Month: September 2006

Brian Mooney has a good analysis in today’s Boston Globe on how Kerry Healey will attempt to exploit Deval Patrick’s perceived weaknesses as a tax-and-spend liberal who’s soft on crime and illegal immigration.

But is perception reality? First of all, some Media Nation readers may be surprised to learn where I’m coming from. Yes, I’m a liberal, but I am genuinely undecided about whom to vote for in November. And I’ve voted for more than my share of Republican gubernatorial candidates over the years. So what you’re about to read is hardly a knee-jerk defense of Patrick:

• Is Patrick a tax-and-spend liberal? That’s not my impression. But the notion that he and the Democratic-controlled Legislature might go on a spending spree and then have to find a way to pay for it is not unreasonable. Over and over, Patrick has said that the income tax is the wrong tax to cut because the property tax is the more onerous. Fine. Let’s see him make a specific proposal for a program that would couple increased state aid with mandatory, across-the-board property-tax reductions.
• Is Patrick soft on illegal immigration? I suppose he is. But are his two most talked-about proposals — driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants and in-state college tuition rates for such immigrants who’ve gone to high school here — unreasonable? It doesn’t seem so to me. Illegal immigrants are working and driving. Our roads will be safer if we require them to get licenses. As for in-state tuition, it’s a matter of economic common sense that we want young people who live here to acquire the skills they need to keep the state prosperous. Get real: No one is going to send them back to their home countries.
• Is Patrick soft on crime? I know of nothing to suggest that this is even remotely true. If Healey wants to pull that old canard out of the Republican playbook, good luck to her. Patrick just needs to be ready.

I think Patrick is genuinely vulnerable on taxes. For many voters, electing a Republican governor to balance the Democratic everything else is a matter of common sense, even if, as the Globe’s Scot Lehigh argues, that impulse is fading.

But I don’t see why Patrick should have any problem explaining his stands on crime and illegal immigration.

Update: Tomorrow’s Boston Phoenix will offer some sound editorial advice to Patrick: “[U]sing the bully pulpit of your candidacy to educate the public won’t be enough to silence the distortions and disinformation Healey will propagate. You need to make it clear that you won’t raise taxes. You need to take the pledge.”

Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr tries to slip a fast one by his readers today. In the midst of a sneering screed denouncing Deval Patrick supporters as gay, bicycle-riding (gasp!) tax-hikers, Carr goes after Patrick for supporting in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Carr “explains”:

And by the way, despite what you’ve read, the tuition bill Deval backs says nothing about the “children” of illegal aliens. It only says that any illegal who spent three years in a Massachusetts high school “or the equivalent thereof” is eligible for in-state tuition.

In other words, anyone in the world can get in-state tuition, as long as they’re in the U.S. illegally.

How misleading is this? If a child of illegal immigrants is born in the United States, then he is automatically a citizen, and in need of no help from Patrick or anyone else. If a child of illegal immigrants is born aboard, then that child is herself an illegal immigrant and is thus the proper focus of Patrick’s efforts.

Logically, if you tried to write a piece of legislation aimed solely at the children of illegal immigrants, you couldn’t do it. Helping such immigrants who’ve gone to high school in Massachusetts is the closest you can come, and that’s what Patrick proposes to do.

Not sure whether I’ll have any brilliant observations about yesterday’s primary election or the coverage thereof. (Not that that’s ever stopped me.) But the strangest sight by far last night was Chris Gabrieli standing about six feet to the left of Deval Patrick during Patrick’s victory speech. It was classy of Gabrieli to show up (Patrick graciously gave Tom Reilly a pass), but couldn’t someone have found him a place to sit? There he was, towering over everyone, bathed in light, awkwardly smiling and clapping as though he were submitting to some sort of hazing ritual. Weird.

I don’t want to violate AP’s copyright, so click here to see for yourself.

Like a crank you can’t shake off at the bar, I’ve been telling anyone who’ll listen that the Boston Globe will be locally owned within 10 years — maybe much sooner.

Well, now. On Saturday, the Wall Street Journal published a commentary (sub. req.) urging the New York Times Co. to sell the Globe, arguing that large regional metros are in an especially bad position in the new media environment. (You didn’t know that the Journal had a Saturday edition, did you?) The commentary, by Lauren Silva and Rob Cox, is on the Breaking Views site as well (via Romenesko), so by all means have a look. Silva and Cox write:

The Boston newspaper occupies the industry’s muddled middle — a place where classified ads are moving to online upstarts like Craigslist and Google. Circulation is sliding. Big advertisers are consolidating and migrating to national media like the Times and younger readers are looking to their PCs or Blackberries for their news…. This doesn’t mean the Globe couldn’t find a loving home. The piecemeal sale of Knight-Ridder showed there are plenty of rich local worthies willing to own their local rag.

That last sentence, of course, is a reference to papers like the Philadelphia Inquirer, which recently was scooped up by local investors after Knight Ridder sold out to McClatchy.

