Doesn't the Herald owe more than an apology?

[Simon_Cowbell]

Tomase's explanation

Herald let him explain?

He should have been gone by yesterday.

[jgmacg]

So a rumor heard twice now counts as confirmation by two sources? I for one look forward to my 100% savings on telephone bills and shoe leather.

[Simon_Cowbell]

What was gone unmentioned is Convey's tease for tomorrow's edition: "And in tomorrow's edition of the Herald, available on newsstands for 50 cents within a 75-mile radius of metro Boston, will be John Tomase's story..."

I think that this three-day episodic apology is sleazy and takes away from the sincerity of the Herald's "regret." Anything to sell an extra paper, I suppose?

At this point, to me, the Herald has Etch-A-Sketch erased that spology.

Pathetic losers.

[Mizzougrad96]

I've known Tomase for years. He's a great guy and a hell of a reporter, but that explanation explains nothing.

I don't doubt for a second that The Herald probably told him what he could and could not write, but if that was the best they could come up with, they should not have written anything at all.

Bingo, Mizzou.
But here's what I got from his explanation, and tell me if I'm wrong. Some of us thought that if we were lied to by a source, we might be OK with outing that person in circumstances such as these. But it seems from Tomase's explanation that he was not "lied to." What I'm getting from this is that he reported second-hand information -- essentially some people telling him "I heard it was taped."
Am I missing something?
And if I'm not, how could anyone justify going with that story?

My theory is that they're just making him take the hit for everyone who signed off on this... I don't believe Tomase would write that story based on secondhand information. I still believe his source was Walsh and that's the only reason why The Herald is protecting him.

If his source isn't Walsh or someone very high up in the Pats organization, then everybody associated with the story should be fired for letting it run.

I don't think that was the case here.

[Simon_Cowbell]

I've known Tomase for years. He's a great guy and a hell of a reporter, but that explanation explains nothing.

I don't doubt for a second that The Herald probably told him what he could and could not write, but if that was the best they could come up with, they should not have written anything at all.

Bingo, Mizzou.
But here's what I got from his explanation, and tell me if I'm wrong. Some of us thought that if we were lied to by a source, we might be OK with outing that person in circumstances such as these. But it seems from Tomase's explanation that he was not "lied to." What I'm getting from this is that he reported second-hand information -- essentially some people telling him "I heard it was taped."
Am I missing something?
And if I'm not, how could anyone justify going with that story?

My theory is that they're just making him take the hit for everyone who signed off on this... I don't believe Tomase would write that story based on secondhand information. I still believe his source was Walsh and that's the only reason why The Herald is protecting him.

If his source isn't Walsh or someone very high up in the Pats organization, then everybody associated with the story should be fired for letting it run.

I don't think that was the case here.

Doesn't matter a bit to me.

This is the Santos "cue-ray" story all over again, and heads must roll.

[Mizzougrad96]

I'd want to know the whole story before I pass any judgment on who should and shouldn't be fired.

I don't think any of us have any idea what really went down. We sure as hell didn't learn anything from the "explanation"

[Mizzougrad96]

A pretty good point is made on Pro Football Talk where it is suggested that

1. Walsh told The Herald he had the tape.
2. Walsh later denied ever having the tape, probably because he could be sued for having something that belongs to the Pats.

I think this is probably pretty close to what really happened.

[bostonbred]

The explanation, if anything, only worsened Tomase's case. Essentially, he published rumors and knew that the source had never viewed the videos. It was a rambling, save-my-ass column, although I feel for the guy because if there's one thing a journalist values it's credibility. However, I wouldn't have publish that Feb. 2 "story" in a high school paper, never mind one of New England's largest. It's TMZ garbage, material that you would expect to be published in a tabloid instead of a nationally respected newspaper.

He'll probably stay, but only a handful of readers will take him seriously again. Unfortunately, Tomase (and his editors of course) took an enormous gamble, and lost. I have to think the Globe staff is smiling right now because they just picked up a bunch of new subscribers.

[Frank_Ridgeway]

I'm puzzled by the explanation that he had multiple sources and yet attributed it to just one. Why would anyone do that?

[Mizzougrad96]

I'm puzzled by the explanation that he had multiple sources and yet attributed it to just one. Why would anyone do that?

Because it came from Walsh. That's the only explanation I can fathom, not that it's an entirely acceptable one...

[shockey]

just read it and wanted to weigh in before reading other posts:

did the "one source" claim to have a tape or to have seen a tape? did i miss that? the other alleged "sources" were all second or third-hand gossip-mongers, typical "i know something" b.s. types.

john's "explanation" explained nothing other than how he and his bosses effed up. NO WAY he survives the beat. he should feel blessed if it doesn't cost him a job at the paper.  

we don't regain readers' trust after something this huge. we lose readers, period.

sorry, john. it's the business we've chosen. "people make mistakes" doesn't cut it. all reporters make errors. this wasn't an "error." this story is precisely an example of why we have lost so much of the public's trust.

the fanbois in patriotsnation are never going to let it go until tomase is off the beat. time for him to go low-profile for a while in boston, perhaps with a desk job. it pains me to type that, truly it does. but that's how i see it.

