Media Nation
Political blogging and community
I've got an essay in the summer issue of Nieman Reports on political blogs and what the traditional media can learn from them.
At their worst, political blogs of the left and right do little more than reinforce their readers' prejudices. At their best, though, they provide a virtual community in much the same way that newspapers at their height served a geographic community, helping them understand the news in the context of what like-minded people are thinking.
The question is whether the traditional media can learn those lessons without giving up their journalistic souls.
At their worst, political blogs of the left and right do little more than reinforce their readers' prejudices. At their best, though, they provide a virtual community in much the same way that newspapers at their height served a geographic community, helping them understand the news in the context of what like-minded people are thinking.
The question is whether the traditional media can learn those lessons without giving up their journalistic souls.
The Globe takes the GOP's bait
The Boston Globe takes dictation from the Republican National Committee today, turning an innocuous remark by a Barack Obama adviser into evidence that Obama is so arrogant he's already acting like he's president.
I'll work backwards. In a brief item, the Globe's Foon Rhee notes that the RNC was gleefully passing around a story from the Politico yesterday in which an Obama adviser described the candidate's speech in Berlin, scheduled for Thursday, as the sort that a president might deliver. Here's Rhee:
... Republicans are highlighting any perceived hint of Obama arrogance. The Republican National Committee yesterday sent out a report by the Politico website about an exchange between reporters and an Obama adviser about Obama's speech tomorrow in Berlin that is expected to draw thousands.
"It is not going to be a political speech," the adviser said. "When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally."
"But he is not president of the United States," a reporter replied, according to Politico.That's how the item ends. But it looked fishy to me, and I was right. Next stop: the RNC's Web site, which highlights the exchange under its "Audacity Watch," an ongoing feature dedicated to the proposition that Obama is so insufferably arrogant that he believes he might actually be elected president this November.
Finally, going back to the source, here is the Politico story that got the Republicans all excited. You will not be surprised to learn that their faux outrage is derived entirely from a crucial omission. Here's what the Politico's Carrie Budoff Brown actually wrote:
At a morning background briefing, reporters parried with senior advisers on the characterization of Obama’s speech Thursday in Berlin as a campaign rally. The outdoor speech at the Victory Column could draw thousands of people, similar to the size of Obama events in the United States.
"It is not going to be a political speech," said a senior foreign policy adviser, who spoke to reporters on background. "When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally."
"But he is not president of the United States," a reporter reminded the adviser.
"He is going to talk about the issues as an individual … not as a candidate, but as an individual, as a senator," the adviser added....
After the briefing, Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki offered a statement from [Obama campaign head David] Axelrod to reporters: "The answer is that, of course, any event outside of a [congressional delegation trip] is a campaign event. But it is not a political rally. He will not engage his American political opponents. It is a speech to our allies and the people of Europe and the world. And as such, we wanted it to be open to the public and not just invited guests."In other words, the Obama campaign, far from claiming presidential prerogatives, was trying to answer criticism that Obama's Berlin speech will be a campaign rally held on foreign soil. The anonymous adviser tried to draw an analogy to a presidential speech, got cut down and quickly corrected himself. Axelrod then clarified.
If you want to criticize Obama for holding a campaign rally in Berlin, well, be my guest. But the Republicans are dead wrong to label this affair as evidence of Obama's arrogance, and they made their case through dishonestly selective quoting. The Globe should have taken five more minutes to determine whether the attack was fair or not.
I'll work backwards. In a brief item, the Globe's Foon Rhee notes that the RNC was gleefully passing around a story from the Politico yesterday in which an Obama adviser described the candidate's speech in Berlin, scheduled for Thursday, as the sort that a president might deliver. Here's Rhee:
... Republicans are highlighting any perceived hint of Obama arrogance. The Republican National Committee yesterday sent out a report by the Politico website about an exchange between reporters and an Obama adviser about Obama's speech tomorrow in Berlin that is expected to draw thousands.
"It is not going to be a political speech," the adviser said. "When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally."
