First off, Media Log is taking the rest of the between-holidays week off for a little R & R. Best wishes for a Happy New Year.

And just to remind readers again, starting Jan. 4, you can find a new (and hopefully improved) Media Log at a new location at www.thephoenix.com/medialog. So please stay tuned.

12/28/2005 6:09:00 PM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

Wanna see what the most closely followed news stories of the past year were, at least according to the Pew Research Center? Number one is a no-brainer -- Hurricanes Katrina and Rita -- and here are the rest (scroll down in the survey.)

It's interesting to see the relatively low ratings given to such overtly political issues as the Roberts Supreme Court nomination and the indictment of Scooter Libby.

12/28/2005 10:57:00 AM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

In case you missed it -- and care -- here's an excerpt from Tom Brokaw's and Ted Koppel's discussion on "Meet the Press" last Sunday with Tim Russert about whether the U.S. media should have done a better job in scrutinizing the administration's pre-war claims of WMD in Iraq.

Both of them seem to let the mainstream media off pretty lightly, citing the lack of evidence to counter the administration's claims and the lack of a vigorous debate coming from the Democratic side of the aisle.


Both of those excuses have some truth to them -- and it's obviously hard to prove the negative that Saddam Hussein had no WMD. But as we've learned from several post-war media mea culpas, most notably from the New York Times and Washington Post, some of the stories bolstering the WMD claims were very dubiously sourced and some of the stories raising questions about them got buried deep in the paper.

I have my own theory to explain -- in part -- why the media did such a perfunctory job on the issue of pre-war WMD. And it goes like this: News organizations were so preoccupied with the logistics of covering the war in Iraq that they failed to devote enough time and resources to reporting on whether the reasons given for the war were legitimate.

For one thing, Bush telegraphed his intention to go after Saddam Hussein far ahead of the actual invasion, meaning news outlets had plenty of warning that they were going to war. Producers and editors were very concerned that their reporters would be shut out of the conflict the way they were in Gulf War I (the Pentagon's embedding concept came as a major surprise), so they spent a lot of time trying to figure out how and if they were going to get battlefield access. There were understandable concerns that this would be a very dangerous war to cover, with Iraq thought likely to use chemical weapons in the field, so they had to spend time and energy getting their reporters properly trained. Then there was the task of deciding how many and who to send to cover the conflict. I interviewed a number of folks who were mapping out their news organization's coverage of the conflict and they were preoccupied with figuring out how to do it safely and effectively.



In a way, I think Bush's rock solid determination to go to war helped him avoid scrutiny of his motives. The media went straight to war planning and pretty much skipped war questioning. There's obviously a painful lesson in that.

12/28/2005 10:32:00 AM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

The Media Log computer will be undergoing (hopefully) some serious and long overdue repairs today. The Log will return ASAP, hopefully tomorrow.

12/27/2005 9:59:00 AM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

First off, happy holidays to everyone. (In Bill O'Reilly's book, I'm sure that sentiment makes me a foot solider in the war on Christmas.) Media Log will return next week.

But because we are working on the Web site, starting Jan. 4, you can find a new (and hopefully improved) Media Log at www.thephoenix.com/medialog. We'll keep alerting folks to this, so stay tuned.

12/23/2005 11:00:00 AM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

It's no laughing matter who the late-night comedians joke about. Here from the Center for Media and Public Affairs is a rundown of the top 10 targets on the late night talk shows this past year. Bill Clinton finishes a distant third to Bush and Jacko, but given that he's been out of office for five years, I think you've got to admire his staying power.

12/23/2005 10:52:00 AM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

Just a question for anyone who watches CNN's "American Morning." How many IQ points does the network forfeit when Rick Sanchez substitutes -- as he is now -- for Miles O'Brien ? Is 25 too little, is 50 too much?

12/23/2005 10:23:00 AM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

Here, embedded in today's very fair and professional story
by the Herald's Maggie Mulvihill, is the Herald's reaction to Judge Murphy's lawyers allegations that the paper is engaged in a publicity stunt.

The Herald, in a statement released last night, said, "Judge Murphy realizes now that he has made a series of mistakes. But the judge's letters to the Herald speak loudly and clearly for themselves. His actual letters must be read. They demand $1 million more than he was awarded at trial. No attempt to explain them away will wash. Nothing in Judge Murphy's letters sounds, looks or remotely resembles settlement discussions."

The Herald statement also pointed out that more than 70 percent of public officials who win jury verdicts in libel cases are reversed on appeal.

"The Herald does not blame Judge Murphy for trying to dig himself out of this mess, but it strongly believes the judge should be held to account for attempting to intimidate people into giving up constitutionally protected rights of appeal."

After this salvo of charges and countercharges, two issues still stick in the craw.
1) Why did Judge Murphy ask for considerably more money than he was owed at the time?
2) Why did the Herald wait the better part of a year to reveal Murphy's letters and cry foul?

12/23/2005 9:59:00 AM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

In a press conference late this afternoon, Judge Ernest Murphy's lawyer called the Boston Herald's decision to release letters from Murphy asking Herald publisher Pat Purcell to pay him more than $3 million dollars in the wake of a $2.1 million libel verdict, "a publicity stunt in an apparent attempt to continue the paper's campaign of libel against Judge Murphy." (Murphy attended the conference, but sat impassively and declined to take questions.)

The intemperate and bullying-sounding letters from Murphy (See previous Media Log post "The Judge and the Tabloid") quickly became part of an ongoing Herald campaign to cast aspersions on his temperament and judgment and to argue for a reversal of the Feb. 2005 libel verdict against the paper.

Speaking this afternoon, Murphy's attorney Howard Cooper said those letters -- sent shortly after the verdict -- were part of ongoing private and confidential settlement discussions agreed to between Purcell and Murphy. He accused the Herald of violating the understanding that the two sides would have such talks and noted that the paper, which had been in possession of the letters for almost a year, had never mentioned anything about them until now.

Cooper also produced two emails. One dated Sept. 29, 2003 from Cooper to Herald attorney Robert Dushman indicated that Murphy was prepared to meet Purcell as part of agreed-upon "confidential settlement discussions." The other, from Dushman to Cooper was dated Dec. 20, 2005 (only hours before the Herald went public with Murphy's letters) saying that "we have no objection to meeting, but only if it's likely to lead somewhere."

In discussing Murphy's request that Purcell pay him $3.26 million, Cooper said the statutory interest was accruing at 12 percent a year starting from when the suit was filed and that the Herald currently owed Murphy almost $2.95 million with an additional $322,000 in interest piling up annually. He claimed the judge's dollar figure "could be seen to represent a hypothetical discount from the Herald's worst case scenario," in which the paper could end up owing more.

In an effort to explain the tone of the letters, Cooper described the language as "direct...familiar...honest. They weren't playing games with each other." Asked if he would have sanctioned that language had he known about the letter, Cooper said "it might not be the dialogue I would have with any lawyer."

The Herald could not be reached for comment. Presumably, the paper's management will respond in tomorrow's edition of the paper.

