Media Log

Yesterday's dubious Globe op-ed

Adam Reilly — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:51:00 GMT

I didn't read this Globe op-ed on "linguistic paranoia" until yesterday evening. But when I did, my sympathy for the author's goal was pretty much negated by her deeply questionable reasoning.

Nataly Kelly--"a senior analyst with Common Sense Advisory, a market research firm specializing in business globalization"--thinks Americans should learn more languages. And in advancing her argument, she invokes the Founding Fathers:

Linguistic paranoia seems to have reached unprecedented levels in recent years, a phenomenon that would probably shock our Founding Fathers. After all, they intentionally decided not to declare an official language for America, knowing full well that linguistic dominance in the world is often in flux, and that doing so could restrict the country's ability to both compete internationally and respond to domestic needs [emph. added].

Usually, when people cite the FF's to make a point, they bolster their case with a quote or two. Kelly doesn't.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that this is because--when the Founding Fathers decision not to make English our official language--they weren't thinking about the ephemeral nature of linguistic dominance, international competitiveness, or domestic exigencies. Instead, they probably took it for granted that everybody in the U.S. would just speak English.

Am I missing something? If not, Kelly seems to be guilty of retroactively importing her own mindset into the FF's. Which is no way to make a completely legitimate point.

DQM does NewsNight: Edwards and "Rockefeller"--updated!

webteam — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:15:00 GMT

...Tonight at 8 pm on New England Cable News. We'll be discussing coverage of 1. John Edwards' affair and 2. "Clark Rockefeller."

Right now, I plan to say that the press as a whole was too slow to cover Edwards' dalliance. This isn't a private matter: for example, if Edwards' infidelity had become a major story at the beginning of the Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton could be the nominee now rather than Barack Obama. So why the dearth of coverage? In no particular order, I'd cite sympathy for Elizabeth Edwards; distaste for the National Enquirer, which drove the story; and a general reluctance to chase scoops from other media outlets, tabloid or no.

Meanwhile, I have zero sympathy for the scolds who think the "Clark Rockefeller" story has received too much attention. Good God, people! This is an incredible tale, a real-life Talented Mr. Ripley in which Boston plays a starring role. If it's too tawdry for your taste, spend some time at one of the zillion other news outlets available on the Web until this saga simmers down.

Also, my preliminary research suggests that the Herald has been driving the "Rockefeller" coverage more than the Globe. But I may amend that judgment by this evening.

Readers, what say you?

UPDATE! I won't be talking about "Clark Rockefeller" tonight, but his attorney will. That said, in the wake of some bracing pushback from a Globie--"utterly off the wall" were the words used--I'll be posting tomorrow on the Herald and Globe's respective victories on that story.

DQM does NewsNight: Edwards and "Rockefeller"--updated!

Adam Reilly — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:15:00 GMT

...Tonight at 8 pm on New England Cable News. We'll be discussing coverage of 1. John Edwards' affair and 2. "Clark Rockefeller."

Also, my preliminary research suggests that the Herald has been driving the "Rockefeller" coverage more than the Globe. But I may amend that judgment by this evening.

Readers, what say you?

New in the Phoenix: the impossibility of preemptively safe journalism

Adam Reilly — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:23:00 GMT

In which I argue that Kevin Cullen shouldn't second-guess his decision to write about Rakan Hassan.

David Gergen calls bullshit

Adam Reilly — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:10:00 GMT

I've just now seen this clip of David Gergen referring to the racial subtext of the GOP's Obama-as-narcissist shtick, and all I can say is: kudos to Gergen for bluntly pointing out the racial subtext of these attacks.

If any conservatives read my piece in this week's Phoenix, in which I make much the same argument, they may have dismissed this point as the carping of a liberal partisan. But Gergen's observations should make it clear that it's anything but--and that McCain, not Obama, is the one who's injected race into the presidential campaign.

New in the Phoenix: Obama and ego

Adam Reilly — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:21:00 GMT

My contention: the Barack Obama-as-narcissist theme, which has been all over the press of late, is stale, logically shaky--and comes with a strong racial subtext.

Something to consider, especially since John McCain is now accusing Obama of playing the race card.

The best of all possible Herald covers?

Adam Reilly — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:30:00 GMT

A strong case can be made for today's effort. First, there's the "Crockefeller" headline, which is just perfect. Then there's the main image. At first, it seems attention-grabbing but somewhat random. Then, though, you read the caption and understand: here's an actual photo of "Clark Rockefeller" acting--which he's been doing his entire life.

Throw in the "Kerry and the Cuties" plug, and the Herald has itself a real doozy. Kudos.

Has Bush flip-flopped on Pakistan?

Adam Reilly — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:34:00 GMT

It looks that way. Last year, when Barack Obama proposed attacking Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan without Pakistani permission, the president cited that suggestion as proof of Obama's poor judgement. So did John McCain.

Fast forward one year. On Monday, a U.S. missile strike in South Waziristan--which apparently killed a prominent Al Qaeda target--seems to have been executed without Pakistan's approval.

No word yet on whether McCain's changed his mind as well.

Did Bush flip-flop on Pakistan?

Adam Reilly — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:22:00 GMT

Fast foreward one year. On Monday, a U.S. missile strike in South Waziristan--which apparently killed a prominent Al Qaeda target--seems to have been executed without Pakistan's approval.

No word yet on whether McCain's changed his mind as well.

Not so new in the Phoenix

Adam Reilly — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:15:00 GMT

Granted, my look at coverage of Jim Marzilli and mental illness in general is no longer "hot off the presses." But it was fairly recently! So please: take a look if you haven't already.