"But he is not president of the United States," a reporter replied, according to Politico.That's how the item ends. But it looked fishy to me, and I was right. Next stop: the RNC's Web site, which highlights the exchange under its "Audacity Watch," an ongoing feature dedicated to the proposition that Obama is so insufferably arrogant that he believes he might actually be elected president this November.
Finally, going back to the source, here is the Politico story that got the Republicans all excited. You will not be surprised to learn that their faux outrage is derived entirely from a crucial omission. Here's what the Politico's Carrie Budoff Brown actually wrote:
At a morning background briefing, reporters parried with senior advisers on the characterization of Obama’s speech Thursday in Berlin as a campaign rally. The outdoor speech at the Victory Column could draw thousands of people, similar to the size of Obama events in the United States.
"It is not going to be a political speech," said a senior foreign policy adviser, who spoke to reporters on background. "When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally."
"But he is not president of the United States," a reporter reminded the adviser.
"He is going to talk about the issues as an individual … not as a candidate, but as an individual, as a senator," the adviser added....
After the briefing, Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki offered a statement from [Obama campaign head David] Axelrod to reporters: "The answer is that, of course, any event outside of a [congressional delegation trip] is a campaign event. But it is not a political rally. He will not engage his American political opponents. It is a speech to our allies and the people of Europe and the world. And as such, we wanted it to be open to the public and not just invited guests."In other words, the Obama campaign, far from claiming presidential prerogatives, was trying to answer criticism that Obama's Berlin speech will be a campaign rally held on foreign soil. The anonymous adviser tried to draw an analogy to a presidential speech, got cut down and quickly corrected himself. Axelrod then clarified.
If you want to criticize Obama for holding a campaign rally in Berlin, well, be my guest. But the Republicans are dead wrong to label this affair as evidence of Obama's arrogance, and they made their case through dishonestly selective quoting. The Globe should have taken five more minutes to determine whether the attack was fair or not.
Foreign policy
In my latest for the Guardian, I take a look at "The Changing Newsroom," a new study from the Project for Excellence in Journalism, and conclude that the authors get it half-right: metropolitan newspapers aren't dumping foreign and national news because readers don't want it, but because they're getting it elsewhere.
Style question
Another one for the brain trust. When I use block quotes, I do not use quotation marks. I've got an example from this morning — my post on the McCain op-ed. The indented text is a direct quote from McCain's unpublished piece.
Now, that's pretty standard in publishing, whether you're talking about magazines, books or academic papers. But such conventions do not necessarily travel all that well to the Web. I received a comment a little while ago from someone who was confused.
Although I can't scare up an example at the moment, I have seen blogs that use indents for block quotes and quotation marks. It's a little bit like using a belt and suspenders, but I'd rather make it too clear that I'm quoting than not clear enough.
What do you think?
Now, that's pretty standard in publishing, whether you're talking about magazines, books or academic papers. But such conventions do not necessarily travel all that well to the Web. I received a comment a little while ago from someone who was confused.
Although I can't scare up an example at the moment, I have seen blogs that use indents for block quotes and quotation marks. It's a little bit like using a belt and suspenders, but I'd rather make it too clear that I'm quoting than not clear enough.
What do you think?
Checking in with ethnic news
I've got a feature on the New England Ethnic Newswire in the new issue of CommonWealth Magazine. The NEWz, a Web site that aggregates the best of the local ethnic press, is expanding into original journalism focused on health care.
"The thing that I think is really intriguing about it is this idea of connecting different communities," says former Boston Globe editorialist Robert Turner, an adviser to the NEWz. "You see over and over again various communities building their own strength as their numbers increase. But how much of an effort around town is there to make cross-connections among them?"
The NEWz is a work in progress, as is the case with most new-media ventures. But it's got the potential to grow into something truly important. Ethnic communities are already speaking for themselves. Now there's a way for all of us to hear them.
"The thing that I think is really intriguing about it is this idea of connecting different communities," says former Boston Globe editorialist Robert Turner, an adviser to the NEWz. "You see over and over again various communities building their own strength as their numbers increase. But how much of an effort around town is there to make cross-connections among them?"
