Author: Dan Kennedy

Even if no rational person believes that the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi will end the violence in Iraq, it’s certainly good news that he’s been killed. John Burns of the New York Times reports on the raid that ended in Zarqawi’s death. Writing in the Washington Post, Ellen Knickmeyer and Jonathan Finer assert:

His killing is the most significant public triumph for the U.S.-led coalition since the 2003 capture of Saddam Hussein, although analysts warned that Zarqawi’s killing would not stem the tide of insurgency and violence in Iraq any more than Hussein’s capture did.

Al-Jazeera runs a chilling piece on the reaction of Zarqawi’s family. Zarqawi’s older brother is quoted as saying, “We expected that he would be martyred. We hope that he will join other martyrs in heaven.” That’s the problem: There’s no shortage of the hatred that created Zarqawi.

Rory Carroll writes in the Guardian:

We can assume that al-Qaida in Iraq will attempt reprisal attacks as soon as possible, to show it is still in business; also that the organisation will operate at less than full steam while it tries to fill its leadership void.

Beyond that, the significance of this week’s US strike on Baquba, 40 miles north of the capital, is difficult to gauge. Too much mythology, too much spin, encrusts the name Zarqawi to know at this stage whether his death is a turning point or a footnote.

Writing for the Daily Standard, Dan Darling, a “counterterrorism expert,” calls Zarqawi “one of the most accomplished mass murderers in the modern history of terrorism.” Yet Darling concedes that the extent of Zarqawi’s power and influence have always been something of a mystery. Darling concludes:

Zarqawi’s death is unlikely to prove the immediate end of either al Qaeda in Iraq or the Iraqi insurgency, as Zarqawi was, by his own account, only a servant or representative of al Qaeda’s international terrorist organization. Yet it must be noted that Zarqawi was also a monster of unspeakable proportions. The United States, its coalition allies, and the new Iraqi government have much to be thankful for in bringing an end to this mass murderer’s career.

Well, that’s certainly true. And not just mass murder: up close and personal, too, as Zarqawi was believed to have personally been involved in beheading hostages. Zarqawi’s death may have little more than symbolic value, but symbolism matters.

The Boston Herald was whacked today with two separate accusations of lifting material from other publications without giving credit.

In the stranger of the two incidents, the Huffington Post reveals that the Inside Track (barely) rewrote an Editor & Publisher item about — yes! — plagiarism. Trackster Gayle Fee says she was in a rush and concedes that she should have credited E&P. The item appears to have been removed from the Herald’s Web site. (Via Romenesko.)

Also today, the Weekly Dig has documented some close similarities between a Herald story on people who answer their cell phones even when they’re not ringing and a New York Times story on the same subject. London’s Daily Telegraph appears to have been a source, too.

Meanwhile, Herald publisher Pat Purcell tells the Boston Business Journal that he hasn’t ruled out free distribution (although he’s skeptical), and that he’d love to outsource his printing so that he no longer has to rely on presses that are, in some cases, 50 years old.

GateHouse Media’s acquisition of Community Newspaper Co. (CNC) and Enterprise NewsMedia is now complete, according to a statement by GateHouse CEO Mike Reed.

GateHouse — formerly Liberty Group Publishing — is paying a reported $400 million to buy the 100-newspaper-plus CNC chain from Boston Herald publisher Pat Purcell, as well as the Enterprise NewsMedia’s holdings: the Patriot Ledger of Quincy, the Enterprise of Brockton and 23 affiliated weekly papers on the South Shore and in Old Colony.

As Media Nation predicted, Kirk Davis is back big-time, as he has been named to run the business operations of the combined groups. Davis was the top business executive of CNC when it was owned by Fidelity, but left not long after Purcell bought the company in 2001. Until today, he’s held a lower-profile position as chief executive of Enterprise NewsMedia.

Now Davis instantly becomes one of the most powerful newspaper executives in Eastern Massachusetts, rivaling Richard Gilman, who runs the Boston Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette for the New York Times Co., as well as the Times Co.’s minority stake in Metro Boston and the New England Sports Network.

The complete text of Reed’s statement follows:

I’m pleased to announce that we have successfully closed on our acquisition of CP Media Inc. (Community Newspaper Company) and Enterprise NewsMedia LLC. Thank you for your patience as we worked diligently and expeditiously to complete the purchase. On behalf of the management and employees of GateHouse Media, we welcome you and look forward to a successful transition and promising future.

Effective today, I am also pleased to announce that Kirk Davis, CEO, President and Publisher of Enterprise NewsMedia LLC, will assume the additional responsibilities of CEO, President and Publisher of Community Newspaper Company (CNC). Kirk will report directly to me. I’m also pleased to announce that Greg Rush, Chief Operating Officer and Associate Publisher of CNC will continue in his current role, reporting to Kirk.

