The Boston Herald’s Michael Silverman got an email interview with Boston GlobeSox owner John Henry, which, of course, was Page One news for the feisty local tabloid.
The email exchange between Silverman and Henry was pretty much what you’d expect.
Henry takes stock of perplexing Sox
The Red Sox are genuinely perplexed.
Barely more than two weeks ago, principal owner John Henry was told by his general manager that the Red Sox “are probably the best team in the division. We just aren’t playing like it.”
The reasons behind the team’s incredibly underwhelming and disappointing caliber of play for most of the first four months of the season are not clear to Henry and the front office. With the trade deadline looming Thursday, Henry and his baseball operations people have been trying to get a better handle on what’s gone wrong and discover if there’s time left to fix it.
It’s not exactly riveting stuff – when Silverman asks if the Sox are sellers or buyers, Henry replies, “We’ll see what happens (this) week.”
Ya think?
But there is one juicy item in the piece: A not-so-veiled reference to this from Boston Globe scribe (and Henry employee) Dan Shaughnessy last Sunday (reproduced in full for, well, full effect).
When did Boston go so soft on the Red Sox?
At this hour, your Boston Red Sox enjoy a friendlier environment than almost any of the 30 teams in baseball. The Sox have a chance to finish in last place for the second time in three years, win a playoff game in only one of six seasons, and still be perceived by their fans as “perennial contenders.’’ The Sox can play nine games under .500 for the first 95 games and still have a Nation of believers thinking they can win the division, or compete for the phony second wild card. Sox owners can pare payroll ($72.5 million scheduled to come off the books for next year), stay well below the coveted luxury tax threshold, and listen to regional applause while fans pay the highest ticket prices in baseball. The Sox can get folks to buy into the notion that it’s foolish to compete in the open market for the services of their best pitcher. Sox tickets and merchandise are hotter than they were at this time last summer and Pat Moscaritolo, president of a Boston tourist group, says, “For the past 10 years that I’ve been tracking visitor spending and the economic impact of the Red Sox, it’s almost unaffected by the team’s performance.’’
The Sox were positively surging with five wins in six games against terrible/mediocre teams (aggregate 21 games under .500) as they prepped for the Royals Saturday night. The KC-Boston matchup is a good one, since it sometimes sounds like the Sox want to be a middle-market team. Like the Royals of recent decades (29 years since making the playoffs), the Sox now sell the fans on “watching the kids.” Don’t people realize that EVERY team has a farm system stocked with young players who’d love to play in front of sellout crowds in the moribund final months of a season? It amazes me how soft this baseball market has become. In 1978 fans and media crushed the Sox for a 99-win season that concluded with eight consecutive pressure-packed victories. The Boston manager was unmercifully booed on Opening Day the following year. Now everything is awesome because the Boston ballpark is a tourist destination and fans fall in love with the hype of every young player coming through the system. Swell. When did we become St. Louis?
Ouch. The only thing Shaughnessy left out? That the principal owner of the GlobeSox etc. etc.
Regardless, how much fun is it that Henry employed his own crosstown rival to dope-slap his wayward minion, saying this:
“Fans continue to sell out Fenway. They’ve suffered through some really bad games this year, but they continue to show up and the mood at the park among the fans is very positive when I walk through the stands. Before Tom [Werner], Larry [Lucchino] and I arrived I believe fans had less patience.
“A loud curmudgeon I know accuses them of being soft, bad fans — but anyone paying attention knows the mood has changed at Fenway over the years. People expect good things from the Sox and really love being at Fenway. This team accomplished something very special last year therefore the fans aren’t about to not give them the benefit of the doubt.”
Love that double negative. Wonder what Mr. Shaughnessy thinks.
So, to recap for the umpteenth- hell, just see here.
The question is this: How did Marty’s Mash Note to the Boston Public Schools wind up as a full-page ad in last Wednesday’s Boston Globe?
On Friday, CommonWealth Magazine (which came late – but smart – to the party) reported the issue thusly:
THE BOSTON GLOBE FOUNDATION donated a full-page ad in Wednesday’s newspaper to Boston Mayor Marty Walsh so he could thank the staff of the Boston Public Schools at the close of the school year.
Ellen Clegg, who heads the foundation, said the mayor personally asked Globe CEO Mike Sheehan for the ad space and the foundation provided it because the message was in keeping with the organization’s focus on education and literacy.
But Ms. Clegg had previously told the hardreading staff this:
The Globe Foundation donated the ad to the Boston Public Schools pro bono, as a public service. When we get a request for support from organizations that fit the Foundation’s mission, we work with the Globe’s advertising department to donate pro bono print ads in space that would normally go to unpaid “house ads.” It’s a great way to engage with the community. Other recent examples of pro bono ads include the One Fund and the MLK Summer Scholars Program, which the Foundation co-sponsors with John Hancock.