The NEWz is a work in progress, as is the case with most new-media ventures. But it's got the potential to grow into something truly important. Ethnic communities are already speaking for themselves. Now there's a way for all of us to hear them.
Technology Tuesday
We are celebrating in Media Nation. The AirPort Express really did configure itself.
I called Apple customer service, and a terrific guy walked me through it. I think what happened yesterday was (a) I messed around and screwed up the AirPort's internal settings; (b) incompetently performed a hard reset; (c) then did it properly, but couldn't configure the AirPort because it needed to be rest.
Anyway, we are back in business. Now I need to catch up on some e-mail.
I called Apple customer service, and a terrific guy walked me through it. I think what happened yesterday was (a) I messed around and screwed up the AirPort's internal settings; (b) incompetently performed a hard reset; (c) then did it properly, but couldn't configure the AirPort because it needed to be rest.
Anyway, we are back in business. Now I need to catch up on some e-mail.
McCain's factually inaccurate op-ed
The John McCain op-ed piece that was rejected by the New York Times contains at least one bit of factually inaccurate information about Barack Obama. That alone is sufficient reason to send it back for a rewrite. Instead, McCain has chosen to go public and claim that the Times refused to publish what he had written despite having run a commentary by Obama last week.
Here is the inaccuracy:
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama's determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his "plan for Iraq" in advance of his first "fact finding" trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.The truth, of course, is that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has indeed endorsed Obama's 16-month timetable for withdrawal. Republicans are now spinning like mad to make it appear that Maliki's remarks had not been properly translated. But this Josh Marshall post makes it clear that Maliki said what he meant and meant what he said.
In fairness, it should be noted, as Time's Joe Klein does, that McCain's piece was rejected last Friday, and Maliki's remarks were not reported until the next day. But Klein goes on to observe that the McCain campaign still refuses to acknowledge that Maliki said what he said. In any case, there's no doubt McCain's op-ed would need to be revised in order to avoid making a false statement about Obama (and Maliki).
According to the Times, the newspaper has published at least seven op-eds by McCain since 1996. I can't imagine that it won't be publishing another one or two before this campaign is over.
But if McCain wants his words published without any editing or vetting whatsoever, then he ought to buy an ad.
Here is the inaccuracy:
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama's determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his "plan for Iraq" in advance of his first "fact finding" trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.The truth, of course, is that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has indeed endorsed Obama's 16-month timetable for withdrawal. Republicans are now spinning like mad to make it appear that Maliki's remarks had not been properly translated. But this Josh Marshall post makes it clear that Maliki said what he meant and meant what he said.
In fairness, it should be noted, as Time's Joe Klein does, that McCain's piece was rejected last Friday, and Maliki's remarks were not reported until the next day. But Klein goes on to observe that the McCain campaign still refuses to acknowledge that Maliki said what he said. In any case, there's no doubt McCain's op-ed would need to be revised in order to avoid making a false statement about Obama (and Maliki).
According to the Times, the newspaper has published at least seven op-eds by McCain since 1996. I can't imagine that it won't be publishing another one or two before this campaign is over.
But if McCain wants his words published without any editing or vetting whatsoever, then he ought to buy an ad.
Keeping the heat on the heat
In case you missed it, Kevin Cullen has a first-rate column in today's Boston Globe on the death of David Woodman following last month's Celtics victory. Cullen speaks with a fan named John Rufo, who remains incredulous at the aggressive show of force by Boston police at the celebration. Cullen writes:
Now, you can dress this up any way you want: that Woodman had a preexisting heart condition, that it was an unfortunate accident, that it was any number of things. But the bottom line is David Woodman is dead and he died as a result of being taken into custody by some cops who didn't like some kid mouthing off to them.
You will never convince Jim Rufo that David Woodman is dead for any other reason than that the show of force put on by police the night the Celtics won their 17th championship was something of a self-fulfilling prophecy: that if you hype police officers up for battle, if you send them into a crowd of civilians with weapons, you are asking for trouble.Good for Cullen for keeping the heat on the police.
