At least one DQM reader is bummed out about the disappearance of the Globe's Consumer Beat column, which shut down when Bruce Mohl decamped to edit CommonWealth:

Voices of consumer advocacy are rapidly declining in the Bay State. With the occasional exception of some of Jay Fitzgerald's business pieces at the Herald, there's very little coverage at the major dailies of the ins and outs of how issues like auto insurance deregulation, health insurance reform, the secondary ticket market, et. al., affect the individual customers. Mohl's column may have been the last major one left.  Will it continue, or has that ship sailed?

From what Globe business editor Shirley Leung tells me, I'd say the answer is: don't hold your breath waiting for the column's return.

"I can't discuss staffing details, but will say that Bruce Mohl was a terrific Consumer Beat reporter and we miss him," Leung says. " Nonetheless, we in the business section throughout the paper continue to do consumer coverage. Look at today's paper, where we discuss what the Fed rate cut means for readers. And metro reporter Keith O'Brien recently did a story on Super Bowl ticket prices, a subject near and dear to Bruce's heart. So we continue to cover consumer issues."

After parsing Leung's comments, and then looking at the Consumer Beat archives, one thing stands out. While the first story Leung cites deals with a tremendously important subject, it's most useful for people who'll be engaging in major financial transactions, like buying a house or car. The second story, meanwhile, discusses an investment that precious few of us can make.

Both represent a contrast with Mohl's work, which routinely discussed how anyone--including people living paycheck to paycheck--could be a savvier consumer. Let's hope the Globe keeps providing that, too.

1/31/2008 3:43:51 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [4] |  

In this week's paper, I profile Eric Fehrnstrom--former Boston journalist, traveling press secretary to The Candidate (nee The Governor), and YouTube star.

1/31/2008 10:32:06 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [1] |  

Back in 2000, Maureen Dowd offered this emasculating description of Al Gore: "Al Gore is so feminized and diversified and ecologically correct, he's practically lactating."

Flash forward eight years. Today, drawing a contrast with Hillary Clinton, Dowd gives Barack Obama a similar treatment:

Obama is the more emotionally delicate candidate, and the one who has the more feminine consensus management style, and the not-blinded-by-testosterone ability to object to a phony war.

Keep an eye on this.

1/30/2008 11:34:37 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [1] |  

Herald gossip columnists Gayle Fee and Laura Raposa routinely take potshots at the Globe, a/k/a the "Boring Broadsheet." But thanks to the restraint of Carol Beggy and Mark Shanahan, their Globe counterparts, it's been a pretty one-sided pissing match.

Until now!

Yesterday, Fee and Raposa gave the Globe shit for marketing a book on the Patriots' perfect season before said perfection was attained. Apparently, this really pissed them off over at Morrissey Boulevard. Because Beggy and Shanahan shot back with an item--published yesterday on the web and today in the paper--noting that 1. the Herald has its own Perfect Patriots book in the wings and 2. that tome, like the Globe's, was for sale on Amazon yesterday.

Personally, I'd like to see more Inside Track-vs.-Names* acrimony, especially if it gets really nasty. (Beggy and Shanahan's opening sentence--"Talk about hypocrisy"--is a nice start.) My hunch, though, is this is a one-time affair, triggered by the sports-crazed Globe management's fear of alienating Patriots fans in the event of a Super Bowl defeat.

*Not "Names and Faces," as I originally wrote. That's the old title.

1/30/2008 10:12:10 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [6] |  

Yesterday, Herald editor Kevin Convey said he objected to Joe Keohane's characterization of the Herald as a "crime and grime" paper. "We aren't simply a crime and grime tabloid," Convey told me. "We haven't been since I took over."

Today's Herald cover doesn't disprove Convey's statement, exactly. But it sure shows where Keohane's description comes from:

1/29/2008 7:04:49 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [0] |  

The Globe's Frank Phillips reports that Tom Finneran is now a lobbyist.

Of course, the ex-MA. House speaker is also a radio personality--one who's already distinguished himself with his abject timidity. As Phillips notes, Finneran's new gig probably won't help. "It was not clear last night how Finneran intends to remain an effective commentator on state politics and policy while also representing clients before state officials," he writes.

Phillips is being too kind. Finneran isn't an effective commentator to begin with. This is just going to make things worse.

1/29/2008 6:43:01 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [0] |  

Yesterday, I gave Doug Most a hard time for welcoming a little bit of SoHo to JP.

