BY DAN
KENNEDY
Notes and observations on
the press, politics, culture, technology, and more. To sign up for
e-mail delivery, click
here. To send
an e-mail to Dan Kennedy, click
here.
For bio, published work, and links to other blogs, visit
www.dankennedy.net.
For information on Dan Kennedy's book, Little People: Learning to
See the World Through My Daughter's Eyes (Rodale, October 2003),
click
here.
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
RACIAL PROFILING AT BUSH-CHENEY
2004? The Arizona Daily Star reports
that the Bush-Cheney campaign demanded to know the race of a
photographer that the paper had assigned to cover an appearance by
Dick Cheney last Saturday. Managing editor Teri Hayt refused, but the
photographer - Mamta Popat, who is of Indian descent - was allowed to
attend the Cheney event anyway.
As you'll see when you read the
story, the demand came from the campaign itself, and was supposedly
related to security concerns. Yet in this
follow-up, the Secret
Service takes the hit, calling the need for racial identification
part of its standard security procedures.
Hmmm ... then how come the
Phoenix wasn't asked for the race of reporters who would be
covering the Democratic National Convention? We received nine passes
for the FleetCenter, including a seat high above courtside, and I
guarantee you we weren't asked who anyone's color was. And in case
you didn't notice, the Secret Service practically ran the
DNC.
I've covered maybe a half-dozen
events over the years in which the Secret Service was involved, and
I've never once been asked to state the color of my skin. Yes, I
know, someone named Kennedy is probably white, but my brother
Randall
Kennedy shows that's not
always the case.
So is the Secret Service telling
the truth? If so, then why did the initial demand come from the
Bush-Cheney campaign rather than from the agency? And if the Secret Service is not
telling the truth, doesn't that amount to partisan flak-catching on
behalf of the Republicans?
And why has no one written about
this except David
Mark?
[Update: D'oh! Click here for just a few of the other folks who've commented on this.]
NOMAR - WELL, MORE. I'm
trying to find a way to wrap up the Nomar Garciaparra media war. I'm
hoping that this
column (sub. req.) by the
Herald's Howard Bryant will do it. Bryant has obviously made
the effort to talk to anyone who'll talk, and to place it all in some
kind of perspective. The result is a piece that makes management look
better than Nomar, but that has more nuance and depth than other
commentaries I've seen. Bryant writes:
... Red Sox sources say
the organization's mindset was to try and win a championship with
Garciaparra in the lineup, let the relationship atrophy during the
winter and part through the no-fault excuse of being unable to
agree on a contract.
Neither side wanted to be the
bad guy with the public. The result was an air of insincerity on
both sides. The Sox didn't want the responsibility of trading a
player of Garciaparra's enormity and the shortstop didn't want to
deconstruct his iconic status with the fans by telling them he
wanted out.
What made it fall apart, Bryant
says, is that Garciaparra, for the first time in his career, was
letting "his feelings toward the organization affect how he
approached games. For seven years, he had never undermined the team,
and now they believed he had." The result: an almost panicked trade
in which the Red Sox got the short end of the stick.
posted at 1:11 PM |
0 comments
|
link
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
MEDIA LOG ARCHIVES
Dan Kennedy is senior writer and media critic for the Boston Phoenix.
