November 13, 2008
In which I contend that the Right's anxiety about the FD's impending return is, in part, aimed at feuling opposition to Net Neutrality--and that Democrats should drop the former subject ASAP.
November 13, 2008
It's hard to imagine a more service-y Globe story on the Red Sox than today's front-page piece, which describes the Sox's decision to freeze ticket prices. Consider:
Wall Street is panicking, businesses are collapsing, home
foreclosures have swept the land. As the government looks at bailing
out banks and the nation's behemoth auto industry, one of New England's
venerable institutions, the Red Sox, is trying to do its part to ease
the pain of a troubled economy.
Assembled in the team's ticket office yesterday, grim-faced
executives said they had made a policy decision "at the very highest
level of the organization," one that could affect millions across the
region. They announced they are freezing ticket prices.
"We have
been the beneficiary of fan support and fan loyalty," said Larry
Lucchino, the team's president and chief executive, waving a list of
ticket prices at Fenway, last year the most expensive in baseball. "And
at a time when our fans may be feeling some kind of economic adversity,
we should show some sensitivity."
So the article must have mentioned the fact that the Globe's parent company, the New York Times Co., is a part-owner of the team. Right?
[Cough]
This isn't a new problem. What confuses me, though, is that the Globe seemed to have come around to always referencing its Sox conflict of interest--only to move back in the opposite direction.
Fortunately, the Globe's new comments feature for stories allows readers to do the paper's work for it. Observes one reader:
How nice. Foreclosures?
Unemployment? Those are no longer a worry for anyone now that the
sacred Red Sox have just frozen, not reduced, ticket prices.
Hmmm... Did anyone see a disclaimer in this piece of crap "news"
article? The Boston Globe and Red Sox are part of the SAME COMPANY?
Actually, though, the article isn't the problem--and reporter Michael Levenson happens to be one of the Globe's best. The problem is the editors who've decided to pretend that the paper's conflict of interest re: the Sox doesn't exist.
November 11, 2008
Today's subject: new media!
Like Romney spokesguy Eric Fehrnstrom and pretty much every sportswriter over forty, Sarah Palin isn't a big fan of blogs. Or, more precisely: she's not a big fan of "those bloggers in their parents' basement just talkin' garbage"--a phrase she apparently uttered twice in an interview with Fox's Greta Van Susteren.
More as it develops.
November 11, 2008
Slate's generally excellent Jack Shafer today offers an impassioned defense of Matt Drudge's continued importance. Among his claims:
If you could access only one home page for breaking news and chose
Washingtonpost.com or CNN.com over the Drudge Report, you'd be a
blockhead. His newswire-meets-tabloid sense of story—hysterical and
playful at the same time—links to both what you need to know and what
you want to know, and he updates more frequently than conventional
media sites do.
To which I say: hmmmmm.
Let's take a look at the Drudge Report, shall we? The main item right now is a Bloomberg write-up of Obama's meeting with Bush. That subject isn't hyped on NYTimes.com, or CNN.com, or WashingtonPost.com. But I'm pretty sure I read about it on a couple of them yesterday, when it was actually fresh.
Here, meanwhile, are Drudge's top headlines:
BUSH AND OBAMA AT ODDS OVER AID FOR AUTO INDUSTRY...
GM needs federal aid in coming weeks...
Stocks Slump as Earnings Concern Overshadows Stimulus...
Growing credit crisis claims more victims...
STARBUCKS profit drops 97%...
BAILOUT? Fed gives AMERICAN EXPRESS full bank status...
Harvard seeking spending cuts...
That first story, re: aid for the auto industry, is the top item at NYTimes.com right now, though the Times's report suggests Drudge's hed is wrong. CNN.com, in contrast, gives top billing to Citigroup's decision to restructure $20 billion in mortgages--a story that seems to have escaped Drudge's notice. WashingtonPost.com leads with the ongoing struggles of Fannie and Freddie (nowhere on Drudge), but also emphasizes the aforementioned auto-bailout story and a piece on Obama's plans for the war in Afghanistan (again, nowhere on Drudge). As for Starbucks' and Harvard's woes, I learned about them on Boston.com yesterday evening.
