I'm of two minds about the news that John Tomase has been removed from the Patriots beat. Tomase was the author of the now-famous article published Feb. 2, 2008, just before the Patriots faced the Giants in Super Bowl XLII, which publicized the allegations of unnamed sources that the Patriots had filmed a Rams walk-through prior to Super Bowl XXXVI.
The first of my minds is the one that has, in the past, experienced life inside a Boston newsroom. Reporters on a beat, if they have any dedication at all, will hear rumors and speculation swirling every day, and it is out of these rumors and speculation that the first whispers of a truly huge story will sometimes emerge. Reporters worth their salt will have a healthy sense of competition and a desire to be the first to pick real news out of that bubbling stew of information.
Editors, advertisers and marketers will know that a story published on the eve of the biggest sporting event in America will catch the attention of a national audience, which translates directly into money. They will understand the potential impact of their story on the franchise they're covering, but will also be anxious not to be seen to have buried a story on behalf of their subject, and therefore fall under the dread label, "homers."
Imagine if, once Matt Walsh was located, he actually did have a tape, and Tomase's story worked out. Tomase would have looked like a genius, and the Herald would've been SpyGate's answer to the Washington Post.
That glittering vision of the future must have been too much to resist. To paraphrase Chris Rock, I'm not saying they should've done it. But I understand.
Of course that doesn't mean the paper hasn't had to take its lumps for running the story. If your work can move a paper as generally set in its tabloid ways as the Herald to issue an apology, clearly you have done something wrong. As the Herald itself printed, "We should not have published the allegation in the absence of firmer verification."
I find it very difficult to believe the paper didn't fully comprehend and calculate the risk vs. notoriety reward before publishing. As for Tomase, at the end of the day, his byline is on the work. He stands or falls with it. Any journalist would love to break open SpyGate; that doesn't mean wishing enough for it will make a thinly sourced story stand up.
The trust of the Patriots readership in Tomase was clearly gone forever, so it was clear he had to be taken off the beat. Beyond that, this side of me acknowledges it takes being an insider to know all the facts that contributed to this decision to move him rather than let him go entirely.
As for Tomase himself, this side of me just hopes he makes the most out of his second chance (if it really is one - sometimes 'transfers' can quickly lead to 'seeking new opportunities').
But then, there's my second mind. The side of me that is a Patriots homer--and the side that saw the damage the story wrought firsthand.
The side that to this day can be set off onto a 25-minute rant about SpyGate and the way that story got blown completely out of proportion. The side that still remembers being on the bad side of what felt like the entire Internet over these allegations, just because the Patriots are my team.
The side that to this day sometimes needs that 25-minute rant, because she still sometimes encounters people who seem to believe the story about the Rams walkthrough (and worse) is true.
That side, the fan side, thinks Tomase's definitely getting off easy.
The first of my minds is the one that has, in the past, experienced life inside a Boston newsroom. Reporters on a beat, if they have any dedication at all, will hear rumors and speculation swirling every day, and it is out of these rumors and speculation that the first whispers of a truly huge story will sometimes emerge. Reporters worth their salt will have a healthy sense of competition and a desire to be the first to pick real news out of that bubbling stew of information.
Editors, advertisers and marketers will know that a story published on the eve of the biggest sporting event in America will catch the attention of a national audience, which translates directly into money. They will understand the potential impact of their story on the franchise they're covering, but will also be anxious not to be seen to have buried a story on behalf of their subject, and therefore fall under the dread label, "homers."
Imagine if, once Matt Walsh was located, he actually did have a tape, and Tomase's story worked out. Tomase would have looked like a genius, and the Herald would've been SpyGate's answer to the Washington Post.
That glittering vision of the future must have been too much to resist. To paraphrase Chris Rock, I'm not saying they should've done it. But I understand.
Of course that doesn't mean the paper hasn't had to take its lumps for running the story. If your work can move a paper as generally set in its tabloid ways as the Herald to issue an apology, clearly you have done something wrong. As the Herald itself printed, "We should not have published the allegation in the absence of firmer verification."
I find it very difficult to believe the paper didn't fully comprehend and calculate the risk vs. notoriety reward before publishing. As for Tomase, at the end of the day, his byline is on the work. He stands or falls with it. Any journalist would love to break open SpyGate; that doesn't mean wishing enough for it will make a thinly sourced story stand up.
The trust of the Patriots readership in Tomase was clearly gone forever, so it was clear he had to be taken off the beat. Beyond that, this side of me acknowledges it takes being an insider to know all the facts that contributed to this decision to move him rather than let him go entirely.
As for Tomase himself, this side of me just hopes he makes the most out of his second chance (if it really is one - sometimes 'transfers' can quickly lead to 'seeking new opportunities').
But then, there's my second mind. The side of me that is a Patriots homer--and the side that saw the damage the story wrought firsthand.
The side that to this day can be set off onto a 25-minute rant about SpyGate and the way that story got blown completely out of proportion. The side that still remembers being on the bad side of what felt like the entire Internet over these allegations, just because the Patriots are my team.
The side that to this day sometimes needs that 25-minute rant, because she still sometimes encounters people who seem to believe the story about the Rams walkthrough (and worse) is true.
That side, the fan side, thinks Tomase's definitely getting off easy.
Hi Beth,
I'm in total agreement with the side of you that is a fan.
However, you also did a good job showing the temptations which led Tomase and The Herald down the paths they took.
The Spygate episode is something I kept getting into arguments about. I finally just posted my thoughts on line at the following link:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/199345-the-truth-about-spygate-punishing-success-and-promoting-parity
Posted by: Scott Sheaffer | July 13, 2009 at 07:19
Beth does a nice job showing how journalists fall into error. The simple fact is, Patriots fans should give Tomase the Bill Buckner treatment all the way - his sin was far worse than Buckner's because it was premeditated, deliberate, and treacherous. It cost them the Super Bowl - stabbed them right in the guts. I for one will never buy another Herald or visit their website as long as Tomase is employed there.
Posted by: PatsFanDave | July 13, 2009 at 20:15
Thanks Scott. That article is great - I've come to expect as much from BR. I'll know next time I need my 25-minute rant that there's a more polished version just a URL away. :)
Posted by: beth | July 13, 2009 at 20:30
@PatsFanDave I def. feel what you're saying, and the Tomase report was a major distraction to the team on the eve of the Super Bowl. The timing of the story was so ruthless that it means there's even less of an excuse for it not to have been solidly backed up, since the impact to the team was material. But I personally would stop short of saying it directly cost them the game. I think there were a lot more factors on the field that day - and you have to give some credit where it's due, to the Giants defense.
What I'm angrier about with that story is the fact that it wasn't the merits of that defense and the action on the field I found myself discussing after the game. I expected people to come around talking plenty of trash about how far outplayed the Pats offense was by the Giants D, esp. in the first half.
What I didn't expect was the solid month of personal vilification based on people's certitude that my team - and by some weird alchemical transference, I - were a bunch of unethical traitors to American sportsmanship who deserved to see our trophies revoked and our stadium torn down, etc. (Don't believe me? Go back and check out the comments threads.)
We'll never know if the Pats might've lost that game anyway, but we know for a fact that a large amount of the BS Pats fans have had to take on behalf of their team can be traced back to the that story. That story gave bitter fans of opposing teams something to hang their hats of hatred on, when they didn't need the help, and it's an experience I know I'll never forget. THAT's what I blame Tomase for, and in my book, that's plenty.
Posted by: Beth | July 13, 2009 at 20:39
Well said Beth. Very well said.
Posted by: Jamie | July 14, 2009 at 21:33