12/22/2005 6:02:00 PM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

No doubt about it. We are now in Round II of the Ernest Murphy/Boston Herald libel suit. Only this one is being waged not in Suffolk Superior Court, but in the court of public opinion.

Round I was won by Murphy in February when a Suffolk County jury awarded the judge almost $2.1 million (not including interest) after concluding he had been libeled in 22 statements contained in a series of Herald stories or uttered on the Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor."

It was a bitter trial that ended after 25 hours of jury deliberation with Murphy embracing his lawyers -- Howard Cooper and David Rich -- in the hallway outside the courtroom. Observers debated whether the plaintiff had proved that the Herald acted with actual malice. But the bottom line is that Murphy had come across as an aggrieved party, Cooper had made a surprisingly strong case, and the jury was convinced.

After that, things pretty much stayed on the back burner until yesterday when the Herald (and the Globe) broke the news that Murphy had sent intemperate letters to the Herald leaning on publisher Pat Purcell to pay him over $3 millon. This clearly triggered the start of a very public Herald campaign against the jury decision aimed at raising questions about Murphy's judgment and temperament.

Today,the paper is back in full swing. There is a story reporting on Murphy's apology for using court stationery to write his ill-conceived letters. (An apology is the least he could do.) It also seems obvious from today's story that the Herald is making every good faith effort to reach Murphy's lawyer, Howard Cooper.

Then there is this sidebar, the classic "wheels in motion" story raising the possibility of disciplinary action being taken against the judge.

And there is a Margery Eagan column taking a whack at Murphy and declaring that if she'd received a letter like the one the judge sent to Purcell, "I'd say a Hail Mary and check the brakes." All in all, it made for a nice page 4 package for the tabloid trying to make the case that the the libel verdict was a miscarriage of justice and that Murphy is a misfit in a judge's robe.


Frankly, no one is wearing the angel's wings on this one. I spent 19 days covering the Murphy trial when I was at the Globe. I became convinced that there were serious and disturbing problems with the Herald's coverage of Murphy and was not the least surprised that the jury was inclined to give him something -- particularly when they were asked to evaluate 61 separate statements that were potentially libelous. I also think that Murphy's strange behavior in leaning on the Herald, however disturbing, doesn't negate or somehow disqualify the original libel verdict.

On the other hand, Murphy's strong-arming of the paper is a blunder of serious proportions and one, I would guess, that won't do him any good in legal and judicial circles. And if nothing else, it's given the Herald a real pr opening in its ongoing battle with the judge.

By the way -- late this afternoon, Murphy's lawyers are holding their own press conference to fight back against the Herald's now vigorious campaign. This is getting good.

12/22/2005 1:32:00 PM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

The news that the Chicago Sun-Times is shutting down Red Streak, the youth oriented commuter tabloid that it started up three years ago to combat the Chicago Tribune's version, the Red Eye, probably isn't of much interest to anyone outside the Windy City.

I mention it only because one of the creators of the Red Streak gave me one of the most candid quotes of my career several years ago. In the course of writing a story about the proliferation of these mini-papers aimed at young readers, I spoke to all sorts of newspaper officials who were solemnly explaining their demographic appeal, marketing potential, and far-sighted vision.

Then I asked Christine Ledbetter, the Sun-Times deputy features editor who helped launch Red Streak, about the strategy behind that paper.

"We'll do it if the Tribune is doing it," she responded. "That's our marketing plan."

Given that plan, it's amazing the paper lasted this long.

12/21/2005 12:42:00 PM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

It's the libel case that keeps on giving. After the Boston Herald was whacked with a $2.1 million Suffolk County jury verdict for Judge Ernest Murphy in February, today's news is that the paper is looking to overturn that decision, citing Murphy's efforts to intimidate it into giving up its right to appeal.

One notable difference between today's Herald story and Globe story is that the Globe was able to talk to Murphy attorney Howard Cooper while the Herald said Cooper could not be reached for comment. Despite being adversaries in the courtroom, let's hope that Cooper and the Herald haven't decided to snub each other.


The case itself was emotional, rugged, and bruising. Most observers started out believing Murphy faced a serious uphill battle largely because as a public figure, he would have to prove the Herald acted with malice. But as the trial progressed, one could see the momentum moving the plaintiff's way. And once the jury was out for five days, it was clear that Murphy was going to be getting some award.

I don't know that the letters the Herald said it received from Murphy should have any impact on the original outcome. And I'm no expert in the behind-the-scenes machinations that surround ligitation negotiation. But it sure seems inappropriate for a judge to be strong-arming the defendants in that fashion. (If nothing else, these kinds of communication are better handled in off-the-record chats, as opposed to paper trail-creating missives.)

One thing is certain. This fight is not over.

12/21/2005 11:39:00 AM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

The Johnny Damon signing by the New York Yankees didn't only catch the Red Sox front office by surprise. Here was yesterday's prescient headline in the New York Times sports section, never one of the paper's strong points and an area in which they get thrashed by the tabloids:

Yankees Appear Unlikely to Make a Major Move

The Boston Metro commuter freebie tabloid had a split personality on the big trade. A page one teaser this morning declared: Yankees, Damon reach late deal. But the paper's sports section featured a subhed quoting the Red Sox general managers saying: Negotiations with Damon 'progressing well.'

Kudos to the Herald for its clever front page teaser Johnny B. Gone

Meanwhile, on WEEI, the long arduous process of diminishing Damon's talents and achievements here is underway. One caller already sagely noted that Tony Graffanino is a better on-base man than Damon. Others have predicted, of course, that Damon will break down physically in New York. We'll see if a station that has a sterling record of firmly siding with Sox management in practically every decision continues that not-so-proud tradition. (On the morning show, Steve Buckley and Jon Meterparel were basically lauding the Sox fiscal discipline while Larry Johnson seemed genuinely upset over the Damon exit.)

(As a Yankee fan, I'm happy but not ecstatic. Yes, Damon is a serious upgrade over Bubba Crosby. But I do worry about runners merrily scooting around the bases given his weak arm and the vast expanse that is center field in Yankee Stadium. )

12/21/2005 10:54:00 AM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

My friend, attorney and Phoenix contributor Harvey Silverglate has another view of the criticism of the Times's handling of the domestic spying story. Here's his passionate email:

Correct me if I'm not seeing this right.
The New York Times has broken an incredibly important story -- a
story that was obviously going to provoke another leak investigation,
only this time a really serious leak investigation because the leaking
of NSA secrets is far more serious than a two-bit hissy fight like
Plamegate. The Times had to think long and hard before breaking this
story, because even though I think that breaking this story is the
highest form of patriotism, it was and is and will remain obvious that
the administration will see breaking the story, and being a leaker for
the story, to be an act of treason. So this is very serious stuff. There
is a federal statute outlawing just about everything, including this
kind of conduct. No wonder the Times hesitated to publish the story
until it became obvious that the story would come out in Risen's book
anyway.
And so what is the reaction of the rest of the news media?
Instead of lionizing the NYTimes for publishing a great, important, and
gutsy story, at considerable risk to the paper (no less -- and probably
considerably more
-- risk, in my view, than the NYTimes, WashPost, and Boston Globe
undertook in publishing the Pentagon Papers), the LA Times and other
media outlets are ganging up on the Times, not because of what it
published, not because of what it omitted at the administration's
request, but because it published it late! This, at a time and under
circumstances where the media should be sticking together, against the
most lawless administration in my memory (far worse than Nixon). The
news media are beginning to act like a herd of animals that eat their
own. It's disgusting.
Am I missing something? Hell, I'm beginning to like lawyers
better than I like journalists, and that's saying a lot.

