By Dan Kennedy • The press, politics, technology, culture and other passions
David Brooks presumably has an idea of what his New York Times column should be about. Apparently telling us what he really thinks is not high on his list of priorities.
In the Times, Brooks has expressed — well, reservations about Sarah Palin. At a public event on Monday, he described her as “a fatal cancer to the Republican Party.” In the Times, Brooks has been skeptical about Barack Obama. On Monday, he said he’s “dazzled.”
Well, at least he’s straight with us when he’s not writing.
I’ve been shying away from predictions about the outcome of the presidential campaign. But I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that this Politico article will stand out as one of the dumbest pieces of the fall, regardless of whether Obama or McCain wins.
Mrs. Media Nation and I made our annual pilgrimage to the Topsfield Fair last night. Both of us were struggling with hacking coughs, but we stayed long enough for our traditional meal served by the Second Congregational Church of Topsfield, and for a look at the art exhibit, the poultry show and, of course, the giant pumpkin.
This year’s winner, at 1,464 pounds, was grown by Wes Dwelly, according to the Salem News, which has posted a video that shows the weighing of the gourds. That’s not close to the record. But it’s big.
I hadn’t noticed this Washington Post feature before, but I love the name of it: “Both Sides,” in which Tucker Carlson and Ana Marie Cox “debate the issues and latest developments.”
Why do I love the name? Because Carlson isn’t really a conservative. And Cox isn’t really a liberal. Both sides of what, exactly?
In my latest for the Guardian, I find that conservative pundits aren’t even trying to make the case that John McCain won last night’s debate with Barack Obama. Instead, they’re blaming the economy, the format and even McCain himself.
Let’s try something different tonight. I’m not going to live-blog the latest Obama-McCain debate. I’ve been under the weather the last couple of days, and I just want to watch, more or less uninterrupted.
But feel free to post comments while the debate is taking place. I’ll try to check in a few times during the course of the evening.
The premise of this Kyle Alspach article in the Brockton Enterprise is odd: the economic crisis makes the Middleborough casino proposed by the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe less likely, and the construction of commercial, non-Indian casinos more likely.
Alspach bases his reporting mainly on pro-casino sources — the Rev. Richard McGowan of Boston College and Clyde Barrow of UMass Dartmouth — and that makes this hard to parse as well.
Nevertheless, the story stands as further evidence that a casino will never be built in Middleborough. As if you had any doubts.
As you can see from the page image at left, at least one late edition of today’s Boston Herald included the Red Sox’ heart-thumping win over the Angels. But not the one I bought on the North Shore at 3 p.m.
I’d be perfectly happy if the Herald switched to Web-only distribution. But I can’t imagine this is what Pat Purcell had in mind when he outsourced printing to Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal plant in Chicopee.
Herald editor Kevin Convey tells the Phoenix’s Adam Reilly there are still some bugs to be worked out:
In the early going, we’re being extremely conservative about our press times and deadlines to make sure we get the paper out on the street. As time goes by, I expect that our ability to put complete information in more papers will increase to a considerable degree.
As promised, the paper looks a lot better, even though it has shrunk vertically by quite a bit. Photos, including color, are sharp both inside and out. The stories were already so short that making them a bit shorter still shouldn’t make much difference.
In the current confused media environment, it’s hard to say with whom the Herald is competing. Mainly, it’s competing for people’s time. If I had 20 minutes to while away, I’d much rather drop 75 cents on a new, slick-looking Herald than, say, pick up a free Metro Boston, because the Herald’s got more and better content. And now it looks better, too.
On that basis, the new Herald is a success.
Embedded video from CNN Video
Among the many myths that have enveloped the Sarah Palin candidacy is the notion that the rape-kit nastiness of a few weeks ago has somehow been debunked. It hasn’t. What we knew then holds up quite well. As I wrote on Sept. 11:
The man Sarah Palin appointed to run the Wasilla police department thinks that forcing rape victims to pay for their own forensic tests is just a swell idea. He said so himself a little more than eight years ago.
Every word of that is true. Moreover, as mayor, Palin fired the previous police chief in order to put this guy, Charlie Fannon, into office. It strains credulity to believe that she didn’t bother to read her hometown paper, the Frontiersman, the week that Fannon whined about a new state law ordering that the practice be ended, complaining that it could cost Wasilla taxpayers $5,000 to $14,000 a year.
There is no record — none — showing that Palin ever publicly disagreed with Fannon, reprimanded him or said anything whatsoever about this reprehensible policy. Maybe she was too busy reading the Economist.
Fannon also said this: “In the past we’ve charged the cost of exams to the victims’ insurance company when possible. I just don’t want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer.”
Now, we’ve all seen commentary suggesting that because the bills were sent to the insurance company, there was nothing wrong with the practice. But by treating rape as a medical problem rather than a violent crime, Wasilla authorities were sending precisely the wrong message in a state with the nation’s highest sexual-assault rate. Charging a victim’s insurance company is the same as charging the victim.
Neither the victims of non-sexual assaults nor the families of murder victims are forced to deal with their insurance companies for the cost of police investigations. By singling out rape, Fannon was wallowing in ugly old stereotypes.
We know a little bit more than we did a few weeks ago. We know that Wasilla wasn’t the only community engaging in this practice, although there is still testimony that it was among the most egregious offenders. We still don’t know for certain whether Palin knew, but I (dislocating my shoulders in order to give myself a pat on the back) have been careful about that from the beginning.
Rachael Larimore of Slate has supposedly debunked this story in two parts (here and here), as has Jim Geraghty of National Review. Go ahead and read them. They haven’t. Incredibly, Fannon doesn’t even make an appearance in Geraghty’s piece. Larimore trots him out briefly, for the sole purpose of invoking the insurance rationale.
The best summation of what we know and what we don’t know was reported by CNN on Sept. 22. Read it, watch it. And then try to claim there’s nothing to this controversy.
Instant update: Eric Boehlert weighs in on the rape-kit story in quite a bit more detail.
InstaPundit Glenn Reynolds yesterday posted favorably on Question One, the Massachusetts ballot measure that would repeal the state income tax. And he does so, in part, with an unsupported smear and a non-existent quote. (Via Hub Blog.)
“Most of the people complaining live, directly or indirectly, off the taxpayers’ dime, of course,” writes Reynolds, offering not a shred of evidence for that remarkable assertion. Most? Please. Then he adds: “And they’re pledging a campaign of ‘massive resistance.'”
Well, now. Follow Reynolds’ link, and you’ll come to a story on the Web site of WCVB-TV (Channel 5) that contains nothing even remotely akin to the phrase “massive resistance.” Nor does anyone say the magic words in an accompanying video story by Channel 5’s Jorge Quiroga.
For that matter, if you search Google News for the phrase “massive resistance,” you will find nothing pertaining to Massachusetts. And if you try Google Blog Search, you will get exactly one hit: Reynolds’ post.