[Mizzougrad96]

just read it and wanted to weigh in before reading other posts:

did the "one source" claim to have a tape or to have seen a tape? did i miss that? the other alleged "sources" were all second or third-hand gossip-mongers, typical "i know something" b.s. types.

john's "explanation" explained nothing other than how he and his bosses effed up. NO WAY he survives the beat. he should feel blessed if it doesn't cost him a job at the paper.  

we don't regain readers' trust after something this huge. we lose readers, period.

sorry, john. it's the business we've chosen. "people make mistakes" doesn't cut it. all reporters make errors. this wasn't an "error." this story is precisely an example of why we have lost so much of the public's trust.

the fanbois in patriotsnation are never going to let it go until tomase is off the beat. time for him to go low-profile for a while in boston, perhaps with a desk job. it pains me to type that, truly it does. but that's how i see it.

The Boston fanbois are never going to let it go, period. The Herald could hang Tomase in Harvard Yard and they wouldn't be satisfied.

[hurricane]

I've known Tomase for years. He's a great guy and a hell of a reporter, but that explanation explains nothing.

I don't doubt for a second that The Herald probably told him what he could and could not write, but if that was the best they could come up with, they should not have written anything at all.

Bingo, Mizzou.
But here's what I got from his explanation, and tell me if I'm wrong. Some of us thought that if we were lied to by a source, we might be OK with outing that person in circumstances such as these. But it seems from Tomase's explanation that he was not "lied to." What I'm getting from this is that he reported second-hand information -- essentially some people telling him "I heard it was taped."
Am I missing something?
And if I'm not, how could anyone justify going with that story?

My theory is that they're just making him take the hit for everyone who signed off on this... I don't believe Tomase would write that story based on secondhand information. I still believe his source was Walsh and that's the only reason why The Herald is protecting him.

If his source isn't Walsh or someone very high up in the Pats organization, then everybody associated with the story should be fired for letting it run.

I don't think that was the case here.

Doesn't matter a bit to me.

This is the Santos "cue-ray" story all over again, and heads must roll.

and i don't think anyone's head rolled over that.

[shockey]

mizzoo

understood that the fanbois will never get past it. but who do you suppose buys the herald? pats fanbois, that's who.

bye-bye, john.

[Simon_Cowbell]

I've known Tomase for years. He's a great guy and a hell of a reporter, but that explanation explains nothing.

I don't doubt for a second that The Herald probably told him what he could and could not write, but if that was the best they could come up with, they should not have written anything at all.

Bingo, Mizzou.
But here's what I got from his explanation, and tell me if I'm wrong. Some of us thought that if we were lied to by a source, we might be OK with outing that person in circumstances such as these. But it seems from Tomase's explanation that he was not "lied to." What I'm getting from this is that he reported second-hand information -- essentially some people telling him "I heard it was taped."
Am I missing something?
And if I'm not, how could anyone justify going with that story?

My theory is that they're just making him take the hit for everyone who signed off on this... I don't believe Tomase would write that story based on secondhand information. I still believe his source was Walsh and that's the only reason why The Herald is protecting him.

If his source isn't Walsh or someone very high up in the Pats organization, then everybody associated with the story should be fired for letting it run.

I don't think that was the case here.

Doesn't matter a bit to me.

This is the Santos "cue-ray" story all over again, and heads must roll.

and i don't think anyone's head rolled over that.

Nope.

That Herald fired Jim DeFede for having recorded a dead man, but didn't touch Rojas or any other buffoon who green-lit Santos.

Incredible.

[Mizzougrad96]

mizzoo

understood that the fanbois will never get past it. but who do you suppose buys the herald? pats fanbois, that's who.

bye-bye, john.

You may be right. The fact that he still has a job makes me wonder, what, if anything they plan to do.

If the bulk of this truly is only Tomase's fault. They could have fired him and put that in the apology to the Pats.

I have a feeling there is a lot more to this story that may come out later.

I hope Tomase keeps his job.

[bostonbred]

just read it and wanted to weigh in before reading other posts:

did the "one source" claim to have a tape or to have seen a tape? did i miss that? the other alleged "sources" were all second or third-hand gossip-mongers, typical "i know something" b.s. types.

john's "explanation" explained nothing other than how he and his bosses effed up. NO WAY he survives the beat. he should feel blessed if it doesn't cost him a job at the paper.  

we don't regain readers' trust after something this huge. we lose readers, period.

sorry, john. it's the business we've chosen. "people make mistakes" doesn't cut it. all reporters make errors. this wasn't an "error." this story is precisely an example of why we have lost so much of the public's trust.

the fanbois in patriotsnation are never going to let it go until tomase is off the beat. time for him to go low-profile for a while in boston, perhaps with a desk job. it pains me to type that, truly it does. but that's how i see it.

The Boston fanbois are never going to let it go, period. The Herald could hang Tomase in Harvard Yard and they wouldn't be satisfied.

