July 01, 2008
Yesterday in this space, I praised the Washington Post's story on misinformation circulating about Barack Obama in Findlay, Ohio. But the Findlay Courier didn't like the story one bit. Here, via Romenesko, is the heart of the paper's editorial on the subject:
[Reporter Eli] Saslow crafted a picture of credulous,
rumor-swallowing bigots, even though several of his interviewees said
they just weren't sure what to believe.
In what's perhaps the
most offensive sentence in this entirely offensive story, Saslow wrote:
"When people on College Street started hearing rumors about Obama — who
looked different from other politicians and often talked about change —
they easily believed the nasty stories about an outsider."
But
nobody he quoted said anything about Obama's race or appearance. Nobody
mentioned his calls for change. And Don LeMaster's comment a couple
paragraphs later is a strong indication that he doesn't "easily
believe" whatever he hears. He said, "(Obama's) a good speaker, but
you've got to dig deeper than that for the truth. Politicians tell you
anything. You have to look beyond the surface, and then there are some
real lies."
To us, that's a fairly rational viewpoint, but not to the Post.
So: are the good people of Findlay just a bunch of healthily skeptical "heartland" voters who've been wronged by the elite liberal media?
Not quite. Here, for example, is the sentence after the sentence pegged by the Findlay Courier as "most offensive":
"I think Obama would be a disaster, and there's a lot of reasons," said [Leroy]
Pollard, explaining the rumors he had heard about the candidate from
friends he goes camping with. "I understand he's from Africa, and that
the first thing he's going to do if he gets into office is bring his
family over here, illegally. He's got that racist [pastor] who
practically raised him, and then there's the Muslim thing. He's just
not presidential material, if you ask me."
Note that, contrary to what the Findlay Courier is claiming, Pollard does say something about Obama's "race or appearance." Namely, he says Obama's from Africa, and will kick off his presidency by illegally importing his African family into the U.S.
Note, too, that Pollard makes one point that stands up to scrutiny--i.e., his description of Obama's now-former pastor as racist. The rest (with the exception of the "presidential material" assessment, which is open for debate) is bunk.
Along those same lines, consider this:
Does [Jim Peterman] trust a local newspaper article that details Obama's
Christian faith? Or his friend Leroy Pollard, a devoted family man so
convinced Obama is a radical Muslim that he threatened to stop talking
to his daughter when he heard she might vote for him?
"I'll admit
that I probably don't follow all of the election news like maybe I
should," Peterman said. "I haven't read his books or studied up more
than a little bit. But it's hard to ignore what you hear when everybody
you know is saying it. These are good people, smart people, so can they
really all be wrong?....
"I don't know. The whole thing just scares me," Peterman said. "I'm
almost starting to feel like the best choice is not voting at all."
And this:
Said Jeanette Collins, a 77-year-old who lives across the street: "All
I know for sure about Obama is that we're not ready for him."
And this:
[T]hose who have pushed the truth in Findlay have been rewarded with
little that resembles progress. Gerri Kish, a 66-year-old born in
Hawaii, read both of Obama's autobiographies. She has close friends,
she said, who still refuse to believe her when she swears Obama is
Christian. Then she hands them the books, and they refuse to read them.
The Findlay Courier editorial closes with a request for an apology and a rewrite from reporter Eli Saslow. But unless Saslow fabricated quotes or anecdotes, he's got nothing to apologize for.
June 30, 2008
I once got the following advice from a Globie: Every now and then, when it's warranted, point out something the paper's done well--and leave it at that. No asterisks, disclaimers, snide asides, etc.
Binyamin Appelbaum's* troubling examination of the housing projects in Barack Obama's former Illinois state senate district, and of Obama's relationships with the developers who've renovated and operated those projects, certainly deserved this treatment. But I didn't laud it when it ran last week--and now, unfortunately, there is a big fat asterisk. According to sources inside the Globe, Appelbaum (who still qualifies as a recent Globe hire) is leaving the paper for the Washington Post.
One Globe staffer who spoke with DQM linked Appelbaum's departure to the Globe's worrisome financial arc. A second disagreed, saying that the Post has had its eye on Appelbaum ever since his coverage of sketchy homebuilder Beazer Homes USA garnered the Charlotte Observer a Polk Award and a Pulitzer-finalist slot. I tried to reach Appelbaum earlier today, but haven't heard back; if I do, and if he's willing to discuss the reasons for his departure, I'll post them here.