Now, you can dress this up any way you want: that Woodman had a preexisting heart condition, that it was an unfortunate accident, that it was any number of things. But the bottom line is David Woodman is dead and he died as a result of being taken into custody by some cops who didn't like some kid mouthing off to them.
You will never convince Jim Rufo that David Woodman is dead for any other reason than that the show of force put on by police the night the Celtics won their 17th championship was something of a self-fulfilling prophecy: that if you hype police officers up for battle, if you send them into a crowd of civilians with weapons, you are asking for trouble.Good for Cullen for keeping the heat on the police.
What liberal media?*
Check out the nominally liberal Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi, who absolutely unloaded on Barack Obama in Sunday's paper in a piece headlined "The Audacity of Ego." Ouch.
No doubt Obama is possessed of a healthy self-regard and then some. But isn't it pretty typical for a presidential candidate — especially one who's new to the national political scene — to undertake a foreign trip?
*Eric Alterman wrote the book.
No doubt Obama is possessed of a healthy self-regard and then some. But isn't it pretty typical for a presidential candidate — especially one who's new to the national political scene — to undertake a foreign trip?
*Eric Alterman wrote the book.
Technology Monday
Which is another way of saying all is not right in Media Nation.
Got the digital box from Comcast this morning. I only had to go back once before everything was working properly.
Now I am dealing with our wireless Internet problem. I picked up an AirPort Express at the Apple Store after talking with a guy at the Genius Bar who seemed pretty knowledgeable (if not quite a genius). Here's what I'm trying to do:
But none of our Macs will connect to the Internet. (For the moment, I'm running the EtherNet cable directly into the back of the family iMac. Very frustrating.) And then sometimes, when I try again, the AirPort doesn't even show up in AirPort Utility.
I've got a 7:15 p.m. appointment at the Genius Bar, and I'm hoping someone will walk me through it step by step.
Got the digital box from Comcast this morning. I only had to go back once before everything was working properly.
Now I am dealing with our wireless Internet problem. I picked up an AirPort Express at the Apple Store after talking with a guy at the Genius Bar who seemed pretty knowledgeable (if not quite a genius). Here's what I'm trying to do:
- Attach the cable coming in from outside the house to the back of the cable modem.
- Run an Ethernet cable from the back of the cable modem to the AirPort Express.
- Set up a wireless network using the AirPort Utility software.
But none of our Macs will connect to the Internet. (For the moment, I'm running the EtherNet cable directly into the back of the family iMac. Very frustrating.) And then sometimes, when I try again, the AirPort doesn't even show up in AirPort Utility.
I've got a 7:15 p.m. appointment at the Genius Bar, and I'm hoping someone will walk me through it step by step.
Comcast paranoia
As many of you know, Comcast is in the process of messing things up even more than it normally does.
Weirdly enough, on Friday night the signal coming out of our ancient, coal-powered Airport base station suddenly dropped to the point where I had to drag my laptop into the same room in order to get a decent connection. I've done enough testing to convince myself that it's the base station and not the laptop. The situation persisted throughout the day on Saturday.
Last night, the problem appeared to have healed itself. Early this morning, too. But now the signal is back to being ridiculously weak.
The family iMac, connected directly to the cable modem, does not seem to be affected.
Is anyone else experiencing this? Is my suspicion that it might be Comcast realistic, or does it stem from my near-total technological ignorance?
Weirdly enough, on Friday night the signal coming out of our ancient, coal-powered Airport base station suddenly dropped to the point where I had to drag my laptop into the same room in order to get a decent connection. I've done enough testing to convince myself that it's the base station and not the laptop. The situation persisted throughout the day on Saturday.
Last night, the problem appeared to have healed itself. Early this morning, too. But now the signal is back to being ridiculously weak.
The family iMac, connected directly to the cable modem, does not seem to be affected.