Kirk has been in the community newspaper industry for over 20 years. He has served in his current role since 2004. Prior to joining Enterprise NewsMedia, Kirk served as a senior executive at Community Newspaper Company from 1995 through 2001. He held the position of president and publisher from 1998 through 2001. He understands the local newspaper business extremely well, the Boston market extremely well and recognizes our potential to grow and better serve our readers and advertisers.

Throughout this process, I’ve been impressed with the management team members I’ve met from Enterprise NewsMedia and CNC. In addition, I’ve been very impressed with the overall companies that all of you have been instrumental in assembling. Both companies have great newspapers and great businesses. I’m confident that, under Kirk’s leadership, we can build on our proud tradition of being the region’s premier provider of local news and information.

I look forward to supporting your efforts however I can be of help. Again, we feel privileged to have acquired both companies and look forward to getting started.

I understand Kirk is planning a series of employee meetings in July. I’ll look forward to attending some of those meetings. It’s our intent to keep you apprised of our progress.
Thank you!

GateHouse Media is in the process of moving from Illinois to Rochester, N.Y. And, by the way, the aforementioned Greg Rush is Purcell’s son-in-law. Purcell needs to maintain the content-sharing arrangement he has with CNC. Rush’s presence should help ensure that.

And keep an eye on what’s next. Reed is the former chief executive of the Alabama-based Community Newspaper Holdings Inc., which last year purchased the Eagle-Tribune of Lawrence, the Daily News of Newburyport, the Salem News and the Gloucester Daily Times.

As I said in my earlier item, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see those four papers added to GateHouse’s holdings in, say, the next year or two. That would create an unprecedented newspaper behemoth in Eastern Massachusetts, with the Globe, the Herald and the Telegram & Gazette functioning as the group’s only significant rivals.

Is this kind of giantism good for community journalism? Of course not. Davis has always struck me as a well-intentioned guy who cares about the news to the extent that the cost of gathering it doesn’t exceed the miserly budgets set by ownership. But where is the localism in all this?

Yes, local coverage will be the bread and butter of the CNC/Enterprise group. Wicked Local, an experiment over which Davis has presided, is promising. But for those of us who believe that local ownership matters, today’s announcement is just another example of what’s gone wrong in the newspaper business.

Ownership concerns aside, though, I’m actually optimistic that the new owners have deep enough pockets to improve their new papers. Let’s hope.

Christopher Hitchens, deep into self-parody, writes a piece for Slate called “Why Haditha isn’t My Lai.” He’s absolutely right, of course. This is 2006, not 1968, which obviously makes the two incidents significantly different. And let’s not forget that Vietnam is part of Indochina, whereas Iraq is in the Middle East.

Hitchens, sharp analyst that he is, also notes that the alleged atrocities in Haditha just took a few minutes, whereas William Calley and company spent all day slaughtering civilians in Vietnam. Also, the Viet Cong were much, much nicer than those nasty Iraqi and Islamist insurgents.

You will not be surprised to learn that Mark Steyn is traveling down the same road as Hitchens. Peter Daou captures Steyn and Hitchens perfectly: “Steyn is a self-styled ‘conservative’ worshipped by many on the right for his Hitchens-esque turns of phrase (no, not a compliment) …” But read the whole thing — Daou’s got some classic lines in there.

The charges regarding Haditha have not been proved. But if they’re true, or substantially true, then the analogy to My Lai will be perfect — tragically so.

Some more tidbits about Peter Damon, the injured Iraqi war veteran who’s suing filmmaker Michael Moore for using a news clip of him in “Fahrenheit 9/11” in a way that Damon claims falsely portrays him as a critic of President Bush. (Earlier items here, here and here.)

— MSNBC.com gossip columnist Jeannette Walls today quotes Damon’s lawyer, Dennis Lynch, as denying that Damon and his parents joined Sen. Ted Kennedy on the podium for an anti-war speech in 2004. Lynch is wrong, which raises the question of why he chose to deny reality rather than come up with a plausible explanation. Walls also writes:

In another film, one blasting Michael Moore [Walls is apparently referring to the Dick Morris-narrated “Fahrenhype 9/11”], Damon was quoted as saying that he disagreed with Moore’s documentary, which he called “propaganda.” But when asked if Moore had he right to make the movie, Damon replied, “That’s the reason we go off to fight — to defend his right to make a movie.”

Of course, that was before Lynch dangled visions of $85 million before his eyes.

