what Mike Barnicle did wrong,
Leslie-
You're a scream and exactly right. Underdog was the mantra and having superior
feelings was the club's secret handshake. Jacoby aside, the Herald's headlines
always diminished better reporting. MB's articles can be parodied....who
else's can? Ron Hardin has it right spot on.
sheepdog
twod...@aol.com (Twodobes) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Mike Barnicle -- the facts of the case
> Peace
> John Kenney
> Boston MA USA
*sigh*
No wonder most people are scared to speak up for someone else these days.
OK, I'm busted. If my defense of Mike Barnicle were being argued in a
court of law, he'd be heading for the slammer right now. I wasn't offering
my comments as a justification for the _Brain Droppings_ fiasco. I was
pointing out that he's made powerful enemies during his career, and that I
like him for his insights and the positions he's taken on issues. That's
what I meant by his heart being in the right place.
For the life of me, Mr. Grosh, I don't know what is illogical about
anything in my post, or how "Bubba" is pertinent.
When you say "MB has little integrity left," Mr. Kenney, I think you mean
his integrity is suspect, or maybe he has little _credibility_ left.
Notice I say "I think." That's because, unlike you two, I'm only reading
and interpreting-- not making ponderous pronouncements, nor assuming
omniscience, nor passing judgement.
--
sheepdog
<wsne...@ethergate.com>
John Reder
"John Reder wrote" nothing quoted here.
Leslie wrote:
>
> John Reder wrote:
> >
> > Elisabeth Anne Riba wrote:
> > >
> > > I've seen a lot of posts recently asking what Mike Barnicle did wrong,
> > > and whether the Boston Globe overreacted in asking for his resignation.
> >
>
> <<<snipping some good and thoughtful stuff, which I enjoyed reading>>>>
>
> I lived in Boston for 15 years, .....
Leslie
>
> As for your following "<snip>" notice; next time snip a little more; as
> "John Reder wrote" nothing quoted here.
>
> Leslie wrote:
> >
> > John Reder wrote:
> > >
> > > Elisabeth Anne Riba wrote:
> > > >
> > > > and whether the Boston Globe overreacted in asking for his resignation.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I lived in Boston for 15 years, .....
Thank you for sharing your chagrin both nation-wide and to my e-mail.
As I remarked in my reply to your e-mail: Oh for heaven's sake, ease
up. Geez.
Ron Hardin
>
> That's a sadly cynical view of the media and a view I hold also.
>
> I haven't been able to listen to a political speech for fifty
> years without cringing and "hard news" has become a matter of
> reading lots of stuff and mentally flushing 95% of it, hoping to
> retain some "truth."
It's not cynical at all, just says what to give weight. Ie., none
for official serious journalism.
If the genre contrives to say, ``as you can see, I am serious
journalism,'' it isn't.
On the other hand, Imus is sometimes genuinely serious.
This is a constant topic for James Thurber.
Adam M Gaffin
>By the way, I'm very greatful to Elisabeth for sharing her assemblage of
>the story
>facts. Elisabeth, I hope you're putting all that together for a piece
>and shopping it around. Salon, on the Web, would be a perfect place for
>it.
>
Thanks to Elisabeth, it's now on the Web at
http://www.boston-online.com/barnicle/timeline.html
--
Adam Gaffin
ad...@world.std.com / (508) 820-7433
Lookee: A new URL for Boston Online!
http://www.boston-online.com
Ron Hardin
> >facts. Elisabeth, I hope you're putting all that together for a piece
> >and shopping it around. Salon, on the Web, would be a perfect place for
> >it.
> >
>
> Thanks to Elisabeth, it's now on the Web at
> http://www.boston-online.com/barnicle/timeline.html
It looks and reads like a hatchet job, as it did the first time.
FACT: it's called the dossier technique, where every instance
of good or praisworthy behavior is omitted from a history,
and every doubtful behavior is included.
Managers also use it to build a case against employees.
Full disclosure: Barnicle's column is sappy and aimed at women,
in my opinion, and ought to be satirized regularly in the Herald
by an even sappier column.
John
>On Sat, 08 Aug 1998 22:46:08 GMT, jbg...@lancnews.infi.net (John)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 08 Aug 1998 18:37:34 -0400, B@N.L wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 08 Aug 1998 21:11:18 GMT, jbg...@lancnews.infi.net (John)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>That's a sadly cynical view of the media and a view I hold also.
>>>>
>>>>I haven't been able to listen to a political speech for fifty
>>>>years without cringing and "hard news" has become a matter of
>>>>reading lots of stuff and mentally flushing 95% of it, hoping to
>>>>retain some "truth."
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>John
>>>
>>>What so sad about the truth...
>>>
>>>
>>>B@N.L? - I Like'Em Bodacious Never Loquacious
>>Is that a trick question?
>
>Nah, rhetorical at best.
>
>
>B@N.L? - I Like'Em Bodacious Never Loquacious
That's too bad! I had a 22 page treatise on Sadness and Truth all
ready to send as an answer.
But I can sum it up in a word Ron brought into fashion, Bathos. I
was exercising bathos. And that *is* sad.
Regards,
John
John
<r...@research.att.com> wrote:
>John wrote:
>>
>> That's a sadly cynical view of the media and a view I hold also.
>>
>> I haven't been able to listen to a political speech for fifty
>> years without cringing and "hard news" has become a matter of
>> reading lots of stuff and mentally flushing 95% of it, hoping to
>> retain some "truth."
>
>It's not cynical at all, just says what to give weight. Ie., none
>for official serious journalism.
>
>If the genre contrives to say, ``as you can see, I am serious
>journalism,'' it isn't.
>
>On the other hand, Imus is sometimes genuinely serious.
>
>This is a constant topic for James Thurber.
There was a two volume set of Thurber's work that I managed to
lose. Would you happen to know of it? I'd like to get it again.
Regards,
John
Ron Hardin
Thurber is constantly being reprinted, and you can buy almost
everything now.
There's a Library of America volume out too, printed on paper
too thin for the cartoons and leaving out a lot of my favorites,
edited by Garrison Keillor, who biases it a little from Thurber's
real interests, but it has a lot.
Check out amazon.com for the ones in print, and
http://www.mxbf.com/
for out of print books. Actually I use ABE a lot but it's included
in the mxbf search now.
Many of the ones I got there are now back in print.
Compare the used ones with libarary editions to see if you want
them.
Leslie
Ron Hardin wrote:
(snip)
> It looks and reads like a hatchet job, as it did the first time.
>
(snip)
>Barnicle's column is sappy and aimed at women,
>in my opinion...
[interjection by Leslie: how DISGUSTING. WOMEN??? UGH!! ICK!!]
> ... and ought to be satirized regularly in the Herald
> by an even sappier column.
> Ron Hardin
> r...@research.att.com
>
> On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
You're wrong there, Ron, I could tell right away. *grin*
Ron Hardin
> >Barnicle's column is sappy and aimed at women,
> >in my opinion...
>
> [interjection by Leslie: how DISGUSTING. WOMEN??? UGH!! ICK!!]
> > ... and ought to be satirized regularly in the Herald
> > by an even sappier column.
Women have a baleful effect on the media. They're coveted by
advertisers, and attracted by soap opera. Who has ever explained this?
They're into stories of inner struggle, soul searching, and
everlasting frustration.
Enter Barnicle.
--
Leslie
Wheras men, on the other hand prefer... ?
Ron Hardin
Attractive babes. They keep aging on you. Fortunately
new ones are always coming along.
If Barnicle did columns on the replacement of old with new
babes, he'd have a following.
Imagine963
>Women have a baleful effect on the media. They're coveted by
>advertisers, and attracted by soap opera. Who has ever explained this?
>
>They're into stories of inner struggle, soul searching, and
>everlasting frustration.
>
>Enter Barnicle.
>--
>Ron Hardin
>r...@research.att.com
<Re-working RH quote:>
>On the internet, nobody knows<for sure if > you're a jerk<but suspicions do
arise from time to time>.
