Author: Dan Kennedy

The vagaries of search

Yes, I’m looking for help from the brain trust again.

A year ago I published a free, online edition of my book on dwarfism, “Little People.” Unfortunately, I’ve done it in a way that renders it nearly invisible to Google.

Here’s how I handled it. I uploaded the book to a subset of my personal Web site. The top page for the book is home.comcast.net/~dkennedy56/littlepeople.html. Then I registered the domain name littlepeoplethebook.com and set it to forward to that page.

My other ventures are not exactly invisible to Google. But when I Google “Dan Kennedy” “Little People”, a link to the book doesn’t come up until the eighth page. And when I search for text inside the book, it doesn’t come up at all.

Interestingly, “Little People” is better represented on Google by Cape Cod Today, whose publisher, Walter Brooks, was kind enough to serialize my book last fall.

Yes, I know I could get a hosted solution, but I’m not willing to spend any money. Would it help if I moved the book to a higher level? (Example: home.comcast.net/~littlepeople.) I could do that, but I don’t want to bother unless it’s really going to make a difference.

Or I could set it up as a Blogger or WordPress.com site.

Thoughts?

One in five

With the Massachusetts Legislature on the verge of repealing a 1913 law that’s made it difficult for out-of-state gay and lesbian couples to marry here, we’ve reached a remarkable moment in the rise of same-sex marriage — more remarkable than perhaps most people realize.

Yes, only two states allow same-sex marriage: Massachusetts and California. But, since May, the state of New York has recognized same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, making it possible for New York couples to marry in, say, Canada or Massachusetts.

The combined population of Massachusetts, California and New York is 62.2 million — nearly 21 percent of the total U.S. population of 299.4 million. That means one in five Americans lives in a state where same-sex marriage is recognized.

California voters might repeal same-sex marriage this November. But given that the state’s Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, opposes the anti-marriage referendum, there’s reason to be optimistic.

A final observation about Massachusetts. Yesterday’s state Senate vote to repeal the 1913 law was unanimous. The vote in the House is expected to be overwhelming. Can we finally stop the charade that gay marriage was forced on us by “unelected judges,” as critics inevitably charge?

It may have taken the state’s Supreme Judicial Court to start the debate. But last year opponents failed to win over the mere 25 percent of legislators needed to place the question on the ballot. And now our elected legislators are taking the final steps toward normalizing same-sex marriage, secure in the knowledge that most of their constituents either support marriage equality or don’t strongly object.

More: Esther offers some observations at Gratuitous Violins.

Old ethics and new media (VI)

Howard Owens, GateHouse Media’s director of digital publishing, has responded to YouTube’s decision to remove the Beverly Citizen’s controversial video of the “Horribles” parade.

According to Owens, YouTube acted after receiving a complaint from someone whose face was visible in the video. Apparently YouTube has a privacy policy under which it will take down a video at literally anyone’s request. Owens sums it up as follows:

We simply cannot allow YouTube, or any other business partner, to subvert our editorial independence. If YouTube wants to get in the game of hosting video for established news organizations — which it is doing — then it needs to respect the editorial judgment and independence of the news professionals in those organizations. If YouTube is unwilling be a true media partner, then, at least for GateHouse, we will need to seek alternative means of distribution of our videos.

Now, it’s easy enough to say that YouTube should act as a common carrier, similar to the phone company, and carry any traffic that comes its way, regardless of content. As a free-speech advocate, I would much prefer a policy like that.

But it’s not that simple. YouTube is successful in part because it does a good job of keeping out pornography and graphic violence. It’s the PG-13 nature of YouTube that makes it an attractive venue for media companies like GateHouse in the first place.

On the other hand, Owens is absolutely right that if the folks at YouTube are going to remove news videos arbitrarily, then there’s no way a news organization can do business with them.

I haven’t changed my mind about the video — I still would have edited it to remove the eight-foot-long penis and some of the more offensive signs. But that has to be the news organization’s call, not that of the service hosting the video.

I realize this post is entirely one-sided, and I hope YouTube has something to say. Soon.

Wednesday morning update: An unnamed YouTube spokeswoman tells the Boston Herald that the video was “inappropriate,” but leaves it at that.

GateHouse financial outlook dims

While we’re talking about GateHouse Media, you might be interested in knowing that the bad financial news continues. The trade publication Editor & Publisher reports that the company’s stock price is flirting with the $1 mark, which could trigger a series of unfortunate events.

Stock analyst Tom Corbett of Morningstar is quoted as writing that the company’s shares “could be worthless,” and that it is conceivable that “its debt could become due immediately, resulting in a possible liquidation scenario.”

Much as company officials might not want to hear it, Corbett’s dire report fits with a recent post on the blog 247WallSt.com, which predicted that the Rochester, N.Y.-based chain — which owns some 100 newspapers in Eastern Massachusetts — could be broken up or worse by the end of the year.

Old ethics and new media (V)

Looks like GateHouse Media has taken matters into its own hands.

If you go to the Beverly Citizen’s “Horribles” parade story now, you’ll see that the video featuring the eight-foot-long water-spouting penis and the crude signs is back online.

The difference: The video is now hosted by Veoh Networks rather than YouTube.

