I'd like the panel to discuss the conflict of interest re: the New York Times Jerusalem Bureau Chief Ethan Bronner. Bronner's son serves in the Israeli Defense Forces and readers alerted the New...
Contributor
Dan Kennedy
Panelist
Biography
A regular panelist on "Beat the Press" since 1998, Dan Kennedy is an assistant professor of journalism at Northeastern University and a nationally recognized media critic. Author of the popular blog Media Nation, Dan won the National Press Club's Arthur Rowse Award for Press Criticism in 2001 and was a finalist for a Syracuse University Mirror Award in media commentary in 2008. When he's not blogging, Dan is a contributing writer for The Guardian, CommonWealth magazine, and the Boston Phoenix. Dan is also the author of "Little People: A Father Reflects on his Daughter's Dwarfism - and What It Means to Be Different" and is currently researching a book on the intersection of journalism, technology, and community participation.
Dan's Posts
A curiously sourced story
posted by Dan Kennedy on March 12, 2010
The New York Times fronts an article by Peter Baker on the ugly departure of White House social secretary Desirée Rogers (in photo, to Michelle Obama's immediate right). Go ahead and call it a classic “Who cares?” story, but I’m shallow enough to admit it’s the only one I’ve read in the Times so far today. What really hit me, though, was this:
And while she [Rogers] is unwilling to discuss her story publicly, several associates shared her account in the belief that her side has been lost in the swirl of hearings, backbiting and paparazzilike coverage.
Go ahead and read the story. I have no doubt that Baker did, indeed, interview “several associates.” But it also seems crystal-clear that Rogers sat down with Baker and gave him an extensive interview, all of it premised on an agreement that she would not be quoted either by name or on a not-for-attribution basis. I believe that’s called “deep background” — not that there’s any agreement on what the term means.
The whole point to such an exercise is to provide Rogers with plausible deniability, and I don’t think Baker did that. Of course, assuming Baker stuck to their agreement, that’s Rogers’ problem, not his. Still, from an ethical point of view it’s at least worth chewing over.
A final caveat: I am, of course, guessing at what happened. It’s possible that Baker got Rogers’ side solely on the basis of interviews with her friends, and that she herself refused to speak with him. But that’s not how it looks from here.
White House photo by Joyce Boghosian. For larger image and more information, visit Wikimedia Commons.
At GateHouse, as elsewhere, the rich get richer
posted by Dan Kennedy on March 9, 2010
Seems like it’s been ages since I last wrote about GateHouse Media, the financially challenged Fairport, N.Y.-based company that owns about 100 community newspapers in Eastern Massachusetts.
Things may be more quiet than they were a year ago, but rumblings of dissension persist. Several anonymous employees sent this along, detailing some mighty nice bonuses top GateHouse officials paid themselves to publish understaffed newspapers run by overworked, low-paid journalists.
Leading the parade is chief executive Michael Reed, who got $500,000. Taking the silver, with $250,000, was president and chief operating officer Kirk Davis (photo), a top GateHouse official in Massachusetts before decamping for upstate New York last year.
(Click "continue" to keep reading)
Tags:
3 comments
Radar can't be wrong
posted by Dan Kennedy on March 4, 2010
Radar Online has posted an anonymously sourced item claiming that U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is “considering” stepping down. Well, consider this: There’s no way Radar can be wrong, is there? The item goes on to say that Roberts “could announce his decision at any time.” If Roberts retires in 2021, will Radar, if it’s still around, demand a Pulitzer?
That was quick: About 20 minutes after I posted this, Radar retracted the item, as you'll see if you follow the link.
Tags:
2 comments
What does Times video campaign mean for the Globe?
posted by Dan Kennedy on March 1, 2010
Trying to figure out where the Boston Globe stands in the New York Times Co. firmament is a little like analyzing the ins and outs of the old Soviet Politburo based on their position on the podium during the May Day parade.
Nevertheless, I couldn’t help but be struck by a story in today’s Times (it also appears in the Globe) reporting that Times content will soon be featured on 850 screens in public places in five cities — including Boston.
The content, according to the story, by Times media reporter Richard Pérez-Peña, will be shown on screens owned by RGM Networks in places such as coffee shops, casual restaurants and newsstands at airports.
Last year, of course, the Times Co. tried to sell the Globe after months of angst, including a threat to shut the paper down, if the paper’s unions wouldn’t agree to $20 million in givebacks. The sale was called off amid reports that neither of the two bidders was willing or perhaps able to come up with sufficient cash.
The Globe remains the Times Co.’s second-biggest paper. So you’d think that the company would avoid doing something that would benefit the Times at the expense of the Globe.
Not to make too much of this. It’s a modest venture, and it’s not as though the Times Co. never promotes its flagship in Boston. But it does play into the notion that, once the economy improves, Arthur Sulzberger and company will put the Globe on the market once again.
