In my latest for the Guardian, I argue that the media, looking for a reason to make up for their brutal coverage of Hillary Clinton, are about to turn on Barack Obama. Although maybe not. Obama’s somewhat-better-than-expected margin in Wisconsin, combined with Clinton’s graceless “concession” speech, may forestall his inevitable turn in the interrogation room.
Author: Dan Kennedy
“Just words”
And lots of them! Barack Obama really gave a long speech tonight, didn’t he? Too long, by my estimation. He made the mistake of talking to the crowd rather than the folks back home. TV viewers were made to feel like they were watching an event rather than being spoken to.
As good a speaker as he is, I’ve thought for some time that he needs to work on his conversational skills. People don’t have the stamina to be speechified at for four years. It’s instructive that of the best presidential communicators of the television age — John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton — only Kennedy, with his feet planted in two different media eras, excelled at delivering a set speech.
Reagan and Clinton, by contrast, always came off as though they were talking to you. That’s what TV demands. And Obama’s shortcoming in that area makes him seem surprisingly old-fashioned sometimes.
The woman from Hope
Is Hillary Clinton giving a bad speech because she’s losing? Or does losing make it seem like she’s giving a bad speech? There’s a certain point at which the refusal to acknowledge reality stops coming across as admirably tough-minded and starts being cringe-inducing.
Northeastern graduate wins Polk Award
Leila Fadel has done Northeastern proud. The 2004 graduate, now Baghdad bureau chief for McClatchy Newspapers, has won a George R. Polk Award for foreign reporting. McClatchy has assembled a portfolio of her work here.
The very first piece, an account of a heart-stopping drive from the Baghdad to the Jordanian border last October, demonstrates passion, courage and a commitment to the truth. She writes:
A few months ago, no American would have been foolish enough to do what I had just done: drive from Baghdad west through Iraq’s Anbar province, long the hotbed of the country’s Sunni Muslim insurgency, and into Jordan. The route was notorious for hijackings, kidnappings and roadside bombs, and passed some of the best-known symbols of the country’s mayhem: Abu Ghraib, Hamdaniyah, Fallujah, Ramadi and beyond.
But western Iraq has changed, and the drive last Sunday was proof of that.
In December, Editor & Publisher ran a profile of Fadel and her fellow bureau members. I found a story Fadel wrote for the Northeastern News in 2003 on how students viewed the war in Iraq. She was also a co-op student at the Boston Globe.
I don’t know Fadel, but former Globe reporter Raphael Lewis does. He e-mails:
She is an amazing woman who, at 26, serves as the Baghdad bureau chief for McClatchy. Her work is quite excellent, and she was a standout student in Newswriting 1 and 2 when I taught as an adjunct at NU. I can’t tell you how proud I am of her.
What’s most encouraging about this is that Fadel shows it’s possible to succeed as a foreign correspondent at a young age. Even though the media landscape is changing, opportunities still exist.
Schilling hits the wall
It’s never pretty when a great athlete reaches the end. What compounds the human drama is that the very qualities that made him great cloud his ability to see reality.
Not that I’m going to try to choose among doctors. But it seems obvious that the Red Sox are hoping against hope that they might get some useful innings out of Curt Schilling this year through a conservative rehab program, whereas Schilling believes if they’d only let him have surgery, he can return to his glory days.
Neither scenario is realistic, but at least the Sox are pursuing the one route that might work to a limited degree. If Schilling has surgery, it’s likely that he’s done for the year, if not forever. If he doesn’t, well, maybe there’s a chance that Schilling’s got one good post-season run left in him.
It’s inevitable that the Boston sports media, and especially Globe columnist Dan Shaughnessy, would try to turn this into a controversy. Schilling hasn’t helped, either. But it seems to me that there are really only two areas of possible controversy here, and neither hold up to inspection:
- The course of treatment. Doctors disgree. What do we know? Nothing. End of discussion.
- Schilling’s condition at the time of his signing. We know he took a physical and got an MRI when he signed a one-year, $8 million deal last fall. We may assume that he did not pass with flying colors. I’m sure the Red Sox were told that it was no worse than expected and that, with luck, he’d be able to pitch one more season. It didn’t happen. But to suggest that Schilling was hiding something is to assume that he could somehow fake his MRI.