Liza ; )
>
>
>
>
>
>
Charles Demas
Ron Hardin <r...@research.att.com> wrote:
>Leslie wrote:
>>
>> Ron Hardin wrote:
>> >
>> > Leslie wrote:
>> > > >Barnicle's column is sappy and aimed at women,
>> > > >in my opinion...
>> > >
>> > > [interjection by Leslie: how DISGUSTING. WOMEN??? UGH!! ICK!!]
>> > > > ... and ought to be satirized regularly in the Herald
>> > > > by an even sappier column.
>> >
>> > advertisers, and attracted by soap opera. Who has ever explained this?
>> >
>> > They're into stories of inner struggle, soul searching, and
>> > everlasting frustration.
>> >
>> > Enter Barnicle.
>> > --
>> > Ron Hardin
>> > r...@research.att.com
>> >
>>
>> Wheras men, on the other hand prefer... ?
>
>Attractive babes. They keep aging on you. Fortunately
>new ones are always coming along.
>
>If Barnicle did columns on the replacement of old with new
>babes, he'd have a following.
Or sex. We men think about that quite a bit.
I remember seeing an article years ago in Scientific American (?)
titled, "Dating techniques for the archeologist."
Much to my chagrin, it was about Carbon-12 dating of fossiles and
relics.
Chuck Demas
Needham, Mass.
--
Eat Healthy | _ _ | Nothing would be done at all,
Stay Fit | @ @ | If a man waited to do it so well,
Die Anyway | v | That no one could find fault with it.
de...@tiac.net | \___/ | http://www.tiac.net/users/demas
GVB
Elisabeth Anne Riba wrote in message ...
>I've seen a lot of posts recently asking what Mike Barnicle did wrong,
>and whether the Boston Globe overreacted in asking for his resignation.
>
>Here is the story, as far as I've been able to tell.
>
>FACT: 1973: Mike Barnicle started work for the Boston Globe
Well, here's one fact.
>FACT: 1979: Barnicle "was invited on a congressional trip to Southeast
>Asia and offered to write about it for the paper. According to
>Barnicle, the Globe declined.
> "Barnicle took vacation time and went on the trip anyway, writing
>articles for James Bellows, then the editor of The Los Angeles Herald
>Examiner. One of those articles ended up on the front page of The Boston
>Herald American, the Globe's arch-rival, according to both men.
> "Writing for the competition is forbidden by most newspapers."(1)
>
Innuendo begins: Was Barnicle disciplined by the Globe? Did Barnicle write
the articles for Bellows or for a newspaper? If the latter, is the Examiner
"competition" for the Globe? How did the article get to the Herald-American?
If "writing for the competition is forbidden by most newspapers," was it
then forbidden by the Globe? Did Barnicle even write for "the competition"?
Here we have a couple of apparent "facts" worded rather smoothly and
terminated by a quote from a noninvolved party that wasn't directed to the
specific case at hand.
>ALLEGED: 1990: "Attorney Alan Dershowitz had accused Barnicle of
>falsely attributing a racist quote to him. Neither Barnicle nor the
>Globe retracted the column, but in a confidential legal settlement
>reached after his complaint, the Globe agreed to pay Dershowitz
>$75,000, according to a lawyer who has been briefed on the matter."(2)
Barnicle "accused" by Dershowitz; neither Barnicle nor the Globe admit to
anything. An unnamed lawyer "who has been briefed on the matter" --whatever
*that* means--talks about a $75,000 payment. This is a fairly good example
of Ms.Riba's MO--No admission or finding of any wrongdoing substantiated by
an unsubstantiated allegation by an unknown party.
>FACT: 1990: During the Charles Stuart murder case, "Barnicle wrote one
>article no other reporter could confirm. Under a banner headline, he
>reported that the Prudential Insurance Co. had issued a check for
>$480,000 to Stuart, in payment of a life insurance policy for his
>wife, Carol DeMaiti Stuart. The day the article ran, the company
>denied it. No similar check has been found. The Globe, which has
>occasionally corrected other facts in Barnicle's columns over the
>years, ran no correction.
> "Greg Moore, the Globe's managing editor, said last week, 'Our
>reporting on the Carol Stuart case after Charles Stuart committed
>suicide still stands, except for the $480,000 check. I don't think
>anyone involved in that case thinks we shouldn't have corrected it.'"(3)
Again, the *absence* of information is taken as probative of something.
Again there is no evidence of wrongdoing by Barnicle. As I said, facts
leading to innuendo. Let's assume that Barnicle was wrong in this instance,
although that's clearly unproven. At best, we have misreporting, not any
evidence of willful misrepresentation (but of course we don't even have
proof of that).
>ALLEGED: 1991: "Boston Magazine examined one of Barnicle's articles
>and could find no evidence that two characters in it ever existed. In
>the article, Barnicle was quoted as telling the reporter that he had
>given one of the people he had written about the magazine's telephone
>number. 'If he wants to talk to you, he'll call you,' he was quoted as
>saying."(4)
Did Boston find evidence that the articles were fabricated? That's clearly
you're implication, Ms. Riba, but once again, where's the beef? Journalism
101--finding no evidence isn't the same as finding evidence.
>ALLEGED: 1992: Chicago columnist Mike Royko accused Barnicle of
>plagiarizing several columns.
This is an actual fact--Royko did "accuse" Barnicle. Want to fill us in some
more, or just repeat an allegation? What were the alleged similarities?
What was the result of the accusations? Did Royko himself suffer from
credibility issues later in his career?
>That's all history. Although the above incidents bear no relevance to the
>current case, it demonstrates that Barnicle's reputation was already
>shaky. Those who have said that first time offenders deserve leniency
>can see that the Globe has been very lenient towards Barnicle's first
>offenses.
Or at least your version of history. I particularly like your second
sentence quoted above, bearing as it does the hallmarks of a smear job.
"Although the above incidents *bear no relevance* (my emphasis) to the
current case, it demonstrates that Barnicle's reputation was already shaky."
At the risk of being overly picky, if these "incidents" are irrelevant, how
do they demonstrate anything? If they bear no relevance to your ad nauseam
summation of Barnicle's present problems, why are they "offenses" to be
brought up here?
Simple question: Was Barnicle ever found guilty in any forum of anything
prior to the Carlin incident? Was there any actual *proof* of wrongdoing by
Barnicle?
If Barnicle has been a high-profile journalist for 25 yrs. and you can't do
any better than this, perhaps a career in the tabloids awaits--although they
won't let you use footnotes.
GB (remove no spam for direct replies)
John
Mike's bandwagon!
Regards,
Fickle John
I belong in AFDI.
Leslie
Footnote: if you didn't actually see Monica swallow and say "thanks,
Mr. Prez.,"... oh, wait, wrong thread.
I get so CONFUSED. Most of us women do.
Adam M Gaffin
Ron Hardin <r...@research.att.com> wrote:
>
>They're into stories of inner struggle, soul searching, and
>everlasting frustration.
>
>Enter Barnicle.
You don't (didn't?) read Barnicle that much, do you? Or do women really
like a guy who keeps insulting them?
Besides, "soul searching" and Barnicle in the same sentence? Everlasting
frustration, I'll grant you.
John
You are a keeper, Leslie.
Even if you weren't confused, you'd be a keeper.
Regards,
John
Ron Hardin
> You don't (didn't?) read Barnicle that much, do you? Or do women really
> like a guy who keeps insulting them?
I haven't seen any insults of women from Barnicle. Perhaps I have underestimated
him. What did he say?
Other than pandering to them, which is an insult I suppose.
Ron Hardin
> I have labeled every doubtful behavior as allegation, not fact.
> That's what I found relevant. People who have claimed first time
> offenders deserve leniency may not realize that Barnicle's not a first
> time offender.
>
> However, if you want to argue the other side -- that Barnicle's good
> deeds outweigh his journalistic flaws -- then please post about it.
> I'd love to see a history of Barnicle's triumphs.
>
> >Full disclosure: Barnicle's column is sappy and aimed at women,
> >in my opinion, and ought to be satirized regularly in the Herald
> >by an even sappier column.
