Author: Dan Kennedy

Gordon Edes to leave the Globe

Alert Media Nation reader O-Fish-L reports that Boston Globe baseball writer Gordon Edes’ on-again, off-again move to Yahoo Sports is on again. (Via Scott’s Shots, which has some quotes from Edes.) Thus we see the continuation of a trend, as sportswriters flock to sports outlets.

I like Edes a lot, but I won’t miss him — as long as I remember to bookmark Yahoo’s Major League Baseball page, that is.

Apparently there was some unpleasantness over Edes’ departure. As I understand it, Edes tried to take the buyout the Globe was offering, but management refused on the grounds that Edes was too valuable. (He was.) So now he’s leaving anyway, with the fate of his buyout reportedly subject to an appeal.

Photo of Edes (cc) by ADM, and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

Is it over for Manny and the Sox?

Not to be overly dramatic, but it’s possible that Manny Ramírez’s career with the Red Sox will end a few hours from now. The Providence Journal’s Sean McAdam reports that if Ramírez refuses to play in today’s game against the Yankees, “disciplinary action — which could include a suspension — will be taken.”

McAdam’s bombshell is unsourced, but it looks to me like he wouldn’t have made such a strong declaration unless it came directly from Terry Francona. Further evidence that Tito’s had enough comes in Dan Shaughnessy’s column in the Boston Globe. “Manny shut it down in 2006 and he’s toying with the Red Sox again,” Shaughnessy writes. “In the middle of a pennant race. It is despicable. And the front office and his teammates are burning. Off the record, of course.”

I’m not going to endorse Shaughnessy’s contention that Ramírez quit on the team in 2006; it seemed at the time that there was a better-than-even chance he had a legitimate injury. I quote Shaughnessy only to point out that he claims both management and players have had enough of Manny’s act, even if they’re not willing to be quoted. (Is Francona afraid he’ll be overruled if he tries to suspend Ramírez?)

At the Boston Herald, blogger Rob Bradford lends support to McAdam’s story, saying there are “strong indications” Manny will be disciplined, and possibly suspended, if he won’t play today. And columnist Steve Buckley says Ramírez ought to be escorted from the premises right now.

A few observations.

1. I was listening to “The Big Show” on WEEI (AM 850) yesterday when McAdam came on to report that Ramírez had just taken himself out of the lineup. Seconds earlier, the consensus had been that the Red Sox should stick with Manny, and possibly renew his option for next year, because for the first time they control his destiny — no performance, no money. Post-McAdam? Flabbergasted incoherence. I can’t say I blame them.

2. Whether Ramírez’s injury is legitimate or not (an MRI reportedly showed nothing, but who knows?), he has conducted himself in an unprofessional manner. You can’t blame the Sox for believing that Manny is faking it and pouting over the fallout from his pushing incident with traveling secretary Jack McCormick and the recent public roasting he received from principal owner John Henry.

3. Ramírez has been acting strangely for years, but this year is especially odd. On the one hand, he’s been much more open. On the other, the incidents with McCormick and Kevin Youkilis are out of character. One possible explanation: He’s desperately hoping to get his option picked up, and he senses that age is catching up with him and his skills are deteriorating. Even after a winter when he reportedly worked harder than ever to get ready for the season.

4. The 2008 Red Sox are a good team, but, with all the injuries and bullpen woes, they don’t look like they’re built to go all the way. If Manny’s teammates are as frustrated with him as we’ve been led to believe, it might have a salutary effect to dump him right now. If Brandon Moss comes through, it might be the spark they need to make it into the post-season. But even if they’re destined to finish second or third, management will have made a statement that could pay off down the line.

The Red Sox won two World Series in part because of Francona’s ability to keep Ramírez happy and productive most of the time. It might be his single most important accomplishment as manager. Now it looks like it’s over.

Photo (cc) by Jeff Wheeler and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

How stupid can the Times get?*

Very. Walter Brooks explains. And the New York Times, in what may have been a misguided attempt to give Barack Obama some cover, has managed to turn his innocent wave to the Berlin crowd into a Nazi salute. Good grief.

*Correction: I take it back. The front of the Boston Globe shows Obama waving with his right hand, but the “Angola” sign is still backwards. Clearly it was just turned around. How stupid can I get?

Comcast never sleeps

Last Sunday I posted a paranoid lament about Media Nation’s wireless- network problems, and wondered whether Comcast’s forced march to digital might somehow be responsible. As it turned out, my issues were easily solved (or would have been if I weren’t such a tech dolt) by replacing our old AirPort base station with a shiny new AirPort Express.

Before it was over, though, I had received comments from no fewer than two Comcast employees, assuring readers of Media Nation that their planet is a benevolent one whose inhabitants want nothing but the best for humanity. (See this and this.)

I didn’t think much about it until last night, when I saw a New York Times story, by Brian Stelter, on Comcast’s dogged efforts to track down negative blog posts and respond to them with warm and happy messages. Pretty interesting. Some bloggers told Stelter they found it “creepy.” I don’t, and I swear I’m not saying that just because I now know Big Daddy Comcast is looking over my shoulder as a type.

