By Dan Kennedy • The press, politics, technology, culture and other passions

No fair, Channel 4!

WBZ-TV (Channel 4), which has done such a great job with Flash video on its Web site, has reverted to a Windows/Explorer combination for its post-debate webcast with Jack Williams and John Henning. I bolted downstairs to Media Nation Central as soon as the debate was over, but alas, I can’t watch.

The Web stream for WBZ Radio (AM 1030) is working (yes, I realize I could just turn on the radio, but what fun is that?), so I’m listening to Paul Sullivan, the Comeback Kid.

I thought the debate itself benefited from not having a live audience or a panel of questioners. Moderator Jon Keller did a good job of keeping things on track while letting Deval Patrick and Christy Mihos mix it up with Kerry Healey. (I did think Keller’s first couple of questions, on guns and pot, were odd.) I thought Grace Ross was particularly good tonight. I was also encouraged to see Patrick do his own counterpunching and not just play Edgar Bergen to Mihos’ Charlie McCarthy.

Look, I’ll be honest — I fell asleep for part of the debate, not because it was boring, but because it was one of those days. Barring some cataclysmic event, it’s all over except for the Patrick victory party. So I doubt anyone was hanging on every word.

Discover more from Media Nation

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.


In play


Jack Welch’s journalistic values


  1. Anonymous

    Disagree on Grace Ross. No matter what the question was, her answer was “the rich don’t pay enough taxes”. And for all the social programs she’s in favor of, it’s interesting that she evaded the question about how much she herself gave to charity (presumably because the answer is “zero” or close to it). We all understand she doesn’t have the money of the Healey/Mihos/Patrick, but the question only asked for a percentage, are we to believe that every penny she earned went to paying for the bare essentials without any luxuries whatsoever?

  2. man who's a green fan

    When she says her income is between $20k and $30k annually…then yes, I would believe that over 99% of her income was not available for charity donations!Christ, you can’t avoid choosing between heat and food on less than $40k a year in Boston, and a lot of the state, for that matter…

  3. Anonymous

    Did she say that? I must have missed it…if so, then yes, that doesn’t leave room for charitable donations. But given her incessant “the rich aren’t paying enough” mantra, she’d better be living a life that is virtually luxury-free if she’s not giving any $ to charity.

  4. wackypax

    Yeah … so someone’s personal charitable giving is related to his or her ability to govern in which way, again?

  5. Anonymous

    It’s related to her consistemcy…if you take the position that the public should be funding all sorts of welfare and social programs, and that the rich need to give more of their money, you are a hypocrite if you do not give of yourself as well.That said, there was an article in the Glode today about she recived a decent size inheritance and donated alomst all of it. I’m fairly satisfied that she’s not a hypocrite. Just wish she didn’t evade the question.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén