We'll have plenty more Cold, Hard Football Facts about the conference title games later today and this weekend, including a look at how this postseason has already provided a remarkable turnaround for Bill Cowher's legacy – and why it's happened.

 

But we did want to wrap up our "Fire Ron Borges" campaign. First, thanks to everyone who wrote to Boston Globe management and expressed their displeasure. You spoke up for better reporting, you spoke up for higher ethical standards in the media and you spoke up for accountability in journalism. The Globe got the point loud and clear, even if your e-mails "fell upon deaf ears," as one of our critics put it.

 

Hey, if those ears were indeed deaf, it simply proved our collective point: The Globe does not care about the quality of its sports writing. Borges isn't just out to lunch. Globe management is out to lunch, too, for allowing him to get away with behavior that, in any other industry, would get him canned.

 

We lost count of the number of e-mails sent at around 600 or so – but those were just the e-mails we were copied on. Bruce Allen of Boston Sports Media, who joined us in the effort, said there may have been as many as 1,000 e-mails sent to the Globe from angry news consumers, disappointed with the quality of Borges' work. Scores of e-mailers, maybe a few hundred, said they were no longer going to read the Globe, have already stopped reading it or were going to cancel their subscriptions.

 

The e-mails were overwhelmingly in favor of our effort. Just a handful – maybe six or eight – expressed support for Borges, so we're talking a ratio of about 100-to-1 in our favor. This was hardly a split decision. It was a first-round knockout. And we use the phrase "support for Borges" loosely. Some people simply said they support the right of Borges to make a fool of himself. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of his work.

 

Of course, one group could be counted upon to be critical of our effort: the old media. The few folks in the old media who commented on the issue completely missed the point. Our stand for better journalism was painted as a bunch of "angry fans" calling out a guy who dared to criticize a popular sports team.

 

Nothing could be further from the truth. Our original articles on the topic (here and here) addressed the real issues – ethics and accountability – quite clearly. You get the impression that the folks who criticized our effort never read our concerns.

 

Borges has even been painted as a noble and outspoken "contrarian" who is brave enough to take an unpopular stance. No, Borges is not a brave contrarian. A brave contrarian is someone like Galileo, who challenged the Catholic Church – during the Inquisition, no less – when he insisted that the sun was the center of the solar system. The difference between Galileo and Borges is that Galileo was persecuted even though he was right. Borges is given a free pass even though he's wrong.

 

There is no nobility in being a "contrarian" if you're wrong. A contrarian who's wrong is just a babbling idiot.

 

You know, this is really just a small part of a much bigger issue about media accountability. There's a magazine in every newsroom in America called Editor & Publisher. It conducted a survey last year measuring the nation's trust in the media. Americans, it turns out, trust government more than they trust media. It's scary, really. Media is supposed to defend the public from government's abuse of power. But the public is so disenchanted with the media today that they'd rather put their faith in government. The media is solely to blame for the lack of trust the public has in it. Our effort here is just one little battle in the war of public trust.

 

The Globe in this instance is losing the war of public opinion. It – and any media outlet – has no hope of winning as long as it holds itself above accountability.

 

Here's the bottom line: The people who wrote to the Globe were, for the most part, intelligent professionals. They're sick of having their intelligence insulted by the Globe. They're infuriated by the lack of ethical behavior and the lack of accountability. It has NOTHING to do with anyone's "contrarian" view. The public demands better reporting. And for their efforts, these people are characterized as "angry" fans and "yahoos." Is it any wonder that the old media is out of touch with their readers?

 

Mostly, news consumers are pissed because of the double standard in the media. They're pissed because in their line of work – no matter what it is – they have to play by the rules or they lose their job.

 

The average insurance salesmen who used to read the Globe every day can't get away with smacking a crippled colleague. He can't spread rumors about executives from another company. He can't go on public airwaves and say that he would have beaten up a competitor back in school. And he sure as hell can't go on the radio and call his customers "idiots" and "drunks."

 

In any other industry, at any other company, these actions would get you fired – and well they should. So, your average insurance salesman is pissed that reporters, who have the power to ruin careers and lives, are not held to the same level of accountability. It's as simple as that.

