MEDIA LOG 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.

Tuesday, August 31, 2004

NOT BAD FOR A CYBORG. But the nets missed a chance to cut to Dick Cheney when Arnold Schwarzenegger said, "And when Nelson Mandela smiled in election victory after all those years in prison, America celebrated, too."

Cheney, when he was a Wyoming congressman, voted against a 1986 resolution calling for Mandela to be freed from a South African prison.

posted at 10:30 PM | 1 comments | link

SEE YOU IN COURT. John Dean writes that John Kerry should sue the Swifties for libel. He makes an interesting case - and cites Barry Goldwater as a precedent.

posted at 9:13 PM | 0 comments | link

BUSH ON THE COUCH. Newsweek's cover piece on George W. Bush contains some mighty telling details about his relationship with his father. Let's cut right to the chase:

Many of Bush's friends, as well as his critics, wonder why Bush failed to consult one particularly experienced and able expert in the field of foreign affairs: his father. "41" often calls "43," but usually to say, "I love you, son," President Bush told NEWSWEEK. "My dad understands that I am so better informed on many issues than he could possibly be that his advice is minimal." That is a pity, say some old advisers to 41, because 43 badly needed to be rescued from the clutches of the neocons, the Defense Department ideologues who, in the view of the moderate internationalists who served in 41's administration, have hijacked American foreign policy.

But the fact is that President Bush did not want to be rescued. To say he has a complicated relationship with his father is an understatement. Bush clearly admires, even worships, his father, says a friend who notes that Bush wept when his father lost political races. But he doesn't want his father's help. To some degree, he is following a Bush family code. According to family lore, Bush's grandfather Prescott refused an inheritance from his father, while W's dad refused Prescott's plea to put off joining the Navy in World War II before going to college. "No, sir, I'm going in," said the 19-year-old George H.W. Bush. In the Bushes' world, real men are supposed to make it on their own, without Dad's looking over their shoulders. After the 1988 presidential campaign, W was eager to shed the nickname "Junior."

But George W. hasn't just been independent, he's been defiant. The degree to which Bush defines himself in opposition to his father is striking. While 41 raised taxes, 43 cut them, twice. Forty-one is a multilateralist; 43 is a unilateralist. Forty-one "didn't finish the job" in Iraq, so 43 finished it for him. Much was made of 43's religiosity when he told Bob Woodward that "when it comes to strength," he turns not to 41, but rather to "a higher father." But what was the president saying about his own father?

...

You don't have to be Freud or Sophocles to conjure up some rivalrous or rebellious feelings of the son toward the father. George W. spend much of his early years, and a good deal of his adulthood, trying and failing to catch up to his father as a student, athlete, aviator, businessman and politician. When Bush, in a drunken rage at the age of 26, challenged his father to go "mano a mano" with him, all his father could say was how "disappointed" he was. What could be more wounding?

But that was many years ago. Bush without question bears scars, possibly serious ones, that affect his behavior today. But unlike so many other sons of the powerful, he pulled his life together and made some kind of peace, or at least truce, with his demons.

Written by Evan Thomas, Tamara Lipper, and Rebecca Sinderbrand, the piece - "The Road to Resolve" - is striking in its willingness to plumb the president's psychology. It seems unlikely that a vanilla publication such as Newsweek would have been willing to publish something that would be so likely to piss off the notoriously touchy Bush clan a year ago, when the president was still riding high.

Also, check out this Jonathan Alter column on Bush's nasty campaign style, epitomized by his reluctance to dissociate himself from the lying Swifties. Writes Alter: "So much for any sense of decency. The man who was once an inept right-wing president but a nice guy is now just an inept right-wing president."

posted at 7:56 PM | 0 comments | link

RUSH SAVES BUSH FROM TRUTH. George W. Bush told the truth on Saturday. But don't worry. He's not going to let it happen again. He made sure of that earlier this afternoon in a characteristically fawning interview conducted by Rush Limbaugh.

As you may recall, the president was asked by Matt Lauer, in an interview for NBC's Today show, whether the US could win the war on terrorism. (The interview was broadcast yesterday.) Bush replied: "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world - let's put it that way."

It was a good, honest answer. Unfortunately, it was also at odds with the triumphalism of his past remarks. As Elisabeth Bumiller reported in today's New York Times, Bush said as recently as July 14, "I have a clear vision and a strategy to win the war on terror." Bumiller went on to write, "It was unclear if Mr. Bush had meant to make the remark to Mr. Lauer, or if he misspoke." Misspoke? Re-read what he said. Rarely has he been so honest and coherent.

Of course, Bush's candor was immediately labeled a mistake. It would have been nice if John Kerry or John Edwards had jokingly welcomed Bush to the real world. But no. Edwards made a stiff statement insisting, "This is no time to declare defeat. It won't be easy and it won't be quick, but we have a comprehensive plan to make America safer." (Note that Edwards didn't say that Bush was wrong.) Even Bush's sycophants on the Fox News Channel said Bush had stepped in it, though they tried to explain it away.

So today ... El Rushbo to the rescue! "Well, I appreciate you bringing that up," Bush - calling in from Des Moines, where he was campaigning - told Limbaugh, adding that he should have been "more clear." Bush explained: "What I meant was that this is not a conventional war. It is a different kind of war. We're fighting people who have got a dark ideology who use terrorists, terrorism, as a tool." And: "In a conventional war there would be a peace treaty or there would be a moment where somebody would sit on the side and say, 'We quit.' That's not the kind of war we're in, and that's what I was saying."

After talking a bit about his confidence that Iraq and Afghanistan will become "free nations," Bush said, "I probably needed to be a little more articulate," then followed up with this: "I know we'll win it, but we have to be resolved and firm, and we can't doubt what we stand for."

Still more: "We're making great progress. Today at the [American] Legion I said we're winning the war on terror, and we'll win the war on terror. There's no doubt in my mind."

Look, optimism has its place. But terrorism is clearly a problem to be contained and controlled. To say that it will be defeated entirely is unrealistic to the point of foolishness. Just ask the Israelis and the British. Bush could have followed up his remarks to Lauer by expanding on them in order to educate the public. Instead, he went right back to pandering. No surprise there.

Bush and Limbaugh went back and forth for about 20 minutes, justifying the war in Iraq, engaging in a some light Kerry-bashing, and previewing his Thursday-night convention speech, although only a bit. "I'm going to save some of it for the speech if you don't mind," Bush said. "You're a good friend, and I hate to let you down." Replied the groveling Rush: "I understand, I understand completely."

As they were closing, Bush asked the longtime OxyContin abuser, "How you feeling?" Limbaugh replied, "I've never been happier," no doubt grateful every day that he never received the sort of "justice" that the Bush family is famous for dishing out to drug abusers, and that Limbaugh himself has supported in the past. Limbaugh also told Bush that people are "praying" for him.

"That's the most important thing people can do, is pray. And I appreciate that," Bush said.

"I can't speak for everybody," Limbaugh said in closing, "but I can speak for quite a few. They love you out there, Mr. President, and they only wish you the best."

Gee, how come Matt Lauer didn't speak to Bush that way?

No sooner had Bush gotten off the phone than Limbaugh got weird. "I want to make a prediction. I hope I'm wrong, but I want to make a prediction," he said, noting that he expected mainstream news organizations would cover the interview. "I wouldn't be surprised - I would not be surprised if somewhere early on in their stories ... don't be surprised if they find a way to work in the Abu Ghraib prison stuff."

Huh? Well, there's no arguing with Rush. After all, as he said of the mainstream media, "I know these people like every square inch of my glorious naked body." Got that?

posted at 3:25 PM | 0 comments | link

WONDERFUL OR MARVELOUS? MSNBC.com's "Question of the Day" is up on the home page right now. Have a look. The question: "Did Rudy Giuliani's speech reassure you or move you to support the Bush-Cheney ticket?" The choices: "Reassure" and "Move you to support." Really.

I chose "Reassure" so that I could see the results. It looks like I voted with the majority, 75 percent to 25 percent. Of course, we'll never know how "Turn you off" or "Drive you to support the Kerry-Edwards ticket" might have fared. (Thanks to John Doherty.) [Update: Well, that didn't take long. The question now reads "Did Rudy Giuliani's speech move you to support the Bush-Cheney ticket?" The new options are "Yes" and "No."]

posted at 12:38 PM | 0 comments | link

McCAIN THROWS BUSH A LIFE-PRESERVER. Rudy Giuliani spoke to the delegates. John McCain spoke to the country. That's why - despite the gushing you hear over Giuliani's funny, serious, nasty, and at times eloquent speech last night - McCain actually did Bush more good, and got a leg up on his New York rival in (God help us) the 2008 presidential campaign.

I can't find it online this morning, but I'm pretty sure it was Fox News nitwit Morton Kondracke who called McCain's speech "self-serving" in comparison to Giuliani's. What Kondracke liked about Rudy was the way he slashed at Kerry. Later, Kondracke amended his remarks to allow that, well, McCain did offer a rationale with the war in Iraq, and that was useful to Bush.

Well, duh. In fact, McCain - who'd wanted to go to war with Iraq for years - put forth a far more effective argument than George W. Bush has ever managed to muster. If Bush can figure out a way to incorporate McCain's case into his own stump speech, he'll be a lot better off. McCain was wrong, but he was wrong in a way that was so much more palatable than Bush. Here's the heart of what McCain said:

The years of keeping Saddam in a box were coming to a close. The international consensus that he be kept isolated and unarmed had eroded to the point that many critics of military action had decided the time had come again to do business with Saddam, despite his near daily attacks on our pilots, and his refusal, until his last day in power, to allow the unrestricted inspection of his arsenal. Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war.

It was between war and a graver threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad. Not our political opponents.

He followed that immediately with his memorable attack on Michael Moore.

Now, of course, there is much in McCain's assessment with which to disagree. He failed to mention that Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, had already concluded that Saddam Hussein did not have nukes. McCain also left out the fact that UN weapons inspectors were swarming around Iraq, and that they actually had to leave so that Bush could commence bombing. And, of course, there is the matter of Bush's giving the finger to the world rather than building a genuine international coalition - a tragic mistake given the horrors that are taking place in Iraq today.

Still, McCain was right when he argued that sanctions had pretty much run their course, and that something had to be done. (After all, that's why John Kerry voted to grant war-authorization powers to Bush.) It's just that the "something" Bush chose has turned out to be a widely predicted disaster.

