The Boston Herald is the subject of a great read in The Washington Post (we found this one on Romenesko). A lot of little fascinating tidbits in the story, which is what makes any good story great. Among them: the Herald has no correspondent in the mayor's office and the city desk is down to just 10 reporters. We had about half that many when I worked for a tiny paper in upstate New York.
While it seems to be a foregone conclusion -- it's never a good sign when you're selling your office and renting space -- Boston really could use a second paper, if only as a check on The Boston Globe. As a native New Englander, I've read the Globe for many years and, even though I've only read the sports section on a consistent basis, that is the paper's signature section. The sports section of the Globe has seemed very complacent over the last few years. Aside from Mike Reiss, who tirelessly and aggressively covers the Patriots, the Globe has been slow to evolve to the new world order of sports coverage. Bob Ryan is a great columnist but he is a relic from another era and Dan Shaughnessy mailed it in years ago. His shtick is as tiresome as it once was relevant.
What's the point of telling you this? The Herald keeps the the Globe on its toes. Part of the reason Reiss's coverage is so good is that John Tomase's coverage in the Herald is equally relentless and thorough. The rest of the Globe's coverage certainly benefits from the competition. Competition makes news coverage better. Sure it occasionally means newspapers get the story wrong as they aggressively pursue leads, but ultimately it's a good thing. Look at how Rupert Murdoch's purchase of the Wall Street Journal has affected The New York Times. I may not agree with Murdoch's politics, but the competition is good for the Times. It turns news coverage into its own sport.
No comments:
Post a Comment