Doesn't the Herald owe more than an apology?

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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."

 

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.