As for McCain's failure to rip into Kerry, a failure that Kondracke found so distasteful - well, everyone who follows politics knows that McCain likes and respects Kerry on a personal level and detests Bush. (The depth of McCain's distaste for the lying Swiftie ads is revealed in this R.W. Apple piece today.) Would anyone have found it even remotely credible if McCain had suddenly gone after Kerry as a flip-flopping weasel?

Rather than coming off as a Republican partisan, McCain projected an image as a truly independent politician who's chosen a man he dislikes over one he likes strictly as a matter of principle. Just as Giuliani thanked God for Bush, Bush ought to thank God for McCain. If McCain managed to help himself in the process, well, what of it?

THE REST OF THE STORY. It's not online, unfortunately, but there's a hilarious omission in today's Boston Globe. The "Names" column includes a photo of Vanessa and Alexandra Kerry with this caption:

POP AND POLITICS - Vanessa (left) and Alexandra Kerry ask for quiet while urging the crowd to vote this fall at the MTV Video Music Awards Sunday in Miami.

The discerning will note that the reason they were asking quiet was that they were getting booed (and cheered) by the crowd.

"HOPE NOT FEAR." You can watch the Log Cabin Republicans' 30-second commercial here. Pretty slick move, drafting Ronald Reagan: I'm not sure he'd agree, but he's not going to complain. Rudy Giuliani and John McCain appear in a positive context, too.

I also like the narrator talking about "the politics of intolerance and fear that only lead to hate" while images of Pat Buchanan, Jerry Falwell, and Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum flash by on the screen.

JUST ANOTHER WORKING HACK. Here is Michael Moore's debut column on the RNC for USA Today.

posted at 11:14 AM | 1 comments | link

Monday, August 30, 2004

THERE GOES SWIFTY! This week's New Republic has so much good stuff on the lying Swifties that it's hard to know where to begin.

From Peter Beinart's "TRB" column (sub. req.):

The medals and the Cambodia charges are partisan hack stuff, cynically repeated in service of the greater Republican good. What genuinely upsets conservatives - including conservative veterans - is something different. First, conservatives think it's hypocritical for Kerry, who denounced the war, to now take credit for having fought in it. As The Wall Street Journal editorialized this week, Kerry has "managed the oxymoronic feat of celebrating both his own war-fighting valor and his antiwar activities when he returned home." But what's oxymoronic about that? What Kerry "celebrates" is that he volunteered for Vietnam - and served heroically - when elites (including Bill Clinton, Dan Quayle, and George W. Bush) were finding ways not to go. That's noble, even if Kerry thinks the war itself was not. And, if Kerry is a hypocrite for having served in a war he opposed, what about Dick Cheney - who avoided serving in a war he supported?

From the editorial (sub. req.):

Journalists, in short, became accomplices to fraud. And they should have known better. In 2000, Bush and his right-wing allies learned that the way to win political arguments is to launch rhetorical attacks based only loosely - if at all - on the facts and then depend on reporters to spread them as credible perspectives on the truth. And, ever since, this White House has conducted its business the very same way, shamelessly peddling lies about everything from budget projections to weapons of mass destruction without the slightest fear of retribution.

From Ryan Lizza's "Campaign Journal" (sub. req.):

Never in a campaign has a more disreputable group of people, whose accusations have been repeatedly contradicted by official records and reliable eyewitness accounts, had their claims taken so seriously.

Is the New Republic partisan? Well, sure. It's nominally Democratic in a centrist, hawkish kind of way. But it also supported the war in Iraq, even going so far as to endorse Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primaries. It also ran opposing views in favor of other Democrats - and couldn't find a single person willing to write on Kerry's behalf.

In other words, TNR is far from being the house organ for the Kerry-Edwards campaign, and at one time it was even sympathetic to Bush. [Update: I originally referred to the "Bush-Edwards campaign." D'oh!] So its judgment on the Swifties bears paying attention to.

MAYBE I SHOULDN'T HAVE STAYED HOME AFTER ALL. Editor & Publisher has some eye-opening details on the luxuries awaiting reporters assigned to the Republican National Convention. Hey - who's got time to do any real reporting when you're getting a facial and sucking down a few bottles of complimentary beer?

posted at 7:53 PM | 3 comments | link

PRAGUE SPRING? Earlier today I took part in a media conference call with some of the founding members of Mainstream 2004, a group of self-described moderate Republicans who are seething over the right-wing extremism that has come to dominate their party. The organization debuted with a splash today, taking out a full-page ad in the New York Times.

"We're seeing a Republican Party that's being taken over by some pretty hardcore activists at the grassroots level who are often way out of the mainstream of the communities they are from," said former Arizona attorney general Grant Woods. He went on to call the right-wingers folks who "don't have anything better to do" than to engage in political activism, while the people who should be the heart and soul of the Republican Party are engaged in more-normal endeavors - like working.

Like the others who spoke, Woods was particularly exercised over the modern Republican Party's sorry record on the environment and on outreach to African-Americans and other minority communities.

The organization's agenda sounds like that espoused by most Democrats: environmental protection; fiscal responsibility; ending barriers to stem-cell research; appointing "mainstream federal judges"; enhancing domestic security at chemical and nuclear plants and in shipping; and rebuilding alliances to "restore America's standing in the world."

Yet these Republicans, at least as a group, will not go so far as to renounce George W. Bush's re-election campaign. Woods allowed only that he's backing a hoped-for presidential run by his home-state senator John McCain in 2008. Former Michigan governor William Milliken declined to say who he plans to vote for, saying he has "severe misgivings" about Bush but adding, "I don't see in John Kerry at this stage the answer to all the problems that confront us inside the country and internationally."

The exception was Rick Russman, a former member of the New Hampshire Senate, who said he's decided to support Kerry if only "because I think the party needs to lose a few elections" to find its bearings again.

In some ways, the group - rounded out by former New Mexico governor David Cargo - sounded like New England Republicans. For some years now, the region's moderate Republican senators have been a thorn in the side of the national Republican Party, standing for an old-fashioned mix of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. This movement is epitomized by Maine's two GOP senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, as well as by Rhode Island's Lincoln Chafee. Vermont senator Jim Jeffords even went so far to change his affiliation from Republican to independent a few years ago to protest his party's march to the right.

Given that background, I asked Russman whether he thought the New England Republican Party had anything to teach the national party. "I'd like to see some of our leaders, like these senators from Maine and others, take the lead in that and try to take the party back to the mainstream," he responded. "There's got to be a critical mass that says the pendulum's gone too far. We're starting to lose a great number of people."

That's probably an exaggeration. But there's no question that the hard-right extremists are out-of-touch with mainstream, independent voters, and Karl Rove knows it. That's why this week's speakers are heavy on moderates such as New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, former mayor Rudy Giuliani, and McCain. As Woods said, if party leaders wanted to show their true face, "they should have Tom DeLay deliver the principal speech."

Still, though the Mainstream 2004 folks may be in touch with the electorate-at-large, there's not much evidence that they're in touch with modern Republicanism. Everyone who spoke during the conference call today was a former officeholder. Cargo shone the best possible light on that, saying, "We can really tell it like it is." But their status only served to underscore the sense that there is no place for them in today's GOP.

Milliken praised this New York Times op-ed piece by former US senator Ed Brooke, a Massachusetts Republican, an African-American, and a liberal. Brooke warned that the 2004 convention may be shaping up, in its "extremism," like the one that nominated Barry Goldwater 40 years ago. Yet what neither Milliken nor Brooke want to admit is that today's GOP - which is far to the right of what Goldwater could even have imagined, or wanted - is thriving and winning elections.

I was unable to get an immediate reaction from the Republican National Committee; if I receive one, I'll post it. What I was hearing from the dissident moderates, though, sounded like the Republican version of 1968's Prague Spring. The difference is that the Rove gang won't have to roll in the tanks - certainly not this year, and maybe not ever. Woods himself said that the focus is on the long-term. Yet both major parties are becoming more ideological, not less. It's hard to see how Mainstream 2004 is going to change that.

posted at 2:47 PM | 0 comments | link

ROMNEY BEHAVES HIMSELF. Give Mitt Romney this much: at least you can take him out in public. Our silky-smooth governor always says exactly what he wants to say, and no more. And he would never say anything that would call into question his nice-guy reputation. Of course, there are those of us who happen to think that waging war on poor families and gay couples isn't something that a nice guy would do, but I'm talking about manners here, not substance.

Anyway, I was watching this morning's Fox & Friends a little while ago - yes, I am spending a great deal of time with the Fox News Channel, for reasons that will become evident later this week - when on came Romney for some chit-chat. It wasn't long before E.D. Hill and boys were baiting Romney with their favorite subject: the phony Swifties, whose lies about John Kerry's military service are being kept alive at this point solely by right-wing talk radio, the Internet, and the Fox News Channel. (That is to say, by no one who has actually done any reporting on the matter.)

Romney started off shakily, saying that the whole thing was a "mistake ... on both sides of the aisle," adding that Kerry "really brought on a lot of this on himself" by basing so much of his campaign on his record as a Vietnam War veteran.

Really, Governor? Has Kerry made too much of his military service? Probably, at least so far as it has kept him from talking more specifically about what kind of a president he would be. Does that mean it's his fault that he's been subjected to weeks of lies about the medals he won and circumstances under which he won them? Er, isn't the answer to that obvious?

But then Romney settled down and said:

But fundamentally John Kerry served his country with honor and pride. He's heroic for having fought there. Anybody who found themselves under enemy fire, in harm's way, is someone whom I respect. And I think the people who are attacking him for his Vietnam service are making a mistake. I think it's wrong. I wish they wouldn't do so. I don't know what it's going to do politically.

Not bad - similar to the position that George W. Bush has taken, only a bit more fleshed-out and coherent.

Naturally, Romney also attacked Kerry for having "not followed the example of Bob Dole" in resigning from the Senate (Kerry instead appears to have followed the example of Bush, who did not resign as governor of Texas in 2000), and for wanting to "go back to the politics of weakness and uncertainty and vacillation." But obviously that's well within the bounds of proper political discourse.

What's interesting about this - and my apologies for taking so long to get to the point - is how the Republicans are reaping the benefit of having it both ways with regard to the lying Swifties. Their vicious accusations - which have been almost entirely discredited - have presumably had a lot to do with Kerry's recent drop in the polls. Meanwhile, Republicans such as Bush and Romney take the high road.