— Speaking of Lynch, this post to the Democratic Underground has a bunch of material on his ties to ultraconservative causes. D.U. is obviously a partisan site, and I don’t like the idea of guilt by association. But, as you’ll see, the post consists almost entirely of links to Lynch’s own writings. Moreover, it fills in a few pieces of the puzzle regarding Lynch’s agenda, if not necessarly Damon’s.

Boston trivia fans will note the tenuous connection to former Boston mayor Ray Flynn.

— Here are some interesting thoughts on the fair-use exception to copyright law. As the blogger A.J. Schnack observes:

While the lawsuit is clearly part of a larger effort to get that leftie-commie Michael Moore, it is going to be an interesting and important test case that will either chill the work of nonfiction filmmakers (if it succeeds) or set in stone a rule to guide us in the future — we can use clips from news programs (and the people interviewed in them) to make our own case — even if the case we are making is the opposite of what the person being interviewed believes.

Moore-haters, pay careful attention to what Schnack is saying. He’s not saying that Moore has the right to distort or alter Damon’s words. What he is saying is that a journalist, a nonfiction filmmaker or an author has the right to use someone’s words in the service of his or her own agenda, even if that person is offended, as long as the person is portrayed accurately. It’s that right that Damon and Lynch are trying to topple. You might know it by a more familiar name: the First Amendment.

— Finally, it’s now been four days since we learned that Damon might have been against the war before he was for it. I’ve done a pretty thorough search, and can find no evidence that he has spoken since that revelation was posted at Reason.com.

Certainly Damon had proven that he can deliver some pithy sound bites. Has Dennis Lynch told him to shut up? And why might that be?

Go, Jon, go. My friend Jon Keller did a long interview with Damon last week, before the Ted Kennedy revelation. Here’s how Keller ends his piece: “One final note. Damon says he supported the war when he went over, and he still supports it now.” Time for a follow-up, I’d say.

We live in a binary world. Michael Moore may have committed bad journalism by making injured veteran Peter Damon look like a critic of the war in Iraq. (Or maybe not.) Does it therefore follow that Damon deserves $85 million? There’s pristine journalism and there’s legally actionable journalism; then there’s the other 90 percent. That 90 percent is the zone in which Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” falls. (Earlier items, with links, below.)

Yet folks who ought to know better are so consumed with contempt for Moore that they’re abandoning their common sense. This morning, for instance, I did a 15- or 20-minute stint with Scott Allen Miller on WRKO Radio (AM 680). Miller leapt to Damon’s defense, claiming it would be no different if he spliced in a humorous quip from Mayor Tom Menino after an item about crack cocaine. Well, of course it would be different. In the NBC News clip at issue, Damon was, in fact, talking about his injuries. Moore didn’t change that.

And, uh, Scotto: Could WRKO survive a legal precedent that playing unaltered, accurate news clips can cost you tens of millions of dollars if someone doesn’t like the context? For that matter, could any talk show or news organization?

Even more ludicrous, the Boston Herald today editorializes in Damon’s defense. The editorial ends with this:

Ordinarily we’re not huge fans of taking every dispute to court. But any lawsuit that attempts to show Moore for the pompous fraud he truly is surely deserves a hearing on the merits. And any man who would exploit and distort the words of a genuine American hero is beyond contempt.

Question: Does Herald publisher Pat Purcell support the idea that he could be hauled into court every time someone thinks a Herald reporter has quoted him accurately but out of context?

I don’t want to go too far out on a limb without having a chance to see “Fahrenheit 9/11” again. But based on what I’ve read, it doesn’t even sound like Damon himself was taken out of context — rather, he simply doesn’t like the context in which he appeared. He is seen in an NBC News clip talking about the pain he’s in following a terrible accident in which he lost both of his arms while repairing a Black Hawk helicopter.

Yes, the clip is surrounded by anti-war and anti-Bush material, but none of it is attributed to Damon. He was talking about a new painkiller he was trying; Moore was more interested in Damon’s injuries. Not to sound insensitive, but so what? Moore obviously has the right to tell the story he wishes to tell as long as he doesn’t distort Damon’s views. It doesn’t sound like he did. Damon’s a war hero, and his complaints deserve to be heard. But that doesn’t mean he deserves $85 million. Or, for that matter, the price of a movie ticket.

(An aside: Let’s get over the whole notion of whether Moore is a journalist. It doesn’t matter. “Fahrenheit 9/11” is a form of advocacy journalism, regardless of Moore’s status as a journalist, a filmmaker, an entertainer or whatever.)

Then there’s the whole matter of whether Damon is a latecomer to the pro-Bush brigades. Scotto, for one, seems to think Damon and his parents appeared at an anti-war speech by Sen. Ted Kennedy, at the liberal Center for American Progress, simply out of respect for the office that Kennedy holds.

