Today's Globe: 6 *more* pages of Scott Brown fluff

After taking a whack at Elizabeth Warren for an entire month with near-daily headlines about manufactured racial bating stories, what would the Boston Globe have in store for Scott Brown, now that they've decided we're into electoral politic's hard hitting journo season?

Fear not, dear readers, the Globe had six entire pages dedicated to Scott Brown today, covering

• the scandal about how Senator Brown's dead set against health care reform, while his daughter benefits from it and even Chief Justice Roberts ruled for it 
• the Senator's reluctance to debate in New Bedford or Worcester to answer questions relevant to those communities, even while his opponent agreed to one of his radio debates 
• why Senator Brown's saying he's for keeping student loan rates affordable, when he's the principal guy behind blocking current efforts in the Senate

Oh, hell, what did it cover? 

For Brown, campaign an all-out family affair 

Senator's wife and daughters now helping to soften image of the man with the truck 

WRENTHAM — Scott Brown is at the stove, preparing bacon and cheese omelets, tossing eggshells into the sink with scarcely a glance, each one a perfect shot. Gail Huff is at the breakfast table, reminiscing about her early days as a TV reporter, talking up her husband’s cooking. But the star of the show is the fridge. 

A standard issue side-by-side ­model, nearly every inch of its face is plastered with snapshots and magnets, children’s drawings and certificates of achievement, ticket stubs and local press clippings. The collaged photos show daughters Ayla and ­Arianna through the years — Girl Scouts, Little League, prom night, college — but there are glimpses of Brown and Huff, too. 

One shows him a decade ago, a ­little-known state legislator in full Gene Simmons makeup and giant shoulder pads, one more anonymous KISS fan rocking with his tongue out. Another from 2010 shows how much their lives have changed: Huff hugs the real Gene Simmons, after he invited them backstage because he wanted to meet Brown, the man who wrested Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat from the Democrats.

That's just the first three paragraphs. Dear god, help us all.

On the off chance that there's anything important happening in Massachusetts or the country at large -- oh, I don't know, like a jobs crisis or hundreds of thousands of Massachusetts citizens being under water on their mortgages -- I sent a letter to the Globe's writer of this fluffenuttery goodness. Here were my last few words for him.

He's running an entire campaign dedicated on steering the campaign away from any kind of serious issue or problem facing Massachusetts or the country, constantly engaging in Straw Mans and issues that have no bearing on regular people. Why is the media enabling him? 

There are serious issues in this race and the voters of Massachusetts deserve a media that's going to hold our Senators' feet to the fire, especially during political campaigns. That is your responsibility as a journalist. Please live up to it.

Pretty please?

Meanwhile, it's time to resurrect the Fake News tag, because when there's critically important stuff going on in Massachusetts and around the world, stories like this are a steaming pile of crap.

Scott Brown Heard Your Question, but isn't Interested

Bay State Liberal nails it. 

Health care's future is on the line but what did Scott Brown focus during his "debate" with Dan Rea? Yep, CherokeeGate. 

A few hundred miles away in New York, Elizabeth Warren sought refuge on an equally partisan stage, trying to talk substance about underwater mortgages with Rachel Maddow.

While Elizabeth Warren constantly tackles problems that are actually effecting voters across Massachusetts, our Jr. Senator (rightly) thinks talking about the actual issues will cost him the election. It's all faux heritage-gate and innuendo until November... if the Senator gets his way.

If there's any shred of decency left in the organizations we formerly called the Boston Mainstream Media, they'll start to lay the smack down and demand he'll address his record and the issues. Don't hold your breath.

Until that happens, he'll deftly stonewall any serious questions and quickly pivot to how he's such a great dad or how Elizabeth Warren is a secret marxist foreigner and other assorted BS.

Activists and the netroots have a roll to play. We need to be loud enough so the media hears what we're saying and actually covers this race like journalists.

An absolutely appropriate question

"Which kings and queens and prime ministers have you had private meetings with?" 


After all, he's now talked about them at least five times.

