Author: Dan Kennedy

Middleborough voter explains all

Here’s a pretty powerful anecdote suggesting that people in Middleborough knew exactly what they were doing when they voted in favor of the casino agreement but against the casino itself. From the Associated Press:

A sense of resignation that a casino was a done deal drove the decisions of several voters interviewed as they walked into the meeting.

Michelle Holden, 45, planned to reluctantly vote for a casino deal she called inevitable. Regardless of Saturday’s vote, the tribe owns the necessary land and can build so long as it secures federal and state approval, she said.

If nothing else, Holden hoped the extra revenue could help the town restore services it previously cut, like freshman sports for her 16-year-old son.

“I don’t really want the casinos here, but it’s coming,” she said. “We might as well benefit through the town.”

Over at Blue Mass Group, you’ll see arguments that the “no” vote on the casino itself doesn’t mean much because people were leaving at that point, because the vote was taken by a show of hands, because the town moderator’s visual acuity was wanting, because the vote was non-binding, etc., etc. Even Sabutai makes those points. I’m not saying he’s wrong — I’m saying it’s irrelevant. The vote was the vote, and it is perfectly reflected Holden’s sentiments.

It’s sad that people like Holden have come to believe that the fight is lost already, and that the best they can do is negotiate the most favorable terms of surrender. You can always fight. You can go to court. You can lay down in front of the bulldozers.

But the inevitability of the casino is the prime message being pushed by the cynical casino proponents. Don’t believe it.

Middleborough rejects casino

Despite all the propaganda, despite the loathsome efforts of casino supporters to cast opponents as friends of the Ku Klux Klan, Middleborough residents today did the right thing and said “no.” Keep that in mind when you hear that folks who attended the town meeting approved the selectmen’s proposed deal with the Wampanoags. To wit:

  • The Enterprise: “After a grueling four-hour town meeting in more than 90 degree weather, more than 3,000 voters at today’s historic town meeting voted overwhelmingly to accept the agreement to put a casino in town.”
  • The Globe: “Voters in Middleborough today approved a historic agreement to bring a casino to the semi-rural town 40 miles south of Boston.”
  • The Herald: “Middleboro OKs casino by 2,387 to 1,335.”

So, is Media Nation hallucinating? Not at all. Here is the key, explained farther down in the Globe story:

The voters, however, sent a mixed message. In a separate, non-binding question before the town meeting, the residents voted no on a proposal to have a casino in the town. Town officials insisted that the open ended question — approved by a voice vote — had no impact on the agreement with the Wampanoags. But casino opponents were nonetheless cheered by that result.

That is not a mixed message at all. That is a clear message that though the voters believed the proposed deal was the best they could get, their preference is no casino at all. Over and over, the townspeople have been told that if they rejected the deal, the casino would be built anyway, and the town would get far less than it would by signing the agreement. Thus the “yes” vote on the agreement was entirely predictable.

But they rejected the casino itself, and that ought to be the end of it. It will be interesting to see how the pro-casino forces spin this one. I just hope the media catch on better than they have so far.

Update: Here is the warrant for today’s town meeting. As you can see, Article 2 was on the agreement, and Article 3 was on the casino itself. Here’s what voters said “no” to in Article 3: “To see if the Town approves of the creation of a Gambling Casino Resort Complex within the Corporate Boundaries of the Town, or act anything thereon.” Clear as a bell.

Update II: Great report from Sabutai at Blue Mass Group. Check out his description of orange-shirted, pro-casino union forces, who pushed their way into the crowd and apparently even managed to cast some voice and hand votes. The “yes” vote should be challenged immediately because of this shocking breach of protocol. Remember, town police took some pains to keep the media at bay — why couldn’t they do the same to the IBEW?

On the map

The New York Times today has a good and important front-page story on how simple mapping tools offered by Google and Yahoo! are changing the way we communicate. If you want more, Wired went deeper last month.

The revolution in free, Web-based software tools is astounding. Less than a year ago, when I showed my students mash-ups such as ChicagoCrime.org and this Boston.com mash-up of political contributions in the governor’s race, the likelihood of a non-programmer pulling off such a feat seemed nil. Now anyone can do it, and publish the results to the world.

Is Botsford in trouble?

The Herald’s Laurel Sweet reports that Gov. Deval Patrick’s nominee for the Supreme Judicial Court, Superior Court Judge Margot Botsford, has some pretty close political ties to the governor: Her husband, Boston lawyer Stephen Rosenfeld, was so enthusiastic about Patrick’s gubernatorial campaign that he donated three times the legal limit.

Botsford is well-qualified and progressive, but this has the aroma of a quid pro quo. You could argue that she’s not responsible for her husband’s political donations, but come on. As a judge, she can’t make political donations anyway. (Or at least she shouldn’t.) And why didn’t someone at the Patrick campaign flag the excess donations and return them?

Rosenfeld was a top aide to Michael Dukakis when he was governor, which gives Herald columnist Howie Carr an excuse to stroll down memory lane.

