Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Photo (cc) 2019 by nrkbeta.
I’m thinking through what it means to say that Kamala Harris has united the Democratic Party’s disputatious factions. The media tend to refer to those on the left as “liberals” and “progressives” as though the terms are interchangeable. They’re not.
I’m not going to try to tease out the various positions that define the factions. Instead, I’ll take a shot at who’s in what camp. This is unscientific to say the least, but:
• Liberals. Also known as the center-left. This is where the bulk of the party is today, and where it’s been most of the time since FDR. Leading exemplars: Kamala Harris and Joe Biden.
• Progressives. The left, which I’ll arbitrarily define by citing Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Bernie Sanders would be in here if he were actually a Democrat.
• Centrists. Now this is slippery. Bill Clinton for sure. Joe Manchin*? Does anyone know if he’s still a Democrat? It’s tempting to say that he’s a conservative, but he votes with President Biden most of the time. Barack Obama governed as a centrist, but I’m not sure whether that was his preference or if he was just playing the hand he was dealt.
What unites them all, incredibly, is not just support for Harris but genuine enthusiasm and excitement.
*Note: Manchin used to be a Democrat, but he’s now an independent.
Thirty-two days ago, President Biden ended his campaign and endorsed his vice president, Kamala Harris. It seems like a lifetime ago, doesn’t it? Biden seemed destined to lose; this morning, Harris is up by an average of 3.6% in the national polls, which is in the range of what a Democratic candidate needs to overcome the Republicans’ inherent advantage in the Electoral College.
On Thursday night, Harris delivered her acceptance speech, and it was memorable, mixing her personal story, her dedication to improving life for the middle class, her deep sense of patriotism, and the authoritarian threat posed by Donald Trump. Although words alone are not substance, she also did a better job than Biden of expressing support for Israel and horror at the humanitarian toll of the war in Gaza.
Although Trump’s menacing incoherence can’t really be described in policy terms, Harris made it clear that she’s running to his left on domestic issues and to his right on foreign policy. “I will not cozy up to tyrants and dictators like Kim Jong-un, who are rooting for Trump,” she said, adding:
And as president, I will never waver in defense of America’s security and ideals, because in the enduring struggle between democracy and tyranny, I know where I stand and I know where the United States belongs.
This is muscular liberalism in the tradition of Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and, well, Joe Biden. Traditionally, the views she expressed Thursday night have defined what it means to be a mainstream, patriotic American.
Harris also called the 2024 election “not only the most important of our lives, it is one of the most important in the life of our nation.” Elections shouldn’t be that important. In a healthy democracy, every election would be Barack Obama versus Mitt Romney, or Bill Clinton against Bob Dole. The fate of the country shouldn’t depend on Harris’ defeating Trump and then overcoming the legal and extra-legal chaos that is sure to follow.
But that’s where we find ourselves. Trumpism has got to be defeated once and for all. This week helped move us closer to that goal.
The media fact-checkers have not distinguished themselves this week, torturing the language to find fault with statements by Democrats that, in some cases, are actually true.
Now, I’m going to confess that I was not following the fact-checkers during the Republican National Convention. But what I have found going back a number of years — as I wrote for HuffPost way back in 2011 — is that organizations like PolitiFact often twist themselves into knots to find negative observations to make about Democrats so they can achieve some sort of balance with Republicans, who were often untethered from the truth even before the rise of Donald Trump.
Fact-checkers for The New York Times and The Washington Post have both come under fire during this week’s Democratic National Convention. But I want to focus on PolitiFact, a Pulitzer Prize-winning project, which has produced some fact-checks that make you scratch your head. I’ve been following PolitiFact on Threads. Here are a few examples:
• On Tuesday, PolitiFact gave President Biden a “false” on its Truth-O-Meter for claiming that billionaires pay an average tax rate of 8.2%. The post linked back to a PolitFact story from last January that said:
The White House report found that if you include unrealized gains in the income calculations of the 400 richest U.S. families, then their taxes paid would account for just 8.2% of their income.