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics... and more Lies

So, if there's lies, damned lies and statistics... what do we call it when the statistics are baloney?

The state of the Tierney-Tisei campaign, from the Salem News, reveals this tidbit on the two campaigns' dueling polls:

Tierney's camp, however, said the GOP poll "has a double-digit Republican bias," noting that the same poll showed U.S. Sen. Scott Brown with "an implausible 24-point lead" over Democratic rival Elizabeth Warren. Statewide, the two are virtually tied. 

In fact, the GOP poll does have elevated Republican representation, GOP poll author John McLaughlin said in an email to The Salem News.

Now, I have no idea who is 'winning' this race, but when a campaign releases a poll that shows it's 'up' by doubling the size of Republicans in the poll, that's just making shit up.

Given how expensive polls are, there aren't likely to be many good polls in this race going forward, but it's always a good bet to take what the candidates have to say on the horse-race stuff with a grain of salt. Especially the media.

SOPA, the death of the internet?

Below is an excellent explanation on the vastness of the problem that SOPA, the "Stop Online Piracy Act," poses for the internet. SOPA is the music and movie industry's attempts to basically kill the internet.

It goes far beyond trying to protect copyrighted material, and descends into "let's kill websites that are competitors." Youtube.com could be shut down if Google were to not take down a single, solitary video that was flagged by the industry within 5 days. A blog could be taken down is a single, solitary commenters quoted too extensively in a single comment. In effect, the internet would become like Cable TV, with megacorporations back to controlling almost all content, from the media, to books, music and film.

Here's a great explanation of how vast this bill goes, not only allowing sites to be targeted, but advertisers, and allowing content owners to seize sites without going through normal court channels, essentially throwing due process out the window.

Here's the comment, plucked from a Techcrunch blog. It should appear as the first comment below the article.

Certainly, the implications could be seen as a turning off of just about any avenue of the internet. The real problem here (addressing questions above) is that DOJ won't be doing the primary enforcement. SOPA grants jurisdiction for aggrieved holders of protected content to bring suit in addition to the DOJ. That means the "creator of the content" -- Metallica, let's just say -- or an agent of the aggrieved -- Metallica's record company -- will have jurisdiction in federal courts in the U.S. to bring suit against those websites that either a) control the location upon which the actual infringer posts the protected content, or b) against advertisers who help those websites continue to operate.

The requirements are that both the website and the advertiser be provided adequate notice of the infringement before suit can commence. That means enough time for the website to take appropriate action (removing the content and blocking the user, most likely), and any advertisers or "enablers" as I like to call them to discontinue business with those offending websites.

The problem is bigger than just the ability to regulate granted to the DoJ. The true problem is that it is giving the media outlets direct means of redress to bring suit not only against websites, many of which are unaware anything wrong is going on, and seek either or both monetary and injunctive relief, but also those advertisers (see facebook, google, etc.) who won't discontinue business with websites which host the offending content. In this light, it is clear that the media companies will now have the ability to sanction any web outlet, or web outlet that serves advertising, without addressing the underlying problem of the user who is doing the "offending" if we can call it that. Huge monetary sanctions against Google for advertising -- the stretches of this power could kill google as we know it (which may have been the underlying intent all along, as fond as they are of Google).
Let's say a commenter posts a link on small blog A to content that infringes on X's copyright. X might not care or know about it. But X's agent, RIAA, does. Someone likes the comment on blog A, and links on Facebook. On an aside, blog A uses Google advertising. The link on Facebook makes it into the internet's mainstream, in whatever way it will. It catches the attention of X's agent RIAA.
At this point, SOPA gives DOJ or the offended party (or her agent) a right to judicial redress by imposing monetary sanctions or achieving injunctive relief (shutting down the page, site, domain). At this point, Blog A, Google, Facebook, and every other site that served as host to the offending content are potentially liable. RIAA can pursue the action by notifying DOJ or by pursuing it individually after notice. In fact, RIAA could, under some circumstances, even TAKE THE DOMAINS of the offending website (under in rem property provisions in the H.R.).

