Patriotic

Boston's dailies pave the way for a possible reversal of fortune

Don't Quote Me by Dan Kennedy

Don't call it a media conspiracy, but if the Patriots' proposed move to Hartford falls apart in the next few weeks, you should give a lot of credit -- or blame, depending on your point of view -- to the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald.

Both dailies have pounded away at the nauseatingly generous $350 million package offered to the Patriots by Connecticut governor John Rowland. More important, except on the sports pages, neither paper has been overly harsh in criticizing Massachusetts House Speaker Tom Finneran -- despite his pugnacious, economically shortsighted stand against Patriots owner Bob Kraft.

By publishing stories that could undermine support for the deal in Connecticut while refraining from backing Finneran into a corner, the Globe and the Herald have created at least the possibility that Kraft and Finneran could wind up, if not in each others' arms, at least in the same room.

By early this week, the strategy, if it could be called that, was beginning to pay off. Consumer activist Ralph Nader, who lives in Connecticut, was quoted in news reports denouncing the proposed deal as "the worst kind of corporate welfare." And Finneran had indicated that he might soften his opposition to doing his own deal with Kraft.

Of course, all this probably comes way too late. The Connecticut legislature is scheduled to vote on the Rowland-Kraft agreement on December 15, and by all indications it will pass easily. Undoing things after that would become exponentially more difficult. Still, the Globe and the Herald have at least managed to create a climate in which a last-minute switch that would keep the Patriots in Foxborough is possible. The approach has been as simple as one, two, three:

1. Question authority. From the moment on November 19 when Kraft and Rowland made kissy-face for the cameras, the papers have been filled with skepticism about how doable the Connecticut deal really is. What the governor and the owner have proposed is, in fact, remarkable in its blatant contempt for the taxpayers' interests ("the best stadium deal in National Football League history," as the Globe's Will McDonough put it), and it has thus provided a target-rich environment for enterprising reporters.

Take, for instance, the $350 million price tag. The Herald's Jack Sullivan reported on Monday of this week that the estimate doesn't include inflation -- and that the true cost may be $375 million, or even $400 million. Then there's the need to spend $100 million to relocate a steam-generating plant on the proposed Hartford stadium site (a little detail not even mentioned when the deal was first announced) and federal requirements to clean up toxic waste before the gridiron can be installed. As Connecticut state senator Mary Ann Handley told the Herald: "For some of us, the honeymoon is over, and reality is starting to take [its] place."

Or consider what may well be the most grotesque aspect of the deal: a requirement that Connecticut's taxpayers fork over as much as $17.5 million a year if Kraft can't get corporations to buy luxury boxes and other seating aimed at high rollers. On November 26, the Globe's Gregg Krupa surveyed about a dozen of Connecticut's biggest companies and found little interest in signing up for such seats. "By any measure, the sale of high-end seating is a crucial component of the stadium deal now under review in Hartford," Krupa wrote -- and he reminded readers that not a single other NFL stadium, either existing or on the drawing board, requires taxpayers to pick up the tab for unsold luxury seating.

2. Bash Kraft. This might seem like a high-risk strategy. In fact, there is no downside to the media's criticizing Kraft for abandoning Massachusetts. And there is an upside: by doing the dirty work themselves, the papers manage to hurt Kraft's reputation among Connecticut voters and officials even as they give Massachusetts politicians an opportunity to take the high road. Finneran, for example, apparently infuriated Kraft when he called him a "whiny millionaire." But when a columnist does it, it's no big deal.

The harshest criticism of Kraft has come from the Herald's Peter Gelzinis and two of the Globe's sports columnists: McDonough, who has claimed that Kraft's Foxborough operation is already one of the most profitable in the NFL, and Dan Shaughnessy. "Does anyone really think that Bob Kraft -- a man with an ego bigger than the Citgo sign -- wants to be owner of the Hartford Patriots?" Shaughnessy asked on November 19.

But the most effective of the anti-Kraft pieces was Globe business columnist Joan Vennochi's much subtler take on November 20, in which she openly questioned whether Kraft really has any intention of moving to Hartford. "From Kraft's perspective, why sign anything in front of TV cameras . . . if not to start drumming up yet another save-the-Patriots outcry on WEEI?" she asked. No doubt it's a question to which more than a few Connecticut legislators would like to have the answer.

3. Praise Finneran. Tom Finneran screwed up. He essentially gave the finger to one of the few sports owners who's willing to spend his own money on a new stadium, and he apparently did it because he doesn't like Kraft or the overpaid athletes he employs. Kraft actually accepted a Massachusetts Senate offer of $2.3 million a year in infrastructure improvements. But Finneran's House lowered that by $100,000 a year -- an insignificant amount, but apparently the last straw for Kraft. Massachusetts, meanwhile, will lose an estimated $10 million a year in taxes and football-related economic activity. Finneran likes to say it would be wrong for government to give a sports team something it wouldn't give another company. In this case, it looks as though the Patriots were actually penalized for playing football rather than manufacturing widgets.

But though the sports columnists at both papers have been tough on Finneran, it's been a different story on the news pages. Part of that may come down to clubby State House atmospherics: despite his dictatorial hold on the House, Finneran is a personable, accessible politician who's well-liked by many journalists. The Globe's Scot Lehigh gently rebuked Finneran on November 20 for failing to understand the realities of NFL economics. But two of the paper's other columnists, Brian Mooney and Derrick Jackson, actually praised Finneran for standing up for Massachusetts taxpayers. Added the Herald's Howie Carr: "As for my old pal Tom Finneran, he screwed us taxpayers bigtime on, among other things, the death penalty, the ATM legislation, and returning the state surplus. But on this one he did the right thing."

No, he didn't. But since he's been left with his dignity intact, he's free to soften his position should the Hartford deal fall apart. Politics is a game in which saving (and maintaining) face counts for a lot, so the papers' delicate treatment could pay off.

In other words, because the dailies refrained from labeling Finneran a goat, he now has a chance to become a hero.

But don't hold your breath.

---

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

---