This strikes me as being on the line. It could go away quickly, or it could blow up into yet another Patrick kerfuffle — especially if the Globe’s new metro editor, Brian McGrory, is upset enough about getting beat on this.

Outdoors in the dark

Middleborough officials have decided to keep the media far, far away from tomorrow’s fiasco of a town meeting, which is expected to draw as many as 10,000 people to the high school. Here is the complete text of a media advisory issued yesterday by the Middleborough Police Department:

MEDIA ADVISORY:

July 26, 2007

CONTACT:

Middleborough Police Department

Attn: Lt. David Mackiewicz

Fax Number: (508) 947-1009

Middleborough Special Town Meeting – Casino Decision

On, Saturday July 28, 2007 at 11:00 a.m. the town of Middleborough will be conducting a Special Town Meeting at the Middleborough High School at 71 East Grove Street in Middleborough (Route 28). The purpose of the meeting is to determine the residents’ position regarding the recently negotiated Wampanoag Casino agreement.

To ensure the event receives proper media coverage and only registered voters are allowed to vote specific control measures will be in effect for all media outlets attending the event.

Press Rules

1. Venue: The Town of Middleborough will be conducting a Special Town Meeting for the purpose of deciding the residents’ position regarding the recently negotiated Wampanoag Casino agreement.

2. The meeting will occur at the Middleborough High School on Rt. 28, at 71 East Gove Street, Middleborough, Ma.

3. The meeting area will be restricted to only Middleborough registered voters. Invited guests will be authorized only as specified by the Town Moderator.

4. Media personnel will be authorized access to view the event from a designated media area.

5. Application for Media Parking Passes: Fax all requests for media vehicle parking passes to the Middleborough Police Department, 508-947-1009, Attn: Lt. David Mackiewicz NOT LATER THAN 3:00 PM on FRIDAY, July 27, 2007. Space is limited and Media Parking Passes will be limited to two passes per media outlet. Media Parking Passes will be returned by fax to your media outlet and must be presented to gain access to the designated media area.

6. Media will be required to arrive between 06:00 AM and 07:30 AM on Saturday, July 28, 2007. No new media personnel will be allowed entrance after 7:30 AM on Saturday, July 28.

7. Voting residents will begin arriving at 08:00 AM. Media will be allowed an interview area where they can conduct interviews with voting residents inside the designated media area between 08:00 AM and the start of the meeting. The meeting will begin at 11:00 AM.

8. A MALT box [“a piece of equipment that allows reporters to plug in audio equipment to record directly from the sound system”] will be available in the designated media area for media use.

9. Media will not be allowed to leave the designated media area until the meeting is adjourned.

This is going to be a zoo (albeit an unnecessary zoo, and one of town officials’ devising), and obviously some measures are needed to keep things under control. But these restrictions are so tight that you have to wonder if reporters are going to be able to tell what’s going on, or will instead have to try to reconstruct events after the fact.

Will the sound system truly be audible? Will speakers from the floor (excuse me, the grass) be properly patched in to the sound system? Will some provision be made to identify speakers (a notorious problem in covering any town meeting)? Why on earth do all reporters — even lowly print reporters carrying nothing but a pen and a notebook — have to arrive by 7:30 a.m. if the meeting doesn’t start for another three and a half hours? What is #9 about? Surely folks can leave, can’t they? What about a photographer with an early deadline?

For that matter, why does Middleborough need more security than the Democratic and Republican national conventions?

Meanwhile, in today’s Globe, Sean Murphy and Christine Wallgren report that town officials’ dreams of $4 million a year in hotel-tax revenue are just that — dreams. And here is the text (PDF) of the study-committee report the Herald mentioned yesterday — the one that found suicide rates will increase, but, overall, the casino will be a good thing. You can’t make this stuff up.

Finally, NECN has posted the video of our discussion on “NewsNight” last night.

Examining the New England News Forum

My media column in the new issue of CommonWealth Magazine takes a look at the New England News Forum, a nascent organization based at UMass Amherst that’s modeled after — and, in important ways, not modeled after — the news councils of Minnesota and Washington State.

“We are not a watchdog group if the watchdog’s role is to go bite the mailman,” says Bill Densmore, the director and editor. “It’s to assess the mailman and educate the dogs about the mailman’s role.”

More reasons to reject the casino

Is State Treasurer Tim Cahill a friend of the Ku Klux Klan? No doubt his opposition to the casino in Middleborough will be cast by proponents as biased, given that Cahill wants the state to build its own casino. But Cahill’s assessment that the casino would be a bad deal for the town — reported in today’s Globe by Andrea Estes — should be taken seriously. Cahill tells Estes:

It will change the entire fabric of the community, but it’s the tribe and the investors who will make the lion’s share of the money. There are a lot of holes in the agreement. I don’t see where it helps the town financially.

Is the Middleboro Casino Gambling Study Committee a friend of the Ku Klux Klan? According to the Herald’s Mike Underwood, the committee has concluded that a casino could “increase suicides, bankruptcies and trigger an exodus of residents,” as well as lead to choking traffic increases on Route 44.