Is anyone else experiencing this? Is my suspicion that it might be Comcast realistic, or does it stem from my near-total technological ignorance?
Is that all there is?
I'll reserve judgment over the latest contretemps regarding Manny Ramírez. But I do want to flag an unsettling quote from Bob Lobel in Dan Shaughnessy's column today.
It was Lobel, formerly of WBZ-TV (Channel 4), who took to WEEI Radio (AM 850) earlier in the week to report that Ramírez had (a) been fined six figures for shoving traveling secretary Jack McCormick and (b) infuriated management by taking three straight called strikes from Mariano Rivera to protest his punishment. Now Red Sox officials are denying it — especially (b).
Here's Lobel talking to Shaughnessy:
I don't think this is false information. It's not something I'd make up. It didn't come to me in a dream. I know it's not in their best interests to talk about this, but I'm pretty confident with what I said.Whoa. Lobel doesn't think this is false information? Now, there's a lofty standard. Given that Gordon Edes has reported the fine was about 10 percent of what Lobel claims, I think Lobel owes us more, although he obviously can't out any anonymous sources he may have.
As for Manny looking at three straight pitches, I watched that game, and yes, it was disconcerting. But Ramírez had preceded that with some big-time loosening-up in the on-deck circle. If he were trying to send a message to management, you'd think he'd just kneel there, immobile.
I forget who the television analyst was, but his explanation that Manny was looking for a pitch in a specific location made sense to me. When Rivera is on, he's not exactly easy to hit.
Sorry for the relative dearth of links. I'm having Internet problems today.
It was Lobel, formerly of WBZ-TV (Channel 4), who took to WEEI Radio (AM 850) earlier in the week to report that Ramírez had (a) been fined six figures for shoving traveling secretary Jack McCormick and (b) infuriated management by taking three straight called strikes from Mariano Rivera to protest his punishment. Now Red Sox officials are denying it — especially (b).
Here's Lobel talking to Shaughnessy:
I don't think this is false information. It's not something I'd make up. It didn't come to me in a dream. I know it's not in their best interests to talk about this, but I'm pretty confident with what I said.Whoa. Lobel doesn't think this is false information? Now, there's a lofty standard. Given that Gordon Edes has reported the fine was about 10 percent of what Lobel claims, I think Lobel owes us more, although he obviously can't out any anonymous sources he may have.
As for Manny looking at three straight pitches, I watched that game, and yes, it was disconcerting. But Ramírez had preceded that with some big-time loosening-up in the on-deck circle. If he were trying to send a message to management, you'd think he'd just kneel there, immobile.
I forget who the television analyst was, but his explanation that Manny was looking for a pitch in a specific location made sense to me. When Rivera is on, he's not exactly easy to hit.
Sorry for the relative dearth of links. I'm having Internet problems today.
Bill O'Reilly and "shut up"
In a letter to the Phoenix, Rich Goggin of Peabody says I was wrong to claim, as I did in the recent Muzzle Awards, that Fox News Channel host Bill O'Reilly "loves nothing more than to tell his guests to 'shut up.'" Goggin instructs me thusly: "Except O'Reilly only did that once, seven years ago."
Really. Now, I'm going to make an assumption, but I'm pretty sure the source of Goggin's misinformation is O'Reilly himself. O'Reilly's claim was included in Robert Greenwald's documentary "OutFoxed." It is followed by a hilarious stream of O'Reilly telling both guests and non-guests alike, over and over, to "shut up." Here is the clip:
As Ronald Reagan once said, facts are stupid things. And if that's not enough for you, Mr. Goggin, Jack Shafer of Slate wrote way back in 2003, "Bill O'Reilly says 'shut up' the way other people say 'um.'" He follows that with one, two, three ... OK, make that 30 examples.
I posted a comment to Goggin's letter, but it doesn't seem to have taken yet. I don't know if he's a Media Nation reader, but perhaps someone will send him this way. Meanwhile, my advice for him is to shut up.