12/20/2005 7:01:00 PM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

I have little doubt, as Ron Borges noted in yesterday's Globe story, that John Ruiz was the victim of another very questionable if not bogus overseas decision in his heavyweight title bout with the Russian giant, Nikolai Valuev.

I give Borges, generally an excellent boxing writer, credit for finally toning down his lavish praise for the local product. Now, instead of raising holy hell about a bad decision, he writes sentences like this:

Ruiz even believes it has been his presence as one of the champions that has prevented a unification tournament among the four titleholders, out of fear he might somehow win all the belts yet still not be a pleasing television presence because of his inelegant style

And like this:

Certainly the power brokers will not make it easy for Ruiz to reappear in a high-profile fight or get another title shot any time soon.

I realize this is only tangentially connected to the media. But as a huge boxing fan, I'll get this off my chest and then shut up about it.

Local boy or no, John Ruiz is a completely unwatchable fighter. He makes every fight he participates in worse. He doesn't come to dominate or hurt an opponent, but to eke out some kind of technical win with the ugliest clutch-and-grab style ever seen in the ring. He is the single reason why I stopped buying pay-per-view fights. And there is a good reason why he's involved in so many weird decisions. Virtually incapable of winning a crisp, clean decision, he does his damndest to make sure his opponent can't either by refusing to fight in the open ring. The fact that he's been a top tier heavyweight speaks only to one thing -- the shameful state of boxing in the sport's top weight class.

For a long time, Borges gave him the hometown hero treatment. Now, reality is sinking in. Whether he got jobbed or not, Ruiz is bad for boxing.

12/20/2005 3:40:00 PM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

Media Log recently flagged this Weekly Standard piece about the recent Islamic Society of Boston libel suit against the Boston Herald, Channel 25, and their sources. While I noted that I was not in a position to judge which party was telling more of the truth, I noted that the Standard piece was "completely tilted to one point of view."

That generated a response from its author, Dean Barnett saying:

For what it's worth, I wrote the story in the Standard. In preparing it, I interviewed all of the protagonists or their attorneys and read all of the court documents, including the plaintiff's complaint which, including exhibits, was almost 400 pages.

What was published was no knee-jerk reaction. I assure you that.

First off, I appreciate Dean posting a response and continuing the conversation. I also don't doubt his assertion that he did a significant amount of reporting. My point is that the story sees absolutely no shades of gray and doesn't even allow for the possibility that the ISB and the mosque project might be acceptable.

Here's the nut graph:

But even though this is a story framed by two lawsuits, it is not a tale of legal intricacies or lawyerly hairsplitting. It is, instead, a case study in how the leadership of a large American Islamic group woos and works with politicians, attempts to intimidate its adversaries, and claims to champion moderation--all while keeping company with prominent proponents of hatred and violence.

Here's another simple declarative sentence that says it all:

In short, the ISB's lawsuit is nearly as contemptible as it is ludicrous.

I stand by my original critque.

12/20/2005 2:53:00 PM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

The furor over the New York Times's decision to hold off printing Friday's blockbuster about the administration's use of domestic spying continues to grow as do the theories designed to explain that decision.

Today's L.A. Times indicates the paper debated whether to publish the story before last November's election (when it could have conceivably had a measurable impact), but finally decided to let it rip when they realized that an upcoming book by its reporter James Risen was going to break the news. That's not a very flattering account for the Times.

Meanwhile, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, in a piece highly critical of the White House, reports that Bush himself tried to talk executive editor Bill Keller and publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. out of running the story. That's pretty serious stuff when the leader of the free world is trying to make your page 1 calls.

The big problem for the Times was that this passage in the original story just didn't do much 'splainin':

The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

Keller has subsequently said more, but both the left (which wanted the story out a year ago) and the right (which wanted it spiked) are angry at the Times. Maybe the paper can take comfort in the old saying that if you've got both sides pissed at you, you're doing something right.

Here are a few obervations:

1) Like most people in my profession, my default presumption is that it's the media's job to scrutinize government and the burden is always on the government to prove -- convincingly -- why a story shouldn't be published. The old "national security concerns" chestnut, if used often enough, can turn the press corps into subservient snoozers. And this administration, in particular, should be viewed very skeptically when making those claims.

2) It's not the job of the New York Times's news pages -- or those of any other mainstream media outlet -- to try and influence the outcome of presidential elections. The Times's obligation is to publish important stories when they are ready, not to time news to the election cycle. Those moaning that John Kerry would be in the Oval Office if this story broke last year a) are probably deluding themselves and b) should devote their energies to responding to the story now.

3) Having said that, a year seems like an awfully long time to have this story locked up in the attic. Why should it take the Times that long to do the kind of reporting it took to finish the job? Was the story simply shunted off to the back burner? This was no run-of-the-mill scoop and it should have been the highest priority. (Wouldn't deposed boss Howell Raines have "flooded the zone" on this one?)The Times's behavior and explanation are, at the very least, suspicious.

12/20/2005 11:52:00 AM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

This piece posted on the Weekly Standard web site is about the recent lawsuit filed by the Islamic Society of Boston claiming that the Boston Herald, Channel 25, and their sources conspired to block the construction of a new mosque by falsely linking the ISB to terrorism. The defendants claim the ISB is using the litigation to intimidate folks from asking tough questions about its activities and connections.(See Trial and Terror in the Nov. 18 Boston Phoenix.)

At this point, I don't know nearly enough to make a call on which party has more of the truth and justice on their side. Not surprisingly, however, the Standard piece is completely tilted to one point of view. And you can bet that it's only the beginning of a spate of national publicity as this far-reaching, potentially precedent-setting and incredibly polarizing case unfolds.

12/16/2005 12:00:00 PM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

Last seen stalking off the CNN set in anger, Bob "Prince of Darkness" Novak won't be returning. Here's what CNN had to say today in a terse email:

"After 25 years of serving as a CNN commentator and program host, our colleague Bob Novak's tenure on the network will come to a close (effective 12/31).

Through the years, Bob has offered incisive analysis for much of CNN's programming, including Crossfire, The Capital Gang, Inside Politics, Evans and Novak, The Novak Zone, and Novak, Hunt and Shields. Bob has also been a valued contributor to CNN's political coverage. We appreciate his many contributions and wish him well in future endeavors," said Jon Klein, president of CNN/U.S.

