No News Is Boston Sunday Globe News

Now that the Boston Globe has closed its overseas news bureaus, you'd think they'd have some guys to cover local news with some degree of depth. But - you would be wrong.

Let's take a look at this week's Sunday Globe, May 6, 2007. There are only two news items on the front page.

The first: "Santana, Minnesota Twins Keep Red Sox in check, 2-1." O.K., that's informative.

The second: "Street Sense Wins Kentucky Derby." That, too, is news.

So much for the headlines that the 'bookies' need to know.

Now, the 'hard' news.

The first headline: "Before inmate's death, a delay in care."
This is the number one headline 'above the fold.'

Maybe it's just me, but I do not think that a story about a drug addict who died four years ago from de-tox while in prison custody
is the most pressing issue in New England.

As usual, however, the Globe had a slant to the article. Nowhere on the front page is she referenced as a 'drug addict.'

Nope! What we're dealing with here is, and I quote, "the 24-year-old mother from Lynn."

And how do they handle the problem of describing her addictions?

While she was held pending arraignment on what is termed 'a minor drug charge,' she "battled the side effects of heroin and alcohol withdrawal."

Words matter. Note that the use of the word 'battled.'

'Battled' is a very loaded word. It is used - exclusively as far as I've seen - by reporters who are describing someone who is trying to quit drugs and/or alcohol.

I have never before seen it used to describe someone involuntarily going through the D.T.'s or narcotics withdrawal. People, like this prisoner, who are involuntarily being de-toxed have 'severe withdrawal symptoms.' [Near the end of the article, they do mention her severe withdrawal and omit the word battle. But on the front page? There we find our "heroin-heroine' in a 'battle.'

People who 'battle' the disease of addiction [See: Patrick Kennedy] are making at least a token effort to give up the smack and the hooch. Addicts who 'battle' their addiction are considered noble by readers. Those who get locked in the hoosegow and get the shakes are considered 'junkies,' and therefore, to the normal reader, are not noble.

The decedent in this case was a newly hatched prisoner. She had just been arrested. If she was in a 'battle' it was because she was drafted. She did not volunteer.

On the first page the reporter also misstates the charges against the prisoner. How do I know this?

I know this because the reporter contradicts herself in the second half of the story - in Section B, on Page 7.

On the first page: "Since [her] death, as she awaited arraignment on a minor drug charge...."

Kinda sounds like she might have gotten nailed smoking a joint at a Boston Pops Concert, 'eh?

But there's quite a bit more to this story.

The charges which are enumerated in Section B of the Globe do happen to mention that she was arrested on a warrant for two counts: 1) driving without a license, 2) leaving the scene of an accident.

Upon her arrest it was discovered - and we discover in Section B - she was also wanted on a second warrant for illegal possession of a hypodermic needle.

So, the reporter tells us on the front page that the prisoner was being held on a minor drug charge.

In fact she was wanted for three offenses - none of which was a 'minor drug charge' unless you decide that carrying a hypodermic to inject heroin is a minor problem. But we don't find all this out until we plow through, almost to the end of the article.

And, unless you happen to be familiar with Massachusetts courts, you wouldn't know that the two warrants that were outstanding were for failure to show up in court in two separate counties for hearings on the various charges.

You wouldn't know that about the warrant because the reporter has left out a key word in her report. That word is default as in 'default warrant.'

This is the type of warrant the district courts of Massachusetts issue when a '24 year old Lynn mother' snubs her nose at the court and refuses to show up for mandatory scheduled court hearings.

So - this prisoner snubbed her nose at the law by 1) driving without a license; 2) showing a lack of care for others and recklessness by leaving the scene of an accident; and 3) by refusing the Commonwealth's non-negotiable invitation to show up in court for a prior hearing date on the charges.

And - to top it off - she had a second default warrant for ignoring a second court date in another county to discuss her recreational possession of a hypodermic needle.

Omitting the 'default' from 'default warrant' is a telling decision by the reporter because of how she describes the arrest.

"[on a Sunday]....she was spotted by Lynn Police as she walked to the beach with her two girls and mother..."

Ah yes...Damn those Lynn Police! They scooped a Lynn mother off the sidewalk as she and her mom and kids went to the beach. Could not they have waited? Cads!

Well - yeah - they could have waited. But the fact is, she had two outstanding warrants because she had refused to show up in two different courts on two different sets of charges.

She was arrested for failing to show up in court - not for the underlying charges.