Really. Now, I'm going to make an assumption, but I'm pretty sure the source of Goggin's misinformation is O'Reilly himself. O'Reilly's claim was included in Robert Greenwald's documentary "OutFoxed." It is followed by a hilarious stream of O'Reilly telling both guests and non-guests alike, over and over, to "shut up." Here is the clip:
As Ronald Reagan once said, facts are stupid things. And if that's not enough for you, Mr. Goggin, Jack Shafer of Slate wrote way back in 2003, "Bill O'Reilly says 'shut up' the way other people say 'um.'" He follows that with one, two, three ... OK, make that 30 examples.
I posted a comment to Goggin's letter, but it doesn't seem to have taken yet. I don't know if he's a Media Nation reader, but perhaps someone will send him this way. Meanwhile, my advice for him is to shut up.
It's all about the debt
Boston Herald reporter Christine McConville quotes me today in a story about GateHouse Media's ongoing financial woes, which have now extended to closing the chain's weeklies in Taunton and Avon.
As best as I can figure out — and I've been making some inquiries — it's all about GateHouse's $1.2 billion debt. But as McConville notes, when you talk to insiders, you can't help but be surprised by lack of panic.
What you hear is that the debt has been structured in a way that makes it quite a bit less onerous than outside analysts assume. The truth? Well, it's out there, I guess.
As for the closing of those two papers, it's always a shame when the doors are padlocked, but this doesn't strike me as a huge deal. The weekly Taunton Call and Avon Messenger operated in the shadow of the Taunton Gazette and the Brockton Enterprise, dailies also owned by GateHouse. The company's Wicked Local Web sites for the two communities remain intact.
Regional publisher Mark Olivieri explains here and here.
As best as I can figure out — and I've been making some inquiries — it's all about GateHouse's $1.2 billion debt. But as McConville notes, when you talk to insiders, you can't help but be surprised by lack of panic.
What you hear is that the debt has been structured in a way that makes it quite a bit less onerous than outside analysts assume. The truth? Well, it's out there, I guess.
As for the closing of those two papers, it's always a shame when the doors are padlocked, but this doesn't strike me as a huge deal. The weekly Taunton Call and Avon Messenger operated in the shadow of the Taunton Gazette and the Brockton Enterprise, dailies also owned by GateHouse. The company's Wicked Local Web sites for the two communities remain intact.
Regional publisher Mark Olivieri explains here and here.
The vagaries of search
Yes, I'm looking for help from the brain trust again.
A year ago I published a free, online edition of my book on dwarfism, "Little People." Unfortunately, I've done it in a way that renders it nearly invisible to Google.
Here's how I handled it. I uploaded the book to a subset of my personal Web site. The top page for the book is home.comcast.net/~dkennedy56/littlepeople.html. Then I registered the domain name littlepeoplethebook.com and set it to forward to that page.
My other ventures are not exactly invisible to Google. But when I Google "Dan Kennedy" "Little People", a link to the book doesn't come up until the eighth page. And when I search for text inside the book, it doesn't come up at all.
Interestingly, "Little People" is better represented on Google by Cape Cod Today, whose publisher, Walter Brooks, was kind enough to serialize my book last fall.
Yes, I know I could get a hosted solution, but I'm not willing to spend any money. Would it help if I moved the book to a higher level? (Example: home.comcast.net/~littlepeople.) I could do that, but I don't want to bother unless it's really going to make a difference.
Or I could set it up as a Blogger or WordPress.com site.
Thoughts?
A year ago I published a free, online edition of my book on dwarfism, "Little People." Unfortunately, I've done it in a way that renders it nearly invisible to Google.
Here's how I handled it. I uploaded the book to a subset of my personal Web site. The top page for the book is home.comcast.net/~dkennedy56/littlepeople.html. Then I registered the domain name littlepeoplethebook.com and set it to forward to that page.
My other ventures are not exactly invisible to Google. But when I Google "Dan Kennedy" "Little People", a link to the book doesn't come up until the eighth page. And when I search for text inside the book, it doesn't come up at all.