Economists and policymakers have long debated whether the government should tax unrealized gains. But Biden made it sound as if 8% was the standard rate today, not what would happen under a potential future proposal.
In other words, Biden was correct under PolitiFact’s own analysis.
• On Wednesday, PolitiFact slapped J.B. Pritzker on the wrist: “Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker said Trump told ‘us to inject bleach’ during the pandemic. That’s Mostly False. Trump’s 2020 comments about treatments were criticized, but he didn’t tell people to inject or ‘take a shot’ of anything.”
Pritzker’s statement was labeled as “mostly false.” Yet here’s a BBC report from 2020 that quotes Trump’s exact words: “And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?”
Pritzker was right on the facts, the nuance and the context. Full stop.
• Two more from Biden: PolitiFact said the president’s assertions that Trump wants to cut Medicare and Social Security were “mostly false” because — God help us — “When he was president, Trump released annual budgets that proposed cutting Medicare but he has repeatedly pledged throughout the 2024 presidential campaign that he will not cut the program” and “Trump has said in the past that he’s open to cutting Social Security, but this isn’t his current position.”
I’m sorry, but that’s just embarrassing.
The late show
A number of observers, me included, have been puzzled by the DNC’s schedule, which has resulted in the main speaker of the night taking the podium after 11 p.m. The swing states of Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia and most of Michigan are all in the Eastern time zone, and presumably you don’t want soft supporters and undecided voters to go to bed before hearing from the Obamas, Tim Walz and, tonight, Kamala Harris.
But it may not have made much difference. According to Craig Harrington of the liberal organization Media Matters for America, the audience for President Biden fell off only 2%. “Not ideal, but not disastrous either,” he wrote on Twitter/X.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that no one is going to invest a couple of hours tonight and then tune out just before Harris comes on. Still, it strikes me that it would have been a good idea to wrap up each night’s proceedings before viewers decide they’ve had enough.
Walz from the heart
Tim Walz’s short, punchy address and Oprah Winfrey’s speech were pitch-perfect.
Those who thought that Harris should have picked Josh Shapiro as her running mate may have changed their minds Wednesday night, as Shapiro delivered a perfectly serviceable but rather generic address. Walz, by contrast, was folksy and empathetic, speaking to the heartland in a way that the Democrats haven’t done in many years. You had to love his former football players taking the stage, too.
What can I say about Bill Clinton? It was interesting to see that some women I follow on Threads were tuning out. Given his history, I couldn’t believe that he glommed onto the dick joke President Obama indulged in — funny coming from Obama, creepy from Clinton.
Clinton also spoke way too long and just sort of rambled. I know that some viewers loved it, and I’ve heard from a few. I also understand that a former president can’t be denied his place at the podium. But I was glad when it was over.
The California state capitol in Sacramento. Photo (cc) 2006 by David Monniaux.
A proposal that would have required Google to pay California news outlets for the journalism that it repurposes has instead been replaced with a proposed deal that is already coming under criticism. Jeanne Kuang of CalMatters writes:
California lawmakers are abandoning an ambitious proposal to force Google to pay news companies for using their content, opting instead for a deal in which the tech giant has agreed to pay $172 million to support local media outlets and start an artificial intelligence program.
The money would be spread over five years and would be supplemented with $70 million from the state over that same time period. Google would continue paying $10 million a year to newsrooms under existing programs.
The deal apparently does not require legislative approval, though the annual appropriations that it specifies would be subject to a vote.
Gov. Gavin Newsom voiced his approval in a statement, saying: “This agreement represents a major breakthrough in ensuring the survival of newsrooms and bolstering local journalism across California — leveraging substantial tech industry resources without imposing new taxes on Californians.”
