Boston Globe ... Do they believe in, and support freedom of the press?

This is a post I submitted to the Globe... I'm curious ... But, by all means... read the article if you love Paul Pierce.

Wonder

Great Article on Pierce, but not from Globe... Think I'll get banned?
posted at 10/30/2009 8:28 AM EDT

johnnywonder
Posts: 128
First: 1/26/2008
Last: 10/30/2009
Hey there...

If you want to read a great article on PP here it is.
http://www.celticsblog.com/2009/10/30/1105624/paul-pierce-thriving-with-and?

If you don't like seeing Pierce get his due, don't read it.

Question: Who thinks the Boston Globe only believes in Free Press when they're the Press?

Wonder

I don’t understand what you are saying.

Would you expect to be able to walk into a McDonalds and promote Wendy’s?

I am not a big fan of the Boston Globe, but be serious – they are losing money hand over fist and you want them to encourage people to leave and read news elsewhere?

i absolutely do expect this. In fact I demand it. As should you. The Globe and other media enjoy unparalleled support and protection. The media are not a "real" business as we understand business. McDonalds is not protected by the Constitution from competition from Wendy's. Micky-Dees and Wendys operate as part of free enterprise. The Globe does not. It enjoys protections from the government that go beyond any consideration accepting only a private citizen.

It is unconscionable that a "source of freedom for the Great Unwashed" would benefit from absolute protection on the one hand and censor a differing voice on the other. Not only is this policy indefensible, it is unwise. What better way to drive the expansion of ideas than to promote their debate?

Is it any wonder they are losing money hand-over-fist? The managers of the Globe have lost their way. They forget that the profit is in promoting and publicizing the debate itself... not in promoting their own views. There is no profit in that, only self congratulations.

Since the editorial staff are reduced to selling hamburgers, as you so succinctly point out... they leave the promotion of public expression to others while they wither on the vine.

More and more the Slippery Sam's of the world pick up the quill of Thomas Paine.

We have seen where this leads.

Wonder

oh yeah... and, go Celtics!!!

2 - 0!!!!

: o )

Terrific PP article Wonder. Nicely done.

Why shouldn't the Globe print this article? What are the objections that you anticipate?

GC

Actually, I think they will on this one. But, they should be pushed, and pushed hard. They're part of a behemoth in publishing. They're not out of money. They carved out a little portion of their business and now say it is out of money. It' BS.

I'm really responding to them banning Slippery Sam for setting up a different post option. WTF? Who do they think they are? If they only post their own material, why not just run for office instead of pretending to be an impartial source for news?

News is about the community. The Globe (and many others) has put the community in a vice-grip and squeezed it. They are no longer interested in what we think, instead they tell us what to think.

Sam has broken the vice and now all the little streams of opinion run free. This new BB is a small thing, but it is also a tributary to a river. It may be a river of discontent, it may not... but, eventually the river will run free, and we'll find out.

There will be more and more of this, and if enough free-thinking people participate, there will be a new voice. A loud one. I think we need one.

Wonder

I don't know of any newspaper who is an impartial source of news. They all have their own slants and agendas. Try getting an article/forum piece published in any newspaper that goes after one of the newspaper's advertisers (where they actually make their money). Good luck! You'll need it.

Good to see SlipSam post a nice "Hello, I'm doing fine. It's going to be a great season!" in the BDC by the way this morning. All class... and good karma too.

GC

Wonder, I enjoy, appreciate your writing style and the conviction in your argument. It makes for great reading. I think what we have here, and what mrkleen is attempting to do, is combine "commercial common sense" with the privileged protections the "media" can use through its First Amendment protections. Some argue the the media abuses its protections to hold a "posters (readers/customers)" hands behind their back. In my view, that's one of the serious flaws we have in our legal system. On the other hand, we all have to remember that the Founders did not consider Internet posting when they drafted the US Constitution. In general, the media protections were created to protect the greater good of the people. That is the right, and need, to be kept informed without the type of censorship we find in other nations. As an example, why do many believe the folks in many countries hate America. The belief is that the good folks there are misinformed based on a government controlled media.