>
> B) if you think it's sappy and aimed at women, does that mean that
> lesser journalistic standards are acceptable if someone's writing for
> women? Do you think women are less discerning or less deserving of
> quality journalism? I'm not attacking you here, I'm genuinely curious
> what you meant by that remark.
You could mention Barnicle's fine appearances on Imus, and the
anti-Diana pieces, briefly summarized by John Kobylt's words,
``You people are all mental patients!'' though Kobylt was a week
late owing to KFI's vacation schedule and Barnicle took the lead.
Even Imus was too timid to lay into Diana until it became
clear it was safe, a few days later, speculating whether Dan
Rather would throw himself on the coffin as it passed, shouting
``No! No!'' and being hauled off in a straight jacket.
I can't imagine a blue collar man reading Barnicle without retching]
though.
On journalistic standards for women: soap opera. I don't say women
are less discerning; just that what they're discerning about is of
no interest to a man.
sheepdog
Riba) wrote:
[...]
> Actually yes. There's one more case I found out about after I wrote my
> timeline. Here are two accounts:
[...]
> Okay?
I've already posted my opinion of your research in this matter [a rave, if
you missed it], and my bias in favor of Mr. Barnicle. I'm interested in
your take on the following:
1. As a woman, have you ever been personally offended by MB's allegedly
sexist POV?***
2. All violations of standards, journalistic or otherwise, ethical or
otherwise,can be measured in degrees of severity. How would you rate the
offenses you have catalogued, including the _Brain Droppings_ affair, in a
context of the current state of journalism?
3. Even if MB should lose his regular column in the Globe, he won't have
any problem finding another forum for his opinions & commentaries. Outside
the world of professional journalists, how seriously / how permanently do
you think his credibility is REALLY damaged?
4. Before this week, what was your opinion of Mr. Barnicle?
--
*** I hope to hear from any women reading this post, especially in
response to this point.
--
sheepdog
<wsne...@ethergate.com>
Mary Malmros
Ron Hardin <r...@research.att.com> wrote:
>
>Full disclosure: Barnicle's column is sappy and aimed at women,
When I stop laughing, I'm going to have to reset my irony meter
and give my screen a good cleaning.
"Aimed at women". Hah.
--
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Mary Malmros Very Small Being mal...@shore.net
"They write books that contradict the rocks..."
Ron Hardin
> >Full disclosure: Barnicle's column is sappy and aimed at women,
>
> When I stop laughing, I'm going to have to reset my irony meter
> and give my screen a good cleaning.
>
> "Aimed at women". Hah.
Is there some good-old-boy fun Barnicle writing in the Globe
that they don't put on the website?
I have seen nothing but dripping bathos from the guy. I have
to wipe away tears of laughter copying it out for friends.
Every column starts with a pathetic fallacy and sinks in a
bathetic plunge.
Mary Malmros
Ron Hardin <r...@research.att.com> wrote:
>Mary Malmros wrote:
>> >Full disclosure: Barnicle's column is sappy and aimed at women,
>>
>> When I stop laughing, I'm going to have to reset my irony meter
>> and give my screen a good cleaning.
>>
>> "Aimed at women". Hah.
>
>Is there some good-old-boy fun Barnicle writing in the Globe
>that they don't put on the website?
>
>I have seen nothing but dripping bathos from the guy. I have
>to wipe away tears of laughter copying it out for friends.
>
>Every column starts with a pathetic fallacy and sinks in a
>bathetic plunge.
No argument with any of that. It's just, IMO, aimed much more
at guys who are like him...well, at guys who are like what Barnicle
wants people to think he is...well, at guys who want to think that
they're like what Barnicle wants people to think he is. He has
often been frankly contemptuous of women, so I suppose you
could argue that his columns are "aimed at women" in a certain
sense, much as a projectile weapon is aimed.
Ron Hardin
> >Every column starts with a pathetic fallacy and sinks in a
> >bathetic plunge.
>
> No argument with any of that. It's just, IMO, aimed much more
> at guys who are like him...well, at guys who are like what Barnicle
> wants people to think he is...well, at guys who want to think that
> they're like what Barnicle wants people to think he is. He has
> often been frankly contemptuous of women, so I suppose you
> could argue that his columns are "aimed at women" in a certain
> sense, much as a projectile weapon is aimed.
There are no guys like that, only women.
GVB
Elisabeth Anne Riba wrote in message ...
>
>>Or at least your version of history. I particularly like your second
>>sentence quoted above, bearing as it does the hallmarks of a smear job.
>>"Although the above incidents *bear no relevance* (my emphasis) to the
>>current case, it demonstrates that Barnicle's reputation was already
shaky."
>>At the risk of being overly picky, if these "incidents" are irrelevant,
how
>>do they demonstrate anything? If they bear no relevance to your ad nauseam
>>summation of Barnicle's present problems, why are they "offenses" to be
>>brought up here?
>
were
>not my words. I thought it better to quote the articles directly rather
>than be accused of rephrasing it in an inflammatory manner. I work
>full-time, so have to do much of my research online; and the online Globe
>archives only go back to the early nineties, so I mainly have access to
>secondary sources.
Not your words? Perhaps I missed the quotes. The juxtaposition of unproven
allegations was certainly intended to be inflammatory, n'est ce pas? This is
buck passing of the hoghest order (Gee, I'll put these things together, pass
them off as research, and then attribute it elsewhere if somebody calls me
on it.) Perhaps you'd be better off addressing a few of the issues I raised.
>
>The reason for quoting the history is that many of Barnicle's defenders
>are claiming that the Globe should be lenient because Barnicle is a
>"first time offender" These incidents demonstrate that Barnicle has
>offended before, and the Globe was lenient. Barnicle already had
>credibility issues before the current case.
Well, there you go again. *If* you had offered any proof that any wrongdoing
occurred, they might demonstrate something. What I read are unfounded
allegations and inuendo with no proof or admission of wrongdoing. I
repeatedly raised this in greater particulars in my earlier post but you
seem determined to ignore that which doesn't fit your thesis.
>
>> Simple question: Was Barnicle ever found guilty in any forum of anything
>>prior to the Carlin incident? Was there any actual *proof* of wrongdoing
by
>>Barnicle?
>
>Actually yes. There's one more case I found out about after I wrote my
>timeline. Here are two accounts:
>
> Title: The Globe, columnists, and the search for truth[City Edition]
> Source: Boston Globe; Boston, Mass.
> Date: Jun 21, 1998
> Author: Mark Jurkowitz, Globe Staff
> Start Page: A1
>
> But questions about whether Barnicle embellishes his column have
> percolated over the years, with matters really heating up in the early
> '90s. A primary catalyst was Dershowitz's charge that Barnicle had
> manufactured a sexist and boorish quote about him in 1990. When the
> Harvard law professor went on television at that time to invite anyone
> else who'd been similarly treated to step forward, it unearthed the
> story of a Dorchester gas station proprietor who sued for libel over a
> 1973 column, claiming that he'd never made a racist statement Barnicle
> attributed to him. The case had ended with the Globe paying the
> plaintiff a total of about $40,000.
>
>
> Title: Dershowitz hits Barnicle columns[City Edition]
> Source: Boston Globe; Boston, Mass.
> Date: Jun 20, 1998
> Author: Kate Zernike, Globe Staff
> Start Page: B1
>
> In 1973, a Blue Hill Avenue gas station
> owner denied having made a racial slur, and sued Barnicle. The case
> was finally settled in 1982, with the judge saying portions of the
> disputed quotations appeared in Barnicle's notebook, but that he could
> not verify the entire statement. He ordered damages of $25,000, plus
> about $15,000 in interest dating back to 1974.
>
>Okay?
Actually, this is OK and I will concede that 25 yrs. ago an incident
occurred that resulted in a $25,000 settlement, assuming this is as stated.
Unfortunately, this is the exception that proves the dearth of anything
remotely approaching an admission in your other "points." What about those?
My question remains the same.
I appreciate your response; others might well have accepted the praise from
a few who are willing to accept allegations as fact and left it at that. I'm
still waiting for you to support or withdraw your other "facts." Passing
them off as the work of others doesn't cut it when you are the one posting
the material.