You could give credit to Romney for good manners. In fact, though, whether he knows it or not, he's playing a role that only helps to further the Swifties' ongoing assault on Kerry. After all, sliming is a lot less effective if it ends up hitting the intended beneficiaries in the face. By denouncing that which is helping them, Bush and Romney are playing a very old game.

posted at 12:34 PM | 0 comments | link

HASTERT SLANDERS SOROS. WILL ANYONE NOTICE? Welcome to the official kickoff of Media Log's coverage of the Republican National Convention. I'm taking a radically different approach from the way I covered the Democrats - rather than traveling to New York, I'm embedded at Media Log Central, where I have non-stop access to cable TV, radio, and the Internet. Modern political conventions are TV shows, so why not cover them that way?

I posted some pre-convention items on Saturday and Sunday, so by all means scroll down and have a look. Meanwhile, I want to call your attention to House Speaker Dennis Hastert's astonishing remarks on Fox News Sunday yesterday, in which he said he doesn't know whether billionaire financier George Soros gets any of his money from the international drug cartels.

Think I'm kidding? Well, the transcript is available. The occasion was a joint appearance by Hastert and Senate majority leader Bill Frist - their "first joint TV interview ever," said host Chris Wallace, who unctuously added, "So thank you for honoring us with that."

Within a few minutes, Hastert was honoring Wallace and his viewers with slander against Soros so mind-boggling that Wallace appeared stricken. Let's roll the tape:

WALLACE: Let me switch subjects. You both had very deep reservations about McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform before it was passed. In fact, I think you say in your book, Mr. Speaker, that you thought it was the worst piece of legislation that had been passed by a Republican Congress since you've come to Washington.

Now that everyone seems upset with these so-called independent 527 groups, whether it's MoveOn.org on the liberal side of the spectrum or Swift Boat Veterans for Truth on the conservative side, do you feel like saying, "I told you so"?

HASTERT: Well, you know, that doesn't do any good. You know, but look behind us at this convention. I remember when I was a kid watching my first convention in 1992, when both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party laid out their platform, laid out their philosophy, and that's what they followed.

Here in this campaign, quote, unquote, "reform," you take party power away from the party, you take the philosophical ideas away from the party, and give them to these independent groups.

You know, I don't know where George Soros gets his money. I don't know where - if it comes overseas or from drug groups or where it comes from. And I ...

WALLACE: Excuse me?

HASTERT: Well, that's what he's been for a number years - George Soros has been for legalizing drugs in this country. So, I mean, he's got a lot of ancillary interests out there.

WALLACE: You think he may be getting money from the drug cartel?

HASTERT: I'm saying I don't know where groups - could be people who support this type of thing. I'm saying we don't know. The fact is we don't know where this money comes from.

Of course, it's true that "we don't know" whether George Soros gets his money from international narco-terrorists. It's also true that we don't know whether Dennis Hastert supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in order to conceal his own longtime relationship with a man back in his district. I mean, Hastert is probably straight, and his marriage probably isn't just an elaborate ruse. But hey ... we just don't know, do we?

And by the way, mega-kudos to Wallace. If he hadn't pressed Hastert on whether he might be referring to "the drug cartel," Hastert could have claimed later that he meant the Drug Policy Alliance, an anti-prohibition group that Soros supports. Not that that would have made any sense - after all, Hastert was clearly talking about groups that give to Soros, not get money from him. But Wallace forced Hastert to make his ugly insinuation explicit.

So are the mainstream media going to take note of Hastert's slanderous aside? Or will it be allowed simply to fade to nothingness? [Update: The New York Daily News nails Hastert here.]

GUERRIERO'S MOMENT. This could be a big week for Patrick Guerriero, the former Melrose mayor who's now executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans. The Bush-Cheney campaign is trying mightily to toe the line between hard-right anti-gay politics and happy-face image-making. Guerriero is making it clear that no compromise is possible: if you embrace hate politics, you're a hater, period.

The Globe's Yvonne Abraham profiles Guerriero today, and he has an op-ed piece in the paper as well.

SEEING RED, SPENDING GREEN. If nothing else, the Republican convention is an opportunity for the New York Times to rake in big bucks from anti-Bush organizations.

Its 20-page special section on the convention today has no less than five full-page ads from groups critical of the Republicans: the MoveOn PAC (nine former Bush voters who are supporting Kerry); the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (an anti-privatization lobbying group); the Center for American Progress ("Cost of Iraq War: $144,400,000,000"); Sojourners, a religious-left organization ("God Is Not a Republican"); and Mainstream 2004, moderate Republicans who feel alienated by Bush's right-wing policies on foreign policy, tax cuts, and the environment, among other issues.

Yoko Ono also has a full-page "Imagine Peace" ad in the "A" section.

DEPT. OF SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION. Slate's Jack Shafer was extraordinarily kind to me in his piece last week on the legendary press critic A.J. Liebling. Read it here.

posted at 10:34 AM | 0 comments | link

Sunday, August 29, 2004

FOUR YEARS AGO, HE DIDN'T HAVE A JOB? From today's New York Times:

"I'm constantly in touch with Karl, Karen, Dan Bartlett, people who are involved with the campaign," Mr. Bush said in the interview last week. "I don't limit my conversation to a particular time of the day.'' But, he added, "if the question is, 'Is it different running this time now that you're the president?' the answer is yes. I've got a job to do."

In 2000, you may recall, Bush was governor of Texas. I guess that doesn't count. But of course, it's very, very bad that Kerry's missed a lot of votes. Just one more example of how your intelligence is being insulted every day.

BLOGGER STRIKES BACK. For those of you who receive Media Log by e-mail, mucho apologies for the multiple copies of the David Brooks item. It was caused by a momentary problem with Blogger.com, the software that I use to publish Media Log, combined with my own lack of patience.

posted at 12:50 PM | 0 comments | link

BROOKS'S FAVORITE REPUBLICANS. They're all dead! For just one day, at least, David Brooks the newly minted, hardcore conservative pundit has gone back to being David Brooks the thoughtful, slightly right-of-center moderate. In a long piece for today's New York Times Magazine, "How to Reinvent the G.O.P.," Brooks lays out the specifics of an overarching Brooksian political philosophy. It is a fine essay, yet it is also unintentionally hilarious.

Brooks harks back to 2000, when he and William Kristol made the case in the Weekly Standard for what they called "national-greatness conservatism" and hitched their wagon to the presidential campaign of John McCain. It was a courageous move, given the long odds facing McCain. The Standard, founded by Rupert Murdoch as a house organ for the newly ascendant Republican Party of the Gingrich era, found itself frozen out, at least until after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, when the GOP's interventionist McCain wing and the isolationist Bush wing came together. (There's a decent explanation of national-greatness conservatism - and of the roles played by Brooks, Kristol, and McCain - in this 2002 American Prospect article by Richard Just.)

What cracks me up about Brooks's piece are two things: the only Republicans and proto-Republicans he can find to say much nice about are Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt; and the program Brooks lays out sounds a whole lot more New Democrat than Bush Republican: entitlement reform, social mobility, an end to corporate welfare, energy independence, and mandatory national service.

The most important Brooksian priority - what he calls "the war on Islamic extremism" - is, of course, something that George W. Bush has attempted to transform into a trademarked slogan of the Republican Party. But I've seen no evidence that real-world Democrats (that is, John Kerry, not Howard Dean) aren't just as committed to combating Islamist terrorists as Bush is. Perhaps rather more so, since Kerry presumably wouldn't have more than 100,000 troops tied up in Iraq while Osama bin Laden and company run free on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Brooks isn't calling his philosophy national-greatness conservatism anymore, and his attempts to come up with a new name are painful. He tries out "strong-government progressive conservatism," but though it does have the merit of actually describing his ideas to some extent, it doesn't exactly roll trippingly off the tongue.

Brooks's politics come across as a meld of the best of Bill Clinton and John McCain - a slightly more conservative version of the New Democrat agenda, which itself was quite a bit more conservative than the Democratic Party of George McGovern and Walter Mondale. Kerry ought to take a good, hard look at some of the ideas that Brooks is proposing. Why not? It's pretty clear that Bush won't.

posted at 12:29 PM | 0 comments | link

Saturday, August 28, 2004

THE SECRET LIBRARY POLICE. Boston Globe columnist Cathy Young, in picking apart a slightly daft piece by Kurt Vonnegut Jr., writes:

I assume Vonnegut is referring to claims that under the Patriot Act, John Ashcroft's goons have been terrorizing libraries and monitoring Americans' reading habits. In fact, law enforcement agencies have always had the power to request library records as part of a criminal investigation; a provision of the Patriot Act gave them the power to do so in counterterrorism investigations without notifying the suspect. (Remember, we're talking about materials related to terrorist acts and not, say, the wit and wisdom of Michael Moore.) Whether or not such powers are appropriate, in the two years after the passage of the Patriot Act this provision was used exactly ... zero times. [Young's ellipses.]

No doubt Young was relying on stories like this. But here's an excerpt from the results of a study conducted by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign:

In the year after the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, Federal and local law enforcement officials visited at least 545 (10.7%) libraries to ask for these records. Of these, 178 libraries (3.5%) received visits from the FBI. The number of libraries queried fell significantly below the 703 libraries reporting such requests the year before the terrorist events. The actual number questioned in the past year may, however, be larger, because the USA Patriot Act makes it illegal for persons or institutions to disclose that a search warrant has been served. A warning about these secrecy provisions on the LRC questionnaire may have served, in some cases, as a deterrent to candid answers. Fifteen libraries acknowledged there were questions they did not answer because they were legally prohibited from doing so.

In other words, the answer to the question of whether and how the Patriot Act is being used to snoop on library patrons is inherently unknowable, since the act also makes it a crime for librarians to disclose whether they've been visited or not. The very fact that the number of reported library visits by law-enforcement officials fell in the year after 9/11 is telling, wouldn't you say?

posted at 10:20 PM | 0 comments | link

PLYING THE MEDIA WITH LIES. Media Log is still technically on vacation. But I've been catching up on the news following a three-day backpacking trip last week, and I continue to be astounded at what's happening to John Kerry's presidential campaign.

The media have not necessarily done a horrible job of covering the claims of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Indeed, if it weren't for news orgs such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, it might not be as clear as it already is that the vets' claims consist of nothing but ugly lies.

