Re: WEEI gets a ton of publicity

["Mike_ed" <Mike_ed@email.msn.com>]

After just seeing Matt Storin on Channel 5's news give his explanation as to
why he shelved Eileen McNamara's column, I can't help but think that the
light bulb upstairs must have burnt out.  Granted that the hosts on WEEI
 especially Gerry Calahan, Glenn Ordway and Fred Smerlas ) are very
conservative and have an anti-Globe bias, after seeing the interview, it's
no wonder why.  Storin suggested that there were other things that she could
have written about and that if she had had a discussion about it first then
written the column, he ( implies ) that he wouldn't have had a problem with
it and that by editing it, the problem with the policy would have gone away.
Well Mr. Storin, just like your paper used sources indicating that the
Zantop's murder at Dartmouth University was a love triangle, you've seemed
to stick your foot in your mouth again because now this has exploded big
time and has gotten more attention than it deserves.  It's one thing to find
WEEI's shows offensive, but when you're columnists go on these shows, don't
you think that they're also selling papers for you as well?

Just my opinion
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Vahey" <crimson@channel1.com>
To: "Donna Halper" <dlh@donnahalper.com>
Cc: <boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 11:04 PM
Subject: Re: WEEI gets a ton of publicity


> no but in fairness the column should have probably been written by someone
> who was not involved with either the sports department at the Globe or
> WEEI
>
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Donna Halper wrote:
>
> > At 09:43 PM 3/28/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> > >Well Eileen is on shaky ground here as there is a conflict of interest.
> > >Her husband (Peter May) is a sportswriter for the Globe and is affected
by
> > >the ban.
> >
> > Umm, I know that's the Globe's spin, but I think it's a bit
disingenuous.
> > In our industry, lots of us are married to people who work in the same
> > business (or even at the same newspaper or radio/TV station).  SO does
that
> > mean we lose our right to comment on a situation?  As I understand
> > journalism ethics, you just issue a disclaimer (which she says she did
in
> > her article) and proceed.  Just because Eileen has a husband does that
mean
> > she isn't permitted to have opinions about his occupation (or about her
> > own)?  She is a columnist.  She writes opinion pieces.  She is good at
it--
> > she won a Pulitzer Prize, in fact.  In this case, she wrote about WEEI
and
> > about the Globe sportswriters, some of whom appear on radio shows every
bit
> > as offensive as the ones on WEEI.  Would the column have been spiked if
she
> > had agreed with the Globe's decision?  Call me cynical, but I doubt it.
> >
> >
>