Extrapolate the single instance to what stretches the entire internet, and well...the problem truly is vastly larger than what the DoJ could manage to enforce. That was never the true purpose though, was it?

According to Globe, Menino "supports" #OccupyBoston -- even as he tries to evict them

I don't know where to begin with this article.

Mayor Thomas Menino, who has previously expressed support for the Occupy movement, tells WCVB-TV (http://bit.ly/uwJs97) that he wants to have the legal tools to have dozens of tents in Dewey Square Park removed.

The fact that they suggest Menino's supported the movement is bizarre, in the extreme. Ordering police to mass-arrest protesters isn't "supporting" them.Telling protesters that Civil Disobedience has no place in Boston isn't "supporting" the protesters. About the only thing you can say about Menino's support is at least he hasn't allowed the BPD to give any Iraqi veterans brain injuries, like in Oakland, though even in that case, veterans in Boston were injured due to needless police brutality.

Menino's been somewhat constrained from lashing out at the Occupy movement in Dewey Square by popular opinion and the movement's strength, but let's not kid ourselves here, he's been wanting to get rid of them for quite a while now.

Want to see how much Menino "supports" the protesters and movement? Just watch this segment from WCVB's "On the Record," starting at about 2:50. It's a mutual sneer-fest. He (and they) hate the Occupy movement. Menino even goes on to compare Occupy Boston to the Tea Party -- and gives praise to the Tea Party!

So, Boston Globe, this online story is officially the ranks of Fake News.

#OccupyBoston Roundup

Here's a list of some important resources, information and videos concerning Occupy Boston, so people can figure out what the heck is really going on and what this is all about. Feel free to add to the comments anything  you think I may have missed.

UnaSpencer's diaries on Daily Kos, an insider perspective with in depth discussion

• A primer on the General Assembly, so you know what to expect if you go.
• Holding the line, a diary on what happened before the General Assembly's decision to approve the second camp and what happened directly after. 
• The Day After, on Occupy Boston's resolve to keep going and the movement's growing strength in the face of adversity.

News

• Menino is no fan of civil disobedience. 
• Boston's trying to pin the second camp on anarchists and foreigners... like Mubarak did in Egypt.
• 70% support Occupy Wall St. movement
• Garrett Quinn: "It was ugly and fast."
• The Day 25 Mothership Roundup of the entire OWS movement, for those looking at how things are going outside of Boston.

Pictures

Woman choked by police officer
Activestills Occupy Boston gallery
Safesounds Occupy Boston arrest gallery
Gallery from Monday, both the 10k-strong march and second camp, before police raid.

Reactions

Open letter to Menino
What would Rose Kennedy have thought about protesters on her greenway?

Videos from raid, TV segments

Cop pushes someone off wall



The raid begins



Post-raid dozens marched to the jail in support of those arrested. No embed.

AP video of arrests




Global Revolution Live Channel -- a live feed on the Occupy movement and its global economic-justice cousins. There's programming 24/7, usually previously recorded videos from around the world, and it'll go live with commentary when big things are going on.

Here's a wonderful video showing our fearless leaders expressing how important the freedom of assembly is abroad, even as they crack down on it here.



Young Turks report on Occupy Boston raid



Keith Olbermann interview with OccupyBoston participant who was raided and an organizer of one of the people participating in the OccupyWallSt



More Keith:

• First collective statement of OccupyWallSt
• Tavis Smiley of PBS and Cornel West discuss Occupy movement.
• Russ Feingold: "This is no time to hang back."

Occupy Boston Resources

• Website
• Twitter
• Media twitter (news and requests)
• Logistics twitter (find out what they need)
• The Occupy Boston Globe -- the Occupy Boston newspaper
• Occupy Boston Wiki
• Occupy Boston  live chat
• Occupy Boston live feed

Questions Media Didn't Ask at #OccupyBoston

Sometimes it's not just about what the media asks -- what they cover -- but what they don't cover and don't ask. Most of the issues over the coverage we saw, of what little coverage there was, would fit into this category.