Still, editors and news directors should consider that the way they practice journalism allowed the lies to circulate and propagate, putting John Kerry's presidential campaign on the defensive and costing him a few points in the polls heading into the Republican National Convention.

The outrageous claims of the Swiftvets - that one of Kerry's Purple Heart wounds was self-inflicted, that he and his crew weren't really under fire when he rescued James Rassmann and won the Bronze Star, that he executed a Vietnamese kid in a loincloth in winning the Silver Star (it was actually a Viet Cong soldier with a grenade-launcher) - should have been treated as presumptively untrue from Day One.

You didn't have to do any investigative reporting to know that the official military records backed up Kerry's version of events (no, military records aren't perfect, but they're not meaningless, either), and that Kerry's hometown newspaper, the Boston Globe, had investigated his military record extensively on at least two separate occasions, in 1996 and again in 2003. Right-wing conspiracy theories aside, there is zero evidence that the Globe has ever tried to cut Kerry any slack. Plus there is the fact that all but one of the men with whom Kerry actually served support Kerry's version of events. (How deep is the lying? The very fact that the Swiftvets say they "served with Kerry" is itself a lie.)

The invaluable contribution that the Times and the Post made was to show that in many cases the Swiftvets had changed their stories over the years from pro-Kerry to anti-Kerry, and that some of them claimed to have witnessed events that they could not have.

But the Swiftvets and their shadowy backers understood something about the media: if you make an accusation, news orgs will cover it, get a response from the person or persons being accused, and run with it. Truth isn't the issue, at least not in day-to-day campaign coverage. Getting both sides is the name of the game, even if there isn't a single reason to believe one side and every reason to believe the other.

The only charge raised against Kerry that seems to be sticking at all is that he falsely claimed to have been in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968 - a charge that has gained resonance because Kerry once mistakenly stated that Richard Nixon was president at that time. But as the historian Douglas Brinkley has said, Kerry was involved in extremely dangerous missions in and around the Cambodian border during that time period. It is curious, to say the least, that Kerry-haters are willing to overlook blatant lies by the Swiftvets about where they were and what they saw while pillorying Kerry for misremembering the timing of events that actually occurred.

Yesterday brought a brief flurry of new excitement in the form of a Robert Novak column reporting that retired rear admiral William Schachte - who's not a member of the Swiftvets group - was continuing to claim that he was present when Kerry "nicked" himself and therefore unjustly won his first Purple Heart. Yet we already have the testimony of others who were there that Schachte was not. As the Times recently reported, Patrick Runyon and Bill Zaladonis insist they were the only crew members with Kerry when the incident occurred. "Me and Bill aren't the smartest, but we can count to three," Runyon was quoted as saying. But you know the game: Novak reports, you decide, even if you don't have the background to make an informed analysis as to who's telling the truth.

As always, Bob Somerby has been invaluable in dissecting the lies of the Swiftvets, and of the pathetically poor preparation that cable-news hosts have brought to the table when they have interviewed them - even those who suspect that the vets are lying, like MSNBC's Chris Matthews. (If he'd do his homework, he'd know they're lying.)

Kerry, I think, is making one serious mistake. He has denounced the lies of the Swiftvets, as he should. But by going after the ties between the Swiftvets and the Bush-Cheney campaign - ties that became all too apparent with the resignation of Bush water-carrier Benjamin Ginsberg - Kerry is playing George W. Bush's game.

Rather than denounce his supporters' lies, Bush has attempted to turn the entire issue into one of the 527s, the independent political organizations running negative ads on both sides. Kerry won a victory with Ginsberg's self-immolation. But if it turns out that there are similar ties between the Kerry-Edwards campaign and some of the liberal 527s (a development that would hardly be a surprise), then the media will be able to pronounce this an "everyone does it" story and transform the entire Swiftvets campaign into a matter of moral equivalence with the anti-Bush ads being run by MoveOn.org and others.

It's not. What the Swiftvets are doing is as dirty and shocking and disgraceful as anything done in modern political history - far worse than the infamous Willie Horton ad that George H.W. Bush's supporters ran in going after Michael Dukakis. Kerry cannot let the lies of the Swiftvets be held up as somehow the same as entirely truthful ads questioning Bush's missing months in the Texas Air National Guard.

posted at 10:45 AM | 7 comments | link

Saturday, August 21, 2004

THE REST OF THE STORY. Media Log is on vacation, and will not officially be back until August 30 ... maybe a little earlier, depending on what I want to say about the Republican National Convention.

But I can't resist asking why the Globe couldn't manage to report that state rep Paul Kujawski has been accused of staggering out of his car and taking a leak in front of state troopers after he was pulled over on the Mass Pike on suspicion of drunk driving.

For crying out loud, I heard this particular detail yesterday afternoon. (And no, I didn't get it from listening to Howie Carr.) The Herald's Ann Donlan has it today, writing that Kujawski "got even deeper in trouble after urinating in front of the troopers who stopped him." But the Globe's Elise Castelli, after reporting that Kujawski had been charged with drunk driving, disorderly conduct, and "open and gross lewdness," goes on to write: "The police declined to comment on what transpired after Kujawski's car was pulled over."

Far from doing Kujawski any favors, the Globe makes it sound like he exposed himself to a busload of kindergarten students or something.

posted at 9:55 AM | 1 comments | link

Friday, August 20, 2004

COSMO RISING. There's never a dull moment at One Herald Square these days. Today the Boston Herald promoted its star business columnist, Cosmo Macero Jr., to business editor, replacing veteran Ted Bunker, who's leaving the paper. Longtime staff reporter Eric Convey will be the Herald's assistant business editor, replacing Cromwell Schubarth, who's also leaving.

"I'm thrilled with this opportunity. It's going to be a lot of fun, a lot of work. We are really going to pour high octane in the engine of this department, and just tear ass after all the exciting business news in Boston," Macero told me.

As for specifics, Macero was less clear, except that he obviously wants to find a way to appeal to younger readers. "It's time to move past some of the dinosaurs in this city and look at the next generation of business leaders," he said. "We want to focus on who is behind some of our most noteworthy companies as well as some of our most up-and-coming companies and the industries that make this city tick." He also talked about his desire to "have a little fun in doing it" and bring "a little more pizzazz and splash into our business coverage."

Macero plans to keep writing his column as well, although he said it might appear only once or twice a week instead of the current four.

Macero's rise is likely to be popular inside the newsroom. Says one staff member who asked not to be identified: "The amount of energy he brings to the room is extraordinary. I think he wants us really out there in the community a lot more than we really have been."

Adds managing editor Kevin Convey (who's not related to Eric Convey): "The idea was that we felt that the section needed new leadership and that it needs to go in a different direction." He says, "I think the section needs to be made more relevant to the business of business in Boston," and that it needs "a more lively presentation than had been the practice in the past," and to "select a few major industries and own them."

Both Convey and Macero said the right things about Bunker and Schubarth, with Convey saying they put out "a solid section" and Macero adding that they "set a really high standard." Sources also say that Schubarth was well-liked among the staff. But Macero is almost certain to prove more popular with the troops than Bunker, who'd been the Herald's business editor since 1997, and whose management style had long been the source of internal grumbling.

Macero may also help re-spark the paper's rivalry with the dominant Boston Globe for local business news. "We have a lot of respect for Cosmo," says the Globe's deputy business editor, Bennie DiNardo. "He's a very aggressive columnist, and we look forward to competing with him every day. If he's anything as an editor like he is as a columnist, it should be fun."

Though neither Macero nor Kevin Convey made the analogy, the formula that may be at work here is that of the New York Post. The Post's formula - outrageous sensationalism in its news coverage, a good sports section, and surprisingly smart business coverage - has made it a player in New York, even if it remains a chronic money-loser.

In recent months, the Herald has certainly embraced the outrageous aspects of the Post. In naming Macero to the top business job, the paper may be seeking to emulate some of the Post's better qualities as well.

posted at 5:45 PM | 1 comments | link

THE END OF A SMEAR. The talk of the political world today is the New York Times' evisceration of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Clocking in at nearly 3500 words, the piece - by Kate Zernike and Jim Rutenberg - demonstrates definitively that these anti-John Kerry veterans are not only contradicting what they've said about Kerry in the past, but also what's in the official record.

For good measure, the Times also shows how the group and its financing grew out of the Bush-family/Karl Rove political machine in Texas, some of which had previously been reported by Salon and other outlets. But that wouldn't be especially important if there were anything to the vets' claims. There isn't, nor was there ever any reason to suppose there was. These are not the men who served directly with Kerry. The only reason they were ever taken seriously by anyone is that their tale fits into right-wing attempts to smear Kerry for his role as a leading anti-war activist.

It turns out that yesterday's Washington Post exposé of Larry Thurlow was just an appetizer. As "The Note" asks today, "Does the story peter out on its own over the weekend, or does the now opened-can of worms continue to bear ? well, worms?"

In the Globe, Patrick Healy and Michael Kranish have an account of Kerry's decision finally to take on George W. Bush directly over the vets' sleazy ads. Media Log wonders: did Kerry speak out yesterday knowing that, the next morning, the Times would destroy what little was left of his critics' credibility?

Meanwhile, Drudge - who has still not withdrawn his sliming of Kranish - is very excited about reports that the Kerry campaign has asked bookstores to consider withdrawing the vets' book, Unfit for Command. Well, what's wrong with that? As Eric Boehlert notes, it's hardly unusual for booksellers to disavow books that turn out to be a hoax. Which is precisely what this is.

NARRATIVE TRIUMPH. Like you, I scanned the Globe's four-part series "Best Men" earlier this week and told myself: Sorry, I don't have the time. Unlike you, I went back and read the entire series on the Web after the last installment had been published. I'm glad I did.

Written and reported by Thomas Farragher and Patricia Wen, and photographed by Michele McDonald, "Best Men" is well worth it. It tells the story of two brothers, one gay, one straight, and of their marriages - one of which, needless to say, would not have been possible until this past spring.

It is a first-rate example of narrative journalism, wonderfully written and photographed. Best of all, the subjects themselves are worthy of the thousands of words that have been lavished on them - not always the case when a newspaper trains its eye on ordinary people.

The Web version has more photos than were published in the print edition, as well as audio clips.

posted at 11:42 AM | 2 comments | link

Thursday, August 19, 2004

KERRY UPDATE. Two good pieces of news today for John Kerry:

1. One of his leading tormenters on the swift-boat matter turns out to have been telling a tale that's completely contradicted by his own Bronze Star citation. The Washington Post FOIA'd the military records of Larry Thurlow and discovered, lo and behold, that the documents say his and Kerry's boats really were under fire on the day that they both won Bronze Stars. Thurlow has loudly claimed that Kerry made that up.

