This should give Howard plenty to shout about. (Earlier in the day, he held his own pre-emptive press conference.)

Text of the CBS release below:

"CBS Radio today announced that it has filed suit against Howard Stern, his company One Twelve, Inc, his agent Don Buchwald, his agent’s firm Don Buchwald & Associates, Inc. and Sirius Satellite Radio, In

The lawsuit is for compensatory and punitive damages for multiple breaches of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, and misappropriation of CBS Radio’s broadcast time. It further seeks damages from Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc. for unfair competition and tortious interference with Stern’s CBS contract."

The 43-page complaint charges:  

·        Howard Stern repeatedly and willfully breached his written contract with CBS Radio over the last 22 months of that contract, misappropriated millions of dollars worth of CBS Radio airtime for his own financial benefit, and fraudulently concealed his interest in hundreds of millions of dollars of Sirius stock while promoting it on the air.

·        That on or about January 9, 2006, Sirius paid over 34 million shares of stock, valued at approximately $220 million, to Stern and his agent because Sirius exceeded by the end of 2005 certain subscriber targets that were set in the Sirius-Stern contract.  The complaint alleges that the Sirius-Stern contract provided that Stern was to receive this stock payment in 2010, but it had an acceleration provision that allowed Stern to receive the compensation as early as January 2006 if these subscriber targets were met.  All of Stern’s actions for which he received this expedited compensation occurred during the time that Stern was under exclusive contract with CBS Radio, when the Sirius payment terms to Stern were kept secret. 

·        This contract thus provided a compelling incentive for Stern to do all that he could to help Sirius reach the subscriber targets by the end of 2005 so that he could receive his Sirius stock payment as soon as possible while Sirius’s stock was extremely valuable.  Without the accelerated payment, Stern would risk the decline of the Sirius stock value.  By taking action on CBS Radio’s airtime in 2004 and 2005, Stern assured himself of immediate access to $200 million in assets that could be readily converted to cash.

·        By engaging in continuous promotion of Sirius on CBS Radio airtime without any payment by Sirius to CBS for these advertisements and by pocketing over $200 million dollars for his personal benefit, Stern misappropriated millions of dollars worth of CBS Radio airtime for his own financial benefit and the financial benefit of Don Buchwald, his agent, and Sirius in contravention of repeated directives by CBS Radio.

·        That Stern also breached his contractual obligation to inform CBS Radio of plans that might have a bearing on his future. Under the Agreement, Stern had the obligation to give CBS Radio the first opportunity to discuss participation in radio projects that are conceived during the term of the Agreement, even if the concept or project was launched or implemented after the term. Stern ignored that responsibility, and negotiated and concluded his agreement with Sirius in secret.

·        To this day, Stern continues to breach his contract by refusing to return property that belongs to CBS Radio – the recordings of his CBS radio program that, under his Agreement with CBS Radio, belong to the company.

There's been a Jane Christo sighting, of sorts. Since she resigned in October 2004 during a roiling management scandal after 25 years at the helm of WBUR, Christo -- who is credited with the programming brilliance that turned WBUR into a major NPR flagship and faulted for her autocratic stewardship of an unhappy, turbulent workplace -- has laid pretty low.

But now on the Web page for the Edward R. Murrow Center at Tufts Fletcher School is this little blurb about the former WBUR GM:   

Ms. Christo is developing programs with the Fletcher School’s Edward R. Murrow Center for journalists reporting in fledgling democracies and areas of crisis.  

Christo tells Media Log that the Tufts gig is really an extensive of a program she initiated at WBUR to train foreign journalists -- largely from the Middle East and the Balkans. "I've more or less taken this program to the Fletcher School," she says. "It's something I have a great deal of passion for."

 This is by no means a second career for Christo, who is still looking around for a post-WBUR gig. When I spoke to her, she at first seemed unaware that Tufts had even officially announced the project.

Sure, all the tributes to the late Don Knotts  pay understandable homage to his memorably bumbling Barney Fife role in the classic TV comedy, The Andy Griffith Show, which is still viewable every night at nine o'clock on TV Land.

But has there really been enough discussion of his nuanced, subtle performance as the swinging, ascot-garbed Mr. Furley in the classic 70's and 80's jiggle sitcom Three's Company?  Knotts, of course, replaced the far more bilious Norman Fell in that crucial nosey landlord role. Let's give credit where credit is due.

Tuesday's Media Log post --  "Labor Pains at the Globe" -- contains a number that has been a bit of a bone of contention. A Feb. 7 letter written by the Guild to Globe publisher Richard Gilman complaining about company labor practices cites a bonus of $1.55 million that the publisher received in shares and stock options -- a number published in a February 2006 Boston Magazine story on the Globe.