Tomase to cover Red Sox (probably)

Adam Reilly — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:24:00 GMT

No, this doesn't mean that John Tomase is leaving the Herald. But according to Herald sports editor Hank Hryniewicz, Tomase probably is leaving the Patriots beat.

"That posting is for Rob Bradford's spot," Hryniewicz tells the Phoenix. "I reserve the right to change my mind, of course, but the best guy I see out there to replace Rob on the Red Sox beat is John Tomase.

"John Tomase's still a valued member of the staff here," he adds. "We're just trying to use our people in the best possible place, where they can be more effective. And looking at what's out there, it's most reasonable to replace Bradford with someone of John Tomase's caliber."

If covering the Sox is your dream job, this might seem unfair: Tomase breaks a huge story that turns out to be factually false, then gets rewarded with what might be an even better job. Still, it strikes as a smart move on the Herald's part. His big gaffe notwithstanding, Tomase is a talent--but he wasn't going to be able to cover the Patriots effectively anymore. This way, Tomase gets something of a fresh start. And he's rewarded for his willingness to serve as the Herald's Spygate scapegoat, rather than blaming his editors or the Herald's editorial processes for the story in question.

Best of luck to Tomase in his new gig. Between his unfortunate claim to fame and the general rabidity of Red Sox fans, he'll need it.

Boston.com gets sexy!

Adam Reilly — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:33:00 GMT

First off--and by way of a disclaimer--let me say that I'm usually a big Boston.com fan. I think the site's well-presented, and getting more so; I'm a frequent reader; and the Big Picture blog, about which I'll be writing later this week, is just outstanding.

All that said, this Boston.com feature--"Where in the world are the sexiest people?"--is a total hoot. Based on two separate lists of sexy males and females drawn from Matador Nights, the Boston.com write-up does three things. It explains where the sexy people are. It explains why they're sexy. And then, for good measure, it offers examples of sexy individuals from the places in question.

By way of example, I give you the men of Manila.

Here's the explanation: "If you're looking for some old-fashioned romance, the men of Manila, Philippines, are as sexy as they get."

And here's a glimpse of Manila's special brand of sexiness:

Also recommended: the women of Seoul ("Seoul style is singular and unique and shows the East Asian beauty"); the women of Tokyo ("With big beautiful eyes, sleek raven hair, and legs to die for, Japanese women from Tokoyo make the list"); and the men of London ("While Londoners are often perceived as cocky, stuffy and just plain unromantic, lads from London prove the stereotypes wrong with their witty jokes").

One more thing, just by way of an FYI: Matador Nights' original write-up of the world's sexiest ladies came from this guy:

Viva the Web! And let's hope that the absurdist humor of Boston.com's rewrite is totally intentional.

Crappy Spin of the Day Award

Adam Reilly — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:25:00 GMT

And the winner is...Republican congressional candidate Nathan Bech, for comedically misrepresenting the comments of his opponent, Democrat John Olver, in a press release titled "Olver to Citizens Facing Cold Winter: Stop Whining."

Check out the first two paragraphs, and you'll see what I mean:

Congressional candidate Nathan Bech (R-West Springfield) criticized Rep. John Olver (D-Amherst) for the incumbent's recent comments on energy. In a June 25th floor speech before the House, Olver blamed his constituents for the high price of gas. "For America, the only certain solution to the high price of gasoline is to reduce the consumption of gasoline. We can drive slower. We can drive less. We can carpool. We can use public transportation when it's possible. We can develop 'work from home' wherever and whenever that's feasible as an option. We must start pursuing all of these strategies immediately."

Bech lambasted Olver for his comments, saying "John Olver has finally admitted that he has no solution to the energy crisis. In his world, citizens stop going to work, farmers ride a bus through the fields, and the elderly pedal bikes to the doctor." [emph. added]

What really impresses me about this crappy spin--beyond that bit about the old folks biking to their check-ups--is that it's crappy on two levels. First, Bech's gloss on Olver is just flat-out wrong. Second, the press release highlights this fact by putting Olver's quote and Bech's rebuttal side by side for easy comparison.

Take a bow, Nathan Bech!

The Information Superhighway: sometimes, it moves too fast

Adam Reilly — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:24:00 GMT

Just ask Alex Beam's son.

(ADDENDUM: one DQM reader apparently thought that the above motorist is actually Christopher Beam. It is not. As the title of this post and the link provided herein suggest, the photo is a metaphor.)

Johnson vs. Romney, reconsidered

Adam Reilly — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:22:00 GMT

Remember AP reporter Glen Johnson's showdown with Mitt Romney?

At the time, I assumed that Johnson went off on Romney because he was 1) tired and/or in a bad mood and 2) fed up with Romney's shtick. But after reading this fascinating Politico piece on the AP's ongoing re-invention, and the role Washington Bureau chief Ron Fournier is playing therein, I'm not so sure.

With Fournier leading the charge, writes Michael Calderone (via Romenesko), the AP is

scrapping the stonefaced approach to journalism that accepts politicians’ statements at face value and offers equal treatment to all sides of an argument. Instead, reporters are encouraged to throw away the weasel words and call it like they see it when they think public officials have revealed themselves as phonies or flip-floppers. [emph. added]

Whether you loved or hated what Johnson did, he was certainly calling it like he saw it. This could explain why Johnson acted as he did, and why neither he nor the AP ever publicly apologized to Mitt.