This issue shouldn't be about any fanbase in particular. What Tomase did is inexcusable in the journalism profession, whether he was covering the Patriots, Dolphins, Cardinals, or whomever. To make such a significant allegation requires substantial evidence.

The Herald could always move him to the Bruins beat, which may be worse than a firing.

[finishthehat]

I wonder if the BLOGS! universe makes readers more forgiving of these things (not that they should be, of course).

In other words, the fans read so much BS on the web each week that turns out not to be true, and they don't really differentiate between that and a paper.

I could be wrong, and hope I am, but it seems these days so many rumors get floated that people expect most of them to be BS.

[Write-brained]

Tomase: Fearing you’re wrong and knowing it are two different things.

Me: No dumbass, believing you're right and knowing it are two different things.

The paper had no basis for running this story.

The explanation is awful. How old is this reporter? Early 20s? This felt like something I could have read in a high school newspaper. All the cliches and weepy bullshit. This column is self-incriminating evidence that this guy does not belong anywhere near a big time beat.

And as someone else mentioned about the promotion of this story, shameless.

[bostonbred]

And as someone else mentioned about the promotion of this story, shameless.

Go to BostonHerald.com and look at that gimmicky banner (TOMASE: HOW IT WENT WRONG) on the front page. Plus, with Tony Maz's purely shock value column bashing Patriots fans, it's clear how the paper is gunning for extra buys and web hits.

Completely bush league.

[Mizzougrad96]

The longer Tomase keeps his job, the more I think there is a bigger story to come...

Or maybe Tomase knows just how many editors signed off on this and will name them all if he gets canned.

[jemaz]

I have lurked here for a long time, but obviously have never posted. In a prior life I wrote lots of negative stuff, much of which I would not write today. Tomase's credibility with his readers and with the people he covers is shot. I don't see how he can possibly hope to do any kind of meaningful job at this newspaper and particularly on this beat from here on out. On his own, he ought to move on. The problem -- and I see it often -- is that he put himself not in the position of reporter but in the position of someone to pass judgement. That almost never works and is an approach that is a killer to journalists everywhere.

The guy is not good. At best, he was a fraud. And how is that for passing judgement?

[Mizzougrad96]

Someone claiming to work at the Herald just PMd me and said Tomase's job is 100 percent safe and that he will probably stay on the Pats beat.

I find that difficult to believe, but that's all the info I got.

[hurricane]

I've known Tomase for years. He's a great guy and a hell of a reporter, but that explanation explains nothing.

I don't doubt for a second that The Herald probably told him what he could and could not write, but if that was the best they could come up with, they should not have written anything at all.

Bingo, Mizzou.
But here's what I got from his explanation, and tell me if I'm wrong. Some of us thought that if we were lied to by a source, we might be OK with outing that person in circumstances such as these. But it seems from Tomase's explanation that he was not "lied to." What I'm getting from this is that he reported second-hand information -- essentially some people telling him "I heard it was taped."
Am I missing something?
And if I'm not, how could anyone justify going with that story?

My theory is that they're just making him take the hit for everyone who signed off on this... I don't believe Tomase would write that story based on secondhand information. I still believe his source was Walsh and that's the only reason why The Herald is protecting him.

If his source isn't Walsh or someone very high up in the Pats organization, then everybody associated with the story should be fired for letting it run.

I don't think that was the case here.

Doesn't matter a bit to me.

This is the Santos "cue-ray" story all over again, and heads must roll.

and i don't think anyone's head rolled over that.

Nope.

That Herald fired Jim DeFede for having recorded a dead man, but didn't touch Rojas or any other buffoon who green-lit Santos.

Incredible.

and the person who fired DeFede just was named dean of journalism at Boston U.

[hurricane]

just read it and wanted to weigh in before reading other posts:

did the "one source" claim to have a tape or to have seen a tape? did i miss that? the other alleged "sources" were all second or third-hand gossip-mongers, typical "i know something" b.s. types.

john's "explanation" explained nothing other than how he and his bosses effed up. NO WAY he survives the beat. he should feel blessed if it doesn't cost him a job at the paper. 

we don't regain readers' trust after something this huge. we lose readers, period.

sorry, john. it's the business we've chosen. "people make mistakes" doesn't cut it. all reporters make errors. this wasn't an "error." this story is precisely an example of why we have lost so much of the public's trust.

the fanbois in patriotsnation are never going to let it go until tomase is off the beat. time for him to go low-profile for a while in boston, perhaps with a desk job. it pains me to type that, truly it does. but that's how i see it.

The Boston fanbois are never going to let it go, period. The Herald could hang Tomase in Harvard Yard and they wouldn't be satisfied.

This issue shouldn't be about any fanbase in particular. What Tomase did is inexcusable in the journalism profession, whether he was covering the Patriots, Dolphins, Cardinals, or whomever. To make such a significant allegation requires substantial evidence.

The Herald could always move him to the Bruins beat, which may be worse than a firing.

it's more than tomase. as someone else wrote, where were his editors? everyone needs to be held accountable.