Today, the Boston Globe Magazine editor was kind enough to email me a substantial response. Here it is:

You're right. Boston isn't New York, and, as someone who swapped the Upper West Side for Back Bay (before JP), that is a good thing. And you're right. Boston has its own character, and certainly JP does, and that's also a good thing. But none of that means I can't yearn for things from New York.

Does that mean I can't wish more restaurants in Boston stayed open later than 10 p.m., like in New York, because that's part of Boston's "charm"? Forgive me if I'm not charmed the next time I leave a movie theater at 10 p.m. and have to wonder which of the restaurants will still seat me at 10:30 p.m. Does that mean I can't groan the next time I have to rush for the T late at night before it shuts down, something that never happened to me in NYC? Does that mean I can't wish that JP had a great bookstore, and big coffee shop (gasp, Starbucks!), and more food options that delivered, all things I had within a 2-block radius of my NYC apartment?

I can love Boston for all of its quirks, but that doesn't mean I can't yearn for it to get a little bit better, too. You said my job as editor of the Boston Globe Magazine is to be more loyal to my city. It is? That sounds like my job is only to praise Boston and ignore its flaws. Sorry, that's not my role. As for Salmagundi, I stand by my words: Yeah, a little bit of Soho in JP is fine by me.

Doug Most

1/28/2008 4:37:38 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [8] |  

So says Joe Keohane, in a very entertaining homage/fauxbituary published in February's Boston magazine:

It's not just a fading lust for mayhem that's putting the hurt on our tab. Demographic shifts and the decline of the working class in Boston--traditionally the Herald's bread and butter--have taken a bite as well. And the paper in its present form will have a hard time replacing those readers, because our exploding population of white-collar types and wealthy empty-nesters takes pride in not reading the Herald, as if it's a sign of character and refinement to never sully one's manicured hands with it.

Granted, I'm a sucker for anyone who thinks critically about Boston's changing fabric. That said, it's an intriguing question: can the Herald survive in a Boston that's becoming a city of the rich and the poor?

So I put the question to Herald editor Kevin Convey. Not surprisingly, Convey takes issue with Keohane's diagnosis.

"I'm grateful for Joe's appreciation for what we're doing, and also that he's feeling some nostalgia for us, but it's going to be hard to miss us since we're not going away," Convey says. "In terms of his theory that demographic changes are driving his circulation loss, I guess I'd have to say that I don't understand how [those losses] could affect all newspapers in the fundamentally the same way, if it's demographic change that affects specifically us.

"Look at the performance of almost every single newspaper in America," he adds. "It's not demographic change that's driving the decline in circulation nationwide; it's a change in the way people are getting their news and the way they're using their time. That affects us; it affects the Globe; it effects the New York Times."

One final Convey gripe, slightly off topic: "While I agree with some of what Joe says, I certainly disagree with a lot of what he says about what we do. We aren't simply a crime and grime tabloid. We haven't been since I took over."

1/28/2008 4:01:43 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [1] |  

Dear Doug:

We've met. You're a good guy. But your editor's note in today's Boston Globe Magazine--introducing the Best of the New 2008 feature--filled me with rage.

Here's an excerpt:

A few months ago, I visited this new store in Jamaica Plain, and it felt as if I had stepped into a boutique in SoHo. The men's hats were far too cool for me, but I found a great black hat-scarf combo and a pair of silver earrings for my wife. Everything about Salmagundi, right down to the dapper husband-and-wife owners, was a welcome addition to my neighborhood.

This week's issue celebrates all of the Salmagundis out there in Greater Boston.... [emph. added]

Here's the problem: you're the editor of the Boston Globe Magazine. So shouldn't you have a bit more loyalty to your city?

Remember: for many of your readers--natives and transplants alike--one of the best things about Boston is that it ISN'T NEW YORK. It has its own, distinct, vastly superior character.

If you feel this way, finding a little spore of SoHo festering in JP isn't cause for celebration. It's reason to weep. Please keep this in mind.

Thanks,

Adam

1/27/2008 8:55:59 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [6] |  

There's so much to say about today's Herald cover story--but much of it has already been addressed by the paper's online readers.

So I'll just make one point. When you start an article with this lede--

New England Patriots fans are smarter, classier and healthier and own pricier homes than the riff-raff who root for the New York Giants - and now we’ve got the research to back it up.

--you really can't illustrate it with a photo of this guy:

UPDATE: "It's called irony," one reader tells DQM via email. A fair point--as long as that's how it was intended.