It is not a matter of angry fans who don't like a reporter's opinion – and to insist that this is the case is simply to insult its readers, a Globe specialty. It is, in fact, a matter of angry news consumers who expect a certain set of standards from an industry, the media, that demands high standards of others but not of themselves. Folks from the old media should be the FIRST in line, demanding that Borges be held accountable for his unethical behavior, because he makes everyone in the media look bad, especially those honest, hardworking reporters who play by the rules. Folks like the Globe's Bob Ryan, a giant of American sports writing, and Mike Reiss, one of the nation's top young football writers, look bad because Borges sullies their paper's reputation.

 

E-mailers insisted almost universally that Reiss replace Borges on the paper's football beat. Instead, Reiss has to wait until Borges dies, because in the unaccountable world of the old media, jobs are virtual lifetime appointments no matter how bad you screw up.

The media should take the lead in holding its own accountable, like the investment industry, a favorite media target, does with the Securities and Exchange Commission. If you work in the investment industry and fail to report a dinner properly on your taxes, your career could be ruined. Even lawyers, another frequent punching bag, have to answer to their bar association. Smack a crippled attorney in court, spread rumors about a colleague, call a judge an "idiot" or a "drunk" on the radio, and you can be pretty sure the bar association is going to hammer you. And they should.

 

Self-regulating organizations like the bar and the SEC demand high standards of professional behavior, even if they're not always successful in achieving these standards. Heck, you need a license just to cut hair in most states. But folks in the media have the power to ruin careers and then answer to nobody.

 

The failure to understand the true nature of the public's concerns (and this is just one example of a concerned public speaking out) is why newspapers are losing readers and why sites that take information and reporting seriously, like Cold, Hard Football Facts.com, are spreading like wildfire. Hey, we're hiring new writers this spring and adding several new positions to our budding little company. The Globe is hemorrhaging jobs.

 

The irony is that, at some point, Globe management is going to sit down and try to figure out what to do about declining readership. And the issue of accountability in its sports pages will never come up. The 1,000 e-mails demanding that Borges be fired will never be mentioned. That's not just ironic. It's dense.

***

We just wanted to quickly answer some of the criticisms we received. There were very few, but we thought we should address them.

 

Criticism: You're stupid if you really think the Globe is going to fire Borges.

Response: We don't expect the Globe to fire Borges. It doesn't mean the Globe should not fire him. It just means that we don't expect it will happen. We simply wanted to channel the public's concerns about the quality of his reporting. What the Globe does with this information is its decision.

 

Criticism: Borges has every right to criticize who he wants.

Response: Yes, he does. We support his right to be critical and will always support his right or the right of any reporter to be critical. We have never disputed this right.

 

Criticism: This was a cheap publicity stunt.

Response: The New York Times, which owns the Boston Globe, is one of the most powerful media institutions in the world. We have no interest in using them as a foil for some stunt. This was simply an effort by news consumers to stand up for higher standards of journalism.

 

Criticism: Don't you feel bad, calling for someone to lose his job?

Response: No. Reporters don't think twice about running coaches and athletes out of town. Ripping the people they cover, sullying their reputations, spreading rumors about them – these are time-honored sports media traditions. Maybe if reporters were held to the same level of accountability as the people they cover, they wouldn't be so cavalier when calling for someone to get canned.

 

Criticism: A columnist like Borges is paid to have an opinion.

Response: This is a copout. He's also paid to behave ethically, to be fair to his subjects, to represent his paper well and to support his opinions with facts and quality reporting. If we want lousy, unsubstantiated opinions, we'll go sit around with a bunch of drunks at the local tavern.

 

Criticism: You have no right to criticize a "professional" reporter like Borges.

Response: Yes, we do. Nobody is above criticism, not even a newspaper reporter. To suggest otherwise is comical. Just like Borges has the right to criticize Bill Belichick or an op-ed columnist has the right to criticize the president, we have the right to criticize what we see as lousy, unethical reporting. And those aren't even good analogies. The folks who run this site, along with all of our freelance contributors, are media "professionals" just like Borges. But Borges has never coached a pro football team. And you'd be hard pressed to find an ex-president working for the op-ed section of a major newspaper. So, if anything, we have more right to criticize Borges than he does to criticize Belichick – and he has every right in the world to criticize Belichick. He has no right, however, to be a shoddy, agenda-ridden reporter.