For the second straight day the Boston Herald has stiffed the Boston Globe in reporting about the Kenneth Brissette shakedown story.
Let’s start at the beginning, with yesterday’s Page One story in the Globe.
E-mails link Walsh aide to union deal
Stagehands passed festival proposal through Sullivan
A contract requiring the Boston Calling music festival to hire union stagehands in 2014 was submitted for review to a close aide to Mayor Martin J. Walsh during a time when federal prosecutors allege city officials illegally forced the concert organizers to hire unneeded union workers, according to city e-mails released Friday.
The stagehands passed the contract proposal to Boston Calling, a private entity, through Walsh aide Tim Sullivan, according to the e-mails, which were acquired by the Globe through a public records request. In an Aug. 20, 2014 e-mail, the union’s business manager lays out the terms of the agreement and thanks the administration for its assistance.
Communications reveal meetings between mayor’s advisers, Boston Calling, Brissette
A top adviser and close confidante of Mayor Martin J. Walsh was looped into discussions about labor unions with Boston Calling organizers and tourism chief Kenneth Brissette at the same time federal prosecutors say Brissette was strong-arming festival officials to hire union workers, according to newly released emails.
“Newly released emails,” eh? Like out of the goodness of Walsh’s heart?
Herald columnist Joe Battenfeld also refers to them as “the newly released emails.” Just dropped out of the sky.
And so we get to today’s edition of the Herald, which features this follow-up referring to – wait for it – “newly released emails.”
A livid TV production staffer warned a city tourism official that Boston was at risk of being blacklisted over heavy-handed union tactics, according to newly released emails.
The scores of emails, obtained by the Herald in a public records request, show the inner workings of the Boston Office of Tourism, Sports and Entertainment that was headed by Kenneth Brissette.
The Globe, as far as we can tell (because the Globe’s search engine is worse than useless), did not pick up on that story. Let’s hope if the lately local broadsheet does, it’ll show better manners than the dodgy local tabloid.
As the hardreading staff has noted on numerous occasions, Citgo has lately been running quarter-page ads in the Boston Globe celebrating its Kenmore Square sign, whose future is uncertain now that Boston University is looking to sell the buildings beneath it.
Representative sample:
We’ve asked Citgo’s public affairs manager Fernando Garay why the company doesn’t run ads in the Boston Herald, but he’s been a private affairs manager to us, not deigning to respond to multiple inquiries.
However . . .
Splendid reader Sam Doran has sent us this:
The print Herald may be thirsty for Citgo Sign ads, but CyberHerald’s got them. I just noticed a banner at the top of the mobile site. Two screenshots are attached. Tapping the banner led to bostoncitgosign.com (second screenshot).
Said screenshots:
Of course, it costs pennies on the (print) dollar for Boston Herald digital ads, but no doubt the thirsty local tabloid is thankful for whatever Citgo sends its way.
Still, Citgo’s sign to the Herald (and Two-Daily Town) remains . . . the middle finger.
Another day, another dolor for the thirsty local tabloid, which once again gets the air – not the ad – in a local public policy tussle.
This time it’s the Environmental League of Massachusetts and the Conservation Law Foundation that have teamed up to run an ad in today’s Boston Globe (but not the Herald) addressing Massachusetts House Speaker Robert DeLeo about energy policy in the Bay State.
Memo to George Bachrach and Brad Campbell:
What, it would have killed you to run a half-page ad in the Herald?
Pundits achieve cable-news stardom after converting into Donald Trump supporters
Last summer, shortly after Donald Trump launched his angry missile of a campaign with that memorable remark about Mexicans and rapists, Kayleigh McEnany sounded like pretty much every other talking head on cable news.
“I think he said something very unartful, very inappropriate,” she told Don Lemon during a June 29 segment on “CNN Tonight.”
“I’m here to tell you, he’s not going to be anywhere near the top five,” McEnany added. “He’s not a serious contender within the Republican Party. And I think he made that pretty clear when the most important thing he said in his speech was, ‘I am rich, I am rich,’ repeatedly.”
Today, McEnany sounds very different — both from her earlier self and from better-known conservative commentators such as Karl Rove and S.E. Cupp, who remain highly critical of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. McEnany is now a staunch Trump supporter, a turnaround that has helped make the newly minted Harvard Law School graduate a rising star on CNN . . .