Schilling says he needs surgery just to lead a normal post-retirement life. He sounds like someone who is deeply conflicted. I suspect he knows what he should do — announce his retirement, undergo surgery and forfeit the $8 million. If he feels like Josh Beckett next spring, well, he can always unretire.
But I’m sure Schilling believes he signed his contract in good faith, with both sides knowing the end was near, and that the Sox shouldn’t get a pass for refusing surgery — especially since his own surgeon seems to think he could be back by mid-season. (Let’s not forget that we’re talking about a 41-year-old who took a year and a half to recover from ankle surgery.)
The thing is, I see no evidence that the Red Sox aren’t acting in good faith, too.
All that said, I think there’s something to what John Henry told Shaughnessy today — that Schilling’s surgeon has created considerable doubt in the pitcher’s mind as to whether rehab will work. Might a compromise be possible? How about letting Schilling go ahead with the surgery, but not letting him collect the $8 million if he’s not back by, say, Aug. 1?
It’s worth asking him. Then again, maybe they already have.
Photo (cc) by guano, and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.
The joy of comments
Over the past few days I’ve rejected several anonymous comments attacking by name a person I barely know. I just got called a “coward” by someone for refusing to post them. This brave soul, too, goes by the name of “Anonymous.”
Politicker’s “secret sauce”
The New York Times explains what Politicker.com is all about. The idea is to provide each of the 50 states with its own political-news site combining blogging with more traditional forms of journalism. New Jersey’s site, more fully developed than the rest at this point, will be the model.
Politicker is the project that recently snared Boston.com political blogger James Pindell to be its national managing editor. Sounds interesting, but I’m not sure what to make of this:
Most states will be covered by one or two reporters, one editor working on contract from inside the state, and an undetermined number of bloggers. The editors — who will remain anonymous, and will include lawyers, lobbyists and former officeholders — are the “secret sauce,” Mr. Sommer said.
Sommer is Robert Sommer, president of the Observer Media Group, which owns Politicker.
“Secret sauce” is the reason I don’t order Big Macs, and I’m not so sure I’m going to like it in my political news, either. Anonymous lobbyists? How is that a good idea?
Ledger Statehouse bureau lives
Media Nation has learned that The Patriot Ledger of Quincy is not closing its Statehouse bureau after all. Consider this a correction of this item. Although Statehouse reporter Tom Benner has indeed been laid off, I’m told that general-assignment reporter John Kelly will take Benner’s place until a permanent replacement is named.
If that’s what it takes
Just days after MBTA general manager Dan Grabauskas complained about an anti-gay e-mail he’d received from a Department of Correction employee, the Herald’s Casey Ross reports that the T has been canceling runs without bothering to tell anyone for, uh, years.
Bob Metcalf, commenting at Universal Hub, thinks it’s no coincidence. He’s probably right. But if that’s what it takes to expose this miserable little secret about why the T is so bad, then so be it.
The Outraged Liberal: “Smilin’ Dan has GOT to go — and soon.”
Ledger closes Statehouse bureau
Adam Reilly reports at ThePhoenix.com that the GateHouse Media cuts detailed by the Globe yesterday include the end of the Statehouse bureau at The Patriot Ledger of Quincy. [Note: The Statehouse bureau is not closing after all. See this correction.]
This is a tough cut indeed — one of the benefits of a local paper’s having a Statehouse reporter is that he or she can cover hometown legislators, assess the local impact of various initiatives and the like. If this cut was really necessary, then things must be pretty bad.
About a dozen years ago, one of the first media pieces I wrote for the Phoenix was on the depopulated Statehouse press corps. It’s only gotten worse since then. Among the Statehouse reporters I interviewed for that piece was The Patriot Ledger’s Carolyn Ryan, who later moved to the Herald, the Globe and, now, the New York Times.
The Ledger’s just-laid-off Statehouse reporter, Tom Benner, is a colleague, as he teaches part-time at Northeastern.
Photo (cc) by koalie. Some rights reserved.