But Kuang continued:
The Media Guild of the West, which represents reporters in Southern California, slammed the agreement and accused publishers and lawmakers of folding to Google’s threats.
“Google won, a monopoly won,” said Matt Pearce, the group’s president. “This is dramatically worse than what Australia and Canada got … I don’t know of any journalist that asked for this.”
According to Los Angeles Times reporter Lauren Rosenhall’s account of the deal, agreement was struck after a drawn-out battle over a bill, AB 886, that would have extracted much more money from the tech giant:
Google threatened to remove California news content from its platform if the bill passed, and then ran ads saying the legislation would reduce Californians’ access to news.
Lobbying over the bill grew intense, with a trade association Google belongs to launching an ad campaign aimed at lawmakers that cast the legislation as a giveaway to large media corporations. Records show the Computer and Communications Industry Assn. spent $5 million on ads against AB 886 over the last two years as the bill made its way through the Legislature.
The role of government in boosting journalism through measures such as tax credits and mandates that would force Google and Facebook to hand over some of their advertising revenues has moved to the center of the ongoing discussion of what to do about the ailing local news business.
Though federal legislation has stalled repeatedly, proposals in New York and Illinois to provide tax credits to news publishers that create or retain newsroom jobs have become law.
And in Massachusetts, a proposal to revive a state commission that would study the problem and make some recommendations was the subject of a legislative hearing earlier this summer (I was among those who testified) appears to be on track.
Barack and Michelle Obama in 2008. Photo (cc) by Luke Vargas.
Twenty years ago, when the Democratic National Convention gathered in Boston, a young senator named Barack Obama delivered the speech that launched him to the presidency.
I was covering the convention for The Boston Phoenix, but I wasn’t in the hall. No regrets — I reported from four national conventions, and I thought the best way I could serve our audience was to spend as little time in the building as possible, focusing instead on alternative events, protests, what the media were up to and the like. Still, that was a big one to miss.
I didn’t miss Barack Obama’s speech last night, nor Michelle Obama’s, even if it was from the comfort of our TV room. Wow. Observers are trying to decide who delivered the better of what were two magnificent addresses. I thought hers was a superior piece of pure oratory but that his did more to advance the cause of getting Kamala Harris and Tim Walz elected. The two addresses complemented each other perfectly.
And soaring though their rhetoric was, it was pretty amusing to see the former president go there for what I believe was the first time since Marco Rubio made some awkward remarks about the size of Donald Trump’s, uh, hands.
Doug Emhoff’s speech was folksy and effective. All in all, it was another strong night for the Democrats.
Early print deadlines meant that three of our national newspapers, The New York Times, The Washington Post and USA Today, have no coverage of President Biden’s keynote address. All of them, needless to say, go big with Biden’s speech online. It makes you wonder who’s still bothering with the legacy press’ shrinking print editions.
A fourth national paper, the business-focused Wall Street Journal, did manage to get Biden’s speech on page one, though it’s not the lead. Locally, The Boston Globe leads with the president as well. I have to assume that’s a late edition.
Biden was supposed to go on at about 10:30 p.m., but the Democrats veered off schedule and he didn’t start for another hour. They’d better fix that — the last thing the party wants is for Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s acceptance speech on Wednesday and Vice President Kamala Harris’ on Thursday to get pushed out of prime time.
Stop talking at me
God bless C-SPAN. We tuned in around 9 p.m. and chose PBS, figuring the “NewsHour” crew would strike a good balance between carrying the speeches and offering a little bit of commentary and analysis. We were wrong. We missed Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s speech entirely. And when we finally switched over, we discovered that PBS had cut away from Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock, a major figure in the party.
At least PBS carried New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose fiery populism was probably the highlight of the evening, though Hillary Clinton’s address conjured up all sorts of emotions. Yes, it should have been her.
I’m not going to try to assess Biden’s speech except to agree with other observers that I respect his successful presidency and am grateful that his deep sense of patriotism led him to step aside, even though it was evident that he’s still angry he was forced to make that move.
