I'm a bit disturbed by the content on Boston.com and by the fact that no clear distinction is made between content provided by the Boston Globe and content taken from elsewhere.

In your Sunday article you describe Boston.com as "the Globe's website" and comment that, "although the newspaper can be read on boston.com, many non-newspaper features seem to dominate the website, such as video and audio clips from New England Cable News and New England Sports Network, message boards, and photos posted by readers."

In the past this practice of combining content from many sources under the Boston.com banner has led to confusion, such as when a story from the Boston Dirt Dogs website was published across the nation as a Boston Globe story. As far as I can see the confusion still continues as there's very little effort to distinguish an article taken from say, Cars.com as opposed to an article published by the Globe's own writers.

-- On the article page, the logo of the company that produced the content can be seen to the right of the headline at the top of the page. If it's a Boston Globe article, the Globe logo appears. If it is an Associated Press article, the AP logo appears etc. Below the headline, the name of the company is again printed either as its own byline or next to a reporter's name, if a reporter's name is given. Also, at the end of each article there is a copyright mark identifying the source again.

--And when articles are slotted on a page with a headline and/or a tease paragraph, there is usually a tagline after each identifying the source.