1/25/2008 11:15:58 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [1] |  

According to Metro Boston, the Globe is in for some truly nasty attrition--"hundreds of layoffs" is the phrase that caught my eye--as well as a per-copy price hike from 50 to 75 cents.

But is it true? Here's the response that a Globe spokesman provided to DQM:

Metro Boston’s front page story today claiming that the Boston Globe is planning "hundreds of layoffs" is factually incorrect. There are no plans for a staff reduction of the size cited in the Metro. As we have said many times in the past, we are always looking for operational efficiencies and will make staff reductions in accordance with those efforts when and if appropriate. 

The Metro also erred in reporting the extent of a proposed price increase for the daily newspaper. The newsstand price of individual copies of the Globe will increase from 50 cents to 75 cents on Feb. 4. Contrary to the Metro report, the increase affects only newspapers sold in the Greater Boston area. The daily Globe is already priced at 75 cents at locations beyond 30 miles of the city. The price increase does not affect home delivery copies of the paper.

Obviously, this raises a couple questions. Like: if there are no plans for "hundreds" of layoffs, are there plans for any? And: if so, how many? (It also raises the question of why people would pay an extra quarter for the Globe when they can read it for free online, but that's another story.)

One more thing: since the New York Times Co. owns both the Globe and a 49 percent stake in Metro Boston, it might seem odd that the two publications have had some difficulty reporting on developments at their corporate siblings. But look on the bright side: that's also a reassuring sign of aggressive intra-Times Co. reporting.

1/24/2008 6:32:40 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [5] |  

Hey, what's with BostonNow launching home delivery in a few select neighborhoods (e.g., Southie and Charlestown)? Is the free commuter daily going all Examiner on us?

Not so, says BostonNow honcho Russel Pergament. Instead, he tells DQM, "We're trying to develop alternate delivery systems for markets that don't have sustantial mass-transit systems. There are a lot of good markets."

If Pergament & Co. are really thinking about starting new papers elsewhere (CincinnatiNow, anyone?), it could be a sign that things in Boston are going swimmingly. Then again, it could be a sign that they're way more ambitious than they should be.

Readers?

1/24/2008 10:38:27 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [1] |  

WBUR has itself a new managing editor: it's Mark Degon, who'll be leaving his news director post at WRNI to take the job.

Depending on who you believe, Jon Marcus, Degon's predecessor, exited because A) he couldn't make the transition from print to radio or B) he lost an internal turf war. If the brunt of the truth lies with A), Degon should fare better: he's been running the show at WRNI for a decade, and was the senior news producer at WBUR, WRNI's parent station, before that.

1/22/2008 5:39:57 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [2] |  

Hardball host Chris Matthews has been taking some heat recently for some truly dubious characterizations of Hillary Clinton.

Tonight, Matthews issued what strikes me as a remarkable apology. Read it in its entirety--and as you do, bear in mind the standard I'm-sorry-if-anyone -was-offended shtick used by most public figures:

Good evening, I'm Chris Matthews. Welcome to Hardball. Well, we're in a time of a lot of frustration in this country -- Iraq, of course; the lack of health care for people who work every day; gas prices going up; the weakening economy that scares us every day -- and I come on here every night and try to wrestle with these frustrations, and also the changes in our country. We might soon have the first woman president, the first African-American president, or a man older than we've ever elected before. And of course, we always treat things here with hope -- our uniquely American hope that we can actually make things better, that we can make the greatest of countries, not only survive, but as [author] William Faulkner once said, "prevail."

In the midst of talking about all of this -- almost always without a script, and almost always on tricky subjects of gender and race, and right and left, and what's in our country's interest, and who I think is telling the truth, and who I think isn't -- I know I'm dealing with sensitive feelings. I've accepted all of this as part of the business I have chosen. This program, I am proud to say, is tough, fearless, and yes, blunt. I want people to react when I say something. I don't like saying things so carefully, so politically correctly, that no one thinks they even said anything.

What I've always counted on in all the wild, speeded-up conversations on Hardball, and elsewhere on television, is my good heart. I've always felt that no matter how tough I got, how direct, how provocative -- how purposely provocative -- people out there watching would know I was not out against them, that it was them I was rooting for, that while I was tough on individuals who sought to lead the country, I was not against the hopes we all have for a fair shake, in fact, a better deal for people who have been held back before we came along.