One quick story. Nineteen years ago, when I was a press secretary in a Congressional campaign, my candidate got a chance to go down to Washington to be on "Crossfire" when it was hosted by Novak, and I believe Tom Braden. I was the staffer who was supposed to go along on the trip to help prep my guy to face down the firebreathing, hissing Novak. I was disinclined to go because I absolutely hated to fly and probably hadn't been in a plane in a half dozen years. But I was so fascinated by Novak's evil on-air persona, so interested in seeing him inject his venom into his prey from up close that I mustered up the courage to fly. (With the help of what I recall were four or five screwdrivers downed in the two-hour flight.)

My boss did well on Crossfire. But Novak proved to be kind of a letdown. He just wasn't mean enough to match my youthful expectations.

12/16/2005 11:39:00 AM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

It's official. John Carroll, the recently departed and much respected former L.A. Times editor, will spend a year at Harvard's Shorenstein Center as the first ever Knight Visiting Lecturer. Here's the release:

CAMBRIDGE, MA: Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government has been selected to host the first Knight Visiting Lecturer, a position for distinguished journalists who will study, analyze and comment on the future of journalism in America and around the world.

John S. Carroll, former editor of The Los Angeles Times, has been appointed the inaugural Knight Visiting Lecturer. He will be based within the Kennedy School at the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. The position is funded with a $200,000 grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

The new lectureship will provide distinguished journalists with positions at major universities of their choosing for a year of reflection, research and teaching. The lectureship is intended for highly respected, senior journalists who embody both excellence and the highest ethical standards. Earlier this year, Carroll retired after five years as top editor of The Los Angeles Times, during which the paper won 13 Pulitzer Prizes.

"My topic is an urgent one: nothing less than the fate of journalism," said Carroll. "The economic underpinnings of our craft are eroding. At the same time, the Web is offering rich opportunities for journalism in new forms. And, in the current scramble for market share, the work of the principled journalist is being lost in a din of marketing and propaganda."

"As a matter of public policy, a self-governing nation simply cannot do without real journalism," added Carroll. "As a practical matter, we must find ways to make it pay. These are some of the concerns I intend to explore, urgently and, I hope, realistically, in this new role at Harvard. I couldn't be more grateful for the opportunity."

As Knight Visiting Lecturer, Carroll will spend the spring semester beginning January 2006 doing research. During the year, he will deliver a major address regarding the state of the news media. Carroll has been a strong voice arguing the importance of high quality news reporting as essential to American democracy, and he has been critical of corporations that have demanded excessive profit levels. In the fall semester, he will teach a course at the Kennedy School titled "Journalistic Values in a Time of Upheaval."

"John Carroll stands for everything honorable and fine in journalism," said Alex S. Jones, director of the Shorenstein Center. "We are enormously honored to have him with us as the inaugural Knight Visiting Lecturer, and we salute the vision of Knight Foundation for making it possible."

12/15/2005 2:05:00 PM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

Well, it looks like the Globe is at least toying with its own version of the TimesSelect pay-for-play model, only in this case with sports. This e-mail was sent to an e-panel subscriber who has agreed to test market Globe ideas. Word is that this is simply an embryonic concept being tossed around right now. But it sure is fascinating.


The Boston Globe and Boston.com are considering launching a special online section called Sportsplus in early 2006. Sportsplus would be the essential resource for news, opinions and discussion about New England's sports teams, produced daily by the country's best sports writers.
Would potentially include:

a) Daily columns by Bob Ryan, Dan Shaughnessy, Jackie MacMullan or other Boston Globe sports columnists
b) Sports feature stories, pre-game and post-game analysis
c) Sports articles from opposing teams' newspaper web sites
d) Daily Blogs such as Reiss's Pieces, Extra Bases and Net Minders
e) Game-time Blog by Boston Globe reporter
f) Blogs by players and managers
g) Opportunities to submit questions and comments directly to Globe sports writers h) Monthly online chats with sports writers from The Boston Globe
i) MP3 recordings of live interviews
j) An email that alerts you about the subjects of new articles
k) A scrolling banner on the Sportsplus home page that highlights key articles or breaking news
l) Access to archived articles from The Boston Globe, including organized collections of articles
m) Access to archived photos from The Boston Globe, and the ability to create your own photo gallery, screen saver or electronic greeting card
n) Poll other subscribers on subjects chosen by you
o) Opportunities to attend live interviews of players, coaches and managers
p) Opportunities to attend live player panel discussions
q) Opportunities to be in the audience during NESN broadcast tapings
r) Venues for subscribers to meet at games

If this potential product were launched, the exclusive content and access provided through Sportsplus would be available for free to those who subscribe to The Boston Globe printed newspaper. Others could subscribe to Sportsplus for a low monthly or annual fee. Those who do not subscribe to The Boston Globe printed newspaper or the Sportsplus section of Boston.com would no longer have access to Boston Globe sports columnists or the other benefits noted in the previous question through the main Boston.com web site. Based on a fee of $5.95 per month, or $49.95 per year for access to Sportsplus, what would you do?
--------------------------------------------------------------------

A couple of interesting options here that catch the eye.
1) Blogs by players and managers.
2) Opportunities to attend live interviews of players, coaches and managers.
3) Opportunities to be in the audience during NESN broadcast tapings.

In principle, I'm all for media organizations figuring a way to make money online before too many more newsroom jobs get slashed. But with some of these options, we're talking real synergy between the media company and the baseball team in which it has an ownership stake. I'm sure Curt Schilling will have no problems with his blog, but what about Keith Foulke?

12/15/2005 11:32:00 AM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

Afer word that the company might be bowing to pressure from anti-gay groups ("Ford Buckles" in 12/6 "Media Log") the company seems to have clarified its position on advertising policy to the satisfaction of gay and lesbian organizations. See statement below:

In a statement released today, Ford reaffirmed its commitment to its progressive workplace policies, said it would place corporate advertising in LGBT publications on behalf of all of its brands, including Jaguar and Land Rover, and would continue financial support for LGBT organizations and events consistent with its business condition. In response, a broad coalition of LGBT organizations issued a statement commending Ford for its actions (the statement appears below).

Statement by Matt Foreman, Executive Director
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

"We applaud Ford Motor for taking such a firm stand on behalf of our community - pledging to continue support for our community's organizations and events, and increasing - not decreasing - its advertising in our community's publications to include all Ford brands. This is a very positive, welcome outcome."

Coalition Statement

"We welcome today's statement from Ford Motor Company and commend their firm stance in support of inclusion. It is an unequivocal reaffirmation of Ford's historic commitment to our community and the core American values of fairness and equality. Moreover, it is conclusive proof of what Ford leaders have repeatedly assured us - that there never was any deal with anti-LGBT organizations concerning Ford's support for our community.

We are proud to be back in gear with Ford and look forward to working with them in the years ahead."

12/15/2005 10:37:00 AM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

Here's the official press release on the management moves at the Globe. Mary Jacobus becomes the Globe's president and GM, and Rick Daniels, who has that title now, becomes president of Boston Globe Media.

------------------------------------------------------------
Dec. 13, 2005--The publisher of The Boston Globe, Richard Gilman, today announced the formation of Boston Globe Media and named two veteran newspaper executives, Richard J. Daniels and Mary Jacobus, to new posts as part of a restructuring aimed at maximizing the potential and the deep market coverage of properties owned by The New York Times Company in New England.

