Earlier today, I talked up Brian McGrory's piece on embattled Lawrence mayor William Lantigua, while simultaneously urging the Globe to discuss Lantigua's profane tendencies in greater detail.
Now, though, I'm writing about a claim made in McGrory's piece--specifically, his suggestion that his interview with Lantigua was an exclusive.
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)?
This was news to me, I confess, but apparently Brian McGrory set a time limit when he signed on as the Globe's metro editor in May 2007. He wanted to be able to return to full-time columnist duty after two years. And as of January, he'll be doing exactly that.
That's unfortunate for Globe readers. Throughout McGrory's editing tenure, but especially in the last year or so, I've been struck at the Globe's knack for ferreting out idiosyncratic local stories that read well whether you're a recent transplant to Boston or someone who's lived here for decades, and that provide a sense of how greater Boston feels at this particular moment in time.
Yesterday, in a nice recap of the debate between John Kerry and Ed O'Reilly, the Globe's Matt Viser wrote:
In his reelection campaign in 2004 [sic]*, Mayor Thomas M. Menino assiduously
avoided debating his opponent, Maura A. Hennigan, although he agreed to
face her in an hourlong lunch hosted by the Globe at the Locke-Ober