Boston Globe Double Standard: Paper Yawns As School Removes Teacher and Principal Following Abuse Probe

Boston Globe and Carol Johnson

A different standard? The Boston Globe and Boston Schools Superintendent Carol Johnson

If the Archdiocese of Boston began proceedings to laicize a Catholic priest accused of "inappropriate contact" with an innocent minor, it hard to imagine the Boston Globe burying the story.

It is also hard to imagine the Globe being silent if the Church even refused to release the name of the cleric to the public. Surely the Globe would call on its close friends at SNAP and BishopAccountability to air further "outrage" over the Church's "callous action of harboring a child predator" and to call on the Church to immediately identify the abuses.

But apparently there is an entirely different standard for the Globe when it comes to reporting abuse by teachers at public schools – more specifically, Boston Public Schools.

This past Saturday, the Globe published an article about recent problems surrounding Boston Schools Superintendent Carol Johnson. The piece addressed "recent questions over [Johnson's] leadership." For example, Superintendent Johnson only disciplined a middle school headmaster who was found guilty of assaulting his wife after the facts of the disturbing case became public. In fact, Johnson actually wrote a letter of support for the abuser to the judge in the case.

Buried facts

Most notably, however, the Globe reported some recent sobering episodes:

At the Kilmer K-8 School, Johnson began proceedings on Friday to fire a teacher who stands accused of inappropriate contact with students

She said the state Department of Children and Families was notified about the Kilmer School teacher, whose name was not released, in late May or early June. She said the school's principal, Jerome Doherty, made the notification. Police and the School Department are also investigating.

"I can tell you it is not anything of an egregious sexual nature, but it is serious enough to take action," said Matthew Wilder, a School Department spokesman. [Ed. note: Uh-huh.]

The School Department has also removed Doherty from his job and is in the process of finding a new position for him. Johnson and Wilder declined to disclose the reason for the re­assignment, characterizing it as "protected personnel information." Kilmer parents and teachers could not be reached for comment.

To recap:

  • Boston Schools fired a teacher for "inappropriate contact" with a minor, and they won't release the person's name or the details of the charges.
  • Boston Schools moved the principal who allegedly reported the now-fired teacher, but they won't even say why.

Yet the Globe buries these facts in an article, rather than giving this episode the separate story it deserves.

And these are public institutions, funded through our tax dollars, who are involved in the cover-up.

The Globe's double standard here once again confirms the position that the paper's coverage of sex abuse scandals is not really about the abuse of children. Instead, its never-ending coverage of decades-old sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church – while minimizing the scandals happening today in public schools – is simply a cudgel with which to bludgeon the Church because it does not conform to the paper's secular, left-wing worldview.


  1. Please join 200+ Boston families and community members demanding an immediate change in Boston Schools

  2. C.C. Duline says:

    Ah, they protect their own don't they? As long as it is not a Catholic priest or money involved, the Globe doesn't care!  How wonderful that they are so discriminating! Where is SNAP when you need them? Not one word from them either? How very odd.  Their cloven hooves only come out when Catholicism is involved. Public school teachers and principals can touch, fondle or worse, anybody or anything, but the media only cares about what priest is being accused and how much money they (SNAP) and the "victim" will receive. The media, SNAP, and public schools deserve each other! 

  3. mary says:

    This appears to be an enormous undertaking.

  4. Eric says:

    Left wing media bias?
    So what else is new?

  5. kmc says:

    A couple of years ago there was a female (comic/part-time-actress) on a talk show.  She was making fun of the Catholic Leauge and its main leader.   He may be hyper-active, energetic, and intense.
     Why?  He has been doing the job of one hundred  people.  
    He is insightful, and unafraid to be ahead of the curve…………..way ahead.

  6. justwondering says:
    The Silent Treatment 

  7. Rondre says:

    Gee maybe the Boston Public schools have taken the example from the Catholic Church. Looks like it to me. Leftwing reporting? lmao gee like bias reporting of the Media Report?

    • justwondering says:

      If you are accurate, what steps should be taken?  Should they be aggressively published
      throughout the entire country 24/7?

    • mary says:

      In an artilcle in the Los Angeles TImes this morning it is written:
      "Even a lack of invitation might not be the end of things, for Palin has been known to show up 
      uninvited before."  
      Should Palin become a reporter for the LA TImes, or relocate to Boston to volunteer given yesterday’s tragic news concerning the layoff of 53 employees?

  8. Publion says:

    I'd say that there is a very big difference between biased-reporting and independent reporting that is contrary to the general and conventional Spin.
    If TMR published deceptively selective or outright inaccurate and manipulative information then that would be biased-reporting.
    But if TMR simply publishes accurate facts that mainstream spin sources don't mention, then it is independent and competent – all of which is vital to a free press and its role in supporting democracy.
    The highly-subjective definition of 'bias' – it doesn't publish what I like to hear and doesn't agree with me so therefore it's biased – is a personal opinion masquerading as a principled objective definition.

  9. mary says:

    It has gotten to the point that most people are completely misinformed, not because they are not
    intelligent, but b/c  It is the path of least resistance.  It takes energy and time to research all of the facts,
    and, most people are either too tired after work or would rather invest their free time in other endeavors.

  10. Publion says:

    'Mary' has a solid point in that comment above.
    I have always wondered: while the internet has opened excellent opportunities for more people to discover information (although not everything up on the Web is accurate, of course, and you have to do some work to sift and sort), it's also true that comments on sites run along a wide spectrum from intelligent to viscerally emotional, which is another element that is layered onto the Web mix.
    I wonder too, what happens when you get some organized interest-group that encourages its members to just keep putting up the party-line (which those members may or may not believe but put it up there because they are part of the group). And what happens when some groups get a small number of dedicated folks who adopt different screen-names to give the impression that the group enjoys a wider public support than is actually the case. And do some groups issue some kind of Talking-Points that commenters can use just to make sure the group's 'message' gets out and to keep control of the group's 'narrative' in the Webverse. There's no way to tell.
    For a moment I want to say that if folks are too busy to have the time to research what they read on the Web, then that's OK – they can just ignore the subject and get on with their day.
    But on second thought I can't say that. Some subjects are vitally important because they involve fundamental principles that will have an impact on profound matters of importance. In those subjects and matters, it's not going to help if Citizens just shrug and let things go.
    I don't have a solution to all that, but it's important to think about it.

  11. kmc says:

    Just Released report in Reuters: Philadelphia, PA
    Comment Section: (1) comment
    Question: Is any organization permitted to isolate one professional title, when there are clearly
    so many others?  Why are other professional titles being avoided in both the headlines and
    naming of  "support organizations"?  Is it appropriate/legal that the Catholic Church be referenced in
    headlines and texts of stories having nothing at all to do with the church or a priest.
    What is the distinction between fair  journalism and institutional and professional bashing?????
    Where does the industry draw the line?  

  12. chick-fil-a says:

    On the Chick-Fil-A official website, the "unreported" generous, charitable works of this
    company can be found.