Of course, there's always some content you get on Drudge that you won't get anywhere else. Like today's two stories--given prominent play on the top left corner of Drudge's front page--on the dopey Georgia congressman who's currently warning of Obama's coming Marxist dictatorship. Or the "Plans for [a] national holiday honoring Obama" (Drudge's words) which, upon further review, seems to be something a bit less dramatic. And remember: back when that big black guy knifed up a white woman for supporting McCain/Palin, Drudge also had the courage to run with the story when fuddy-duddys like NYTimes.com left it alone. Of course, it turned out to be bogus, but whatever. (Shafer acknowledges that Drudge got that one wrong, but his addendum to that acknowledgment--"give [Drudge] credit for correcting the record"--is oddly laconic, given the subject matter.)
Listen, Drudge is worth reading if you want to get a mix of legit headlines, right-wing talking points, and news of the weird. But he shouldn't be anyone's top source for breaking news--partly because he's not as brilliant as some of his fans think, and partly because, as Shafer acknowledges, Drudge almost never breaks his own stories.
November 07, 2008
Earlier today, Josh Marshall announced that Talking Points Memo is about to get bigger:
January will usher in a new Democratic Ascendancy in Washington. And
here at TPM we believe we are uniquely qualified to chronicle it. So to
that end we are hiring two new reporter-bloggers to be based in
Washington, DC, one assigned to the White House and one assigned to
Capitol Hill. The Obama White House and the expanded Democratic
majorities on Capitol Hill are unquestionably the political story of
the next two years. And with your help we plan to be there on the
ground and and here in New York, covering it in force, fully,
critically and down to the minute. We want to keep you informed on what
you'd know if you were reporting every day at the White House or on the
Hill. Think of us, in that sense, as an insiders' publication for
outsiders, which is how I've always thought of us.
This is good news. With all due respect to the Huffington Post and its admirers, Talking Points Memo is the most inspiring new-media success story out there. (For one thing, Marshall couldn't just throw insane amounts of cash at his project like Arianna Huffington did at hers.) And its political coverage--which has a clear liberal slant, but is very smart and not strident--is hard to beat.
Also in his note to readers, Marshall highlighted the fact that TPM will be venturing into uncharted waters once Obama takes office:
[TPM's] evolution has been always been bound up with my stance as a
voice of opposition to the Bush administration. So the end of the Bush
years and the beginning of a new Democratic administration presents us
with something dramatically new.
Obviously, this raises the question: what sort of relationship does Marshall expect TPM to have with the new administration? Given TPM's smarts and track record, my assumption was that Marshall et al. wouldn't pull a Chris Matthews and try to act as journalistic surrogates for the new president.
Since Marshall didn't address this subject in his readers' note, however, I emailed him and asked: have you thought about what TPM's relationship with the Obama Administration will be? Is it safe assume you'll be suitably detached, and critical when appropriate? His response:
We’ve given it a great deal of thought. My political views and beliefs are no secret. But we are going to cover the White House and Congress as journalists. Simple as that. Our coverage will be informed, critical and fair. So I would say that your assumption is correct.
Again: good news.
November 06, 2008
Forty-two positions total, in the circulation/marketing and advertising departments, including senior managers.
That's just one of the developments reported in an internal memo from Globe publisher Steve Ainsley today. Also of note: Boston.com now reports to the Globe rather than to New York Times Digital. This is less dramatic than it sounds, however, since certain parts of Boston.com--including the news operation--were already reporting to editor Marty Baron.
Here's the memo in its entirety:
Dear Colleagues,
I want to share two pieces of important information with you.
First, as you know we have taken a number of steps to significantly reduce expenses in order to safeguard our financial health in these severe economic conditions. Those steps have included voluntary buy-outs, outsourcing, and cutting of operating budgets and newsprint. Recently we decided to close the Billerica plant as a way to bring our production infrastructure in line with our circulation and advertising volumes.
Today, in connection with those volume declines in our business, we implemented an involuntary layoff primarily within the circulation/marketing and advertising departments. Almost all of the employees have been notified. A total of 42 positions have been reduced, largely managerial, including members of the senior management team. We specifically decided to remove layers of management recognizing we need to be a leaner organization with more direct lines of communication and responsibility.
While necessary, this decision was very difficult. The employees leaving us have contributed greatly to the Globe, and they will be missed.