New Haven crew hits Chicago
Normally I like to see local news organizations stay mission-focused when big national events occur. But I’ll cut the New Haven Independent some slack. After all, founder Paul Bass is no longer the editor, and he’s as knowledgeable about politics as anyone I know.
Bass and staff reporter Nora Grace-Flood are in Chicago while Babz Rawls Ivy, the morning host at the Independent-affiliated radio station, WNHH-LP, is back in New Haven offering some commentary. Oakland-based cartoonist Fred Noland of the Independent Review Crew is in Chicago as well, though he hasn’t started drawing yet.
And it’s not all national. Here’s a funny story, with video and photos, about Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar squaring off with New Haven Democrats about the virtues of New Haven apizza versus Chicago-style deep-dish pizza.
The Washington Post: The early print bird misses the keynoteUSA Today: Protests but no convention coverage above the foldThe Wall Street Journal: Biden’s speech, yes, but wow, Edgar Bronfman!The Boston Globe: The president makes page one
GBH headquarters in Allston. Photo (cc) 2011 by WGBH.
At a time when public media operations are cutting back, GBH News is leveraging partnerships with other stations in order to bolster its statewide coverage. It strikes me as a smart way of doing more with less following cutbacks at both of Boston’s news-focused public radio stations, GBH and WBUR, and at public broadcasters across the country. (I should note that CAI is actually part of GBH.) Below is a press release from GBH.
GBH News Joins with CAI: The Cape & Islands NPR station and New England Public Media toExpand Coverage Statewide
GBH News, CAI and New England Public Media (NEPM) today announced a partnership to report and expand news coverage statewide, reaching listeners from Springfield to Provincetown and points between. Connecting the Commonwealth, the first initiative of its kind in Massachusetts, will build upon a longstanding relationship between the three public media outlets, as well as GBH News bureaus in Worcester, at the State House, and in Boston.
Coverage will focus on the stories that matter to audiences locally and statewide, including education to the environment, the economy and inequality. From breaking news to in-depth human interest stories, Connecting the Commonwealth will weave regional and local enterprise reporting through radio and digital storytelling daily across all three media outlets’ digital and broadcast platforms. Jennifer Moore, GBH’s first Statewide and Features Editor, will lead the collaboration.
“There’s an immense need for local journalism on issues that matter to Massachusetts residents. Through our relationships with NEPM and CAI, we’ll partner to create content of interest to all of the state’s 7 million residents, something few media outlets in Massachusetts can do,” said Dan Lothian, editor-in-chief of GBH News and The World. “Jennifer Moore will lead our collaborate efforts, creating new content and sharing reports from all of our newsrooms, allowing us cover more breaking news and enterprise features that shape the conversation.”
“NEPM is excited to strengthen our partnership with GBH and CAI to deliver even more timely and comprehensive coverage of the news and issues facing residents of western Massachusetts,” said John Sutton, VP of content and audience strategy for NEPM. “This collaboration will help us to better report on topics of statewide importance and to build the type of community connections that lead to a healthier commonwealth.”
“Having a statewide editor overseeing the efforts of all three newsrooms will allow us to bring these important stories to our listeners in a timely manner,” said CAI Managing Director of Editorial and Host and Producer of The Point, Mindy Todd. “We look forward to working closely with GBH and NEPM to cover even more local and regional stories.”
Moore was previously features editor at GBH News. Earlier in her career, she served as the news director and content coordinator at the NPR & PBS stations in Springfield, Missouri. As a freelancer, she’s reported for The New York Times and NPR, including from the Middle East.
“Each Massachusetts community is unique. At the same time, they all need news and information about many of the same issues, whether that’s education, the environment, the economy or our elections. We believe Connecting the Commonwealth will be a trusted destination for news from across the state,” said Moore. “I look forward to hearing from our audiences about what matters most to them and reaffirming our commitment to impactful daily journalism.”
