Shaughnessy: "We now have a bad connection"

It really shouldn't come as a surprise that Chad Bradford got access. All that time hanging in the bullpen is a great time to get chummy.

(I think you meant Rob Bradford, the beat writer for the Herald, not Chad the submarining reliever)

 

Would love to know how someone knows without a doubt that Kate didn't land the job on her own, or, that Werner took her on because he was familiar with who she is - without having Dan going up to them and say, "Hey can you help my girl out."

Not saying the skepticism isn't warrented but there are other ways that could have played out.

 

I have a problem with your logic in that last sentence. OK maybe those specific stories never made it into print, but it's impossible to know what other stories reporters were able to get because they were around for those moments to build trust and a relationship.

I do agree with your point about how (most) columnists don't have as much as a case here. If you're only dropping in once or twice a week and there for postgame stuff, naturally you aren't going to get the same access, though he included Spears, the beat guy's, problems with access too.

It's definitely not impossible to get through some of the layers as Jackie McMullen showed a few weeks ago with the Ray Allen feature that was right hailed around here.

 

I am reminded about a story Curt Gowdy used to tell about once in the 1949 season when he went out for a cold one with manager Casey Stengel, when both were in their first year with the New York Yankees. "He ordered a draft beer and knocked it down in one gulp," Gowdy said then described the ensuing conversation: "Jeezus, Casey, why do you drink your beer so fast?" "I drink it like that ever since the accident." "You were in an accident?" "Yeah, somebody knocked over my beer."

In the "older" days writers had even greater access than what Shaughnessy is talking about in the 1980's. It has been getting less and less important to have a reporter at the game as the games have become more and more accessible to the average fan. I can see every play of every Celtics game. Why do I need Shaughnessy to give me an impression of Garnett as a person? I care about Garnett the player. I can see Garnett's post game comments just the same as the reporters at the presser. I can get instant box score information and stats from the Internet - I don't need the paper for that anymore. What good is a reporter if he's like a Ron Borges biased against the very beat he's supposed to cover (Patriots and Bill Belichick)?

The biggest joke is the stories that come out about players after they are traded. Reporters with access knew these things but failed to report it. Then when the information become passe - it's made public? Did baseball writers sell fans a bill of goods when it came to a guy like Kirby Puckett? Did they know his character was less than stellar? And if they did not - what good were they?

 

Mea culpa - Brain fart on my end.

 

No matter how she got the job there is a conflict of interest.

She gets a job with Werner's company then the proper thing is for Dan never to write another column on the Red Sox. Let someone else who is not compromised by personal entanglements write the columns. Bob Ryan or Jackie Mack or Gordon Edes or Nick Cafardo. Do you think Tom Warner didn't know that she was Dan Shaughnessy's daughter? Do you think Shaughnessy doesn't think "my daughter works for this man" whenever he sees Tom Werner?

The proper thing would have been for Shaughnessy to explain the situation because he has made himself a public figure. This sort of nepotism by any public figure in Boston would have gotten coverage by the Globe. But there is a double standard when it comes to reporters covering their own and what ideals they are willing to live by versus what they expect from others.

 

So if you can get all those details on your own, what do we need a reporter for?

 

Exactly.

 

Henry: I don't think my editor or my readers would take it too well if I neglected the star to write about the punter. I do cultivate the periphery. I cultivate the whole team, it's my beat. But I sure can't NOT deal with the star.
Here's what I'm saying: My job would be easier, and I would be doing it better, if the star and I could talk conversationally once in a while ... instead of with him sitting behind a bank of mikes and me shouting over other questioners.
I'm not looking for anyone here to make suggestions, I'm just pointing out the area in which I agree with Shaughnessy -- our writing and our readers would benefit from a less rigid structure than the one that has evolved.

 

So what is the solution?

Limit the number of press passes?

Give two different passes? One for the general mass sitdown and a second one for the locker room? Maybe only allow 15 of the locker room passes?

It sounds like people long for the good old days of the same 4-5 reporters in the locker room.

 

Maybe 10-20, but yes.