GB
(remove "nospam" for direct replies)
Ron Newman
Malmros) wrote:
> [Mike Barnicle] has
> often been frankly contemptuous of women, so I suppose you
> could argue that his columns are "aimed at women" in a certain
> sense, much as a projectile weapon is aimed.
LOL !
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
John Reder
>
> I haven't seen any insults of women from Barnicle. Perhaps I have underestimated
> him. What did he say?
>
> Other than pandering to them, which is an insult I suppose.
> --
> Ron Hardin
> r...@research.att.com
>
I think they are confusing him with Howie Carr. That happens a lot on
the net. Like when John Candy died and everyone started posting all the
wonderful stories about his life. Unfortunately they were all stories
about Louie Anderson.
Somebody ought to come up with a "Brady Bill" for usenet posting. Make
people go through a waiting period, to let their heads, clear before
they post a message. We could end so much senseless tragedy that way.
> On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
That's because we are all jerks and you need one intelligent person to
establish a norm.
Twodobes
>From: jbg...@lancnews.infi.net (John)
>Date: 8/9/98 3:05 PM EST
>Message-id: <35d8fff3...@news.norfolk.infi.net>
>
>On 9 Aug 1998 19:17:25 GMT, imagi...@aol.com (Imagine963)
>wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Women have a baleful effect on the media. They're coveted by
>>>advertisers, and attracted by soap opera. Who has ever explained this?
>>>
>>>everlasting frustration.
>>>
>>>Enter Barnicle.
>>>Ron Hardin
>>>r...@research.att.com
>>
>>
>><Re-working RH quote:>
>>>On the internet, nobody knows<for sure if > you're a jerk<but suspicions do
>>arise from time to time>.
>>Liza ; )
>
>
>(Oh gawd I'm .. never mind. It passed. Geezers don't think about
>sex any more, not any more than we used to anyway.)
>
>You look marvelous in that sweater , Liza.
>
>Regards,
>John
>--
>I don't need no MTV.
>What's in my head,
>that's enough for me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yo Johngeezer -
You implying Liza's sweater meat?
Is this a sweatermeatatation situation? LOL
Love that Bo w/o Joe cuz they blow.
Peace
John Kenney
Boston MA USA
Elisabeth Anne Riba
>It looks and reads like a hatchet job, as it did the first time.
>FACT: it's called the dossier technique, where every instance
>of good or praisworthy behavior is omitted from a history,
>and every doubtful behavior is included.
I have labeled every doubtful behavior as allegation, not fact.
That's what I found relevant. People who have claimed first time
offenders deserve leniency may not realize that Barnicle's not a first
time offender.
However, if you want to argue the other side -- that Barnicle's good
deeds outweigh his journalistic flaws -- then please post about it.
I'd love to see a history of Barnicle's triumphs.
>Full disclosure: Barnicle's column is sappy and aimed at women,
>in my opinion, and ought to be satirized regularly in the Herald
>by an even sappier column.
A) Mike Barnicle's column is aimed at blue collar men, and
B) if you think it's sappy and aimed at women, does that mean that
lesser journalistic standards are acceptable if someone's writing for
women? Do you think women are less discerning or less deserving of
quality journalism? I'm not attacking you here, I'm genuinely curious
what you meant by that remark.
>On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
I thought the expression was "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog,
but everyone knows you're a jerk." Judging people by their words, not
their physical characteristics and all...
--
-------------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@netcom.com <-------------------
"Love wouldn't be blind if the braille weren't so damned much fun."
- Armistead Maupin, "Maybe the Moon"
Adam M Gaffin
Ron Hardin <r...@research.att.com> wrote:
>
>I haven't seen any insults of women from Barnicle. Perhaps I have underestimated
>him. What did he say?
>
>Other than pandering to them, which is an insult I suppose.
He has a particular thing against women golfers, to start.
Elisabeth Anne Riba
>Or at least your version of history. I particularly like your second
>sentence quoted above, bearing as it does the hallmarks of a smear job.
>"Although the above incidents *bear no relevance* (my emphasis) to the
>current case, it demonstrates that Barnicle's reputation was already shaky."
>At the risk of being overly picky, if these "incidents" are irrelevant, how
>do they demonstrate anything? If they bear no relevance to your ad nauseam
>summation of Barnicle's present problems, why are they "offenses" to be
>brought up here?
All the sentences you questioned above came from newspaper articles and were
not my words. I thought it better to quote the articles directly rather
than be accused of rephrasing it in an inflammatory manner. I work
full-time, so have to do much of my research online; and the online Globe
archives only go back to the early nineties, so I mainly have access to
secondary sources.
The reason for quoting the history is that many of Barnicle's defenders
are claiming that the Globe should be lenient because Barnicle is a
"first time offender" These incidents demonstrate that Barnicle has
offended before, and the Globe was lenient. Barnicle already had
credibility issues before the current case.
> Simple question: Was Barnicle ever found guilty in any forum of anything
>prior to the Carlin incident? Was there any actual *proof* of wrongdoing by
>Barnicle?
Actually yes. There's one more case I found out about after I wrote my
Okay?
Charles Demas
Elisabeth Anne Riba <l...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Ron Hardin <r...@research.att.com> writes:
>
>>It looks and reads like a hatchet job, as it did the first time.
>
>>FACT: it's called the dossier technique, where every instance
>>of good or praisworthy behavior is omitted from a history,
>>and every doubtful behavior is included.
>
>I have labeled every doubtful behavior as allegation, not fact.
>That's what I found relevant. People who have claimed first time
>offenders deserve leniency may not realize that Barnicle's not a first
>time offender.
But look where you've taken it!
You've gone from these being allegations to making Barnicle a
multiple offender, based only upon those allegations.
That is clearly unfair. Not necessarily wrong, but unfair.
Elisabeth Anne Riba
>You've gone from these being allegations to making Barnicle a
>multiple offender, based only upon those allegations.
>That is clearly unfair. Not necessarily wrong, but unfair.
Very well. I have taken out all allegations and innuendo and left only
the facts.
FACT: A Dorchester gas station proprieter sued Barnicle for libel,
saying Barnicle fabricated a racist statement. This case went to trial
and the judge ordered the Globe to pay $40,000.
FACT: The Boston Globe paid Alan Dershowitz a $75,000 legal settlement
after Dershowitz accused Barnicle of "falsely attributing a racist quote
to him."
FACT: 1990: During the Charles Stuart murder case, "Barnicle wrote one
article no other reporter could confirm. Under a banner headline, he
reported that the Prudential Insurance Co. had issued a check for
$480,000 to Stuart, in payment of a life insurance policy for his
wife, Carol DeMaiti Stuart. The day the article ran, the company
denied it. No similar check has been found. The Globe, which has
occasionally corrected other facts in Barnicle's columns over the
years, ran no correction.
"Greg Moore, the Globe's managing editor, said last week, 'Our
reporting on the Carol Stuart case after Charles Stuart committed
suicide still stands, except for the $480,000 check. I don't think
anyone involved in that case thinks we shouldn't have corrected it.'"
[Quotations above from Felicity Barringer, "Globe Columnist Refuses to
Resign," New York Times, August 7, 1998.]
So even blowing away some of the smoke, there's still a fire. But even
without the history, I still find the current case completely damning:
FACT: June 22nd: On the WCVB program "Chronicle," Barnicle holds up a
copy of George Carlin's book "Brain Droppings" and says about it: "A
yuk on every page."
FACT: Sunday, August 2, Barnicle writes a column titled "I was just
thinking" He intersperses these quotes with his other observations.
The column's title give the impression that the article contains
Barnicle's own thoughts and words. There are 38 jokes in the column,
and ten of them (more than a quarter of the article) came from his
"friend's" list. Barnicle provides no attribution for these quotes,
not even mentioning they weren't his. Several of the jokes use the
first person singular ("I hate it when..." "But I think..." "I don't
get it..." and so on) giving further impression that these are
Barnicle's ideas.