Daniels, currently president and general manager of the Globe, is being promoted to the newly created position of president, Boston Globe Media. He will have responsibility for enhancing strategic initiatives and business development at the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, the Globe's direct mail subsidiary Globe Specialty Products, the Globe's joint venture with Metro Boston, and The New York Times Company's investment in New England Sports Ventures.

Daniels, a 23-year-veteran of the Globe, will also develop new products aimed at enhancing the position of the Globe's media portfolio in New England.

Gilman simultaneously appointed Jacobus as the Globe's new president and general manager. Prior to joining the Globe she was president and CEO of Fort Wayne Newspapers, Inc., and publisher of the Knight Ridder-owned News-Sentinel, both located in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Jacobus, who has a broad-based newspaper background in marketing, advertising and circulation, will oversee all day-to-day operations at the Boston Globe. She and Daniels will work together to build further synergies among all of The New York Times Company properties in New England which also include Boston.com.


Both Daniels and Jacobus will report to Gilman.
------------------------------------------------------------

Hard to interpret all the official-ese. But clearly the mother ship would like to see better numbers out of New England. The following is an excerpt from New York Times Co. CEO Janet Robinson's Dec. 7 presentation at a media week conference:

The New England Media Group includes The Boston Globe, the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, Boston.com and Globe Specialty Products, a direct mail business. Together with the Company's investments in Metro Boston and the Boston Red Sox, which includes the New England Sports Network that broadcasts the Red Sox games, our New England properties reach 70 percent of the households in metropolitan Boston.

Through November, the performance for the New England Media Group continues to reflect consolidation among advertisers in the mobile phone, financial and retail sectors. Advertising revenues are down 3 percent as key categories such as telecommunications, banking, department store, and automotive have decreased.

With regard to circulation, revenues at the New England Media Group have declined 5.5 percent through November.

12/13/2005 2:33:00 PM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

According to this story in the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel, (that was just posed on Poynter), that paper's publisher Mary Jacobus will become president and general manager of The Boston Globe on Jan 9. We're trying to find out what all this means for current president and GM Rick Daniels and the Globe in general. More details when available.

12/13/2005 1:11:00 PM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

This new report from the Committee to Protect Journalists notes that China and Cuba are the biggest offenders among the nations who are currently imprisoning 125 journalists around the globe. According to the CPJ, five of them are in U.S. custody, four in Iraq and one at Quantanamo Bay.

12/13/2005 12:48:00 PM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

Number one, I don't believe this is part of some corporate conspiracy because the Globe's parent, the New York Times Co., is a part-owner of the team. Number two, I'm not trying to take any of the steam out of one simmering hot stove season.

But why is the perfunctory press conference announcing the completely anticipated appointment of Sox co-GM's Ben Cherington and Jed Hoyer, (even with a hint that Theo Epstein may return) the dominant feature of the front page of a major newspaper with national and international ambitions? And yes, given the above-the-fold play and the large photo, it does dominate the page.

Seems to me that this story belonged on the Sports front with a front-page teaser. When the public turns on the media -- as was the case in the infamous Theo Epstein divorce from the Sox earlier this off-season -- journalists seem perplexed at passions run amok among the fandom. But sometimes the press is guilty of overhyped and disproportionate coverage of the team. And this is one such case.

12/13/2005 11:17:00 AM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

The New Yorker's Ken Auletta has quite the takeout on the questions swirling around Arthur Sulzberger Jr.'s stewardship of both the New York Times Co. and its flagship newspaper. It's a terrifically reported piece and one that seems to be trying to make the case that even in his mid-50's, Sulzberger is too unseasoned and undisciplined for the role. But Auletta pulls his punch a bit at the end, essentially taking a pass on whether "Arthur" will or should be cashiered.

1) There are some real nuggets seeded throughout the piece that bear repeating. Here's a telling excerpt from a meeting between New York Times and Time Inc. officials to strategize over how to respond to Patrick Fitzgerald's demand that reporters such as Judith Miller and Matt Cooper testify about confidential sources:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sulzberger began by saying, "We need people to understand what this means. We need passion." Bridges asked whether the audience was the courts, the public, or the special counsel. "Everyone," Sulzberger responded. He talked about holding joint press conferences, and mounting an advertising campaign. Then, with Miller taking notes, Sulzberger pulled from an envelope a bunch of small white buttons with writing in red, blue, and black -- "Free Judy. Free Matt. Free Speech" -- and passed them around. Nearly a year later, senior executives at Time Inc. still shake their heads when recounting this story. "He wanted to do the right thing, but he seemed naive," one executive said. "He was earnest, and he was admirable," Judith Miller said.


2) Here'a another passage in which Miller's attorney, Robert Bennett, suggests that Sulzberger's knee-jerk desire to turn Miller's situation into a First Amendment battle may have been hasty, dangerous, and detrimental to the paper:


In retrospect, it seems that neither Keller nor Sulzberger asked enough questions about Miller's interaction with her source, Vice-President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, or with her editors. The Supreme Court declined to review the Appeals Court ruling, and, three days later, Norman Pearlstine complied with a subpoena to turn over Time Inc.'s e-mails and records; in July, Cooper said that his source had released him from any confidentiality pledge, and he appeared before the grand jury. Sulzberger said that he was "deeply disappointed" in the Time decision; Miller, still refusing to testify, with Sulzberger's continuing support, was ordered to report to the Alexandria Detention Center, in northern Virginia, until she testified, or until the term of the grand jury expired, in late October.


In Robert Bennett's view, Sulzberger caused problems for his client. "I don't know what advice he got from his lawyers, but he was very gung-ho," Bennett said of Sulzberger. "He was pushing Judy" to not bend on principle. "When I raised issues," 'Shouldn't we check on the waiver thing?'" that is, on whether Libby genuinely had no objection to Miller's revealing her source, "they were resistant to raising that issue." Bennett was astonished that Keller and Sulzberger had not inspected Miller's notebook. He said, "How could the Times have embarked on this venture without knowing all of the facts?" Floyd Abrams, the newspaper's attorney, rejects the suggestion that he and the Times and Miller were swept up by a righteous stand on behalf of an abstract principle; he said that he had briefed Keller and Sulzberger on the notebook's contents. "The first time I met Judy on this case, the first thing she said was 'Somebody has to fight back against Fitzgerald,' " Abrams said. "I'm not trying to escape responsibility, but Judy was a very active client. It seems to me that if you don't continually ask, 'What is the principle you're trying to establish?,' there is nothing left to defend." Miller's legal fees eventually cost the company about $1.5 million, a senior official said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I've met Sulzberger briefly, spoken to him on a few occasions, seen him speak in public, and as an ex-Globe employee, was the recepient of a number of company-wide emails from "Arthur." My quickie version of the Gail Sheehy psychobabble is that Sulzberger is trapped somewhere between genuine 60's idealism and the hard realities of running a powerful media company in an era of sweeping technological change and incessant shareholder demands. That's a tough combo. It's also fair to hold him responsible for the huge error of selecting Howell Raines to run the Times and for his ham-handed handling of the Judy Miller case in which she went from martyr to outcast in record time.

