Connect with us

Culture

Boston Globe editor puts his apology for paper’s sex scandal cover-up behind a paywall

Published

on

The editor of the largest newspaper in New England, and the focus of the 2015 Best Picture of the Year Oscar “Spotlight,” put his apology for covering up the name of the reporter he fired because of his sexually-related misconduct behind the paper’s paywall.”

“For the record, the journalist’s name is Jim O’Sullivan, a former State House reporter of four-plus years for the Globe,” wrote Brian McGory in a “Note to Globe readers about our sexual harassment coverage” posted late Thursday, two weeks after McGory refused to release the reporter’s name–only that he had been fired.

“I got too caught up on nuance and failed to grasp the need for transparency by this organization in this unprecedented reckoning,” he wrote from behind a paywall that cost 99 cents to pass through.

Trending: Twitter Suspends US Customs and Border Protection Commissioner For Celebrating the Effectiveness of Trump’s Border Wall

Other Boston-area media outlet had released his name, so it was already public before McGory named him.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“I am confirming what other news organizations have reported already,” he wrote. “He made lewd propositions to one newsroom colleague and to two women that we are aware of on Beacon Hill. Though we know he apologized to his Globe colleague and stopped his advances, we felt his actions were an abuse of his position as a Globe reporter and completely inappropriate.”

https://twitter.com/lilsarg/status/944209096164696065

The paper’s internal review of O’Sullivan’s work also showed that his reporting may have also been compromised by his sexual predations.

“We have since gone back and, to the best of our ability, reviewed O’Sullivan’s work to make sure it wasn’t compromised by his actions,” he wrote.

“We have found several stories that either involve or at least mention organizations that we believe are connected to one of the subjects of his propositions, but there is nothing to indicate that the stories are unusual or slanted,” the editor wrote. “These things, admittedly, are difficult to determine. We will continue to review as more information becomes available.”

McGory also wrote that he made his decision to keep O’Sullivan’s name private after consulting with women in his newsroom, but after blaming them, he took the blame himself.-

“The bottom line is that we believed we were taking a principled position and applying our journalistic standards evenly, including to ourselves,” he wrote.

Then, he kind of suggested people inside the paper still agree he was right the first time, before remembering the purpose of his missive.

“Some here still believe that, while others don’t. Even as we were debating, norms of coverage and even the broader definition of harassment were changing,” he wrote.

“It was my mistake.”

If you have not used up all your free articles from The Boston Globe, you can read the apology here.

Otherwise, here it is:

A note to Globe readers about our sexual harassment coverage
December 22, 2017

We published a story on Dec. 8 about news organizations, including the Globe, facing sexual misconduct issues in their midst as they cover these issues elsewhere. The story noted that a Globe journalist was “pressured into resigning” after misconduct accusations were made against him.

At the time, Globe editors chose not to publicly identify the journalist. We believed that we were adhering to our journalistic principles, standards on sourcing, and sense of basic fairness. We believed that the misconduct was not at the level of what we had been covering and uncovering in other organizations. We didn’t believe we had definitive proof to name him in a news story.

Time and circumstances in this extraordinary national movement have given us, or at least me, a different perspective.

For the record, the journalist’s name is Jim O’Sullivan, a former State House reporter of four-plus years for the Globe. I am confirming what other news organizations have reported already. He made lewd propositions to one newsroom colleague and to two women that we are aware of on Beacon Hill. Though we know he apologized to his Globe colleague and stopped his advances, we felt his actions were an abuse of his position as a Globe reporter and completely inappropriate.

In reaching the decision not to identify him, I consulted with many women and men around the newsroom. The merits were debated extensively by senior editors, women and men. All harassment stories, and we’ve done many, are challenging to report and complicated to write. Victims are understandably raw and often reluctant to speak. We require corroboration to get over legal thresholds. Quite often, we decide we haven’t met our standard and end up with a lesser story than we expected. Sometimes, we choose to do no story at all.

While our discussions on the O’Sullivan matter were mostly focused on proof, fairness, and spectrums of misconduct, there’s now a fairly obvious realization that I didn’t focus enough on another very important factor: the Globe’s institutional credibility.

The bottom line is that we believed we were taking a principled position and applying our journalistic standards evenly, including to ourselves. Some here still believe that, while others don’t. Even as we were debating, norms of coverage, and even the broader definition of harassment, were changing. I got too caught up on nuance and failed to grasp the need for transparency by this organization in this unprecedented reckoning. It was my mistake.

We have since gone back and, to the best of our ability, reviewed O’Sullivan’s work to make sure it wasn’t compromised by his actions. We have found several stories that either involve or at least mention organizations that we believe are connected to one of the subjects of his propositions, but there is nothing to indicate that the stories are unusual or slanted. These things, admittedly, are difficult to determine. We will continue to review as more information becomes available.

This has been an important time in our country, but by no means an easy time for many organizations. I unintentionally made it more difficult for the Globe. Please know that we’ve learned vital lessons about holding ourselves to a higher standard, lessons that I pledge will be vigorously applied to our coverage of these and many other issues going forward.

Brian McGrory

Editor

Campaign 2020

University of Pennsylvania Workers Overwhelmingly Support the Democrat Party

From Top to Bottom Universities are in the Tank for Democrats

Published

on

Employees at the University of Pennsylvania are overwhelmingly in the tank for the Democrat Party.

Ophelia Jacobson of Campus Reform reported that University of Pennsylvania employees contributed to Democrat candidates, campaigns, and organizations between 2019 and 2020. Campus Reform was able to gather the data by turning to the Federal Election Commission.

Per the Campus Reform analysis, a whopping 97.6 percent of campaign contributions in 2019 and 2020 made by Penn instructors, staff, and administrators were sent to “Democratic organizations, candidates, and their campaigns.” Some of these groups and causes included ActBlue, Win the Era PAC, Biden for President, and MoveOn Political Action.

The remaining 2.4 percent of contributions went to Republican causes. These included WinRed, Donald J. Trump for President, and the Republican National Committee.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To get more specific, of the 715 donations that Penn faculty members made, just 11 were sent to Republican candidates, institutions or campaigns. This number represented 1.5 percent of campaign contributions pitched in by faculty members. The remaining 98.4 percent of donations were sent to Democrat causes.

Staff contributions showed similar trends. 97.6 percent of contributions were sent to Democrat campaigns, candidates, or organizations, whereas 2.4 percent were sent to Republicans.

Penn administrators donated 731 times during the time-frame of 2019 and 2020. Curiously, 21 of those 731 contributions (2.8 percent) were only made to Republican causes and the remainder (97.1 percent) were sent to Democrat causes.

This analysis reported that ActBlue was the principal organization that Penn workers donated to as far as Democrats institutions were concerned. In contrast, WinRed was the largest recipient of donations of all the Republican organizations.

Just another case of an American institution of higher learning being filled with leftist staff across the board. Let’s face it, universities are a magnet for the Left and work to perpetuate such a political paradigm.

Conservatives should take note. These institutions and the drones who work for them are the enemy. In light of this, the Right should aim to defund public universities and make sure to attend alternative educational institutions if possible. These institutions do not deserve a single penny from right wingers.

 

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending