Fundraising scandal

No, not that kind of scandal. This one involves two newspapers, old charges, and angry finger-pointing.

Don't Quote Me by Dan Kennedy

It was May 9. Bill Clinton was coming to town to attend a fundraiser hosted by wealthy Brookline real-estate magnates Gerald and Elaine Schuster. And the Boston Globe appeared to be taking a dive.

That morning, the Globe had fronted a warm profile of Elaine Schuster. But at the Boston Herald it was hammer time. The tabloid gave over a good part of page one to report that the Schusters' real-estate company "allegedly used government funds for work on their private home," "has a history of problems on some of its federally subsidized low-income housing projects," and, during the 1970s, operated a notorious housing project in the South Bronx that was the subject of a state investigation.

The breathtaking contrast between the two stories was the talk of the town. Political wise guys snickered that the Globe blew it. The television stations joined in, tweaking the Globe in their standups that night.

But the truth is that both papers blew it -- the Herald by regurgitating two-year-old stories that never led to any official action, and the Globe by failing to acknowledge the charges made against the Schusters.

And that, in turn, has led to an unedifying but highly entertaining pissing match, with Globe ombudsman Jack Thomas using Schuster family spokesman Alan Eisner to dump on the Herald, and Herald managing editor for news Andrew Gully dumping on Eisner -- a former Herald editor whose public-relations clients include the Herald -- in order to shoot back at the Globe.

The Herald's 1996 reporting, based in part on sworn affidavits by two former Schuster employees, alleged that the Schusters diverted federal funds from low-income housing projects to pay for repairs and renovations on their own luxury homes. The stories were an embarrassment for Senator John Kerry, then in the midst of a difficult reelection campaign: Elaine Schuster was a key Kerry fundraiser. The Herald at the time was not able to contact the Schusters, but family spokesman George Regan (Eisner's boss) issued a firm denial.

In its May 9 story the Herald reported that it again could not reach the Schusters, and it repeated Regan's two-year-old denials. That gave Thomas an opening in his column this past Monday to tweak the tabloid: he quoted Eisner as saying, "I had the Schusters check machines at home and work. The Herald never had the decency to call."

A nice jab. As it turns out, though, Thomas, too, lacked the decency to call. If he had checked with the Herald, he would have learned that Herald reporter Andrew Miga left a message at Regan Communications the afternoon before the story ran, seeking to get in touch with the Schusters or to obtain a comment from a spokesperson. That call, Miga says, was never returned.

"I took great offense," Miga says of Thomas's column. "I've never been accused of not calling a person. It's just ridiculous." Miga says he didn't attempt to call the Schusters directly because, when he was reporting on them two years ago, they referred all inquiries to Regan, and Regan himself made it clear that his clients would not talk to the media.

Adds Gully: "Alan Eisner is just another high-priced flack. He didn't know what he was talking about when he was here. Why would he know what he's talking about now?"

Eisner, who is on vacation, could not be reached by the Phoenix. Regan refused to answer any questions, including whether his office received a call from Miga. "I have something to say that should have been said a long time ago on this whole matter: no comment," Regan says.

Of course, Miga should have tried to contact the Schusters directly. To rely on two-year-old instructions from Regan, and to leave just one message on Regan Communications' answering machine just hours before press time, was clearly inadequate. As Thomas says, "It seems to me to be kind of a departure from the energy that the Herald boasts about." But Miga at least made an effort, which is more than Thomas did regarding the Herald.

Most of Thomas's column was given over to describing a strange and unpredictable sequence of events that had been conspiring against the Globe's Schuster story since last December, when political editor Doug Bailey assigned it to Jill Zuckman. There was the death of Elaine Schuster's father. An illness in Zuckman's family. Computer freeze-ups. FedEx problems. The clear implication, though Thomas never states it directly, is that Zuckman would have written a tougher piece had it not been for these impediments.

That's not necessarily so. Both Bailey and Zuckman say that what stopped them was not logistical problems, but rather the propriety of repeating two-year-old charges that were never proven. "I thought all that stuff about Jill's trials and tribulations was a little overwrought," says Bailey. "I don't think what was going on in her personal life affected how that story came out, which I think is what he [Thomas] was trying to say."

Nevertheless, Bailey concedes that he and Zuckman should have included a paragraph on the charges against the Schusters -- if only to "inoculate" the Globe against accusations that it deliberately soft-pedaled the story.

On that, Thomas reports that he and Globe editor Matt Storin agree.

---

Dan Kennedy's work can be accessed from his Web site: http://www.shore.net/~dkennedy

---

Dan Kennedy can be reached at dkennedy[a]phx.com

---

Articles from July 24, 1997 & before can be accessed here

---