Some people whom I respect, politically concerned people like you who watch this show so faithfully every night, people like me who care about this country, think I've been disrespectful to Hillary Clinton, not as a candidate, but as a woman. They point to something I said on MSNBC's Morning Joe the morning after the New Hampshire primary, that her election to the U.S. Senate, and all that's come since, was a result of her toughness, but also the sympathy for her because her husband embarrassed her by the conduct that led to his impeachment, because he, in the words I used, "messed around."

The truth of course is finer, smarter, larger than that. Yes, Hillary Clinton won tremendous respect from the country for the way she handled those difficult months in 1998. Her public approval numbers spiked from the mid-40s up to the 70s in one poll I looked at.

Why? Because she stuck to her duty; she performed strongly as first lady. She did such a wow of a job campaigning for Senate candidates, especially Chuck Schumer of New York, that she was urged to run for a Senate seat there herself. She might have well gotten that far by another route and through different circumstances, but this is how it happened.

The rest is history: how Hillary went up to New York, listened to peoples' concerns, and beat the odds, as well as the Republicans, to become a respected member of the U.S. Senate. So, did I say it right? Was it fair to say that Hillary Clinton, like any great politician, took advantage of a crisis to prove herself? Was her conduct in 1998 a key to starting her independent electoral career the following year? Yes.

Was it fair to imply that Hillary's whole career depended on being a victim of an unfaithful husband? No. And that's what it sounded like I was saying and it hurt people I'd like to think normally like what I say, in fact, normally like me. As I said, I rely on my heart to guide me in the heated, fast-paced talk we have here on Hardball -- a heart that bears only goodwill toward people trying to make it out there, especially those who haven't before.

If my heart has not always controlled my words, on those occasions when I have not taken the time to say things right, or have simply said the inappropriate thing, I'll try to be clearer, smarter, more obviously in support of the right of women -- of all people -- the full equality and respect for their ambitions. So, I get it.

On the particular point, if I had said that the only reason [Sen.] John McCain [R-AZ] has come so far is that he got shot down over North Vietnamese -- by North Vietnam, and captured by the enemy, I'd be brutally ignoring the courage and guts he showed in bearing up under his captivity. Saying that Senator Clinton got where she's got simply because her husband did what he did to her is just as callous, and I can see now, it comes across just as nasty, worse yet, just as dismissive.

Finally -- as if anyone doesn't know this -- I love politics. I love politicians. I like and respect people with the guts to put their name, their very being out there for public approval so that they can lead our country. And that goes for Hillary and [Sen.] Barack [Obama (D-IL)] and John and all the rest who are willing to fight to take on the toughest job in the world.

So, let's get on with the show. Whoa.

1/17/2008 9:34:06 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [0] |  

Interesting correction in today's Globe (scroll down):

Because the subject of an interview provided misleading information, a man quoted in a Page One story Tuesday about employees who telecommuted during Monday's snowstorm was incorrectly identified as Heywood James, 41, of Needham, and an employee of Fidelity Investments. Fidelity has no employee by that name.

In case you missed it, here's what the Globe originally said about how "Heywood James" spent his Monday:

Waking up yesterday to snowdrifts nearly a foot high at his home in Needham, James decided it wasn't worth the time and effort to get to his office in downtown Boston. He looked forward to fewer interruptions from colleagues and had an idyllic notion of more time with the children.

His plan to do financial modeling and field customer calls was working fine until about 10 a.m., when a snow-laden branch outside his house snapped, taking his cable, phone, and Internet connection down as well.

"There was nothing I could do but go to work," said James, 41, of Fidelity Investments, where only about 10 percent of the colleagues in his division were in the office.

So: Heywood James doesn't work at Fidelity. But does he exist, period? Did the Globe hear from an actual Fidelity employee who used an alias? Or a real guy named Heywood James who lied about his employer? Or just someone who made up a bunch of stuff for the hell of it? (By the way, the snapping branch was a great touch.)

This could become a case study in the perils of "open-source reporting," since the Globe had a Contact-us-if-you're-telecommuting message posted at Boston.com. during the storm. I'm still trying to get a fuller explanation from the Globe; if I do, I'll update this post.

1/17/2008 1:40:36 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [8] |  

In which I note the many similarities between Barack Obama's message and Deval Patrick's, and suggest that this resemblance might become a campaign liability.

1/16/2008 4:37:34 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [0] |  

Last week, I wrote that representatives of mogul Phil Anschutz were reportedly bidding on Metro's three US papers at a meeting in New York.

But now--after not responding to requests for comment from the Globe and the Denver Post--an Anschutz spokesman is saying there's no there there. (Via Romenesko.)

