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

Month: July 2009 Page 3 of 8

White House blocks visitor logs

The Obama administration is continuing George W. Bush’s policy of arguing that logs of visitors to the White House — health-care executives, of all people — are not public, Bill Dedman reports for MSNBC.com.

David Kurtz has a withering take on the news at Talking Points Memo: “Cheney Obama refuses to release visitor logs showing which energy health care company executives visited the White House.”

OK, we get it that we’re not suffering through Barack Obama’s economy or his war in Iraq — at least not yet. But governmental openness is not only something the president promised, but it’s also under his direct control. Enough already.

Globe may charge for some online content

Boston Globe editor Marty Baron tells “Greater Boston” that the Globe may start charging for some online content. No surprise. It’s pretty clear that the Globe and a number of other papers are going to try paid-content experiments of one sort or another. I don’t think they’re likely to work, but that’s another matter.

Whatever the Globe tries, it should make sure that there are no extra charges for its best customers — its print subscribers. And it should stay away from charging for its daily newspaper content. In other words, create a new product that people who don’t currently subscribe to the Globe would be willing to pay for.

Not easily done, I realize.

Update: Just watched the segment. Baron says the Globe is looking into charging for “premium” or “specialized” content of some sort. Not sure what that means, but directionally it sounds like the right move.

What the Gates story says about race and culture

One thing that has struck me in the endless discussion over Henry Louis Gates’ arrest is the difference in cultural attitudes between those who are defending Gates versus those siding with the Cambridge police.

Specifically, I’m startled by the notion put forth by some that Gates was in the wrong by not showing extreme deference toward the police. If you put race aside for a moment (but only for a moment), I think that, more than anything, accounts for the split. We’re talking about a clash of worldviews that we’re not going to resolve here.

I’ve been sitting on the fence but leaning toward Gates. I now think we know enough that I can come out firmly on Gates’ side. We may never know exactly what happened. But the only important difference between the police report and Gates’ own account is the question of whether Gates pulled a nutty. I don’t care if he did or not.

I’m going link-free; I’ve linked to everything relevant over the past few days, so just click here.

Here are some facts that we know beyond any doubt:

  • A woman who works but does not live in the neighborhood called police to report that two black men appeared to be breaking into a home. Perhaps she would have called even if Gates and his driver had been white. I don’t know what she was thinking. But if their race played a role in her decision to dial “911,” that would hardly be the first time police have been summoned because black people had been seen in a place they weren’t supposed to be.
  • The police responded and questioned Gates, as they should have, given the woman’s call and her report that the two men were trying to force their way in.
  • A short time later, Sgt. James Crowley and his fellow officers knew for a fact that Gates, in fact, lived in the home to which they had responded. Gates — 58 years old and disabled — may or may not have been ranting and raving at them. But surely the officers knew that, through no fault of their own, they had stumbled into a racially explosive situation.
  • Rather than find a way to extricate themselves and let everyone cool off, the police decided to arrest Gates at his own home and charge him with disturbing the peace. Even if you rely solely on the police report, it’s clear that Gates’ offense was mouthing off to the officers, who were on his property and who no longer had any reason to be there.
  • The arrest took place last Thursday. No one knew about it until Monday, when the police report leaked out. (It appears that the Boston Globe broke the story.) Even though the report was a public record that the police were withholding on flimsy grounds (The investigation was continuing? Really?), a police spokesman said as recently as yesterday that the department was trying to ferret out the leaker.
  • As soon as Middlesex District Attorney Gerard Leone got involved, the charges were dropped and the Cambridge Police Department issued a conciliatory statement. It is telling, I think, that it took an outsider to see the arrest for the fiasco it was.

Am I missing anything? I don’t think so. I also don’t think anyone can dispute the facts as I’ve laid them out. Given that, we come back to our competing mindsets.

Could Gates have handled this differently? Well, sure. He could — as many have suggested — have thanked the officers for keeping such a close eye on his house and sent them on their way with a smile and a handshake. Maybe that would have even been a better response.

And you know what? It’s definitely how I would have responded. But I’m white, and that fact predisposes me to have a very different attitude toward police officers. At a minimum, I would never suspect I was being hassled because I didn’t look like I belonged in my own home or in a particular neighborhood.

Gates responded as someone whose dignity had been assaulted because of his race. And whether that was literally true or not, the officers should have understood immediately that that was a perfectly understandable, reasonable response on Gates’ part.

Either the police didn’t recognize the situation for what it was, or they did and made a macho decision to show Gates who was in charge. Either way, it was a mistake, and one we’ll be hearing about for some time to come.