Thurlow splutters to the Post's Michael Dobbs: "It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case. My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting." Thurlow even goes so far as to speculate that he received what he calls a "fraudulent" Bronze Star on the basis of Kerry's so-called lies.

Sorry, Mr. Thurlow. I'd say that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's 15 minutes is just about at the 14:55 mark right now.

2. The Boston Herald's "Inside Track" reveals a "steamy secret 20-month fling" that Kerry had that left his former paramour "heartbroken" - but she says she's going to vote for him, and she calls Teresa Heinz Kerry "awesome." She's even decided to hold off on publishing a roman à clef about their romance until after the election.

It really doesn't get much better than that, does it? The Kerry campaign ought to send out copies of the "Track" to every undecided voter in the country.

posted at 8:55 AM | 1 comments | link

Wednesday, August 18, 2004

MORE ON THE FBI'S INTIMIDATION TACTICS. The New York Times is getting a lot of bounce for its front-page story Monday on the FBI's attempts to intimidate political activists into not traveling to New York for the Republican National Convention. According to the Times, the bureau earlier engaged in similar tactics to keep protesters away from the Democratic convention in Boston.

Well, here's a story that should have gotten more attention at the time: a report by Jules Crittenden of the Boston Herald that was published on July 28. Crittenden's lead:

Peace activists say the FBI has been harassing and intimidating them with visits across the country, including an incident in Boston Saturday where federal agents, police and firefighters searched a "mobile kitchen" and seized five propane tanks.

Read the whole thing.

posted at 4:55 PM | 0 comments | link

DICK CHENEY, "SENSITIVE" WARRIOR. You should read Bob Somerby every day. But you absolutely must read this. Unless you don't want further evidence of what a pathetic, lying, miserable vice-president we have. And Somerby's right about another thing: why isn't this the lead political story for every news org in the country?

posted at 1:15 PM | 0 comments | link

EARLY TO VOTE. In the swing states of Iowa and Arizona, voters will be able to cast their ballots in the presidential campaign before George W. Bush and John Kerry have held their first debate.

In Wisconsin, Washington, New Mexico, and West Virginia they'll be able to vote before the third and possibly decisive debate.

People in five other swing states - North Carolina, Nevada, Arkansas, Colorado, and Florida - can vote as early as mid-October, with, of course, no possibility of changing their minds depending on what happens in the final two weeks of the campaign.

Is this good for democracy? I don't think so. Yet it's a central reality of the 2004 campaign, as John Harwood reports (sub. req.) in today's Wall Street Journal. Harwood writes that, according to some estimates, as many as one-third of voters will cast their ballots before the November 2 election. He adds:

The potential implications of such growth in early ballots are enormous, if unpredictable. In Iowa, for instance, voting kicks off a week before the first of three scheduled Bush-Kerry debates. Pre-debate voting could lift the incumbent in a contest that Democratic strategists like to compare with the 1980 contest between President Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, which broke sharply toward Mr. Reagan after a debate assured wavering voters of his competence.

At the same time, early votes might precede the sort of late-breaking events that many Democrats believe could help Mr. Bush - such as the capture of Osama bin Laden, or a terror strike on U.S. soil.

The change has come about, according to Harwood, because it appeals to "time-pressed voters." But those same voters could be accommodated just as well through a long-overdue reform: holding elections for two or three days over a weekend. That would make voting much easier than it is now, while at the same time keeping the idea of the election as a singular event rather than something that is dragged out over several months.

In a recent interview, Joe Lenski, executive vice-president of Edison Media Research, told me that as many as 20 million people - 20 percent of the total - could vote by absentee ballot this year. He cited a reason that Harwood doesn't mention: fears raised by 2000's Florida fiasco that your vote may not count. Mailing in a paper ballot is just more reassuring than touching a screen on a voting machine, Lenski explained. (Edison has done exit polling for the television networks and the Associated Press. Its market-research clients include the Phoenix Media/Communications Group.)

Sadly, that's a different issue not solved by weekend voting. The breakdown of trust - documented just this week alone by New York Times columnists Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert - is real and ongoing. In that sense, the rise of the absentee ballot is not a sign of disengagement, but rather of a burning desire to stay engaged even in the face of real doubts.

posted at 12:07 PM | 1 comments | link

Tuesday, August 17, 2004

PREPAREDNESS FOR WHAT? What better time to educate the country about terrorist threats than September, right after the kids go back to school? After all, if you can get people thinking about gas masks or how fast they can drive out of the city if a dirty bomb goes off, they might have less time to contemplate other matters ... like, I don't know, the presidential election or something.

So you've got to wonder - or maybe not - about the Department of Homeland Security's plans to kick off National Preparedness Month on September 9. The timing alone sets off WMD sirens: the Republican National Convention will have just concluded, and the third anniversary of the terrorist attacks will follow two days later.

Not that any of this could possibly have anything to do with politics. After all, as Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge recently explained, "We don't do politics." Never mind that his earlier terror warning, right after the Democratic National Convention, amounted to little more than a free ad for Bush-Cheney 2004, with Ridge hailing "the president's leadership in the war against terror."

NPR's On the Media has a splendid segment on this fiasco, which you can listen to in RealAudio here. Brooke Gladstone interviews Bob Harris, the author of a withering post at This Modern World.

I do not necessarily subscribe to the theory that Dick Cheney's got Osama bin Laden's head in a freezer somewhere, ready for George W. Bush to pull out from beneath the podium about midway through the third debate. But there's no question that these people are willing to go a long way to keep power.

Look at the terrorist arrest sprung just before John Kerry's acceptance speech, a matter that the New Republic has reported on in great detail.

Here's a thought for National Preparedness Month: what are your family's plans for dealing with dubious political propaganda in the weeks leading up to the presidential election?

posted at 11:47 AM | 1 comments | link

Monday, August 16, 2004

JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE PARANOID DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE NOT OUT TO GET YOU. A truly chilling story on the front of today's New York Times. Eric Lichtblau reports that the FBI has been visiting dissidents across the country - and in some cases even issuing subpoenas - in an attempt to stop illegal activity before it starts at the Republican National Convention.

And that's the best interpretation of it. The tactics really seem aimed at scaring would-be protesters into staying away from New York.

But don't worry. It's all legal! The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel says so. Lichtblau explains:

In an internal complaint, an F.B.I. employee charged that the bulletins improperly blurred the line between lawfully protected speech and illegal activity. But the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, in a five-page internal analysis obtained by The New York Times, disagreed.

The office, which also made headlines in June in an opinion - since disavowed - that authorized the use of torture against terrorism suspects in some circumstances, said any First Amendment impact posed by the F.B.I.'s monitoring of the political protests was negligible and constitutional.

By the way, here is the "Denver antiwar group" that Lichtblau refers to near the top of his article - the American Friends Service Committee. According to the Times, 21-year-old intern Sarah Bardwell was visited by six agents. John Ashcroft knows that you just can't be too careful with those Quakers.

BUSH, SLIDING. Josh Marshall notes that Washington Post columnist David Broder, the ultimate establishmentarian, has embraced the slowly emerging consensus that George W. Bush is heading toward a decisive loss this November.

But Yale economist Ray C. Fair - a John Kerry supporter - tells the New York Times Magazine that his econometric model shows Bush coasting with nearly 58 percent of the vote.

Media Log's prediction: the event or events that will determine the outcome have yet to occur.

posted at 9:09 AM | 4 comments | link

Sunday, August 15, 2004

FIRE AWAY. A few months ago I added a "comment" feature to Media Log. It was a soft launch: I wasn't able to set it up the way I wanted to, so I just sort of put it up, left it there, and waited to see what use readers would make of it. A few have added their thoughts, which I appreciate.

I just got finished making some improvements, and am now ready to go public with it. The main differences are that I've separated the permalink from the comments, and - more important - am now able to show how many readers have already left comments. You no longer have to click to see whether anyone has had anything to say.

I you read Media Log by e-mail only, you won't see any of the comments. All the more reason to read Media Log on the Web.

One other problem: in the course of republishing Media Log, I've encountered errors that have made archives before December 1, 2003, inaccessible. I'm not sure whether this problem can be solved. Any Blogger users out there have some insight?

posted at 12:31 PM | 0 comments | link

Friday, August 13, 2004

COMING CLEAN AT THE WASHINGTON POST. A few observations about Howard Kurtz's front-page piece in yesterday's Washington Post about that paper's shortcomings in the run-up to the war in Iraq:

- The Post has less to come clean on than did the New York Times, which earlier this year published a mea culpa about its own gullible reporting on Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction. By contrast, the Post appears to have been more skeptical. Thus, though Kurtz's piece is certainly welcome, he doesn't document the kind of gross malfeasance committed at the Times, and especially by Ahmad Chalabi's favorite reporter, Judith Miller.

- What Kurtz mainly writes about is an imbalance: stories favorable to the administration were pretty much guaranteed page-one treatment, whereas those questioning White House claims were relegated to inside the paper. Given that, what I find shocking is that Walter Pincus's deeply skeptical reporting was given less emphasis than it should have been in part because he is apparently a lousy writer, and because the editors charged with whipping his copy into shape were overwhelmed by too much other work. Pincus's reporting was never more needed than it was during this period. The excuse that there was no one available to rewrite his stories is pathetic for a great newspaper.

- All hail Bob Woodward! Frequently criticized as a toady to those in power, Woodward - an assistant managing editor at the Post - not only comes across as someone who is genuinely anguished over the Post's tilt, but as Pincus's foremost advocate at a time when it mattered the most.

- Speaking of imbalance ... the Times published its "Editor's Note" inside the paper, whereas the Post published Kurtz on page one. Good for the Post. Like many Bostonians, I try to read the Times every day, but check out the Post's website only when there's something really important that I want to read. But this kind of transparency suggests there's something to the notion that the Post is on the upswing, whereas the Times is still struggling to re-establish its pre-eminence in the post-Jayson Blair, post-Howell Raines era. Josh Marshall wrote intelligently on this recently.