McEnany, Borchers writes, “is one of a small handful of commentators — including Jeffrey Lord, Scottie Nell Hughes, Adriana Cohen and Carl Higbie — who have made defending the real estate mogul their niche and in the process made themselves hot commodities.”
And hot under the collar, in Cohen’s case. The Boston Herald columnist fired back at Borchers in today’s edition.
D.C. hit job ignores facts
Post piece demeans female pundits who back Trump
If you want to see what the war on women looks like, you need look no further than The Washington Post.
To be more specific, the war on conservative women.
Because I have dared to write supportive opinion columns on Donald Trump, I was featured along with two other female commentators in a Post story that stated that I have “achieved cable-news stardom after converting” into a Donald Trump supporter, that I, along with the others, “have made defending the real estate mogul their niche and in the process made themselves hot commodities.”
Cohen says despite Borchers’ claim that she was an “occasional guest” on CNN, Fox News Channel, and Fox Business Network “before getting behind Trump,” she actually appeared on national TV and radio shows “at least 100 times over the past few years, long before writing columns backing Trump and his positions this February.”
Cohen does not, however, address this part of Borchers’ piece:
On March 25, during a live segment on CNN, [Cohen] brought up a National Enquirer story that alleged multiple extramarital affairs by Cruz — unsubstantiated rumors that the mainstream media had mostly ignored until then. As anchor Kate Bolduan shook her head, Cohen went a step further, asserting on live TV that fellow guest Amanda Carpenter, Cruz’s former communications director, had been identified as one of five mistresses.
Ouch.
One last point: As Cohen points out, some of the comments attached to Borchers’ piece are brutally misogynistic. But during this election season, that’s par for the course. Trump supporters or no.
As the hardreading staff has noted over the past week or so, Citgo has been running ads in the Boston Globe (but not the Boston Herald) celebrating the landmark Kenmore Square Citgo sign, which might be endangered when Boston University sells the buildings beneath it.
Here’s yesterday’s installment of the feel-good ads.
When the ads first appeared, we contacted Citgo’s public affairs manager Fernando Garay, who said he’d be glad to answer a few questions via email. So we sent him this:
Thanks for getting back to [us] so quickly, Mr. Garay.
A few questions:
Are the Boston Globe ads indeed tied to the uncertain future of the Citgo sign?
What kind of response did you get to the ads?
Have you run ads in other media outlets? Did you consider running these two in the Boston Herald?
Do you have plans to run ads in the future or expand your social media efforts beyond #CITGOsign on Twitter?
Thank you [and etc.].
No reply.
So we queried again.
No reply.
Finally, we sent this last night:
Dear Mr. Garay,
All due respect, but if you weren’t willing to answer [our] questions about the Citgo sign ads in the Boston Globe, why did you say “Please send me your questions via email and I will get back to you with responses”?
For the third time, [our] questions:
Are the Boston Globe ads indeed tied to the uncertain future of the Citgo sign?
What kind of response have you gotten to the ads?
Have you run ads in other media outlets? Did you consider running any in the Boston Herald?
Do you have plans to run ads in the future or expand your social media efforts beyond #CITGOsign on Twitter?
Sincerely,
[The hardreading staff]
Citgo: Proud to touch so many lives. Just not to answer any questions about it.
As the hardreading staff has previously noted, a tree-hugging consortium called Consumers for Sensible Energy has been insensibly spending tens of thousands of dollars on ads in the Boston Globe to little or no effect.
Here’s the group’s ad opposing a new pipeline and Liquified Natural Gas facility for Eastern Massachusetts.
Yesterday, they took their message to the State House steps in Boston, also to little or no effect. The protest got some coverage in the Salem News and the Berkshire Eagle, but a long MassLive story about the Senate’s climate committee hearing yesterday made no mention of the protest. The Boston Globe and Boston Herald had nothing about any of it.
Even worse was the deafening silence on social media: The protest generated exactly one tweet at #StopThePipelineTax, the hashtag the group has spent all that ad money publicizing.
Plug “Consumers for Sensible Energy” into the Twitter search box and you get exactly zero tweets about the protest.
Memo to Consumers for (All Those Dollars and No) Sensible Energy: Next time, just set your money on fire.
The Boston Herald has long been the venue of last resort for full-page ads of the advocacy/corporate image/memorial sort.
As it was yesterday, when the Herald was bypassed by two ads that ran in the Boston Globe.
First, this Boston suck-up ad from GE (which in this town stands for Got Everything.)