Oh, but there’s good news, too — there would likely be no “direct” increase in crime as a result of the casino’s being built. Never mind that there would be a huge indirect increase, as documented by the Globe last Sunday in a report on what happened to the communities around Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun.

Are officials from 15 cities and towns surrounding Middleborough friends of the Ku Klux Klan? Theresa Knapp Enos reports in the Enterprise of Brockton that those officials will meet tonight in Lakeville to discuss the impact of the casino in their communities. Of course, they don’t get to vote in the Saturday town meeting. Enos writes:

[Bridgewater] Selectman Mark Oliari, Bridgewater’s liaison with the town of Middleboro, reported to fellow board members at the selectmen’s meeting on Tuesday that there are “serious issues,” such as traffic, decreased local aid from Lottery receipts and additional school resources.

Think about it. The Lottery is going to take a terrible hit if casino gambling comes to Massachusetts (which is why Cahill wants the state to grab a piece of the action). Traffic will become a nightmare throughout the region, but the Wampanoags propose only to upgrade roads in Middleborough. And, of course, the low-paid casino workers who would move to the area will put a strain on school systems throughout the region, not just in Middleborough.

This is a disaster in the making. As Sabutai writes at Blue Mass Group: “I’m not sure if I’m naive to hope that the state government would not greenlight a massive project within a town where the residents offered a resounding ‘no’, but I’d hope that a ‘no’ on Saturday will end the debate in this town at least. New Bedford and Boston would looooove a casino. Wouldn’t you rather work with people who want you?”

I’ll be debating the casino today at 7 p.m. on New England Cable News’ “NewsNight.”

D’oh! The Enterprise was previewing a meeting that has already taken place. Here’s an account in today’s Globe, by Christine Wallgren. Great quote from Halifax Selectman John Bruno about Middleborough Selectman Adam Bond, a casino supporter: “I appreciate Mr. Bond’s attempt to help his community, but I also appreciate that selling your soul for money is never a good idea. This does not belong in Southeastern Massachusetts.”

Don’t ask, don’t tell

Media Nation regular O-Fish-L passes along a curious item. It seems that Patriots linebacker Tedy Bruschi was rumored to have died during the past day or so. Mr. Fish writes: “Now I’ve called the Herald, Fox 25 and WEEI to check on this. All three had heard the rumor and quickly dismissed it as false. Someone at Fox told me that Bruschi’s agent asked them not to run a story dispelling the rumor because it might adversely affect the Bruschi children.”

Obviously this was not a particularly outlandish rumor, given Bruschi’s stroke history. Fortunately, he is alive and well.

Anyway, it appears that the first person to make any public mention of this story was Tom Curran, who posted a blog item at NBCSports.com — and Curran whacks the media, writing:

How did it get this far? Well, the answer won’t really drape the journalism industry in glory.

Apparently, an anonymous e-mail to a TV affiliate in Boston came in Monday afternoon saying that Bruschi had gone to Jesus.

Before getting confirmation from the Patriots that Bruschi was (and is) indeed alive, the rumor made its way to other media types putting them on red alert as well. This caused them to start calling every contact they could to find out if tragedy had struck Bruschi and the Patriots again. And they called two friends and so on, and so on.

So reporters aren’t supposed to ask questions? Isn’t that what we do? It would have been disgusting if someone had put out an unconfirmed report that Bruschi had died, but no one did that. And it was Curran, after all, who broke the so-called news that this rumor was circulating.

Mr. Fish adds: “Trust me when I tell you that this one had legs and caused more panic than the ‘Great Blue Hill Volcano’ from April Fools Day many years ago. I heard it from my elderly mother, to a police Lieutenant that I once served with, to a clerk at the corner store. It seems Curran is the only journalist to officially touch the story thus far.”

I can’t imagine why Curran thinks it’s wrong for any journalist to check out a tip, verify that it’s not true and then not report it.

Following Curran, WCVB-TV (Channel 5) confirms Bruschi’s continued status as being among the living.

More: Bruce Allen explains. (Via Universal Hub.)

A better YouTube debate

May I make a confession? I completely forgot about last night’s Democratic debate, and thus missed the two-hour exercise in YouTube-fueled citizen participation.

But I can definitely see both sides regarding the one controversy the format engendered: CNN’s decision to handpick the questions rather than let the YouTube community vote on them. The chances of campaign workers’ monkeywrenching the results were high. On the other hand, if CNN is going to pick which questions it wants the candidates to be asked, it might as well let Anderson Cooper ask the questions.

David Bernstein of the Phoenix writes that CNN “pretty much created a TV show out of the free raw video materials, not entirely unlike an episode of America’s Funniest Home Videos.” He’s right.

So here’s an idea that might work. Let CNN pick six or seven (or 10) broad categories that it wants to put to the candidates. Let the YouTube community vote on the best question in each of those categories. Questions that mention any candidate by name can be thrown out. What do you think?

Over at YouTube today, you can watch the debate, question by question, and post your own video response.