Doesn't the Herald owe more than an apology?

Are they being honest? The apology said the story was based on "sources." The story and its hed said "a source." I believe there's a major difference.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/patriots/view.bg?articleid=1070762&srvc=sports&position=0

 

My guess is the Herald WILL owe more than an apology.
They will owe damages.
Consider this quote:

Patriots owner Robert Kraft held up a copy of the newspaper during an interview with CNBC on Wednesday.
He called the story ``very damaging'' and said he was glad the paper admitted its mistake. But he said the Herald's apology probably couldn't undo the damage to the team's reputation nationwide.

them's suing words and if you read the apology story, it was written by lawyer and perhaps by the Pats lawyer. Its part of the procedure of limiting damages in libel suits. Doesn't eliminate damages, but can limit them

Big nut will be was the Herald's intent malicious - did they have an antogonistic relationship with Belichick that might have led them to be want to write a damaging story



``This erroneous story coming out was really harmful, and what bothers me more about this story is where it went, throughout the country, where people don't know us as well,'' he said. ``And unfortunately, now they won't see this retraction. But people who know us, know what we're about.''

 

Word. For. Word. This is a problem I've had with many of the worst mistakes/corrections and omissions that have occurred lately. Newspapers make apologies, but really explaining how/why things happened at all never seems to get done, either on the day of the apology, or afterward.

Really, how could this possibly have happened, except for the paper just going with it, no matter what?

And in other examples, how, exactly, did the LA Times get the sourcing wrong, or not verify the sourcing and/or the information given in a way it could fully trust, unless, again, it just went with it, in the cases of the Clemens story and the rapper/murder story? And what about that correction novelette by another paper a few months ago regarding the town profile that had everyone up in arms?

Papers apologize for things without really explaining it. Perhaps that's because it's just so inexplicable and inexcusable that it can't really be explained without totally losing face and credibility. But still, they should make a direct, purposeful attempt at it.

It's a bad day -- another bad day -- for the whole industry, not just the Herald.

This industry is showing -- repeatedly, lately -- that it should not be trusted, and why not, too. It doesn't say much for our care and workmanship, and is disturbing and upsetting, to say the least.

 

You can't libel the pats as an organization, can you? Anyhow, the pats have to show actual malice and a reckless disregard for the truth.

Shoddy reporting? Yes. Libel? I don't think it qualifies.

 

Absolutely embarassing and definitely hurts the credibility of many parties, particularly the Herald, Tomase, and even the sports journalism industry.

Tomase, for one, is a joke. A hack of a reporter who should never get a reporting job again. He and the Herald had not even seen the tape or even spoken to anyone who had seen the tape, yet they release such sensational "news" the day before the Super Bowl? Unreal.

 

That's what I was thinking.

And in regards to the apology being less elaborative than some wanted, I'd think the possibility of legal action had to have played some role in it.

 

Wow! I didn't see that one coming. Good that we've got the Patriot idiot fanboi segment chiming in.

Tomase has more journalistic talent and integrity in his pinkie finger than you've got in your entire body. shut the fuck up.

 

I've been following Tomase since his days at the Lawrence Eagle Tribune.

He's a hack.

And I'd be saying the exact same things if this happened to the Jets, Colts, or whomever else. Journalism at its worst.

 

No you wouldn't.

Someone had the temerity to paint your favorite team in a less-than-favorable light and you've got it out for him.

Thank goodness you left the field.

 

Paint my favorite team in a less-than-favorable light? If backed up by solid evidence, I'm all for it. He had nothing more than a rumor and published it as fact. If anything, the field needs more like me, who actually verify sources and allegations and confirm their truthfulness.

If I want good Patriots coverage, I'll stick with Mike Reiss of the Globe.

 

I will preface this by saying I have read this board almost religiously for a couple years now but have never really had the urge to post until today. I will also say that I am not John Tomase, have no affiliation with the Herald, am not one of his friends and have no reason to stick up for him as a person, especially regarding the story he wrote in February.

But to call him a hack reporter is unbelievably erroneous and based more on emotion than actual facts. Outside of this horrendous flaw in judgment to run with this story (although I'd love to know how much his editors pushed him to write it, too), Tomase has been one of the best reporters in the Boston media for a few years. He's definitely written a few stories that have ticked off his fan base, but if you look at his work while removing your Patriots-colored glasses, you WOULD know he is pretty damn good at his job.

 

You really have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. I seriously would love to see your resume.