November 21, 2008
The Herald's Hillary Chabot reports that--according to US Att'y Michael Sullivan--the corruption investigation that's already snagged state senator Dianne Wilkerson and Boston city councilor Chuck Turner won't be implicating the governor, Boston mayor Tom Menino, or any members of the state legislature. But Sullivan seems to leave the door open for more city councilors taking a hit.
November 21, 2008
Boston.com is currently hyping an interview with recently arrested Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner on its front page. This is an exceedingly smart move, since the Q-and-A (conducted by former city councilor Tom Keane for a piece in next Sunday's Globe Magazine) has Turner arguing--passionately and at great length--that politics and ethics don't go together:
From an ethical standpoint, I don’t think the vast
majority of Congress should be allowed to sit. Ethics should include a
commitment to the needs of the people of this country which the
Congress has not displayed. Given the fact that all our state
governments and the federal government is controlled by money, I think
it is hypocritical to talk about ethics when you talk about our
political leaders or our business leaders, religious leaders, etc.
Its time for Americans to admit that ethics never have had a
significant influence on American politics. If Americans cared about
ethical behavior, why did slavery last for two hundred years and neo
slavery last for another two hundred? Why does America have the weakest
laws in the Western World to protect a working person right to have a
fair return on their labor. Why were the Irish treated as animals when
they were driven to America by the politics of the English ancestors of
the Yankees who treated them as if they were black when they were
driven here. I’m surprised Tom. I didn’t think you were in denial of
the reality of the moral depravity of this country.
If you're trying to figure out why a smart guy like Turner would put himself in the situation he's in, this is a damn good place to start. (I'd also suggest my 2004 Phoenix profile of the councilor.)
November 21, 2008
In the wake of Mitt Romney's Times column on how to fix Detroit, Blue Mass. Group's David Kravitz suggests that Mitt Romney take over as GM's CEO:
It's perfect. GM needs new management; Romney's free; he's a
turnaround guy; he's from Detroit; his dad ran a car company; he's
already got a national profile, which would really help GM; he's
already filthy rich, so he could take the job for a pittance. It's
totally perfect.
Plus, it's a brilliant political move for him. High risk, sure --
but if he can pull it off, what a feather in his cap. His political
career needs a turnaround of its own, and nothing would be better than
jump-starting GM. (Ha! Get it? Jump-starting?)
The current management of GM is surely not long for the job. After today's debacle over the corporate jets
(seriously -- did you hear about this? these idiots flew their
corporate jets from Detroit to DC to beg for a bailout), there's no way
this Wagoner dude is going to hang on.
What do you say, Mitt? Put your money and your effort where your mouth
is. If the job opens up (which it surely will, one way or another --
there eventually will be some sort of federal aid, and one of the
conditions will almost surely be to force out current management), step
up and save the industry you grew up in, and that you say you love.
Wouldn't it be nice to have the whole country rooting for you, for a
change?
Excellent idea, David! Yet another benefit: running GM would allow Mitt to move to Michigan, thereby becoming a "Heartland" figure and distancing himself from wacky liberal Massachusetts.
Last time I posted on Romney's political present and future, a boatload of Romney fans weighed in. If you're out still out there, Mittheads, I'm curious: how would you feel about your guy taking the GM CEO's post?
November 20, 2008
Bad, bad day for the Boston Globe's parent company. From the New York Times's own write-up:
The New York Times Company sharply reduced its dividend on Thursday, just a year and a half after a major increase, as the company seeks to conserve cash amid concern about dwindling profit.
Directors cut the quarterly dividend to 6 cents from 23 cents, which would save the company $97.8 million over a full year.
The cut reverses a years-long pattern of regular increases, even as the share price fell. In the spring of 2007, the board raised the dividend to 23 cents, from 17.5 cents, a move that many analysts said was unwise in light of the sharp downturn in the newspaper industry.
Shares in The New York Times Company closed down 63 cents on Thursday, to $5.72, its lowest point since the early 1980s. The dividend reduction was announced after the close of trading.
The stock has lost more than half its value in the last month, dragging the market capitalization of the company below $900 million. It is down 67 percent this year, compared with 49 percent for the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index and 89 percent since its peak in 2002.