FACT: A Globe reader recognizes the quotes from Carlin's book. Monday
night he contacts the Globe, and Tuesday morning notifies the Herald.
FACT: Wednesday: Boston Globe editors meet with Barnicle for several
hours to discuss the incident. Matt Storin, Mike Barnicle's boss,
interrupts his vacation in Europe to attend the meeting via conference
call. Barnicle holds to his story that a friend forwarded the jokes
to him and he was "stupid" to reprint them without checking first.
They agree that one month suspension is suitable punishment for his
offense. Barnicle never mentions the Chronicle story.
FACT: After the Globe announces the decision to suspend him, WCVB runs
the tape of Barnicle with the book.
FACT: After the WCVB tape is revealed, the Globe asks for Barnicle's
resignation. In the words of Matt Storin, he "misrepresented himself
either to his television audience or his editors; this contradiction
is unacceptable."
Imagine963
>
>In article <35CDE4...@research.att.com>,
>Ron Hardin <r...@research.att.com> wrote:
>>Leslie wrote:
>>>
>>> Ron Hardin wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Leslie wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > [interjection by Leslie: how DISGUSTING. WOMEN??? UGH!! ICK!!]
>>> > > > by an even sappier column.
>>> >
>>> > advertisers, and attracted by soap opera. Who has ever explained this?
>>> >
>>> > They're into stories of inner struggle, soul searching, and
>>> > everlasting frustration.
>>> >
>>> > Enter Barnicle.
>>> > --
>>> > Ron Hardin
>>> > r...@research.att.com
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>Attractive babes. They keep aging on you. Fortunately
>>new ones are always coming along.
>>
>>If Barnicle did columns on the replacement of old with new
>>babes, he'd have a following.
>
>Or sex. We men think about that quite a bit.
>
>I remember seeing an article years ago in Scientific American (?)
>titled, "Dating techniques for the archeologist."
>
>Much to my chagrin, it was about Carbon-12 dating of fossiles and
>relics.
>
>Chuck Demas
>Needham, Mass.
>
Hmm...can ya carbon-date an attitude?
Elisabeth Anne Riba
>1. As a woman, have you ever been personally offended by MB's allegedly
>sexist POV?***
I know that I have been upset by one or two of his columns over the years,
but frankly I can't remember any specific examples. Generally, they've
been political issues, rather than problems of gender. Nothing he's
written has ever evoked as strong a reaction in me as this issue has.
Frankly, Barnicle's columns are like potato chips -- they don't stick with
me long, even the ones that give me indigestion.
Generally, I look at the first paragraph or two of his columns to see if
he's writing about anything interesting, but I usually skip the rest. In
the Sunday column, I read maybe three or four jokes, thought to myself
that it was all old hat (and, yes, I have read Brain Droppings sometime
within the last year) and went on to other, more interesting, articles.
>2. All violations of standards, journalistic or otherwise, ethical or
>otherwise,can be measured in degrees of severity. How would you rate the
>offenses you have catalogued, including the _Brain Droppings_ affair, in a
>context of the current state of journalism?
The current state of journalism is a mess, and in order to maintain any
sense of credibility with the public, they desperately need to clean
house. You can see the cynicism and distrust evidenced by other posters
in this thread.
He has to go precisely BECAUSE the predominent reaction has been "so
what, everybody else does it." Well, most journalists don't do it, but
retaining Barnicle tarnishes everyone's credibility. If the Globe keeps
a proven liar on their staff (either Barnicle lied to his editors that he
never read Brain Droppings, or he lied to the audience of the Chronicle,
making them believe he had), then why should readers believe other
reporters are telling the truth? Carlin wasn't the only victim in this
case. Barnicle wronged his readers, the Boston Globe, and the reputation
of journalists everywhere.
>3. Even if MB should lose his regular column in the Globe, he won't have
>any problem finding another forum for his opinions & commentaries. Outside
>the world of professional journalists, how seriously / how permanently do
>you think his credibility is REALLY damaged?
I don't know. I've been shocked and disappointed at some of the more
prominent people who have defended his actions. Barnicle is a good
writer, but his column does not belong in the hard news section. He has
used his position in the Metro section to give himself the mantle of a
reporter. He often writes stories similar to news pieces, and he's used
the proximity to hard news to add veracity to his columns. They would
have a very different impact if they were in the Living/Arts section.
[Consider some of his personal profiles...]
I cannot trust Mike Barnicle's writing any more. Maybe 99% has been
true, but I have no idea which 1% is false, so it all becomes suspect.
It's the same situation as Patricia Smith. Once you know that some
characters were fictional, you have a little doubt in every person she
mentions.
A lot of people no longer trust Barnicle. If the Globe keeps him around,
people will cancel subscriptions and the Globe will lose some of its
reputation. If Barnicle stays, I predict the Globe won't get another
Pulitzer for a while, because everything in the Globe will be suspect.
I'd have absolutely no problem if Barnicle started writing fiction or
opinion pieces. But I will be severely disappointed if he moves to
another newspaper or to a news magazine (Time, Newsweek, etc) or to a
news program on television. It would be okay if he got a column in other
magazines. For pragmatic reasons, I'd even accept Barnicle writing for
the Sunday Globe Magazine section.
Mind you, I'd have a hard time believing any non-fiction he'd produce,
but I wouldn't expect him to stop writing altogether.
>4. Before this week, what was your opinion of Mr. Barnicle?
I never gave him much thought; his articles generally didn't appeal to
me. My fiancee was born in Boston, so I knew he had a reputation for
outrageousness. I thought Barnicle was usually mediocre, but
occassionally had flashes of real brilliance -- a column which actually
helped somebody or revealed characters or points of view that usually
aren't seen.
I really didn't KNOW about any of the allegations until the Patricia
Smith. There, I found out about Dershowitz's beef (he repeated it often
enough) but it was merely one man's word against another. I heard that
Boston Magazine used to publish a "Barnicle Watch," but I never read it
-- I only knew it existed. So, I knew there was some hearsay and many
people didn't like him, but thought that he was clean. Innocent until
proven guilty, and I hadn't heard that anything was proven.
Only when I started researching his history on Friday did I discover some
of the more damning evidence -- the Globe's payments to Dershowitz and to
the gas station owner.
I hope this answered your questions without boring you too much.
Adam M Gaffin
Ron Hardin <r...@research.att.com> wrote:
>
>I can't imagine a blue collar man reading Barnicle without retching]
>though.
Ah, I see now. You live in New Jersey and your exposure to Barnicle has
been limited to his appearances on Imus and so you have no idea what his
columns actually say.
>
>On journalistic standards for women: soap opera. I don't say women
>are less discerning; just that what they're discerning about is of
>no interest to a man.
Only you're not really an Imus listener; you're one of those Howard Stern
fans who's going to start yelling "bababooie" any second now.
sheepdog
<mrgbn...@erols.com> wrote:
> I appreciate your response; others might well have accepted the praise from
> a few who are willing to accept allegations as fact and left it at that. I'm
> still waiting for you to support or withdraw your other "facts." Passing
> them off as the work of others doesn't cut it when you are the one posting
> the material.
>
> GB
> (remove "nospam" for direct replies)
As one of the few [the proud etc.] who praised the original posting, I am
as usual struck by the amount of pointless hostility with which it was
greeted. If you were so galled by the timeline she detailed and/or the
opinions she offered, why not do one of two things:
• share your own research
• refute the findings
Instead you snipe from behind the cover of semantics. If your standards
are so bloody high, let's see some examples of your version of the facts.
Maybe none of the references sources are pure enough for you to quote
anybody about anything. In that case, how about sharing evidence collected
via your five highly-tuned senses.
Must the perfect be the enemy of the very good?
--
sheepdog
<wsne...@ethergate.com>
sheepdog
> Somebody ought to come up with a "Brady Bill" for usenet
posting. Make
> people go through a waiting period, to let their heads, clear before
> they post a message. We could end so much senseless tragedy that way.
>
The more outraged I am at a message, the longer I wait before replying. As
with gun control, self control is the preferred method.