I'm not smart enough about business to know if he's really to blame for the floundering stock price. But if anything's likely to do him in eventually, that's probably it.

12/13/2005 10:11:00 AM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

Because we were recently experimenting with some editing functions on Media Blog, a number of posts were accidentally stacked up like planes over Logan Airport waiting an inordinately long time to land. It won't happen again. (Or so I've been assured.) Posts will appear in real time. My bad.

12/12/2005 5:37:00 PM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

On his new blog, Globe ombudsman Richard Chacon has come up with his own list of Globe buyout takers who have given consent to have their names published. He's got 23 out of the 31 departees (including all those I had previously mentioned) and the list follows:


Bill Boles, library associate
Maureen Dezell, arts reporter
Richard Dyer, classical music critic
Anthony Flint, metro reporter
Wendy Fox, travel editor
Renee Graham, pop culture reporter
Bill Griffith, sports TV reporter
Ron Indrisano, horse racing reporter
Nick King, op-ed page editor
Tom Landers, photographer
Tom Long, obituary writer
Maureen McCafferty, Living/Arts administrative assistant
Steve Morse, rock music critic
Margaret Murray, Foreign desk administrative assistant
Tom Oliphant, op-ed columnist
Marvin Pave, sports reporter
Judy Rakowsky, assistant metro editor
Tatsha Robertson, national reporter
Ed Siegel, theater critic
Charles Stein, economics reporter
Carol Stocker, gardening columnist
Jack Thomas, Living/Arts reporter (and a former ombudsman)
Susan Trausch, editorial writer

12/12/2005 2:19:00 PM by MJ | Comments [1] |  

Just in case you missed the most recent installment of "As the Plamegate turns," here's Time reporter (now on leave of absence) Viveca Novak's account of her suddenly important chats with Karl Rove's attorney Robert Luskin.

Here's another Time piece on where the Novak piece of the puzzle might fit in the Fitzgerald investigation.

Does all this mean Rove is closer to an indictment? You got me. But one thing this whole saga certainly proves -- and this applies to Novak, Bob Woodward, and Judith Miller -- is that the editor is always the last to know.

In light of this, I can see a new clause being inserted into newsroom ethics policies everywhere. "Henceforth, any staffer who has tangential or direct involvement in any story that is the subject of an ongoing investigation or grand jury proceeding in a local, state or federal jurisdiction must report that involvement to a senior manager or immediate supervisor forthwith."

12/12/2005 1:21:00 PM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

It's official. Peter "Pete" Bouchard (when your name is Peter, does Pete really count as a nickname?) takes over chief weather duties from the suddenly departed Todd Gross at Channel 7. Here's a piece of the release:

-------------------------------------------------------------
BOSTON, MA Monday, December 12, 2005. WHDH-TV 7NEWS announced today that Meteorologist Peter (Pete) Bouchard has been promoted to 7NEWS Chief Meteorologist effective immediately. As 7NEWS Chief Meteorologist, Pete will oversee the operation of the 7NEWS Weather Department and will be the meteorologist on all 7NEWS newscasts 4:00PM through 6:00PM as well as "7NEWS at 11."


Pete graduated from Lyndon State College in Vermont in 1992. After landing a part time job in Portland, Maine he headed to Bangor for a two year stint at WVII-TV, where he learned the ropes of the television business and was awarded his AMS Seal. He made another stop in Portland before taking the weekend meteorologist job at WFXT-TV here in Boston. Then it was back to Portland for four years to work for another FOX affiliate, before joining 7NEWS in the summer of 2002.

--------------------------------------------------------------

12/12/2005 12:38:00 PM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

The Project For Excellence in Journalism has a new study out today examining the content of three of these new compact commuter tabloids that are published -- or co-owned -- by big mainstream newspaper companies. They are the Boston Metro, in which the New York Times Co. has a 49 percent stake, the Express published by the Washington Post Co., and the Dallas Quick, published by the owners of the Dallas Morning News.

The study compared those papers -- which contain easy reading digests of the news and are largely aimed at younger people who don't necessarily read traditional dailes -- to the Boston Globe, Washington Post and Dallas Morning News. (For a look at the strange and secretive Metro culture in Boston, see "Echo Chamber" in the Oct. 28 Boston Phoenix.)

These new urban commuter tabs are being churned out largely because of the mainstream media's desperation to appeal to the coveted 18-34 demographic and time-pressed readers. None of them are going to be winning Pulitzer prizes soon. But if you look around Boston, you'll see a lot of T-riders thumbing through the Metro.

Here are several notable findings:

1) The tabloids aren't very local-- only 22 percent of their stories dealt with the home community.

2) The tabloids do very little of their own reporting -- only 17 percent of the stories came from original reporting while 72 percent were ripped from wire services.

3) There isn't much sourcing in the tab stories -- 56 percent of them contained one or zero sources.

4) The PEJ also found that despite the youthful orientation of these new papers, only 16 percent of the stories were actually written about people in the coveted 18-35 demographic, and most of those subjects were celebrities ala Jessica Simpson. Amy Mitchell, associate director of the PEJ, says that what appeals to young readers is not the content, but "the look and format." Translation: They like a paper they can read from cover to cover in the time it takes to get from Park Street to Coolidge Corner on the Green Line.

Still, for all the lack of traditional journalistic nutrients in the new tabs, Mitchell says they have some value. They're better than not reading anything.

"They are....able to offer people in 20 minutes...a general basic read of what's happened, but in a pretty broad-based way," she says. "I think there is a lot lost in terms of depth of information. At the same time, if you're reading that instead of nothing, you're better off than you were before."

12/12/2005 11:18:00 AM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

It's clearly a David v. Goliath story. But I'm rooting for Mike Felger's afternoon drive show on ESPN radio 890-AM to make life at least a tad uncomfortable for WEEI's powerful "Big Show," where he used to be a frequent, and oft-abused, guest.

Felger's reasonably enlightened politics, appeciation of The Grateful Dead, and willingness to buck the conventional sports wisdom that congeals on the WEEI airwaves, makes him a nice alternative to the local sports talk culture. I've been listening to his shows -- which still need better pacing, sound and professionalism -- and hoping he succeeds if for no other reason than 'EEI could use a local competitor.

12/8/2005 1:59:00 PM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

You've got to feel a little sorry for the NBC folks. They have a telephone press conference today to celebrate "Today's" 10 straight years atop the morning news ratings, and you know every reporter only wants to ask Katie Couric about the stories that CBS is willing to break the bank to make her the next nightly news anchor.

The New York Observer is reporting that "the dollar figure it would take to get Ms. Couric to take over for fill-in anchor Bob Schieffer is rumored to be around $20 million a year, with a contract length of seven years." (My God, that's A-Rod and Manny kind of money.)

So before the Q&A even starts Couric says: "In terms of my own future...I just thought I'd say off the bat that my contract ends in May and I'm trying to figure out what I'm going to do...There really is nothing to announce and nothing to report."