Globe spokesman Al Larkin responded by saying that what was characterized as a bonus is "actually part of an executive compensation plan" and he put the actual compensation figure at about one third of the $1.55 million cited.

So here, in an attempt to shed some light on the dispute, is the relevant SEC filing. You may want an accountant standing by.

Congratulations to the Associated Press for a legal victory that forces the government to lift part of the veil of secrecy at Gitmo.

I'm as willing as anyone to rant about the cable news networks' willingness to replay one piece of attention-getting video ad infinitum. But in this case I can't get enough.

I don't know how many of you have seen the clip of Jason McElwain, aka J-Mac -- the autistic senior student and team manager who got into his last high school basketball home game and scored 20 freakin' points in four minutes, mostly by burying six long-range three pointers. To say he was "in the zone" is a pathetic understatement.  The scene of the students rushing out of the gym seats to hoist him on their shoulders is something straight out of a Ronnie Howard  movie. It's literally too good to be true.

J-Mac is getting his deserved share of media attention. He and his coach were interviewed on CNN's "American Morning" this morning. (I'll post the transcript when available.) And if you happen to catch the video when you're channel surfing, make sure you watch it.

It'll stay with you for a while.

P.S -- Here, we just found a link to the video.

Not that he didn't deserve this. But when Oprah "Freys" you, you stay fried.

I'm a couple of days late picking up on this, so I apologize. But CBS's "Public Eye"  online feature, which performs an ombudsman-like function for the network, had this post from the network's well regarded Pentagon correspondent David Martin explaining why, at the request of the military, he spiked a story about how the U.S. was trying to counteract the impact of IED's in Iraq.

You can agree or disagree with his reasoning -- and Martin makes it clear it was no easy call. But this is an enlightening case in that:

a) it effectively refutes the charge from some quarters that media outlets are always in a rush to publish and broadcast in wartime without regard for the impact on our troops.

b) it reinforces the idea that media outlets are constantly self-censoring for a variety of reasons without people screaming bloody murder about violating the sanctity of the First Amendment.

Folks of a certain age, me included, may remember "Candlepins for Cash" --  a pretty entertaining bowling game show first hosted by sportscaster and former New York Yankee announcer Bob Gamere and then former Red Sox star Rico Petrocelli -- that ran on Channel 7 from 1975-1982 and then on Channel 25 from 1982-1983.

 There was also a candlepin bowling show hosted by Don Gilllis on Channel 5 from 1967-1996, "Candlepin Superbowl" hosted by Bill O'Connell and Brian Leary on Channel 5 in the 70's and early 80's, and "Candlepin Doubles" hosted by Leary from 1983-1996. (Caveat emptor: Those dates are courtesy of Wikipedia, which has had its share of credibility issues lately.)

Now, Channel 56 WLVI-TV is introducing a modern-day successor, "Candlepins for Dollars," starting early March. Here are the vital details:

In today's Washington Post  two world class moralizers and pontificators -- William Bennett and Alan Dershowitz -- are the latest to continue the tsk-tsk assault on the mainstream media for having chosen not to publish images blasphemous to the entire Muslim world. There are the same wrong-headed analogies (Ariel Sharon depicted as Hitler is an offensive image, but one that involves a modern day politician, not a Prophet and cornerstone of an entire religion) and the same stale platitudes about the "surrender" of the "free press" as if fealty to the First Amendment demands that we publish anything and everything without regard to its impact.

Moreover by questioning why the US media won't publish these cartoons when they are willing to show photos of the horrors at Abu Ghraib or unearth warantless wiretips by the Bush administration, Bennett and Dershowitz display a frightening ignorance about the difference between classic investigative journalism aimed at holding a government accountable and displaying an inflammatory photograph in order to score points and tout superior values in a perceived clash of civilizations.  

I'll make a deal here. If more news organizations acknowledge that security concerns were a factor in their decisions, will these media critics admit that their desire to see the cartoons published has a lot to do with their personal Middle East politics? 

I don't know that this is exactly "Must See TV."  But I have a feeling it will be amusing watching Howie Carr chat with Bill O'Reilly tomorrow night on "The Factor " as Howie hawks his new book "The Brothers Bulger: How they Terrorized and Corrupted Boston for a Quarter Century."

Addendum -- Sorry, just got word that Howie's appearance on O'Reilly's show has been postponed till Feb. 28. Stand down.

Well, it's happened for the second time in less than a year. Jim Mullin, editor at the New Times of San Luis Obispo County, has resigned after the paper ran a "Meth Made Easy" story that outraged the community and prompted an apology from the contrite Mullin.

