I’ve noticed over the past year or so a disturbing pattern in the editorial standards of The Boston Globe.
When the Globe sports department reports on something they provide insight from experts then columnists use this in forming opinions.
When the Globe health/medical editors take a stand they rely on doctors and other medical professionals who educate them, either personally or through publications, on the underlying science.
When the Globe’s Hiawatha Bray reports on the latest gizmo he gets his info from expert techies and then puts the product through his own series of tests.
BUT it seems that when the Globe takes a stand on things legal the opinions are based on the first two seasons of Night Court (the ones with the female bailiff who smoked…..as opposed to a smoking female bailiff)
For instance, take this bizarre editorial on the Catherine Grieg plea. I know this was a very long time ago but does anyone here remember Whitey Bulger’s girlfriend going to court a few weeks back and pleading guilty to all the charges the government had accused her of? Anyone? Bueller? Charley? Anyone?
Well it happened. You know why it happened? Because this is fucking America, that’s why. So if you are charged with something you did you are allowed to admit to it. Even if the prosecutor doesn’t want you to. It’s your call.
And guess what else. The prosecutor does not determine your sentence. I know, hard to believe. But a judge does. And guess what else. You get to ask the judge to impose a lesser sentence than the U.S. Attorney demands, and you get to provide evidence to the judge on why you deserve a lighter sentence.
Pretty basic stuff, right? Well not so I guess for the pencil pushing culturally one-dimentional fools at The Gloebbels.
Here’s some barroom lawyering for you. If you get arrested for OUI and you were shit faced, failed every test, and you know it then you should admit to it at arraignment. Get it over with. Take the standard deal. Save yourself $$ and stress. Do the program, arrange for some alternative transportation, and put it behind you. (first offense no accident only)
I guess the Gloebbels skipped civics class at Andover or Groton the day this was covered. And I’d be surprised if this basic individual right is emphasized in journalism school.
Anyhow, the editorial reads like an answer to a college literature exam on a book that was not read but the Monarch Notes were skimmed through. (Was Lady MacBeth his wife or mother? Shit, if only I had one more day to learn this stuff) Below is a taste.
The plea arrangement, coming after additional charges were filed against her on Monday for identity fraud, shows that prosecutors are making imperfect choices in a potentially difficult case. She will be immune to further prosecution for hiding the man she loved. But it does not mean she is getting a sweetheart deal. It means that Greig, 62, is being given a choice whether to help prosecutors and spend less time behind bars, or to hold out and spend more of her life in prison.
Hey Globies! What choices did the prosecutors make? No. Seriously. Exactly and specifically what choices did the feds have to make after Grieg’s lawyer called and said “my client is pleading guilty and you can ask the judge to sentence her to what you want and I’ll ask the judge to sentence her to what we want. That’s it. Nothing more to discuss except scheduling.”
Then the Globe editorial throw around cliches like “sweetheart deals” and “holding out”. Have the been watching Law and Order again? Next they’ll start editorializing about “perps” and cops working “the job”. These guys are insane.
Hey Globies, another question. What is it exactly that Grieg can testify to? How often Whitey got up at night to pee?
Wait, you ignoramisus don’t believe that the White Man sat her down and described every killing to her in detail?
I bring this up because the same thing is happening in the Cahill matter. Check out this masterpiece in deception titled “Coakley Right to Prosecute”. In it the Globies recap the already tired yet simple narrative concluding with something much different than the headline.
The key question is whether the benefits for Cahill exceeded those for the public. In light of the law and the available record, Coakley has ample reason to prosecute.
Again the tools of the Gloebbels intentionally or unintentionally misled the readers. First off, having to prosecute and having evidence to prosecute are different things entirely. Prosecutors have widespread discretion. That’s is why the A.G. and D.A.s are elected. For their discretion and judgement.
Please do not buy in to this argument. Martha did not have to prosecute based on the evidence.
According to Brian McGrory Martha had a state employee snapping pictures of her at the indictment press conference. Is that enough evidence to start an investigation against her and her office? Really, what benefit do taxpayers receive by paying someone to take photographs of her? And, who would investigate Martha for violating this poorly constructed law?
Number two, and most important, is the complete lack of legal analysis within the local media explaining the problems with the underlying law and it applicability here. “Vague” is a legal term.
Criminal law is not like pornography. None of this “I know it when I see it” bullshit. The Constitution doesn’t allow this. It is called “due process” and “equal protection”. Everything about the way Martha is applying this law screams out with due process and equal protection questions.
Scot Lehigh’s column was borderline pathetic. Excuse me Scott, it would be nice if you chatted with some people who know what they are talking about before you hit the keyboard.
Man what a pompous ass. Lehigh’s argument is that he never liked Cahill so good for Martha. Another version of the I-know-pornography-when-I-see-it test.
Has anyone at the Globe ever heard of the word jurisprudence? I didn’t think so.
You know, if we were talking about a structural failure of a building or a Big Dig Tunnel the media would be first talking to engineering experts etc. but not for the intricacies of law and legislation.
Are they ignorant or just assholes? A question that will never be answered.
Journalism is such a noble profession. If you don’t believe me ask a journalist.
—
That statement by Obama regarding the Supreme Court overturning legislation made every single statement ever uttered by George W. Bush during his presidency look brilliant. Every statement.
Really dudes. What’s up with that?
Mark L. Bail says
with High Broderism, the elite purveyance of simple, apolitical solutions to complex problems. Here’s a bit from Digby:
The douchiness, er, I mean, expertise of the Globe Editors comes from the fact that they know everything about everything, not because they did anything, but because they may have reported on something.
Trickle up says
is a Broderist of the first water.
dont-get-cute says
He’s using reverse psychology to get Republicans to cry out that “Duh, of course the Court can review laws and strike down laws, what an idiot!” so that people then say “oh, well I guess Activist Judges are alright sometimes, and I can’t complain about judges striking down state laws about marriage or abortion or marriage.” But the objection to Activist Judges is on the Activist part, which in this case was the new ACA law, and the judges showed restraint, not activism.
Patrick says
Cahill’s defense has to do with the RGA ads, but nobody seems to be rememering that those were problematic for Baker.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/10/14/bakers_dance_on_donations/
And…
This could get really interesting once everyone is under oath. Although I think I said the same thing about the civil case and nothing apparently came of it.