The Media's Digging its Own Grave

The important thing for people to remember is that, when the old dogs (like the Globe) start to die off, they dug their own graves. Bloggers didn't and don't want to see these institutions go, we've even tried to warn them before, but newspapers just don't want to listen. Joan Vennochi is just the most recent example.

Here's what I had to say over at Blue Mass Group, starting with a quote from Christopher.

There seems to be a disconnect that leads to the media actually acting contrary to their own self-interest, assuming that interest is selling papers/getting ratings.

Dinosauritus. They had a system that worked for generations. Owning a newspaper was like owning gold, it was gauranteed profits, year in and year out, no matter recession or boom years or something in between.

They were the only game in town and, after newspapers eating each other year after year, there was very little competition. Therefore, they could not only have those gauranteed profits, but cut, cut, cut the newsroom to get even bigger profits -- there was little competition in town for people to turn to when the quality dropped.

This new-fangled thing came along called the internet and not only challenged their volume of readers, but worse yet, hit them on their bottom line through operations like Craigslist, instantly wiping away 20% of their bottom line.

The thing is, they could have been the Craigslist, they could have been the blogosphere, but the dinosaurs at top liked their business model and didn't think anything could challenge it until it was very quickly gone. With 20% of their profits wiped out, they were subject to the whims of the economy at precisely the time the economy went caplut -- and after years and years of cutting content to increase profits, losing readers.

Did I mention the gigantic debt most papers took on as they gobbled each other up? The NYT bought the Globe for a billion dollars in the 90s -- and is having trouble giving it away at $20 million now. That debt adds up -- and a lot of newspapers just don't have the money to pay it. They bought newspapers at overvalued prices and the profit margins of the paper just couldn't afford the debt -- that's precisely what happened with the Chicago Tribune and others. The NYT denies that's what's happening with them, but the fact remains they took on (foolish) debt they couldn't afford to pay off.

I had a commenter in my previous blog boasting that I'm "NOT a journalist." I see that as a good thing -- it gives people like me much needed perspective that those in the industry lack. The industry's behavior has literally been bred - they weren't willing to be innovative when innovation would have saved their industry and now, instead of trying to do something, most are filling the part of Joan Vennochi, simply looking for scapegoats.

That's right, the papers still view blogs as the enemy. They fail to see that we're actually rooting for them to succeed. Our criticism is meant as constructive, but they view it as an attack. Most of us may not be professional journalists, but professional journalism (as we know it) has been the problem, not the answer. Ultimately, why journalists should be listening to the blogosphere is because we're the ones who pay the most attention to the news, as its reported. In other words, journalists should be listening to bloggers closely because we're their biggest costumers. If even we're not buying, who else will?

Hey Joan, Your House is Glass

Here's what you said in today's op-ed, discussed at length at Blue Mass Group.

But the issue is also the Internet's ability to give cover to critics who don't have to do what Carr does - own their opinions. The blogosphere opened up the public conversation to new, thoughtful voices, but it should not provide a shield to hide biases and private agendas.

1) What about a newspaper's ability to give cover to critics who don't have to do what Carr does, either? How many stories are founded on the basis of anonymous sources who have their own, personal agendas. Let us not forget it was anonymous sources lying that got this country into a war that's killed thousands of Americans and who knows how many tens of thousands of Iraqis -- the chief media cheerleader being the Globe's parent company. Don't make me list the number of horrible articles, with no evidence but those anonymous sources (complete with agenda), which have been printed on the front page of your own Globe. Joan, your house is glass.

2) Are you really going to bring up media shield protections? Why on Earth should print media and TV get shield law protection and not the blogosphere? Joan's phrasing of this paragraph is really interesting, especially given how important an issue shield laws are right now with the Senate bill which would create shield law protections for tv and print news, but not the blogosphere.

Joan, we know you're reading this. These are two subjects you need to answer if you want to remain a credible opinion journalist. This isn't about "Ernie" and this isn't about Howie Carr -- this is about you sticking up for the status quo. Admit it.