C’mon – “[donating] an ad to the Boston Public Schools pro bono” and kowtowing to the mayor of Boston aren’t even in the same zip code.
Regardless, Ms. Clegg perpetuated the split decision yesterday in these post-CommonWealth answers to our pre-CommonWealth questions, which took her initial explanation at face value:
• When you donated the ad to the Boston Public Schools, did you know it would take the form of a letter from Mayor Walsh?
Yes.
• Who did the creative/production of the ad?
The Globe’s advertising department.
• Given the ad’s content, did you have any concerns that it would appear you donated the ad to Mayor Walsh, raising questions about the appearance of compromising the Globe’s arm’s-length relationship with him?
The Globe’s newsroom is independent from the business side of the organization, and from the Globe Foundation, and had no involvement here.
I’m sure you’ve seen the newsroom’s recent scrub of Mayor Walsh’s hiring record (link below). I have confidence that our journalists will continue to scrutinize public officials and powerful institutions, including City Hall.
Frankly, we’re more interested in scrubbing Ms. Clegg’s record of telling the hardreading staff one thing and CommonWealth another.
From the start of John Henry’s dual ownership of the Boston GlobeSox, the paper pretty consistently ignored conflicts of interest in his business dealings with the Menino administration (see here and here). If Henry is now dancing to Marty Walsh’s tune, he should own up to that, too.
Last Wednesday, this full-page ad appeared in the Boston Globe:
That got the headscratching staff to wondering who paid for Marty’s Mash Note to the Boston Public Schools. So we sent a note to the Boston Globe Foundation (see lower left in the ad) asking just that: Did Mayor Walsh (read: Boston taxpayers) foot the bill? Did the Globe Foundation? Did no one?
And here’s what Globe lifer Ellen Clegg replied:
The Globe Foundation donated the ad to the Boston Public Schools pro bono, as a public service. When we get a request for support from organizations that fit the Foundation’s mission, we work with the Globe’s advertising department to donate pro bono print ads in space that would normally go to unpaid “house ads.” It’s a great way to engage with the community. Other recent examples of pro bono ads include the One Fund and the MLK Summer Scholars Program, which the Foundation co-sponsors with John Hancock.
(The hardquizzing staff followed up with an email that asked Ms. Clegg these questions: 1) When you donated the ad to the Boston Public Schools, did you know it would take the form of a letter from Mayor Walsh? 2) Who did the creative/production of the ad? 3) Given the ad’s content, did you have any concerns that it would look like you donated the ad not to the BPS but to Mayor Walsh, appearing to compromise the Globe’s arm’s-length relationship with him?
(We have yet to hear back.)
Meanwhile, as the redoubtable Dan Kennedy pointed out to us, the redoubtable Dan Kennedy pointed us to this piece in Commonwealth Magazine, where it seems to us Ms. Clegg told a very different story to CommonWealth Magazine (which, frankly, came late to the party):
Globe Foundation gives full-page ad to Walsh
Mayor approached CEO Sheehan for space
THE BOSTON GLOBE FOUNDATION donated a full-page ad in Wednesday’s newspaper to Boston Mayor Marty Walsh so he could thank the staff of the Boston Public Schools at the close of the school year.
Ellen Clegg, who heads the foundation, said the mayor personally asked Globe CEO Mike Sheehan for the ad space and the foundation provided it because the message was in keeping with the organization’s focus on education and literacy.
Yes, well, Ms. Clegg might want to focus on her own message(s). Clearly, she gave us a mere bag of shells.
The hardreading staff will call Ms. Clegg tomorrow and try to clarify all this, because turning your newspaper into a mayoral Make a Wish fund is a lot different from “donating an ad to the Boston Public Schools.”
On Wednesday, this full-page ad appeared in the Boston Globe:
That got the headscratching staff to wonder, Who picked up the tab for Marty’s Mash Note to the Boston Public Schools?
So we sent a note to the Boston Globe Foundation, whose logo appears lower left, asking if they could tell us if Mayor Walsh (read: Boston taxpayers) paid for the ad space or the Globe Foundation did or if any money changed hands at all.
And here’s the reply we received from Globe stalwart Ellen Clegg:
The Globe Foundation donated the ad to the Boston Public Schools pro bono, as a public service. When we get a request for support from organizations that fit the Foundation’s mission, we work with the Globe’s advertising department to donate pro bono print ads in space that would normally go to unpaid “house ads.” It’s a great way to engage with the community. Other recent examples of pro bono ads include the One Fund and the MLK Summer Scholars Program, which the Foundation co-sponsors with John Hancock.
Ms. Clegg graciously offered to talk with the hardquizzing staff and we have a call in to her.