It’s possible. I’ll withhold judgment until we hear from Damon. But it’s hard not to notice that the Kennedy revelation came shortly after noon yesterday, and Damon, as far as I can tell, has not yet been heard from.

The bottom line is this: If every act of journalistic malpractice (if that’s what this even was) were worth $85 million, the news media — and the First Amendment — would cease to exist. No doubt there are those who would be happy about that.

It’s all over for Peter Damon, who once stood next to Ted Kennedy as the senator delivered an anti-war message — a message that, by all appearances, he agreed with at the time. Thanks to Dan.

The double-amputee war veteran who’s suing Michael Moore over the way he’s portrayed in “Fahrenheit 911” seems to be depending on a fairly novel legal theory. Politics aside, journalists and filmmakers everywhere should be rooting for Moore.

According to the Boston Globe and Reuters, Peter Damon, who lost both arms in an accident while repairing a helicopter, is alleging only that Moore used an NBC News clip of him being interviewed. As best as I can tell, Damon’s not claiming that Moore distorted that interview in any way. Rather, Damon’s upset because he’s a supporter of President Bush, and Moore incorporated the clip into his notoriously anti-Bush documentary.

“It was kind of almost like the enemy was using me for propaganda,” Damon was quoted as saying. “What soldier wants to be involved in that? I didn’t lose my arms over there to come back and be used as ammunition against my commander-in-chief.”

Now, I haven’t watched “Fahrenheit 911” again to analyze the Damon segment. But I will grant him that Moore may well have given his viewers the mistaken impression that Damon was being critical of Bush. As Reuters reports:

In “Fahrenheit 9/11,” the footage of Damon follows a statement by Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington, who says of the Bush administration: “You know they say they’re not leaving any veterans behind, but they’re leaving all kinds of veterans behind.”

But as long as Damon himself was portrayed accurately, his legal claim ought to be dismissed.

No doubt Moore faced hurdles simply using the NBC News footage. Even though the fair-use doctrine of copyright law clearly allows third parties such as Moore to show excerpts for the purpose of commentary, media corporations have gotten more and more aggressive about protecting their turf. NPR’s “On the Media” recently reported on how difficult it’s become to claim fair use; click here and here for transcripts.

If the subjects of interviews, accurately portrayed, can now sue over contextual complaints such as Damon’s, then the First Amendment would be dealt an enormous blow. Damon has suffered a lot, and it’s a shame that he believes he was used as an unwitting tool. But was Moore supposed to seek Damon’s permission before using the news clip? Ask him what he thought of the president? That’s apparently what Damon and his lawyer believe. I’m sorry, but that’s ridiculous.

When Boston Herald publisher Pat Purcell sold his Community Newspaper subsidiary last month, he talked about beefing up the Herald’s online presence as part of his survival strategy. Today he takes a step in that direction, making his columnists freely accessible. Bloggers everywhere will be delighted. The Herald touts the move here.

It strikes me that Purcell had put himself in an untenable middle position. On the one hand, the Herald is an urban tabloid that depends almost entirely on newsstand sales. By giving it away online, he runs the risk that many readers will get what they want out of it in five or 10 minutes at their computers: the Inside Track, the front page, maybe a columnist or two. In fact, I argued last year that Purcell should consider getting rid of the Herald’s Web site entirely.

On the other hand, if Purcell really believes the Web can become part of his long-term strategy, it makes no sense to wall off the columnists by making them available only to his tiny number of home-delivery subscribers and to online readers willing to pay an extra fee. Even the New York Times has had only modest success with its TimesSelect program. The Herald ain’t the Times.

Overall, then, a thumb’s up. You can’t have a successful Web site if you don’t offer your most popular content. So welcome back, Peter, Margery, Howie, Wayne, Gerry and Steve. And, yes, even you, Joe.

Of all the strange utterances to issue forth from Michael Lacey, the Phoenix-based New Times head who swallowed up the Village Voice some months back, today’s, in the New York Times, is among the strangest.

Asked how non-New Yorker Erik Wemple, the newly named Voice editor, would play in New York, Lacey replied: “That’s just a thing that New Yorkers are going to have to get over.”

Well isn’t that interesting? Maybe Lacey bought the Voice because he was under the impression that New Yorkers are required to pick it up every week. It’s every newpaper mogul’s dream, of course, but only Lacey seems to think it’s reality.

This is not to disparage Wemple, until now the editor of the Washington City Paper, where he enjoys a good reputation. But Lacey needs to understand that he’s not going to shove anything down the throats of New Yorkers unless they want it shoved.

Here is the official announcement.