Jacoby: I'll Get to This Later

I don't have much time to write now, but there's so much wrong in today's Jacoby column that I had to write something about it. He crossed a serious line, though I guess that's par for the course for Jacoby.

Update:

Okay, I was clearly too busy this morning. It was Jacoby who penned the column, not Vennochi. Total egg in my face - deservedly so. For Vennochi, consider this a personal mea culpa!

Vennochi: I'm the Master of the Blogosphere

I have the power!
(Just ask She-Ra.)

Can DiMasi withstand the internal pressure? He stands a greater chance if liberal constituencies outside the House remain faithful to him. To keep them loyal, he needs to give them what they want, and that he is doing.

A recent post on http://www.bluemassgroup.com/, a compendium of mostly liberal bloggers, thanked DiMasi for his support in repealing the 1913 law that stopped same-sex couples from outside Massachusetts from marrying here. The same post also made a case for the House to take up a global warming solutions act, which caps emissions.

It didn't take long for David Guarino, DiMasi's communications director, to post this response: "Thanks from the speaker's office for the praise, it is appreciated. We do have a lot of work to get to before we end formal sessions, and your priorities are certainly noted - as they were before. On global warming solutions, stay tuned. There is a chance we may yet have something for you there before the session ends."

Apparently, I'm the latest example of the Speaker giving into liberal constituencies... or something. Sheesh, I never knew I wielded so much power! I must be the He-Man of the BMG: Master of the Blogosphere. Should I put that into my cover letter?

Vennochi's complaint is that the progressive bloc of the Democratic Party is apparently willing to let Speaker DiMasi get away with anything, so long as he's pushing our agenda. While I've been very supportive of him, I don't find Vennochi's thesis to be true. If she read a few more comments on BMG, she'd notice that there's a lot of angst among some progressives because DiMasi isn't progressive enough, just ask Mike.

In any event, even if we all thought his issues were fantastic and were loudly supporting the Speaker, that doesn't mean we're suddenly looking the other way. Simply put: what has the Speaker been charged with? What jury has convicted him? It's never been a policy of mine to convict people in the court of public opinion. As far as I'm concerned, DiMasi is King 'o the Hill, Big Beacon Style, until a jury of his fellow citizens convicts him in an actual court - not a Boston Globe column.

As for this Joan Vennochi claim?

Should liberals close their eyes to problematic behavior, just as they are doing with another liberal, state Senator James Marzilli? The Arlington legislator has been charged with accosting several women, but refuses to resign even though he has not returned to work since his arrest and has said he will not return.

Bogus. I don't know a single BMG commenter or progressive activist who doesn't think Marzilli should step down, including his staunchest allies. Plenty of people have said he should get the help that he needs, none have said he should stay on.

More importantly, isn't this all moot? What relevance does it really have to the Speaker? Marzilli's not even in DiMasi's House, literally and figuratively. Allegedly helping friends is a very different thing than allegedly accosting three different women, with various eye witnesses and a State Senator who doesn't deny the fact that he did what was said. No one knows what DiMasi did or did not do; I'm sure there's plenty of people checking that out, but in the meantime, the Speaker has my full support. Plus, one way or the other, Marzilli's going and gone - so, again, what is there to complain about? There's an election around the corner that will solve the Marzilli problem. I appreciate Ms. Vennochi's free press and ego booster, but she's got her latest column all wrong.

Racino's Legislative Death?

Is this the last nail in the coffin? It's sure looking like it:

A bill that would have made it possible for the state's four racetracks, including Raynham Taunton Greyhound Park, to offer slot machines is dead for this year.

David L. Flynn, D-Bridgewater, said the Senate has refused to allow action on the measure to legalize slots at the four race tracks.

If this is true, it'll seriously make my day.

Also, score one for Sue Tucker.

And in the House:

House Speaker Sal DiMasi gave little hope that the slots bill would advance before the July 31st deadline....

“That’s actually in limbo,” DiMasi said.... “There’s a difference of opinion as to where it goes.”

Obviously, in Speaker DiMasi's House, it goes exactly where it should: no where.