Then, this Boston Ad Club full-page backpat honoring diversity in a town that has long hampered diversity.
(To be fair graf goes here)
To be fair, yesterday’s Herald did feature this full-page bank ad.
As well as this half-page Massachusetts tax amnesty ad.
Neither of which ran in yesterday’s Globe.
Still, there’s no question that the Herald is an afterthought in the eyes of local advertisers.
Which makes it all the more interesting that the feisty local tabloid seems to enjoy better fiscal fitness than the stately local broadsheet, which is now desperately downsizing (tip o’ the pixel to the redoubtable Dan Kennedy at Media Nation) as it moves from its sprawling Morrissey Boulevard home to cramped quarters in Boston’s financial district.
The objective is to derail Spectra Energy’s Access Northeast project, “which would expand and add new pipeline from West Boylston to Weymouth and down to Acushnet. It calls for the construction of a massive liquefied natural gas facility and new compressor station on the South Coast and South Shore.”
But #StopThePipelineTax has so far been a bust, drawing “No Results” a day after the group’s first ad ran, and only this a day (and another ad) later.
So, to recap: One-half of the responses to this six-figure ad campaign have come from . . . us.
Consumers for (All Those Dollars and No) Sensible Energy has scheduled a State House rally at 11:30 today.
An outfit called Consumers for Sensible Energy ran this ad in the Boston Sunday Globe yesterday (but not the Boston Herald).
The body copy:
CFSE appears to be a consortium of every local non-profit that’s ever hugged a tree. From their Allies page:
Here’s the issue, according to the group’s website:
Last Week, Kinder Morgan announced that it has suspended its Northeast Energy Direct pipeline project to import fracked gas from Pennsylvania to New England and to connect to export terminals in Canada for shipment overseas.
That was great news, but it is only half the story. There is a second pipeline company proposing to import more fracked gas. And, once again consumers would pay for the $3 billion cost, with a monthly pipeline tax on their bills.
Spectra Energy has proposed its Access Northeast project, which would expand and add new pipeline from West Boylston to Weymouth and down to Acushnet. It calls for the construction of a massive liquefied natural gas facility and new compressor station on the South Coast and South Shore.
Among the Bad News Bearers about the other half of the story was this Globe piece last week.
Weymouth mayor continues talks with Spectra Energy despite local objection
Mayor Robert Hedlund says he’s talking to Spectra Energy about a mitigation package involving millions of dollars for the town if the company builds a natural-gas compressor station near the Fore River Bridge — despite his opposition to the project and calls from local residents to stop the talks.
“It would be irresponsible not to talk with them,” Hedlund said in a phone interview Tuesday. “We’re backed into a corner.”
The offer calls for a $12 million payment in the fall of 2016, followed by another $1 million annually for the next 14 years, and potentially more in property tax adjustments, according to Hedlund’s office.
Hedlund said attorneys for the town advised him that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission did not appear to be swayed by Weymouth’s concerns that the compressor station posed a safety threat — and would probably approve Spectra’s plans soon. The federal agency has ultimate authority over the project.
Understandably, Consumers for Sensible Energy wants to mobilize the opposition quickly, so its website billboarded this.
Ever diligent, the hardtweeting staff checked #StopThePipelineTax on Twitter and here’s what we found at 12 o’clock this morning.
Just to be clear: 18 hours after their five-figure Boston Globe ad hit the front doors of 220,000 Greater Bostonians, Consumers for (Dollars But No) Sensible Energy had generated up to zero responses on social media.
The partnership has run newspaper ads such as this one . . .
. . . and this one . . .
. . . both of which ran in the Boston Globe last week.
But not the Boston Herald.
So we sent this email to the Ad Council:
Dear Sir or Madam,
[We] noted with interest the ads you’ve run the past two days in the Boston Globe. But not the Boston Herald.
[We] know the ads you produce virtually always run pro bono, so just wondering: Did you not ask the Herald to run them, or did you ask and the paper decline?
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
[The hardreading staff]
No reply.
Then, suddenly, this half-page ad ran in yesterday’s hungry local tabloid.
So: Either the Ad Council finally asked, or the Herald finally agreed to run the ad pro bono.
Coincidence?
We defer to Leroy Jethro Gibbs’s Rule 39 (at 1:52) to answer that.
Posted by Campaign Outsider 
It's Good to Live in a Two-Daily Town 