UPDATE: "I've accepted a position as the Post's national banking reporter," Appelbaum says via email. "It's an exciting opportunity for me, not a reflection on the Globe. I am in journalism largely because I grew up reading the Globe, and I continue to be inspired by the journalism produced here."
* Not "Applebaum," as I originally (and incorrectly) wrote.
June 30, 2008
Read this excellent but depressing offering from the Washington Post's Eli Saslow, and then try answering that question.
Three years ago, Post columnist E.J. Dionne noted, quite astutely, that the same conservatives who love to attack postmodernism are co-opting it for their political ends. If McCain beats Obama this fall, it'll be conservative postmodernism's biggest triumph yet.
June 26, 2008
Seriously, have you read McClatchy's big expose on post-9/11 detainees? Because you really should.
June 25, 2008
Maybe you thought Barack Obama's fake presidential seal was just a stupid gaffe, kind of like Mitt Romney's podium screw-up back in 2006. But no! It's much, much more than that. Mickey Kaus, take it away:
[T]he faux seal was a disaster not just for the reason
I gave (that it suggested Obama is "stuck up"). It also carried this
counterproductive connotation: that there is a separate Obama Nation,
grown up in opposition to Bush's nation. Obama Nation has its own
insignia and its own reality. It is somewhat alarmingly devoted to its
leader. And this blue tribe is about to completely conquer the current ruling red tribe. ... Voters didn't much like this kind of revolutionary swagger in the 1960s. They may not like it now.
Whoa.
Even without the Dylan link, that's some wild shit.
June 25, 2008
In a post yesterday, I implied that the Boston Globe was the first to report the Herald's big upcoming wave of layoffs. In fact, the Boston Business Journal got there first--last Friday, to be precise. My apologies.
June 25, 2008
That, according to two Globe employees, was one big question raised at the Monday "town meeting" at the paper's Morrissey Boulevard headquarters.
When a possible sale of the Globe by the NYT Co. came up, one employee says, Arthur Sulzberger replied: "As you can imagine, we can't get into that whole thing.... We can't go down that road. That's why CEOs go to jail.... We do face a raft of challenging issues. That's the hand we were dealt." The focus, Sulzberger added, should be on "fixing the Globe and making the Globe the paper it should be...to get the Globe moving on a trajectory that offers growth and stability." Talking about a possible sale is "muddying the waters," he concluded.
Janet Robinson's answer was shorter. "Our focus has to be strengthening our business," she reportedly said. "We must do so in a way that's right for the Globe."
By way of comparison, contrast these non-denials to Robinson's November 2006 response to the Jack Welch/Jack Connors/Joe O'Donnell group.
June 25, 2008
That's the goal described in the June 18 letter from Globe senior VP Gregory L. Thornton, president of the Boston Newspaper Guild, that officially proposed a 10 percent wage cut for most Globe employees.
"As we shared with you and other union leaders [at a June 3 presentation], despite constant and relentless cost cutting, Globe revenues continue to decline and continue to be less than needed to support the expense load of our current organization," Thornton wrote. "The only way for this newspaper to ameliorate the current financial situation is for us collectively to create a far different and more efficient business model that can continue to produce the award-winning journalism that has taken us into the 21st century. We continue to believe that we should be the newspaper of record in New England and are determined to make the necessary changes to ensure that."
The possibility of a ten-percent wage cut was also discussed at a Monday afternoon "Town Meeting" at Globe HQ that featured Janet Robinson and Arthur Sulzberger. Robinson and Sulzberger apparently fielded questions for an hour, with Globe publisher Steven Ainsley occasionally commenting as well.
According to a Globe staffer who was there, when a mailroom employee asked about the possible cut, Ainsley stressed that nothing had been decided: "It's part of a collective bargaining process," he reportedly said. "There is significant financial pressure. It's not a fact, it's a proposal."
Sulzberger then added: "We have to redefine what it means to be the Boston Globe.... Some of the levers relate to cost. We're trying to do more with less.... We have to redefine what the Boston Globe is in a new universe."