Paul Krugman, cat person
posted by Dan Kennedy on February 26, 2010
If you’re a fan of New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, as I am, then you really have to read Larissa MacFarquhar’s profile of him in the current New Yorker.
I love the Tina Barney photo of Krugman and his wife, Robin Wells, posing with their cats. You don’t really get the full effect unless you see it in the print edition, but there’s something hilariously incongruous about Krugman holding a cat while looking like he’s about to bite the head off a political adversary.
I was also interested to learn that Wells has had a strong hand in sharpening and toughening Krugman’s prose. For instance:
Recently, he gave her a draft of an article he’d done for Rolling Stone. He had written, “As Obama tries to deal with the crisis, he will get no help from Republican leaders,” and after this she inserted the sentence “Worse yet, he’ll get obstruction and lies.”
Recently I heard someone describe the columnist divide this way: you’re either a Krugman person or a David Brooks person. Go figure: they’re my two favorite columnists, though I’ll confess I find fault with Brooks’ cautious conservatism far more often than I do with Krugman’s fire-breathing liberalism.
Dan's Whiteboard
Liz — Thank you so much for your kind words, and for remembering my father. He'll be gone 25 years this November. It seems hard to believe.
Bill: What can I say? I guess I've just got a thing for people who've won the Nobel Prize in Economics. Does that make him and me elitists?
Not surprised by Dan's admiration for Paul Krugman. Dan seems to worship "Limousine Lliberals'. Krigman and Wells choose to live in high end places (Princeton, NJ, St. Croix, expensive New York City section. Is this because they need to avoid interacting with a cross section of people on a racial or economic basis? My guess is like their peers Gore, Biden, Obama, etc. they give very little of their large earnings to charity - it's all about them. Heaven forbid they mix with someone who liked Elvis.
Dan, your father, Dan Sr. would be very proud. I worked with him at the Brockton VA in HR and have watched you on Greater Boston for many yrs.
Dan,
I understood Sen. Reid's comment as a description of what IS, not an advocacy of what SHOULD BE. That distinction is apparently lost on many people. He simply said that he thought a black person who was light-skinned and spoke with a standard American accent would be more electable than one who had neither of these attributes. What did he say that was incorrect or improper? Lots of black people have voiced their agreement. The only thing that troubles me is that he caved in and issued an apology.
Dan, while the anti-idling law is not that "sexy" of a story, I believe it is a good story to "get the word out" where environmental agencies are not for some reason. We have had a this law on the books for over 25 years, and I know of no better thing that we can do is know that 1) there is a law that limits idling of vehicles to 5 minutes, and 2) and peer pressure alone will help accomplish compliance.
We just have to look at the "no smoking" regulation on the MBTA platforms to see how quickly we can get something done.
My complaint is that the public does not even know such a law exists. Why this is so begs the question...if we can do something about it that simply, then why aren't we doing it?
We could all do our part! But this is where you folks come in in getting the word out.
Hello, Wendy: In some respects, print remains an ideal medium. But I find that GlobeReader allows for such fast flipping that I can at least eyeball every story in the paper, much as I would with print. I certainly can't do that with BostonGlobe.com — it's just too slow.
Dan, I agree that the Globe Reader is great. I travel a lot for business and love to be able to log in when I'm on the road and missing my printed paper.
My biggest problem is this: with the print edition I can scan an article to see its content. With the Globe Reader, which shows just the headline, sometimes I don't have a clue about the content of the article and I just skip over it. But definitely an added-value from my standpoint.
John C: I used it as shorthand, but you're right about the background of the term. No offense intended.
Vinnie: Your objections to the health-care bills are reasonable. Obviously it is possible to oppose the bills without being racist. At the same time, the over-the-top protests at town meetings, invoking Nazis, non-existent "death panels," and the like, are an outgrowth of the right-wing tea-bag/birther movement, which in turn springs from the racist hatemongering encouraged by Sarah Palin at her rallies last year. John McCain, to his credit, spoke out against that sentiment toward the end of the campaign. But it's still there.
As you probably know, at this point there is no "Obama bill" with respect to health care -- he's decided to let Congress do it, which I think is a mistake. And I've criticized him on two consecutive "Beat the Press" programs for failing to articulate a clear vision of what health reform would look like. (Based on my understanding of the various proposals, your concerns are unfounded. But I don't think it's your fault that you hold those concerns given the poor communication job Obama has done.)
Lord knows it's possible to criticize Obama and to oppose his policies without being a racist. But unarticulated (or, in some cases, articulated) racial fears are playing into the more extreme elements of opposition to the president, goaded on by the likes of Glenn Beck, who tells his viewers that Obama hates white people. Let's not kid ourselves as to what's going on.
Dan, recently on Beat the Press you made a comment insinuating that those opposed to the so-called “death Panels” are “racist”. Dan, please understand that race has nothing to do with this fiasco called a national healthcare bill that is being foisted on the American people.