News organizations like WCVB have covered the fact that the police asked protesters to leave, but didn't ask why they wanted to stay. That seems kind of important, doesn't it?

Several media outlets, like the Boston Herald, covered the fact that Boston's police commissioner blamed the raid on "anarchists" who had 'taken over' over the past 24 hours, but didn't bother to see just who those 'anarchists' were. If they followed up, they would have found a lot of veterans for piece, college students from neighboring campuses and the working poor, but I'm not so sure about "anarchists."

Plenty of news sources, like NECN, covered the fact that Mayor Menino despises civil disobedience and won't tolerate it in Boston, but could no news organization think to ask him how he can reconcile that with the fact that Boston practically invented civil disobedience in this country, in the form of hordes of Bostonians throwing tons of tea into the harbor.

There was the media coverage of the shrubs -- oh, dear, the shrubs! -- including ABC News, except no one bothered to ask Occupy Boston about it. If they did, they'd know Occupy Boston had approval from the Rose Kennedy group to be there, so long as they'd help care for the shrubs.

If the media asked, they would have learned how Occupy Boston already took care of shrubs and flowers at the Dewey Square camp and had a recycling program that would be the envy of many municipalities across the state.

Almost no main stream media organizations made note of the Veterans for Peace who were attacked, even while they trended worldwide on twitter. Wouldn't it have made sense to ask why it was necessary for the Boston Police to come down hard on people who've served this country with honor and distinction?

What about the medics and legal observers who were arrested? Or the medical supplies and other resources that were immediately thrown away -- things that could have provided evidence of police brutality, like cell phones and computers that may have been in the camp? Were these not worthy questions to ask about?

Among the questions that the media didn't ask was if the Patrick Administration approved the State Police being used as tools to bash protesters, or why Mayor Menino didn't have the police use non-violent means of breaking up the crowd -- without having to make mass arrests -- like using tear gas. There were plenty of questions asked of the Boston Police, but very little coverage of the protesters.

The entire Dewey Square camp was free and clear, with hundreds of people right there who would have been willing to answer questions. These are people who just want to have their voices heard -- that's why they're there in the first place. Would it have been so hard to hear their stories? To hear why they're there? To hear why they're willing to put themselves at risk for a greater cause? Those are worthy questions the rest of America deserves to have answered and covered.

Mostly, though, I'd like to know why most of the media didn't seem to think this was a big story. Well over a hundred people, in a city the fraction the size of New York, stood up for their rights in front of police brutality and courageously didn't back down, even when it meant arrest -- while the world went nuts over it on Twitter -- and it received barely a peep on the Mainstream Media. That's the biggest travesty of all.

A "strike marked by several violent incidents"

First, let's all give a round of applause to the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 791, the Shaw's distribution workers who just successfully ended their 17 week strike by negotiating a favorable contract. It's important these workers are well compensated for their hard and important work, as we wouldn't eat or drink without them (at least when it comes to perishable goods, like meat and milk). Most people don't think about all the effort it takes to get our food to the grocery store; it doesn't just magically appear there.

However, the article covering their impressive victory was horrendously prejudiced and misleading, making it sound as if the strikers were violent criminals. Don't take my word for it; here's the first sentence of the article.

A four-month strike marked by several violent incidents and arrests ended peacefully yesterday when workers at the Shaw's distribution center ratified a new contract.

Unfortunately, the Eagle Tribune doesn't follow up on the "violent incidents" written in that lead until the end of the article, with two of its final three paragraphs on the strike:

Methuen police maintained a 24-hour detail to keep the peace at the picket line outside the warehouse. The officers directed traffic for delivery trucks and workers who crossed the picket line.

Police arrested a truck driver who waved his middle finger at yelling strikers and then drove his truck at a police sergeant on March 30. A month later, police arrested another trucker who spat at a striker.

Why is it that the mainstream media, even the local variety, almost always portrays activists engaging in non-violent civil disobedience as violent criminals, if it covers them at all?