Connecting the Commonwealth reporting will appear across multiple platforms at each organization, including GBH 89.7FM, gbhnews.org, and the GBH News YouTube channel; 88.5 NEPM and nepm.org; CAI 90.1 FM, 91.1 FM, and 94.3 FM and online at capeandislands.org.
The Star Tribune of Minneapolis has been something of a doppelgänger for The Boston Globe as well as a model. Like the Globe, the Strib, as it is known, has emerged as a profitable, growing enterprise under the guidance of a billionaire sports owner.
In Boston, of course, that’s John Henry, who’s also the principal owner of the Red Sox. In Minneapolis, it’s Glen Taylor, the principal owner of the NBA’s Minnesota Timberwolves. Both men have other sports interests as well. I wrote about Henry’s struggles with the Globe in my 2018 book “The Return of the Moguls”; the paper didn’t really take off until sometime after that. My collaborator Ellen Clegg wrote about the Star Tribune in our 2024 book, “What Works in Community News.”
The parallels don’t stop there. The Globe, formerly a New England-wide paper that had contracted to Eastern Massachusetts, has been expanding in recent years, with editions in Rhode Island and New Hampshire and more to come. Executives at the Strib have been working to re-establish the paper as a Minnesota-wide entity.
Now the Strib has taken the next step. In a post for our website, What Works, Ellen writes about the Strib’s rebranding as The Minnesota Star Tribune and the innovative approach being taken by the Strib’s new opinion editor, Phillip Morris. Among other things, Morris is building up an ambitious roster of community writers known as Strib Voices and has abolished political endorsements in favor of a deeper dive into candidates and issues — something Ellen, as a retired editorial-page editor at the Globe, takes a keen interest in.
I’d be surprised if the Globe drops endorsements. Indeed, the paper just unveiled its first endorsement of the 2024 election, backing Mara Dolan in the Democratic primary for Governor’s Council. But at a time when they are increasingly seen as an anachronism, and with even The New York Times ending local and statewide endorsements, I’d also be surprised if it’s not at least being talked about at the Globe.
The New York Times, unlike The Boston Globe or The Washington Post, does not have a real replica edition that lets you read the paper online the way it was laid out in print. The Times does offer a kludgy version through Press Reader, but it’s hard to access and harder to use.
Instead, the Times’ website and apps provide a digital listing of that day’s print stories called Today’s Paper. During the week, I generally start with the homepage instead of page one, but on Sundays I like to read that day’s paper.
This morning I noticed a story on an image of today’s front page that I wanted to read, headlined “Inside the Ascent of a V.P. Quietly Making Her Mark,” by Peter Baker and Zolan Kanno-Youngs, one of our fine Northeastern alumni. I quick went to the Today’s Paper list of stories — and it wasn’t there.
Now, I didn’t have to search too hard. When I switched to the homepage, it was the lead story. By the way, it’s smart and insightful. You should read it. Here’s a free link.
My point, though, is that the Times should pay more attention to how its customers experience its digital products. This is the second time this has happened recently. If I were only relying on the Today’s Paper listing, and if I hadn’t bothered to look at an image of the print front page, I would have had no idea the story even existed.
The Stow & Bolton Independent, a weekly paper covering two communities west of Boston, is looking for a new publisher. In a public post on Facebook, publisher and managing editor Cyndy Bremer writes that she is ready to move on after 17 years:
I am looking to find someone/a group/entity that is willing to pick up where I’m eventually leaving off so that a print newspaper in some form continues to cover Stow and Bolton. It’s important to me that anyone continuing this project have journalistic integrity — the ability to see things from a broad and varied perspective, remain neutral and objective, and not bring any bias into the “newsroom.”
Bremer adds that she is “planning to stay around until I am confident there will be an alternative.” If you’re interested, you can email her using this contact form.
.jpg){kind=link}