1/16/2008 3:37:59 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [0] |  

The Randy Moss restraining-order story is brand new, and it could be a while before we know what actually happened.

That said, a couple things stood out in today's flurry of coverage.

First: Moss's 2002 run-in with a Minneapolis traffic-control officer, which led to a misdemeanor traffic violation plea, was more ominous than it's being made out to be. The AP's Howard Ulman says that Moss "bumped a traffic control officer with his car" in that incident. But here's the description from the police report:

[Moss] had attempted to make a left hand turn from the wrong lane.... The victim stepped in front of the vehicle and told him to stop. [Moss] continued to move the vehicle forward, pushing the victim about a half block down Marquette [Avenue] until she was finally pushed down.

Earlier today, Moss said: "I want to make something clear. In my whole entire life of living 30 years, I've never put my hand on one woman, physically or in an angry manner." Given what happened in 2002, this statement needs an asterisk.

Also, the overall ambiguity of Moss's comments to reporters today was striking. He said the woman in question had "an accident where she hurt herself." But he also said this: "Now ,I think if there was such a thing in the court system as an accident, then that's what I'm guilty for." And this: "Like I said, if I'm guilty, I am truly sorry."

More as it develops.

1/16/2008 3:12:04 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [0] |  

Why are people getting so worked up about Maureen Dowd's dubious dateline, when the content of that column was egregiously incorrect?

Here's the eighth graf of "Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?":

At the Portsmouth cafe on Monday, talking to a group of mostly women, she blinked back her misty dread of where Obama’s "false hopes" will lead us — "I just don’t want to see us fall backwards," she said tremulously — in time to smack her rival: "But some of us are right and some of us are wrong. Some of us are ready and some of us are not."

Let's repeat: Clinton "blinked back her misty dread of where Obama's 'false hopes' will lead us."

The problem is, she didn't. Clinton used the phrase "false hopes" on Jan. 4, according to Reuters, and again on Jan. 5. She may have used it on other occasions prior to New Hampshire's Jan. 8 primary. But despite Dowd's obvious insinuation, she didn't use it in the run-up to her emotional moment in Portsmouth. And neither did her questioner. From CNN's write-up of that incident:

At the close of a Portsmouth campaign stop, Marianne Pernold-Young, 64, asked Clinton: "How do you do it? How do you keep up ... and who does your hair?" [NOTE: here's another version of the question.]

Clinton said she had help with her hair on "special days," and that she drew criticism on the days she did not.

Then she added: "It's not easy, and I couldn't do it if I just didn't, you know, passionately believe it was the right thing to do.

"You know, I have so many opportunities from this country, I just don't want to see us fall backwards," she said, her voice breaking a bit. The audience applauded.

"This is very personal for me, it's not just political, it's [that] I see what's happening, we have to reverse it," she said emotionally, adding that some "just put ourselves out there and do this against some pretty difficult odds.

"But some of us are right and some of us are wrong. Some of us ready and some of us are not. Some of us know what we will do on day one, and some of us really haven't thought that through enough."

Don't get me wrong: those closing lines are pretty obvious shots at Obama. But hammering her main rival after a rare show of emotion--one elicited by an ostensibly personal, non-political question--is different than Dowd's imaginary scenario, in which Clinton chokes up because the prospect of an Obama presidency is so painful to contemplate. (For one thing, Dowd's framework--in which Obama-induced tears are quickly followed by a nasty Obama-directed jibe--hints strongly that the whole episode was staged.)

Sloppy stuff.

1/14/2008 2:33:03 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [7] |  

That would be Metro Boston, Metro New York, and Metro Philadelphia, the three free US dailies operated by Metro International.

Earlier today, Don't Quote Me got a tip that representatives of the Examiner group--which publishes free papers in San Francisco, Washington, and Baltimore, and has already staked out web sites for Boston and a bunch of other cities--are bidding on Metro's three American properties at a meeting today in New York. (There may be other suitors as well.)

A few minutes ago, I reached Robert Patterson, Metro's London-based CEO for North America, at Metro's New York offices. He declined comment on the rumored Examiner bid.

If Metro does sell to Philip Anschutz, the conservative magnate who owns the Examiner papers and a whole bunch of other stuff, it'll be a big development in Boston's media landscape. For one thing, the sale would mean that the New York Times Company, the Globe's corporate parent, would give up its 49 percent stake in Metro Boston and get out of the free-daily business [see update below]. Boston Metro, meanwhile, would be replaced with the Boston Examiner--which, if past Examiner strategy holds, would be produced by a bare-bones staff and delivered for free in certain affluent neighborhoods.