What makes the San Luis Obispo tale so amazing is that it's basically an instant replay of what happened at the Miami New Times (no relation to the SLO New Times) last summer. In August, Mullin announced he was leaving that paper after it published a highly controversial story containing allegations about former Miami Comissioner Arthur Teele's sexual habits headlined "Tales of Teele: Sleaze Stories."  Some angry readers blamed that piece for the suicide of Teele, who shot himself just as the story was hitting the streets. That prompted this quasi mea culpa from Mullin before he left that paper.

Memo to prospective publishers thinking about hiring Mullin. He is a risk taker.

Editor & Publisher is reporting that the Boston Globe is closing its Baghdad operation because of budget concerns.

Moderator and the Kennedy School of Government's Sultan of Oman professor of international relations (I kid you not) Joseph Nye said he hoped for an evening that would "put a little light on [the subject] perhaps, instead of heat." Given that the topic at last night's Harvard forum was the raging Prophet Mohammed cartoon controversy -- and that the guests included two Islamic studies professors, a priest, and a First Amendment expert -- there was a reasonable expectation of such an outcome.

But even for someone desperately seeking relief from the often predictable politics and passion that the controversy has generated, the Harvard event proved that a conversation can be too high-toned, esoteric, and bloodless (pardon the bad pun) for its subject. Unfortunately, that's the impression I came away with last night. 

What we did learn was this?

The two Islamic scholars were adamant that the cartoon controversy could not be separated from broader feelings of alienation and humiliation in the Muslim world.

"There is indeed a high level of humiliation and frustration when it comes to the representation of [Islam] in the west," said Joceylne Cesari, a visiting assistant professor of Islamic studies at the Harvard Divinity School. "It goes with a long series of discrimination when it comes to religion...and the cartoons have been seen by them as part of this long process."

Shahab Ahmed, an assistant professor of Islamic studies at Harvard, talked about the "considerable disenfranchisement" of Muslims living in European countries, quipping that the rule of thumb is "restaurants are okay, mosques are a bit dodgy, and head scarves are a very bad thing." He also put the ratio of Mulsims offended by the Mohammed cartoons to those who reacted violently as "somewhere in the region of 10 million to one."

Father J. Bryan Hehir , a professor of the practice of religion and public life at the Kennedy School and president of the Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities, seemed to be siding with those who chose not to publish the inflammatory cartoons when he declared that "I come from a tradition where prudence is the governing tradition of the ethical life. I would argue that there is an exercise in prudence, which is different than self-censorship."

Nye indicated that "I don't think what we're seeing is a clash of civilizations. I think what we're seeing is a civil war in one religion - Islam. I think the irony is that there is nothing bin Laden would like more than to have this"  labeled a clash of civilizations.

The fifth panelist, Frederick Schauer, the Kennedy School's Frank Stanton Professor of the First Amendment, explained that while "the full range of hate speech is Constitutionally protected in the U.S."  European and other democracies are much more inclined to legislate against it.

A head count guesstimate of the panel would seem to indicate that there were at least three solid votes -- Cesari, Ahmed, and Hehir -- against printing the cartoons with Nye's and Schauer's views of the subject harder to gauge based on what they said -- or didn't say.

I did leave right before the tail end of the question-and-answer session, but to that point, no one had asked the speakers the very basic question: Was it right or wrong to run the cartoons?

I think Jeff Jacoby was trying to deliver a back-handed compliment to the Phoenix this week with his Sunday column charging that the American media were simply too afraid to publish the inflammatory cartoon images of the Prophet Mohammed. It's true that the Phoenix was candid in listing security concerns as a key reason for not publishing the cartoons -- and I believe they were a factor, to varying degrees, in some other media outlets' considerations as well.

But speaking strictly for myself, not my paper, I think Jacoby -- a "clash of civilizations" aficionado if ever there was one --simply can't bring himself to imagine that such legitimate and worthy impulses as respect for the sensibilities and religious beliefs of the large majority of the Muslim world could have played into the equation. Thus, he insists, he knows the one and only motive for the relative restraint on the part of the US media.

"Rationalizations notwithstanding, the refusal of the US media to show the images at the heart of one of the most urgent stories of the day is not about restraint and good taste. It's about fear," he wrote.

I don't agree with much of Jacoby's stark and simplistic worldview nor his hyperbolic linking of the cartoon episode to appeasement of the Nazis and playing footsie with the Soviet totalitarians. Maybe what's really bugging him is the same concern gnawing at the neo-cons -- who pretty much think of geopolitics as a global version of Rotisserie baseball -- that's enunciated in Peter Canellos's intriguing Globe column today. Maybe they're scared that a once pliant but now somewhat chastened George Bush has had enough of their endless saber rattling, their faulty assumptions, and their lousy advice.

Okay, so Bernard Goldberg  has had himself a nice career going around pointing out all the excesses of the nation's liberally tainted media in such subtly titled tomes as  "Bias" And "Arrogance." It's not exactly a unique line of work, but it helps pay the bills.

