What a hoot! George Boardman has another ponderous post on his “blog” this week, handicapping the Sheriff’s race in the November runoff: Shannan Moon vs. Bill Smethers.
Except this so-called journalist — The Union’s weekly columnist — forgot to mention he wrote this back in May, under the comments of his own blog post no less:
That’s what I’d expect from a journalist whose claim to fame was working for San Mateo Times (now defunct). But Boardman should at least admit his colossal mistake. Instead our crack-jack journalist glossed over the blunder this week:
“Moon finished first in the primary so you have assume she has the lead (in the polling).”
I posted a response that Kamala Harris sent to me about the Kavanaugh case on Facebook (like the one here), and it received 21 “likes.” Shawn Garvey responded: “She responds! Love it! I never can get an acknowledgement from DiFi!”
To George, it was a “big whoop.” Except no one commented on George’s blog except for “fish.” George’s column at The Union.com — whose commenting interface is Facebook — doesn’t even get 21 “likes.”
The 21 people who “liked” my post all signed their real names. “fish” is a fake name from a troll who launches personal attacks but never has anything interesting or intellectual to say.
Most of the recent comments on George’s blog come from George himself.
I don’t understand the blog either. As a newly minted 75-year-old (his words, not mine), he takes a keen interest in high school football. Three of his last five posts are about local high-school sports. Go figure!
Regular readers of George Boardman’s column in The Union newspaper know that his tagline is “correction,” alongside his email address (an ancient-sounding AOL account, no less). A Google search is here.
George has claimed to work in Bay Area journalism, but his claim to fame was never The Chronicle or even The San Jose Mercury News. It was The San Mateo Times, now defunct. I worked at The Chronicle for 12 years, and his name never came up.
George’s claim to fame also was as a “business writer.” I’m not sure how that translated into stock market acumen, however. The details are here. ROFLOL.
The good news is that George can find a home in his Golden Years with a weekly column in The Union newspaper in the Sierra Foothills.
You go George! And while you’re at it, “get off my lawn.” Ha!
Editor’s note: This is one of the most pathetic resumes I’ve read for a journalist who deems himself qualified to pass judgment on others’ professional achievements as The Union’s paid weekly columnist— whether it’s other journalists or elected officials. Small towns are a hoot!
“Boardman to cover business for The Union
The Union staff
March 22, 2004
“George Boardman, a veteran journalist and public-relations professional, has been named business reporter for The Union.
“In 2001 and 2002, Boardman served as assistant city editor for The Union. He previously served as a copy editor for the Independent Newspaper Group in the San Francisco Peninsula.
“His extensive resume also includes stints as business editor and city editor for the San Mateo Times in the early 1970s. He worked in public relations for a variety of businesses in the 1980s and worked as a public-relations writer and consultant through much of the 1990s.
“In recent months, he has contributed several free-lance articles for The Union.
“A San Francisco native, Boardman is married to Mimi Boardman, a co-owner of the Stonehouse Restaurant in Nevada City. They have one daughter in Portland, Ore.”
The Union posted a “sneak peak” (sic) of the front-page of Tuesday’s newspaper on Monday evening. This blog already had published the news from two of the four bylined articles, as well as shared it on social media:
Small towns are a hoot! You have a lot of pretenders. George Boardman is a “pretend” journalist. He talks a big game, but never made it to the “big leagues” of journalism. He lacks the skills and experience to be the BMOC journalist. He fled to the more comfortable world of P.R. instead.
On his blog, George pretends to think we care about his review of “The Post.” The movie, as Time magazine explains, is about “the feverishly debated decision behind The Washington Post‘s 1971 publication of top-secret information in the Pentagon Papers comes to life in the new movie The Post, in which Meryl Streep plays legendary publisher Katharine Graham and Tom Hanks takes on the role of the gruff but brilliant executive editor Ben Bradlee.”
It’s a good film, but not good enough for George. “Maybe it’s because I’m familiar with the story,” he brags, concluding: “If you want to see newspapers at the top of their game, watch ‘Spotlight’ and ‘All the President’s Men.’ If you want to see a good story of a woman coming into her own, go see ‘The Post.'”
Then Mr. Wonderful Journalist proceeds to criticize Tom Hanks in the role of Ben Bradlee. “Maybe it’s his good guy image, but Hanks wasn’t as believable as Jason Robards, who played Bradlee in ‘All the President’s Men,'” he writes. OK, whatever you say!
And this is the kicker. Boardman concludes: “That was an editor I can related to.” Huh? I think you mean “That was an editor I can relate to.”
Regular readers here know that The Union’s front-page article on “roofie madness” — vastly under-reported and under-edited — was met with much skepticism in our towns. It was a classic example of podunk journalism.
And sure enough, weeks after a police report was issued citing “no evidence” in the so-called spiking of drinks at Nevada City bars, The Union follows up with, well, the same conclusion. Imagine that! You wonder why it took so long for the followup. (If walls inside a newsroom could talk).
The dumbest sh… (I mean “poop”) in all of this is The Union’s weekly columnist “Board Georgeman,” (AKA George Boardman), who went out of his way to defend the lame report.
“When is there enough ‘information’ to write about an alleged crime?” this doofus wrote. When there is enough “information” beyond a one-source claim, that’s when.
This week, Boardman launched an unsubstantiated attack on our local hospital, claiming its parent’s merger would be a blow to the community. But he offered no concrete evidence —just like his defense of the “roofie madness” reporting.
When will The Union dump George? Or does it hang on to him because he defends the indefensible? Either way, The Union loses credibility.