Boston Herald reporter John Tomase attempts to explain how he went wrong in reporting Tapegate, a hoax that should now be known as Tomasegate (or Tomasequiddick, if you prefer). Tomase’s explanation for his misstep is basically that he was told an urban legend so many times that he pretty much had no choice to believe it was true. Whatever gets him through the day. The bad news is that he intends “to continue covering the Patriots to the best of my abilities, and that means pursuing every storyline, good or bad.” And also:

I have relationships to mend within the organization and with my readers. The process of regaining your trust will not be an easy one.

I think Tomase is one of “the people who preserve the … fantasy world that justifies their own sorry existence,” as one of Tomase’s loathsome colleague’s put it.

The Boston Herald’s apology for printing the Tapegate story” is rendered worthless by Tony Massarotti - who, like John Tomase, is a seamhead from Tufts University in Medford - in a Tourette Syndrome inspired article today. It’s clear that the Herald is not out to apologize or mend fences but to squeeze as much money as possible from Tapegate. Bruce at Boston Sports Media Watch has more on the barrage of Boston Herald mea culpas and go screws.

Beleaguered Boston Herald sports reporter John Tomase’s coverage of NFL commissioner Roger Goodell’s press conference on what former New England Patriots employee Matt Walsh had to say about the team’s videotaping habits includes the following passage:

[A]fter the press conference, NFL counsel Gregg Levy explained that Walsh had passed on observations from the walkthrough to former Patriots assistant Brian Daboll, who’s now with the Jets.

“Walsh was asked during the interview today whether after the walkthrough, anyone asked him about what he had seen,” Levy said. “He said ‘yes’. He saw Brian Daboll . . . and Daboll asked him what he saw. Walsh said two things — one, he had seen Marshall Faulk in a formation to receive a kickoff or a punt, and he had been asked about offensive formations, particularly about the use of the tight end. My understanding is that is not consistent with what we had learned prior to the interview, during the course of the investigation. At this point, it’s uncorroborated, but it’s something the league is going to look into.”

I wonder who Tomase’s infamous anonymous source is? It stands to reason to assume that it would be someone who Tomase would have found credible, someone who could have been in touch with both Walsh and the Patriots coaching staff in 2001. Who framed John Tomase? And why would that person have held such animus towards the Patriots?

Will the Herald move Tomase, or will the newspaper stand its ground and perhaps even out the source? For a variety of reasons, I think the newspaper will give Tomase a new assignment, even as it stands behind him. Way behind him , as the old joke goes.

5/14/2008 UPDATE: The Boston Herald has issued an apology “to its readers and to the New England Patriots’ owners, players, employees and fans for our error.”

Writes the Herald:

Prior to the publication of its Feb. 2, 2008, article, the Boston Herald neither possessed nor viewed a tape of the Rams’ walkthrough before Super Bowl XXXVI, nor did we speak to anyone who had. We should not have published the allegation in the absence of firmer verification.

Forget tapegate. It is now officially Tomasegate. Or perhaps Tomasequiddick. He’s definitely done as the Herald’s Patriots beat reporter.

UPDATE 2: Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr mentioned on his radio show on WRKO (AM 680) this afternoon that the apology has run up 100,000 page views, four times as many as his column today (another piece on the so-called Cheeseman).

A paid daily circulation of 388,000. A free daily circulation of 335,000. More than 3 million monthly web site visitors. 17 visitor reference, lifestyle and economic development publications. 181 penny saver editions. 97% of all this can be yours for $630 million.

Actually, it can’t anymore, because Cablevision has already bought Newsday in a $650 million zero-equity deal financed by Bank of America (money down is so last millennium). The seller, Tribune Company, will retain 3% stake of the newspaper valued at $20 million.

Cablevision is a so-called triple-play service provider that offers subscribers bundled cable television, telephone service, and Internet access. It has three million subscribers, mostly in the New York area. The company has a particularly strong position on its native Long Island. Cablevision also owns Madison Square Garden, the New York Rangers, and the New York Knickerbockers, along with various media properties like IFC and AMC.

Cablevisions’s main owners - the Dolans - recently abandoned a stalled effort to take the company private. The company has a long history of rather pricey acquisitions. In 1988 it shelled out $550 million to purchase Viacom Inc.’s cable systems on Long Island and suburban Cleveland. One of Cablevision’s main competitors at that time was Times Mirror, which then owned Newsday (tribune acquired the newspaper as part of a merger in 2000). Earlier this month Cablevision agreed to acquire Sundance Channel for $496 million, almost one hundred million dollars more than the channel’s owners reportedly had expected to pull in.