In a 2005 profile of Anschutz, Slate's Jack Shafer downplayed the threat the Examiner papers represent to established urban dailies: "[A] genuine newspaper war won't break out in San Francisco or Washington--or wherever Anschutz takes his Examiners--until he elevates editorial quality to something approximating that of the local dailies," Shafer argued.

If Shafer's right, a Boston Examiner wouldn't be much of a threat to the Globe. It would, however, ratchet up the pressure on the Boston Herald, which is short-staffed itself, and on BostonNow, Metro Boston's free-commuter-daily rival.

To reiterate: Anschutz might not be the only prospective buyer. Stay tuned.

Update: A reader notes that the Times Co. might want to keep its 49 percent stake and do business with the Examiner. So it might. But would Anschutz want to buy 2.5 new papers instead of three? Also, take my description of the Examiner newsrooms as "bare-bones" with a grain of salt. Compared to the Globe, for example, the San Francisco Examiner doesn't have a lot of writers. But the SF Examiner's staffing looks much more robust if you're comparing it to the Herald or BostonNow.

1/11/2008 2:41:54 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [5] |  

In this week's paper, I ponder why Rupert Murdoch is letting his employee Bill Kristol work for the competition.

Also, on a non-media note: why Zubaz deserve(s) our respect.

1/10/2008 3:20:55 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [0] |  

The press always creates the very reality it's supposed to be covering, at least to an extent. But the presidential-nomination process takes this dynamic to breathtaking heights. Consider these headlines on yesterday's New Hampshire primary: "Clinton upsets Obama; McCain Wins" (NYT); "Comeback Kids: McCain Bests Romney, Clinton Tops Obama" (Fox News); "Surprise! Hillary takes New Hampshire" (Slate).

Waxing dramatic over McCain's win makes sense: after all, a few months ago, his campaign was flat-out imploding, and Mitt Romney was the longtime New Hampshire frontrunner. But Clinton is a radically different story. Yes, after her Iowa loss--and in light of new polls that showed Obama opening up a big N.H. lead--most people expected a second straight Clinton defeat yesterday. Still, "comeback" is a stretch. "Upset," meanwhile, is flat-out absurd.

Remember, if you can, that Clinton's been the Democratic frontrunner for a couple years; that she only lost to Obama by single digits in Iowa; that she was supported by most of New Hampshire's Democratic establishment; and that her still-popular ex-president husband was working the hustings for her in the Granite State. To turn Clinton into a political version of Rocky Balboa, you've got to ignore this stuff and focus on the past few days of a multi-year campaign. Of course, no one ever accused the mass media of having an overly long attention span.

What makes the current flurry of "upset"/"comeback" coverage especially striking--and especially lame--is that we've gone down this thematic road in the not-too-distant past. And we did it with Hillary's husband. In 1992, Bill Clinton led Massachusetts senator Paul Tsongas in New Hampshire by double digits. Then came Gennifer Flowers (remember her?) and the accusation that Clinton dodged the draft to avoid fighting in Vietnam. Clinton's lead evaporated, and he lost to Tsongas by eight points.

His campaign, however, had an ingenious response: they dubbed Clinton the "Comeback Kid," a catchy moniker that turned a loser into a winner. "[W]e managed to win in New Hampshire by losing by 8 points," James Carville recalled in a recent Globe guest column. "The press did not care that local boy Tsongas had won the primary; they were fascinated that Clinton had come in a relatively close second."

Sixteen years later, the same thing is happening again—but in far more egregious fashion. Bill Clinton, after all, entered the '92 race as a political unknown; Hillary Clinton was the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic nomination until last week. So let's be absolutely clear: Clinton didn't "upset" Obama yesterday, and whatever "comeback" she made comes with a gargantuan asterisk. That's the truth—no matter how many times the media say otherwise.

1/9/2008 10:47:29 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [1] |  

Back in July '07, when I broached the question of how Bloomberg L.P. would cover a Michael Bloomberg presidential run, the company didn't seem too worried. “Bloomberg News, which has won hundreds of awards and honors from its peers for its fair and objective reporting and its investigative reporting, adheres to the strictest standards of attribution and objectivity,” Bloomberg L.P. PR head Judith Czelusniak told me by email. “We cover every issue according to these standards.”

