Press Freedom, 2009

by: JimC

Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 11:14:36 AM EDT

I think this is an opportune time to talk about press freedom, for a couple of reasons. First, the press is under economic siege. The Globe is for sale, and it wasn't all that long ago (the 1990s) that the Globe was the most profitable newspaper in the country.

Second, the coming of a new administration offers a clean slate of sorts for the Washington press corps. This morning I heard Mara Liasson reporting on the healthcare debate, and I am more pro-Mara than some people, but I bristled a bit when she led with the opposition's arguments.

Everyone agrees, now, that the press was too easy on Bush, especially with regard to the war. That is true, but it missses the point. The press is too easy on everybody, and Bush operated from the enviable position of not caring about what the press said.

Another common assumption is that press freedom and coverage both increase under Democratic administrations. Yes and no. As I've said before, the press holds Democrats to a higher standard. This is good, because Democrats should be held to high standards, but it's also bad because Republicans should be held to high standards too. And they are not. Under the guise of balance, reporters routinely describe GOP legislative tactics as if Democrats operate the same way. That is simply not true. It is true that incidents can be cited of Democrats, say, blocking legislation in committee, but the big picture is, Democrats have more respect for government and its processes. If Newt Gingrich were here, he might say that that's our problem.

So when David Broder, who after all has sources to cater to, praises someone like Orrin Hatch for being willing to chat with Democrats, he is right, because he's contrasting Hatch with someone like John Cornyn, who thinks his job is to obstruct. However, this principal does not always work in reverse, for the simple reason that the Democratic caucus is larger and more diverse. Therefore, when Evan Bayh talks about "putting the brakes" on the Obama budget, he is not helping his party's public image by being willing to compromise, he is undermining his party's internal debate on the budget.

That is a subtle distinction, and I am of course making it as a partisan Democrat. But it's the sort of nuance an experienced reporter should be aware of, and should cover. It may not be something a daily deadline reporter can take note of, but certainly Broder and the Sunday blabbers can do so.

All this said, if I had the power, I would freeze all political commentary (in the traditional media) and ramp up the coverage. Mike Barnicle, of all freaking people, argued on the radio the other day that the Boston media should cover the Legislature like they cover the Red Sox -- a daily summary of what they're up to. He was blustery and overly cynical, but he was right.

Let them report, and us decide.

So here is my question to you: What do you think is the current state of press freedom? And since freedom brings responsibility, where should the responsibility be applied?

Our Very Serious and Responsible News Media

by: Dean Barker

Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 20:56:22 PM EDT

Shhh

by: JimC

Mon May 18, 2009 at 09:23:24 AM EDT

You can make all sorts of justifications for the political coverage. The issue is abortion, so you can tie it to the upcoming Supreme Court vacancy. Notre Dame is in Indiana, a key swing state, and it is the largest Catholic college. Catholics are a sought-after constituency who vote in higher numbers than almost any other group (they also don't vote monolithically, so you can play both sides of that coin).

That is all window dressing. The event could not be more routine: the president's first address to a graduating class, at Notre Dame, a traditional stop since at least Reagan. But the Loyal Opposition (LO) made a fuss, so off we trudge to South Bend.

I suppose the upside is that the LO has to trudge there as well, so they are working for the ink. The president, as (almost) always, rose to the occasion, calling for better dialogue.

So shhh ... they need to keep Dick Cheney on TV rather than do stuff like this.

Kudos to NPR for also covering Michelle Obama's speech. She spoke at University of California, Merced, a small, rural college at about half the students were the first members of their families to attend college. She went because they campaigned for her, sending letters and (no joke) handmade valentines. She was "moved" and decided to go.

The bummer ending of that story was that the guy who organized the effort wants to be a White House intern.

But then, he said, he wants to go back and help the community, which was part of Michelle's message.

Count me as a fan of the First Lady. And the president too, even though I'm puzzled by some recent decisions.

And remember ... shhhh.

Globe Negotiations End Happily

by: JimC

Wed May 06, 2009 at 06:55:21 AM EDT

I read this story in the dead of night, but I waited until morning to make sure I read it right. Things are getting bad on Morrissey Boulevard (if that's where they negotiate; maybe they move to neutral territory).

