Year: 2009

Last words on the Weather Underground

After I posted my item on the FBI and the Weather Underground yesterday, I received some good advice from several people, both in the comments and in private e-mails: that I should ignore attacks from the likes of Michael Graham and Cliff Kincaid.

I’m not going to take that advice, because I still have a few facts I want to lay out. I will try to keep this as brief as I can (i.e., not very), and reasonably dispassionate. I hope and expect this is the last time I will write about the Weather Underground.

Yesterday I reported that the FBI had revised a Web page that identified convicted murderer Katherine Ann Power as a member of the Weather Underground; the agency explained that its original reference to her had been made “inaccurately.” Power and four accomplices murdered Boston police officer Walter Schroeder (photo) in a 1970 bank robbery. Though Power and one of those accomplices, Susan Saxe, were campus radicals at Brandeis University, neither had ever been credibly linked to the Weather Underground.

After Graham, a talk-show host on WTKK Radio (96.9 FM), posted his item showing that an FBI site claimed Power was a Weather Underground member, I started digging. In two posts (here and here), I found that the underlying FBI document linked from that Web page made no mention of Power, Saxe or the Schroeder killing; that books on the Weather Underground contained not a hint of any link to the Schroeder case; and that, at both the time of the murder and Power’s 1993 arrest, there was never any mention of a possible connection to the Weather Underground.

At that point I contacted the FBI press office to seek an explanation for why it had identified Power as a member of the Weather Underground. For a week, I exchanged e-mails with FBI press officer Paul Bresson. I first called and wrote to him on March 30. Later that day, he wrote:

I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if this was simply a caption error. When she was announced on our Top 10, we made no reference to her association with the WU then. Seems like we would have.

He also told me that the FBI’s “resident historian” would look into the matter further. Then, yesterday morning, I noticed that Power’s photo had disappeared from the FBI page, and a notice had been added saying that her inclusion had been made “inaccurately.” I asked Bresson whether the FBI would issue a statement. He responded:

No. It was a caption error. Not unlike what happens in the media from time to time.

Again, thanks for pointing it out.

I also sent an e-mail to Power last week, but did not receive a response.

If you go to Graham’s blog, you will find that he is still running the Power photo as proof of her membership in the Weather Underground. He has also neither revised, corrected nor apologized for an item in which he refers to me as “some moron who claims to teach at Northeastern University” because of my insistence that Power was not connected to the Weather Underground.

Personal insults aside, it’s fair to ask whether Graham should be held accountable when, in fact, an FBI Web page did identify Power as a member of the Weather Underground. I think the answer is yes, for three reasons:

  • There was nothing on that FBI Web page about Power or the Schroeder murder — just one photo identifying her as a member of the Weather Underground. That should have led Graham to investigate further.
  • The Web page linked to an underlying FBI document representing the agency’s own, extensive 1976 history of the Weather Underground. Again: Not a mention of Power, Saxe or the Schroeder murder.
  • Though Graham’s fellow WTKK host Michele McPhee has been claiming for some time that the Schroeder murder was somehow linked to the Weather Underground, there is no credible evidence. Hints here, rumors there? Sure. But that’s not the same as on-the-record facts.

How did I get dragged into this? Last fall I was struck by a post-election interview that NPR’s Terry Gross conducted with former Weather Underground leader William Ayers. Ayers came across as smarmy and self-satisfied. But he is also a respected education reformer, and his and his family’s lives had been put in danger because of the pounding he’d been subjected to over his ties to Barack Obama. And despite some reprehensible activities in his youth, including bombings, neither he nor the Weather Underground had ever been credibly tied to any killings. So I wrote it up for The Guardian.

Now let me try to deal as briefly as I can with Cliff Kincaid, of the media-watch organization Accuracy in Media. Laughably, his piece, which was posted yesterday morning, still contains two links to the now-revised FBI page. No correction, and no comments allowed.

It’s hard even to find a point of entry in Kincaid’s column. I’m reminded of a lawyer who once told jurors that if they found something rotten floating at the top of the barrel, they were under no obligation to stick their hands in to see if there was something better underneath. Kincaid’s double reliance on a now-corrected FBI error is enough.

But let me look at one additional piece of evidence that he recommends: a 1975 report (PDF) by the Senate Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws. The document is not searchable, but Kincaid provides a helpful guide, instructing readers to go to pages 33 and 36.

On page 33 the report briefly mentions the Schroeder murder and says this: “Police charged both Susan Edith Saxe and Katherine Ann Power of the Weatherman group with complicity in the murder and robbery.” That’s it. There is no indication of where this information came from.

The reference on page 36 says this:

Three female members of the Weather Underground were on the FBI “List of Most Wanted Fugitives” for a full three years without being apprehended. They were Bernardine Rea Dohrn [Ayers’ wife], Susan Edith Saxe, and Katherine Ann Power.

But that’s wrong. Recall what FBI spokesman Bresson told me: “When she [Power] was announced on our Top 10, we made no reference to her association with the WU then. Seems like we would have.”

Finally, in my original Guardian column I briefly mentioned that Time magazine had knocked down an assertion that the Weather Underground had been linked to the 1970 murder of a police officer in San Francisco. Beyond that, I know nothing about that case, but Kincaid mentions it.