So here's my question. How can Goldberg continue to draw a paycheck from HBO's "Real Sports" which is anchored by one of the conservatives' ripest targets, Byant Gumbel, after Gumbel created a major controversy with his recent trashing of the Winter Olympics and his famous reference to "a paucity of blacks that makes the Winter Games look like a GOP convention?" (Given the lack of real sports news and the listless Olympics, sports talk radio has jumped all over the subject.)

This is the statement released by Brent Bozell, the president of the Media Research Center, which like Goldberg, is kept busy sniffing out so-called liberal bias in the media:

What if Gumbel had said ‘a paucity of whites makes the NBA look like a Democratic convention?’ Rush Limbaugh was roundly denounced by the media when he made allegedly racist remarks about a football player. So where are the media condemnations now against Gumbel?

“Judging people by race is just plain wrong. Will HBO have the temerity to – at a minimum – publicly reprimand Gumbel for his racist statements or will they cower to a has-been who has proven he can’t hold a job in network news?”

Several years ago, when I asked Goldberg about working with Gumbel, he said: "Whatever he thinks about any issue doesn't affect `Real Sports.' "

You gotta wonder if Bernie's become a poster boy for situational ethics.

With the contract between Boston Globe management and the Guild (which represents about 1100 staffers including newsroom employees) having expired on Dec. 31, labor tensions appear to be heating up at the paper. Here's the first six graphs of a rather pointed Feb. 7 letter written to and aimed at publisher Richard Gilman and signed by most of the members of the Guild's 28-person governing board, according to Guild president Dan Totten:

The decision to outsource the work of the Globe’s Maintenance department was a disgrace and affront to our membership, and puts a question mark next to the Company’s dedication and commitment to its product and its employees.

Recent published reports have shown that you received a bonus of $1.55 million in shares and stock options while the Maintenance outsourcing process was ongoing.

The Union questions the ethics of accepting such a bonus during times the Company repeatedly calls economically challenging, times so dire they “required” the Maintenance outsourcing and prior job reductions through Streamline to Grow and the General Buyout.  Coincidentally, the Guild has been told the Maintenance outsourcing will save the Company about $1.5 million.

To take millions of dollars in bonus money, continue to award management bonuses, and create new high-level management positions seems to show a neglect of fiduciary duty for, to borrow a phrase we have consistently heard from Globe labor management representatives, “a struggling company and industry.”

The Guild inquired on many occasions over the past eight months whether rumors of outsourcing were true, particularly since we saw various cleaning contractors brought through the building.  Yet the Company denied its plans every time the question was posed.

The Company’s denials concern us greatly, and leave us to wonder if there will be other targets in the future and where they will be, and more important, whether the Company will be forthright in its plans.

In a response to Media Log, Globe spokesman Al Larkin said:

"The union apparently feels that releasing its letters to the media will somehow embarrass us or pressure us into not doing what we believe is best for the newspaper and our employees. We don't think it's appropriate to air our responses to the union, other than to correct certain inaccuracies and to say that its tactics will not deter us from making the decisions that need to be made."

Another area of dispute is the union's citing of Gilman's bonus of $1.55 million in shares and stock options, a number published in a recent Boston magazine story. Larkin asserts that the figure "characterized as a bonus in the Boston magazine article is actually part of an executive compensation plan," adding that the Globe put the actual figure at "about a third" of the published $1.55 million price tag.

Media Log is heading out of town for the long weekend. Be back next week.

Not long after the departure of Raphael Lewis to the Inspector General's office, the Boston Globe is losing another young State House staffer. Scott Greenberger, 36, a six-year veteran of the paper is leaving at the end of the month to take a job with the Washington-based political consulting firm, Ricchetti Inc., headed by former Clinton deputy chief of staff Steve Richetti.

"I've been thinking about making a change," says Greenberg, a Washington native who has family there and who says he tried -- unsuccessfully -- to make the move to the Globe's Washington bureau before signing on with Ricchetti.

Today's New York Times has a front-page piece detailing the prime-time problems besetting NBC's coverage of this year's Winter Olympics from Torino. There are a number of reasons for the lack of eyeballs -- some of them related to your basic jingoism issues. (The US team isn't doing that well; the games aren't on our soil, etc.)

No big fan of winter sports, I have gamely tried to watch some prime-time events. But once figure skating comes on, I'm gone in a heartbeat. 

The Herald's Jay Fitzgerald has an interesting piece  today noting that a number of staffers on the wrong end of a recent losing effort to unionize the Eagle-Tribune operation have been moved to different beats or bureaus -- at least raising the specter of retaliation. (See the "No Union at the Eagle-Trib" Media Log Post on 1/9)

The union official quoted in the Herald stops short of accusing the company of seeking retribution, and the new owners deny it. Still, one can't help but wonder: What would have happened if the union had won?