As the hardreading staff has noted on numerous occasions, the relationship between Boston Globe/Red Sox owner John Henry and the City of Boston (read: Tom Menino) over the past several years became increasingly – and profitably – chummy, from Landsdowne Street air rights to Fenway Franks.
Boston Mayor Marty Walsh has always struck the hardreading staff as deep-down a Boston Herald kind of guy. But you can’t tell by looking at the local dailies today.
Boston Globe, Page 9:
Boston Herald: Nada thing.
Of course this logo lower left in the ad might explain that.
Subsequently, the headscratching staff sent this email to the Boston Globe Foundation:
I produce the website It’s Good to Live in a Two-Daily Town and I read with interest Mayor Walsh’s full-page ad in today’s Globe. I also noticed that the Boston Globe Foundation logo was included lower left.
Can you tell me if Mayor Walsh paid for the ad space? Or if the Boston Globe Foundation did? Or if any money changed hands at all?
When I got to chat briefly with Linda [Pizzuti, Henry’s wife] after the Chamber breakfast, she described her role at the paper as “evolving.” Is there any greater sense of what exactly her role will be yet?
Linda is fully engaged working on important issues for the Boston Globe. She is leading initiatives to activate our subscriber base connecting the Globe to the community. She is heading up the Boston Globe Foundation. And she serves on a number of internal committees that deal with real estate, circulation, social media and other business issues.
She was the driving force behind our recently launched Globe GRANT program, which gave our subscribers vouchers they are assigning to non-profit organizations for advertising space in the Boston Globe. This program has been very warmly received by charitable organizations and subscribers.
(Henry also writes in the exchange, “Mike [Barnicle] knows everyone worth knowing.” Huh.)
Anyway, we’re hoping to hear from the stately local broadsheet’s stately local do-gooders.
Did Marty Walsh (read: Boston taxpayers) pay for yesterday’s full-page ad? Did Linda Pizzuti? Mike Barnicle? Nobody?
As the hardreading staff has previously noted (here too), the Boston Globe has been pretty loosey-goosey in meeting its disclosure responsibilities about John Henry’s dual ownership of the Globe and the Boston Red Sox.
Some Fenway fans apparently have insatiable appetites — but not necessarily for baseball.
Hoping to capitalize on Red Sox Nation’s hunger for Fenway Franks, the organization plans to start selling the famous hot dogs outside the ballpark, at a Lansdowne Street concession stand. Even when a game isn’t on the menu.
Boston’s Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday gave unanimous approval for the stand, which will also serve other food and nonalcoholic beverages. The opening date and hours of operation have not been set, but the Red Sox plan to have it up and running this season, said spokeswoman Zineb Curran.
And etc. But nowhere does the piece acknowledge that John Henry’s newspaper is reporting on John Henry’s corporate interests.
Seriously?
Hey, Boston Globe Publisher Henry: Hasn’t anyone told you that it could be bad for business if people start viewing your paper as the Fenway Gazette & Papi?
As the hardreading staff noted last week, CommonWealth Magazine broke this story about Boston Mayor Marty Walsh reassessing yet another sweetheart deal for the Red Sox and Fenway Park.
Walsh reviewing Red Sox deal
Agreement makes permanent Van Ness Street arrangement
THE ADMINISTRATION OF Boston Mayor Marty Walsh said it is reviewing an agreement the city struck with the Boston Red Sox in October that formalized a long-standing arrangement allowing the club to close off Van Ness Street during Fenway Park events.
The agreement, signed by Red Sox president Larry Lucchino and Mayor Thomas Menino’s police and transportation commissioners, makes permanent what appears to have been an informal arrangement between the club and the city allowing the team to close off the section of Van Ness next to Fenway during games. The Red Sox typically used part of the street for employee parking, paying no fee to the city to do so.
We also noted that the story was Xerox-reported by numerous other news outlets – including the Boston Herald and the Associated Press – without crediting CommonWealth.
What we failed to note was this further rip-off by the Herald.
Reporter Colman Herman wrote this in his piece: “No other single private entity is allowed to close off a street in Boston on a regular basis.”
In Richard Weir’s Herald report, that sentence is placed in the mouth of Gregory Sullivan, “the former state former [sic] inspector general . . . [who] dismisses the Sox’ arguments as ‘irrelevant and a smokescreen.'”
“This is another precious gem dropped into the Red Sox basket at the expense of the taxpayers,” Sullivan, the research director of the Pioneer Institute, said of the Van Ness Street contract. “It’s a public street owned by the city of Boston. And no private party should have exclusive rights to use it in this way without compensating the city. Period. … No other single private entity is allowed to close off a street in Boston on a regular basis.” [Emphasis added]
We have it on good authority that Sullivan contends he never said that last part.
