In case the whole NESN-Don Orsillo mess couldn’t get any more screwed up, it did.
At the center of it is Boston’s favorite columnist, (oh wait, he didn’t even make the list) Dan Shaughnessy!
An important line was dropped from his column about Orsillo earlier in the week:
The Globe deleted the line about the Red Sox confiscating Don Orsillo signs, but screenshots are a thing. pic.twitter.com/IRiBbrxheb
— Jared Carrabis (@Jared_Carrabis) September 1, 2015
Dan Kennedy has written extensively about the incident, and has great coverage here:
The Globe attempted to explain the original charges thusly:
Story was published early, sourcing was weak so the line was removed. Our coverage on this speaks for itself. https://t.co/ITPLaqrl9d
— David Skok (@dskok) September 1, 2015
“Sourcing was weak.”
Shaughnessy’s original line was:
Two Sox employees told the Globe that workers at Fenway turnstiles were ordered to confiscate any signs supporting Orsillo as fans entered Fenway.
I’m interested to know what the Globe considers strong sourcing and weak sourcing. Shaughnessy writes a lot of things, many seem single sourced. Why the edit on this?
Of course it isn’t because Shaughnessy’s boss, the owner of the Globe, also owns the Red Sox. It isn’t. Trust them. Their coverage speaks for itself. Just ask them!
Kennedy adds a good followup on the topic:
As Kennedy notes, the online and print versions of the corrections were even different.
Are we supposed to give them the benefit of the doubt on this?