Today is the first day of the rest of Dick Gordon's career. The ex-host of  "The Connection" starts his new show today from WUNC-FM in North Carolina. Good luck to a class act.

I received a good amount of feeback after last week's story, "Attack of the 50-foot Oprah," made the case that the multi-media queen of feelgood has amassed too much power for everyone's good. Not surprisingly, several folks suggested that such a story might have been motivated by underlying racism and sexism -- which is unfortunate.

So in the interests of a self-serving follow-up, this piece in the San Diego Union-Tribune describes how Oprah stiffed a bunch of high school kids -- and student journalists -- during a visit to San Diego High School. Bill Gates was equally inaccessible, but unlike the much beloved Oprah, Gates --even with all his philanthropy --  is considered a goofy geek and/or a robber baron by a huge chunk of America.

There's chaos in New York's alt-weekly publishing world as the venerable Village Voice begins a transformation under new ownership and the upstart New York Press sees its staff resign en masse over the Mohammed cartoon controversy. Read about "NYC's Alternative Crisis"  in the "Don't Quote Me" column in this week's Boston Phoenix.

The latest publication to publish the controversial Mohammed cartoons is not your typical outlet. Spare Change, the local paper for the benefit of the homeless, has gotten into the game. Here is part of its editorial explaining that decision:

Yes, the cartoons were in poor taste. The Danish newspaper probably should not have published them. But adults in civilized societies do not murder and pillage whenever their sensibilities are offended. No one should expect a pluralistic world to adhere to his religion’s specific tenants and then riot when this does not occur. No one has the right not to be offended, and everyone has the responsibility to express his anger through non-violent means.

We must ask: What is more offensive – a cartoon that shows Mohammed wearing a bomb for a turban, or an angry Muslim youth murdering a Catholic priest? By rioting against images that depict Islam as a violent religion, these Muslims are simply reinforcing the cartoons’ point.

The mainstream media have also surrendered their duty to the public – and to the truth. As we write this, only two major American newspapers – The Philadelphia Inquirer and The New York Sun – have published the cartoons.  Among local newspapers, The Boston Globe, Boston Herald and Boston Phoenix have also acted cowardly.

Since one of the criticisms voiced in my recent analysis of the Boston Globe ("Globe-al Anxiety," Jan. 13 "Don't Quote Me")  was a lack of imagination and serendipity on page 1, it's worth praising today's gossipy and unorthodox front page piece on the nasty email squabble between two lawyers that went public. It might not have been earth shaking, but it was irresistable.

The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz has a collection of commentary about the Dick Cheney/Brit Hume sitdown yesterday. In the interests of "We Report, You Decide," I'll let people make their own judgment about Hume's objectivity and performance.

 But isn't it nice that a veep in deep doo-doo can cherry pick a media outlet that he knows is inherently friendly?  I mean, if Hume hadn't been available, I wouldn't have been shocked to see Cheney tell his story to Rush Limbaugh.

Of course, long gone are the days when one TV newsman commanded enough universal respect and authority -- ala Walter Cronkite -- to be the inescapable, unavoidable vehicle for such an important interview. Unfortunately, "Uncle Wally" has gotten a little whacky in his old age.

You really have to wonder if "Silent" Dick Cheney would have ever spoken to any media outlet if the friendly Fox News Channel hadn't been invented.

I'll say this once and move on. For me, listening to MSNBC's Rita Cosby is like chalk screeching against the blackboard.

This New York Observer piece reports that while Boston's Atlantic Monthly is now firmly ensconced in its new Washington headquarters, the search for an editor continues at a leisurely pace. Nobody on board yet, although some of the names tossed about in this piece -- New York Times columnist David Brooks, New Republic editor Peter Beinart, Jon Meacham and Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek -- suggests this is a high-powered search for a high-profile journalist.

The one thing really missing from the Observer story is an interview with the boss, David Bradley, who is one of the most unusual media moguls I've ever met -- a strikingly soft-spoken, self-effacing man with a kind of old world courtliness you just don't see much in the business these days. Had he been quoted on the editor search, Bradley would have no doubt said something like: "I'm completely humbled and overwhelmed by the quality of candidates for this job, which just reinforces my nagging sense that I'm personally underqualified to make a choice."

The New York Times learns the hard way. Don't mess with Barbie. (Ken, however, may be a different story.)

In the interests of keeping score on an important issue, it's worth noting that several other local papers of varying stripes have now run the highly controversial images of the Prophet Mohammed that have sparked a huge debate in media circles. The Boston Globe reported today that the conservative student newspaper, the Harvard Salient, ran four cartoons in its February 8 issue. (Sorry, I can't access the Salient Web site now.)