Boston Globe management and the Boston Newspaper Guild resumed negotiations this evening so far apart that the company has proposed, with what it called its "last, best offer," to slash wages of Guild members by about 23 percent to gain the $10 million in concessions sought from the union, according to Guild and management representatives with knowledge of the negotiations.

Globe management presented that offer on Sunday, a move that could lay the groundwork for management to declare an impasse and unilaterally impose the draconian wage cuts, said Thomas Kohler, a Boston College law professor. Labor laws allow companies, under certain legal conditions, to impose the conditions of their last, best offers if an impasse is reached in negotiations.

Meanwhile the union claims to have met the last goal.

The union on Sunday offered a proposal that provided, by the union's reckoning, slightly more than $10 million in savings, but management negotiators rejected it. The proposal included a wide range of cuts in pay and benefits. The talks, however, have become deadlocked over the company's drive to eliminate life time job guarantees enjoyed by about 190 veteran Guild employees.

Declaring impasse would be a risky maneuver that could touch off a messy fight that could drag on for years in courts, at the National Labor Relations Board, and even in the streets, said Kohler. The Detroit newspapers strike of 1995 was touched off after management of the Detroit News and Detroit Free-Press declared impasse and imposed the conditions of the last contract offer.

The strike lasted for 19 months and court battles stretched into the next decade.

I love The New York Times, but I harbor no illusions about the Times Company. They are going to the mat on this, and the mat is already frayed. The union has moved, management has not. (According to the coverage, at least. Maybe that's the union making better use of the press, and wouldn't that be ironic in this case.)

Yesterday I was almost ready to admit I was wrong, and that they would turn this around, but I no longer think so. I still could be wrong (a possibility we can never rule out), but if my subscription ran out tomorrow, I'd feel pretty safe canceling it.

UPDATE: Times Will Not File to Close Globe

by: JimC

Mon May 04, 2009 at 05:57:13 AM EDT

http://www.boston.com/business...

Cross-posted from Blue News Tribune.

A question I've been asking. Who will tell us the Globe is gone? The Herald might rush to decide.

It might be the Washington Post:

Potential Craigslist Ad

by: JimC

Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 09:18:10 AM EDT

Major metropolitan area seeks daily newspaper. Highly literate audience, huge growth potential -- could be newspaper of record for all of New England. Great sports town, with fans eager to read about all aspects of every team.

Political coverage desired. Athenian political ideals, Spartan reality.

Don't even think about it, ProJo. You neither Courant.

Monitor? We have one.

Foster's? Maybe if you bring beer to the interview.

Bill Simmons on the Death of Newspapers

by: JimC

Thu Apr 16, 2009 at 23:03:13 PM EDT

Despite his fondness for Rocky IV and tendency to bash John Turturro (OK, he did it once), Bill Simmons, the Sports Guy, is pretty sharp.

But this really surprised me in his column about Kevin Garnett.

There's a hidden sub-story lurking here: It involves the fall of newspapers, lack of access and the future of reporting, not just with sports but with everything. I grew up reading Bob Ryan, who covered the Celtics for the Boston Globe and remains the best basketball writer alive to this day. Back in the 1970s and early '80s, he was overqualified to cover the team. In 1980, he would have sniffed out the B.S. signs of this KG story, kept pursuing it, kept writing about it, kept working connections and eventually broken it. True, today's reporters don't get the same access Ryan had, but let's face it: If 1980 Bob Ryan was covering the Celtics right now, ESPN or someone else would lure him away. And that goes for the editors, too. The last two sports editors during the glory years of the Globe's sports section were Vince Doria and Don Skwar ... both of whom currently work for ESPN.

Simmons works for ESPN now too. I don't actually associate ESPN with hard reporting, I think more of the cheerleaders making out in the women's room. But I don't read their coverage enough to say. I read Simmons.

