Boston Globe Still in the Tank for Children’s Hospital

October 14, 2016

Apparently, the Boston Globe is willing to carry water for Boston’s Children’s Hospital like Gunga Din in the ongoing dispute over the medical center’s expansion plan.

As the hardreading staff noted the other day, the Globe ran this op-ed piece by former Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation president Michael Widmer in Wednesday’s edition.

Watchdog overreaches on Children’s Hospital expansion

bch-bridge-renderings-1a

ONE OF the iron laws of public policy is that regulatory agencies have an irresistible tendency to push the limits of their power and authority. Whether it’s the environment, transportation, or health care, the agency seems compelled to prove the purpose of its existence by reaching ever further into the regulatory arena.

We saw a classic example of that recently when the Health Policy Commission inserted itself into Boston Children’s Hospital’s determination of need application to upgrade its facilities. This is the first time that the HPC has chosen to comment on a determination of need application, and it did it 10 months after the hospital first submitted its application to the Department of Public Health, which had launched an extensive public process with widespread commentary and analysis.

 

Widmer also wrote that “the Health Policy Commission should never have inserted itself into the process in the first place.”

What we wrote was that Widmer shouldn’t have been inserted into the Globe op-ed page without the paper noting that he serves on the Children’s Hospital Board Committee for Community Service.

Coincidentally (or not), Wednesday’s Globe also featured this full-page ad.

 

screen-shot-2016-10-12-at-1-29-46-pm

 

Conflict of interest, right?

Calls for full disclosure, right?

No such thing from the Globe.

So we sent this email to Globe editorial page editor Ellen Clegg:

Hi, Ellen,

[We] just published this post on Two-Daily Town.

http://bit.ly/2dXG7ZD

[We] would welcome the opportunity to post your response.

Sincerely,
[The Hardreading Staff]

 

So far . . . nothing.

No response from Ms. Clegg. No editor’s note about Widmer in the Globe. No nothing.

Except . . .

Another full-page ad in today’s Globe.

 

screen-shot-2016-10-14-at-9-56-07-am

 

(Children’s is so desperate to burnish its image, the hospital even ran the ad in today’s Boston Herald.)

To recap: The Boston Globe ran an op-ed piece from a Children’s Hospital Board member (without identifying him as such) that promoted the hospital’s controversial expansion plan on the same day the paper ran a lucrative full-page ad promoting the hospital’s controversial expansion plan.

And then ran another lucrative ad.

That’s not journalism. That’s full-service marketing.

Globe editors should know better. Globe readers deserve better.


Conflict of Interest on Boston Globe’s Op-Ed Page?

October 12, 2016

Former Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation president Michael Widmer has this op-ed piece in today’s Boston Globe.

Watchdog overreaches on Children’s expansion

bch-bridge-renderings-1a

ONE OF the iron laws of public policy is that regulatory agencies have an irresistible tendency to push the limits of their power and authority. Whether it’s the environment, transportation, or health care, the agency seems compelled to prove the purpose of its existence by reaching ever further into the regulatory arena.

We saw a classic example of that recently when the Health Policy Commission inserted itself into Boston Children’s Hospital’s determination of need application to upgrade its facilities. This is the first time that the HPC has chosen to comment on a determination of need application, and it did it 10 months after the hospital first submitted its application to the Department of Public Health, which had launched an extensive public process with widespread commentary and analysis.

 

Widmer further states that “the Health Policy Commission should never have inserted itself into the process in the first place.”

But others say the Globe should never have inserted Widmer into the op-ed page – at least not without full disclosure.

An opponent of the Children’s expansion sent us this:

[Widmer] chastised the Health Policy Commission for scrutinizing the largest hospital expansion proposal in state history. HPC is supposed to help control health care costs in the Commonwealth, so of course it would raise objections to this unnecessary proposal. Then, Widmer did not disclose his own role with the hospital. The Globe should be more careful, and the hospital should be more honest.

 

Widmer’s role with Children’s? He’s listed on the hospital’s website as a member of its Board Committee for Community Service.

