The Essential Difference Between the Boston Dailies

December 11, 2015

From our One Towne, Two Different Worlds desk

As the hardreading staff has (we trust) dutifully noted, the local dailies rarely see eye-to-eye on any particular story.

Yesterday was no exception.

But it was particularly illuminating. And it all revolved around fan safety at Fenway Park, where most fans go to 1) see a Red Sox victory, and 2) avoid any major head injuries.

Boston Globe Page One:

SAFE AT HOME

Sox to heed MLB’s recommendation for additional protective netting

Screen Shot 2015-12-11 at 12.41.37 AM

NASHVILLE — Major League Baseball on Wednesday took steps to protect those fans who want to sit close to the action, recommending that all teams extend protective netting between the dugouts for any field-level seats within 70 feet of home plate.

The Red Sox immediately announced they would comply and are making plans to extend the netting behind home plate to the dugouts. Team president Sam Kennedy said the Sox are evaluating what the size and type of the netting will be.

 

The Globe piece also included this helpful graphic about fans injured in Major League ballparks each year:

 

Screen Shot 2015-12-11 at 12.44.25 AM

 

To illustrate one example, the stately local broadsheet mentioned this in paragraph 11:

On July 10, a woman sitting [near the edge of the backstop screen] was hit in the forehead by a foul ball. Stephanie Wapenski, 36, of Branford, Conn., required more than 40 stitches.

 

Crosstown at the Boston Herald, Stephanie Wapenski was no footnote – she was the hitchy local tabloid’s Cover Girl.

 

Screen Shot 2015-12-11 at 1.07.26 AM

 

From the estimable Peter Gelzinis:

Field of Dreams: Fan Nets Fairy Tale Fenway Ending

Screen Shot 2015-12-11 at 1.12.27 AM

Even if the Red Sox didn’t plan to extend the protective netting along the first- and third-base lines, Stephanie Wapenski had no intention of staying away from the ballpark she loves. And now, in a fairy-tale ending to her hard luck story, she’s going back for love.

Wapenski was six rows up from the third-base line, watching the Sox play the Yankees last July. She recalled telling her fiance, Matt Fraenza, “We’re going to catch a ball tonight.”

What this Connecticut woman wound up catching on that night was a 100 mph line-drive foul from Yankees shortstop Didi Gregorius that ricocheted off her forehead and landed in short left field.

 

But then . . .

“When the Red Sox asked what they could do for us,” Stephanie recalled, “we mentioned that we weren’t interested in pursuing any legal action. We told them we were rabid baseball fans who would love to be married at Fenway.”

The Red Sox didn’t need to be asked twice. They waived the $10,000 fee other couples, who have not been beaned by a line drive, must pay to be married on the field.

 

Excellent!

And an excellent example of the gap between the rational local broadsheet and the emotional local tabloid.

So we say . . . long live Two-Daily Towns!

Or at least what’s left of them.

Advertisements

Al Jazeera America Has Bad News for the Boston Herald

August 20, 2013

The hardreading staff gets four newspapers delivered to the Global Worldwide Headquarters every day: Boston Globe, Boston Herald, New York Times, Wall Street Journal.

Guess which one didn’t have an ad promoting today’s launch of Al Jazeera America, the Qatar-based news organization that recently bought Al Gore’s ghostship channel, Current TV?

That’s right. The Herald.

Today’s Globe featured this ad on the back page of the A section:

 

Picture 2

 

The Journal ran the same ad, except with different colors.

The Times, meanwhile, had two Al Jazeera America ads. This full-page ad in the A section:

 

Picture 3

 

And this smaller one in the Business section.

 

Picture 5

 

The Herald got bubkes.

Of course, this happens to the feisty local tabloid all the time, as the hardreading staff has previously noted. Then again, it’s just possible that the paper rejected an effort by AJAM to purchase ad space. Maybe one of the hardhating Heraldniks who reads this will let us know.

Regardless, it’s one thing for Al Jazeera America to buy ads, and quite another to sell them. From TVNewser:

One of the complicating factors with regard to [today’s] launch: it is not clear whether AJAM will have much advertiser support.

The channel’s executive team touted its light commercial load leading up the launch arguing that it was a differentiator, but also declined to say who the flagship launch advertiser would be.

 

That, and cable carriage, will likely determine the fate of AJAM. But not in the near future: They’ve got some pretty deep pockets in Qatar, however you pronounce it.