For the past few years, as newspapers got slowly crushed by myriad factors, a phalanx of top writers and editors fled for the greener pastures of the Internet. The quality of nearly every paper suffered, as did morale. Just two weeks ago, reports surfaced that the New York Times Company (which owns the Globe) was demanding $20 million in union concessions or it'd shut down the Globe completely. I grew up dreaming of writing a sports column for the Globe; now the paper might be gone before I turn 40. It's inconceivable. But this Garnett story, and how it was (and wasn't) covered, reminds me of "The Wire," which laid out a blueprint in Season 5 for the death of newspapers without us fully realizing it. The season revolved around the Baltimore Sun and its inability (because of budget cuts and an inexperienced staff) to cover the city's decaying infrastructure. The lesson was inherent: We need to start caring about the decline of newspapers, because, really, all hell is going to break loose if we don't have reporters breaking stories, sniffing out corruption, seeing through smoke and mirrors and everything else. That was how Season 5 played out, and that's why "Wire" creator David Simon is a genius. He saw everything coming before anyone else did.

I can't comment on The Wire either, other than to say all my friends think I'm an idiot that I haven't watched it yet.  And I'm with him on the chill (emphasis mine).

Ultimately, Garnett's injury doesn't REALLY matter. It's just sports. But I find it a little chilling that the best player on the defending NBA champion could be sidelined for two solid months, with something obviously wrong, and nobody came close to unraveling the real story. We still don't know what's wrong with his knee. We just know it's screwed up. And, yeah, you could say that Garnett has always been guarded -- with just a few people in his circle of trust -- and yeah, you could say that only a few members of the Celtics organization know the truth (maybe coach Doc Rivers, GM Danny Ainge, majority owner Wyc Grousbeck, the trainers and that's it). But this was a massive local sports story. Its coverage is not a good sign for the future of sports journalism or newspapers in general.

Bravo, Sports Guy, for making the leap here. You are absolutely right.

Associated Press Cracks the Fair Use Whip (I Think)

by: JimC

Sat Apr 11, 2009 at 10:02:05 AM EDT

10. Is AP trying to crack down on what many feel is fair use of news snippets?

As a newsgathering organization, AP understands the importance of fair use. Fair use is a complex analysis done on a case-by-case basis. It defies easy generalization. The AP initiative is not about this; it is about making it easier for consumer to access and engage with news content in more robust ways.

I would have preferred a simple "No."

11. Is this aimed at Google? At bloggers?

No. It is not aimed at any one company or Web site. We are eager to work with everyone to achieve a fair solution.

Why can't they communicate about this? What the hell are they saying?

Maybe they're being advised by the same geniuses who advised the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

http://www.ap.org/iprights/faq...

(Hat tip to Atrios, who was displeased with AP's use of the term "authoritative." I think I'd concede that to AP, after all these years. Doesn't mean we can't question authority.)

Here's What You Do, Globe

by: JimC

Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 06:47:45 AM EDT

Enact this short list of proposals immediately:

1. No more "news analysis." You make that something reserved for the truly complex: credit default swaps, the federal budget, or the intricacies of Iraqi politics, for example.

2. No more seven-part series, on anything. The Kerry series made sense, when he was running. The Romney one made less sense, because he didn't have a prayer. The Ted Kennedy one was a nice idea. Now we're done with those!

3. More "only a newspaper can do this" stories. The classic example, and I am not the first to point this out, is Charlie Savage's "signing statements" story. Savage went and read the legislation. That is good use of your resources.

4. Fewer columnists. You don't have to fire anybody; make them reporters.

5. Strive for objectivity. No, really. You don't even try. Try.

6. Make the sports writers cover the sports, not just the Boston teams. During Manny flareups last year, we got blanket coverage for three or four days. Not what fans want; you end up competing with sports blogs, a niche. Instead, tell us what's going on in the rest of the league.

7. Be more aggressive about combining sections, or eliminating some sections on days when they have nothing.

8. Forget the suburbs -- scrap Globe South and all that other crap. You don't cover those areas effectively, and you should focus on being a national newspaper.

9. Cover Beacon Hill aggressively. Not gotcha stuff like the Herald does, but the legislation. What are those bozos doing all day?

