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.
Friday, March 05, 2004
Barnicle to write for
Herald. It was nearly six years ago that the Boston
Herald reported that then-Boston Globe columnist
Mike
Barnicle had lifted
one-liners from a George Carlin book. Within weeks,
Barnicle was gone amid accusations of fabrication and plagiarism -
charges that he denied, but that he never adequately
explained.
Well, what goes around comes
around. Because now comes word that new editorial director Ken
Chandler is on the verge of announcing that Barnicle will be brought
in as a Herald columnist. The announcement is said to be
scheduled for Monday, although that could be moved up since it's
apparent that the entire Boston media world already knows about
it.
Barnicle's first column is
supposedly scheduled for Tuesday. No word on whether he'll be a staff
member or a freelancer, or if he'll write once, twice, or more a
week. The guess here is that he'll freelance so that he
can keep doing his show
on WTKK Radio (96.9 FM). Perhaps he can be persuaded at least to give
up his low-energy Sunday
column in the New York
Daily News.
No doubt Andy Costello
did much during the past year to keep Chandler from bringing in
Barnicle, a move that had been rumored since last summer. Last week,
of course, Costello was moved out of the editor's job. This week,
here's Mike!
The staff began finding out about
the impending move on Thursday. Media Log's sources suggest there is
considerable unhappiness about bringing in an aging hack at a time
when the mantra is supposedly all about attracting younger
readers.
As for whether that discontent will
extend to anything more than grumbling, Monday should be a good
indication.
posted at 8:54 PM |
comment or permalink
Did too! Here's the lead of
an Associated Press dispatch
that moved yesterday: "Oklahoma Republican Rep. Tom Cole said
Thursday he did not intend to equate a vote against President Bush to
a vote for Adolf Hitler, but stuck by recent comments that a Bush
loss would be a win for Osama bin Laden."
Here is what Cole actually said,
according to his own spokeswoman: "What do you think Hitler would
have thought if Roosevelt would've lost the election in 1944? He
would have thought American resolve was
[weakening]."
Here is what Cole says he really
meant: "What I am saying is that in a time of war, if our commander
in chief is defeated in an election, our adversary will regard that
as a triumph."
By Cole's own admission, he said
that a vote for John Kerry is a vote for bin Laden. (The actual
quote: "[I]f George Bush loses the election, Osama bin Laden
wins the election.") And by any reasonable person's interpretation,
Cole also said that a vote for Kerry is a vote for Hitler.
You may recall that Republican
National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie recently went
bananas when MoveOn.org
mistakenly posted a video contest entry that compared Bush to Hitler,
even though website co-founder Wes Boyd took it down and apologized almost
immediately.
Now some Democrats are calling on
Cole to apologize. Please. His constituents ought to demand that he
resign.
posted at 1:24 PM |
comment or permalink
Thursday, March 04, 2004
The (ahem) inside track on the
Herald. Not much good news coming out of Wingo Square
these days. Click here
for my update on the Boston Herald in the post-Andy Costello
era.
One good move, though: the paper
has shifted columnist Howard
Manly to the op-ed page.
Manly's stuff tends to get lost inside the Herald's
hyperkinetic news hole. This should give him some new
readers.
New in this week's
Phoenix. In addition to my Herald update, I've got
a piece
on how John Kerry can survive the Republicans' flying monkeys in the
run-up to the Democratic National Convention.
posted at 10:42 AM |
comment or permalink
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Selling out his own
daughter. Business is business, but even Vito Corleone was good
to his kids. Which is why I'm so appalled, if not surprised, that
Dick Cheney would sell out his own daughter on gay marriage.
Says
the vice-president: "The
president's taken the clear position that he supports a
constitutional amendment. I support him."
Now, I suppose it's possible that
you could have a child who's gay or lesbian, that you could oppose
marriage rights on religious or philosophical grounds or whatever,
and you could still love that child. But Cheney, as we know, has
actually changed his position in order to get on the right
side of George W. Bush's panderfest. Have he and his daughter, Mary
Cheney, talked about this? For that matter, do they still
talk?
Here's what Cheney said
in his debate with Joe Lieberman in 2000:
The fact of the matter is
we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for
everybody. We don't get to choose, and shouldn't be able to choose
and say, "You get to live free, but you don't." And I think that
means that people should be free to enter into any kind of
relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's
business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in
that regard.