More on that Obama cover

In my latest for the Guardian, I argue that the Obama campaign and its supporters on the left have made way too much of the New Yorker’s satirical cover depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as flag-burning, Osama bin Laden-loving terrorists.

Which puts me at odds with Jon Keller, who included me in a piece on the controversy last night on WBZ-TV (Channel 4).

Who among us hasn’t misquoted Kerry?

Boston Herald columnist Margery Eagan today laments John Kerry’s loss four years ago, observing that Kerry’s brain is “about 100 times bigger than that of our foggy, confused, pushed around by his Machiavellian advisers, can- I- ever- get- a- sentence- out- straight embarrassment of a president.”

So why does Eagan think Kerry lost? Among other things, she writes, “Lots of us didn’t like Kerry: the faux Kennedy thing. The Brahmin-esque cadence. ‘Who among us,’ he bellowed as often as McCain says ‘my friends.’ “

Actually, he didn’t. Bear with me. I’m about to write way too much about a small matter, but it galls me. Eagan should know better. We all should know better. To the extent that the haughty “who among us” construction was used to demonstrate that Kerry was not a man of the people, it’s important to point out that it was all based on a falsehood.

First, let’s deal with the origin of “who among us” — a Maureen Dowd column in the New York Times in which Kerry was quoted as saying, “Who among us doesn’t like NASCAR?” She got it wrong. She wasn’t even there when he said (or rather didn’t say) it. The Daily Howler’s Bob Somerby has demonstrated conclusively that Kerry actually said, “There isn’t one of us here who doesn’t like NASCAR and who isn’t a fan.” Case closed.

Except that it wasn’t. Because the NASCAR quote was used over and over during the 2004 campaign to show that Kerry was a pompous fake who undermined his own attempt to appeal to NASCAR fans with his phony Brahmin language. As Somerby shows, Times people themselves did it over and over, but they were not alone. I dove into LexisNexis and found numerous examples. Here are just a few instances of writers either mocking Kerry’s diction or falsely quoting him:

I’m sick of Kerry pretending to be a normal guy. Killing a goose to get the gun vote. Saying, “Who among us doesn’t like NASCAR?” to get the racing vote. (Michael Goodwin, New York Daily News, Oct. 27, 2004.)

Unless you’re a teetotaling philistine, few things go better together than a good read and a good stiff drink. As John Kerry might say, who among us does not like to curl up with a Tom Clancy novel and can of Bud? (Jerry Salamon, Austin American-Statesman, Oct. 24, 2004)

As John Kerry himself has asked: “Who among us does not like NASCAR?” (Bruce Feirstein, New York Observer, May 17, 2004)

Believe me, this is just a tiny sample, and I’m leaving out what Dowd’s colleagues at the Times did, since you can read Somerby for yourself. Which brings me to the next question. The NASCAR falsehood aside, does Kerry favor the “who among us” construction? Not particularly. I did a search from Jan. 1 through Nov. 15, 2004, and came up with just a few examples, all from formal speeches or prepared remarks. Here they are:

In the wake of Sept. 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater — a nuclear weapon — then invade Kuwait, push the Kurds out, attack Israel, any number of scenarios to try to further his ambition to be the pan-Arab leader? (Kerry spoke these words in 2002, and they were quoted on numerous occasions during the 2004 campaign to demonstrate that Kerry had believed Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.)

Who among us is more vulnerable today than the 8 million Americans who are out of work? Who is more vulnerable than the 45 million Americans without health insurance? Who is more vulnerable than the parents who have to choose between food and medicine for their children? (From a speech Kerry delivered in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., on Oct. 24, 2004.)

Who among us thinks it’s right to say so quickly, on short notice, before you even know where your next paycheck’s going to come from; before you know, if you haven’t been working, what skill you can apply to be able to earn a paycheck; before you’ve been able to adjust to the loss and begin to be able to get back into life? (From a Kerry speech cited by John Harris of the Washington Post as evidence that Kerry was something of a fumblemouth. According to the text of the speech, Kerry was supposed to say, “Who among us could move on short notice when you don’t even know where your paycheck will come from?”)

And that’s all I could find. That’s not to say there aren’t other examples out there. But it’s ridiculous to think Kerry is wedded to “who among us” as any sort of rhetorical crutch, at least based on the available evidence.

By the way, at the Republican National Convention in 2004, John McCain said:

All of us, despite the differences that enliven our politics, are united in the one big idea that freedom is our birthright and its defense is always our first responsibility.

All other responsibilities come second.

We must not lose sight of that as we debate who among us should bear the greatest responsibility for keeping us safe and free.

Not to pick on Margery Eagan. The journalist who bears the responsibility for this is Maureen Dowd. But can we finally put this urban legend to rest?

Kerry photo (cc) by the World Economic Forum and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

Old ethics and new media (III)

In a weird coda to the controversy over the Beverly Farms “Horribles” parade, a source has informed Media Nation that YouTube has removed the video. Have a look at the Beverly Citizen’s story. When you click on the video, you’ll receive a message that says, “We’re sorry, this video is no longer available.”

The GateHouse Media papers, like many smaller enterprises, uses YouTube as a free, easy-to-use publishing platform. Editors upload their videos to YouTube, then embed the code on their own sites. But it looks like publishers who wish to control their content are going to have to figure out a way to do it themselves.