As it turns out, just a few weeks ago, on March 12, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the city’s police union publicly accused Ayers and Dohrn of having been involved in the bombing. According to the story:

The union’s accusation surprised some authorities. According to a source familiar with the probe, who spoke on condition of anonymity, investigators have found no evidence that links the Weather Underground to the bombing.

A week later, the Chronicle reported that police chief Heather Fong had ordered the union to stop talking about the case, which is being actively investigated and which could soon result in an arrest or arrests. So maybe we’re on the verge of a definitive answer.

Two final points.

Let’s not forget how all this foolishness started. People who wanted to bring President Obama down during the campaign sought desperately to transform Ayers from a washed-up radical into a washed-up, murdering radical. The goal was to tie Obama to a cop-killer, despite the lack of any credible evidence.

And let’s not forget Walter Schroeder, who left nine children. His brother John, also a Boston police officer, was murdered three years later. For all the anger and angst Ayers, Power, Saxe and their like have inspired over the years, it was the Schroeder family that suffered the most, and, I’m sure, is suffering still.

Update: Kincaid has written a hilarious response. He’s actually going to FOIA records about my contacts with the FBI.

Herald-ing the Globe’s woes

Looks like at least a few Boston Globe staff members are mighty unhappy at their union leaders for keeping them in the dark. Boston Herald media reporter Jessica Heslam writes that the Globe’s Donovan Slack e-mailed her co-workers last Friday demanding some accountability:

With all due respect, I’m starting to wonder about our union leadership and whether we are going in the right direction. Would appreciate your immediate candor about what is being asked of us and exactly what actions you are taking.

The Herald also publishes the entire “Book of Life” (PDF) — 340 Globe employees (some who are no longer there) with lifetime contracts, thought to be a considerable stumbling block in paring the Globe’s expenses and/or preparing it for sale.

In another Herald piece, reporters Jerry Kronenberg and Christine McConville quote former Globe staffer Doug Bailey, who speculates that the New York Times Co. will simply fold some Boston-area news into the New England edition of its flagship paper.

And Eileen McNamara, a former Globe columnist and Pulitzer winner, weighs in with a Herald commentary today whose headline — “Times Pimps, Pillages Globe” — is a pretty accurate reflection of her rage.

My respect for McNamara notwithstanding, her it’s hard to share her anger when the entire business is collapsing — and when other newspaper companies are in even worse shape.

Globe publisher breaks silence

Media Nation has obtained a memo that Boston Globe publisher Steve Ainsley e-mailed to his staff this evening. Here’s the full text:

To all Boston Globe employees —

I know the news over the weekend that highlighted the core issues presented to union leaders in a closed door meeting last week was jarring for all of you. It was certainly not our intention for you to learn of these preliminary discussions through reports in the Globe and other media but since this is how it has played out there are several important points of which you should all be aware.

As you all know by now, several members of the Globe executive team met with all our union leaders last week to review with them the Globe’s financial situation. It remains our standing policy that we never discuss ongoing labor negotiations publicly and we made that commitment to the leaders of all of our unions last week. For that reason I cannot provide more detail today. I can say that we explained that going forward we have to tackle major issues on both revenue and expense fronts and those individual strategies were shared with union leadership.

We will need significant concessions from labor and we are also framing a plan to draw more savings from the nonunion ranks, as we done over the course of the last several months. We also have a strategy in motion which will bring in additional revenue from consumers and advertisers. This plan was presented in some detail as we believed it appropriate to give union leadership a full view of all that is being done to achieve financial stability at The Boston Globe.

It is critical we all keep in mind our objective is to improve the financial performance of the Globe. Period. As bruising as this economic downturn has been to this institution, I believe we will accomplish that objective if all of us, every employee of the Globe, is able to keep our focus. Nothing less will prove successful.

Similarly, it is only fair that management also be prepared to make sacrifices. We have already reduced compensation 5% in 2009 and reduced the management work force by almost 20%. More work is to be done on this front and will be.

I continue to believe that our strength is in our common denominator — we are all employees of The Boston Globe. We have accomplished much in the last few years under difficult circumstances and that should give us all confidence that we can overcome this challenge.

Steve

The e-mail speaks for itself, but I do want to highlight this: “It was certainly not our intention for you to learn of these preliminary discussions through reports in the Globe and other media.”

Ainsley is the publisher of a newspaper. He is in the communications business. Not only has he fallen short in communicating with his employees, but it is mind-boggling to think that he really believed he could keep this a secret.

Bloggers rally for the Globe

Over the weekend Paul Levy, the CEO of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, sent out an e-mail to local bloggers asking that they take part in a “blog rally” aimed at underscoring the importance of keeping the Boston Globe in business.

As a journalist who covers the Globe, I declined to take part. But it’s an interesting idea. The posts started going up this evening. Here is Levy’s.

Universal Hub, like Media Nation, also declined to take part directly, but reports on the rally here, adding that some 20 bloggers are participating.

