Ownership and its influence (real or imagined) on coverage

It was interesting to re-read the Ombudsman editorial about the Globe's stake in the Red Sox and how that affects both the reality and perception of the coverage. I remember when that all went down. I take the word of Joe Sullivan (a great guy and a great journalist, but I'm biased) when he says: ''We're uncomfortable with the relationship, but that's never been a factor in our coverage of the Red Sox."

The reality, though, is that sometimes ownership or publishers do influence coverage. I've seen it at the local level. The wall between editorial and advertising is not as rock-solid as it should be in many places, and with the economic woes most media outlets are experiencing, that's more of a danger than ever. It's also very subtle, more often than not, making it all the more insidious. As bad as it is, at least Fox News is pretty blatant about its capitulations. We probably aren't privy to most of the ways in which owner interests influence coverage. The article on Chiquita hinted at a little bit of that, saying how The Cincinnati Enquirer declined to take on its powerful company head prior to the controversial series. But I digress.

In the case of the Times/Globe/Sox, there have been some changes since that column was published in 2005. For one, I no longer see the corporate disclosure about the connection in all Red Sox stories that contain opinion. And I thought it was especially dubious that the connection wasn't mentioned in this recent Globe article about similar potential conflicts with the Patriots and ESPNBoston. It certainly could have been an honest mistake, an accidental omission. But in the context of this article it seems hard to imagine that no one made the connection.