June 25, 2008
According to a story in today's Boston Herald, Boston Newspaper Guild president Dan Totten is determined to fight Globe management's request for a 10 percent reduction in employee wages."The Boston Newspaper Guild has given enough in the name of company equity," Totten told the Herald. "Globe and New York Times management must now give back."
But an email Totten sent to the BNG's membership earlier this morning suggests that the union's position on the wage cut may still be undecided. Here's what Totten said today:
Dear Colleague:
The Globe has requested to reopen our contract for the purpose of seeking a 10% wage cut.
Our contract is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2009; it does allow for an economic wage reopener on January 1, 2009.
This current request from the Globe is separate from that clause. The Globe has cited declining revenues as the reason for this emergency request to reopen our contract.
The union’s Executive Committee has made no decision on this issue at the moment. We’re discussing this matter with BNG legal counsel.
No decision will be made without discussion and input from our Governing Board. I urge all members to make your thoughts and opinions known to myself, any BNG executive officer or your delegate. We will also reach out to you directly, most likely in some combination of General Membership meetings, emails, or small group meetings to hear from you directly. More information on this matter to come.
In closing, I thank you for your patience in what is a very difficult time for all of us.
Please do not hesitate to contact myself, BNG executive officers & delegates as we move forward.
In solidarity,
Daniel B. Totten
More as it develops, obv.
June 24, 2008
Earlier today, the Boston Globe reported that the Boston Herald will be laying off up to 160 people and outsourcing its printing. But it wasn't clear--at least to me--whether those layoffs would be hit the editorial side or not.
According to Herald editor Kevin Convey, it's the latter. "The answer is, no editorial layoffs--none now and none contemplated," he tells the Phoenix.
Meanwhile, the Boston Business Journal is reporting that the Globe may "consolidat[e]" its own printing operations. “We’re taking a look at consolidation opportunities and we haven’t made
any final decisions yet,” spokesman Al Larkin tells the BBJ. No word in that article on how many job cuts this consolidation might entail; there is, however, some additional info on the Herald's plans (as well as a clarification about the editorial layoffs, or lack thereof).
June 20, 2008
As I narcissistically keep tabs on who's saying what about my story this week--i.e., the one on the old media-new media sportswriting feud--I'm noticing a theme: there's a lot of disagreement out there about what, exactly, "blogs" and "bloggers" are. By way of example, here's a comment posted to a column by Salon.com's King Kaufman (whom I quoted in the piece, and who returned the favor by writing about it today):
I'm sorry Mr. Kaufman, but I don't consider you a blogger. I
think of you as a columnist that is published on the web. You write
in complete sentences and paragraphs. Your columns can each be read
as an independent entity - you don't have to be in on the joke to
understand them fully.
The idea that anything published on the web is a blog is absurd
and irrelevant. Good writing is good writing, whether it is
chiselled into stone or streamed directly into the readers brain
via web 9.0 or some other future technology.
On that last point--"[G]ood writing is good writing, etc."--I wholeheartedly agree. Some of the other stuff, not so much. Who decided, for example, that writing like a grown-up means you're not blogging? Or that writing pieces that stand on their own means the same thing?
To my mind, something's a blog if it's A) published online and B) subjected to less editorial oversight than an article that runs in print (though not necessarily no editorial oversight at all). It's hard to come up with a narrower definition. Most blogs allow comments; some don't. The author's point of view is usually dominant, but not always. Some are self-published by amateurs; some are written by professional journalists for their employer. Some are obscene and juvenile; some are high-minded and esoteric.
That's precisely why anyone who makes blanket statements about what blogs are and aren't risks looking like a jackass. You wouldn't condemn "newspapers" after reading Page Six, or "radio" after listening to Michael Savage. Same deal here.
June 19, 2008
Godspeed to Boston magazine senior writer John Gonzalez, who's leaving that post to write a sports column for the Philadelphia Inquirer.
It's a great move for Gonzalez, who'll be joining his hometown paper in an extremely high-profile position. But it's a real loss for the Boston media market. When he was on--and he usually was--Gonzalez may have been the most entertaining writer in the city. Consider, for example, some highlights from his August '06 piece on the Herald's Inside Track Gals, which highlighted both Gonzalez's prose skills and his willingness to pick a fight:
In December 2004, in one of the more infamous public floggings in
recent memory, the Gals announced that longtime Channel 4 sports anchor
Bob Lobel was having an affair “with a woman some 20 years younger.”