The BBJ’s must-read on the Globe

Mary Moore’s Boston Business Journal article on the fate of the Boston Globe is a must-read — a comprehensive overview of every idea that’s being floated, from the return of the Taylor family to the return of (good grief) Mike Barnicle. Of course, Rupert Murdoch and Pat Purcell have cameos, too.

And here’s a wrinkle to Moore’s suggestion that the non-profit Boston Foundation might get involved: vice president Mary Jo Meisner (photo) was editor of Community Newspaper Co. back when Fidelity owned it, running more than 100 papers in Eastern Massachusetts.

Meisner was also editor of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and city editor of the Washington Post, among other newspaper jobs. It would be pretty interesting if the Globe’s financial woes somehow resulted in her returning to the journalism wars.

FBI: Power was not in Weather Underground

I’m planning to write a much longer post tomorrow. But since Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media is attacking me today, I thought I would provide a sneak preview.

Both Kincaid and WTKK talk-show host Michael Graham have pointed to an FBI Web page identifying convicted murderer Katherine Ann Power as a member of the Weather Underground as proof that I’m wrong — OK, worse than wrong — in arguing otherwise (as I do here and here). Power and four accomplices killed Boston police officer Walter Schroeder in a 1970 bank robbery.

Well, here’s that FBI page again. Oh, look! The photo of Power has been removed. Let’s scroll down to the bottom of the screen, shall we? Here’s what it says:

Photo of Katherine Ann Power was removed because she was inaccurately associated with the Weather Underground.

As Graham himself so elegantly put it to one of the commenters on his blog recently: “I’m supposed to take your word for it that Powers [sic] didn’t consider herself a member of the Weather Underground…and NOT the FBI? You know–the people who actually investigated the crime?”

Michael, I’m taking the FBI’s word for it. How about you?

Kincaid responds: “Dear Professor: So what was inaccurate about it? This doesn’t explain anything. In order to clear this up, I strongly suggest that you explain who at the FBI you contacted, and who in the Bureau made this change on your behalf. What’s more, please tell me how this last-minute change refutes anything former FBI official Revell told me, or what was contained in the Senate report? How does it refute Romerstein’s comments? And what about the Park Station bombing case? You have a lot more explaining (and correcting) to do. You’re not out of the woods by any stretch. Sorry, but I won’t let you off the hook. Cliff Kincaid.”

Well, Cliff, you’ve got me. Regular readers of Media Nation know what great pull and clout I have with the FBI. I was hoping you wouldn’t find out.

Kinsley’s sour take on newspapers

Michael Kinsley is in a sour mood today as he ponders the future of newspapers. Shorter Kinsley: Let ’em die. Slightly longer Kinsley: Non-profit, foundation-supported newspapers are a bad idea because if the marketplace won’t support them, then they have no right to exist.

Personally, I’m not wild about the idea of non-profit newspapers. For one thing, you have to give up some of your First Amendment rights. For another, there’s a danger that such papers, insulated from the pressures of the marketplace, will become too disconnected from their readers.

I prefer the St. Petersburg Times model: a for-profit newspaper owned by a non-profit organization — the Poynter Institute, in the Times’ case. The financial advantages aren’t as great as true non-profit status, but at least the editors don’t have to check with the IRS every time they want to weigh in on a political matter.

But gee, Mike, let a thousand experiments bloom. I’d like to see someone give non-profit newspapering a try. Maybe we can start with the Boston Globe.

And let me point out that public radio stations are pretty much all owned by non-profit foundations, and they are anything but disconnected from their listeners. Simply by having to solicit the bulk of their money from listeners, public radio station executives are perhaps more connected to their communities than many newspaper publishers and editors.

Finally: Kinsley is so far off in his observation that newspapers are dying because no one wants to read them that it’s hard to know where to begin. Do I really have to point out that newspaper readership is reasonably healthy when you add print and online readers together?

Just because it’s become a cliché to say that the business model is broken doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

The numbers make no sense

Jay Fitzgerald and I are both shaking our heads over the same thing: the New York Times Co.’s claim that the Boston Globe is on track to lose $85 million this year. By one measure, he notes, you’d have to lay off 1,200 of the paper’s 1,400 employees to close the gap. Does this make any sense? How is this even remotely possible?

Last December, when Tribune Co. declared bankruptcy under the weight of $13 billion in corporate debt, it was reported that its newspapers — which include the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune — were actually profitable, or would be if it weren’t for Sam Zell’s depredations.

What’s going on with the Times Co. and the Globe is the reverse. Not that the Times Co. is without debt. The issue, though, is not corporate debt, but actual operating losses in Boston.

According to a chart in yesterday’s Globe — I’m sure it’s in the Times Co.’s annual report, but why look it up when it’s right in front of me? — the revenues for the company’s New England Media Group (the Globe, the Worcester Telegram & Gazette and Boston.com) fell from $700 million in 2004 to $524 million in 2008.

The Globe accounts for the vast majority of those revenues. I fail to understand how a paper pulling in that kind of money — with a weekday circulation of about 325,000, a Sunday circulation of 500,000 or so, and more than 5 million unique Web visitors a month — can’t find a way to break even.

I’m not a financial guy, but to me, it just makes no sense.