If she had shown up at the judge's tea parties when she'd been told to do so, the police wouldn't have had to wait for an opportunity to catch her. She'd already shown she wouldn't R.S.V.P. an invitation to court - hence, the warrant was put out to arrest her whenever and wherever they found her.

It wasn't the cop's choice, nor the judge's choice that her day at the beach went down in flames.

It was her choice. If she didn't want trouble, she should have gone strolling with a bag on her head. And, if she didn't want to go through a hellish de-tox - she shouldn't have been toasted to the gills on booze and heroin as she walked her little children to the beach.

So, why is the reporter painting a sympathetic picture of the prisoner?

The reporter did it because, as it turns out, the state apparently failed to render all the de-tox help necessary to the prisoner and she died as a result.

Yep - whenever the state prison system makes a mistake - we can rely on the Globe to present a sympathetic slant that is tucked away in the story. The article goes on to explain that the state has reformed all its de-tox procedures for prisoners but, apparently, the state has not issued statements on this particular woman's death.

The article quotes the decedent's aunt, "If they had taken her to a hospital or given her fluids and just paid a little more attention to her, her two little kids would have their mom right now. Something is wrong here." [my emphasis of her words.]

You bet there's something wrong here!

If she hadn't been driving without a license, if she hadn't left the scene of an accident and - apparently - then twice failed to show up in court resulting in two default warrants, her aunt might have been able to convince her to go to de-tox.

We can speculate safely - since one cannot defame the dead - that the woman took off from the scene of the accident in part because she was an alcoholic and a junkie, was driving around half out of her mind on the streets by the sidewalks where your children walk, and she didn't want to get nabbed.

For all we know, she had a hypodermic with her when she left the accident scene - an accident which, I speculate, she probably caused. And, she apparently drove around without regard for the safety of others - let alone her two little kids. Plus, at the time of her arrest, she was heading to the beach - stoned and drunk - to monitor the safety of her children in the water.

Since she was addicted to heroin and alcohol - and addicted so severely that de-tox killed her - we can assume that the bottle and the needle mattered to her more than those two kids.

The aunt's quote would have made more sense if it had said, "If she had straightened out her life, looked at the gift that were these two children and been grateful, perhaps she'd be alive today."

Instead, some folks in the Department of Corrections, may have made mistakes in her de-tox and they are now being sued.

In any event: this headline is not news, and it is not newsworthy. It is certainly not a major headline that should concern New Englanders this week. [I'll grant you that it is of concern to the junkies who fail to show up in court and are later busted on default warrants. But, I doubt that many of them are reading the Globe today.]

The second headline: Also appearing above the fold is, "Missouri Attorney a focus in firings."

Excuse me, but to what part of Massachusetts did Missouri move? Why do we care? Hell, we don't care at all.

The Boston Globe cares, however. Why? The Globe cares because the article is critical about the non-scandal involving Bush and the eight U. S. Attorneys he fired.

The simple fact is this: It is not news. It never was. Those attorneys served at the pleasure of the President.

He could have fired them for having eczema.

That should have been the end of the story, but it wasn't.

The White House has forgotten what to do with little children who question the authority of adults. The White House should have said, "Why were they fired? Because I said so, that's why. Now eat your granola and get ready for school."

Below the fold there are three more 'headlines.'

The third headline: "A new fertility gamble for women." This is an 'egg freezing' article. It belongs on a page discussing health issues. It is not about current news and does not belong on a front page.

The fourth headline: "In digital age, more t's are crossed poorly."

Oh my God! The Globe Spotlight team must have been involved with this. Perhaps it should have had a catchier headline. "Palmer Method Wiped Out In Keyboard Attack!!!"

Literally - the article is about how using keyboards has effected the handwriting of people. This crapola is also not news. Ms. Manners could have dealt with the issue and probably has.

The last headline: "Question of scale: Is tower too tall for Chinatown?"

Whew!!! Finally!

Someone in the newsroom must have sobered up and realized they didn't have anything on the front page that would be in any way enticing to a reader seeking local news. So - they did an article on a high-rise that may or may not go into Boston.

That's it. That's the front page "news" as it is laughingly called in today's Boston Sunday Globe.

Hell - why don't they do what all the other jokesters in the newsrooms do today: Go to the Drudge Report on-line. Copy the headlines.

Lord knows, to paraphrase an old saying: "If no news is good news, then the Boston Sunday Globe is the paper for you."