Given that almost no one reads until the end of a newspaper article, the lead in this story was completely irresponsible. If the Eagle Tribune wasn't going to clarify exactly what it meant by a strike "marked by several violent incidents" right at the beginning of its article, it shouldn't have included that sensationalist introduction at all.

Future Media Models

David posted on the Globe's growing subscription troubles, which I saw as a good opportunity to discuss one of my old, favorite topics: the media. Ryan's Take hasn't focused on the local media as much as it used to, but it's still an issue that's important to me. Basically, I think there's only a few ways forward.

• Go digital, go lean -- focus the staff on news, not distribution. If they don't outright nix all distribution, these papers should put their offline content on an even footing with their online content and stop making people pay for it. Given that the profits from the sold papers really come from the ads anyway, this isn't as big a deal as it sounds, but it only works if the papers become leaner and greener -- by cutting down the sections and focusing on the content hard to find elsewhere (local and regional).
• Go subscription. Since distribution is so expensive, offering free content online not only cannibalizes readers, but it doesn't really save a full-scale daily any money... because the trucks still have to go out and those printing factories still need to churn, daily. If there's a strong online presence, it would have to be for-pay, but even if it's for pay -- it's still probably a sink to the company, since the company is still having to pay for all those trucks even though it would have fewer papers to deliver. One way to make a website available to subscribers, without causing that sink, would be to only give access to the articles on the web to those who are subscribing anyway, or at least make online subscribers pay more than print.
• Go nonprofit. For local and community papers, this probably makes the most sense. If it's really just about keeping a local news presence, a nonprofit starts to make a lot of sense, because eliminating the need for these companies to make a major profit would be liberating for them.

There may be others ways, but if they don't involve focusing on a way of delivering the news and the type of news they're going to deliver (and then making sure that news is good), the subscription decline will only hasten.

Ra, Ra, Ra! Shish, Koom, Bah! Let's Go Casinos!

Well, the Globe's casino cheer leading again, this time featuring Representative Brian Dempsey. Nothing like a nice Dempsey press release to get the story moving -- and nudge the Commonwealth a little further to casinos, a fantastic potential ad revenue source for enterprising Globe sales reps. Whee!

I'm not even going to block quote any of the story. Suffice it to say, there's some interesting competing stories going on. The Globe and Dempsey suggest that "jobs" are leading some reps to rethink their position, while the Boston Phoenix and Herald make other allusions.

From the second Herald story:

With a proposal to expand gambling expected to hit the House floor within weeks, nearly two dozen casino developers, slot machine makers and gaming proponents spent a staggering $2.2 million to pay lobbyists and related expenses in 2009.

The Phoenix also notes that Suffolk, that lovely little horsey track sitting in Speaker Deleo's district (that wants slots way more than horseys), paid out over $780,000 in lobbying this past year -- second most of any organization in the state. No wonder DeLeo took in $5,000 in lobbyist cash from "about" two dozen industry peeps this past year (his Committee for a Democratic House took in another 10k). Murray - and her Committee for a Democratic Senate - actually matches those numbers. Oh, yeah, it's just about the jobs. And I just spotted a winged-pig in my backyard.

If politicians in this state want to be taken credibly, it's well past time that they joined with the Governor in supporting a comprehensive study to analyze all the pros and cons of casinos in this state -- what jobs they'll create, what jobs they'll destroy, what revenue they'll generate and what revenue they'll force us to spend and, perhaps most importantly of all, how they'd impact our communities near and far from potential casinos. If the Speaker and Senate President, not to mention Representative Dempsey, are so confident casinos will lead to a net increase of jobs, why won't they agree to this full-scale, comprehensive, non-partisan study?

Maybe, it's because they're not so confident in their job predictions -- given that history suggests casinos and slot parlors lead to a net loss of regional jobs.