According to a 10-K filing 78% of Tribune Co.’s publishing revenue came from advertising and 14% from subscriptions and sales. Those numbers are for all of the the company’s newspapers, not Newsday specifically (some of Tribune’s other newspapers are Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, and Hartford Courant).

According to the Wall Street Journal, one media analysts estimates that Cablevision could increase Newsday’s circulation by 100,000. That would mean some $25-30 million in subscription and sales revenue, plus a multiple in extra advertising revenue. So maybe $100-$120 million in extra revenue? Newsday’s revenue fell 13%, to $498 million, from 2005 to 2007, while circulation dropped by 10%. Cablevision needs to boost circulation by 44,000 just to bring it back to 2005 levels.

Here’s an odd reaction to Cablevision’s purchase of Newsday:

“Being owned by an Internet service provider company opens up a range of options for a newspaper to generate revenue from people accessing the Internet,” said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, a think tank in Washington. “Revenue from the Internet service can go to underwrite the content.”

So, in Mr. Rosenstiel opinion, Cablesvision’s owner borrowed $650 million to provide Newsday’s news room with a revenue stream from cable subscribers. OK.

Finally, here’s a prescient quote from tribune’s 10-K mentioned previously in this post:

[C]ompetition for certain types of acquisitions is significant, particularly in the Interactive space. Even if successfully negotiated, closed and integrated, certain acquisitions or investments may prove not to advance our business strategy and may fall short of expected return on investment targets.

Selling in the dead-tree market space is a much better business proposition. Well done, Tribune, and good luck, Cablevision.

Three topics to ponder: CHB, John Tomase, and whether Pat Purcell should waste money on beefing up the Boston Herald’s sport section.

Mark In The Car is on the phone. What’s up, Mark?

Yo, Matt, listen, dude. All these people who rag on Shank are retards, figuratively speaking. Take this guy Boston Blood Sox who wrote a post on how stupid and irrelevant CHB is – and then he emailed the douchebag to let him know how irrelevant he is. And then he posted the douchemeister’s six word answer, which wasn’t “your post is the greatest ever,” just to underscore how irrelevant he is. Let me tell you, Matt, when it comes to covering Boston sports, you’re irrelevant, I’m irrelevant, but Shank is like the bleeping Pope. Everybody listens to him, if only to rip him. A Pope in a world of Ian Paisleys.

But I know you don’t care for Shank The Pope of Douche, either, Mark In The Car.

No, I stopped reading him years ago. The guy can’t write one sentence without alluding to the Red Sox. I’m a bleeping Patriots fan. I don’t to need to hear that Ellis Hobbs failing to cover a wide receiver is like Billy Buckner failing to pick up a ball in the World Series in 1986, or whatever. I’m not a homoSoxual. It’s not my bag, baby.

Well put, Mark In The Car.

You know how a platoon of sports writers has left the Globe recently?

Yes?

But no football writers.

Right.

You know why?

Tell me, Mark In The Car.

Because The Globe DOESN’T HAVE ANY FOOTBALL WRITERS. They’re all a bunch of seamheads who despise football.

Come on, they have Mark Reiss…

…who’s basically a blogger with a paycheck. Here’s the prototypical Mike Reiss question at a Bill Belichick press conference: Your team has an offense, can you talk about the qualities of it and what it brings to the team?

Mark In The Car, listen to me. He could ask Belichick anything and the answer would be the same. In the best interest of the team. It is what it is. We can all play better, coach better, prepare better. Blah, blah, blah.

He could bring something. Something off the wall. Like the guy who asked Bill about what his mom thinks about the way he dresses during games. The setup for that question was outstanding.

I know, I know, Mark In The Car. That was classic.

But it would never have happened had it not been for the Boston Herald. And now fans want to run poor John Tomase out of town for quoting an unnamed source.

Tomase. Speaking of bloggers with a paycheck…

Yeah, so the guy can’t tell football from soccer or soccer from synchronized swimming but at least he’s is trying to play journalist. You know, occasionally asking uncomfortable questions, writing articles that aren’t suck-up jobs to the team owners. Hey, if Belichick hadn’t misinterpreted the rrrrrules there would never have been an unnamed source. But fans are acting as if Tomase tripped Hobbs in the Super Bowl.

Yeah, it’s kind of sad. But it was a tough, tough loss for Patriots fans and they want to vent.

Yeah, if only the players had cared half as much as us fans…

They cared enough, they just didn’t believe they could possibly lose. They were almost right. Any one of four or five plays on the last Giants drive alone would have won the game for us. But it is what it is. We’re moving on. Kansas City. Hey, Mark In The Car, what do you think of Adam Riley’s idea that the Herald should go mano-a-mano against the Globe in sports coverage?