The next step, then, of course,
is the question you ask of whether or not there ought to be some
kind of official sanction, if you will, of the relationship, or if
these relationships should be treated the same way a conventional
marriage is. That's a tougher problem. That's not a slam
dunk.
I think the fact of the
matter, of course, is that matter is regulated by the states. I
think different states are likely to come to different
conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should
necessarily be a federal policy in this area.
I try to be open-minded about it
as much as I can, and tolerant of those relationships. And like
Joe, I also wrestle with the extent to which there ought to be
legal sanction of those relationships. I think we ought to do
everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of
relationships people want to enter into.
From let-the-states-decide (which
implies federal recognition) to a constitutional amendment to ban gay
marriage. What a long, strange, ugly trip it's been.
Andrew Sullivan, for some reason,
tries to throw Cheney a lifeline, arguing
that Cheney said he supports the president, not the amendment. To
which I say, if Cheney is parsing his words as carefully as Sullivan
thinks he is, then his performance is all the more
shameful.
And do check out DearMary.com.
A Corleone line that Cheney won't
be using: "Why do you come to me on the day of my daughter's
wedding?"
Quote of the day. "Just last
week he [George W. Bush] proposed to amend the Constitution
of the United States for political purposes. He has no right to
misuse the most precious document in our history in an effort to
divide this nation and to distract us from our goals." - John Kerry
during his victory
speech last
night.
Strong stuff. Too bad Kerry
fails
to show the same reverence for the Massachusetts Constitution, which
he favors amending for the sole purpose of getting an election-year
monkey off his back.
posted at 12:24 PM |
comment or permalink
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
A bad night for gay
marriage. Democrat Angus McQuilken, to everyone's surprise,
appears likely to lose
to Republican Scott Brown in the special Massachusetts Senate
election to replace McQuilken's former boss, Cheryl
Jacques.
Jacques left to become head of the
Human Rights Campaign, a gay-and-lesbian-rights organization.
McQuilken strongly supports same-sex marriage; Brown is an opponent,
and has gotten a lot of help from Governor Mitt Romney.
Rightly or wrongly (and, sadly, I
suspect rightly) this race is going to be looked at as a referendum
on gay marriage. This wasn't even supposed to have been close.
Legislators are going to pay a lot of attention to this on March 11,
when they resume the constitutional convention to consider an
amendment banning gay marriage.
This isn't good.
posted at 10:38 PM |
comment or permalink
Maggots of the media. A
wonderful phrase for you old-time Boston political junkies. And it
fits!
I'm not sure whether this is good
or bad, but Wonkette
has the same take on Elisabeth Bumiller as Media Log. She
writes:
"She just turned in what may be the worst debate performance since
Nixon sweated through his makeup." There's something about a kitten
being strangled, too.
On Slate, William Saletan
blasts all three inquisitors - Bumiller, Dan Rather, and WCBS-TV
reporter Andrew Kirtzman - writing,
"And we wonder why people hate the press."
Actually, no, we don't. The reasons
are many, and have been on display for quite some time
now.
The giving of the green. No
doubt Massachusetts House Speaker Tom Finneran hates the press today.
The Boston Globe's Raphael Lewis reports
on some mighty strange donations.
In December, according to Lewis,
Finneran donated $24,500 to the Massachusetts Democratic Party. The
party then turned around and donated $26,000 to 10 House members who
have been loyal to Mr. Speaker on some contentious issues.
What may have been going on was
that Finneran took advantage of a legal loophole to make campaign
donations to his supporters far in excess of what he could give via
the direct route.
As it stands, the story is
incomplete, but Media Log looks forward to the follow-up.
The end of the beginning.
John Kerry stands an excellent chance of carrying all 10 states
today, according to the final tracking polls. Click here
for the Real Clear Politics roundup; here
for Zogby.
The Kerry campaign is known to be
concerned about Georgia, where the lead over John Edwards is narrow,
and the Minnesota
caucuses. There's also a
chanced that Vermont will reward its former governor, Howard Dean,
with a symbolic victory. But Edwards now seems unlikely to carry
Ohio, where his populist message has some appeal.
Will Edwards quit
tonight?
As for what's next, Media Log does
not often agree with Mickey Kaus. But if you look at his
piece today as things to
worry about rather than as a blanket indictment, I think you'll find
that Kaus has pretty much nailed it.
posted at 10:03 AM |
comment or permalink
Monday, March 01, 2004