> > On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
>
> That's because we are all jerks and you need one intelligent person to
> establish a norm.
And when Norm gets here, we'll all be better off.
[also Claire]
--
sheepdog
<wsne...@ethergate.com>
sheepdog
[...]
> The current state of journalism is a mess, and in order to maintain any
> sense of credibility with the public, they desperately need to clean
> house. You can see the cynicism and distrust evidenced by other posters
> in this thread.
[a general comment, not directed at anyone in particular] I find it
interesting that there is so much public airing of linen about ethics in
journalism at a time when the Brand-name media are falling all over each
other to copy the commercial success of the tabloids, the TV "magazine"
shows and the large contingent of ambush/exposé "journalists." I used to
get snagged when channel-surfing by a blue-ribbon panel on C-SPAN when the
subject line [or whatever the proper jargon] had something to do with
self-examination by the media, until I was disappointed enough times by
their lack of substance.
[...]
> He has to go precisely BECAUSE the predominent reaction has been "so
> what, everybody else does it." Well, most journalists don't do it, but
> retaining Barnicle tarnishes everyone's credibility. If the Globe keeps
> a proven liar on their staff (either Barnicle lied to his editors that he
> never read Brain Droppings, or he lied to the audience of the Chronicle,
> making them believe he had), then why should readers believe other
> reporters are telling the truth? Carlin wasn't the only victim in this
> case. Barnicle wronged his readers, the Boston Globe, and the reputation
> of journalists everywhere.
This is your opinion and I respect it. In my opinion greater harm is done
by pandering to the LCD with thousands of features on the Death of a
Princess, Love Ick on the Dress, Marv Albert's Lingerie Preferences, The
Butcher of Brentwood...
[...]
> A lot of people no longer trust Barnicle. If the Globe keeps him around,
> people will cancel subscriptions and the Globe will lose some of its
> reputation. If Barnicle stays, I predict the Globe won't get another
> Pulitzer for a while, because everything in the Globe will be suspect.
Two Words: Dick Morris
[...]
> I hope this answered your questions without boring you too much.
Never boring.
--
sheepdog
<wsne...@ethergate.com>
Stephen G. Esrati
We get a posting about Barnicle, with facts, from a woman who apparently gives
her own name.
Then we get attacks on what she posted from a series of scurrilous people too
timid to put their own names on their writing.
For shame
sheepdog wrote:
>
>
>
> Instead you snipe from behind the cover of semantics. If your standards
> are so bloody high, let's see some examples of your version of the facts.
> Maybe none of the references sources are pure enough for you to quote
> anybody about anything. In that case, how about sharing evidence collected
> via your five highly-tuned senses.
--
Stephen G. Esrati
PO Box 20130
Shaker Heights, OH 44120
(216) 561-9393
John
<ZZZjoh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Ron Hardin wrote:
>>
>> I haven't seen any insults of women from Barnicle. Perhaps I have underestimated
>> him. What did he say?
>>
>> Other than pandering to them, which is an insult I suppose.
>> --
>> Ron Hardin
>> r...@research.att.com
>>
>
> I think they are confusing him with Howie Carr. That happens a lot on
>the net. Like when John Candy died and everyone started posting all the
>wonderful stories about his life. Unfortunately they were all stories
>about Louie Anderson.
> Somebody ought to come up with a "Brady Bill" for usenet posting. Make
>people go through a waiting period, to let their heads, clear before
>they post a message. We could end so much senseless tragedy that way.
>
>> On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
>
> That's because we are all jerks and you need one intelligent person to
>establish a norm.
Brady, Bill .. didn't he used to play basketball before he got
into politics??
Cptesquire
dogseatspam&ba...@moon.com (sheepdog) writes:
>One of the problems working-class heroes will always have is that the
>[often less-talented] upper-crusties absolutely despise them, see them as
>a threat to the status quo, and will lurk forever in order to get the
>knife in when the opportunity presents itself.
Of course, the only problem with that analogy is that Barnicle is an
upper-crusty who happens to portray himself as a working-class hero. But he is
definitely not a member of the working class.
BTW - I agree with you on one count - the world would be better off without a
spotlight-grabbing phony like Dershowitz planting his mug on every available TV
screen. That man makes me sick to be a lawyer.
C.P.T., Esq.
--
Lawyers earn a living by the sweat of their browbeating.
- James Gibbons Haneker
Elisabeth Anne Riba
part of the morning gathering all the facts on the Dershowitz case
(the one which has gotten the most press recently and therefore has
the most documentation). The summary and relevant quotes in context
can be found below.
But you have attacked me twice for even listing the accusations
accusations against Barnicle, rather than sticking to the facts. Let
me explain one more time.
People have argued that Barnicle only deserves a slap on the wrist
because this is such a minor transgression and/or he was a first time
offender. I've seen lots of excuses. That's why I included the
allegations.
Some very petty crimes have gotten life sentences due to "three
strikes and you're out" laws. First-time murderers and rapists can
get parole while thrice caught burglers will end their lives behind
bars.
It's a similar case with Barnicle. These allegations may not be true
-- which is why I clearly labeled them as such -- but they also
haven't been proven false. If you believe even one of these incidents
(perhaps the lawsuit which the Globe lost?) then you must agree that
Barnicle isn't a first time offender.
Now, we may not have enough information to judge which accusations are
true, but people closer to Barnicle may. And while Matt Storin (the
editor) may not have punished Barnicle for things that happened before
his tenure, they are valid considerations during sentencing.
And that's why I included the allegations; because they partially
explain why the one month suspension was raised to a call for
resignation.
I spent the better part of the morning putting this together. I'll
see about posting about the other stories when/if I have time. Or,
somebody else can take a shot... (Hey, Dan Kennedy! Are you reading
this? You know Boston media history better than I; care to help out?)
BARNICLE AND DERSHOWITZ:
In 1990, Barnicle wrote about his first meeting with Dershowitz, a
chance encounter by Out of Town News in Harvard Square. Barnicle
claimed that Dershowitz said "I love Asian women, don't you? They're
. . . they're so submissive" Now, I have a lot of problems with
Dershowitz, but he's not stupid. Do you really think he'd go up to
someone he'd never met before and say something like this??
Anyway, Dershowitz challenged this quote, and his son, who was present
during this meeting, agreed that Dershowitz never said anything like
this. Barnicle claims there were two witnesses -- one dead and he
wouldn't name the other. The owner of the newsstand, who introduced
them, doesn't remember this quote and doesn't remember if there were
any witnesses.
The newspaper did settle with Dershowitz out of court, paying him
$75,000, although never admitting actual wrongdoing.
Title: Dershowitz hits Barnicle columns[City Edition]
Source: Boston Globe; Boston, Mass.
Date: Jun 20, 1998
Author: Kate Zernike, Globe Staff
Start Page: B1
In the 1990 column, which was about Dershowitz's publicity-seeking and
entitled "Open Mouth, Get In Paper," Barnicle closed with a scene in
which he described the only meeting between the two men, at Out of
Town News in Harvard Square. The conversation had taken place eight
years previously, and Barnicle wrote that during it, Dershowitz said,
"I love Asian women, don't you? They're . . . they're so submissive."
In a letter to the Globe and in subsequent columns in the Boston
Herald in 1990 and 1992, Dershowitz said the two men exchanged only
brief greetings, and there was no mention of Asian women. His son, he
said, witnessed the conversation and backed him. Barnicle said there
were two witnesses, one of whom had died in the intervening years; he
would not name the other. Sheldon Cohen, the newsstand's owner, who
introduced the two men that day, said he could not recall the
conversation or any witnesses.
A few months later, the newspaper's ombudsman, Gordon McKibben, wrote
that he could not determine who was telling the truth, but was
skeptical of Barnicle's ability to remember the quotation. "The real
issue is credibility," he wrote.
Dershowitz yesterday said Barnicle admitted twice to fabricating the
quote. In the first instance Dershowitz cited -- from his transcript
of the show -- Barnicle replied to a caller to the Brudnoy show who
asked about the quotation in the Dershowitz column, "I gotta tell you
about Alan Dershowitz . . . he's got a legitimate beef with me. . . .