I saw that. Listen, man, the guy’s an idiot. What would the Herald get out of doing that, besides maybe winning a prize for best sports coverage in East Central New England? There’s no way a newspaper can recoup that kind of investment these days. Hiring seven people, how much is that? North of half a rock, I guarantee you that. How are they going to get that money back?

Not going to happen. I agree, it’s a hare-brained idea. But the guy’s a bust, anyway, so who cares?

He’s the Andy Katzenmoyer of media critics.

How very CHB of you, MITC.

I read the blogs. I’m jiggy with the haters. Rut ro. w00t, w00t. Air quotes.

Anything else, Mark In The Car?

Yeah, did you know that the median age of Massachusetts residents increased from 36.5 in 2000 to 38.5 in 2007, according to population estimates by the United Sta…

Bye, Mark, see you next Tuesday.

Massachusetts’s population grew 1.6% from 2000 to 2007 according to estimates by the United States Census Bureau. Last week the Bureau released estimates for population changes with-in the different races in the 50 states and the United States.

The demographic story for Massachusetts is the familiar one: A slow decline in the number of whites, while the black, Latino and Asian populations are growing rapidly

The table below shows how the different races that make up almost all of Massachusetts population changed from 2000 to 2007.

2007 is the estimate of the population in 2007. 2000 is the counted population in 2000 (the 2000 Census). The next population count will take place in 2010. The “Diff.” column shows the change in absolute numbers from 2000 to 2007. The “% change” column shows the change as a percent. The “% ‘07″ and “% ‘00″ columns show the shares of the overall population for each race.

The Latino population includes all Hispanics. The black population includes all non-Hispanic blacks, including blacks who also belong to another race (multi-racial blacks make up 8.2% of the overall non-Hispanic black population and is faster growing than the single-race black population (at least in Massachusetts and at least according to the Census Bureau’s estimates (the one-race non-Hispanic population grew by less than 10% from 2000 to 2007))). The white population includes all “Not Hispanic, One Race, White” persons and the Asian segment includes “”Not Hispanic, One Race, Asian” persons.

The columns don’t add up to 100% of the state totals since several thousand people fall outside of the four races included in this table.

Had Massachusetts’s white population remained the same in numbers from 2000 to 2007, the state’s population would now be 6,564,861, whites would have made up 80.1% of the population and the state’s population growth would have been 3.4% from 2000 to 2007 instead of 1.6%.

What the estimates don’t reflect are changes within the races. For example, it may be that the state’s African-American population has dwindled or remained stagnant but Haitian and African immigrants have expanded the size of the overall black population. We can’t tell which Asian ethnicities have grown the most. The Hispanic black population is estimated to have grown a lot slower than non-black Hispanic population, perhaps because of more immigration from non-Caribbean Latin America. It’s hard to tell, though, because black Hispanics make up less than 1.5% of the state’s population (the Census Bureau has it that 82% of Hispanics are white, but that’s mostly because of administrative fiat. Almost half of U.S. Hispanics self-reported as Some Other Race in the 2000 Census, but later the Bush Administration simply decided to count members of Some Other Race as Hispanic whites, which is a complete travesty and surely an insult to mestizo and indigenous Hispanics. Since more than 90% of the Some Other Race people are also Hispanic the change didn’t impact the numbers for the white population.).

Update 05/04/2008:

Birth data for Massachusetts suggests rather strongly that the stat’es black population growth is driven entirely by immigration from Africa and non-Hispanic Caribbean nations (eg. Jamaica and Haiti).

The table below shows the 2006 “[b]irth Characteristics by Maternal Race and Hispanic Ethnicity” for Massachusetts (it doesn’t distinguish between uni- and multi-racial mothers, but as I noted above, uni-racial persons are much more frequent than multiracial):

Please note that the race in question is that of the mother and not the child. For example, a child with a black father and a white mother would likely self-report as either black or black and white. So, the the number and share of white babies are actually lower than the table suggests.

47.9% of the black mothers were immigrants. Corresponding share for whites, Asians, and Latinos: 12.3%, 87.5%, and 49.3%, respectively (another 18.5% of Hispanic mothers were born in Puerto Rico).

Hispanics made up 35.8% of all teenage moms.

The table below shows the racial distribution of immigrant mothers who gave birth in Massachusetts in 2006 (mothers born in Puerto Rico are not included):

I’m guessing that the white immigrants are mostly Canadians, Russians, Middle Easterners, Bosnians, Albanians, perhaps some Irish and British, and then a sprinkling of other Europeans.

Since Puerto Ricans are immigrants in all but legal name, it makes sense to include them in the tally of births by immigrant mothers (and also because a non-trivial number of women who claim to be Puerto Ricans probably aren’t):

The next table shows the racial distribution of U.S. born women who gave birth in Massachusetts in 2006.