It seems inevitable that papers such as the Globe will be locally owned, as Wall Street begins to realize that they can no longer be the profit machines of yore. So why not get a head start?

You know what they say: “Dog bites man” isn’t news. “Man bites dog” is news.

And “woman bites dog” is definitely news. I can’t provide a direct link, but it’s listed as the “Most Popular” video on CNN.com right now. (Thanks to Belle Adler.)

The Boston Herald’s Jesse Noyes today makes the mistake of confusing Air America with liberal talk radio, and of concluding that because Air America is (once again) in trouble, liberal talk must therefore be dead.

I’ve also got my doubts about liberal talk. But you can’t think this through without acknowledging the success of liberal hosts who aren’t with Air America — principally Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller, both of whom are on the Jones Radio Networks. According to this Jones press release, Schultz is doing especially well against the likes of Sean Hannity.

Clear Channel’s weak-signal “Progressive Talk” outlets in Boston, at AM 1200 and 1430, are often described as Air America outlets. In fact, the stations broadcast Miller from 9 a.m. to noon and Schultz during the afternoon drive, from 3 to 6 p.m. (Air America’s Al Franken is on from noon to 3 p.m.) And they’re pretty good.

Now, granted, we’re not talking Rush Limbaugh numbers. According to Talkers Magazine, Schultz has more than 2.25 million listeners, Franken more than 1.5 million and Miller more than 1 million, well behind Limbaugh’s 13.5 million-plus listeners. But their audiences are, nevertheless, large, and they’re not the only liberal hosts in that category: Air America’s Randi Rhodes (who’s well to the left of liberal) and Fox’s Alan Colmes make the cut as well. (Note: The Talkers numbers are out of date, but Schultz regularly asserts that his audience is growing. I assume he’s telling the truth.)

As for my reservations about liberal talk — I think liberals already have the radio they want, and it’s called National Public Radio. Please note what I am not saying: I don’t believe NPR has a liberal bias in the way it covers news. But you can detect something of a liberal cultural orientation to NPR, and I think NPR’s mix of news, commentary and the arts is good enough that the typical liberal listener is not going to be all that tempted to change the dial.

But that doesn’t mean there isn’t room for a few strong liberal talk hosts. And it doesn’t mean that Air America’s woes say anything all that significant about the state of liberal talk.

Update: Jesse Noyes writes:

Thanks for weighing in on my story today. I always enjoy lively debate.

There was one thing I wanted to bring to you attention. I disagree with the line at the top of your post: “The Boston Herald’s Jesse Noyes today makes the mistake of confusing Air America with liberal talk radio, and of concluding that because Air America is (once again) in trouble, liberal talk must therefore be dead.”

While I do deal with the subject of whether there is a market for liberal radio, I far from conclude that Air America’s problems signal the death of liberal talk radio. I deal with a number of issues for Air America in the story. For one, that Air America just isn’t using a good business model as these lines attest. “But Michael Harrison, publisher of Talkers Magazine, said Air America’s woes have little to do with its political bent and everything to do with the company’s business sense. ‘Somehow they have created the impression that they are the lone voice of liberalism in a dark sea of conservatism,’ Harrison said. ‘It’s not that they’re liberal, it’s that it’s radio and radio is very, very competitive.’ The network’s main problem is that it spends more time trying to affect elections than it does concentrating on the bottom line, Harrison said. ‘The ultimate business plan is to generate ratings and revenue, not to get anybody elected,’ he added.”

Then I address an issue of whether its just a talent problem and if there’s enough experienced hands on deck over there. Quote: “A shortage of real radio talent might also be keeping Air America in the red. When the company launched, it nabbed some recognizable figures, like Franken and actress Janeane Garofalo. But radio can have a way of breaking down some uninitiated celebrities, as David Lee Roth’s disastrous stint replacing jock Howard Stern for CBS Radio demonstrated.”

Finally, I deal with weak signals. Quote: “Meanwhile, the network suffers from serious signal deficiencies. Most of its affiliated stations are found on weak AM frequencies. In Boston, Air America programming is broadcast on WKOX-AM (1200) and WXKS-AM (1430), which barely register a blip on Arbitron ratings figures.”

In conclusion, Air America’s problems are myriad. One problem might not sink the ship, but taken together its doesn’t look good. To say that I’m making one argument, that there isn’t room for liberal talk, is a rather simplistic reading of the article.

To which I say:

1. OK, point taken.
2. But you could have mentioned that the most popular liberal host in the country isn’t even on Air America.
3. I didn’t say you ignored the weak-signal problem. But since you mention it, why not mention that AM 1200 and 1430 actually broadcast Jones shows, not Air America, during the majority of the daylight hours, when their signals are the strongest?
4. Thanks for writing.

From the Boston Herald: “Dog faces electric cuff after being collared.”

