More on McNamara

Charley destroys McNamara's arguments over at BMG. McNamara's column had a lot of holes in it, but good 'ol Mr. Blandy made them seem like the Grand Canyon.

Turns out, according the the AP, Deval Patrick was right: DSS really was given last minute notice.

BOSTON (AP) - Federal immigration agents notified state officials months in advance of its plans for a massive illegal immigration raid in New Bedford. But they prohibited them from alerting the Department of Social Services -- the agency charged with caring for the workers' children -- until just days before.

Kurt Schwartz with the state's Executive Office of Public Safety says D-S-S Commissioner Harry Spence wasn't told until four days before the raid.

At that time, Schwartz couldn't tell Spence the exact location, only that it would be in southeast Massachusetts.

And Spence was banned from telling any employees until after the raid began.

Charles lands the obvious critique:

There damn well was a problem. There damn well was a failure to coordinate. They were getting phone calls about it from the Governor and the Congressional delegation. It plainly didn't work the way it was supposed to work. And McNamara blithely takes their word for it?

McNamara would do well to learn not to be so trusting of people who tell you what you want to hear. I wonder if we'll see any mea culpa in the next McNamara column? Otherwise, if she can't admit when she makes mistakes, she's right: it's going to be a long four years.

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.

Thanks, Deval

Apology accepted. This is the frankness we've come to expect. He did exactly what he needed to do. On style, he's still figuring it out... and what doesn't kill him can only make him stronger. His policies have been excellent, so I'm looking forward to a bump-free few months. Today was a good start.

That said, I'm laying to rest one final point. We learned a little more about the phone call today in the Boston Globe. There's no reason why the Globe couldn't have dug for another day or two on this story to actually get that information the first time around. Printing a complete story is kind of a big deal, to put it mildly. That doesn't excuse the fact that Deval screwed up again... I'm just sayin'.

Update: The Globe Editorial is worth reading, but here's the money quote from Eileen McNamara.

He has been preoccupied, drafting a state budget that required him "to learn a whole new language," he said. "As engaged as I want to be in the big policy issues, what I am learning is that every small thing counts, too."

Politics has "a steep learning curve," Patrick acknowledged, promising that those critics looking for patterns, divining the seeds of his administration's eventual downfall in each error in judgment will be disappointed.

"It is too early for that," he said. "I made a mistake. Period. I am going to do my level best not to make it again."

The Globe: Getting it Right the Second Time Around

Lately, I've scorned the Globe - and for good reason. Stories, left and right, were flawed and missing key facts. Quite frankly, I was sick of it - and even paid them a letter to the editor. Here's one thing I can say about the Globe - even when they don't print letters, they clearly read them. Furthermore, they browse the blogs, including my own - so at the very least, when criticism is laid upon them and that criticism is extremely valid, the Globe often throws us angry readers and bloggers a bone... or belatedly makes up for a lousy story.

Today is an example of that.

One of my recent blogs - and the letter I sent them - was about a horrendous story on how businesses were "blasting" Patrick's plan to close loopholes. The story neglected to mention key information, which was widely available, such as the fact that Massachusetts has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the country. Furthermore, story never discussed the more than dozen states that have closed the very same loopholes, including states with a lot of corporations like Illinois and California.

Well, here's a snippet of today's lead editorial:

Debate quickly became heated over whether Patrick was proposing a major tax increase on state businesses, or merely "closing loopholes." The question is more than semantic. And the answer, in truth, is that the plan would be both.

When fully implemented, Patrick's tax increases would yield some $500 million, only $75 million of which would go to property tax relief, while the rest would go toward balancing the budget. Since the total take for corporate taxes in fiscal 2006 was only $1.4 billion, $500 million more represents an enormous tax hike, says Michael Widmer of the business-funded Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.

Sure, it's a big percentage increase, but from a very low base. According to the liberal Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, the state ranks from 43 d to 49th in its level of corporate taxation. Besides, say Patrick's budgeteers, the targeted taxes really are loopholes. The largest change, called combined reporting, would prevent companies from setting up subsidiaries in low-tax states that could suck up revenues that should legitimately be subject to taxation in Massachusetts. Seventeen states use this method, and others are moving in that direction, they say.

Why, the editorial mentions the very same things I criticized the Globe for just the other day. They learned their lesson. Furthermore, they did an important thing: critiqued the governor for not getting going on some of his other campaign promises, such as speeding up the permitting process. It's something that should go along with closing the corporate loopholes. Not only is it the right thing to do, it's the type of compromise that could soften the corporate blow and make them all the less likely to bitterly stave off such basic things as tax fairness.

So, the Globe did a good job today. Let's just hope that next time they can get it right the first time.