Reporter Richard Perez-Pena goes on to discuss the possibility of the Sulzburger family selling the NY Times, or taking the company private. Here in Boston, though, the more pressing subject is what this nosedive means for the Globe.
Those are devastating numbers, and I have to think Times Co. management would gladly sell the Globe right now if it could. But with the paper reportedly losing $1 million a week, and recently undergoing its second big writedown, who'd want to buy it?
Problem is, if the Times Co. can't unload the Globe, it'll have to do even more to cut costs. So don't be surprised if the paper's work force--including the editorial department, which the Times Co. has protected compared to other newspaper owners--takes a serious hit in the near future
November 19, 2008
I'm loathe to pose this question, since race is always an incendiary subject, and the alleged concern about Boston's alleged racism that Kevin Garnett was erroneously saddled with upon joining the Celtics has been justifiably forgotten. But I'll do it anyway:
Why do white players seem to bring out the worst in Garnett?
Consider:
November 2008: Garnett is suspended for one game after hitting Bucks center Andrew Bogut in the face.
November 2008: Garnett gets strangely agitated with Raptors point guard Jose Calderon.
May 2008: Garnett puts too much shoulder into his screen of the Hawks' Zaza Pachulia during the Eastern Conference finals, just a few games after shoving his forearm into Pachulia's upper torso/throat.
September 2004: Garnett punches rookie Rick Rickert during a Timberwolves practice.
January 2001: Garnett labels Bucks rookie Joel Przybilla a "fake thug."
November 2000: Garnett and Wolves rookie Wally Szczerbiak "scuffle" after practice.
Yes, Garnett has always been a remarkably intense player. Yes, he's a great guy off the court. And yes, he get chippy with black players,
too. (I still remember one Wolves-Spurs playoff game where Garnett
swung hard at Tim Duncan and missed his head. Duncan responded with his
patented, googly-eyed, WTF? look; in this case, it was actually
appropriate.) But the nastiest, least rational, most embarrassing
episodes involve the NBA's limited roster of white talent.
One possible explanation can be found way back in Garnett's past, in an incident recounted in a 1995 NY Times article on Garnett's preps-to-pros jump:
Two years ago...an incident occurred that changed Garnett's
life. He was a junior in high school in his hometown of Mauldin, S.C.,
a middle-class suburban community outside Greenville. There was a fight
with racial overtones in a school corridor in which a group of black
students badly beat up a white student. Garnett was part of the group
charged with assault. He participated in a pretrial diversion program
for first-time offenders, and his record was cleared. But there was a
possibility that he would not be allowed to play on the school
basketball team in his senior year -- that after he had been named the
best prep player in South Carolina.
Then again, that was fifteen years ago.
Thoughts, readers?
P.S.--By way of disclosure, I'm an overinvested (white) KG fan who still hasn't gotten over his exit from Minnesota.
November 19, 2008
In an op-ed in today's Times, Mitt Romney makes a pretty good case against bailing out the domestic auto industry. But he seems to lay an inordinate amount of blame for Detroit's woes on the extra costs that current labor agreements impose on American manufacturers in comparison with foreign competitors. Here's the section in question:
First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands
must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and
benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota.
Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden
per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign
producers.
That extra burden is estimated to be more than
$2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut
$2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with
Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it
has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has
done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if
this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable. [emph. added]
The implication, obviously, is that if Ford could put $2000 bucks more into the Taurus, it would be just as appealing as the Avalon.
This seems like a real reach. I recently heard a talk-radio caller explain that he won't buy domestic because American-built cars start breaking down at 120,000 miles, while Japanese imports routinely make it to 200,000 miles with minimal repairs. That sounds about right; it definitely fits my own experience.
So here's the question: if Ford had an extra $2000 per car to play with, would this difference magically disappear? I don't know cars like Mitt does, but I'm skeptical.
P.S.--If nother $2000 bucks per car would make all the difference, than Ford should spend it, pass the bill on to the consumer, and let the market take its course. After all, the Taurus's bottom MSRP is currently $24,125; the Avalon's is $27,845.
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.