Growing up in Massachusetts, I lived in a household that subscribed to the Boston Globe. I think I first just read it for the comics, and then eventually graduated to the other sections. I always enjoyed reading it over breakfast.
I went away to New York for college, but returned to Boston and quickly subscribed to the Globe. It was a joy to read. I loved David Shribman’s national columns, he went on to become eexecutive editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Patricia Smith and Mike Barnicle, so talented even if they did f–k up. Of course Dan Shaughnessy, even if I was never a big Sox fan until 1999. Brian McGrory — I met him in downtown New York the evening of Sept. 11, 2001.
And investigative reporting! There was this one expose on the city’s elevator inspectors that led to resignations before it even began. A series on Billy Bulger that read like a beach paperback, only it was all true. And of course this was the paper that really did much of the work on the Catholic pedophile priest scandal, even if the Boston Phoenix first got the ball rolling.
One could credibly claim, as Globe columnist David Warsh did July 18, 1999, that the Globe was the “fourth-best newspaper in the United States” behind the Times, WSJ and the Washington Post.
It was a paper that I would have really loved to work for.
But what’s happened to it now? I can’t remember the last time I heard of any must-read investigative reporting out of the Globe, or any big national scoops. Circulation has dropped by a fifth since 2002. They still have a great sports section, I read it daily when the Sox are in contention … but what else is there?
When I looked at its website today, the most emailed story was an AP report about a fake penis being microwaved in a Pennsylvania convenience store. Umm, okay. (The Times’ most emailed was a staff report about a computer chip that can use lasers to transfer data).
Don’t get me wrong, the Globe is still a very good paper — and in truth I’d still like to work there. But would anyone today claim it’s the nation’s fourth-best? I read about all these layoffs at the Dallas Morning News and, possibly, the L.A. Times. Are all these regional papers just doomed to oblivion, or at least irrelevancy? As a journalist, it’s so very sad.
I think you’ve hit on something that is happening with a lot of newspapers across the country, especially dailies. Newspapers are merging, meaning layoffs, less coverage, and less competition.
I know from my own paper, we can only do investigative stories when there are also enough reporters around to deal with the day to day stuff. We can’t let a murder or even a city budget (which affects residents’ taxes) go uncovered while someone takes a few months to investigate elevator inspection problems and get all their i’s and t’s crossed before printing it. What you and I realize, and what people outside journalism don’t always realize, is that investigative stories take months. You are working on sources, finding new ones, and verifying information time and time again. You can’t just do it half-assed and let it get into print for 100,000 people; there’s a lot at stake.
I’ve heard people make the criticism that there are no Woodwards and Bernsteins anymore. But their Watergate coverage happened over a period of many months, and they were able to devote the time to Watergate instead of covering the daily WH briefing. They were given the proper time to devote to the story.
Newspapers have to be independent – we can’t ask for govt help or grants, so we have to survive financially, and that can mean layoffs. And that hurts coverage. But what can you do – certainly can’t get a gov’t grant.
A bunch of idealistic 25-year-olds who aren’t getting rich are often the ones charged with getting the truth out there. But if newspapers aren’t hiring, they have to do the day to day and less investigating.
I don’t think newspapers are dying. The internet is a good resource but it doesn’t always have the checks on its information. Unfortunately, though, there are fewer newspapers now.
Maybe you and I could write a book, Derek…
Well, there was the reporting from Charile Savage, which led the pack on Bush’s use of signing statements. Other than that, I’m hard pressed to come up with more either. I also recall the Bulger stories. Amazing stuff.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/