Doesn't the Herald owe more than an apology?

[Boobie Miles]

No, but he never falsely reported some very damaging accusations the day before the Super Bowl, either.

It's Journalism 101, Mr. Tomase...I mean BYH. This is an inexcusable, gigantic journalistic error...the source wasn't even a source for crying out loud.

Oh, please, in reality the timing means jack. Who cares that it came out the day before the Super Bowl? Did it cause the Patriots to lose? I'm sure that's your line of thinking.

He screwed up, it doesn't matter on what day it happened.

Wait, so you don't think it was because of this story the Pats couldn't block anyone?

[bostonbred]

No, but he never falsely reported some very damaging accusations the day before the Super Bowl, either.

It's Journalism 101, Mr. Tomase...I mean BYH. This is an inexcusable, gigantic journalistic error...the source wasn't even a source for crying out loud.

Oh, please, in reality the timing means jack. Who cares that it came out the day before the Super Bowl? Did it cause the Patriots to lose? I'm sure that's your line of thinking.

He screwed up, it doesn't matter on what day it happened.

I think it was a classless, impulsive move. They could have easily waited a few days and investigated further than the single source, but the Herald released this story as the monotonous Super Bowl publicity began to get stale. After all, was a fresh take on Spygate and the press and public ate it up. In the ESPN/Internet/cell phone/TiVo era, I worry that this will be a regular occurrence, if only to get credit for having the story first.

[forever_town]

I'm just curious on the last part. What problem could Walsh have with the Herald. His lawyer said he wasn't the source and the story never said he was. People just inferred it must have been him because his name was coming up and other stories said he had info. But I just don't see what issue he could have with the Herald.

I kinda went hypothetical there, if the Herald story claimed he taped the walkthrough or if it listed him as a source, he probably has a much stronger case than the Patriots would as (at least) limited public figures.

The Patriots organization would have to prove malice; if Walsh were in that position, I'd think all he would have to prove was neglect. One is damn near impossible to argue; the other one should be plain as day.

[wickedwritah]

I think it was a classless, impulsive move. They could have easily waited a few days and investigated further than the single source, but the Herald released this story as the monotonous Super Bowl publicity began to get stale. After all, was a fresh take on Spygate and the press and public ate it up. In the ESPN/Internet/cell phone/TiVo era, I worry that this will be a regular occurrence, if only to get credit for having the story first.

How is getting something wrong "classless"?

Impulsive, yes, but this is the type of society we seem to be thriving on. See the New York Post's reports of Kerry/Gephart. Or the Trib-Review's coronation of Russ Grimm. Or the Richmond Times-Dispatch's claim that Hillary was canceling campaign events. Or 10,000 other stories.

[Chi City 81]

Or the Richmond Times-Dispatch's claim that Hillary was canceling campaign events.

That was a national story, wick. Everyone had that.

[wickedwritah]

The T-D link was what was discussed here.

You get my point, though.

[bostonbred]

I think it was a classless, impulsive move. They could have easily waited a few days and investigated further than the single source, but the Herald released this story as the monotonous Super Bowl publicity began to get stale. After all, was a fresh take on Spygate and the press and public ate it up. In the ESPN/Internet/cell phone/TiVo era, I worry that this will be a regular occurrence, if only to get credit for having the story first.

How is getting something wrong "classless"?

Impulsive, yes, but this is the type of society we seem to be thriving on. See the New York Post's reports of Kerry/Gephart. Or the Trib-Review's coronation of Russ Grimm. Or the Richmond Times-Dispatch's claim that Hillary was canceling campaign events. Or 10,000 other stories.

Ignorant would be a better word than classless.

[BillyT]

When the Boston Herald -- or any newspaper -- has detailed knowledge of a major screw-up in politics or business or sports, they're going to print as much as they can about the mechanics of that error and the ramifications.
So what does the Herald present in response to the revelation that there was no St. Louis Super Bowl walk-through tape?
A simple "Oops."
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/patriots/view.bg?articleid=1093898&srvc=sports&position=0
Is that good enough?

Tomase is going to write an explainer for Friday.

[WriteThinking]

No, but he never falsely reported some very damaging accusations the day before the Super Bowl, either.

It's Journalism 101, Mr. Tomase...I mean BYH. This is an inexcusable, gigantic journalistic error...the source wasn't even a source for crying out loud.

Oh, please, in reality the timing means jack. Who cares that it came out the day before the Super Bowl? Did it cause the Patriots to lose? I'm sure that's your line of thinking.

He screwed up, it doesn't matter on what day it happened.

Think it was meant for emphasis, wicked, and that bostonbred probably brought up "the day before the Super Bowl" in order to make the equation that, the bigger or more important the event and the stories related to it, the more critical/careful the editing of that stuff ought to have been.

Theoretically speaking, of course.

[wickedwritah]

Story should've been carefully edited on any day.

If what RSC says is correct, and I trust him, then the editors pretty much threw Tomase under the bus by rushing the story.

[forever_town]

If Tomase was so uncomfortable with the story as it stood, why the hell did he allow his byline to go on that piece of trash?