10. People are telling you to leverage Boston.com. I'm giving it to you straight: Boston.com sucks.  Sure, I like "Name that Caption" as much as the next guy, but you overdo it on the playful stuff. Other sites are more fun than you, your humor has never been your strong suit. If I were you, I would redesign Boston.com to look like an online newspaper, more like NYTimes.com or most other newspaper sites.

11. Embrace change. Again, don't try to compete with the Internet, you can't (just like you couldn't compete with television). But learn to ride with change. Newspapers tend to think people love their regular features, because, if they cancel a comic strip, they hear from all those readers. But they have to start thinking of all the potential readers, and my guess is that there are still plenty of readers who want a great newspaper.

So all you have to do is become a great newspaper. Not so hard, right?

I'm not sure who said this; I believe it was Casey Stengel.

We're two players away from a great team. The only problem is, the two players are Ruth and Gehrig.

Celebrity Security Detail Fires on Journalists

by: JimC

Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 23:03:22 PM EDT

Two freelance photographers who snapped pics of Tom Brady and Gisele Bundchen's weekend wedding in Costa Rica say they were shot at by the supermodel's security personnel. INF, the photo agency that hired Rolando Aviles and Uri Cortez, said yesterday the two men "narrowly escaped death" when bullets shattered the back windshield of the duo's Suzuki jeep then hit the vehicle's front window. "Nobody was hurt, but it was very close," an INF spokesman told us today. Brady and Bundchen got married Saturday at the Brazilian beauty's seaside compound in Mal Pais.

More, and a photo of the shattered window, at http://www.boston.com/ae/celeb...

Shame on the Globe for treating this as fluff. This is a crime, if the allegation is true.

Now one can be dismissive: it's a foreign country, and the journalists were freelancers covering a stupid story. But, they got shot at. Even if the intention was a stern warning, this is really serious.

It is a measure of how far journalism has fallen that the Globe (and presumably other publications) is willing to laugh at this.

As the Globe Turns

by: JimC

Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 08:21:42 AM EDT

Boston.com teaser copy on the lead story from the Globe:

Threat to Globe triggers flood of feelings
News that The New York Times Co. might shut down the Boston Globe if its unions don't swiftly agree to $20 million in cuts sparked an outcry of voices ranging from Senator John Kerry to rocker Peter Wolf. (Boston Globe)

Excerpt from the Herald story (not the lead, though yesterday it was):

Details of threat to close Globe emerge
Storm over Morrissey Boulevard

There's a mutinous mood on Morrissey Boulevard, as Boston Globe staffers lash out over a stunning ultimatum from parent company The New York Times [NYT] Co.

"They're nickel-and-diming people," said a Globe union official who spoke on condition of anonymity, adding that top executives at The New York Times Co., which owns the Globe, "have ruined" the sagging broadsheet.

A few points:

The Times Co. threat makes no sense. If you shut down the leading newspaper in New England, then you no longer own the leading newspaper in New England. Are we to assume the paper intends to backslide to covering just New York?

If it's real and Boston becomes a one-newspaper town, it will be the greatest double envelopment maneuver in newspaper history. The Herald has been dying for at least 15 years (been sold twice in the last 20 or so), so the thought of it emerging as the biggest paper is a real stunner.

I'm not sure about now, because I haven't read the paper in a long time, but when I had state jobs, if you polled Beacon Hill and asked which paper they feared more, it was definitely the Herald. When Frank Phillips was the Herald State House reporter and Peter Lucas was the columnist who kept his office there, they beat the Globe on every important political story. Now I think that's less true, because the Herald's "gotcha" approach is not as serious as Phillips was (is).

This is a done deal. They're not going to shut down the paper next month, but this is the warning shot that they will shut it down. I think they just don't know how to replace it yet.

Seasons

by: JimC

Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 07:43:03 AM EDT

Comedy:
Jimmy Kimmel, on President Obama giving Queen Elizabeth II an iPod:

"Now she can listen to Lil Wayne on the treadmill without anybody bothering her."

Tragedy:
Gunman kills 13, then self in New York rampage

Irony:
The Globe ran the story about its potential demise as the lead, above the New York gunman, in both the print and online editions.

(Cross-posted on Blue Mass Group and Blue News Tribune.)