Globe: Police should have left

A Boston Globe editorial today captures the nuances of the Henry Louis Gates matter quite well: “The confrontation between Gates and Sergeant James Crowley isn’t a textbook example of racial profiling.”

But: “Once the officer established that Gates was indeed standing in his own home, the encounter should have ended. Objecting to an officer’s presence in one’s residence should hardly be grounds for arrest.”

Exactly.

“I’ll be meeting with my legal team”

Henry Louis Gates gives a lengthy interview to the Root, an African-American webzine of which he is editor-in-chief. (Via Universal Hub.)

Who stole the strawberries?

Cambridge police certainly have their priorities straight. Department spokesman Jimmy DiFrancesco tells the Cambridge Chronicle that the police are trying to figure out who leaked the Henry Louis Gates arrest report to the media.

Gates disputes police report

The Cambridge Police Department would have some problems even if its account of Henry Louis Gates’ arrest proves to be entirely accurate. But Gates, a Harvard University professor, says it isn’t. According to the Boston Globe’s Tracy Jan:

This afternoon in an interview, Gates said he never yelled at the officer other than to demand his name and badge number, which he said the officer refused to give. The officer, Sergeant James Crowley, said in the police report that he did state his name. He also said Gates unleashed a verbal tirade, calling him racist, telling him that he did not know who he was messing with, and threatening to speak to his “mama” outside.

“The police report is full of this man’s broad imagination,” Gates said in response to a question on whether he had said any of the quotes in the report. “I said, ‘Are you not giving me your name and badge number because I’m a black man in America?’ … He treated my request with scorn … I was suffering from a bronchial infection. I couldn’t have yelled … I don’t walk around calling white people racist.”

Audio of the Gates interview is near the top of Boston.com right now.

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the police say in response. This is far from being over.

An update on Kazakhstan’s Internet crackdown

The partly free republic of Kazakhstan has taken a step toward greater repression, as President Nursultan Nazarbayev (photo) recently signed a bill aimed at cracking down on the Internet.

According to David Stern, writing for GlobalPost, the new law subjects all Internet communications to Kazakhstan’s “already punitive mass media and libel laws.” The law will also make it easier for the Kazakh government to block foreign Web sites.

The bill was the subject of a protest last April during the Eurasian Media Forum, held in the country’s largest city, Almaty. I was at the forum and covered the story here and here. At the time, people like Almaty resident Adil Nurmakov, Central Asia editor for Global Voices Online, were hopeful that Nurmakov might veto the legislation.

Unfortunately, that was not to be. As Stern’s story makes clear, the authorities have decided not to risk any sort of Twitter revolution spreading to Kazakhstan.

Kazakhstan is an important country — a vast, lightly populated former Soviet republic with considerable oil and gas resources. It’s a shame that Nazarbayev’s interest in opening up to the West does not extend to greater liberties for his own people.

Charges against Gates to be dropped

WHDH-TV (Channel 7) reports that charges against Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates will be dropped. Meanwhile, the Cambridge Chronicle notes that Boston.com’s copy of the arrest report has gone missing.

Update: Boston.com has reposted (PDF) some of the arrest report, but there’s less now than there was yesterday. The Cambridge Chronicle has a longer version here.

Correction: I wrote yesterday that Gates had apparently locked himself out of his house. As is now clear, that wasn’t the case — his door was jammed.

Why did Brooks invoke Coulter?

One of my favorite conservative pundits, New York Times columnist David Brooks, goes off the rails today, writing, “Every cliché Ann Coulter throws at the Democrats is gloriously fulfilled by the Democratic health care bills.”

Here’s a list of Coulter witticisms about the Democrats, compiled by Media Matters:

  • “Democrats are racist, and they’re just stunned to find a black man who can walk and talk.”
  • “The Democrats want Saddam back.”
  • The Democratic Party is “a party that supports killing, lying, adultery, thievery, envy.”
  • “[Y]ou just expect Democrats to side with Al Qaeda.”
  • “I think the problem the Democrats have is, no one really believes they’re authentic patriots.”
  • “I understand why you are so terrified of letting us point out what racists the Democrats are and how they have a big problem with black women.”

As for health care, the issue at hand, I can’t find much of anything Coulter has said directly about the subject, which makes it doubly puzzling as to why Brooks brought her up in the first place. At AnnCoulter.com, though, I did find this gem from 2007:

  • “The only ‘crisis’ in health care in this country is that doctors are paid too little…. [T]he Democratic Party treats doctors like they’re Klan members.”

Every so often Brooks, as sharp an analyst as we have, feels the need to re-establish his conservative credentials in the most boneheaded way imaginable. Today was one of those days.

Page 3 of 8

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén