Author: Dan Kennedy

Darkness falls

Ugh. I’ve already made my thoughts known about Rupert Murdoch’s acquisition of the Wall Street Journal, both here and in the Guardian. So I’ve really got nothing new to say now that he’s finally pulled it off. (Indeed, this has gone on so long that opinion-slingers like me have run through our ammo two or three times already.) But the Journal is well on its way from being a great, independent paper to a very good paper with a grasping, interfering owner.

I love Eric Alterman’s take in The Nation. Alterman argues that because the Journal’s news pages will be seen as less serious under Murdoch, so will its nutty right-wing editorial page. Alterman writes:

The silver lining of this takeover is that when Murdoch destroys the credibility of the Journal — as he must if it is to fit in with his business plan — he will be removing the primary pillar of the editorial page’s influence as well. In this regard his ownership is a kind of poisoned chalice.

Locally, meanwhile, let the outsourcing (and selling?) begin. Last week, the Globe’s Steve Bailey reported that Herald publisher Pat Purcell — who bought the Herald from Murdoch, his old mentor, in 1994 — would look to strike a deal for the Herald to be printed at a Dow Jones-owned plant in Chicopee should the Murdoch deal succeed. (Dow Jones is the Journal’s parent company.) Purcell confirmed his interest in a Herald story two days later the same day.

The Herald’s current property, next to the Southeast Expressway, is worth far more than its crumbling plant. A printing deal would presumably enable Purcell to sell the property and reduce his costs by vast sums, and might even ensure the long-term financial health of his paper.

Today the Globe reports that the Globe itself is in negotiations to print the Patriot Ledger of Quincy and the Enterprise of Brockton.

Now, follow the bouncing newspaper owners:

  • The Globe, of course, is owned by the New York Times Co., and Murdoch’s Journal is likely to emerge as the Times’ principal competitor nationally. If the Globe’s main print rival, the Herald, is getting help from Murdoch — well, I have no idea what to say except that it’s interesting.
  • Dow Jones, Purcell’s possible savior, owns several community dailies in the area through its Ottaway division, including the Standard-Times of New Bedford, the Cape Cod Times and the Portsmouth Herald. The Patriot Ledger and the Enterprise are owned by GateHouse Media, which also owns about 100 papers, mostly weeklies, in Eastern Massachusetts. So there’s an additional rivalry.
  • Except that Murdoch might sell off his community papers, which don’t seem to fit any grand strategy. And the most likely buyer would be GateHouse. Does it matter that James Ottaway positioned himself as Murdoch’s not-so-mortal enemy? Damned if I know.
  • Which would leave Community Newspaper Holdings Inc. (CNHI), better known as the Alabama state teachers’ pension fund, isolated and alone on the North Shore and in the Merrimack Valley. CNHI owns the Eagle-Tribune of Lawrence, the Salem News, the Gloucester Daily Times and the Daily News of Newburyport. And guess what? Michael Reed, chief executive of GateHouse, used to be chief executive of CNHI.

Murdoch’s victory could be just the beginning for local newspaper readers.

Oh, my. Jim Cramer, the screaming loon of CNBC, hopes Murdoch will push the Journal so that it finally matches the relevance of, yes, the New York Post business pages. By the way, the Post’s business coverage is quite good. But come on.

The Methodists’ anti-Israel campaign

Michael Paulson reports in the Globe that the New England Conference of the United Methodist Church is urging fellow Methodists to divest from companies that are supporting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.

The Methodist statement begins even-handedly enough:

Despite renewed talk of peace between Israelis and Palestinians, the hard reality is that Israel’s actions on the ground in the region, as well as Palestinian militant attacks on Israelis, place enormous obstacles in the way of progress toward peace.

So why does the conference propose punishing Israel alone? This is nasty business. Someone should ask Hillary Clinton, a Methodist, where she stands.

Those golden days of last Thursday

Today’s Globe editorial on Middleborough keeps the string alive — there’s no mention of the second vote, to reject the casino itself. But if you look back to those golden days of, oh, last Thursday, you’ll see that at least one Globe reporter thought the second vote was very important indeed.

In a preview of the Middleborough town meeting for Globe South, Christine Wallgren wrote:

The first of the two ballot items authorizes selectmen to enter into an already-negotiated agreement with the Mashpee Wampanoag and their backers to build a casino complex.

The second item — placed on the warrant by the casino opposition — asks voters whether they want a casino built in town at all. While it is nonbinding, casino opponents hope a negative vote will show state and federal authorities that a casino is not welcome under any terms….

Rejection of the idea of a casino in town would send a message to state and federal officials who must act on other aspects of the tribe’s casino proposal.

“This way, people get to actually vote on whether they want a casino, rather than just voting on a flawed agreement,” said casino foe Richard Young. “This would send a message to the selectmen, and I think at least some of them would take it to heart. They could fight this. Other towns have fought and won.”

Another casino foe, Jacqueline Tolosko, said: “I’ve been told by [state] Senator Marc Pacheco and by [US Representative] Barney Frank that if residents of this town don’t want a casino, they will back us. I think the vote on this is very important.”

Opponents have said they hope a negative vote would have some impact on how state and federal authorities react when the tribe looks to put the land in trust and obtain a compact for expanded gambling.

Exactly. So why does the Globe continue to ignore this important wrinkle? Last Thursday, Wallgren got the nuances right: the first vote was on the agreement with the Wampanoags; the second vote was on the casino itself. Today’s editorial blasts past all that. When is the Globe going to get it right?

“Middleboro’s Nosy Neighbor”

“Gladys Kravitz” is a hoot, but she can sting, too. Here she is on casino proponents who supposedly mocked Jacquie Tolosko, leader of the anti-casino group CasinoFacts.org, when she became emotional:

It’s difficult for me to comprehend what kind of sociopathic low-brow trailer trash would do that sort of thing to a person so courageous as to stand before three-thousand strangers and speak from the heart, but clearly they’re charter members of that same sad deluded faction which actually believes a casino is their friend.

Kravitz has a warning for the media as well, writing that “it’s apparently going to be up to us to get the word out about the NO vote, because the Fourth Estate seems to have taken a vacation day.”

A reporter’s best friend

Jeff Keating, writing for the Greater Boston Blog, makes a terrific find — Government Center, a collection of computer-assisted-reporting (CAR) resources at Boston.com. I especially like the Dunkin’ Donuts finder. But seriously — this is great stuff, and I’ll add it to the list of resources I give my students.

Here are a few of Media Nation’s favorite CAR sites:

Have any I should know about? Please pass them along.

Put those shovels down

The most complete story on what comes next for Middleborough is this one, which appears in the Cape Cod Times and The Standard-Times of New Bedford. Obviously there’s a long way to go before anyone breaks ground on a casino. Reporters Curt Brown and Don Cuddy write:

Despite the overwhelming vote in favor of a casino, [casino opponent Richard] Young said he feels the public expressed its true sentiments Saturday when it rejected a nonbinding question to approve casino gambling in town.

But only about half the voters were still at town meeting when the nonbinding question was decided.

True, but as I have already explained, that doesn’t negate the validity of the question. And half of nearly 4,000 is still a huge turnout for a town meeting. Sabutai comes through again in a comment on Blue Mass Group, placing in their proper perspective the “yes” vote on Article 2, to approve the agreement with the Wampanoags, and the “no” vote on Article 3, to reject the casino itself (bolds are his):

I realize there is an interest in spinning the votes on 2 and 3 to undercut questioning of the result. The media has embraced the spin of the town officials and the pro-casino side. Fact is, having some 1,500 people vote on a question is probably the second-highest total in Middleborough history. Given that the third article pre-dated the second and was submitted by petition, it’s interesting that it was relegated to “garbage time”. Again, the interests of the Tribe came before the interests of the citizen of Middleboro. I’m not expecting that the votes wouldn’t be close on those two articles considering how the town was divided, but they should at least be consistent. The fact that the votes were not indicated the failure of this meeting.

Speaking of spin embraced by the media, the Globe today still can’t bring itself to mention the “no” vote on Article 3. What is going on over there?

Finally, here is what Casinofacts.org, the anti-casino group, is saying about Saturday’s vote:

Middleboro says “Yes” and “No”

The article to enter into an agreement with with Tribe passed. The article about whether or not people wanted a casino did not pass. I think this is very telling on the effect of “vote yes or else”.

So Middleboro said “Yes” to an agreement(or else) and “No” to wanting a casino.

Now that the vote is over, we’ll be taking a few weeks to catch up on work, home, family and decide what the next steps will be.

I’m not going to stop posting on this, but I am going to turn it down to a slow simmer, and keep watching as the story unfolds.

Hilarious. A Media Nation reader passes along this e-mail from Stephen, a downtown lawyer: “So when is Middleboro going to change its name to John Kerry Ville? (We voted for the casino before we voted against it.)”

The Globe’s stunning omission

I’m stunned that the Globe failed to report that Middleborough voters, shortly after approving the agreement with the Wampanoags, turned around and rejected the casino itself. Despite publishing two stories (here and here) featuring four bylines, the paper somehow couldn’t find an inch to include that crucial fact. The Globe managed to do better in its online coverage yesterday. And as I’ve already noted, the Herald gets it right in its own Sunday story.

So, for that matter, does The Standard-Times of New Bedford, whose deep reporting on yesterday’s proceedings shows that this fight is a long way from being over. First, consider this, from Steve Decosta’s story:

After casting their votes on the agreement and before the final tally was announced, the body, on a hand vote, ironically rejected a nonbinding question to approve casino gambling in town. Only about half the voters remained on the high school athletic field for that tally.

“I don’t think that’s a true indication of how people feel, because so many people had left,” said Marsha Brunelle, selectmen chairwoman.

Asked if that outcome tainted the vote on the agreement, Mr. Marshall [Glenn Marshall, the Wampanoag chief] said: “It’s the end of a hot day, people get tired, people leave. The true number is the one that got counted.”

But casino opponents would not minimize their victory.