The item also gleefully informed us that Lobel’s third marriage and his
career were in jeopardy (if they weren’t already, they probably were
after the item appeared). The fact that the Gals and Lobel share the
same agent apparently wasn’t enough to squash the story. “It was too
good not to print,” says a source. “He’s a household name.” The same
source adds that it was Lobel’s failure to make sufficient deposits in
the Track’s favor bank that made him a target. “If he had helped them
before, maybe they wouldn’t have burned him. See the difference? If
you’re not doing favors for them, if you’re not on their good side,
you’re fucked.”
Lobel won’t talk about the incident. Johnny
Damon’s wife, Michelle, a long-time Track whipping girl, also declines
to comment. Sports reporter Hazel Mae—the subject of a recent blind
item in the Track about her giving pet names to her breasts—isn’t
speaking either. To openly challenge the Track, after all, might
inspire the Gals to don their brass knuckles and throw down.
To
wit: When I first began reporting this story, I received multiple phone
calls saying the Gals were on to me. Before I’d written a word, my boss
had received four calls, one of them to inform him that I’m “a punk.”
Restaurant owner Joe Cimino sent a letter to this magazine, insisting
his name not appear in the article. Before long, disparaging comments
about my loyalty to Boston magazine started seeping into our
office. (If you see me panhandling outside Store 24, drop something in
my cup.) George Regan, one of the Gals’ PR buddies (who, incidentally,
represents BoMag and the Herald), asked me to come down to
his gym to “settle this.” He also issued a fatwa against me, sending
out a companywide directive that no one at his firm talk to me. Ever.
(Regan confirms he sent the memo “with pride,” before announcing that
any employee who does talk to me will be out of a job.)
In
person, the Gals are quite amiable. They’re quick with a joke and
chatty when it suits them. When I ask if they have any regrets about
what they’ve written, though, they almost laugh me out of the room. But
then, hardened cynicism is to the professional gossip what makeup is to
the rodeo clown—which is why the Gals often play up their mean streak.
“We’ve gone to events where we know we’re two skunks at a garden
party,” Raposa says. “There are some people out there who don’t like
us—and with good reason.”
Excellent.
Boston magazine now has some pretty big holes to fill: in addition to Gonzalez, DQM hears that John Wolfson, one of BoMag's three senior editors, is leaving as well.
As for Gonzalez, perhaps you're wondering: any connection between his sudden departure and his simmering feud with Globe metro columnist Kevin Cullen? He insists the answer's no. "You know what?" Gonzalez says. "If Kevin Cullen could chase anybody out of town, he'd be that much better. Just kidding, Kevin! Call me!"
June 18, 2008
In which I analyze the animosity between old-media sportswriters and their new-media counterparts--and argue that a truce might just be in the offing.
June 17, 2008
This may be obvious to some users, but it wasn't to me: to comment with this new blog engine of ours, you need to scroll down to the lower-right-hand corner of the post and click on "with no comments" (or "with one comment," etc.). You'll then be taken to a comment screen where you can speak your peace.
June 17, 2008
As you've probably noticed, there's some serious blog flux going on over at Phoenix HQ. The good news is that, if you're reading this, you've found the new Web home of Don't Quote Me, nee Media Log. Also, after disappearing for a few days, the last few months of posts have returned.
Now for the bad news. DQM's fancy new logo--which had been visible over the last few days at the old URL, thephoenix.com/medialog, but isn't any longer--has yet to make its way to the new URL (i.e., thephoenix.com/blogs/dontquoteme, where you are now). In addition, while the AWOL posts have resurfaced, the comments to those posts are still missing. But they should materialize soon. I think.
Confused? You and me both, pal. So let's move on to another topic. Did anyone else notice the message emblazoned on the shirt of the woman depicted in the Globe's "On My Mind" feature yesterday?
That message--which is a little easier to see here--seems to be, "Cops are no pigs. Pigs are much more civil!"
The weirdest thing isn't that the Globe published the pic in question. It's that, when the woman (Clara Hendricks) explained what was "on her mind" at the time, she didn't mention anything police-related. Instead, she offered this:
This morning was the first time that my previously neglected, very shy guinea pig let me hold her. It was a really beautiful moment and it just made me so happy that in the last couple months she has gotten this comfortable with me.
Good to know, I suppose.