Author: Dan Kennedy

Not-so-local news

Now this is a truly wretched idea.

The Associated Press reports that the Web site Pasadena Now has decided to outsource coverage of the local city council to reporters in India. In a follow-up, the Los Angeles Times says that one of these distant journalists, based in Mumbai, will make $12,000 a year, while the other, in Bangalore, will make $7,200. They’ll watch webcasts of the council meetings, consult relevant documents online and send their stories by e-mail. Who cares if they wouldn’t know Pasadena from Rawalpindi?

Pasadena Now editor and publisher James Macpherson tells the Times: “A lot of the routine stuff we do can be done by really talented people in another time zone at much lower wages.”

Reacting to Macpherson’s quote, Kevin Roderick of LA Observed digs up a terrific rejoinder from an anonymous Pasadena blogger:

That’s true, to a certain degree. The type of journalistic coverage McPherson [sic] is talking about really could be done by someone in another country, largely because their “coverage” often consists of little more than glorified press releases and parroting of the local media.

This is really quite a bit worse than the Boston Globe’s decision to outsource some circulation and advertising functions to India. Indeed, they’re even scratching their heads at the Hindustan Times, observing that “it remains to be seen how reporters would file their dispatches on local news — with all its flavour — from such a distant geographical location.”

No telltale byline, but here’s a possible example.

Dan Gillmor: “For the money he’s paying, he [Macpherson] could hire local bloggers. They’d do it better, with more perspectives — and have the advantage of, uh, being there.”

Political whoppers, Bush edition

Jon Keller has nominated his top five list of all-time political whoppers. Although Dick Cheney makes an appearance, President Bush is strangely absent. To rectify that, the crack staff at Media Nation has been hard at work for the past 12 or 13 minutes, putting together an all-Bush edition.

We think this holds up well even against such classics as “I am not a crook” (Richard Nixon) and “Last night I announced to the American people that the North Vietnamese regime had conducted further deliberate attacks against U.S. naval vessels operating in international waters” (Lyndon Johnson). But we’ll let you be the judge.

Here are our top five Bush whoppers, in chronological order. We realize we could have chosen many, many more.

1. “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” (Jan. 23, 2003)

2. “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.” (May 1, 2003)

3. “There are some who feel like that, you know, the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on. We got the force necessary to deal with the security situation.” (July 2, 2003)

4. “[W]e are fighting terrorists in Iraq so that we will not have to face them and fight them in the streets of our own cities.” (Oct. 3, 2003)

5. “We do not torture.” (Nov. 7, 2005)

David Ortiz’s non-roid rage

Did the Herald do David Ortiz wrong? Globe columnist Jackie MacMullan ups the ante today with a lengthy piece on the fallout from the headline on a short Michael Silverman item in Tuesday’s Herald. The headline: “Papi unwitting ‘roid user?”

MacMullan writes: “The headline was a disservice to Ortiz, and to Silverman, who does not write his own headlines. In fact, no writer at a major paper writes his or her headlines.”

OK, the headline was kind of idiotic. But, as these things go, it wasn’t that bad. Here’s how Silverman’s item begins:

On the topic of steroids, Red Sox designated hitter David Ortiz said he is not 100 percent positive that he’s never used them. If he did, it happened when he was much younger.

“I tell you, I don’t know too much about steroids, but I started listening about steroids when they started to bring that [expletive] up, and I started realizing and getting to know a little bit about it,” Ortiz said Sunday. “You’ve got to be careful…. I used to buy a protein shake in my country. I don’t do that any more because they don’t have the approval for that here, so I know that, so I’m off of buying things at the GNC back in the Dominican [Republic]. But it can happen anytime, it can happen. I don’t know. I don’t know if I drank something in my youth, not knowing it.”

I’d say the headline was an exaggeration of what Ortiz actually said, but not by that much. MacMullan says this about the Herald’s headline:

It was an inflammatory rhetorical question that set off a national chain reaction of speculation. One of the first hints was when Red Sox manager Terry Francona said a Toronto reporter entered his office and declared that Ortiz had exposed himself as a steroid user.

The Toronto reporter needs a reading-comprehension lesson.

This is the second time the Globe has let Ortiz vent about the Herald; here is Gordon Edes’ piece from Thursday’s paper. And yes, I think the Herald could have written a more deft headline to describe Ortiz’s remarks.

But the real story here is that Ortiz let himself get caught thinking out loud at a moment when everyone is baseball is freaked out about steroids. He said nothing wrong, but, sadly, in the current climate, he probably shouldn’t have said anything.

Bush boosts Michael Moore

You can’t make this stuff up. The Bush administration has given a huge boost to Michael Moore’s upcoming documentary, “SiCKO,” by investigating a trip he took to Cuba. The New York Times reports that Moore may have violated the travel ban by taking sick 9/11 rescue workers to Cuba in order to seek free medical care.

