Month: April 2006

Is there a larger meaning to President Bush’s decision to name Tony Snow as his new spokesman? If you subscribe to the theory — as I do — that the Ari Fleischer/Scott McClellan era was defined principally by an attempt to marginalize the national media and downgrade their perceived importance, then I think the answer is yes.

The Washington Post, not surprisingly, appears to be more surefooted than the New York Times in analyzing the Snow appointment. The Times’ Jim Rutenberg is quite taken with the fact that Snow, a high-profile Fox News pundit, has been known to criticize the president. Rutenberg writes:

Mr. Snow is something the White House briefing room has not yet had at the lectern: a star of the opinionated cable news era. But he is also something Mr. Bush has never had: a free-wheeling outsider in a very public position, and one with a history of sharing critical opinions of the president.

True enough. But the key to the Snow appointment, it seems to me, is that Snow is a player who actually believes the mainstream media have an important role to play in keeping the public informed. Here is the lead of Jim VandeHei and Michael Fletcher’s piece in the Post:

President Bush’s decision to hire conservative commentator Tony Snow as his chief spokesman reflects a consensus among the president and his top advisers that his White House operation has been too insular and needs to be more aggressive in engaging with the news media and other Washington constituencies, according to Bush aides and outside advisers.

Last week, Jay Rosen marked McClellan’s departure by arguing that McClellan had been put in place as part of Bush’s policy of “strategic non-communication.” Rosen wrote:

McClellan was a necessary figure in what I have called Rollback — the attempt to downgrade the press as a player within the executive branch, to make it less important in running the White House and governing the country. It had once been accepted wisdom that by carefully “feeding the beast” an Administration would be rewarded with better coverage in the long run. Rollback, the policy for which McClellan signed on, means not feeding but starving the beast, while reducing its effectiveness as an interlocutor with the President and demonstrating to all that the fourth estate is a joke.

I think Rosen’s on to something, although I disagree with his contention that McClellan represented a departure from Fleischer, who, Rosen claims, was unwilling to play the role of being “the jerk at the podium” — and who, besides, had an unacceptable (to the White House) “twinkle in his eye” when dissembling. I don’t see how you can say that McClellan’s act was much different from Fleischer’s, just a whole lot less competent.

Still, there may be something to the notion that the White House couldn’t truly express the depth of its contempt for the media until it had appointed an utterly incompetent spokesman. After all, the very fact that the White House would hire someone with Fleischer’s smooth performance skills suggested that, on some level, the administration took the media seriously.

As it has been forced to do again. Media Matters is very excited about what it calls “The many falsehoods of Tony Snow.” And, yes, David Brock and company have compiled quite a dossier. But this appointment is about music, not lyrics. And the music is that Snow is someone of substance who sees the care and feeding of the national press as a job that’s actually worth doing.

Last Sunday, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” former Newt Gingrich spokesman Tony Blankley, now editorial-page editor of the Washington Times, defined what the problem has been for the past five-plus years:

I think it is a mistake of a White House press operation not to engage the press corps here. I think that it can be done effectively and honestly, and in a serious way. You’re going to get hit a lot, but to put up the shield and have no communication is going to induce future administrations to get into the same kind of — they exaggerate the mess they’re going to get into when they have no communication back and forth.

By the way, one of the good things that a White House gets from talking to the press is, is reconnaissance of how the press and to some extent the country is feeling. I think it’s — that two-way exchange is really vital to the process.

That’s the shortcoming that the White House undertook to address with the Snow appointment. The question is whether Snow is the decider-in-chief’s idea or someone whom new chief of staff Josh Bolsten imposed on Bush at a moment of presidential weakness, and against whom Bush will soon rebel. We’ll find out.

And here’s where it could get dicey for Bush: Snow strikes me as eminently likely to resign and pop off if he finds himself getting marginalized. Fleischer and McClellan would never do such a thing. Which is why this could turn out to be a pretty interesting appointment.

The Book Standard recycles its Feb. 15 review of Kaavya Viswanathan’s “How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild and Got a Life,” calling it a “clone” of the film “Mean Girls.” Here’s how it ends:

But the plot … often seems plucked from a teen movie. Once Viswanathan, currently a Harvard sophomore, figures out how to integrate her lively voice into a more original story, she’ll be on her way.

Pretty close, I’d say.

The Harvard Crimson catches up with plagiaree Megan McCafferty, who’s not talking.

That’s what Samuel Freedman of the New York Times calls Kaavya Viswanathan, the Harvard sophomore now in the midst of a plagiarism-fueled meltdown over her (or should that be “her”?) novel, “How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild and Got a Life.”

Freedman’s not so much commenting on Viswanathan’s sticky-fingered writing style, but, rather, the fact that she paid some $10,000 to $30,000 to a consulting outfit in order to help her get into Harvard — the equivalent, he says, of the steroids that Bonds claims he didn’t take in order to boost his home-run output.