Overall, an excellent effort by Kurtz, and a great move by the Post's editors to put it on the front. The trouble is, the media always do a pretty good job of looking back. What will happen the next time?

posted at 12:45 PM | 2 comments | link

A VICIOUS ATTACK ON PORTER GOSS. By ... Porter Goss! George W. Bush's pick to run the CIA told Michael Moore last spring that there was no way he could be hired by the CIA today. The interview - an outtake from Fahrenheit 9/11 - has been posted on Moore's website. You should watch it, but here's what Goss told Moore:

It is true I was in CIA from approximately the late '50s to approximately the early '70s. And it's true I was a case officer, clandestine services office and yes I do understand the core mission of the business. I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified. I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were Romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably. And I certainly don't have the technical skills, uh, as my children remind me every day, "Dad you got to get better on your computer." Uh, so, the things that you need to have, I don't have.

Here is Goss's defense, according to today's New York Times:

A spokeswoman for Mr. Goss, Julie Almacy, said his comments had concerned the skills needed to be an operative.

"He's certainly qualified to be the director," Ms. Almacy said. "He's talking about a case officer."

You know what? I'll accept that. Moore's coup is a nice little gotcha, but it has nothing to do with Goss's qualifications to manage the CIA. For that, we turn to this piece on Newsweek's website, by Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball, who report that Goss - as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee - has proposed letting the agency spy on and arrest American citizens. Here's my favorite paragraph:

"This language on its face would have allowed President Nixon to authorize the CIA to bug the Democratic National Committee headquarters," Jeffrey H. Smith, who served as general counsel of the CIA between 1995 and 1996, told NEWSWEEK. "I can't imagine what Porter had in mind."

Well, who knows what Porter had in mind? He's not talking. Besides, maybe he's not, you know, qualified to speak.

At the very least, it's time for congressional Democrats to rethink their plan to wave the Goss nomination through.

posted at 11:20 AM | 1 comments | link

Thursday, August 12, 2004

NOMAR-BASHING BY PROXY. The Globe's Gordon Edes might want to lay off the second-hand accounts of sports-radio tidbits. Today Edes writes:

"Curt on a car phone" - a.k.a. Curt Schilling - phoned in again yesterday afternoon to radio station WEEI to offer a few opinions on "The Big Show." According to co-host Sean McAdam of the Providence Journal, Schilling said Francona was being unfairly blamed for the team's erratic performance. During the course of a discussion regarding Nomar Garciaparra, Schilling brought up a comparison with Derek Jeter and said, "Derek Jeter is a winner."

I happened to be listening during an interminable drive home. And though that is what Schilling said about Nomar, it's not all that he said, and what got left out in Edes's account changes the meaning considerably.

In fact, Schilling said Garciaparra is a quiet player in the mold of his former teammate Randy Johnson, and that any Red Sox players who think Nomar's lack of more-vocal leadership had hurt their own ability to perform have no one to blame but themselves.

As to the matter of "Derek Jeter is a winner" (with the implication that Nomar isn't), Schilling said that in most respects he considers them to be nearly identical players. He added that Jeter has the image of a winner because he's been lucky enough to be on a team that gets into the World Series and help them win a championship - an opportunity Nomar hasn't had.

POLICY MEETS REALITY. Allegations of a horrible crime on the North Shore have led to an odd divergence in the way the media are playing it. Last week, police arrested Mary Jean Armstrong, 35, of Beverly, and charged her with prostituting her nine-year-old daughter in return for cocaine. Two men - Richard Lapham and Robert L'Italien - face charges as well.

The Globe has refrained from reporting that Armstrong is the mother of the alleged victim. In a piece published yesterday, reporter Katie Nelson wrote: "Because it is Globe policy not to reveal the identities of victims of alleged sexual crimes without their consent, the paper is withholding the children's connection to the suspects."

WBZ-TV (Channel 4) and WBZ Radio (AM 1030) have been following the same policy. I do not know what other broadcasters have been doing.

The Herald is making it clear that Armstrong is the girl's mother, as you will see from this Tom Farmer story. More to the point, so is the hometown paper, the Salem News. This piece, by Julie Manganis, was blasted across the front page yesterday. Manganis's lead: "Police say Mary Jean Armstrong confessed to bartering her daughter for cocaine, claiming she was so desperate for drugs that she traded sex with the 9-year-old as many as 50 times since last summer."

Nor was yesterday a first. Since the story broke last week, the News has reported on the mother-daughter connection on several occasions. (To my knowledge, no one has reported the daughter's name - nor should it be.)

What's the right answer? I'm not sure, though I'm leaning toward the News and other media outlets that have reported the relationship. This is a terrible story, and it's one that can't fully be told without noting that Armstrong has been charged with letting men rape her own daughter. I think the benefits to making the public aware of this outweigh any theoretical negatives.

As for the Globe and WBZ deciding to continue withholding that fact - well, two cheers for standing on principle. But they're no longer in a position to protect the victim, because the Salem News has already made the decision for them.

In a small community, what the local paper does is far more important than the choices made by big media organizations. That's because readers of the News are far more likely to know Armstrong and her daughter than are the Globe's customers.

NEW IN THIS WEEK'S PHOENIX. Forget the national polls. The presidential election will be decided in as few as 10 key states. So far, at least, it's looking good for Kerry.

Also, the sputtering economy forces belt-tightening at 135 Morrissey Boulevard.

posted at 11:21 AM | 0 comments | link

Wednesday, August 11, 2004

A FREE-SPEECH OUTRAGE. When it comes to campaign-finance reform, I've already gone over to the dark side. So please don't be shocked by my recommendation of this George Will piece, in the current Newsweek, on the latest ironic twist in the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law.

It seems that an anti-abortion-rights group called Wisconsin Right to Life may not be able to run a television ad after August 15 - that is, within 30 days of the state's US Senate primary - because the organization had the temerity to name one of the candidates in that primary. That would be Senator Russell Feingold, the Democratic incumbent and co-author of the law that bears his name.

Now, Will has been railing against the anti-speech consequences of campaign-finance reform for years; I'm new to the cause (although I've always opposed this particular provision of McCain-Feingold). Will also opposes abortion rights; I'm pro-choice. But the example he cites illustrates perfectly how so-called reform is stifling political speech. Will writes:

The political class hates having independent groups of citizens butting into the country's political conversation. The premise of McCain-Feingold is that elections are the private property of the political class, whose members should be empowered to control the topics of discussion during any election season. During the debate on McCain-Feingold, speaker after speaker complained that "issue-advocacy ads are a nightmare" (Sen. Paul Wellstone) and that McCain-Feingold is "about slowing political advertising" (Sen. Maria Cantwell).

Fortunately, the rickety scaffolding of campaign-finance regulations is collapsing and being replaced by wholesome chaos. Internet fund-raising by candidates, and the gushers of contributions to the 527 advocacy groups (named for the pertinent provision of the tax code), are demonstrating the futility - not to mention the unwisdom - of government attempts to impose a regime of speech rationing.

Here, at least, I think Will's reasoning is faulty. The 527s exist solely to get around McCain-Feingold. If we had a rational system - unregulated (more or less) giving, coupled with instant disclosure on the Internet - then the 527s never would have been born.

Liberal 527s such as MoveOn.org and America Coming Together are doing excellent work, but without McCain-Feingold, the millions of dollars they are raising would be going directly to political candidates. As they should.

It's an outrage to the First Amendment that an independent organization can't say anything it likes about a political candidate at any time it wishes. Free speech is free speech, and political speech should enjoy the highest protection of all.

Instead, we have certified good guys such as Senator John McCain and Representatives Marty Meehan and Christopher Shays filing an amicus brief in federal court to keep Wisconsin Right to Life off the air.

posted at 10:43 AM | 0 comments | link

Tuesday, August 10, 2004

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IS NOT JUST FOR THE PRESS. The First Amendment belongs to everyone - not just to those who carry a press card. If you were hauled before a grand jury and ordered to reveal what someone had told you in confidence about a crime that was being investigated, you would have to testify. Or go to jail.

That's why Time magazine's Matthew Cooper is behind bars today in the ongoing investigation into the Valerie Plame leak. [Correction: Cooper's jail stay is on hold pending appeal.] Plame, as you may recall, was an undercover CIA operative until last July, when syndicated columnist Robert Novak exposed her identity in the course of dumping on her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, the protagonist of that infamous mint-tea-sipping trip to Niger.

Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor investigating who leaked Plame's name to Novak, apparently believes that Cooper and NBC's Tim Russert have information that he needs. Russert avoided jail by providing Fitzgerald with some information. Josh Marshall writes that Cooper's behavior is more honorable than Russert's, but I think that judgment is premature. We don't yet know what Russert did or didn't say. For that matter, we may never know.

This case carries with it enormous implications for freedom of the press, and it's just starting to unfold. But unless you're prepared to argue for special privileges for reporters that the rest of the public doesn't enjoy, you might want to hesitate before expressing any outrage at Fitzgerald.

It's not that Cooper isn't doing the right thing. He is. It's just that there may be no good alternative.

posted at 11:35 AM | 3 comments | link

Monday, August 09, 2004

STUMPING WITH BUSH. I drove up to Stratham, New Hampshire, on Friday to watch George W. Bush address the faithful at an outdoor rally and picnic. It had been four years - since the South Carolina primary, in 2000 - that I'd had a chance to see Bush in such a setting, and I'd forgotten how effective he can be. Not to mention how out of touch with reality.

The Portsmouth Herald says there were 5500 people attending, which seems a bit high. I watched from the TV riser next to Jorge Quiroga, of WCVB-TV (Channel 5), who estimated the crowd at about 2500. That seems more like it. But there's no question that a lot of Bush supporters (non-supporters not allowed) turned out at Stella and Douglas Scamman's farm. Indeed, I had to park at a supermarket and walk about a mile up the road.

For a half-hour or more, band music was blasted through the PA system, including a number that I only know as the theme from Monty Python. Finally, at about 1 p.m., a few minutes late, we could see that Bush was slowly making his way to the podium. He was introduced by Senator Judd Gregg, who's up for re-election. Gregg immediately invoked 9/11, speaking reverently of the moment when Bush took a bullhorn amid the rubble of the World Trade Center and vowed revenge. Bush, Gregg said, offers "leadership with resolve and purpose to defeat terrorism, to defend America, and to assert leadership around the world."

Dressed in a light blue shirt, tieless and with rolled-up sleeves, Bush then grabbed the podium and talked for 45 minutes - a stemwinder for him, and curious given the amount of criticism John Kerry has received for speaking only a few minutes longer than that in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. Of course, Bush had a captive audience, and didn't have to worry about anyone changing the channel.

