Beezlegrunk OP t1_jccaari wrote on March 15, 2023 at 8:21 PM

Reply to comment by RIDG86 in The failure of Providence’s Fane tower is a lesson in politics and reality by Beezlegrunk

McGowan leads the Globe's RI bureau as far as I can tell, so I assume he's considered the bureau chief — if not him, then who is?

And at least half of what he writes about is sports, and he even manages to weave it into stories that have nothing to do with athletics (just look at the one we're commenting on — it's full of sports metaphors). He may not have the formal title of sports reporter, but he's a sports reporter — and his political coverage reflects that.

I don't share your appreciation of McGowan's coverage of local politics, because (like daily sports journalism) it's not very incisive — he tends to take things at face value and not probe much for deeper analysis. I don't see him relying on any informative sources or discovering information that isn't public knowledge. He covers politics the way a high school reporter would, by writing what he sees, and what the conventional wisdom says.

As far as his personal bias regarding the Fane tower story, he wrote about Salvatore not "wasting his time on the silly arguments from a handful of vocal critics [that the] "the design is ugly" or "that's too tall" — that's a pretty clear indication about how McGowan felt about the tower, and couldn't abide anyone who didn't share his view.

He also openly admits that he let Fane fend him off on the financing details, despite there being "plenty of people in the development world in my ear who raising legitimate questions about the [financial] viability of the tower" — which is a quite damning admission for someone who covers RI politics.

No serious journalist would allow a public figure asking for tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to get away with telling a fairytale about a project's financing, unless he supports the project and is afraid to ask too many tough questions about it. The tower project was like a team McGowan was rooting for, and he wasn't willing to criticize the coach or the team owners if it risked causing them to lose. That's not professional journalism, that's fan-style boosterism.

RIDG86 t1_jcfrpca wrote on March 16, 2023 at 2:54 PM

I disagree with your take, but we are both entitled to our opinions. I will say, that I did look up the Globe RI staff and found that Lylah M. Alphonse is ¨the Rhode Island Editor for the Boston Globe, where she leads a team covering and exploring the Ocean State.¨ I dont see anyone with the bureau chief title, but i suspect that role is probably played by the editor. Their RI coverage is pretty good. I opted to pay for one paper and its the globe. Although I have hit the projo paywall a few times this year and I have been tempted to sign up…its just depressing how reduced our paper of record has become and I struggle wanting to give Gansett any of my money. This is all to say, I appreciate Mcgowans reporting….i feel like people find issue with journalistic objectivity when they feel slighted by a perceived subjective aspect of an article. I noted that line where he dismissed vocal critics that complained about the design…the design take is the mother of all subjective takes…I did not find it that bad…not great, but i love the Superman building, and i read someone pitching to knock it down, so again its subjective as heck. It was a dig at them for sure, I chuckled, but imagine for those who cared about that issue did the opposite. The finance question was reported on tho…and the reason no one did in-depth coverage on financing, or lack thereof, is because that info is not public. Fane gave assurances he had it, Salvatore apparently called BS, but he could have…at some point, had the backing…so how do you report that definitively either way?

Lastly, I dont want to beat a dead horse here, but sounds like your doubling down on the sports thing..I suspect that maybe its a slight to call someone a sports journalist? I dont know….sounds like a good gig if you can get it. Aside from an occasional sport analogy, I do not see Mcgowan going on and on about sports or covering it in depth…..i guess he tweets about a little league team he coaches sometimes…..I only mention this because it seems you got some well thought out criticisms of Mcgowan, and i dont disagree with the premise of the issue you are highlighting, i just disagree it applies to Mcgowan…in the end, i feel like your just hurting the feelings of some sports reporter out there who is really trying hard to cover the Baseball Classic, and get his father to say they are proud of them….hang in there sport journalists! YOU ARE ENOUGH. YOU ARE WORTHY!

Either way good talk!

Beezlegrunk OP t1_jclp6ho wrote on March 17, 2023 at 7:04 PM

>I disagree with your take, but we are both entitled to our opinions.