 

screen-shot-2016-10-12-at-1-01-28-pm

 

In addition, there’s this comment attached to the web version of Widmer’s op-ed:

Mike Widmer is on the Board of Children’s Hospital. Printing this column is wrong. Given the Globe’s revenue struggles, it could have charged Children’s for ad space here.

Either very sloppy, or a serious breach of ethics by both the Globe and Widmer– or maybe both.

 

We’ve sent an email to Editorial Page Editor Ellen Clegg asking for a response. As always, we’ll keep you posted.

UPDATE: As the irrepressible Alex Beam notes, I failed to mention the Children’s ad on page 3 of today’s Globe.

 

screen-shot-2016-10-12-at-1-29-46-pm

 

Well, that closes the circle, eh?


Remy Smartin’ in Boston Dailies?

March 25, 2014

Well, yes and no.

Jared Remy’s certainly hurting after the Boston Globe blowtorched him on Page One Sunday. (In that piece, it should be noted, the stately local broadsheet yet again failed to disclose that Red Sox principal owner John Henry also owns the paper. Or is the hardreading staff the only one who still cares about that kind of stuff?)

Jerry Remy? Jury’s still out.

Start with Gerry Callahan’s full-throated support in today’s Boston Herald.

Red Sox job is Jerry Remy’s call

At what point do you give up on a kid?

When exactly do you throw up your hands, turn your back and walk away from your own child?_CE29101.JPG

Jerry and Phoebe Remy are the parents of a 35-year-old monster with a long history of hurting women — particularly pregnant ones — but they haven’t reached that point yet. Their son Jared is evil to the core, but they still visit him in jail. They presumably pay for his lawyers. They probably hope and pray he will once again come before a pliable Massachusetts judge and avoid the harshest penalties allowed by law.

Somehow this doesn’t sit well with many Red Sox fans who think Jerry Remy should no longer be allowed to sit in the NESN booth with Don Orsillo and talk about baseball.

 

 

But it sits okay with Callahan, who ends his piece this way: “Jerry Remy admits he made mistakes and he knows things will never be the same for Remdawg Inc. But he shouldn’t be stripped of his livelihood and sent home to stare at the walls. Jared should go to prison for the rest of his life. Jerry should go back to work, and, finally and at last, give up on his rotten, hopeless kid.”

Crosstown at the Globe, not everyone is so forgiving. Alan Wirzbicki in a point-counterpoint with Alex Beam:

[I]f Jerry Remy sold used cars, then maybe none of it would matter. The questionable decisions an employee makes with his own paycheck are usually his own business.

But Jerry Remy doesn’t sell used cars. His job is to be a particular TV persona — the gentle, chuckling color commentator on Sox games. Playing that role has made him popular. But now that’s not an image that he can project without turning New England’s collective stomach.

 

Now it’s Beam’s turn:

I understand that when most people read the story of Jerry and Jared, they see an entitled, well-off sports celebrity gaming the legal system on behalf of his wild and dangerous son. I see something different: a complicated, confusing morass, of biblical pain inflicted on a family that wants to balance its love for a disturbed davis_st2278_sptschild against society’s legitimate expectations of personal safety.

Jared is in jail, where he belongs. I’m sure his father and his family are living in a special kind of hell. If the sins of the son are visited on the father, well, that’s not what I call justice.

 

But it’s what a letter to the Globe editor does. Here’s Frank Hannon of Melrose:

CONCERNING THE return of sportscaster Jerry Remy to the booth as his son, Jared, awaits trial in the murder of his girlfriend: Perhaps charity demands that NESN be given the benefit of the doubt about what the network knew of the elder Remy’s role in the repeated enabling of his son. However, the Globe’s expose of the monumentally sordid circumstances of Jared Remy’s record removes all doubt (“For Jared Remy, leniency was the rule until one lethal night,” Page A1, March 23).

Who will be able to watch Remy without being reminded of the unimaginable havoc wrought by his son? Even for crass economic reasons alone, let alone the basic duty of social responsibility that NESN owes the community — and yes, there is such a thing — how can NESN possibly allow Remy to stay on the air?

 

If you’re looking for a tiebreaker, try the redoubtable Dan Kennedy at Media Nation.  He has an interesting conversation going on in the comments thread.