We cannot pay for social security. We cannot pay for Medicare. We cannot afford the state and municipal pensions that are being given out. Government over the years has proven time and time again that it does NOT manage big spending programs very well. I would rather take my chances paying for my own healthcare than letting the government do this for me.
You must have seen Emily’s interview with Niki Tsongas. Emily asked point blank why we the American people cannot have the same health insurance plan that Congress and other government officials have? Niki Tsongas walked right around the question and would not give a clear Yes or No answer. The Congress has no intention of giving up its healthcare plan, so why should we the taxpayers have to give up ours?
Dan, recently on Beat the Press you made a comment insinuating that those opposed to the so-called “death Panels” are “racist”. Dan, please understand that race has nothing to do with this fiasco called a national healthcare bill that is being foisted on the American people.
We cannot pay for social security. We cannot pay for Medicare. We cannot afford the state and municipal pensions that are being given out. Government over the years has proven time and time again that it does NOT manage big spending programs very well. I would rather take my chances paying for my own healthcare than letting the government do this for me.
You must have seen Emily’s interview with Niki Tsongas. Emily asked point blank why we the American people cannot have the same health insurance plan that Congress and other government officials have? Niki Tsongas walked right around the question and would not give a clear Yes or No answer. The Congress has no intention of giving up its healthcare plan, so why should we the taxpayers have to give up ours?
Dear Mr. Kennedy,
I recently watched last week's episode of BEAT THE PRESS and must say that I was a bit disappointed in your using the term "Tea baggers" in the segment of Health care Protests. I am sure that you understand the background of the term so I do not need to go through the meaning with you and I believe that it does not belong in a such a television show.
Hi DanK
ST: Different Dan's: B-t-P Dan, Blog Dan
I have watched you for a long time on TV and I can't figure out why I like you more in blog land than on TV land yet I DO.
I know you are reserved on TV almost to the timid point which is a bit odd considering your knowledge.
Adding: Again I can't figure out why You on TV become a wash for me. I know the gals usually do that gal head shake that calls attention to the watcher. Maybe it is your voice and a downward spiral. Again I can't figure out why your voice doesn't carry more attention. Since you are at NorthEastern you might want to have some of your students do a criticism of your TV presence with video.
Dan,
I understand, to the point, the newsworthiness of the Crowley/Gates affair. But this got me---our Boston news stations sending reporters to Washington to report on a picnic table beer meeting that couldn't be on camera. (I'm a channel 5 guy, to be honest.) The stations are wasting money on sending these people down there, but failing to report on stories up here! There wasn't even any new news to report.
What's the thinking behind this? What kind of scoop did, say, channel 5 get by sending someone to DC? Is it just to get the ubiquitous picture of the White House portico in the background? (the same setting that's on every White House live story) Or to pretend that the channel isn't provincial? I don't get it.
And even better: this morning (7/30) it seems like the big twist on the story (some great investigative reporting here) is that the President drinks BudLite. Even people who are very interested in this story have to care less about this. What a waste of time!
Norman: Thanks for your comments. Like you, I don't think Crowley's actions were based on race. Rather, I think they were based on an overwrought sense of the respect he thinks is due to a police officer.
Rather than understanding why Gates would (mistakenly) see this as a matter of racial profiling, and rather than thinking about the symbolism of standing in Gates' own home with handcuffs and a gun, Crowley instead chose to focus solely on the fact that Gates was mouthing off.
Dan, up until yesterday, like yourself, I could not think of a rational reason for Sergeant Crowley's arrest of Professor Gates (based on your statement on Beat the Press). It should have been possible to defuse the situation without an arrest. Here was a short, middle-aged, partly disabled, unarmed man who posed no physical threat whatsoever. However, yesterday my son posed this explanation:
"Honestly, I think the motivation for his arrest WAS based on race, but not for the reason you may think. Crowley grew up in multi-racial Cambridge and was said to have many friends of different races and ethnicities. Maybe when this elitist, Harvard snob started calling him a racist cop, it infuriated him so much that he was more inclined to make the arrest. He was mad, hurt and offended...and the thought of being branded a racist cop irked him so much that he may have acted a little irrational during the confrontation."
So the bottom line is that both men acted irrationally, and in both cases it was based on previous experiences related to race. This is the most coherent explanation of the whole incident.
I semi-seriously suggested to my son that President Obama ought to invite both men to the White House; they should sit down and talk awhile; then they should hold a joint news conference. Now it looks as though that might happen!
Dan, I thoroughly enjoy your comments on Beat the Press. After all the others have weighed in on each issue, you seem to be able to provide the most insightful comments of all.
Lou: Hah! Thanks for the endorsement. You've given me an excuse to tell people that my book, "Little People," is online at www.littlepeoplethebook.com.
Dan is very bright and thoughtful. A good writer, and a good observer of the media. Except when it comes to politics...where all his thoughtful brainy insights go out the window so he can simply promote his own political ideology.
I'd recommend his book on dwarfism! He did a great job...I suppose because it was a subject that didn't have to do with politics.