Some of the complaints about Comcast’s recent behavior are over a move I have only partly addressed — the company’s decision to shift MSNBC, CSPAN2 and several other channels to the digital tier, forcing customers who want those channels to get a digital box and pay a few more dollars each month. I did as I was told this past Monday.

There are critics who believe the move was made specifically to marginalize Keith Olbermann, whose “Countdown” program on MSNBC is the most outspokenly liberal talk show on television. This Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial, which I found on NewsTrust, attempts to make that case, and does a rather poor job of it.

Media Nation’s working hypothesis is that it’s always about the money. So when I appeared on Arnie Arnesen’s radio show earlier this week to talk about MSNBC, I was pleased to hear that she had hit upon a more likely theory: that Comcast had targeted MSNBC specifically to goad liberal viewers into upgrading and paying for more of those yummy Comcastic services.

This is the reverse of the “Let’s Censor Keith” theory. Rather, it’s “Let’s Use Keith to Choke More Money Out of Those Latte-Swilling, Prius-Driving Elitists.” She may be on to something. As a business proposition, it hits just the right middle ground. Move the SciFi Channel (or Comcast’s own CN8, which it did) and no one would notice. Move NESN, and thousands of torch-bearing Red Sox fans would storm the local Comcast office. Move MSNBC, though, and liberals would simply grumble and pay up.

And, Frank and Jim, I just want you to know that I would never, ever even look at Comcast Must Die, that nasty site maintained by that awful man Bob Garfield. Really. So please don’t take away my MSNBC again. Deal?

Photo (cc) by Steve Garfield, and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

Political blogging and community

I’ve got an essay in the summer issue of Nieman Reports on political blogs and what the traditional media can learn from them.

At their worst, political blogs of the left and right do little more than reinforce their readers’ prejudices. At their best, though, they provide a virtual community in much the same way that newspapers at their height served a geographic community, helping them understand the news in the context of what like-minded people are thinking.

The question is whether the traditional media can learn those lessons without giving up their journalistic souls.

The Globe takes the GOP’s bait

The Boston Globe takes dictation from the Republican National Committee today, turning an innocuous remark by a Barack Obama adviser into evidence that Obama is so arrogant he’s already acting like he’s president.

I’ll work backwards. In a brief item, the Globe’s Foon Rhee notes that the RNC was gleefully passing around a story from the Politico yesterday in which an Obama adviser described the candidate’s speech in Berlin, scheduled for Thursday, as the sort that a president might deliver. Here’s Rhee:

… Republicans are highlighting any perceived hint of Obama arrogance. The Republican National Committee yesterday sent out a report by the Politico website about an exchange between reporters and an Obama adviser about Obama’s speech tomorrow in Berlin that is expected to draw thousands.

“It is not going to be a political speech,” the adviser said. “When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally.”

“But he is not president of the United States,” a reporter replied, according to Politico.

That’s how the item ends. But it looked fishy to me, and I was right. Next stop: the RNC’s Web site, which highlights the exchange under its “Audacity Watch,” an ongoing feature dedicated to the proposition that Obama is so insufferably arrogant that he believes he might actually be elected president this November.

Finally, going back to the source, here is the Politico story that got the Republicans all excited. You will not be surprised to learn that their faux outrage is derived entirely from a crucial omission. Here’s what the Politico’s Carrie Budoff Brown actually wrote:

At a morning background briefing, reporters parried with senior advisers on the characterization of Obama’s speech Thursday in Berlin as a campaign rally. The outdoor speech at the Victory Column could draw thousands of people, similar to the size of Obama events in the United States.

“It is not going to be a political speech,” said a senior foreign policy adviser, who spoke to reporters on background. “When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally.”

“But he is not president of the United States,” a reporter reminded the adviser.

“He is going to talk about the issues as an individual … not as a candidate, but as an individual, as a senator,” the adviser added….

After the briefing, Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki offered a statement from [Obama campaign head David] Axelrod to reporters: “The answer is that, of course, any event outside of a [congressional delegation trip] is a campaign event. But it is not a political rally. He will not engage his American political opponents. It is a speech to our allies and the people of Europe and the world. And as such, we wanted it to be open to the public and not just invited guests.”

In other words, the Obama campaign, far from claiming presidential prerogatives, was trying to answer criticism that Obama’s Berlin speech will be a campaign rally held on foreign soil. The anonymous adviser tried to draw an analogy to a presidential speech, got cut down and quickly corrected himself. Axelrod then clarified.

If you want to criticize Obama for holding a campaign rally in Berlin, well, be my guest. But the Republicans are dead wrong to label this affair as evidence of Obama’s arrogance, and they made their case through dishonestly selective quoting. The Globe should have taken five more minutes to determine whether the attack was fair or not.

Style question

Another one for the brain trust. When I use block quotes, I do not use quotation marks. I’ve got an example from this morning — my post on the McCain op-ed. The indented text is a direct quote from McCain’s unpublished piece.

Now, that’s pretty standard in publishing, whether you’re talking about magazines, books or academic papers. But such conventions do not necessarily travel all that well to the Web. I received a comment a little while ago from someone who was confused.

Although I can’t scare up an example at the moment, I have seen blogs that use indents for block quotes and quotation marks. It’s a little bit like using a belt and suspenders, but I’d rather make it too clear that I’m quoting than not clear enough.

What do you think?