The fact that state constitutional provisions were utilized to make it as difficult as possible for future generations to legalize gambling activities (and thereby experiment once again with a classic "boom and bust" economic cycle) lends substantial credence to arguments that both historically and currently, the legalization of gambling activities eventually causes: (1) increased taxes, (2) a loss of jobs from the overall region, (3) economic disruption of other businesses, (4) increased crime and (5) large social-welfare costs for society in general and government agencies in particular. For example, two studies of the riverboat casinos in Illinois concluded that for every one job created by the riverboats, most of the surrounding communities probably lost one or more jobs from pre-existing businesses (Grinols 1994; Grinols and Omorov 1995).

In recent economic history, legalized gambling activities have been directly and indirectly subsidized by the taxpayers. The field research throughout the nation indicates that for every dollar the legalized gambling interests indicate is being contributed in taxes, it usually costs the taxpayers at least 3 dollars-- and higher numbers have been calculated.

So, will Speaker Deleo, Senator Murray and Representative Dempsey put their money where their mouth is and have the state fund the study to see if they're right about something that would so drastically change this state -- or will they continue to allow voters of this state to question the honesty and integrity of its elected leadership?

Stay Classy, Lynn Item

The Lynn Item decided to run an online poll on who (internet) readers would prefer for their Senator -- which isn't odd. Many newspapers have done that. Scott Brown happened to win the online poll, for whatever that matters (not much).

However, not many newspapers have then used those online -- unscientific -- polls to thus exclaim about a candidate "Greater Lynn Voters Prefers Scott Brown by Wide Margin," like the Lynn Item did... in today's above-the-fold, headline article. Furthermore, they did so without mentioning the fact that their poll was not a scientific poll and failing to include "internet poll" in the headline.

The Lynn Item has never been the kind of paper that's had a lot of journalistic integrity, at least as long as I can remember. However, this really takes the cake. Reporting this "poll" as if it had a shred of credibility, then using it for a headline article on the Monday before the election to make it appear as if Scott Brown enjoys any kind of real advantage in the greater region is asinine.

The frustrating thing is this would have been a fantastically interesting poll to take -- if the Lynn Item wanted to do it the journalistic way and conduct a real poll. I'd have enjoyed reading that article. But the fact remains that this poll was utterly meaningless and the article was therefore horseshit. Way to stay classy, Lynn Item. With utter crap like this, maybe the demise of the local, daily paper isn't such a bad thing?

The Local MSM's Prejudice

This blog used to cover the local MSM quite a bit. I enjoyed writing the stories and got a lot of readers and links from it. However, at a certain point I became too cynical to read the local MSM every day, so this site has focused much less on being a local media critic. Stories like this are why.

Two polls were released on the Senate race at pretty much the same time. They both had the same sample size. They were both done by well-established firms. However, they both showed widely different results. The Suffolk poll showed Scott Brown up by around 4, while the BMG/Research 2000 poll showed Coakley up by 8. Either of the polls could be right -- in fact, they both were probably right in polling who they thought would show up, it's just that they both disagreed on the specific demographics of their likely voters. Guess which poll the local MSM covered?

If anyone picked "not BMG," they win a gold star. There are probably two reasons why the local media would cover Suffolk's poll, but not BMG's. The first is the Suffolk poll is certainly more politically sexy -- it was the first to really show Scott Brown up above the margin of error. The second reason is because BMG is a blog - and, I suppose, viewed by the media as competition. All that said, if the media is to be taken seriously, it should have covered both of the polls. They were done at the same time, using live questioners and the same sample sizes; they were each at least as worthy as the other. Even if the papers wanted to lead with the Suffolk poll, the BMG poll should have featured prominently, too. Otherwise, any notion of fair play or journalistic integrity can be thrown out of the window.

Does the local media really want to be that obvious? Are they really willing to lose the tens of thousands of their readers, who also read sites like BMG? At a certain point, papers like the Globe are going to have to learn that many of the readers they've lost have come at the hands of their increasing willingness to throw their credibility out the window, when it suits their purpose.