Are they really going to zap the poor pooch? Uh, no. You see, there’s this guy named Duane “Dog” Chapman, who’s in trouble for something or other.

So are they going to zap Chapman if he tries to leave the house?

No again. Whoever wrote the headline meant “electronic,” not “electric.”

I’ll spot them the “Dog,” since Chapman is apparently pretty well known in some circles. But “electric”? Come on.

At CBS News, “freeSpeech” is not to be confused with free speech. TVNewser reports that Bill Maher was asked to do a “freeSpeech” commentary for the “CBS Evening News with Katie Couric.”

But then CBS wouldn’t take yes for an answer: Maher was reportedly told that he couldn’t talk about religion, as he had wanted, and would instead be supplied with a list of “approved topics.”

No word on whether that would have been followed by “approved points of view.” (Thanks to Media Nation reader M.S.)

Update: Media Nation reader resonate1 says CBS News is denying this. I can’t find anything on that score, but John Eggerton, blogging at BroadcastingandCable.com, wonders if Maher might be “pulling our collective legs.” So, for the moment, file this under “Interesting if True.”

Update II: D’oh! Here’s the denial. Thanks again to resonate1.

Did Ed Ansin’s dog eat the FCC study?

At the same time that Ansin, the Miami-based owner of WHDH-TV (Channel 7), was adding WLVI-TV (Channel 56) to his portfolio (Globe coverage here; Herald coverage here), we were learning that former FCC chairman Michael Powell had ordered a draft report on the negative effects of media concentration destroyed.

Well, here’s one negative effect: About 120 people are expected to lose their jobs as a result of Channel 56 becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of Channel 7.

News accounts of the FCC study suggest that there is an apples-and-oranges quality in attempting to apply the study’s findings to the looming 7/56 duopoly. Take, for instance, this paragraph from the Associated Press story:

The analysis showed local ownership of television stations adds almost five and one-half minutes of total news to broadcasts and more than three minutes of “on-location” news. The conclusion is at odds with FCC arguments made when it voted in 2003 to increase the number of television stations a company could own in a single market. It was part of a broader decision liberalizing ownership rules.

The problem is that local ownership and media concentration are not exactly the same thing. Ansin’s Sunbeam Broadcasting is a far smaller operation than Tribune Co., the current owner of Channel 56. In that sense, Sunbeam is closer to being a “local” (in the sense of being close to the ground and engaged) owner than Tribune. Moreover, Ansin, since taking over Channel 7 some years back, has made a huge commitment to news, although you can certainly question (as I do) his commitment to quality.

In terms of media concentration, though, Channels 7 and 56 will soon have one owner instead of two. CBS already owns Channels 4 and 38. How long before Hearst-Argyle finds a UHF playmate for WCVB-TV (Channel 5)?

It’s true that the local television news market isn’t what it used to be. In a larger economic sense, I suppose it makes sense for Channel 7 to spread its newsgathering resources over two channels. But 56’s “The Ten O’Clock News” has a flavor of its own, less frantic than its 10 p.m. competition on Fox’s WFXT-TV (Channel 25). Soon, 25 and 56 will presumably compete to see who can most effectively keep viewers in a frenzy.

Timothy Karr of Free Press has posted a copy of the draft study on the Stop Big Media blog, and writes:

The report was an inconvenience to Michael Powell, who, throughout his tenure at the FCC, aided efforts by large media companies to further consolidate their power over local news outlets.

Had it seen the light of day, the FCC and their Big Media allies could no longer deny that locally owned media do a better job of covering local news.

The Boston TV market isn’t going to become any less local — but it is about to get more concentrated and less diverse. That’s bad news you’re not likely to see on 7 or 56.

Curt Schilling aligns himself with Media Nation, according to the Boston Globe’s Gordon Edes:

Schilling … all but called the spring training trade of Bronson Arroyo a mistake, and identified starting pitching as the foremost concern heading into the 2007 season.

“We came out of spring training, everybody said, ‘Well, you have extra starting pitching,’ ” Schilling said. “Nobody ever has extra starting pitching. If you have it on Monday, you don’t have it on Sunday. It never fails.”

The Boston Herald’s Michael Silverman has the same Schilling quotes, but leaves Arroyo out of it. Maybe Silverman wasn’t sure whether Schilling was referring to Arroyo or this guy.

And look at this. Despite a mid-season slump that had Media Nation’s critics very excited, Arroyo today is 13-9, with an ERA of 3.29. He’s given up just four earned runs in his last 24 innings. You want to add a run to his ERA to adjust for the difference between the National League and the American League? Go ahead. He’d still be the Sox’ second-best starter. And he’s pitched 213 innings; no Sox starter even has 200.

If Jason Varitek, David Ortiz, Jon Lester, Manny Ramirez, Tim Wakefield, David Wells, Trot Nixon and Jonathan Papelbon (have I missed anyone?) hadn’t gotten hurt or sick, Arroyo’s departure would have mattered big-time. And it still might next year.