By David Scott
Boston Sports Media Watch
Here’s what ex-Boston Globe writer - and a man the paper’s highest editor cited for plagiarism - had to say about his “retirement” from the paper on May 18 of this year.
“”I’ve enjoyed using the forum the Globe has provided me over two decades, but I am excited to step back from the demands of daily sportswriting to try my hand at longer-range projects and other forums,’ said Borges, who is writing a book about the NFL and will continue his work as a radio and television commentator.”
Apparently, what the provocative Borges actually meant was what he said on WEEI 850 AM’s in flux morning show on Monday: “I did get screwed.”
Bruce Allen’s Monday afternoon post (and excerpted transcript) contains those words and the ones that every “peer” of Borges’ should find repulsive.
That’s the part where Borges responds to the not-ready-for-drive-time Greg Dickerson’s mention of Mike Sando by laughing out a “Who’s he?”
Who’s he, Ron? He’s the guy who earnestly worked his way into a job at ESPN.com. The guy who doesn’t have to resort to claiming he was “screwed” by, we gather, being pushed into retirement by a company that very well could have justified firing the bombastic Borges.
Just to summarize here, Borges is claiming that his retirement from the Globe somehow screwed him AND that he doesn’t even know the man from whom he is accused of borrowing the copy in question (if not others from different writers).
[Shots inquired as to the Globe's reaction to Borges' claim of being "screwed," but an automatic email reply from Globe sports editor Joe Sullivan indicated he would not be returning to the office until Tuesday (August 28). Borges has made it clear in the past that he will not talk with Shots.]
. . . The incredible thing about Borges is that he absolutely, positively can not lay low, the way a bouncing back media personality would be wise to do.
At the tail end of his suspension from the Globe for the Sando incident, Borges was discovered to have been writing for the website of Oscar De La Hoya, an athlete he would regularly be covering when not benched from his Globe duties. (Borges denied being paid for the writing which appeared on De La Hoya’s site but never publicly addressed his flight and lodging costs or other compensation from Golden Boy.) Shots, in recent months, has been told by several Globe insiders that the work for De La Hoya was the final straw for management, who had been compiling a Borges Folder for quite some time, in preparation to defend itself against the heavily Union-backed Borges. “He had to be the most litigious employee ever at the Globe,” said one veteran Globie.
Now, with opportunities for air time available at WEEI and national websites using his boxing acumen for polling purposes, Borges once again throws gasoline on his own fire and by doing so, once again brings the plagiarism allegations into the discussion.
Borges is clearly knowledgeable and connected within boxing and football circles, but in a business where credibility and trustworthiness are supposed to be sacred, Borges continues to throw those and other traits into question. At some point, people will start connecting the dots and see the whole picture of what this character is composed of.
. . .Quite an odd 37 seconds of sound from the Borges, Dickerson and Red Sox Nation presidential candidate, Jon Meterparel. Dickerson stumbles over his “I like you, no you I don’t” explanation leading up to his “you got screwed” prompt and then Meter’s “railroaded” taunt conveys as an equally baffling statement. Dickerson is apparently basing his statement on the Borges’ interpretation of the events, which we’ve been told is anchored by Borges’ blaming of a desk editor for the transgression(s) in question.
If the Meter/Dick duo was bold enough to bring up the topic with the ex-Broadsheet Bully, they should have been bold enough to explore it thoroughly and have Borges expand on what the “truth” he refers to so frequently, is all about.
. . . This should once and for all put to rest the thought of Borges landing at ‘EEI in a full-time capacity. He will constantly be dogged by his plagiaristic past and never be taken seriously by a semi-discerning listening audience.
Then again, it’s ‘EEI and Pavlov’s Wolfes - the blind and deaf legions who tolerate Meat, Smerl and DeAwf - will apparently listen to ANYTHING AT ALL.
. . . Still no movement on the very stalled Dennis and Callahan/WEEI negotiations. Neither side has been in contact with the other according to a D&C disseminator, and we’re under ten days from the cumulative expiration of both hosts’ current deals.
Both D&C are believed to be out of state and no word on where The (Jason) Wolfe and The (Julie) Kahn are spending August’s final days. Last we saw Wolfie he was hogging time in the background of the Jimmy Fund Radio Telethon on NESN. Nice move, Prime Time.
The plain fact is, neither side has any other legit option at this point. D&C will settle for their pay raise and ‘EEI will avoid the risk of shaking up a proven commodity. The next ratings book may not be so kind to the AM drive dreck ‘EEI has been pushing for the bulk of the summer.
• Don’t forget the Shots’ field trip to Bristol, Connecticut on Thursday. We’ll have a few posts during the day and hopefully a re-cap to serve as summer holiday weekend reading (print and bring to beach variety).
David Scott writes from a seaside shanty on the shores of Hull, Mass. and can be reached at shotsATbostonsportsmedDOTcom
You can listen to Scott every Saturday morning from 9 to 11 a.m. as he co-hosts the Boston Sports Review Show on ESPN Radio 890 AM with ESPN’s All-Sports Reporter, Mike Salk.
2 Responses
ObjectiveBruce
August 28th, 2007 at 7:34 am
1Your Borges column suffers from your inability to separate a vendetta from responsible commentary. If it wasn’t for the deeply rooted hatred of Borges, there would be an effort to understand the crime — lifting notes for a notes column which includes a disclaimer that material from other writers is used — in other words a disclaimer that the column is not based entirely on original reporting. This is not the lifting of sentences in an opinion piece or a game story and it’s not the stealing of ideas for a piece presented as original work and there’s a crucial distinction. It was the use of notes that writers share with each other for the precise purpose of what Borges used it for — to write writing the Sunday notes column (pioneered, by the way, by Shirley Povich and not by Peter Gammons)
But worse, you keep harping on the boxing matter while giving Massarotti and everyone else who writes a book in cooperation with an athlete a free pass. How can Massarotti have any credibility when he is engaged in a for-profit venture with someone he covers? How can we take him seriously on the subject of the Red Sox, his primary writing responsibility, when he has a deal with Ortiz? Writing a book about an athlete is one thing, even with a cooperative subject; but being paid to write as a co-author with one’s subject is a greater violation of journalistic ethics than anything Borges has done.
Siggy
August 28th, 2007 at 11:59 am
2I have never gotten the fascination in talk-radio land with Ron Borges. He has a lousy voice for radio. His stock in trade is the hit and run throwaway line; he tosses something outrageous or unsubstantiated out there then backpedals when he’s called on it, which is usually followed at some distance by a weasely half-reaffirmation of the original statement, starting the cycle again.
He just can’t pull off the whole Will McDonough shtick that he’s been working on the last fifteen years.
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a reply
Email Shots
Email David Scott
Sponsored Links
Categories
Recent Comments
Blogroll
Archives