Still, given that Viswanathan is now being accused of having lifted more than 40 passages from Megan McCafferty’s first two novels (Harvard Crimson coverage here; Boston Globe coverage here; Boston Herald coverage here), it would seem that Barry Bonds’ single-season home-run record of 73 is within her grasp.

Globe columnist Alex Beam, who dubs Viswanathan the “Queen of Schadenfreude,” predicts that the agency that helped her “conceptualize” the novel is going to wind up being accused as the guilty party. But if Beam is right, wouldn’t that mean that Viswanathan didn’t write any of “Opal Mehta”?

McCafferty herself is reported to be devastated by all of this, but she comes off as rather jolly on her blog. I would think she would be.

Meanwhile, the Weekly Dig has some fun today with my deathless prose. I admit to being dense enough not to have gotten it until I’d read a couple of paragraphs.

In reviewing Bruce Springsteen‘s new album, “We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions,” the Boston Globe’s Joan Anderman refers to Pete Seeger as “this century’s foremost activist folk singer.” This century, eh? Sadly, Anderman may be right, although not in the way she intended.

Worse, Anderman likes Springsteen’s last two albums, “Devils & Dust” and (ugh) “The Rising,” which, she claims, was marked by “a fierce, redemptive grace.”

Which is why I prefer this review of “We Shall Overcome,” by Slate’s Jody Rosen, who writes:

His two most recent albums have been particularly painful. The Rising (2002), Springsteen’s vaunted “response to Sept. 11,” made an almighty rock ‘n’ roll noise, but the lyrics found him straining for significance amid an explosion of abstract nouns: “faith,” “hope,” “blood,” “fire,” etc. Then came last year’s Devils & Dust, a folk-flecked album whose songs suggested that the Boss had taken the praise of the tweedy set too much to heart.

Indeed.

Rosen likes “We Shall Overcome” a lot, and I’m looking forward to hearing the whole thing. Perhaps it will be the spark that helps Springsteen rediscover his writing gift, much as Bob Dylan‘s two early-’90s albums of folk songs, “Good as I Been to You” and “World Gone Wrong,” led to his two best collections of orginals since his heyday, “Time Out of Mind” and “Love & Theft.”

There is some justice in the literary world. Megan McCafferty, whose novels provided such rich, er, source material for Harvard typist Kaavya Viswanathan, is at #7 on the Wall Street Journal’s hardcover bestseller list for her latest novel, “Charmed Thirds.” Good for McCafferty, who’s got enough class that she doesn’t even mention Viswanathan on her blog.

The Boston Globe has played Viswanathan’s copycat ways on page one, above the fold, each of the past two days. (Yesterday’s story is here; today’s is here.) But the Harvard Crimson, which broke the story on Sunday, makes clear in a way the Globe doesn’t that Viswanathan’s excuse — that she must have unconsciously recycled passages from a novel she loved when writing “How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life” — has failed to impress McCafferty’s publisher.

Paras D. Bhayani and David Zhou, writing for the Crimson, report:

… Random House, which published McCafferty’s novels, is confident that “literal copying” occurred in Viswanathan’s book, according to a confidential letter from the publishing giant to Little, Brown that was obtained by The Crimson.

“We are continuing to investigate this matter, but, given the alarming similarities in the language, structure and characters already found in these works, we are certain that some literal copying actually occurred here,” read the letter, which is dated April 22 and was signed by Random House lawyer Min Jung Lee. “As such, we would appreciate your prompt and serious attention to this matter.”

Indeed, if you take a look at the Crimson’s side-by-side comparisons, you’ll find it hard to rule out the possibility — the likelihood? — that Viswanathan propped McCafferty’s “Sloppy Firsts” open in her lap and started typing, making just a few changes in an inept attempt to cover her tracks.

It’s hard to muster much sympathy for Viswanathan, who got a $500,000 contract to put her imprimatur on a novel that others “conceptualized” for her, and that she then couldn’t apparently bother to write entirely on her own.

But I’ll give her this much. In a more sane world, she never would have gotten the contract and the publicity that put her in the public spotlight in the first place. She would have plagiarized at Harvard, flunked a class, maybe even been forced to transfer to another college. And she would have learned an important lesson — quietly. Instead, she’s dealt herself a devastating blow from which it will be hard to recover.

An enormous threat to everyone’s media future is playing out in Congress this week. As I wrote in March, executives of the giant broadband companies are trying to talk government regulators into letting them discriminate in favor of Internet services that are willing to pay for the privilege of having their data move at ever faster speeds.