(Take that, Joan.)

Crossposted at BMG.

Local Pundits Talk... Football?

Seriously, aren't there more important things for OP-ED pages than to talk about football? Apparently, the Patriots are ebil because they went out and got a wide receiver who can actually catch balls. They're not allowed to be talented; they have to win on guts and luck alone. Hey, I have an idea - they should sign me! I have lots of guts and only a little talent, I must be Vennochi's ideal player.

Moss may be the best known player the Pats have pursued, but he's certainly not the only superstar. I guess we never should have gone out and nabbed Corey Dillon years ago either, because we just can't have superstars on our football teams. Teddy Bruschi, Tom Brady, Rodney Harrison, Curtis Martin, Willie McGinist.... none of them were ever superstars, ever. After all, they were Patriots and the Patriots aren't allowed to have anyone that's good. Furthermore, resigning these non-superstars is totally different from trading for them, right?

To address the main critique of all these pundits-turned-football experts: heaven forbid the Patriots, like every other team in the NFL, NCAA and even little old High School Football, use videotapes of the opposing team. Even if those tapes were focused on the coaches and not the players, with 80,000 screaming fans wielding cell phone video cameras, does anyone in their right mind think the NFL can stop teams from doing what the Patriots (and probably dozens of other teams) do? That's why coaches have signs in the first place; if a team can't guard their secrets, sucks to be them. They're not going to win many games. Maybe that's not the way things should be, but it's the way things are - so we may as well get used to it.

Joan Vennochi: Democrats Worse Than Sox Fans

That's pretty much the thesis of today's Vennochi column.

Republicans think positive and go negative -- especially against Democrats.

Meanwhile, Democrats fret about electability. They should stop worrying about it, and make the real case for change that Bush is handing them, complete with footnotes and bibliography, from Iraq to Katrina, from Vice President Dick Cheney to Attorney General Gonzales. The GOP presidential candidates can't separate themselves from that sorry brief -- unless the Democrats let them.

And they just might.

I would just like to add one key point: While I don't know how many Democrats this sort of thing applies to, it applies the most to elite party leaders. They're the ones who are actually afraid of winning. Of course, "leader" is something that can be debated - are they really leaders, or did they just find themselves at the top? The answer matters because these so-called leaders, as Joan Vennochi points out, tend to have the leadership qualities of a gerbil or a rat.

Look at the difference in how each party's big shots go about their business.

Bob Shrum leaves the consulting business to write a book about Democrats he advised on the presidential campaign trail; in the process, he discloses confidential information that makes his fellow Democrats look as craven as possible. Karl Rove is essentially chased from his White House policy berth. On the way out, he lobs bombs, not at Republicans, but at exactly whom you would expect him to go after: Clinton. Rove called her "fatally flawed," but Democrats beat him to it.

Vennochi, today, makes a great point. Wouldn't it have been nice if Shrum, instead of writing a book trying implicate John Kerry, Al Gore, John Edwards and every other campaign he worked on and subsequently lost, tried to implicate Karl Rove and the Republicans who used dirty tricks to hoodwink a country? After all, there's a lot to talk about: illegal phone calls in New Hampshire, Presidents who wouldn't condemn hate groups like the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," and so many others. Instead, we have a guy who cashed in and would say anything to get elected sell some books - including trash talking some of our current candidates for President.

It's well past time for Americans to get over this question of "electability." Unless a candidate has a criminal past, it's almost impossible to decide which candidate in the primary can beat the other party's eventual - and unknown - nominee. Furthermore, we need to be the party that exudes confidence and says what we believe in. We need to return to being the party of the people, not worrying about what Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh will lob at us. We need to be the party that focuses on the rest of the American people. We need to be New Deal Democrats, not quasi-Republicans, running to the right and afraid of taking any position of strength and character. We need to be the party of vision and not the one who gives in to Mr. 26%.

