The Boston Herald's headline last week after the Red Sox's ALCS win was "Triumph and Tragedy," the Red Sox entry into the World Series contrasted with the death of an Emerson journalism student who had not yet turned 22 years old.
Have things really gone this far? Complaints are normal that major city newspapers and even national ones ignore major issues in favor of fanning the flames of sports enthusiasts. The Tufts Daily ran such a thought just last week as a Viewpoint, a student who was upset that the New York Times had nothing better to report on its front page than the outcome of a baseball game.
What kind of society do we live in when the triumph of winning a game can even compare to the needless death of a student, an innocent bystander?
However, the Red Sox are an important part of many New Englanders lives, and I can understand the desire for a tabloid-style newspaper like the Herald to celebrate an event that has not happened since 1986. The Herald is dependant on newsstand sales, unlike papers like the Boston Globe or New York Times, which have higher subscription lists. How many people would have bought the Herald if its front page had no mention of the Sox?
Of course, there was also the tasteless and horrible picture in the interior of the paper which had a vivid shot of the woman's disfigured face. It was this picture which offered no journalistic virtue, since the bloodiness of the event was already well documented in the article and in the front-page photo.
The Boston Globe reported that it was this inside photo which resulted in the Herald issuing an editorial apology, and in Northeastern University's Student Government Association disallowing free issues of the Herald from being distributed on campus, as they are currently at Tufts.
News organizations are based upon thousands of editorial decisions which have to balance a combination of business acumen, journalistic integrity, and good taste, many of which are rarely the same. Despite all the issues I have with the Herald's method of reporting the aftermath of the Red Sox ALCS "riots," I have even more issues with Northeastern University's decision to prevent a publication from distributing its content.
If a newspaper does something you do not approve of, you have a right and often-times a duty to criticize its decision. You have a right to no longer read the publication because you do not trust what it says, or do not think that the newspaper has the same moral values as you do. But what you absolutely do not have a right to do is to prevent it from disseminating its ideas among the public.
I chastise the Herald for its poorly thought through editorial decision which ignored ethics in the interest of sensationalism. The outcry from that decision and the loss of faith by Boston's public in the Herald's editors will serve them as a reminder in the future.
To the student council at Northeastern University, I can only shake my head in amazement. God help Northeastern students if you ever decided that the Boston Phoenix is not respectful enough of George W. Bush. And I hope that none of you are ever elected into a real political position which allows you to censor something on a larger scale.