It's true, the Globe has First Amendment protections to publish anything that they choose if the targeted person or group cannot prove has published with malice, however a customer/poster has no such privilege or right to post anything we choose to post. Or for that matter, nor does a poster have any right to post on BDC's site. That's because BDC has the right to "refuse service to anyone". Although, Denny's tried that strategy but lost due to other law based grounds!!! BDC also cannot discriminate a right to post on race base grounds as was alleged in the Denny's case. That is basically the only right that Sam or others like Dslack could raise.

Forgetting the law, the argument boils down to whether the Macy's theory of "send em to Gimbles if we don't have it" is the better strategy for the Globe and BDC. The counter argument, as offered by mrkleen, supports the theory that a business that endorses competitors is a business headed for failure. Which theory works best. It may be a toss-up. As an example, some actually believe gas station revenues grow when there is a gas station on all four corners, however some believe there is lost revenue when that occurs because the four stations are forced to split the available revenue that is obtained on that intersection. Tne "Macy's theory" is that more consumers than not will drive to the intersection because of the choice of brands are available in that intersection instead of having to waste time and gas to find the same choices elsewhere!!!

I see merit in both your arguments. Although, Wonder, perhaps it can be argued that the Globe ihas adopted a a "distant anti-trust" violation in its policy. That is because it allows large corporate competition to advertise on its site, but discriminates against targeted small independent owned competition such as Sam and Dslack. That is the case when they allow access of Globe/BDC's corporate competitors, such as; the Herald, Projo, and the New York Post, through the "Boston Dirt Dogs" link. However, it intentionally discriminates against competitors such as Sam and Dslack! by not making those links available through that link and/or through the discussion board. Not sure that Sam and/or Dslack can prevail, however it can be an interesting argument".

Oh, by the way some believe the "spirit of Christmas Macy's to Gimble" policy is not really designed to support the best interests of its customers by sending them to competitors. It is more so to take advantage of customer tendencies to be attracted by "marketing based" displays and spend more money at Macy's instead of actually using a bit more energy and time by going elsewhere.

Bottom line----Great posting thoughts by Wonder and mrkleen

David

In you huff, you are missing that point that the Globe is not in business to promote other sources of information…otherwise, why be anything other than a “reader” or “newsfeed” service where you link to everyone else’s content, rather than provide anything of value on your own.

You think you would get any traction trying to get Fox / Boston Herald / Wall St Journal to print or publicize articles written by people they disagree with? The Globe can choose what it wants to include in the paper and who it wants to let post what on their website. They pay for it, you don’t…and again, I just don’t see your point.

People can vote with their feet (and the wallets) and take they traffic and business elsewhere. Seems pretty democratic to me.

As it relates to the Celtics, I like Sam and the people that are here – and don’t visit the Celtics forum on BDC any longer. I choose to post here and will continue to support Sam in this endeavor. I suggest you do that same.

Half of my response is in the vain of playing devils advocate, as I am no fan of media censorship and reporting only half the story. But again, disliking it and thinking it is somehow “against the constitution” are two very different things. I think you are way off base here.

Johnny, let's correct a couple of things.

First, the Globe and Boston.com are separate entities. Related but separate.

Second, they didn't ban me. In fact, I just posted a greeting to my friends on that site. (No advertising, just a greeting.)

Third, the reason my profile page was under review was because I broke a rule by promoting a commercial entity on BDC..

Some people think I should be lashing out at BDC, but I can't think of one earthly reason why.

Johnny, let's correct a couple of things.

First, the Globe and Boston.com are separate entities. Related but separate.

Second, they didn't ban me. In fact, I just posted a greeting to my friends on that site. (No advertising, just a greeting.)

Third, the reason my profile page was under review was because I broke a rule by promoting a commercial entity on BDC.

Some people think I should be lashing out at BDC, but I cain't think of one earthly reason why.

I can understand your concerns in general, but don't worry about my situation. I'm happy as a clam. (Great expression, but why should clams be happy? Certainly not on Cape Cod where I live. They're all just one step from the frialator.)

Sam

mrkleen, I don't want to dilute the debate between you and Wonder. Just wanted to let you know, that your posts create an interesting debate with others that make this kind of a site that much more enjoyable. Not sure anyone should really care which side a poster supports. However, I, for one, wanted to let you know, I really enjoy your posts. After all, if we all thought the same, there would be no Lakers fans that we would love to...... (censored).