The people will come to us if we show real leadership, knowing that we want to make America a better place for everyone. We can and we will win. Why? We believe something that goes against the Republican mantra: we are not a people who are all out for themselves. We're in this together and can create a country that is not only better for you and me, but better for everyone. Convince the American people of that and Republicans have no chance, regardless of who wins the nominations.

Vennochi's Column on Taxes - Good Stuff

When Joan Vennochi is right, boy can she be right.

WHO HAS the power on Beacon Hill? The people who are losing libraries, teachers, and sports programs to deep municipal budget cuts? Or, the business community, which is ducking its responsibility to help close the fiscal gap?

Here's what the current budget battle seems to be coming down to: Governor Deval Patrick v. House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi....

Patrick may be breakfasting with chief executives and accepting political donations from them. But at least he's also telling them what they don't want to hear: Massachusetts tax laws need to be changed to ensure tax fairness.

It gets better from there, folks.

I have to leave to get to a wedding in a few minutes, so I can't spend a lot of time on this, but I had to post something about it. Go and read it. Make your friends read it, too. For someone who doesn't know anything about the Municipal Partnership Act or just can't seem to get in the frame of mind to care, it's a compelling piece.

Not So Fast, Joan Vennochi: You're Wrong on Marriage Equality

Joan Vennochi seems to go on the attack against Patrick today, instead of - I don't know - speaking in favor of equal rights.

It's good politics for Patrick. The gay community supported his candidacy and he needs continued support from his base, especially after a politically rocky start. But rhetoric and symbolism only go so far. Now Patrick needs something tangible in return for his efforts: enough votes to block the amendment. Postponement of a vote will be viewed as weakness and a setback for those who support same-sex marriage.

Maybe MassEquality wants a vote, but I've given up on Mass Equality as an effective organization to argue on behalf of my rights. If there aren't the votes to kill this thing now, then postponing it is obviously a better option than allowing it on the ballot. If Patrick can help swing people to postpone, kudos to him. It isn't weak or a loss, it's fighting for what's right.

However, since I like to be constructive in my treatment of the media, here's where I can agree:

Patrick and other same-sex marriage backers are running up against a strong argument from those who support the ban on same-sex marriage -- that the people have the right to vote on this controversial issue.

Obviously, citizens have to be able to vote for change on the constitution. You can't create a system of laws that can never be changed. What you can do is create a system of laws that are difficult to change - unlike Massachusetts's constitution. MassEquality's big mistake in their line of reasoning was to argue "no one should be able to vote," even if it's on "civil rights." What they should have said is "the bar is set far too low." In what world is 25% of the legislators enough to push an amendment forward? If MassEquality picked that line of argument, we wouldn't be here today: even conservative constituents can get behind that.

If MassEquality took that position, we'd have the cover to bury this whole thing procedurally. Then, we'd have to political will to do the right thing and revamp the constitutional process so it works. If we had a process that worked, there would have been no need to have decades of using procedure to block amendments.

Get rid of the 25% provision and turn it into the standard 50% + 1 to advance the amendment. Then, because we're talking about the Constitution here - Higher Law - it should take a 2/3rds majority to make change on the final ballot, whatever that ballot looks like (hopefully not in the form of a plebescite). Constitutions aren't supposed to be easy to change, the vast majority of people understand why. If MassEquality fought to change the constitution, not challenged the ability of the people to vote, then these "let the people vote" chants would have fallen on deaf ears... and this amendment would have been dead - procedurally - a long time ago. If Joan Vennochi, as a columnist, wants someone to blame (nothing gets readership like a juicy attack piece) - look no further than Marc Solomon.

Vennochi: End the War. Now!

It's time for the Democrats in Congress to actually lead on this issue, she says. She does ignore two teensy problems facing Democrats, though: a Senate filibuster and a Presidential veto. Even so, she's right. Democrats need to continue to step up and demand out of Iraq - ASAP. At the very least, the House's current proposed August 2008 pullout is a price too steep.

Vennochi's words:

Lawmakers are galvanized by the firing of eight federal prosecutors who worked under Gonzales. They are demanding public testimony from White House aides, including Karl Rove. The White House is resisting, setting up a showdown over executive privilege.The political sideshow proceeds with gusto, with all parties committed to their usual roles.