Now, though, Bloomberg L.P. seems to be realizing that it won't be that simple. From today's Newsday story on the same subject (via Romenesko):

"It would be novel, to say the least," said Matt Winkler, Bloomberg News' editor in chief. "It would limit some of the things that we would do about him and as a result limit some of the things we do about others, because we couldn't play favorites in this, and we couldn't skew coverage in one way and not another way.

For instance, Winkler said, Bloomberg News would be unlikely to do an investigation into some aspect of Michael Bloomberg, which would then keep it from doing such stories about other candidates (emph. added).

Reread that last paragraph. If the reporter paraphrased Winkler correctly--and Bloomberg News probably wouldn't do anything investigative on Bloomberg or the other candidates--could it really cover the race at all? (Like Bloomberg Radio and Bloomberg Television, Bloomberg News is part of Bloomberg L.P.)

Allow me to suggest the same solution I proposed last year: hire a dedicated ombudsman from outside Bloomberg L.P. to aggressively monitor all Bloomberg's presidential coverage, and regularly publish his or her findings. Here's an useful precedent.

1/8/2008 2:18:18 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [0] |  

When people defend the New Hampshire primary's privileged role, they talk a lot about how well-informed Granite Staters are and how seriously they take their politics.

As WBZ-TV reporter Karen Anderson discovered yesterday, though, that's not always the case. Watch it and cringe.

1/7/2008 4:10:30 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [2] |  

One Times column, one embarrassing mistake: Bill Kristol mis-attributes Michael Medved's words to Michelle Malkin and makes himself look silly.

1/7/2008 3:26:50 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [0] |  

It's worth a shot, I suppose--although the fact that his own spokesman contradicts him is kind of embarrassing. From Politico:

[Romney] blamed reporters — not his advisers — for forcing him to focus intensely on his conservative views instead of the message of change he is carrying to every event in New Hampshire.

"I get asked a lot about my conservative credentials, largely by members of the media," he said in the interview. "I go on TV and it's like: 'Tell me about your church, tell me where you stand on abortion.'

"There is no question the focus of my campaign has been on changing Washington."

But Romney last fall downplayed his outsider message, choosing instead to outflank then-top rival Rudy Giuliani on the ideological right. Romney spokesman Kevin Madden said the campaign never entirely dropped the outsider approach but he did concede "the emphasis was not on the change message during that period." (emph. added)

To state the obvious: these are desperate times for Mitt.

1/7/2008 11:45:22 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [0] |  

Here's the unsettling cover of today's Parade magazine:




In case you can't read it, this is the subhed: "Is Benazir Bhutto America's best hope against al-Qaeda?"

As Parade's Web site notes, Bhutto was killed on December 27.

Yes, Christmas and New Year's wreak havoc with weeklies. But if that really wasn't enough time to change the cover text, Parade needs A) a new production schedule or B) to scrap all news content and blow out Walter Scott's Personality Parade.

UPDATE: Here's an explanation of why this happened--thanks to Ken for passing it on.

1/6/2008 2:38:54 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [1] |  

According to John Nichols of the Nation, there's a big difference between the Mike Huckabee of the Iowa caucuses and his New Hampshire successor.

"[T]he Huckabee campaign is retooling itself fast," Nichols writes at AlterNet. "Suddenly, the "Christian leader" is just a 'leader.' Huckabee arrived in New Hampshire Friday morning with new literature that drops the religious references used in Iowa and plans for a television advertising campaign that will eschew the crosses and fish that meant so much to his Iowa base."

Will this play in the Granite State? Hard to say. On the one hand, the citizens of New Hampshire are pretty sharp political consumers, and Nichols surely won't be the only member of the press to notice Huckabee's metamorphosis. What's more, New Hampshire looks to be a two-person race between Mitt Romney and John McCain, with the X-factor of Ron Paul lurking in the background.

Then again, one of Huckabee's great political talents is the ability to make his hard-core evangelicism unobjectionable to non-evangelical audiences. Hendrik Hertzberg details this nicely in the current New Yorker:

[H]uckabee’s sensational rise has been made possible by his success, so far, at speaking in tongues that evangelicals and non-evangelicals understand differently. “I always tell the story of a lady who asked me, was I a narrow-minded Baptist who thinks only Baptists go to Heaven?” he likes to say. “And I told her, ‘No, ma’am, I’m more narrow than that. I don’t think all the Baptists are going to make it, either.’ ” Does he mean “Let’s not take this eternal damnation stuff so darn seriously”? Or is it “Everybody roasts in Hell except selected evangelicals”?