NECN, Gloucester and Tap Water

• Watching NECN this morning. They discussed the media at 8:20am today in relation to the Tiger Woods story -- showing how one paper reported one thing, another reported a completely contradicting story, and another reported something similar (but slightly different) than the first. Basically, they just pointed out how ridiculous the media can be now. Two thumbs up. Stuff like this makes me respect NECN so much more than any other local tv news (or print news, for that matter).
  
• Gloucester was slammed with a state order to pay $8 million in sewer upgrades for deficiencies it 'allowed' to happen, with an additional $80,000 in fines, or $15,000 if it makes the repairs quickly enough. Now, this money obviously needs to be spent -- the tap water was literally unsafe to drink for two weeks this summer and had to be boiled before use during that time span.
• The thing that bothered me about this story is the fact that the state seems to think that Gloucester was just being negligent in its repairs. Over the past few years, Gloucester has been in a desperate budget situation, in no small part due to the state. The state not only cut Gloucester's aid by a 1/3, but also has, for years, delayed giving Gloucester it's fair share of Chapter 70 education funding. It's one of several towns, including my own, which gets screwed by the state year in and year out. If the state wants minimum standards kept, it's got to give cities and towns the tools and funding to come up with solutions. The only entity that should be fined for what happened in Gloucester is the state, for forcing the town to be in a situation where it had to be so negligent in its services to begin with.
• All that said, readers of this site know that I'm a big fan of tap water. While the Gloucester tap water hiccup is something no one wants to hear about re: drinking water, especially those who drink bottled water, this is actually an example of the system working. Tap water is strictly regulated, whereas bottled water is not. Not only did the stricter regulations make it more likely that Gloucester's problems would be discovered, but it makes it more likely that those problems get fixed and won't happen again. Who's going to find that problem in your bottled water -- the very bottles that are more likely to allow bacteria to fester? Finally, for the cost of one bottle of tap water at CVS, you can get well more than a year's worth of cleaner, better tap water. Get rid of the Poland Springs and buy your own bottle for your water -- fill it up at the tap and save yourself the money and trouble.
  

Boston Herald Goes off the Deep End

In what should be a shocker to no one, today's Herald editorial jumped off the deep end, coming out strong against a UMASS Dartmouth Law School, with the kind of hyperbole rarely out seen outside of tabloid "journalism." Saying the "skids are greased," they launch an attack at Chancellor of UMASS Dartmouth, Jean McCormick, the UMASS Board of Trustees, Romney-appointed UMASS Prez Jack Wilson and Governor Patrick. Notably missing is almost any reason why they think a UMASS Law School, focusing on public law at reasonable in-state tuition, would be such a bad idea.

A lot of the editorial doesn't even make sense. For example:

But when there are agendas at work - and make no mistake there are - you just can’t keep a bad idea down.

Please, Boston Herald, pray tell, what "agendas" are there at work? UMASS Dartmouth wanting to become a more prestigious public school? The UMASS system wanting a law school? The agendas here seem to be of the noble variety.

The Herald goes on to bash this idea as a bad one, because it failed in 2005. Of course, the only reason why the law school failed to earn the votes last time is because BU, Northeastern, Suffolk and several other high-priced law schools screamed bloody murder. Seems they think a neighbor on the block that costs half as much (literally) may just put a dent into their profits. That was the real hidden "agenda" last time -- the agenda to stop a public law school, led by the private ones.

It only gets more absurd from there.

And the only thing that has changed since 2005 is the state of the Massachusetts economy. In case President Wilson hasn’t read the papers lately, the economy has tanked and it’s not getting any better very soon.

And that's a reason to oppose an accessible, affordable law school?

From there, the Herald goes on to distort the truth. They say the law school "basically wants to give itself away to UMASS." However, that's misleading at best. The law school wants to become part of a major university system so it has the increased resources to become academically competitive. UMASS wants a law school so it can be a more competitive major university system in this country. Herald Board: That's why they call this thing a "merger," jackasses.

The Herald then decides swim deeper, saying the state can't afford this.