I apologize to Alan Dershowitz." According to the Dershowitz
transcript, Barnicle said he had written an upcoming column about the
incident.
WBZ-radio discards tapes after five years, Brudnoy said. But Brudnoy
-- and Dershowitz himself -- conceded yesterday that Barnicle's olive
branch did not include an admission of fabrication.
Title: The Globe, columnists, and the search for truth[City Edition]
Source: Boston Globe; Boston, Mass.
Date: Jun 21, 1998
Author: Mark Jurkowitz, Globe Staff
Start Page: A1
Dershowitz said the quote attributed to him, "I love Asian women,
don't you? They're . . . they're so submissive," was fiction. The
dispute was highly publicized at the time and neither the Globe nor
Barnicle ever acknowledged the quote was concocted. On Friday,
Barnicle said he had "never violated the trust my publisher has placed
in me" in 25 years as a Globe columnist.
But it seems clear that Storin -- who left the Globe in 1985, returned
in 1992 and became editor in 1993 -- was concerned about Barnicle's
reputation when questions about Smith's 1995 columns first came to his
attention.
Storin said that when possible problems with Smith surfaced several
years ago, she "entered the framework" in which the long- standing
questions about Barnicle existed. "I knew going way back that people
said Barnicle made things up. . . . To the best of my knowledge, the
paper had not addressed the Barnicle questions head on. I had this
very talented black woman. . . . How then can I take action against
this woman under this circumstance?"
Instead of moving formally against Smith at the time, Storin gave the
Globe's three Metro columnists -- Barnicle, Smith and Eileen McNamara
-- the "rules of the road" governing accuracy in the columns, and
established a more formal editing and monitoring procedure.
"Everybody was put on equal footing," said Managing Editor Gregory L.
Moore. "And the clock started ticking then."
. . .
After
making sure that Smith now knew the "rules of the road," he issued the
same caution to Barnicle and McNamara. Barnicle had no problems with
that, Storin said.
. . .
But questions about whether Barnicle embellishes his column have
percolated over the years, with matters really heating up in the early
'90s. A primary catalyst was Dershowitz's charge that Barnicle had
manufactured a sexist and boorish quote about him in 1990. When the
Harvard law professor went on television at that time to invite anyone
else who'd been similarly treated to step forward, it unearthed the
story of a Dorchester gas station proprietor who sued for libel over a
1973 column, claiming that he'd never made a racist statement Barnicle
attributed to him. The case had ended with the Globe paying the
plaintiff a total of about $40,000.
At about the same time, Boston magazine began a column checking the
authenticity of some of Barnicle's columns. And in a 1991 column on
the Dershowitz case, then Globe ombudsman Gordon McKibben concluded
that "the way the hoary quote is inserted at the end of the column . .
. invites skeptics, including me, to marvel at Barnicle's confidence
in his recall."
"There certainly was a good amount of scrutiny in connection with the
Dershowitz column," said John S. Driscoll, who was Globe editor at the
time. Driscoll also recalled requiring Barnicle to divulge the names
of sources when he was writing about the Charles Stuart/Carol DiMaiti
Stuart murder case in 1990. Driscoll explained that he required that
Metro columnists be edited at the managing editor level, but he didn't
indicate that there was any fact-checking system in place.
Title: The lawyer and the columnist[City Edition]
Source: Boston Globe; Boston, Mass.
Date: Jun 28, 1998
Author: David Warsh, Globe Staff
Start Page: F1
The proximate reason for Dershowitz's complaint was Barnicle's
attribution to him in 1990 of a remark made in 1982: "I love Asian
women, don't you? They're . . . they're so submissive." Barnicle said
the quote had been recalled from a chance sidewalk conversation of
eight years earlier; it was injected into a column about a feud
between Dershowitz and Barnicle's friend William Bulger, then the
Senate president.
Dershowitz denied ever having said it. He threatened mightily,
eventually reaching a resolution of the matter with the newspaper --
thereby avoiding the process of mutual discovery that would have shed
light on the question of whether the youthful Dersh had been racist,
sexist, or, in his own words, a potential adulterer, or Barnicle a
liar.
"...in another incident the Globe settled for $75,000 after lawyer Alan
Dershowitz charged that Barnicle had attributed a phony quote to him."
Brenda Luscombe, "Theft, or cutting corners?" Time Magazine, August 17,
http://www.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/980817/people.people.11.html
Twodobes
>From: cptes...@aol.com (Cptesquire)
>Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 11:03 EDT
>Message-id: <199808101503...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He has a regular radio show here....ptooey.
Ron Newman
> "The problem isn't easy access to guns, but easy access to oxygen.
> Certain people shouldn't be breathing." Don Feder, Bos Herald, 3/30/98
Thanks for reminding me why the _Herald_ still isn't my primary news source,
despite the well-documented failings of the _Globe_ in recent months.
GVB
Elisabeth Anne Riba wrote in message ...
Now I'm very concerned. This appears to be a close paraphrase of the
screenplay for "A Few Good Men" (Jack Nicholson speaking, I believe) that is
(horrors) unattributed!!! Be thankful you're not Barnicle. :)
> I spent the better
>part of the morning gathering all the facts on the Dershowitz case
>(the one which has gotten the most press recently and therefore has
>the most documentation). The summary and relevant quotes in context
>can be found below.
>
>But you have attacked me twice for even listing the accusations
>accusations against Barnicle, rather than sticking to the facts. Let
>me explain one more time.
Actually, I've responded to two posts you voluntarily placed on usenet. If
questioning the relevance or substance of many of your points is an
"attack," I guess I'm guilty. I''d like to point out that your original post
was titled "The facts of the case" not "The facts of the case and some
arguably relevant accusations." While certain points were labeled "alleged,"
your thesis is best summed up by this quote from you--"Those who have said
first time offenders deserve leniency can see that the Globe has been very
lenient towards Barnicle's first *offenses* (emphasis mine)." Before you had
the benefit of further reporting (cited below) on the Dershowitz incident
and the 25-year old gas station incident, it was your decision (not the
sources that you collated) to label these incidents as "offenses," something
that is still not proven. I took umbrage at that, and given your lack of
response to a number of points in my earlier posts with respect to other
"offenses" you raised, stand by that. I particularly liked the one about
writing for the competition.
>
>People have argued that Barnicle only deserves a slap on the wrist
>because this is such a minor transgression and/or he was a first time
>offender. I've seen lots of excuses. That's why I included the
>allegations.
>
>Some very petty crimes have gotten life sentences due to "three
>strikes and you're out" laws. First-time murderers and rapists can
>get parole while thrice caught burglers will end their lives behind
>bars.
>
>It's a similar case with Barnicle. These allegations may not be true
>-- which is why I clearly labeled them as such -- but they also
>haven't been proven false.
Here is essentially the crux of the issue. I'd encourage those who disdain
my side of this discussion to reread the above, encapsulating as it does the
"guilty until proven innocent" school of reporting. The post that originated
this discussion now appears as an "article" on a commercial internet site
(or at least what appears to be a commercial site)--itself an interesting
sidelight to this whole issue. Unfortunately, Mr. Barnicle, and those who
would take issue with "the facts" as stated, are unable to do anything about
that despite the fact that the standard for inclusion of the accusations now
appears to be that they "haven't been proven false." Fortunately, in
usenet, the right of rebuttal exists.
The "Dershowitz" incident, while it still contains no formal admission of
any wrongdoing by the Globe, is certainly troubling and ripe for discussion.
*Several days* after the original post on this issue, does it yet rise to
the level of an indictment of Barnicle? I don't think so, but others may
easonably differ. What seems clear is that other issues collated in the
original "The facts of the case" post do not, which has been my point all
along.
I'll just close with another quote for lovers of irony because I'm done with
this issue--"There is a difference between rumor and reporting." In the
spirit of this whole issue, I can't claim it as my own, coming as it does
from Ms. Riba's original post.