And on Sunday, the MetroWest Daily News, part of the Herald Media empire, ran some of the cartoons along with this editorial  explaining the paper's thinking. Word is that another local publication may be making the same decision tomorrow. We'll keep you posted.

Let's hope the hex of "Don't Quote Me" isn't as bad as the Sports Illustrated cover jinx. Less than a month after I lauded the work  (scroll down to third item) of WRKO's new operations director Brian Whittemore, the Whittemore era is over.

According to the release excerpted below, he's been supplanted by WEEI's director of programming Jason Wolfe, who will now become vice president of AM programming for WEEI and WRKO: 

Wolfe takes over for Brian Whittemore who has been serving as WRKO Operations Manager on a temporary basis since September 2005.  Whttemore is credited with returning more local programming to the WRKO airwaves, including the nightly human-interest show "Taste of Boston Tonight". His leadership was evident in the Fall 2005 ratings, as WRKO saw an increase in every demographic and time period from Fall 2004. Whittemore will return to his consulting practice in Minnesota as of March 1st.

Brian, we hardly knew ye.

Here's an email I got that kind of sums it up:

At this point, it's hard to find any piece of commentary that offers up anything fresh on the now infamous Mohammad cartoon controversy. But the op-ed in today's Globe  by Cathy Young -- who favored publishing the cartoons as part of the news coverage -- deserves credit for making this crucial point:

In a New York Times column, David Brooks contrasts the Islamic extremists' attitudes with ours: The West, with its ''legacy of Socrates and the agora" and its ''progressive and rational" mindset, is open to a multiplicity of arguments, perspectives, and ''unpleasant facts," while radical Muslims cling to ''pre-Enlightenment" dogmatism and shrink from the ''chaos of our conversation."

Yet Brooks overlooks the fact that a large segment of the population in the West, and especially in the United States, rejects the progressive, rational mindset and embraces pre-Enlightenment values as well. Fundamentalist Christians, traditionalist Catholics and ultra-Orthodox Jews do not, with very few exceptions, call for violence in response to heresy; that is a key distinction. But they too often equate criticism (let alone mockery) of their beliefs with ''religious bigotry" or ''hate speech." And they, too, often seek not simply to protest but to shut down offensive speech.

The truth is that modernity with its ''chaos of conversation," its chaos of lifestyles, its attitude that there is nothing more sacred than freedom of expression, is profoundly threatening to many religious traditionalists of different faiths.

In her column, Young singles out William Donahue, the head of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, who has made a career out of being outraged at what he considers egregious media insults to conservative Catholics and of cranking out press releases at a breakneck pace to make those views known. To Donahue's credit, I guess, he is intellectually consistent in applauding US media outlets who didn't run the Mohammad cartoons -- even if he thinks they did so for the wrong reasons.

So maybe we all ought to be a little less cavalier about throwing around the idea of "western values," when not everyone in the west is on board by any means. Based on his track record of five years in office, why would anyone get the idea that George Bush is a big fan of the First Amendment?  And, God forbid, the right to dissent?

They like us. They really like us. Well, let's not go overboard.

 But this new survey from the Pew Research Center seems to indicate that the public's usually dim view of journalists is brightening noticeably. Here are the vital stats:

While views of government, Congress and the political parties have sagged, public satisfaction with the news media has rebounded over the past few years. Since October, the percentage rating the news media favorably has risen seven points (to 59%). A little over a year ago, in December 2004, just 43% rated the news media favorably.

While Republicans take a far dimmer view of the news media than do Democrats, Americans on both sides of the political divide feel more favorably than they have in recent years. Currently, 49% of Republicans rate the media favorably, and 48% give an unfavorable rating. The favorable-to-unfavorable margin among Republicans last October was 44% to 53%. Fully 71% of Democrats give the press a favorable rating, up from 62% in October. And independents also give better ratings today (57%) than last fall (50%).

I'm not sure I can account for this sudden rush of affection for the Fourth Estate. It's possible that admiration for the coverage of Hurricane Katrina had something to do with it. But then the October 2005 survey should have fully reflected that as well.

In another piece of good news for news gatherers, the public is apparently growing more willing to let the media, rather than the goverrnment, decide what news is fit to print. Here's that result:

With security concerns paramount in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, many Americans saw justification for government censorship of news stories that might threaten security efforts. But in the years since, Americans on both sides of the political spectrum have moved away from this position, and are more likely to back the media's right to report on stories they see as in the national interest.

Currently, 56% say it is more important for the news media to report stories they feel are in the national interest, while just 34% believe it is more important for the government to censor news stories on national security grounds. In February 2003, somewhat fewer (50%) backed the media's right to report; in November 2001, two months after the 9/11 attacks, the balance of opinion was in favor of government censorship.