"Listen, there is no better way to spend a Friday afternoon than at a picnic in New Hampshire," Bush said. "We won New Hampshire last time, we're going to win New Hampshire this time, and we're on our way to a great victory in New Hampshire."

What followed was all boilerplate, as he spoke partly from notes and partly from memory. He talked about his family (he was on his way to Kennebunkport for a family wedding). He paid tribute to New Hampshire Republicans such as Gregg ("an amazing senator"), Senator John Sununu, Governor Craig Benson, and Congressman Jeb Bradley. He was folksy. "You might remember I was knockin' on doors here a while ago. Like four years ago. And I met a lot of good folks here," he said, conveniently omitting the fact that most of those good folks voted for his rival, Senator John McCain.

Bush's spin on terrorism, Iraq, the economy, Dick Cheney ("I didn't pick him for his looks"), education reform, and the like is not worth repeating, although it bears noting that he appears ready to keep hacking at Kerry for his choice of North Carolina senator John Edwards - a trial lawyer - as his running mate. "We need to get rid of these frivolous and junk lawsuits," he said. "My opponent made his choice, and he put him on the ticket. I made my choice - I'm standin' with the docs and the patients."

Bush did not mention this frivolous lawsuit, which he brought against a rental-car company in 1998. No doubt if he'd hired Edwards he could have done a lot better than $2500.

When Bush is relaxed and in front of a friendly crowd, he comes across as looser and more human than Kerry seems to be able to manage. There are little touches. ("I want to thank the youth football coaches who are here today ... thanks for being good moms and dads") There are deftly worded attacks, such as his mocking criticism of Kerry for voting against $87 billion to support US troops and to reconstruct Afghanistan and Iraq. ("There's nothing complicated about supporting our troops in harm's way," he said, never mentioning that he, in fact, had threatened to veto the $87 billion if it weren't structured to his satisfaction.) There is the almost-undetectable, coded attack on lesbians and gay men. ("We stand for institutions like marriage and family, which are the foundation of our society.") There is the unadulterated horseshit, such as his call to "rally the armies of compassion," which surely are needed more than ever after four years of him and Cheney.

More than anything, there is 9/11, which is clearly the theme of his re-election campaign, and which will be on full display at the Republican National Convention in a few weeks. He ended as Judd Gregg had begun, talking about that day at Ground Zero. "I remember a guy grabbing me by the arm ... he looked at me with bloodshot eyes and said, 'Don't let me down,'" Bush said, adding: "I will do whatever it takes."

"Four more years! Four more years!" came the response from the crowd.

Will this work? I don't know. Can well-performed schmaltz overcome four years of failure and deceit? The Republicans have this down to a science. On the other hand, they reached their high-water mark in presidential campaigns in 1984, when Ronald Reagan was re-elected. The last time they won a majority was in '88, when Bush's father defeated Michael Dukakis.

This shouldn't work, but it might give Bush a temporary push heading into the fall. I'm hardly original in saying this, but I think it's pretty obvious that it's all going to come down to the debates. One thing Democrats need to keep in mind, though, is that Bush - frequently derided for his tongue-tangled ways - can be a more effective communicator than they think.

posted at 9:32 AM | 2 comments | link

Saturday, August 07, 2004

PUTTING IT TO REST I: KRANISH. Here is the Globe's account of Michael Kranish and the Kerry-Edwards campaign book. As you'll see, it fits with accounts in the New York Times and the New York Daily News, and offers a bit more background. No apologies or retractions from Rush Limbaugh or Matt Drudge this morning.

The Globe article, by Susan Milligan, also reports that the paper stands by its story regarding John Kerry's former commanding officer, George Elliott, who claims Kranish misquoted him yesterday on the matter of Kerry's service in Vietnam. Let's look again at this key passage in Kranish's story, shall we?

Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star.

"I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. "It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel "time pressure" from those involved in the book. "That's no excuse," Elliott said. "I knew it was wrong ... In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."

A misquote? I don't think so. A misquote is when you get a couple of words wrong, or if you twist the context. Elliott may be using the word "misquote," but what he's really claiming is that Kranish fabricated the whole thing. I don't believe Elliott, and neither should you.

PUTTING IT TO REST II: NOMAR. This one's for you, P.G. Chicago Tribune sports columnist Rick Morrissey yesterday blasted (reg. req.) the Boston media for its treatment of Nomar Garciaparra on his way out the door. Morrissey writes:

The Red Sox know they messed up. We know the Red Sox know they messed up because, ever since they dealt him to the Cubs, they have tried to tear him down. This is what you do to buildings that are dilapidated and lack character. You don't do it to one of the best players in team history.

ON GETTING IT AND NOT GETTING IT. The New York Times' Elisabeth Bumiller reports on George W. Bush's comments at the Unity Conference yesterday, in which he said he has come to oppose the practice of admitting "legacies" - the children of well-connected and/or wealthy alumni - at colleges and universities:

Mr. Bush said that he assumed Mr. Martin had brought up the issue because of the president's Yale legacy, but Mr. Bush also joked that "in my case, I had to knock on a lot of doors to follow the old man's footsteps." Mr. Bush apparently meant that he had to work hard to succeed.

What? Oh, well. Here is the Globe's Anne Kornblut on the same matter:

Asked to describe his feelings about legacy admissions, Bush replied, "I think it ought to be based upon merit." Asked whether his response meant that he thought colleges should abandon preferences for alumni children, he said, "Well, I think so, yes."

And in a knock on his own mediocre grades, Bush said, joking: "I had to knock on a lot of doors to follow in the old man's footsteps."

Well, yeah. Was this really that hard to figure out?

posted at 10:22 AM | 0 comments | link

Friday, August 06, 2004

MORE ON THE SLIME MERCHANTS. The New York Times tomorrow will report that the Globe's Michael Kranish had nothing to do with a forthcoming official Kerry-Edwards book, Rush Limbaugh's and Matt Drudge's sneering accusations notwithstanding. Writes Jim Rutenberg:

... Public Affairs, publisher of Mr. Kerry's campaign book, said Mr. Kranish had been retained to write the foreword for a different book, and that when it struck a deal to publish the campaign's platform, it dropped plans to publish that book.

Which, of course, is what Paul Colford wrote in the Daily News. Rutenberg continues:

Martin Baron, editor of The Boston Globe, backed up that version of events in a statement and also stood by the quotes from Commander Elliott in his paper. "The quotes attributed to Mr. Elliott were on the record and absolutely accurate," he said.

Too bad for Kranish that he got caught up in this mind-bogglingly sick offensive to denigrate Kerry's service in Vietnam.

posted at 10:55 PM | 0 comments | link

SLIME MERCHANTS AT WORK. Based on what I've heard so far, it sounds like Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge are sliming Globe reporter Michael Kranish. What a surprise.

Kranish reported today that George Elliott - Kerry's former commanding officer, who'd once defended Kerry and had then gone on the attack against him - was defending him again, sort of. Now we learn that Elliott is back to attacking Kerry, and claiming that Kranish misquoted him. A very strange story indeed.

Limbaugh and Drudge think they know what happened with Kranish. They've learned that Kranish wrote the introduction to a book - which they describe as the "official" Kerry-Edwards campaign book - and that therefore Kranish is in the tank.

Limbaugh calls Kranish "a paid Kerry political biographer!" (Gratuitious exclamation point his.)

Drudge writes: "BOSTON GLOBE journalist Mike Kranish has been commissioned to write the foreword of the Kerry-Edwards campaign book - just as he is covering the campaign in an official capacity as a journalist for the BOSTON GLOBE!" (Gratuitious exclamation point and CAPITAL LETTERS definitely his.)

But wait. Drudge triumphantly links to this piece by New York Daily News reporter Paul Colford as alleged proof of Kranish's perfidy. Yet it seems to me that it doesn't say what Drudge thinks it says. Colford reports that PublicAffairs has canceled plans to publish a book called Kerry/Edwards: Their Plans and Promises, which was to include an introduction by Kranish. Instead, Public Affairs will "bring out an authorized edition of the Democratic duo's personal campaign manifesto," to be titled Our Plan for America: Stronger at Home, Respected in the World. There is absolutely no mention of Kranish's being involved in that project.

In fact, on the evidence thus far it seems that Kerry/Edwards was to be an unauthorized book on the Kerry-Edwards campaign. It makes sense. Kranish is the co-author of John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography by the Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best - which, by the way, is not especially kind to Kerry. That book, too, was published by PublicAffairs. No doubt the publisher saw an opportunity to take advantage of a relationship it already had with Kranish.

I still want to know more. In particular, there's a weird reference in Colford's piece about excerpts of the now-canceled Kerry/Edwards book having been available on the Kerry-Edwards website. But the idea that Kranish would risk his job by taking money to write part of an official campaign book - or even to do it for free - strikes me as preposterous.

posted at 10:43 PM | 0 comments | link

Thursday, August 05, 2004

MEA CULPA. Globe sports columnist Dan Shaughnessy on Wednesday wrote that he wanted to make it clear he'd never referred to Nomar Garciaparra as a "cancer" on the Red Sox: "Nowhere in this space was Garciaparra characterized as a 'cancer' in the Sox clubhouse. The word 'polluted' was used (which admittedly may be harsher for some), but you won't find 'cancer' tossed about casually here."

Now, I have no idea whether Shaughnessy is a Media Log reader. But on Monday, I did refer to columns written by him and the Herald's Gerry Callahan as concluding that Garciaparra "had become a cancer on the team." I did not directly attribute the word "cancer" to either one of them; rather, I meant it as a summary of what they had written. (And, in fact, neither actually used the word.)

Nevertheless, it was sloppy and insensitive of me, especially given that Shaughnessy's daughter, Kate, is a leukemia survivor. Referring to someone who's a negative influence as a "cancer" is pretty common usage, dating back at least to John Dean's warning to Richard Nixon. It's also a lousy expression, and I'll try not to use it again.

posted at 9:51 PM | 0 comments | link

GLOBE SCOOPS UP COLLINS. Former Herald television critic Monica Collins, dropped last November amid a wave of cost-cutting, will soon surface at a new location: 135 Morrissey Boulevard. Collins has been brought in to write an every-other-week essay for the Boston Globe Magazine, and to contribute to the paper's City Weekly section as well.