“That’s the root question,” said Jacqueline Tolosko, president of the anti-casino group Casinofacts. “We’re really encouraged. The town just said it doesn’t want a casino. How can that not have weight?”

Think about the cluelessness of Brunelle’s comments. Only 25 percent of the town’s registered voters took part in approving the agreement with the Wampanoags. As has been meticulously and widely documented, turnout was held down because of the midsummer heat and humidity, which kept elderly residents and people with health problems away. People who had to work or who couldn’t find child care were kept away, too.

As for people leaving, well, town officials all but told people to leave by staging a disgraceful signing ceremony with the Wampanoags as soon as the agreement was approved, but before the casino itself was put to a vote. [Well, no. See correction, below.] That action in itself ought to be the subject of a legal challenge on the grounds that it was a ruse aimed at making people think the meeting was over.

Even so, the vote to reject the casino was a legal (if non-binding) vote on a warrant article properly put before town meeting. Officials have no right to pretend that vote never took place. Again, think about Jacqueline Tolosko’s remarks: “The town just said it doesn’t want a casino. How can that not have weight?”

The second Standard-Times story, by Steve Urbon, expands on Sabutai’s report about improper influence on the part of casino proponents. Look at this:

Another opponent, Richard Young, pointed to Bill Marzelli and his dozens of orange-shirted casino backers and complained that while they were allowed to wear the T-shirts and white hats that read, “Vote YES for Middleborough’s future,” the police confiscated his side’s yellow leaflets, which explained a few opposition talking points. “I’m not allowed to give you anything to read,” he said.

Do I need to point out that the town’s two police unions have endorsed the casino? This strikes me as sufficient in and of itself to throw out the results of yesterday’s vote. No wonder police didn’t want the media watching.

Let me expand on something I wrote earlier. No doubt some people voted “yes” on the agreement because they would genuinely like to see a casino come to Middleborough. But there were others — plenty of others, I suspect — who voted “yes” because they were told, repeatedly, that the casino was coming whether they wanted it or not, and that they might as well negotiate the best terms that they could.

Last week, New England Cable News’ “NewsNight” program devoted a half-hour to the Middleborough debate. In the first segment, Ted Eayrs, a town assessor and former selectman, debated Greg Stevens, a casino opponent. In the second, I debated town planner Ruth Geoffroy, who favors the casino.

If you watch both segments, you will see that Eayrs (an opponent until recently) and Geoffroy each talked repeatedly about the supposed inevitability of the casino as a reason for approving the agreement. Let me share something else with you that you will not see in these segments: As we were leaving NECN, Eayrs told me that though he favored the agreement as the best way of protecting the town’s interests, he hopes the state will step in and stop the casino from ever being built.

Well, gee, that’s exactly how Middleborough residents voted yesterday, isn’t it? “Yes” on the agreement, “no” on the casino itself.

Gov. Deval Patrick will have a major say in what happens next. Without his wholehearted approval, a casino will not be coming to Middleborough. The governor needs to consider the fact that voters yesterday said “no” to the casino. Patrick should say no, too.

Update: This is really incredible. The Globe runs a slideshow of supporters and opponents of the casino — and the first two are of supporters wearing orange shirts! The message is cut off, but the first guy is also wearing a white cap that says “Yes to Middleborough’s Future.” Remember, the opponents’ leaflets were seized by police.

Update II: NECN gets it right. This report is particularly good on how opponents were marginalized and shunted aside. It also mentions the “no” vote on the casino itself.

Correction: According to this story, in the Cape Cod Times, the vote on the casino itself was held while the ballots on the casino agreement were being counted. WBUR Radio reports it the same way. That’s a significant difference, and I regret the error.

“Overwhelmingly defeated”

Laura Crimaldi’s story in the Sunday Herald says that the casino was “overwhelmingly defeated” when it was finally put to a vote. This despite the fact that Middleborough officials were so disrespectful of the process that they staged a signing ceremony after the agreement with the Wampanoags was approved, but before the non-binding advisory question on the casino itself was put to the voters. No wonder people left early.

Sabutai’s account says that the show-of-hands vote on the casino was “much closer” than an earlier vote to cut off debate, but he doesn’t say how close. No doubt accounts will differ. I hope we see something more definitive. Not that the margin matters, but, symbolically, it would be helpful if everyone understands that people voted against the casino.

“When they got to vote their conscience, they did that,” casino opponent Richard Young is quoted as saying in Crimaldi’s account.

I love the way Sabutai ends: “The ball is in the General Court. May they prove to have more wisdom than the selectmen of Middleboro, more patience than its people, and more temperance than its moderator.”

Local newscasts skip second vote

Just caught the top of the 11 p.m. news on Channels 4, 5 and 7. I was flipping around, so it’s possible that I missed it. But it didn’t appear that any of the three reported on the second, anti-casino vote. Shoddy.

On the other hand, kudos to Channel 5 for doing a sidebar on people who couldn’t make it to the town meeting today — not just elderly voters, but folks with respiratory problems, people who had to work and parents who couldn’t arrange for child care (kids weren’t allowed).

This is democracy? No. It isn’t.