Globe columnist Brian McGrory's must-read piece on new Lawrence mayor William Lantigua--who promised to reliniquish his Mass. legislative seat during the campaign, but now seems determined not to do so--is a fascinating study in political tone-deafness. I have one question, however. By censoring Lantigua's apparent use of "naughty" language, might the Globe be inadvertently protecting Lantigua from himself (to the extent that's possible)?

As you may have seen, Boston.com whipped up a slideshow titled "Poutin' Peyton" for Super Bowl 44, in which Peyton Manning's Indianapolis Colts lost to the New Orleans Saints. My first thought: "Hey, good for Boston.com! Way to take advantage of Patriot fans' anti-Manning animosity!" (Or something like that.)

Today, though, I finally checked out the slideshow in question.

Very high-stakes position, this, what with the recent arrivals of the Sports Hub and ESPNBoston.com and the challenge already posed by WEEI.com. Here's the email from Boston.com editor David Beard:

-------

All,

It's not often we get a job candidate who has extraordinary print and online editing and leadership experience -- and who has thrown a cream pie into the face of the governor of Connecticut.

With all due respect, what the fuck is Katherine L. Cohen talking about? Boston is a great college town because--wait for it--it has "reasonably priced tourist attractions"? Amherst gets the nod because it's "known to have concerts and a division I athletic program"?!?

Montreal is in Canada, for God's sake! And Washington DC is a political town, not a college town! What about Chapel Hill, or Charlottesville, or Athens or Madison or Ann Arbor or Bloomington or Austin?

The New York Times has a new, full-screen photo blog called "Lens"--and it might not exist without Boston.com's "The Big Picture." From a write-up in Photo District News:

Lens draws some inspiration from The Big Picture a photo blog published by Boston.com, which is also owned by The New York Times Company. The Big Picture pioneered a wide-screen layout that took advantage of improving resolutions of computer screens.

The Globe publisher's plan for the paper (and Boston.com) was described in an email sent to staffers earlier today.

Much of what's discussed is familiar (e.g., the union negotiations and the Yahoo partnership). However, this is the first I've heard of the Globe seeking new digital revenue sources that don't compromise advertising.

Editor & Publisher reports that Boston.com is a quintuple finalist in the 2009 EPpy awards, the new-media contest sponsored jointly by E&P and Newsweek. The honorees include the Your Town sites, Things to do; Boston Arts and Entertainment, Tony Massarotti's Mazz sports blog, and The Big Picture.

If you read Boston.com's current most-emailed item--"Children's bath products tainted with likely carcinogens"--and would like to see the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics report that generated the item in question, here's where you need to go.

I actually think Boston.com is quite good, and steadily getting better.

If Steve Brill has his way, the New York Times will aggressively push back against the free-content model that's come to predominate on the internet--and the Boston Globe just might follow suit. As Brill puts it in a memo obtained and posted by Jim Romenesko:

The same model might be initiated for Boston Globe and other Times Company newspapers; indeed, there is a possibility that the more local papers, with less content competition, will be able to make the transition just as effectively.

Now starring on Boston.com: some dude taking what looks like a really painful fall on the ice.

Questions to consider:

1) If you were the guy in question, how would you feel about the Globe documenting your accident? (Note: it's not clear whether the subject knew he was photographed or not.)

2) Consider the explanation that accompanies the fifth, ugliest photo: "Moments before this series of photos was taken Globe photographer David Ryan himself slipped and fell on the ice, damaging one of his cameras.

Recovering Journalist blogger Mark Potts today pans the NYT Co. for "wimp[ing] out" in the face of GateHouse Media's lawsuit--and, in the processes, advances the widespread notion that GateHouse's suit was unjustifiable:

[I]n waging an old-fashioned kind of newspaper war, GateHouse brought an antique blunderbuss to bear on a fight over a high-tech mosquito

According to one school of thought, GateHouse's decision to challenge Boston.com's "Your Town" approach in court merits utter contempt. As a commenter on Universal Hub said: "This is a clear case of a bunch of morons who skipped that "Internet 101" class in business school, and now they're pissed because people aren't going through their website the way THEY want them to."

About that Boston newspaper war I mentioned a couple days ago? Between GateHouse and the Globe?

Well, it just got a whole lot nastier.

As Dan Kennedy notes, there's a very important issue at play here:

Since Boston.com is selling advertising on its "Your Town" pages, the argument is that the New York Times Co., which owns Boston.

What interests me most about this article isn't that Boston.com's street-cleaning alert system isn't working well for Somerville. It's that GateHouse--which publishes the Somerville Journal and the related site Wicked Local Somerville--is gleefully using failure to jab at Boston.com and the Globe.