Interestingly, "Little People" is better represented on Google by Cape Cod Today, whose publisher, Walter Brooks, was kind enough to serialize my book last fall.
Yes, I know I could get a hosted solution, but I'm not willing to spend any money. Would it help if I moved the book to a higher level? (Example: home.comcast.net/~littlepeople.) I could do that, but I don't want to bother unless it's really going to make a difference.
Or I could set it up as a Blogger or WordPress.com site.
Thoughts?
One in five
With the Massachusetts Legislature on the verge of repealing a 1913 law that's made it difficult for out-of-state gay and lesbian couples to marry here, we've reached a remarkable moment in the rise of same-sex marriage — more remarkable than perhaps most people realize.
Yes, only two states allow same-sex marriage: Massachusetts and California. But, since May, the state of New York has recognized same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, making it possible for New York couples to marry in, say, Canada or Massachusetts.
The combined population of Massachusetts, California and New York is 62.2 million — nearly 21 percent of the total U.S. population of 299.4 million. That means one in five Americans lives in a state where same-sex marriage is recognized.
California voters might repeal same-sex marriage this November. But given that the state's Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, opposes the anti-marriage referendum, there's reason to be optimistic.
A final observation about Massachusetts. Yesterday's state Senate vote to repeal the 1913 law was unanimous. The vote in the House is expected to be overwhelming. Can we finally stop the charade that gay marriage was forced on us by "unelected judges," as critics inevitably charge?
It may have taken the state's Supreme Judicial Court to start the debate. But last year opponents failed to win over the mere 25 percent of legislators needed to place the question on the ballot. And now our elected legislators are taking the final steps toward normalizing same-sex marriage, secure in the knowledge that most of their constituents either support marriage equality or don't strongly object.
More: Esther offers some observations at Gratuitous Violins.
Yes, only two states allow same-sex marriage: Massachusetts and California. But, since May, the state of New York has recognized same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, making it possible for New York couples to marry in, say, Canada or Massachusetts.
The combined population of Massachusetts, California and New York is 62.2 million — nearly 21 percent of the total U.S. population of 299.4 million. That means one in five Americans lives in a state where same-sex marriage is recognized.
California voters might repeal same-sex marriage this November. But given that the state's Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, opposes the anti-marriage referendum, there's reason to be optimistic.
A final observation about Massachusetts. Yesterday's state Senate vote to repeal the 1913 law was unanimous. The vote in the House is expected to be overwhelming. Can we finally stop the charade that gay marriage was forced on us by "unelected judges," as critics inevitably charge?
It may have taken the state's Supreme Judicial Court to start the debate. But last year opponents failed to win over the mere 25 percent of legislators needed to place the question on the ballot. And now our elected legislators are taking the final steps toward normalizing same-sex marriage, secure in the knowledge that most of their constituents either support marriage equality or don't strongly object.
More: Esther offers some observations at Gratuitous Violins.
Second least popular, too
Brian Stetler, writing in the New York Times, describes Brit Hume's "Special Report" as the Fox News Channel's "fourth most popular program" in a story on Hume's decision to step aside after the November election.
But Stetler makes this observation in the context of "Fox's 6 to 11 p.m. schedule." That's five shows.
But Stetler makes this observation in the context of "Fox's 6 to 11 p.m. schedule." That's five shows.
Old ethics and new media (VI)
Howard Owens, GateHouse Media's director of digital publishing, has responded to YouTube's decision to remove the Beverly Citizen's controversial video of the "Horribles" parade.
According to Owens, YouTube acted after receiving a complaint from someone whose face was visible in the video. Apparently YouTube has a privacy policy under which it will take down a video at literally anyone's request. Owens sums it up as follows:
We simply cannot allow YouTube, or any other business partner, to subvert our editorial independence. If YouTube wants to get in the game of hosting video for established news organizations — which it is doing — then it needs to respect the editorial judgment and independence of the news professionals in those organizations. If YouTube is unwilling be a true media partner, then, at least for GateHouse, we will need to seek alternative means of distribution of our videos.Now, it's easy enough to say that YouTube should act as a common carrier, similar to the phone company, and carry any traffic that comes its way, regardless of content. As a free-speech advocate, I would much prefer a policy like that.