Fair enough. But then, of course, the second question is about the possibility that Couric will be leaving NBC. "I think I answered that question at the top of the call," she says icily. "I'm not discussing this."

For those sifting through the tea leaves for hints of Katie's intentions, there wasn't much this morning. But maybe conspiracy theorists could take her admission that "sometimes I think we did Laci Peterson or Michael Jackson ad nauseum" on the "Today" show as perhaps an attempt to burnish her serious news credentials.

12/8/2005 12:48:00 PM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

As the body counts and casualty reports continue to roll in from newsrooms across America, it's important to keep in mind what the real culprit is in all this newspaper downsizing. So here are two worthwhile excerpts in today's
New York Times piece on the bidding for newspaper giant Knight Ridder.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Of Knight Ridder's 32 daily newspapers, only four - one in San Jose, Calif.; one in St. Paul; and two in Philadelphia - have profit margins lower than 18 percent, according to an analysis by Morgan Stanley. Most of them are thriving. The Kansas City Star's estimated profit margin for this year is 24 percent. The Miami Herald's is 22 percent. The smaller papers averaged more than 26 percent.

Over all, Knight Ridder's profit margin in 2004 was 19.3 percent, about average for the industry. The average for Fortune 500 companies was about half that. But newspapers have traditionally had high margins, and so investors expect higher margins, said Conrad Fink, who teaches newspaper management at the University of Georgia. "The rising tide of shareholder expectation has reached unreasonable proportions," he said. "And the market is panicked about newspaper stock in an unreasonable way."

Professor Fink added: "There's a fear that this is a dying industry, when in fact it's an industry that has an unrivaled mandate, a franchise, in hundreds of cities across the country and in local news, and it has some of the strongest brand names in the country."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

12/8/2005 10:08:00 AM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

This American Journalism Review story posted on the Poynter web site, raises a fascinating issue. It is reporters' increasing reliance on email -- rather than telephone or face-to-face -- interviews.

As someone who finds himself increasingly conducting email interviews, usually at the subject's request, there can be no doubt that they are convenient, time-saving and do provide a more accurate record of what was said than a verbal conversation. Obviously, as a method of providing backup documentation and information, they are extremely effective.

But given my druthers, I still prefer the old-fashioned chat, simply because emails do eliminate much of the spontaneous, human interaction that not only make for better stories, but allow the journalist to get a better sense of the subject's crediblity, motives, and demeanor.

For example, in recently working on a story about a young woman who'd been forced to resign from a newspaper, the first challenge was to assess the journalist's bona fides, truthfulness, and to some extent, her character. That first involved a lengthy phone call and then a two-hour face-to-face meeting. An email exchange would never have done the trick.

On another occasion recently, a story subject emailed an on-the-record response to some questions that was actually intended for his lawyer and reached me by accident. At his lawyer's behest, I gave him a mulligan and allowed him to resend me his answers. The second version was different than the first -- not dramatically, but noticeably. There's no escaping the fact that email interviews allow for prepared, prepped, and polished answers.

These days, college journalism students working on papers and projects are increasingly inclined to send an email with a number of questions seeking written responses. In those cases, I have a hard and fast rule. No email interviews, only by phone.

While I appreciate that emails are the new technology, these future journalists need to learn basic interviewing skills, not simply how to send emails. Instead of having to take notes, transcribe them, and then figure out how to use the information, these young email interviewers can simply cut and paste responses right into their work.

That's just making things too easy. And it's not good journalism.

12/7/2005 11:13:00 AM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

Speaking at Harvard University Monday night along with his old colleague Carl Bernstein, Bob Woodward told the audience they could contact or email him at the Washington Post newsroom. (More about the Watergate duo's Cambridge appearance in tomorrow's Boston Phoenix.) Good luck. Everyone knows that at this point, Woodward is bascially a Post employee in name only.

Here is an excerpt from a story in The New York Observer in which Post executive editor Leonard Downie Jr., a straight arrow and straight shooter, candidly admits that communication with Woodward can be difficult.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Asked to explain why he'd been out of touch, Mr. Downie replied, "Because he's a rich man, who has an entire floor of his house as his office, and he has a staff of his own working for him. He doesn't come into the office so much. We have to take the initiative to talk to each other."

Mr. Woodward has no direct editorial oversight at The Post. And despite his title, Mr. Woodward hasn't edited a story for the paper in years, Mr. Downie said. He writes for the paper when he wants. When he's pursuing a book project, he discusses some of the content with Mr. Downie.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Given the embarassment Woodward caused the Post by not informing his editors of his 2003 conversation with a government official about Valerie Plame, isn't it time for the Post to give him a title like "Investigative Reporter Emeritus" and stop pretending he works for the paper? It's a pretty cynical relationship.

Imagine someone in your office who works at home, spends almost all his time on his own ventures, has vital information that could help your company but often doesn't share it, and yet is considered a top executive with the perks and privileges of power. Doesn't seem right.

12/7/2005 10:32:00 AM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

One would hope otherwise, but this may be a case of Ford caving to pressure from the anti-gay activists in its media advertising strategy.
Some day, not too far down the road, I believe this nonsense will be a thing of the past.

12/6/2005 5:06:00 PM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

First and foremost, here's an interview that Channel 7's just-departed meteorologist Todd Gross did with Max Preston of Boston TV News. There's not much new here and Gross seems very guarded.

But one of the responses to the earlier Media Log entry "7 Mostly Mum on Gross" raises a serious ethical issue. One anonymous poster stated - as a fact -- that Gross had some poor work habits and then repeated a vague but disparaging rumor about him. That made me a bit queasy. In theory, the mystery poster could be an insider with real knowledge of Gross and valuable information. But he could also be someone with no legitimate info who is just out to pile on and bash.

If I were writing a story about Gross and had spoken to the source making the accusations, I'd a) have to use my judgment about the source's credibility and motives and b) then convince my editors to go along with such an anonymous attack on Gross. But here in the blogosphere, it's just unvetted information that may actually be on the money or just plain mean-sprited. There's no way of knowing. And there's no easy solution.

I'm certainly not going to put a prohibition on anonymous posts and I want to keep the flow of new and accurate information going. That's what a blog is for, and I've already gotten some crucial tips here. But here's a suggestion. If someone is going to offer information - purporting to be fact rather than opinion -- about someone or some subject, it'd be nice for that poster to describe, without revealing his or her identity, how they would come by such knowledge. In this case, the poster could have written "I once worked with Todd Gross" or "I have friends at WHDH" or something along those lines. I realize this is miles from foolproof and people can simply make up stuff. But for now, I can't think of anything better.

P.S. -- For the record, I ended up deleting the anonymous post about Gross under the standard that if we wouldn't publish something as a letter to the editor, we won't accept it as a post.

12/6/2005 2:05:00 PM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

Richard Prince breaks the news in his column that former Globe national editor Ken Cooper is leaving the paper (scroll down to second item) after his department was essentially disbanded in the latest round of company-mandated cutbacks. Unfortunately, I guess that comes as no surprise.

