I’m not sure what the Boston Herald and Sentinel & Enterprise hope to achieve with their constant coverage of State Auditor Diana DiZoglio, because it’s certainly not selling newspapers. As someone who relies on viewership for revenue, I can tell you that stories like these are just filler—while political insiders might pay attention, they don’t resonate with the general public in a local news context. Crime, fires, and car accidents remain the backbone of local journalism. So why the relentless focus on DiZoglio?
Massachusetts State Auditor Diana DiZoglio has been vocal in her battle against the legislature’s refusal to comply with a new law that allows her office to audit its financial operations. While the fight centers on transparency and accountability, the language surrounding the controversy raises age-old questions about gender bias and political power.
In a series of social media posts and public remarks, DiZoglio has taken the fight to legislators who have resisted her efforts to audit the legislature, claiming the process violates the Massachusetts Constitution’s separation of powers. After pushing a ballot measure to allow her office to conduct such audits, which passed with 72% voter approval, DiZoglio expected compliance, but lawmakers have dug in their heels.
In his February 18, 2025 article titled “Is DiZoglio’s fight with Legislature about an audit, or revenge?”, Joe Battenfeld, a veteran political columnist for the Boston Herald, questioned DiZoglio’s motivations, suggesting that her efforts may be more about “revenge” than the “audit” itself. Battenfeld went so far as to suggest that DiZoglio “ratchet down the rhetoric,” implying that her approach was problematic.
(Source: Diana DiZoglio’s Twitter profile)
DiZoglio is not acting out of personal vendetta. She is upholding a law passed by voters—a law that aims to hold elected officials accountable and open the books to public scrutiny. So why is it being framed as revenge? Is it because she’s a woman in a position of power, demanding transparency from a system designed by and for the powerful?
DiZoglio has been unflinching in her response to lawmakers’ reluctance to comply with the audit law. She has openly called out senators like Paul Feeney and Cindy Friedman, accusing them of hypocritically defending the status quo while personally benefiting from relationships with powerful Beacon Hill lobbyists. When the legislature’s resistance became public, DiZoglio took to social media, tweeting: “Here are the four Senators responsible for conducting a character assassination of me, and my office, because they’re absolutely terrified of facing a judge in court regarding your 72% voter-approved audit law. Please message @PaulFeeneyMA, @CindyFriedmanMA, @Jo_Comerford & @WBrownsberger, who recently made the cowardly choice to browbeat professional audit staffers, telling them that I, as your ELECTED Auditor, shouldn’t be allowed to audit the Legislature because I used to work there (and therefore know where to look).”
Here are the four Senators responsible for conducting a character assassination of me, and my office, because they’re absolutely terrified of facing a judge in court regarding your 72% voter approved audit law. Please message @PaulFeeneyMA, @CindyFriedmanMA, @Jo_Comerford &…
— Diana DiZoglio (@DianaDiZoglio) February 14, 2025
DiZoglio has also been pushing for Attorney General Andrea Campbell to intervene and enforce the law, as the legislature continues to defy the will of the voters by refusing to release its financial records. Despite her repeated requests, the AG has not publicly committed to assisting her.
It’s easy to suggest that DiZoglio’s actions are personal. After all, she used to work in the legislature as a state senator and House member. But her push to audit the legislature isn’t about settling old scores—it’s about enforcing a law voters overwhelmingly passed. So why is she being accused of revenge for simply doing the job she was elected to do?
The double standard becomes even clearer when comparing the scrutiny DiZoglio faces to the treatment of Elon Musk, who is currently making sweeping changes in Washington. As head of the Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE), Musk is driving major shifts in federal policy, including mass firings within various government sectors. Most notably, Musk has played a key role in the recent mass firings of FAA employees, which are part of a broader push to overhaul U.S. air traffic control and aviation regulations. This overhaul could give Musk and his company SpaceX unprecedented influence in a key industry that heavily impacts his business interests. Musk has justified these moves as part of efforts to modernize the air traffic control system, despite criticism that they directly benefit SpaceX. Musk is also overseeing the dismissal of thousands of federal employees, including regulators, under the guise of creating a more efficient government.
While Musk’s moves have sparked controversy, he is often praised as an innovative disruptor, reforming what is seen as a bureaucratic and outdated system. Meanwhile, DiZoglio, who is seeking transparency and accountability within the legislature, faces criticism for “acting out of personal vengeance.”
Musk isn’t even an elected official. He didn’t go through a public process to assume his role as head of DOGE, and he hasn’t had to face Senate confirmation. Musk’s actions are central to a lawsuit filed by 15 state attorneys general, including Massachusetts’ Attorney General Andrea Campbell, challenging his role and the legality of his position. Meanwhile, DiZoglio was elected by the people, and she is pushing to hold lawmakers accountable for defying a law passed by voters. Yet, despite her legal and democratic mandate, she is being accused of revenge for wanting to uphold that mandate.
So why can Musk run amok in Washington firing people willy nilly without the public or Senate’s approval – meanwhile when a woman elected to her position tries to uphold a law – the legislature won’t back her and the AG won’t even respond to her requests?
And why is Musk’s attempt to reshape the federal government seen as innovative, while DiZoglio’s effort to enforce government transparency is dismissed as personal vendetta?
Despite facing criticism, both Musk and DiZoglio are taking bold steps—but the framing of their actions highlights a troubling difference in how women in politics and powerful men are perceived when wielding influence.
Battenfeld’s portrayal of DiZoglio’s actions as revenge ignores the bias she faces as a woman in power. In his commentary, he implies that her rhetoric is rooted in personal bitterness, but isn’t it more likely that he’s overlooking the reality that women, even when in positions of authority, are held to higher moral standards—expected to be serious and composed—yet are still not taken seriously?
Ahhhh @bostonherald.
— Diana DiZoglio (@DianaDiZoglio) February 18, 2025
I was wondering why ya’ll were so upset with me lately. I see. You want me to “ratchet” it down because it’s @MassAGO you want me to leave out of it?
Look, if I could I would.
It doesn’t help me —at all — to have a powerful & popular AG frustrated with me.… pic.twitter.com/heL6Zhbu9q
Musk’s corporate power plays, like firing FAA employees and government regulators, haven’t escaped criticism. He is being scrutinized for consolidating control and using his political connections to his advantage. Yet, Musk is celebrated for his business tactics, while DiZoglio is questioned for her political maneuvering. She is upholding the people’s will, not settling old scores. So why is her challenge to the status quo painted as something personal rather than professional? Isn’t DiZoglio tapping into the same populist sentiment that helped propel Trump to the White House twice—positioning herself as an insider-outsider who’s focused on reducing corruption and pushing for greater transparency and efficiency in government?
The issue here isn’t about a woman holding a grudge—it’s about government accountability and the legislature’s refusal to abide by a law passed by the public. DiZoglio isn’t seeking revenge—she’s demanding that lawmakers respect the will of the people. If anyone deserves scrutiny, it’s the legislature for its ongoing defiance, and DiZoglio is simply holding them accountable.
DiZoglio’s challenge isn’t just political; it’s gendered. When a woman asserts authority, particularly in a male-dominated space, her actions are often dismissed as emotional or personal. But DiZoglio’s efforts are grounded in transparency and accountability, not petty vengeance.
Battenfeld’s analysis may have intentionally played into misogynistic stereotypes, knowing their ability to provoke reactions, much like this opinion piece. But this isn’t about personal revenge—it’s about unmet promises of transparency and a woman in politics confronting an entrenched establishment unaccustomed to being questioned. The real concern should be the dangerous precedent lawmakers are setting by disregarding the law they were elected to uphold, not DiZoglio’s rhetoric.