David

I really appreciate all the responses! I have to travel again today, so I can't do justice to another post. But, I must say this: Isn't this a lot better reading than some of that inane stuff on the Boston.com board? I really like this!!

Thanks,

Wonder

Yes Wonder, I, for one, definitely agree.

David

Gk's answer to your question would have been.

"It matters not, KG is old and Kobe is going to crush you."

Jeb

David14 wrote:mrkleen, I don't want to dilute the debate between you and Wonder. Just wanted to let you know, that your posts create an interesting debate with others that make this kind of a site that much more enjoyable. Not sure anyone should really care which side a poster supports. However, I, for one, wanted to let you know, I really enjoy your posts. After all, if we all thought the same, there would be no Lakers fans that we would love to...... (censored).

David

Thanks David.

I think that if this came up tomorrow, I very well might be on Wonder’s side….so I am glad we are keeping it civil and just sort of bouncing ideas off one another.

That is the best thing about a site that is also a community. I hope to one day meet lots of people from this board as I really like and respect their feelings about the game and their love for the team. So I am less likely to fly off the handle too far, as I have to one day stand behind my words.

On a site like BDC, you can be anyone….and that kind of anonymity breeds hateful talk, callous responses and an overall nasty environment.

I was the captain of the debate team in high school and college – so I enjoy a good argument. But I also like to know the people behind the debate, as we should be able to (as our President put it) disagree without being disagreeable.

Well Johnny Wonder's PP article is up at BDC. I guess that I am slow (understatement for sure) but I didnt realize that the link would be published instead of the piece itself.

I can see why BDC might not be wanting to publish the link. Why should they? The piece is fine though. The reception at BDC is a bit cool. The guys over there are a wee bit jaded, for sure. They are used to being abused.

gc

mrkleen09 wrote:

David14 wrote:mrkleen, I don't want to dilute the debate between you and Wonder. Just wanted to let you know, that your posts create an interesting debate with others that make this kind of a site that much more enjoyable. Not sure anyone should really care which side a poster supports. However, I, for one, wanted to let you know, I really enjoy your posts. After all, if we all thought the same, there would be no Lakers fans that we would love to...... (censored).

David

Thanks David.

I think that if this came up tomorrow, I very well might be on Wonder’s side….so I am glad we are keeping it civil and just sort of bouncing ideas off one another.

That is the best thing about a site that is also a community. I hope to one day meet lots of people from this board as I really like and respect their feelings about the game and their love for the team. So I am less likely to fly off the handle too far, as I have to one day stand behind my words.

On a site like BDC, you can be anyone….and that kind of anonymity breeds hateful talk, callous responses and an overall nasty environment.

I was the captain of the debate team in high school and college – so I enjoy a good argument. But I also like to know the people behind the debate, as we should be able to (as our President put it) disagree without being disagreeable.

mrkleen, I completely agree with your comments. After some initial angry exchanges with some Celtic haters, for sheer survival, I did my best to stay neutral on BDC. However, that approach turned out to be a disaster.

My personal feeling is that I think its best if everyone has the freedom to share their individual thoughts in a trusting environment free from judgments and return personal insults. Like you said, most of us do not know each other and cannot really be fully aware of our daily "mood changing" challenges. It really appears to me that Sam and his support staff have done a good job in creating the type of environment that we can simply be ourselves without losing any friends.

I've read most of your posts on the three sites and sincerely hope you become a long term poster on Sam's sites. You definitely "speak your piece". I can see the debate team background in your posts. You have stated a position where some have agreed, and some "intensely" disagreed. However, you have responded by acceptance or rejection, and then confidently moved on to another thread at the proper time. That's good stuff and makes for an enjoyable board.

Take care,
David

People are quick to wave the Constitution around whenever they don't get to do exactly what they want. Anyone using the Constitution to criticize BDC for its rules controlling what can and can't be posted doesn't understand the First Amendment.

I can understand why someone would object to the somewhat random policy changes, but BDC gets to make up whatever rules they like (for the most part). Same thing holds true here. This forum only operates the way it does because of the format used by Forumotion and the rules selected by the site administrators. If they ever decided to make whatever sweeping rule changes they wished, they would likely be well within their rights to do so, no matter how off-putting it was to people who like the site. It might not be a good idea, but the First Amendment would very likely have nothing to do with whether it was okay or not.