According to this article from InternetWeek, “The House Judiciary Committee’s Task Force on Telecommunications and Antitrust is holding a hearing Tuesday on whether the Internet should operate like a utility, with equal service, or whether providers should be able to provided tiered access and pricing.”

Here’s a good video overview of what’s at stake.

Save the Internet, a coalition headed by the progressive group Free Press, puts it this way:

Congress is pushing a law that would abandon Network Neutrality, the Internet’s First Amendment. Network neutrality prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding which Web sites work best for you — based on what site pays them the most. Your local library shouldn’t have to outbid Barnes & Noble for the right to have its Web site open quickly on your computer.

Net Neutrality allows everyone to compete on a level playing field and is the reason that the Internet is a force for economic innovation, civic participation and free speech. If the public doesn’t speak up now, Congress will cave to a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign by telephone and cable companies that want to decide what you do, where you go, and what you watch online.

Sorry for this long cut-and-paste job, but Save the Internet continues with a frightening list of ways that this could harm all of us. It’s worth reading in full:

Google users — Another search engine could pay dominant Internet providers like AT&T to guarantee the competing search engine opens faster than Google on your computer.
Innovators with the “next big idea” — Startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay Internet providers for dominant placing on the Web. The little guy will be left in the “slow lane” with inferior Internet service, unable to compete.
Ipod listeners — A company like Comcast could slow access to iTunes, steering you to a higher-priced music service that it owned.
Political groups — Political organizing could be slowed by a handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups to pay “protection money” for their websites and online features to work correctly.
Nonprofits — A charity’s website could open at snail-speed, and online contributions could grind to a halt, if nonprofits can’t pay dominant Internet providers for access to “the fast lane” of Internet service.
Online purchasers — Companies could pay Internet providers to guarantee their online sales process faster than competitors with lower prices — distorting your choice as a consumer.
Small businesses and tele-commuters — When Internet companies like AT&T favor their own services, you won’t be able to choose more affordable providers for online video, teleconferencing, Internet phone calls, and software that connects your home computer to your office.
Parents and retirees — Your choices as a consumer could be controlled by your Internet provider, steering you to their preferred services for online banking, health care information, sending photos, planning vacations, etc.
Bloggers — Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips — silencing citizen journalists and putting more power in the hands of a few corporate-owned media outlets.

Longtime media activist Jeff Chester writes on his blog:

We all know what AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, et al really want: to help their tired old media monopoly business model gain a faster hold over the broadband digital marketplace. That’s the reality. And if we permit that to happen the “Reality” will be harmful to consumers, seniors, educators and everyone else who desires a America that reflects our highest aspirations as a culture. Not some dumbed-down, meter always running, and ‘we’re data collecting on you,’ AT&T/Verizon/USTA Internet.

Chester also worries that big companies that are allied against the broadband providers, such as Google (notwithstanding the example offered by SavetheInternet.com), Microsft and Yahoo!, aren’t necessarily all that committed to the battle. After all, simply by paying a fee that they could easily afford, they could shut out competitors, both present and future.

What can you do? On the Save the Internet Web site, you can find out where members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee stand, as well as send an e-mail to members of Congress. MoveOn.org is running an online petition campaign as well.

This threat is very real.

Here is a blog dedicated to Neil Young’s forthcoming anti-album, “Living with War.” It includes a long interview he did with CNN, a task made excruciatingly difficult by the fact that he was the only sentient being taking part in the conversation.

Young has never been a knee-jerk lefty. His 2001 song “Let’s Roll” showed he was deeply affected by the terrorist attacks of 9/11. In the ’80s he was seen as something of a Ronald Reagan supporter. Which makes it all the more sad that he’s going to be dismissed as a burned-out hippie when “Let’s Impeach the President” hits (or, more likely, doesn’t hit) the airwaves a couple of weeks from now.

So, who would you rather have seen pitching against the Blue Jays today? Bronson Arroyo or Lenny DiNardo? How about in the 12th inning of last night’s loss? Arroyo or Rudy Seanez? Hmmm. I guess I’d have to say Arroyo, based on his latest.

And let me respond in advance to the comments I know are coming. I like Theo. I’m glad he’s back. He’s done a lot more good than harm, and I’m confident he’ll continue to do so. But this was a bad trade, and that holds true even if Wily Mo Peña becomes a bona fide major-league ballplayer over the next couple of years. I mean, the Sox are trying to win this year, right?

There is no such thing as too much pitching. Period.

Ron Newman catches the Boston Globe’s Names column lazily rewriting a press release — and not bothering to check whether the predicted event actually happened. Whoops.

If you go to the Huffington Post right now, you’ll see that the home page flogs a commentary posted today by Sen. John Kerry as being “ONLY ON HUFFPOST.” In fact, it is identical to the Kerry op-ed in today’s Boston Globe. Sorry, Arianna.