In the wake of last week’s saturation convention coverage, it’s hard to imagine anyone accusing the Globe of being too hard on John Kerry. But that’s the accusation that has dribbled into this office for months, background noise for last week’s loud coronation of the Democratic nominee.
The first “stop beating up Kerry in ’04″ plea came last year when the Globe revealed his Jewish and non-Irish heritage (although Kerry at the time seemed to welcome the information as “amazing” and “fascinating.”) The volume rose again in April with the story in which Kerry’s commanding officer in Vietnam questioned his first purple heart. Around those stories have been similar complaints at a lower decibel level.
“I believe the policy of the Globe has been almost brutally unfair to John Kerry,” said one reader in January. “John Kerry must have personally offended every single employee of The Boston Globe,” suggested another in May. From last month: “Why does the Globe have such an anti-Kerry slant? All the stories are `Kerry on the defensive’ . . . ” And from last week, in response to the story on “conflicts” revealed in Kerry’s letters from Vietnam, a plea to stop “needling” John Kerry.
That the Globe earlier this year turned its seven-part biographical series into a book (“John F. Kerry — The Complete Biography by The Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best”) has only reinforced critics’ notion that the paper is excessive in its scrutiny.
It’s always hard to filter out what is mere partisan angst (the kind prompted by even mild criticism of one’s chosen candidate) from more considered, less automatic expressions of concern. Still, there’s something worth addressing here — and there was even before a Slate pundit earlier this year put forth the view that the Globe has it in for Kerry.
One way to measure the Globe’s coverage of Kerry is to compare it to that of the last hometown Democratic presidential nominee — Michael Dukakis in 1988. My memory — refreshed by reviewing the index summaries of hundreds of stories and columns written on Dukakis that year, including a few by me — is that the Globe’s coverage of Kerry this campaign is certainly different and, yes, more aggressive. Some of the most negative stories about Dukakis that year were about his continuing role as governor in a state whose economy — his much-touted “Massachusetts miracle” — was starting to unravel. The coverage of Kerry has been more enterprising, driven by Globe probing (largely into his past) rather than reaction to events. Globe editor Martin Baron says he recognizes that the Globe has “reported doggedly” on Kerry’s campaign, but maintains that the coverage has been “resolutely fair.” As for the columnists, today’s resident conservative, Jeff Jacoby, is far more stinging in his commentary than was his counterpart in 1988, David Wilson. So, too, are some of the more mainstream or liberal columnists. Joan Vennochi’s piercing critiques of Kerry have attracted particular attention.
Even though the editorial board endorsed Kerry in the 2004 New Hampshire primary, I can see how, overall, his longtime supporters might think their guy is getting hit too hard. A couple of pieces made me wince, too.
But while the ’04 coverage has undoubtedly been tough, it has also been fair. What Globe readers have learned about Kerry in news stories is information they should know about any prospective president. The views they’ve read in columns have been within commentary bounds. And the accuracy of the Kerry book has not been challenged.
Yes, there’s some historical basis for Kerry fans to be suspicious. In the days before the 1996 election, a column by Globe business writer David Warsh raised the possibility that Kerry, in a Vietnam encounter that has won him a Silver Star, might actually have committed a war crime. The column was later discounted by Warsh’s own source.
With memories like that, it’s easy to forget that, while the paper and Kerry have never enjoyed a particularly chummy relationship, and his designees complain about coverage (although not recently to this office), the paper has endorsed him more often than not over his 30 year career.
If the Globe has been harder on Kerry than Dukakis, it’s because it’s a different paper than it was 15 years ago. The paper has evolved; the soft touch afforded the Kennedy dynasty in the Camelot years gave way to the tougher treatment of Dukakis in ’88 and, continuing the trend, Kerry in ’04. The newsroom of today is more aggressive. It takes nothing at face value. Overall that’s a good thing — but some Kerry partisans can be excused for thinking the rules have changed.
Footnote: Readers were unusually quiet on the Globe’s massive convention converage last week, although several did wonder why Barack Obama’s keynote speech didn’t get more mention. If relative silence means readers liked what they saw, the convention team should be commended. It was a tour de force.