Yesterday, CommonWealth Magazine broke this story on its website:
Walsh reviewing Red Sox deal
Agreement makes permanent Van Ness Street arrangement
THE ADMINISTRATION OF Boston Mayor Marty Walsh said it is reviewing an agreement the city struck with the Boston Red Sox in October that formalized a long-standing arrangement allowing the club to close off Van Ness Street during Fenway Park events.
The agreement, signed by Red Sox president Larry Lucchino and Mayor Thomas Menino’s police and transportation commissioners, makes permanent what appears to have been an informal arrangement between the club and the city allowing the team to close off the section of Van Ness next to Fenway during games. The Red Sox typically used part of the street for employee parking, paying no fee to the city to do so.
“We are currently reviewing the agreement, and compensation is one of the issues that we will consider during this review,” said Walsh spokeswoman Kate Norton.
The Walsh administration said yesterday it is examining two 2013 contracts the city inked with the Red Sox granting the team exclusive rights to public streets — arrangements made in the final months of Mayor Thomas M. Menino’s tenure.
“We are currently reviewing the agreement, and compensation is one of the issues that we will consider during this review,” Kate Norton, a spokeswoman for Mayor Martin J. Walsh, said of a little-known “public safety order” city officials signed in October giving the Red Sox permission to seal off Van Ness Street during game days and other major events at Fenway.
Nowhere in the piece is CommonWealth given credit.
Ditto for these other news organizations, which picked up the story from the Associated Press. (Before anyone gets all shirty about it, news outlets add info to AP reports all the time. Just not in this case.)
The Boston Globe, meanwhile, played catch-up, posting a piece to its website at 6 am.
The Boston Red Sox are engaged in yet another Fenway land grab, as the Boston Herald noted on Saturday.
Fenway franks to go?
Sox seek OK to sell food during non-ballpark hours
It appears Red Sox Nation can’t get enough of Fenway franks.
The team is seeking city approval for a takeout concession on Lansdowne Street, near Gate C, that would be open during non-ballpark hours.
“It would be located within the ballpark in a space next to the WEEI broadcast booth,” Red Sox spokeswoman Zineb Curran said. “It’s a new, small concession stand that would have its own entry door off of Lansdowne Street” . . .
The team’s takeout concept is the latest in a string of non-baseball game money-makers designed to make the most of America’s oldest ballpark, which Red Sox owner John Henry this week said has a shelf life of another 30 years.
The Boston Globe, as the hardreading staff has noted, did not cover this story on Saturday. Or Sunday. Or today.
The stately local broadsheet did, however, report on that 30-year shelf life of Fenway Park.
John Henry says Fenway Park has 30 more years of life
FORT MYERS, Fla. — There is an expiration date on Fenway Park, Red Sox principal owner John Henry said on Wednesday. But it won’t come due for another 30 years or so.
The oldest ballpark in the majors is structurally sound and the only improvements left to make would be to renovate the press box and other areas in the upper section behind home plate.
“You won’t see major changes. Those, I think, have been explored, thought about and accomplished,” Henry said. “Structurally there is an expiration date. Someone at some point in decades ahead will have to address the possibility of a new ballpark.”
Yes, and someone should have addressed Henry’s ownership of the Boston Globe in that sunny-side-up piece last week.
But no one did.
That’s two strikes in one week. Not exactly encouraging.
Friday’s Boston Globe featured this piece on Metro Page One:
City OK’s Fenway beer sale changes
State must still sign off on plan
Fenway Park bills itself as a fan-friendly venue, and next season promises to be a little friendlier for customers who enjoy a beer or a little hard alcohol with their peanuts and Cracker Jacks.
The Boston Licensing Board on Thursday approved requests from the Red Sox to expand sales of liquor to three more stations inside the 101-year-old ballpark and to allow sales of all alcohol until the end of the seventh inning. Through last season, the cutoff had been 2½ hours from the first pitch or the end of the seventh inning, whichever came first.
With many games lasting more than three hours, a leisurely pace that suits the Red Sox more than most Major League teams, the elimination of a time limit could result in an increase in alcohol sales.
And an increase in beer bottles, in order to “curb the long lines that often form at concession stands, where each beer is poured into a cup.”
Next season, customers can opt for a bottle instead of a draft beer and walk away with an opened container.
Licensing Board chairwoman Nicole Murati Ferrer said the panel did not consider bottles to be a safety issue.
“With this particular ballpark and the fans that we’ve had, there’s no history of projectiles being used” outside long past, isolated incidents, Murati Ferrer said.
Right. Until the Beerded – sorry, Bearded – Ones start losing games.
But what’s really lost in this report is any disclosure that Fenway Park owner John Henry also owns the Boston Globe.
Memo to the stately local broadsheet: Good news is not no news.
best team in the division. We just aren’t playing like it.”
Posted by Campaign Outsider 
It's Good to Live in a Two-Daily Town 