"It's the proverbial I-couldn't-be-happier-and-I'm-looking-forward-to-the-opportunity," says Collins, who, until recently, had continued to write a weekly column for the Herald, "Downtown Journal," on a freelance basis. Her first Globe Magazine essay will appear on September 19.

Says Globe Magazine editor Doug Most: "We're excited about it, because I do think she has a voice in this town. She's knowledgeable about the people and places that make this city tick."

Collins also appears Fridays at 9 a.m. on WRKO Radio (AM 680) to talk about media issues on The Pat Whitley Show (as do I and the Globe's Mark Jurkowitz), and writes a syndicated column called "Ask Dog Lady."

posted at 2:37 PM | 1 comments | link

DOES ROGER AILES KNOW ABOUT THIS? The most entertaining news from the Kerry campaign trail comes in the last paragraph of Anne Kornblut's story in today's Globe:

Some 200 business leaders endorsed Kerry yesterday, including executives from Oracle, Bank of America, and three other companies who flew here to attend the round-table. They decried rising US deficits and what several said was a chilly international business climate under Bush. Peter Chernin, president and chief operating officer of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, said that the Bush administration's "isolationist" and "occasionally bellicose" rhetoric was bad for US financial interests and trading abroad.

Odd, but searching for "Chernin" at FoxNews.com yields nothing since August 2003. You'd think they'd want to get this up right away, so that they could be fair and balanced and all. In fact, Media Log looks forward to the sight of Sean Hannity interviewing his boss on the depradations of George W. Bush.

NEW IN THIS WEEK'S PHOENIX. An enterprising blogger digs up the unexpected: journalists who make financial contributions to politicians.

posted at 8:59 AM | 0 comments | link

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

Tuesday, August 03, 2004

IN BED WITH THE EVIL EMPIRE. This can't be good, can it? Never mind the blight of media concentration coming to regional sports networks. If the Red Sox' New England Sports Network and the Yankees' YES Network merge, aren't the Yankees always going to be the senior partners?

Plus, then the New York Times Company - owner of the Globe and the Times - would wind up owning a piece of both teams, not just the Sox.

posted at 1:49 PM | 1 comments | link

NOMAR NO MORE. The Globe's Bob Ryan and the Herald's Steve Buckley (sub. req.) have additional perspective on the Nomar Garciaparra trade today. Ryan professes mystification, while Buckley positions himself about two-thirds of the way toward management, more or less siding with Theo and company while giving Garciaparra his due.

But you know what you want. You want The Commissioner. Media Log delivers! The great thing about Peter Gammons is that he always seems to have the inside story, even on those occasions when subsequent developments leave you scratching your head. Anyway, here's Gammons at ESPN.com:

Garciaparra did not hang out with teammates, and this season became increasingly distant as his body language became despondent. That he didn't play in Yankee Stadium in the July 1 classic when Derek Jeter gave up his body for an out got a little exaggerated, but veteran teammates constantly made private comments like "he is the biggest disappointment of my playing career - I never knew what he was like."

...

Nomar was bitter, he was embarrassed to not play as he wanted because of his heel injury (three teams that do statistical ratings of players had him as the worst defensive shortstop in the game, because of the injury). Then, when the Red Sox got to Minnesota this weekend, Garciaparra told trainers Jim Rowe and Chris Correnti that his heel wasn't right and that not only would he have to skip the weekend, he expected to have to go on the disabled list for most of August to be right in September. But when Epstein told Cubs GM Jim Hendry that there is a medical issue, Hendry said he wasn't concerned - which led the Red Sox to believe that Arn Tellem, Garciaparra's agent, was telling the Cubs he is fine. Translated, as Warren Zevon would say, "Dad, get me out of this."

Nomar was a great, great player, and he may be once again. But for whatever reason - and I'm certainly not holding management blameless - his situation in Boston had become untenable. Keep an eye on the off-season and see what he signs for. I'll bet it's for a lot less than the $60 million he turned down from the Sox - or even the $48 million "market correction" offer they later made.

SUN SHINES ON KELLER. Josh Gerstein of the New York Sun profiles political analyst Jon Keller, of WLVI-TV (Channel 56). Gerstein's focus is on Keller's disdain for John Kerry, and he calls Keller "the reporter he seems to loathe more than any other." I'm quoted as well, although Gerstein is quick to point out that I hold "a more charitable view of the senator."

MEDIA LOG MEETS WONKETTE. Almost! I was on CNN's Reliable Sources on Sunday, as was Ana Marie Cox, of Wonkette.com. Only I was in a dark little studio in Watertown, while she was in Washington (presumably; I haven't seen the tape). Anyway, here's the transcript. Don't get too excited - she watched her language.

posted at 8:53 AM | 1 comments | link

Monday, August 02, 2004

HARK, THE HERALD. There's a hilarious piece in this week's New Yorker on how the Herald covered the Democratic National Convention. "If I produced a newspaper as boring as the Globe, I'd kill myself," editorial director Ken Chandler told John Cassidy.

I do want to take issue with one of Cassidy's assertions - that the Herald outsells the Globe in the city. He writes:

Although the Globe is a much bigger, wealthier paper than the Herald, its strength lies in the suburbs. Inside the city limits, the Herald, which has a total circulation of about two hundred and fifty thousand, outsells the Globe on newsstands.

Now, that is absolutely true, but it doesn't tell the whole story. The reason that the Herald outsells the Globe in the city is that so few copies of the Herald are home-delivered. According to the latest numbers from the Audit Bureau of Circulations, the Globe's total Monday-through-Friday circulation is 452,109, and on Sunday it's 686,575. By contrast, the Herald's daily number is 248,988, and on Sunday it's just 152,625.

But look at the difference in "single-copy sales," which basically applies to everything that isn't home-delivered. Here the Herald has a huge lead Monday through Friday, beating the Globe by a margin of 171,689 to 82,157. (On Sunday, the Globe actually beats the Herald in single-copy sales, 177,246 to 98,148.)

Do the math. From Monday through Friday, 82 percent of Globe customers get their paper via home delivery, whereas nearly 69 percent of Herald customers are grabbing it at newsstands, from street boxes, at convenience stores, whatever. Obviously a substantial number of Herald customers are suburbanites who get the Globe delivered at home and who then buy a Herald on their way to work. That's why the Herald experiences such a huge dropoff on Saturday (176,454 total, and 120,063 in single-copy sales) and Sunday.

Of course, Cassidy is right when he says that the Globe's focus is more suburban than the Herald's. But the numbers don't tell the whole story.

By the way, Globe columnist Adrian Walker makes what I'm pretty sure is his debut as a Herald critic today. And here is a good piece by Tom Scocca in the New York Observer on how Globe editor Martin Baron hopes the Kerry campaign will raise his paper's national profile.

posted at 10:43 AM | 1 comments | link

NO REAGAN. When Ronald Reagan died recently, George W. Bush's fans tried to compare their man to the Gipper. No, they didn't try to claim he was as gifted a communicator as Reagan. (To put it mildly.) But, like Reagan, they said, Bush is committed to a few big ideas, and leaves the details to others.

Now, I was no fan of Reagan, and am more than a little bemused by the Republicans' largely successful effort at turning him into their Franklin Roosevelt. Nevertheless, Reagan towers over Bush. If you don't believe me, read Strobe Talbott's review of Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended, by Jack F. Matlock Jr., published in this week's New York Times Book Review.

Matlock depicts Reagan as understanding almost from the beginning that Mikhail Gorbachev was a different kind of Soviet leader - and that Reagan responded with a single-minded intensity and engagement aimed at appealing to and reinforcing Gorbachev's best instincts. Talbott writes:

Matlock describes in telling detail how Reagan rehearsed for his first meeting with Gorbachev, which took place in Geneva in November 1985. Reagan assigned the role of the Soviet leader to Matlock who, for maximum authenticity, played his part in Russian, mimicking Gorbachev's confident, loquacious style. Matlock also sent Reagan a series of "spoof memos" that were "interlaced with jokes and anecdotes," based on an educated guess at what Gorbachev's own advisers were telling him in preparation for the encounter.

Shortly before setting off for Geneva, Reagan dictated a long memo of his own, laying out his assessment of the man he was about to meet. The Reagan game plan was to look for areas of common interest, be candid about points of contention and support Gorbachev's reforms while (in Matlock's paraphrase) "avoiding any demand for 'regime change.'" He cautioned the members of his administration not to rub Gorbachev's nose in any concessions he might make. Above all, Reagan wanted to establish a relationship with his Soviet counterpart that would make it easier to manage conflicts lest they escalate to thermonuclear war - an imperative for every American president since Eisenhower.

Can you imagine anyone writing such things about Bush's diplomatic style, say, in 2018? I can't. Bush's entire approach to foreign policy has been disengagement other than the occasional diktat, coupled with almost a pathological need to rub our allies' noses in the reality of American military power.

BYE, BYE NOMAR. If Nomar Garciaparra were determined to leave town after the season, then that alone justified the blockbuster trade. Let's be serious: the Red Sox are not going to the World Series this year. If they could make themselves even a little bit better by not letting Nomar just walk away, then so be it.

But the Globe's Dan Shaughnessy and the Herald's Gerry Callahan (sub. req.) claim it was quite a bit worse than that - that Garciaparra had become a cancer on the team, and that the Sox will be better off without him.

Yes, I realize that Shaughnessy and Callahan are the Negativity Twins. (Although if they were all that negative, you'd think they'd be ripping the front office for botching chances they had to sign Nomar.) Callahan, in particular, seems out of line in all but accusing Garciaparra of faking the seriousness of his Achilles' tendon injury.

Still, both columns have the ring of truth. Shaughnessy writes:

His misery dates back to before this season. After the Sox beat the Oakland A's in the fourth game of the 2003 Division Series, the Sox boarded the team bus for the first leg of their journey back to Oakland for the series finale. Everyone was buoyant and gripped with the prospect of going to Oakland and winning Game 5 ... everyone except for the star shortstop. He got on the bus, turned toward the excited throng, and said, "Why is everyone so happy? As soon as we lose, everyone's just going to rip us."

That was Nomar. The ultimate downer. The wonderful talent who hated playing in a place where people cared too much.

Garciaparra was a great player, and may be again, and I hate to see him go. But the Red Sox have certainly proven over the years that they can lose with him. So it's not as though he was indispensable.

posted at 8:59 AM | 1 comments | link

MEDIA LOG ARCHIVES

---

Dan Kennedy is senior writer and media critic for the Boston Phoenix.