I wonder how much of this sentiment is simply attributable to an easing of 9/11-related fear as time passes, how much might be related to the sense that the government's largely unchallenged WMD rationale for going to war in Iraq proved wrong, and how much might be related to the New York Times huge scoop on warrantless wiretaps. (Sorry guys. I'm still not paying for Times content.)

The Association of Alternative Newsweeklies (AAN), an umbrella organization to which the Phoenix belongs, thinks it has tracked down the conservative group that is the source of an email campaign trying to get news organizations to publish the cartoons that have inflamed the Muslim world. Most media outlets have made their minds up on this one already -- and it's been a resounding no.

 It would be nice if this complicated issue could somehow remain relatively free of the taint and stench of partisan politics. But that's probably too much to hope for.

You gotta' love those Metro Boston marketers. One colleague who picked up her Metro at Somerville's Davis Square today found that each freebie tabloid there came with a pocket-sized 94-page booklet featuring "sneak previews" of four romance novels published by HQN Books whose catchy motto -- "We are Romance" -- pretty much says it all.

Here's just one excerpt from a juicy little tome titled "Delicious":

"Reid Buchanan was legendary. Not just for his incredible career as a major league pitcher, but for the way women adored him. Part of it was the Buchanan good looks and charm that all the brothers had. Part of it was that Reid just plain loved women. All women. Former girlfriends ranged from the traditional models and actresses to mother-earth tree-huggers nearly a decade older than him. Smart, dumb, short, tall, skinny, curvy, he liked them all. And they liked him."

Talk about your bodice ripper. Well at least this shouldn't challenge the reading and comprehension skills of regular Metro readers used to consuming  all the world's news in a 10-minute T ride.

Local cable outlet NECN has just hired a new morning show anchor, Karen Swensen, who'd been anchoring and reporting at CBS affiliate WWL-TV in New Orleans.  (Her home down there was a casualty of Hurricane Katrina). Starting Feb. 15, she'll anchor "Good Morning Live" with Mike Nikitas.

In this week's "Don't Quote Me" in the Boston Phoenix: Oprah Winfrey's mega-media empire has arguably made her the most powerful woman in America. But is the woman who put the cult in pop culture to be loved or feared? 

Not so coincidentally, XM Radio just announced signing the feelgood goddess-- already worth an estimated $1.4 billion -- to a $55 million deal today. That now officially makes her the queen of all media.

The huge story today in journalism is the agonizing over whether or not to run the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad that have triggered riots, violence, and some deaths across the globe. Obviously, the overwhelming majority of US news outlets have chosen not to. With a big assist from Jim Romenesko's Poynter site, here's some of the thinking.

In response to a question from a listener, about whether NPR would post the cartoon, its ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin posted this response from acting vice president of NPR News Bill Marimow:

As you know, Jeff, my thinking about this issue has changed throughout the day -- as I've read more about the subject and discussed it with our colleagues. So, the bottom line for me is that the cartoon is so highly offensive to millions of Muslims that it's preferable to describe it in words rather than posting it on the Web. In this case, I believe that our audience can, through our reports -- on radio and the Web -- get a very detailed sense of what's depicted in the cartoon. By not posting it on the Web, we demonstrate a respect for deeply held religious beliefs.

Here's a USA Today piece  reviewing various newsroom debates on the subject. New York Times executive editor Bill Keller has this to say:

New York Times editor Bill Keller said that he and his staff concluded after a “long and vigorous debate” that publishing the cartoon would be “perceived as a particularly deliberate insult” by Muslims. “Like any decision to withhold elements of a story, this was neither easy nor entirely satisfying, but it feels like the right thing to do.”

Meanwhile, here's the story about the staff of the alt-weekly New York Press  resigning en masse when a decision was ultimately made not to run the cartoons in that paper.

This has become a wrenching debate in most newsrooms, including here at the Boston Phoenix. Five days ago on this blog, I posted an item called "Sensitivity or Censorship." At that time, I agreed with the pro-publishing views of Nelson Sigelman, the news editor of the Martha's Vineyard Times , who had written:

"When freedom of the press and freedom expression are under fire as they are now across Europe and the Mideast, it's no time for major US news organizations to play it safe. By any standard these cartoons are a legitimate part of a news story that raises many troubling issues."

Frankly, I've changed my mind, mostly after spending a few days speaking to Muslims about this.

Of course, there's an argument for publishing the images that have triggered serious international turmoil. But my big problem with the cartoons is not that they are offensive to the thousands of violent and dangerous protestors and rioters around the globe who make up a small percentage of the Muslim population. It's that they're so viscerally offensive to the other 99 percent -- including people clearly and unequivocally condemning the violence. When I became convinced they were deeply disturbing to virtually every practicing Muslim -- and that the media could still report the story without literally displaying the cartoons -- it seemed a matter of basic decency and respect not to show them. A First Amendment right doesn't mean it's always right to exercise it. The news media engage in plenty of self-censorship on a variety of issues for a variety of reasons -- including the recent 48-hour news embargo on the kidnapping of freelance reporter Jill Carroll in Iraq.