Abandon All Logic, Ye Who Enter Newsweek

by: JimC

Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 12:19:38 PM EDT

A regular column can make you crazy. I had one that fell every two weeks, 700-1,000 words, a lot of freedom. Some weeks I had nothing to say. Those columns were torture to write, and it shows.

But none of this excuses Howard Fineman's column.

A Turning Tide?
Obama still has the approval of the people, but the establishment is beginning to mumble that the president may not have what it takes.

There is just so much wrong with this.

If the establishment still has power, it is a three-sided force, churning from inside the Beltway, from Manhattan-based media and from what remains of corporate America. Much of what they are saying is contradictory, but all of it is focused on the president:

(snip -- a long bulleted list of what the "Bigs" are saying.)

Other than all that, in the eyes of the big shots, he is doing fine. The American people remain on his side, but he has to be careful that the gathering judgment of the Bigs doesn't trickle down to the rest of us.

At least he said "If the establishment still has power," and at least he said "the rest of us," implying he is not part of the establishment. (In fact, I've never met a reporter who considered himself/herself part of the establishment.)

I guess my bottom line question here is, why write this at all, other than to please the establishment? And what is the point of that?

(Hat tip to Atrios)

Court Ruling Could Prompt Dangerous Change in Libel Law

by: JimC

Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 17:30:04 PM EST

Dan Kennedy in The Guardian.

With malice aforethought
A US court ruling threatens to overturn the American legal principle that truth is an absolute defence against libel

(snip)

Robert Ambrogi, a lawyer who is also executive director of the Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association, is similarly horrified. "It is the most dangerous libel decision in decades," Ambrogi writes on his blog, adding: "If ill will is all that is needed to turn a truthful statement into libel, then everyone is a potential defendant."

My guess is that this will be overturned, but the potential danger is easy to see. Truth has always been the absolute defense, and "malice" was a secondary defense (that is, New York Times v. Sullivan and other cases acknowledged that mistakes were made -- but if they were made without malice, they were OK). In short, an honest, objective news operation would be safe from libel suits.

Now, if this stood, a news organization could find itself having to ensure not only that information is true, but that it does not reflect "ill will."

Take the Blagojevich coverage; nearly all of it is written with the conviction that he is guilty. Is it libelous? This ruling says yes, it is, even if he is guilty.

Temporarily, the First Amendment has been overturned.

Right-Wing Wurlitzer Cranking Up on Gregg and Census

by: Dean Barker

Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 06:02:00 AM EST

For all the bright and capable people now running the show at the White House, this strikes me as the inevitable fallout from a decision not fully vetted.

That Gregg would be a disaster at certain aspects of Commerce, such as the census, was a realization that must have come after the romantic idea of having a true conservative in the cabinet. Pulling the census out from under Judd after the fact wasn't something that wasn't going to be noticed. Unforced error.

From the standpoint of someone who spends a lot of time working on amateur oppo, it's clear to me that the GOPers have an opening here.

Now if only they can find a way to derail one of their own from being confirmed, we'll be all set!

The Double Standard at Work

by: JimC

Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 08:48:23 AM EST

I have asserted, both here and there, that the political press holds Democrats to a higher standard than Republicans.

It would take 10 years and a team of academics to prove this, so let's just abandon any idea about that. If I could, I would ... not. Bigger fish to fry -- and that is one of my issues, people write about the press too much. I try to avoid it here, but I can't avoid it entirely because of who I am and what I do. I read Media Nation and Mediabistro, and that's pretty much all I need. Maybe we should count Atrios too.

The other day, David Broder asserted that Judd Gregg is "one of the smart ones." (I think David Broder has made mistakes, but in general is given an unfair shake by the blogscape. We hold him to a higher standard because he is known as "the dean of Washington politics.")

Now let's "unpack" (more on unpacking another day) that statement.

Judd Gregg is one of the smart ...

a. Senators
b. Republican senators
c. Republicans
d. Republicans who have agreed to join the Obama Cabinet
e. Guys willing to talk to David Broder

Does it really matter what the answer is? Broder is not comparing Gregg to the Harvard Law Review staff, he's comparing him to a small circle of people. It may be ever-churning, but it remains small, and people who linger in it -- remember the words of Noah Cross in Chinatown -- get respectable with age.