I also recognize that this is a sizeable reduction of employees who handled a good deal of work. As we move forward we can't expect to simply take on that work without focusing on the essential tasks at hand and making clear decisions about which activities are central to stabilizing the business.
The second announcement concerns organizational changes to improve our overall efficiency. In an effort to further integrate our print and online efforts, Boston.com will now report to the Globe. It had been reporting into the New York Times Digital operation. Susan Hunt Stevens, currently our SVP of Circulation & Marketing will have a new position as the SVP for Digital, which includes Boston.com. Susan will report into Steve Ainsley. Susan will oversee all digital strategy and operations for Boston Globe Media, including digital product development, marketing, licensing, business development and e-commerce. Bob Kempf, Boston.com VP/Products, will report into Susan. Susan also will continue to oversee Globe interactive services and the Globe e-commerce and licensing initiatives. Boston.com's news operations will remain unchanged, reporting up to Marty [editor Marty Baron]. Likewise Boston.com advertising sales will continue to report up to Sam Martin.
The Advertising department also has reorganized to give greater focus to each of its different functions. Sam Martin, Chief Advertising Officer, will have four direct reports, as follows. Lisa Desisto, V.P. Advertising/Classified continues to oversee all classified sales categories for print and online as well as local sales. Likewise, Peter Ockerbloom, .P. Advertising/Display continues to oversee all display sales categories for print and online. In a new role, Jason Kissell will oversee strategic development for advertising, including customer relationship marketing, event marketing, and sales support. Jason will also oversee sales and marketing for niche publications which is moving into advertising to better integrate sales efforts. Jason?s new title is Executive Director/Advertising Strategy. Jane Bowman, Director/Advertising Sales Development will continue to oversee sales development adding the responsibilities for b2b marketing, and client solutions.
We are consolidating several areas of the business under Chris Mayer's leadership to gain efficiencies from operations that are either highly interdependent or very similar in nature. In addition to overseeing the information technology department, Chris will now also oversee the production department, the circulation department, and advertising operations. Chris?s new title is SVP/Circulation & Operations. As part of this consolidation, the marketing creative services department will report into advertising operations, run by Rich Masotta, Executive Director/Ad Operations.
I am confident that this team will not only bring greater efficiencies to our business, but more importantly will drive our strategy to stabilize our print business while growing digital revenues and audience. Over the next few days there will be a series of staff meetings with employees in these departments to review all the changes.
Let me close with thanking everyone at the Globe and Boston.com for their deep commitment to producing the highest quality newspaper and online site for our community, despite economic challenges of historic proportions.
I know everyone feels as determined as I do to turn this situation around. Step by step we are creating a new business model that I am confident will result in a financially healthy and journalistically superb organization that spans both print and on-line.
Thank you for all you have done and will continue to do to make us one of
this community's great institutions.
Steve
November 06, 2008
In which the principles discuss sundry subjects, including that election's effect on race relations in Boston.
November 05, 2008
First this, then this, and now this:
Maybe Palin is destined for a job at Fox.
(Via the Daily Beast.)
November 05, 2008
That's the conclusion of Bob Novak,a/k/a the Prince of Darkness, who writes:
[Obama] may have opened the door
to enactment of the long-deferred liberal agenda, but he neither
received a broad mandate from the public nor the needed large
congressional majorities.
To bolster his statement about Congress, Novak cites the Democrats' failure to capture a filibuster-proof, sixty-seat Senate majority, and their inability to oust Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. And to support his claim about Obama's nonexistent mandate, Novak cites...nothing at all.
This half-assed approach has elicited some pointed commentary on the Chicago Sun-Times Web site, including the following:
SHIELDS: Bob Novak, is 51 percent of the vote really a mandate?
BOB
NOVAK, CAPITAL GANG: Of course it is. It's a 3.5 million vote margin.
But the people who are saying that it isn't a mandate are the same
people who were predicting that John Kerry would win. (CNN, November 6,
2004)
And yes, he really did say it.
It's understandable that Novak might not be at the top of his game these days. Still, this is embarrassing stuff.
November 05, 2008
Is it just me, or is this a remarkably gracious speech by a president whose legacy was just repudiated in emphatic terms?