If he's as talented as he's made out to be by some people here, you'd think he'd have more pull with his editors than being forced to run a shitty ass story because his editors want it on the page the day before the Super Bowl.

And if his bosses insisted on running the story without it being thoroughly checked, what about refusing to put his byline on it. "From staff reports" anyone?

[Boobie Miles]

Rather than speculating on very iffy rumors (sound familiar) why not just wait to see what Tomase has to say on Friday? I'm not saying don't discuss this. It's an important and interesting topic, but I just don't know why everyone is convinced it was rushed or whatever. Maybe it was, but there hasn't really been anything to solid to suggest that. I wouldn't expect Tomase to throw his editors under the bus on Friday or anything, but I just think we'll obviously have a lot of our questions answered then.

As for the timing, if the Herald really wanted to stick it to the Pats or get maximum attention, wouldn't it have made more sense to run it on the Monday of SB week? That way it'd dominate Media Day and every other interview session, talk show and coverage the whole week. That Saturday is a dead time and while it was obviously still a big story the Giants win kind of blew it out of the water in the following days.

[shockey]

but I just don't know why everyone is convinced it was rushed or whatever. Maybe it was, but there hasn't really been anything to solid to suggest that.

um, hasn't everyone conceded it was a one-source story? that's all the evidence i need to call it a "rushed" story. case closed.

[WriteThinking]

Story should've been carefully edited on any day.

If what RSC says is correct, and I trust him, then the editors pretty much threw Tomase under the bus by rushing the story.

Of course the story -- any story --  should be well-edited, and good judgment should be used, no matter the day, or the event to which it is attached.

Unfortunately, that's not usually the way things go. It's all part of the news judgment and news emphasis/importance aspect of things -- why an investigative piece generally is given more time, and takes more-stringent editing, than a briefs roundup or a short personality profile.

And it's why Super Bowl stuff typically is given more time and more than the cursory editing sometimes done on, say, a high school football story.

[Boobie Miles]

but I just don't know why everyone is convinced it was rushed or whatever. Maybe it was, but there hasn't really been anything to solid to suggest that.

um, hasn't everyone conceded it was a one-source story? that's all the evidence i need to call it a "rushed" story. case closed.

I was referring to rushed by the editors to get into print. I guess pressured would have been a better word than rushed.

[shockey]

 

but I just don't know why everyone is convinced it was rushed or whatever. Maybe it was, but there hasn't really been anything to solid to suggest that.

um, hasn't everyone conceded it was a one-source story? that's all the evidence i need to call it a "rushed" story. case closed.

I was referring to rushed by the editors to get into print. I guess pressured would have been a better word than rushed.

amy way you slice it, the story was rushed prematurely, given its one-source nature. both tomase AND his editors are to blame, no matter what his spin is on friday. his editors are clearly major foofs and he should have insisted his byline be dropped. instead, his name was attached and will be sullied for a very long time, given the notoriety of this incident.

whatever his spin, i just don't see how he survives on the beat in a media-crazed town like boston -- even if the newspaper biz ain't what it once was. again, no horse in this race. i don't know john and feel for what he must be experiencing.

but i really don't see how, "sorry, my bad," makes this go away on a beat as vital as the pats' beat to the boston herald. he should be off the beat and the top sports editor working that night should be told to take a hike, imo. 

[wickedwritah]

Shockey, I think the blame goes to the news side here -- they grabbed the story for the front, and I would hope that the editor at the budget meeting let them know exactly what they had at the time.

[Boobie Miles]

but I just don't know why everyone is convinced it was rushed or whatever. Maybe it was, but there hasn't really been anything to solid to suggest that.

um, hasn't everyone conceded it was a one-source story? that's all the evidence i need to call it a "rushed" story. case closed.

I was referring to rushed by the editors to get into print. I guess pressured would have been a better word than rushed.

amy way you slice it, the story was rushed prematurely, given its one-source nature. both tomase AND his editors are to blame, no matter what his spin is on friday. his editors are clearly major foofs and he should have insisted his byline be dropped. instead, his name was attached and will be sullied for a very long time, given the notoriety of this incident.

whatever his spin, i just don't see how he survives on the beat in a media-crazed town like boston -- even if the newspaper biz ain't what it once was. again, no horse in this race. i don't know john and feel for what he must be experiencing.

but i really don't see how, "sorry, my bad," makes this go away on a beat as vital as the pats' beat to the boston herald. he should be off the beat and the top sports editor working that night should be told to take a hike, imo. 

The editor working that night? I'm guessing this wasn't filed just before first edition. I'd hope/assume it went through many channels and many editors, which of course makes a mistake like this that much worse.

[shockey]

Shockey, I think the blame goes to the news side here -- they grabbed the story for the front, and I would hope that the editor at the budget meeting let them know exactly what they had at the time.

absolutely. i'm just saying that an editor's head deserves to roll, whether it was a sports guy, news side guy, managing editor, whatever. when something so egregious occurs that a front page/back page apology is issued, a top ed's head should be served up to the public.

tomase should not be fired, imo. the decision to run with the story prematurely was not his, i would imagine. but i simply can't see how he survives holding onto the beat. too much damage has been done.