But it's not that simple. YouTube is successful in part because it does a good job of keeping out pornography and graphic violence. It's the PG-13 nature of YouTube that makes it an attractive venue for media companies like GateHouse in the first place.
On the other hand, Owens is absolutely right that if the folks at YouTube are going to remove news videos arbitrarily, then there's no way a news organization can do business with them.
I haven't changed my mind about the video — I still would have edited it to remove the eight-foot-long penis and some of the more offensive signs. But that has to be the news organization's call, not that of the service hosting the video.
I realize this post is entirely one-sided, and I hope YouTube has something to say. Soon.
Wednesday morning update: An unnamed YouTube spokeswoman tells the Boston Herald that the video was "inappropriate," but leaves it at that.
According to Owens, YouTube acted after receiving a complaint from someone whose face was visible in the video. Apparently YouTube has a privacy policy under which it will take down a video at literally anyone's request. Owens sums it up as follows:
We simply cannot allow YouTube, or any other business partner, to subvert our editorial independence. If YouTube wants to get in the game of hosting video for established news organizations — which it is doing — then it needs to respect the editorial judgment and independence of the news professionals in those organizations. If YouTube is unwilling be a true media partner, then, at least for GateHouse, we will need to seek alternative means of distribution of our videos.Now, it's easy enough to say that YouTube should act as a common carrier, similar to the phone company, and carry any traffic that comes its way, regardless of content. As a free-speech advocate, I would much prefer a policy like that.
But it's not that simple. YouTube is successful in part because it does a good job of keeping out pornography and graphic violence. It's the PG-13 nature of YouTube that makes it an attractive venue for media companies like GateHouse in the first place.
On the other hand, Owens is absolutely right that if the folks at YouTube are going to remove news videos arbitrarily, then there's no way a news organization can do business with them.
I haven't changed my mind about the video — I still would have edited it to remove the eight-foot-long penis and some of the more offensive signs. But that has to be the news organization's call, not that of the service hosting the video.
I realize this post is entirely one-sided, and I hope YouTube has something to say. Soon.
Wednesday morning update: An unnamed YouTube spokeswoman tells the Boston Herald that the video was "inappropriate," but leaves it at that.
GateHouse financial outlook dims
While we're talking about GateHouse Media, you might be interested in knowing that the bad financial news continues. The trade publication Editor & Publisher reports that the company's stock price is flirting with the $1 mark, which could trigger a series of unfortunate events.
Stock analyst Tom Corbett of Morningstar is quoted as writing that the company's shares "could be worthless," and that it is conceivable that "its debt could become due immediately, resulting in a possible liquidation scenario."
Much as company officials might not want to hear it, Corbett's dire report fits with a recent post on the blog 247WallSt.com, which predicted that the Rochester, N.Y.-based chain — which owns some 100 newspapers in Eastern Massachusetts — could be broken up or worse by the end of the year.
Stock analyst Tom Corbett of Morningstar is quoted as writing that the company's shares "could be worthless," and that it is conceivable that "its debt could become due immediately, resulting in a possible liquidation scenario."
Much as company officials might not want to hear it, Corbett's dire report fits with a recent post on the blog 247WallSt.com, which predicted that the Rochester, N.Y.-based chain — which owns some 100 newspapers in Eastern Massachusetts — could be broken up or worse by the end of the year.
Old ethics and new media (V)
Looks like GateHouse Media has taken matters into its own hands.
If you go to the Beverly Citizen's "Horribles" parade story now, you'll see that the video featuring the eight-foot-long water-spouting penis and the crude signs is back online.
The difference: The video is now hosted by Veoh Networks rather than YouTube.
If you go to the Beverly Citizen's "Horribles" parade story now, you'll see that the video featuring the eight-foot-long water-spouting penis and the crude signs is back online.
The difference: The video is now hosted by Veoh Networks rather than YouTube.
More