GB
Twodobes
>Date: Mon, Aug 10, 1998 23:24 EDT
>Message-id: <rnewman-ya0240800...@enews.newsguy.com>
Ron -
You disagree with Feder? LOL
Have fun with your Globe and their socialist editorials. Oh, and their
Kennedys/Kerry/Frank/Studds, etc. pols.
Elisabeth Anne Riba
>>-- which is why I clearly labeled them as such -- but they also
>>haven't been proven false.
>Here is essentially the crux of the issue. I'd encourage those who disdain
>my side of this discussion to reread the above, encapsulating as it does the
>"guilty until proven innocent" school of reporting.
The courts may use the standard "innocent until proven guilty," but
we're not talking law here. We're talking about an employer's motives
for asking someone to resign.
It doesn't matter whether I have done stellar work at my job and never
had a single complaint in the seven years I've worked here. If my
boss decides I'm not performing my job to her satisfaction, then she
can fire me -- that's her right. Now, she isn't allowed to dismiss me
because of my race, gender, or age, but any other job performance
problems are fair game, including older issues, if my boss finds them
relevant in establishing a pattern of misbehavior.
>The post that originated
>this discussion now appears as an "article" on a commercial internet site
>(or at least what appears to be a commercial site)--itself an interesting
>sidelight to this whole issue.
An interesting sidelight? Is this supposed to make me sound less
credible or something? I suppose you could call
http://www.boston-online.com/barnicle/timeline.html a commercial
website, since it ends in .com rather than .edu or .gov, however
that's the only way it, since the web site in question ends in .com,
rather than .edu or .gov, that you could call it a commercial internet
site. This post also appears on DejaNews.com -- is that another
sidelight? For that matter, I'm posting from netcom.com and you're
posting from erols.com. Hmm...
Adam Gaffin announced he was putting together a Barnicle page. He
asked; I offered; that's it. I wrote this article to satisfy my own
curiousity and never expected or intended to take any money for it.
>Unfortunately, Mr. Barnicle, and those who
>would take issue with "the facts" as stated, are unable to do anything about
>that despite the fact that the standard for inclusion of the accusations now
>appears to be that they "haven't been proven false."
Unable to do anything about it? Oh please. Do your own research and
post more of the facts as you find them. Based on my research, I do
believe that Barnicle probably misquoted Dershowitz. Frankly, my
mind's not made up on some of the other charges. I don't believe he
plagiarized Royko (I've never seen the articles in question, but it
doesn't quite ring true to me) but other posters have accepted that as
a fact. However, the charges are out there, and the Globe may be
using those as a basis for its decision to fire Barnicle. That was
the original question -- whether the Globe was justified in that
decision. I provided the history as an insight into the editors'
mindset when they asked for his resignation.
>Fortunately, in
>usenet, the right of rebuttal exists.
And I'm glad it does. Please, rebut the facts of this case. You've
raised a lot questions, but I don't have any more time right now for
research. I can't tell whether you're in the Boston area or elsewhere
in the country, but I've taken all my information from online sources.
If you have a Minuteman library card (telnet mln.lib.ma.us, log in as
library) you can access the Boston Globe archives back to the early
1990s and several magazine indexes. Recent articles in the Globe,
plus the Boston Herald, Boston Phoenix, New York Times and Wall Street
Journal are all available on the web.
>I'll just close with another quote for lovers of irony because I'm done with
>this issue--"There is a difference between rumor and reporting." In the
>spirit of this whole issue, I can't claim it as my own, coming as it does
>from Ms. Riba's original post.
My statement is correct. I am not a reporter and have never claimed
to be one. I'm an interested amateur, which is why I've posted
references whereever possible, rather than rephrasing into my own
words. You can choose for yourself whether or not to believe me.
Finally, I don't have too much more time to devote to this discussion;
otherwise *I* might be asked for my resignation. :) Besides, I've
pretty much said what I wanted to say in the post that began this
thread. I wanted to put forth a side of the discussion which hadn't
previously been seen and I have done that. I think it stands pretty
well on its own, and I don't feel a need to continuously re-justify
it. At this point, it looks like everybody's mind is made up, so I'm
going to step back a bit from the debate. I'll continue to post when
I feel I have something to add, but I'm probably not going to respond
to all the critiques.
Adam M Gaffin
GVB <mrgbn...@erols.com> wrote:
>"guilty until proven innocent" school of reporting. The post that originated
>this discussion now appears as an "article" on a commercial internet site
>(or at least what appears to be a commercial site)--itself an interesting
>sidelight to this whole issue. Unfortunately, Mr. Barnicle, and those who
Elisabeth saw I'd cobbled together a Barnicle page and suggested I do
something with her post. I thought it was an interesting and relevant
article, so I turned it into HTML. There's nothing more to it than that.
It's not like she's getting a royalty on it (would that I could give
contributors that!).
ka...@delphi.com
>One of the problems working-class heroes will always have is that the
>[often less-talented] upper-crusties absolutely despise them, see them as
>a threat to the status quo, and will lurk forever in order to get the
>in the right place is no substitute for having the proper pedigree.
>
>MB acknowledges his error, may have fudged when first called on it, but
>has more integrity in his cigar butt than many of his highpowered enemies
>have in their entire bloated, pampered, self-indulgent, -righteous,
>-absorbed, and -centered; two-pager-wearing, seen-at-all-the-right-places
>bodies.
.
Where to begin? The only reason Barnicle's twenty-year long
history of plagiarism and other questionable activities were
put up with by the Globe was that he sucked up to every
powerful figure in the state's political hierarchy. Never
had a bad word to say about the Senate President's gangster/
murderer brother (the infamous "Whitey" Bulger -- Barnicle
wouldn't even call him Whitey -- he called him Jimmy. Nobody
else in the world has called that guy Jimmy in 40 years).
Barnicle's wife has major connections. Barnicle's job
was saved by the hacks whose back he has covered for the last
twenty years, and phone calls from his working class friends
like the President of Staples and the Fleet Bank. Having
million dollar advertisers threaten to withhold their
$$$ goes a long way.
.
Barnicle lives in what is arguably the most exclusive
town in the state. He plays golf in the most exclusive
clubs and courses. As much as he has painted
himself as a man of the people with his maudlin column,
he was one the biggest ass kissers in the history of
journalism. His critical skills when it came to
democratic state government were on a par with
the movie reviewers who say the latest Ernest movie
is "screamingly funny".
.
The second column he ever wrote for the Globe resulted
in a lawsuit. Interestingly, he was accused of making
up a quote. He was sued, his notes were subpoenaed.
The judge determined that after the subpoena he had
gone back and INSERTED the quote from the person,
into his original notes. The guy won the suit.
.
So when Mike cries you a river about his impeccable
record, those of us who have been following him
for years and know better just cringe.
.
kassa
ka...@delphi.com
>It's a similar case with Barnicle. These allegations may not be true
>-- which is why I clearly labeled them as such -- but they also
>haven't been proven false. If you believe even one of these incidents
>(perhaps the lawsuit which the Globe lost?) then you must agree that
>Barnicle isn't a first time offender.
>
>Now, we may not have enough information to judge which accusations are
>true, but people closer to Barnicle may. And while Matt Storin (the
>editor) may not have punished Barnicle for things that happened before
>his tenure, they are valid considerations during sentencing.
And if Patricia Smith sues for discrimination (I doubt she
will, but it's possible) the discovery process WILL permit
all of the cases where the Globe paid people off to be
exposed. Why aren't they talking? BEcause part of the
financial settlement in such cases is usually a gag order.
But a lawsuit against the Globe accusing them of a pattern
of tolerating behavior from Barnicle and firing a Black
woman for the same behavior would make those previous
issues relevant.
.
And before the Barnicle defenders start their "they're
two different matters -- one's about jokes, one's about
fabricating quotes" -- the majority of the "crimes"
Barnicle has been accused of over the years have been
of fabricating quotes. And Patricia Smith made up
people and then "quoted" them. A journalistic crime,
certainly. But I challenge anyone to say that putting
completely fabricated (and often racist/inflammatory) quotes
into an ACTUAL person's mouth is not worse.
.
kassa