When it comes to ending a war that has taken 3,223 American lives since it began four years ago, Congress is paralyzed, not galvanized, even with Democrats in control.

In other words, it's time to get tough on the toughest issue facing America: the war in Iraq.

Are Columnists Supposed to be Biased?

My email exchange with Globe political columnist Joan Vennochi has had the desired effect: a lot of people in the MA blogosphere are thinking about the media in a different light than before. Of course, that doesn't mean bloggers haven't been critical - and that's a good thing too. The point of the piece was to get people to think about the issue - and I think it was a resounding success.

Interestingly, some of those thoughts have lead in a direction I didn't expect. A lot of people took umbrage to my comment that good columnists should be unbiased. Peter Porcupine took me to task in the comments at my cross posting on BMG - while Hub Politics also disagreed on that point.

I'll admit, perhaps I was being ambiguous or perhaps didn't make my point well. So, I just want to touch on this subject briefly; it's important to think about what we expect out of a good political columnist. Here's my take:

While any columnist may self identify as liberal, conservative or some other ideology, they'll treat each issue objectively. For example, Eileen McNamara of the Boston Globe would probably identify as "liberal," yet she's written some tough - yet fair - articles critiquing Deval Patrick. Furthermore, a good columnist uses key facts and news to create opinion - such as when Joan Vennochi unmasked the real story behind Killer Coke this past summer.

While ideology may influence what issues a particular columnist cares about - and therefore writes about - that same columnist is going to analyze that issue while keeping his or her objectivity intact, at least as much as possible. When I wrote my blog about the MSM/blogger divide (in a very short amount of time for such a long piece), that's what I meant when I said columnists shouldn't be biased. Columnists, of course, should be opinionated - but they need to justify it with sound reasoning. I hope that clears everything up.

The MSM/Blogger Divide

Recently, Joan Vennochi and I have been trading emails. I thought her web column was unfair, she thought my "Laziest Article Yet" blog was, well, equally unfair. Of course, the constant barrage of articles that have hurt Deval slightly, at least in the mean time, haven't put me in a good place of mind - and whenever that happens, we tend to retreat to what we know best. A lot of what I had to say in terms of media critique was true and I stick behind it; however, when Vennochi emailed me this afternoon she said something poignant that was sort of a small epiphany.

I realized that it's very easy to sit here at my computer, read an article and find 20 holes in it - just like it's easy to sit in the backseat of a car and tell the driver he or she is speeding, or should have stopped sooner. Does that mean the person wasn't speeding or shouldn't have stopped sooner? Of course not. The media has made some mistakes in these stories and, in large part, I've pointed them out. It's important to do that.

However, I should have done that with the same understanding that Vennochi mentioned. It's not easy to get a story exactly right as a singular writer or even organization, as we all live within a bubble. Furthermore, even with an editor, the same editors are the ones reading from the same authors, every day. The environment that's created is still insulated and incapable of thinking about all the different facets of the story. That's not a knock on the media or the Globe because, as I've indicated quite clearly on this post, I'm obviously suspectible to it too.

Joan Vennochi was sparked to send me an email today based on a comment I made on BMG. First, I should applaud any Globe writer who's spending that kind of time actually reading the comments on blogs - because, as any frequent comment-reader can attest, that takes dedication. In the comment (and on an earlier blog today), I criticized Lisa Wangsness for not interviewing bloggers - and instead ripping their quotes off a website. Doing so eliminates any chance for bloggers to qualify statements in a thoughtful manner, so I found it somewhat annoying. Yet, the way I expressed my annoyance almost automatically assumed Lisa was doing it to sensationalize the story, but Vennochi disagreed.

Every day, bloggers comment on what journalists write, without ever calling the journalist in question to ask for additional perspective,explanation, etc.

Let's be honest, it would be nearly impossible to do that, be it because there are just so many bloggers, so few journalists or the fact that it's rare to see a full-time blogger - and they have to keep up their day jobs.