I have no doubt that the town is full of smart Republicans, but how exactly does Judd Gregg stand out from this group? It is not any of the following:

a. Leadership on an issue
b. Thought leadership on the legislative process (this one may be true, but if so the evidence is scant)
c. Political independence (Gregg balked at one or two Bush things, invoking the ire of some in his party, but in general his record is predictable)

So why does David Broder consider Gregg one of the smart ones? There are only a few possibilities left, and the most likely one is: Gregg talks to Broder, either off the record or on background.

A Democrat who is friendly to the press -- Charles Schumer, say -- is a camera hound. A Republican who is friendly to the press is one of the smart ones.

We need higher standards. Or maybe one standard. Again, I like Broder better than most blogger types do, but, as he praises Democrats for reaching out to Republicans (keeping both sets of his sources happy), does he ever regret not slamming Republicans for not reaching out to Democrats when they were in charge?

Caution

by: Dean Barker

Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:30:28 AM EST

If you Hamsters know me at all, you know that I'm a pretty close observer of media mentions of our state pols.  So take it from me and the hour or so I just wasted going through every mention of Dateline: Secretary Gregg.  The media frenzy that is quickly consuming this episode has begun to short-circuit journalistic standards.

Instead of the usual "unnamed sources" or "it's possible," I'm reading lots of breathless, and unsourced, supposedly authoritative statements about the "leading candidate" or deals definitely struck or whom Lynch will pick and in what party.  

But it's clear to anyone following this story from the beginning that this is more the laziness of the tradmed echo chamber taking over than anything actually substantive.

So I think caution is the order of the day. Don't believe everything you read or hear today from the mighty Wurlitzer as it starts to crank up.

Journalism at NPR

by: elwood

Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 08:29:27 AM EST

National Public Radio ran an obituary. They spoke to Bob Woodward about how he met the man who blew the whistle on Watergate. Then NPR provided context.

"Some people consider Felt a traitor," the announcer said.

To back this up she interviewed.... convicted Watergate felon G. Gordon Liddy. A thug who would have escaped punishment if Felt had not helped break open the story. Then the announcer acknowledged that other people thought Felt had acted honorably. But they didn't have any of those people speak.

At least this banishes the notion of NPR as "Nice Polite Republicans." Bringing a convicted felon on, to call the man who caught him a "traitor" as his family mourns his loss, isn't nice or polite.

And it certainly isn't journalism.

The Russert Legacy

by: JimC

Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 10:28:19 AM EST

I think it is good, on balance, but mixed.

The bottom line for me is this: When Hunter Thompson injected himself into stories, it was verboten to do so. He was making a point about the nature of journalism.

But now, it is almost considered dishonest for a journalist to leave himself/herself out of a story.

That is a monumental change, with large implications.

Russert, more than any other figure, "mainstreamed" this approach. He made his perspective on the story as important as the story itself, because his perspective (in theory) mirrored our perspective.

All fine? A natural evolution of journalism? Maybe. My jury is out.

But I'm not letting it pass without comment.

Congrats, Dave. No dancing, please.

Thoughts?

PolitickerNH: Full Coverage of One Party

by: elwood

Fri Nov 28, 2008 at 06:56:29 AM EST

1. Coalition of NH Taxpayers
2. David Welch
3. Eric Fowler
4. Fran Wendelboe
5. Gene Chandler
6. House Republican
7. House Republican Leadership
8. House Republicans
9. House Republicans Leader
10. Howard Dean
11. John Reagan
12. Majority Mindset
13. Mike Biundo
14. New Hampshire Advantage Coalition
15. NHAC
16. Sergeant-at-Arms
17. Sherman Packard
18. Steve Winter
19. Tax Groups
20. Walter Sword

Doctor Dean is mighty lonely there. 20 Hot Topics. 19 of them focused on the New Hampshire Republican Party.

Our own Dean had high hopes for PolitickerNH. But it seems to have become simply a house organ for the state GOP.