"Entitled" seems too strong a word — maybe we both just "have" opinions? I think the "every opinion is equally valid" idea is not borne out by real-world experience ...

>I did look up the Globe RI staff and found that Lylah M. Alphonse is ¨the Rhode Island Editor for the Boston Globe, where she leads a team covering and exploring the Ocean State.¨ I dont see anyone with the bureau chief title, but i suspect that role is probably played by the editor.

That's well observed — I'll adjust McGowan's title commensurately, which actually makes me feel slightly better, though I still don't understand why he has so much sports coverage in the daily e-mail newsletter. That you don't seem to notice that is odd.

>people find issue with journalistic objectivity when they feel slighted by a perceived subjective aspect of an article.

Calling a concern "silly" reveals one's bias, but it was more his admission that he deliberately ignored questions about Fane tower's financing because he dismissed them as rivalry — that's pretty weak sauce. I think he did it because he supported the tower or more downtown development in general. It was at least worth looking into ...

>the reason no one did in-depth coverage on financing, or lack thereof, is because that info is not public.

So no reporters have ever covered stories in which all the information wasn't public? Please. It's a reporter's job to seek out that information, and in the absence of being able to do so, reporting the lack of information as a critical issue that brings the subject itself into question. Silence on the issue only really served one side: Fane.

>I suspect that maybe its a slight to call someone a sports journalist?

There's different kinds of sports reporting — some of which includes never really looking beyond the surface of issues, and always taking team pronouncements as gospel, in the name of supporting the home team and not pissing off fans. That's not journalism, though, it's boosterism / fanboy-ishness. We see similar things with business reporting that never really questions corporate pronouncements or motives. Then it's suddenly a surprise when we find out a company has been lying all along.

>I do not see Mcgowan going on and on about sports or covering it in depth

Read the daily newsletter and you'll see what I mean. Even the Fane tower column has a bunch of sports references in it. I think he sees every issue as some sort of competitive contest and his job as a reporter is to 'handicap' the eventual outcome — i.e, "The odds are against person X achieving outcome Y" — likes it's a pre-game report or post-game analysis. What we don't see are a lot of incisive questions or insightful reporting based on going behind the obvious public facade that everyone can see. It's generally pretty shallow ...

RIDG86 t1_jclzzpg wrote on March 17, 2023 at 8:15 PM

I got to tell you, as I began to read this I thought your tone was going to be snippy with the whole entitled to have opinions versus having opinions…..but reading your whole reply I am going to revisit that first impression as you simply trying to be particularly thoughtful in your reply, and I can appreciate that.

Just to push back on your eventual point in the first paragraph, i never said both of our opinions are equally valid, just that we are both entitled to have an opinion. I will maintain that is true. In fact, I know I am bias, but I give my own opinion more weight than yours. And I do not hold it against you if you do the same with you own opinion on this subject!

The whole reason I made that statement was to acknowledge that we hit an impasse. I am not going change your mind and your weren’t going to change mine.

I will say that I do read his newsletter, I used to follow his PVD Facebook page that he had going before going to the Globe. (Not even sure if that is still maintained). That is all to say, that over a better part of a decade I have been reading McGowan articles. I will acknowledge that he does use sport analogies from time to time, but I do not see it as much as a problem as you seem to do. Moreover, given that he cover politics more than anything else, I cant think of what politics translates more perfectly into than sports. Elections are races, candidates are judged by their performance by the electorate, votes like points determine the winner. Some candidates, like sports teams, are better funded than others. And like in sports everyone loves a good underdog story line.

In any event, pure objectivity in journalism is a myth. I am not even sure what that would look like. Even with a plain reporting of the facts, I find folks who do not like what they are hearing would question the objectivity of not contextualizing those facts in a way that they subjectively believe is needed. In this instance, if reporters questioned the financing without any basis that it does or does not exist….that would not sound too objective to me if I were supporting the tower...

As far as digging up the Fane financing, or lack thereof, thats an unfair expectation. Fane had every reason not to publish that information for business reasons. Short of that, as far as I know the Fourth Estate does not have subpoena powers.

Again good talk. This is my last reply friend, I leave you to have the last word if you so desire it!