To further complicate the matter, while bloggers can write as much as they want and as frequently as they want, Vennochi made the equally poignant point in our emails that writers in the media have strict word limits in which to tell their stories. They can't get every viewpoint, factoid or side of the story in any article. It's as equally impossible as every blogger calling a particular journalist before they criticized their work.

So what do we all do? How do we bridge this MSM/Blogger Divide? For one thing, we need to develop better relationships. Vennochi obviously understands that; she's done quite a bit to reach out to bloggers in this situation. Furthermore, maybe when bloggers criticize the media - which is necessary - we need to focus more on being constructive and less on being snarky and personal. I'll readily admit: that's a hard sell. Half the reason people read blogs is to see what will slip by a blogger's fingers and for the giggles. Yet, it's a tight rope that must be crossed.

However, that's not where it should stop. Any blogger will admit this: bloggers need the media - and the media greatly benefits from bloggers. When I'm harsh on the Globe - or other media sources - it isn't because I hate the Globe or the media, it's because I love to hate it. In fact, I devour it like a vampire who loves humans. So it's important that the MSM and blogosphere develop a better relationship. Ultimately, most of us want the same thing.

Don't get me wrong; I don't think we should necessarily be "friends" - to see how bad that kind of relationship can be, ask Judy Miller. After all, she protected her "friends" even when they were lying to her about Iraq, without having to worry about any risks due to the anonymity Miller granted. No, we need a relationship that's more like a friendly rivalry - two groups of people who really like each other, yet always try to outdo one an other when it comes to the big game. They're the kind of people who are willing to work together in order to achieve success, even though they're on different teams and have different goals.

How do we get that to work? There are probably hundreds of things we should do, but today I'm going to offer one idea. Maybe what we need to do is further develop the concept of citizen-journalists. A lot of bloggers out there consider themselves citizen journalists: they're the type of people who write about stories that the media may not cover or cover well enough. Often, they break stories that the media covers later. They're the type of people who do a lot of good. In a day and age when one of the reasons why the media comes under more criticism than ever is, in great part, because they've had to cut back on real journalists due to a lack of resources, citizen journalists could be the cure.

With thousands of citizens out there who are already investigating, doing serious research and then blogging about it, it's time someone tap into their full potential. I don't think someone has to be a genius to figure out there's a mutual opportunity here: the media can both create, find, develop and publish important stories - with a cost-effective, outsider's perspective - and create a better, mutually beneficial relationship with the kinds of people who both blog and read blogs. Furthermore, writers and editors would be exposed to new people who would stop the stifling insulation. Bloggers, on the other hand, would benefit from creating relationships with real, professionally trained journalists. Both sides would work together and better understand each other, ultimately bridging the difficult gap Vennochi pointed out to me today, when I checked my email. Maybe then, stories in the media and bloggers would be better and finally settle into roles that befit this new generation of news.

Updates:

First, I probably should have mentioned one other thing Vennochi mentioned: the MSM has to deal with something that bloggers, largely, don't. Bloggers, including me, can be mean. Journalists and columnists are at a disadvantage - they're supposed to be unbiased (Howie Carr notwithstanding). From here on out, when it comes to dealing with the media, I'm going to try to be more constructive and less snarky. It pains me to say that, because I love the snark (and, indeed, the Globe has loved it too; when directed at politicians, I've been linked to Globe blogs multiple times when writing snarky posts about candidates), but the snark certainly will subvert any attempts at improving blogger-MSM relationships.

Second, the following only deals with the periphery of this post: My earlier subject title today, "Boston Globe: Laziest Article Ever" was, well, not accurate. If it would do any good to change it, I would, but the way blogger.com is set up makes changing titles almost useless - all it would serve to do is break links. Lisa Wangsness wasn't lazy and, in even bothering to read the blogosphere at all, showed at least curiosity that should be applauded. Her piece was still wrong in at least one key way: two bloggers from one site doth not equal the entire blogosphere, even if they are two of the most well-read bloggers. However, it was a mischaracterization to call that lazy. Poor word choice on my part.