According to Prince's piece, Cooper was offered other positions at the Globe, but not the one he wanted which was the job of op-ed columnist. I've known Ken for almost 20 years, when I was a press secretary in a Congressional race that he was covering for the Globe. (In that race, he was the reporter least likely to play favorites or make a mistake in his stories.) He was a committed, serious journalist with a no-nonsense approach -- who was not afraid to occasionally ruffle feathers -- who will be missed. This is a loss for the Globe, both diversity-wise and journalistically.

12/6/2005 9:23:00 AM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

This is the first, but surely not the last casualty of the Village Voice/New Times merger. Bye, bye Don Forst, former editor of the old pre-Murdoch Boston Herald and Boston magazine.

12/5/2005 5:00:00 PM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

Channel 7 spokeswoman Ginny Lund does confirm that after 21 years at the station, meteorologist Todd Gross "is no longer on our air" and that his last broadcast was Thursday. But when asked for an explanation, Lund responded that "I can't comment on personnel matters." She did say that for now, Pete Bouchard would be taking over for Gross during the 4 and 11 o'clock newscasts.

And before anyone pooh-poohs the importance of the man or woman standing in front of the TV weather map, read this tidbit from a story I wrote a few years ago.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Not surprising, a 1998 RTNDA survey found that weather was the leading local news draw: Nearly three out of four local TV news watchers said they were very interested in the weather segment, compared to only 31 percent who felt the same way about sports."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

For my money, Gross had the right kind of on-air weather persona -- a dash of nerdiness, a genuine excitement about moving air masses, and a certain sense of authority. I certainly liked him better than CBS4's recently departed Ed Carroll.

12/5/2005 3:41:00 PM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

ABC has just revealed its post-Peter Jennings anchor team. Richard Prince notes the diversity implications of the Vargas pick.

The team approach hasn't been a big winner in network newscasts, but I think ABC's smart to give it a shot.

12/5/2005 12:17:00 PM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

Thank God Media Log never sleeps, even when its author does. This posting on the blog from an anonymous source about the sudden departure of veteran Channel 7 meteorologist Todd Gross seems to match other reports currently circulating. We're trying to get more information.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Word is that Todd Gross has been fired at WHDH. His bio is suddenly missing from their web site. He was briefly on the air Friday evening, then suddenly replaced by Terry Casey."

12/5/2005 9:50:00 AM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

When I wrote about television for the Globe, my least favorite story was covering the results of the local news ratings wars in the so-called "sweeps" months. According to the spin put out by the stations, no one ever lost a sweeps battle. Ever.

If Station A had a larger audience for a particular newscast, Station B was quick to point out that it performed better in that vital demographic of left-handed people wearing bifocals. If Station C did the best during the crucial 11 o'clock newscast, Station A was quick to point out that it was only because Station C's network had a better prime time lead-in, and that Station A actually retained 52 percent of its prime-time audience during its late newscast compared to only 48 percent for Station C.

It was enough to drive one nuts. And it usually did.

So why do I feel a strange compulsion to write about the results of Boston's November sweeps? Force of habit, maybe?

Anyway, no real stunners on the local news scene, which isn't surprising given that viewing behavior tends to change at a glacial pace.

WCVB-TV (Channel 5) dominates during most of the day, losing only at noon and narrowly at 11 o'clock. WHDH-TV (Channel 7) maintains a small lead for the late newscast. And CBS4 is still struggling and coming in a fairly distant third at 11 o'clock.

One station with a story to tell (and you know because they were aggressive in putting out a release on the ratings) is WFXT-TV (Channel 25), which is clearly winning the 10 p.m. news wars and has doubled the ratings of its morning news show in the past year. They're doing something right over there.

12/2/2005 1:05:00 PM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

I'm trying to put my bias against the chatty, chuckling, news-lite network morning shows aside. But this LA Times story reporting that CBS is seriously trying to land Katie Couric as its new post-Rather nightly news anchor seems to be a classic example of the Steinbrennerian (as in George) approach to filling needs. Couric might be the highest-priced marquee name out there and her hiring by CBS would have the nation's TV scribes chopping down whole forests to discuss the "coup." But my gut says she's not the answer in the evening.

But then maybe I'm guilty of a lack of imagination. Other opinions?

12/2/2005 11:43:00 AM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

Well it doesn't look like the issue of the U.S. military's pay-for-play journalism in Iraq is going away yet. Republican Senator John Warner (not exactly your squishy, idealistic bleeding heart liberal) is asking the Pentagon to explain itself.

Here too is a partial transcript of yesterday's White House press briefing in which Scott McClellan seems to be thinking about trying to say that this is a bad idea.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we've seen the reports. We first learned about it when we saw the reports yesterday, I think in the Los Angeles Times was the first place that that was reported. We are very concerned about the reports. We have asked the Department of Defense for more information. General Pace has asked people to look into the matter and get the facts, and so we want to see what those facts are.

Q Well, the military has admitted that they've been doing it. Does the White House find that acceptable, unacceptable?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, what the Pentagon has said is that they don't have all the facts; they want to gather the facts and then talk about it further. We want to know what those facts are, too. We are very concerned about the reports that we have seen.

Q So this is a bit of a hypothetical, but should it be determined that, in fact, they have been doing this, would the President find that acceptable --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to engage in a hypothetical. Let's find out what those facts are.

Q Well, then what is the basis of your concern?

MR. McCLELLAN: The reports that we've seen -- the media reports.

Q But if you're concerned, that suggests that you would not approve of this.

MR. McCLELLAN: That's why we asked the Department of Defense to look into this. And we're seeking more information. I know that the Pentagon is seeking more information, as well. General Pace said he didn't know what the facts were -- he was asked about it just last night on a news program, and he said that he had just learned about it, as well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

And you wonder why White House reporters are looking for early retirement?

12/2/2005 10:14:00 AM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

The Globe's Steve Bailey has more today on possible suitors for Herald Media Inc. His column includes the suggestion that the Herald be remade into a daily business newspaper, but I don't know that Boston is big enough to support that option. And that conveniently ignores the existence of the weekly Boston Business Journal which has been doing that job for quite some time, thank you.

12/2/2005 9:56:00 AM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

With all the criticsm being heaped on Bob Woodward for his belated Plamegate revelations (See "From watchdog to lap dog") in this week's Phoenix, it seems only
fair to offer up an opposing view.

This one, coming from longtime Woodward friend and National Journal columnist William Powers, makes the case for some unseemly media envy toward Woodward. It makes some good points, but falls short of being convincing in my book.

12/2/2005 9:44:00 AM by MJ | Comments [0] |  

Dan Kennedy's blog, picking up an item from PE Week Wire, has the latest on the apparently determined efforts to sell the Boston Herald and Herald Media Inc.

Whatever one's view of the Herald (and let's forget the CNC papers for a minute), Boston will be lucky if the paper is alive, recognizable, and staffed even at its current level a year from now. These days, it seems, nobody buys a paper to build it up or infuse it with resources.

12/1/2005 1:19:00 PM by MJ | Comments [0] |