[Boobie Miles]

I just caught a piece of Robert Kraft's appearance on CNBC. Now I say this as a Patriots fan, but hopefully one that is still objective. I think it's ludicrous how self-righteous the franchise has become. He was acting like this report sullied the good name of the Patriots, conveniently ignoring the fact that they were caught cheating long before this story and that the commissioner doesn't and never did believe Belichick's explanation. Like I said, I've always been a fan of the team, but they've gone too far with some of this stuff.

[Boomer7]

Shockey, I think the blame goes to the news side here -- they grabbed the story for the front, and I would hope that the editor at the budget meeting let them know exactly what they had at the time.

The story ran in the sports section, not on the news side. It might have been teased on Page 1, but I certainly wouldn't say the news side "grabbed it for the front."

[Boomer7]

Fair or not, the minute your byline appears next to such a far-fetched, attention-seeking lie, you lose a good deal of journalistic credibility.

This industry should be setting higher standards than this embarassment and that goes for the entire Herald staff involved.

Whoa, whoa, whoa -- far-fetched? The Herald said someone taped the walkthrough. Walsh, facing the threat of a lawsuit if he lied, told the NFL that he watched the walkthrough and gave information on what he saw to Brian Daboll. These two things aren't apples and oranges, man. Essentially, the Herald got wrong the manner in which Matt Walsh spied on the Rams' walkthrough.

Yes, there's a massive difference between having a tape vs. having a lowly video assistant's account. Yes, it's a big mistake on the Herald's part. But the Patriots aren't exactly exonerated here -- no matter how hard Goodell tried to sweep the details under the rug by having one of his lawyers mention Walsh's walkthrough account after Goodell's press conference had ended.

[Shaggy]

I'm glad he's planning on explaining himself. That's the stand-up thing to do, and I think there's too much hiding behind spin, fluff and press releases when we fuck up. Any reader with a hint of sophistication isn't going to be satisfied with that shit. We need to be accountable, and it sounds like Tomase is on his way to doing that.

I wish him the best in what must be a very difficult time for him. I really do. And yes, I know it was his own doing, and he screwed up so fuck him, blah blah blah. But we all fuck up. Every one of us. Once you're perfect, you can start trashing his ass anonymously on a message board.

[KP]

Fair or not, the minute your byline appears next to such a far-fetched, attention-seeking lie, you lose a good deal of journalistic credibility.

This industry should be setting higher standards than this embarassment and that goes for the entire Herald staff involved.

Whoa, whoa, whoa -- far-fetched? The Herald said someone taped the walkthrough. Walsh, facing the threat of a lawsuit if he lied, told the NFL that he watched the walkthrough and gave information on what he saw to Brian Daboll. These two things aren't apples and oranges, man. Essentially, the Herald got wrong the manner in which Matt Walsh spied on the Rams' walkthrough.

Yes, there's a massive difference between having a tape vs. having a lowly video assistant's account. Yes, it's a big mistake on the Herald's part. But the Patriots aren't exactly exonerated here -- no matter how hard Goodell tried to sweep the details under the rug by having one of his lawyers mention Walsh's walkthrough account after Goodell's press conference had ended.

Boom,you are dead on. If he said monitored, watched or something along those lines people would be saying the same thing about John because he went against the hometown team and still blaming him for the loss.

Boobie, I'm with you 100% on this.

[WriteThinking]

absolutely. i'm just saying that an editor's head deserves to roll, whether it was a sports guy, news side guy, managing editor, whatever. when something so egregious occurs that a front page/back page apology is issued, a top ed's head should be served up to the public.

tomase should not be fired, imo. the decision to run with the story prematurely was not his, i would imagine. but i simply can't see how he survives holding onto the beat. too much damage has been done.

Shockey,

We'll have to see what insight and new information his explanation on Friday may provide, of course. But based on all this, for now, I have to say I'm a bit surprised at your thought that Tomase should not be fired.

I feel for what Tomase must be feeling and going through. I really do. I'm sure he is, or certainly was, fearing for his job, and is pretty mortified right now. And generally, I wouldn't advocate firing somebody over one mistake. I'd err on the side of compassion as long as the reporter was responding in the right way, and perhaps, as it seems, this is what's happening at the Herald.

But this situation seems so egregious, that I don't know how the reporter hangs onto the job if the paper and its reporters are ever to take real responsibility.

Even if it was rushed into print despite possible misgivings, doesn't a story start with, and really, end with, the reporter?

If qualms were prevalent, that needed to be made absolutely clear, with something along the lines of, "This story simply is not ready. It absolutely cannot go yet," followed by a specific questioning of and poking of holes in his own story as it stood at that point.

And if I'd been told that it was wanted anyway, I think I simply wouldn't have turned it in -- would have refused outright to do so -- if it came to that. If his editors trusted and respected his judgment at all, I'd think they'd be paying attention to him at that point.

And if not, well, I'd rather lose a job because of that, than go through what Tomase probably has, and will.