And then there was his instantly famous sound bite at the November 28th YouTube debate, when he was asked where history’s most revered victim of the death penalty would stand on that issue. “Jesus,” Huckabee replied with a rueful smile, “was too smart to ever run for public office.” This was a clever sally, allowing moderates to infer that he, Huckabee, realizes that capital punishment is morally dubious but (like his gubernatorial predecessor Bill Clinton) supports it for prudential political reasons, while assuring his co-religionists that he, Huckabee, is a humble sinner, albeit one on easy terms with the Lord—who will forgive His flock the minor sin of clamoring for the modern equivalent of crucifixion.

Huckabee doesn't need to finish first in New Hampshire--he just needs to do well enough to prove that he can appeal to non-evangelicals, too. The guess here is that Huckabee 2.0 will work better than anyone expects.

1/4/2008 2:38:48 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [2] |  

Congrats to James Pindell, currently author of the Globe's Primary Source blog, who'll take over as national managing editor of Politicker.com effective January 12. His impending departure is a loss for Morrissey Blvd. and a real coup for the Observer Media Group.

UPDATE: Dan Kennedy casts Pindell as an exemplar of how to get ahead in journalism today. "As I tell my students," Dan writes, "this may be a lousy time to pursue a traditional career path in journalism, but it's a great time if you're willing to be entrepreneurial and embrace new ways of doing things."

Also, for those Globe-watchers keeping score at home, Pindell says that his new job came to him, not the other way around. "This was a job I didn't seek, but really couldn't turn down," he says via email. "This has nothing to do with the Globe. And I am thrilled to be covering the primary with them.

1/4/2008 12:30:39 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [3] |  

I'm not sure what's more damning/hilarious--the speech itself, or Wonkette's parsing of it. Either way, be sure to take a look.

(And yes, he references the Olympics.)

1/4/2008 11:21:19 AM by Adam Reilly | Comments [1] |  

In a few hours, we'll all be subjected to a barrage of dueling interpretations of what the Iowa caucus results mean. And as we are, we should remember to take every interpretation with a gargantuan grain of salt.

Case in point: today's above-the-fold, front-page Globe story, which casts Iowa's GOP caucuses as a test of money's significance in the campaign. I guess I understand why the Globe took this tack; after all, Mitt Romney has money and Mike Huckabee doesn't.

Still, it's an overly simplistic reading. It's not just the efficacy of money that's being tested; it's the efficacy of Romney's money. Put differently, we're about to get a sense (a non-representative, small-midwestern state sense) of whether Romney's fundraising prowess can trump his assorted negatives (fibbing, flip-flopping, being Mormon).

By the same token, Huckabee's outcome--whatever it is--will have a resonance that goes beyond cash. It'll offer a sense (similarly circumscribed) of whether Huckabee's denial of evolution gives Iowans any pause; or whether people think he tried to have it both ways with that Romney-attack-ad-that-wasn't; or whether his critique of Romney as a freakishly calculating politician resonates with the broader electorate.

In sum: clarity is nice, but let's not overdo it.

1/3/2008 5:11:52 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [0] |  

In this week's paper, I take a look at why the New Hampshire primary's days may be numbered--and why that might be for the best.

1/3/2008 4:48:35 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [0] |  

Used to be, you had to head over to Boston.com to get your New England Cable News content. But no longer: as of yesterday, NECN has its very own web site. (Thanks to Universal Hub for clueing me in.)

Don't think, though, that this means NECN and Boston.com are splitsville. The former will still be providing news-video content for the later. What has changed, though, is that NECN is now disseminating its own content online as well, instead of just relying on Boston.com to handle the job.

"Any major media outlet--which we like to consider ourselves--has to view content as a kind of fungible commodity that can be distributed on multiple platforms," says Charlie Kravetz, NECN's VP of News. "Clearly, our core platform is our television network. But every television news organization is also coming to realize that the internet is hugely important."

The first thing you'll notice at NECN.com is the big-ass video player (which, for what it's worth, is far heftier than the players used by other local TV stations). According to Kravetz, this player should require virtually no buffering, which would be a welcome change. Kravetz also promises that NECN.com will be rolling out a "very big blog component" over the next few weeks, complete with RSS feeds.

Sounds good--but for now, the site remains a work in progress. Click on the "NECN Shows" tab, for example, and you get...the NECN.com front page. The search function also seems a bit off: "Deval Patrick" only yields four results, which just can't be right. Then again, since the site is all of one day old, a few glitches are probably to be expected. Check back in a few weeks.

1/2/2008 4:19:50 PM by Adam Reilly | Comments [0] |