Wilson is singing the same old song about what a wonderful asset this will be and how it will eventually make money for the system. That, of course, is predicated on it enrolling nearly twice as many students as the school now serves and that wouldn’t happen unless it got American Bar Association accreditation.

Which the University says it would do in a matter of years.

What Wilson and his enabler UMass/Dartmouth Chancellor Jean MacCormack don’t like to talk about is the millions of dollars it will cost to get ABA accreditation by upgrading the school’s facilities, library and its faculty.

Really? They don't like talking about it? Have ya asked them? The fact of the matter is that while this would cost the school some money, it would cost the state diddley squat. The university has the access to the cash to make this happen. They've had that cash for a long time. Making it happen will make the University a more prestigious public school across the entire country, which in turn would make more people want to go to it.

There are a lot of people in this state, many of them who probably buy ads in the Boston Herald, who are terrified of the UMASS system becoming the type of University system that you find in North Carolina, California and elsewhere: elite, public colleges that are affordable and accessible to in-state students. UMASS has already made many leaps and bounds, getting a law school and making relatively small investments in it would go a long way toward reaching the finish line. The real agenda here is keeping UMASS down. Unfortunately, the same forces that have been successful in that quest for so long are losing the public fight, which is probably why this Herald article tries so hard in its own deranged way at grasping for straws.

In the Globe, Again

They quoted me on their VoxOp for my comments on CLT. Welcome, Globe readers.

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.

The Nerve of These People

First, let's read one of SHNS's recent tweets.

Despite law ending dog racing, Raynham-Taunton files for full racing schedule next year. statehousenews.com

Then read a quote from an earlier SHNS story today (can't link to it, sorry).

MOHEGAN EYES REDUCED LICENSING FEES, TWO-YEAR WINDOW UNTIL OPENING

By Jim O’Sullivan
STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE

BOSTON, SEPT. 30, 2009……The state should charge casino licensing fees between $25 million and $50 million and level tax rates in the low 20-percent range on gambling revenues, according to a top executive at the Mohegan Sun casino firm, one of several business interests circling as the Legislature considers gambling legislation.

Seriously, what are these people thinking.

The dog tracks don't think the rules apply to them, while the big resort casinos think that we should all bow before them for the privilege of having their ugly-ass buildings create all sorts of new, local problems "grow" jobs.

Remember when Governor Patrick was promising hundreds of millions in gambling licensing fees? What a freaking joke. Why does our state continue to waste time on this gimmick that won't solve a single, solitary problem -- while creating a whole bunch of new ones?

PS: I appreciate the fact that the SHNS is finally disclosing its casino conflict of interest. From the story above:

Editor's Note: O'Neill & Associates advertises in the News Service's Weekly Roundup.

For those who don't know, O'Neill & Associates gets a lot of money from the casino lobby. Honestly, I don't think it's a coincidence that the SHNS covers the casino issue so closely and is frequently at the forefront of pushing the "inevitability" meme.

The White House Pool Reports

For some reason, the White House has me signed up for the pool reports that have to do with Massachusetts. While it's kind of neat for someone to have taken the time to sign me up for this at the White House (without me requesting it), it's not nearly as interesting as it sounds: I get to hear fascinating stories about how the President is going to go golfing, or about the crowds that gathered to wave at him. Here's one example from today:

The motorcade left the farm at 8:33 a.m. en route Oak Bluffs school.

A few people gathered on the road to watch the president pass, among them a woman in her pj's holding a baby and waving. "Hi, Obama, take a nice deep breath," reads the sign posted on one mailbox.

A partial description of the farm where the Obamas are staying: it is a large property with rolling fields surrounded by thick stands of trees, dotted with empty silos and a couple of what look to be fairly new tractors. There's a dirt road drive leading from the main road to an old barn with weathered brown shingles, and as we waited for the motorcade to depart a lone bay horse was standing nearby swatting flies with its tail. The presidential part of the motorcade came out of a dirt drive from a different part of the property.

Christi Parsons

Do people find this stuff interesting? Honest question.