Why I chose not to write the Metro story

It is a cause of concern for me, and of some embarrassment, that I was aware of the sensational story involving the racist remarks made by Metro executives and chose not to report on them in my Globe column. Here is why.

Early in 2004, a friend of mine who had been a top Metro USA executive sought me out to publish a sensational story about Metro. We met. The story, now widely known, was indeed sensational, and horrible. He said that two top Metro officials, Steve Nylund and Hans Holger-Albrecht, had used the "n-word" in front of large audiences at Metro functions overseas, one of which he had attended. My source refused to be identified in the story but promised to put me in touch with other Metro staffers who would confirm the events.

Right off the bat, I called Nylund. In an aggrieved tone, Nylund repeatedly denied, on the record, that he had used the offensive language. (He has since issued an admission that he in fact did use racist language.) I called the then-head of the Boston Metro, who had attended one of the conferences, but she refused to talk to me.

I did some more reporting. I spoke with a second Metro executive, who, like my friend, was planning to compete with his former employer in the free daily newspaper marketplace. He confirmed hearing the remarks, but, like my friend, refused to be identified. The two men urged me to call one of their former subordinates, John Wilpers, who had worked for Metro in Boston. He agreed to speak on the record about the incidents, and confirmed they had happened.

Simultaneously, a Metro official named Henry Scott was calling me, and repeated Nylund's denial. I asked Scott to put me in touch with Albrecht, the other Metro executive accused of making racist remarks. He never did, and I was unable to reach Albrecht.

Yesterday, Scott told me that he had never asked Nylund whether he had made the remarks, but "I couldn't imagine there was any truth to the story. I told you that the Steve Nylund I knew never would have made remarks like that."

He now characterizes the remarks as "incredibly unfortunate and objectionable."

As for contacting Albrecht, Scott said, "I had no obligation to help you with your story."

Now I had to make a choice. I had one staffer confirming the racist remarks on the record, and a strong denial from Nylund. None of the parties involved could produce a tape or transcript of the meetings in question. I repeatedly asked my original source, and his colleague, to put their remarks on the record. I felt that their intention was to use the prestige of the Globe to harm their former employer, and end the two executives' careers there. My two anonymous sources were making charges that amounted to "blood libel" against former colleagues; that raised the bar for ethical publication. I had to confront Nylund with his remarks. Why hadn't they? Why hadn't they objected to the racist slurs while they were working inside Metro?

There was also an issue of taste. The remarks were so objectionable, and I was so reluctant to reprint them in my column, that I again felt the standard of proof had to be close to absolute. It wasn't a legal issue; it was an ethical issue. That standard had not been met.

I decided to drop the story. My friend asked whether he could shop it elsewhere, and I said that would be fine with me.

Like any journalist, I check out many tips and do a lot of reporting that never gets in the paper. I hardly ever discuss my columns with my editors until I submit them for publication. They see my work around noon the day before my column is scheduled to appear.

In this case, they never saw the column at all. I never wrote a word about this story, and before now I never discussed it with an editor or colleague.

Alex Beam can be reached at beam@globe.com.