Ultimately, after intense discussions, the Phoenix reluctantly chose not to publish the cartoons. Here's the paper's editorial explaining why and including fear of retaliation as a key factor.  I don't think there's a newsroom in America that saw this as anything other than a painful exercise in balancing competing values and mandates.

Sorry about the late post today. But I just got off deadline for this week's story. Anyway, I just love the fact that Nick Kristof is calling out Bill O'Reilly on Darfur. (Kristof just earned a special citation in the Goldsmith investigative journalism competetion at Harvard's Shorenstein Center for his tremendous work on the genocide there.) Of course O'Reilly can't go to Africa cause he's too busy spending three hours a day making sense of the world for the rest of us -- and heaven knows that work is far too valuable. I'd link to Kristof's clever O'Reilly-baiting column today, but I'm not ponying up for TimesSelect.

I don't know much about Cameroon's libel laws, but this should give pause to those who think there's a nasty tabloid culture in this country. What's not surprising -- of course -- is that the papers are selling like hotcakes, another sign of where journalism could be heading if it we all succumb to the "give the reader what he wants" business strategy. 

When the best thing Al Michaels could say about Super Bowl XL was that the many Super Bowls had already been decided by the end of the third quarter, but this one was still very much alive (Steelers 14, Seahawks 10), you know you were watching a weird and poorly played game. I think it's safe to say that never again will a quarterback with Big Ben's stats take home a Lombardi Trophy.

The story of the game was simply that the Steelers were able to make three big plays and Seattle positively killed itself with penalties, dropped balls by tight end Jerramy Stevens, and horrific play calling and clock management at the end of both halves.

And now for the really important post-mortem -- the Super Bowl commercials. I admit I paid more attention in the first half than the second, so I didn't catch them all. But here's my list of winners and losers.

Best

1)  I really loved the Burger King spot featuring an old-time song and dance number with "Whopperettes" dressed as condiments and toppings. It was fun to watch.

2)  The FedEx prehistoric commercial complete with cavemen and dinosaurs was really well done and made me laugh out loud.

3) Leonard Nimoy's Aleve spot, while considerably dryer, was pretty clever.

Worst

1) The moronic Michelob Ultra ad in which a young attractive woman playing a pickup football game gets obliterated by a vicious tackle.

2) Chris Berman's silly play-by-play call as a promo for the Disney remake of "The Shaggy Dog."  I probably like the "Boomer" more than most folks, but this was unwatchable.

3) The Go Daddy.com ad that proves that even cleavage and wardrobe malfunctions can prove to be boring.

Here's how USA Today ranked the spots.

I take very seriously the outrage expressed by Muslims about the cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammad and think peaceful protests and boycotts are totally legitimate responses. But this letter posted on Jim Romenesko's slice of the Poynter Web site sums up my feelings about U.S. media organizations too squeamish to show what triggered the massive backlash as part of their news reporting on what is now a huge international story. 

From NELSON SIGELMAN, news editor, Martha's Vineyard Times: Am I alone in thinking that some news organizations have lost their nerve? On Thursday evening I watched a report on the CBS Evening News about the uproar in the Arab world caused by the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. The report described the protests and demonstrations arising from the view, one that I do not agree with, that the newspapers that carried the cartoons had crossed a line.

During the report the anchor said that CBS had decided not to show the cartoons. I was stunned. How could I as a viewer understand the issues surrounding this story if the news organization presenting it would not provide the critical piece of information I needed to make an informed judgment? I think that CBS and every other news organization that carried this story without showing at least one of the cartoons should be ashamed of themselves.

Curious, I quickly switched channels and caught the same report on ABC. That network showed one cartoon, Muhammad wearing a turban that was a smoking bomb. NBC showed just the turban, I guess figuring that by not showing a face they were somehow playing it safe.

When freedom of the press and freedom expression are under fire as they are now across Europe and the Mideast, it's no time for major US news organizations to play it safe. By any standard these cartoons are a legitimate part of a news story that raises many troubling issues. The reaction of some news outlets only added to those issues.

Nobody asked me and this is a media blog, not a sports blog. But I have a funny feeling that Seattle's better than we think.

Final: Seahawks 27, Steelers 21.

For my money, Jeff Chester, director of the Center for Digitial Democracy, is one of the best public interest advocates we have when it comes to the media and communications industries. That's why his ominous piece posted on the Nation online, titled "The End of the Internet?" is worth reading. If he's right, this would change everything.