As a publicity stunt, what Moore did pales in comparison to what the White House has done for him. Moore’s having great fun with it on his Web site, and, as this Google News search shows, the administration’s attempt to intimidate Moore has garnered worldwide attention.

What the Bushies seem not to understand is that if you’re going to attempt to exercise Putin-like controls over your critics, you need Putin-like powers. Fortunately, they never quite succeeded in getting those powers — although they certainly tried.

Today’s obligatory BostonNOW item

I’m rooting for BostonNOW because, like Adam, I want to know that there’s an endless source out there of cheap, entertaining items.

Today’s: A front-page tease that says, “Extortion cop pleads guilty.” Turn to page four, and there’s an Associated Press story about Boston police officer Jose Ortiz, who’s been charged with drug-dealing and extortion. The problem is that he hasn’t pleaded guilty to anything.

The page-four headline is considerably more accurate: “Boston cop admits to drug debt threats.” And the head on BostonNOW’s Web site is positively subdued: “Officer facing drug charges held.”

Shelley Murphy’s story in yesterday’s Globe makes it absolutely clear what’s going on with Ortiz:

Ortiz, 44, of Salem, who faces charges of attempted extortion and conspiracy to distribute cocaine, has in custody since his May 2 arrest. He appeared in shackles, grim faced and wearing khaki prison garb, for yesterday’s hearing on whether he should remain in custody until the case is resolved.

I’d love to see BostonNOW give its principal competitor, Metro Boston, a run for its money. But saying someone has pleaded guilty when he hasn’t is serious business. Perhaps Russel Pergament and John Wilpers can find it in their budget to hire a copy editor or two.

McGrory named metro editor

The Herald’s Jesse Noyes has the news, and Universal Hub’s Adam Gaffin has the link. All I’ve got are the leftovers, but what the heck.

Globe metro columnist Brian McGrory has been named the paper’s new metro editor, replacing Carolyn Ryan, who recently left for a job at the New York Times. According to editor Marty Baron’s memo to the staff, McGrory will be replaced. So much for my theory that, with Pulitzer-winner Eileen McNamara already gone, Baron would find a new home for remaining metro columnist Adrian Walker and let the position wither away.

Gee, this won’t short-circuit McGrory’s sideline as a restaurant critic, will it? Check out his review today of Mamma Maria. The first reference to the food comes in, yes, the 10th graf.

Buckingham departs

You may have forgotten this, but Virginia Buckingham’s arrival at the Herald was controversial. A Massachusetts Republican operative, she’d been in charge of Logan Airport on Sept. 11, 2001. So when she began working as deputy editorial-page editor at the Herald in January 2003, she was greeted with a petition, signed by 40 of her new colleagues, that referred to her partisan background as an “embarrassment,” and by questions as to whether she could ever be tough enough on the folks with whom she had once served.

When I checked in on her, 10 months later, she’d done a pretty good job of answering her critics. Buckingham switched to column-writing in 2005, which gave her more of an identity. But her timing was lousy. The paper was shrinking and loading up on gossip and flash, and there just didn’t seem to be much room for a cautious, moderate voice.

Now Buckingham is leaving to become a lobbyist for Pfizer. Her last column appears today. I like this:

The first thing I’ve learned that government officials should understand about the media is that having a bias is not the same as having an agenda. The issue of liberal or conservative bias in the media is way overplayed. Journalists are human and bring their life experiences to their job. How could they not? But Herald State House reporters are no more looking to uncover a Patrick administration scandal than the Globe was looking for a Romney one. Both are looking for stories — good stories (which, granted, are often scandals) that will interest readers, shed some light on how government works and, as an added benefit, maybe help someone out, like a family that’s about to lose their home. Journalists aren’t cheerleaders but most are equal-opportunity critics, no matter their own political ideology.

She’s also got some worthwhile things to say about cheap-shot artists in the media and a journalistic aversion to nuance.

I wish Buckingham well, although, considering who her new employer is, not at the expense of consumers and taxpayers.

Another take on the Herald libel case

I’m going to pronounce myself officially blogged out on the subject. But I do want to call your attention to Adam Reilly’s smart piece on the Herald libel decision, which has been posted on the Phoenix’s Web site and will appear in tomorrow’s paper.

Pay careful attention to the words of First Amendment lawyer Jonathan Albano, who wasn’t involved in the case, but who did help write an amicus brief on the Herald’s behalf. Albano tells Reilly: “You’ve got some very talented lawyers out there who are going to be looking at this decision, and saying, ‘What can I take from it?'”

In other words, you don’t have to produce something as sensationalistic and error-filled as the Herald’s articles on Judge Ernest Murphy to be worried about the implications of the Supreme Judicial Court’s opinion. This could harm freedom of the press for all of us.