The Associated Press on Tuesday broke the story that the committee screening candidates for the presidency of the University of Massahusetts had completed its job. The AP filed a report from its Springfield office that interim president Jack Wilson had been selected, and that the UMass trustees would vote on him on Wednesday.

Upon learning the news, some lemmings at the Boston Globe leapt into action, apparently in an effort to forestall the trustees' action. The Globe news editors placed the story on the front page, and two opinion columnists and the editorial board hastily weighed-in, apparently hoping to sabotage the appointment.

It is not clear what motivates the deep thinkers across the street on Morrissey Blvd. There is concern they were bothered that the story came out of the Amherst campus, and a reporter "out west" had it first. There's the suspicion that the newspaper wants veto power over the independent University Board of Trustees. For years, Globe editors have demanded that public policymakers visit their quarters on the boulevard and vette their inner-most thoughts and private musings. Such meetings have become a necessary rite of passage for people seeking a role in public life: Make yourself available to us, the Globe insists - and we'll pass your views through our prism.

It appears that's what took place this week. That the newspaper was not consulted by the presidential screening committee is unpardonable, and there will be repercussions. The Globe's political guns - Steve Bailey, Scott Lehigh, the editorial board - locked and loaded late Tuesday, and shots were fired on Wednesday. Make it a public process, came the demand. The screening committee held its meetings in private, the Globe laments. In three opinion columns on one day, reputations were trashed. It was an obvious attempt to pressure trustees. The Boston Globe gives new meaning to the term "power brokering," and that is not meant as a compliment.

We are reminded to ask this week whatever came of that investigation into the Globe's receipt of stolen goods last summer. Remember that someone in the run-up to the Congressional hearings with UMass's then-president Bill Bulger stole secret grand jury testimony and the newspaper used a small part of it to discredit him.

We observed at the time that someone had broken the law by making the testimony public and that there should be repercussions. But US Attorney Michael Sullivan has remained silent on the matter, even while the Globe continues to hold the stolen documents in its possession.

Of course, the Globe insists it has the right under the First Amendment of the Constitution to obtain and publish such documents, while protecting the identity of the source of the stolen documents. But the newspaper condemns Bulger's invoking his constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment. It is clear the Globe wants one set of rights for themselves, and something less for the rest of us.

Lost in all the media cloud is the fact that the Congressional Committee found that the former UMass president had done no wrong. By all rights, Bulger should still be heading the university. Through a mean-spirited confluence of media mischief and intrigue, he stepped down, and the job was filled on a temporary basis, until now.

Last year, Bain & Company's Willard Mitt Romney played politics and set back the state's university for far more than a year. It is time to get UMass back on track, and we hope the trustees resist these desperate last minute machinations.

- Ed Forry