Author: Dan Kennedy

I will be away for the next week, so no posts. In fact, the reason I’m leaving this in beta for the moment is that I won’t be ready to post regularly until mid-August or so. But please stay tuned.

A rather odd construct in David Brooks’s column in today’s New York Times. The piece – an ode to Judge Michael McConnell, whom Brooks would like to see named to the Supreme Court – includes this sentence: “McConnell (whom I have never met) is an honest, judicious scholar.”

Whom he has never met? Okay. Then I guess we have to assume Brooks has met everyone else he names in the column: Harry Reid, Arlen Specter, Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, Mary Ann Glendon, and George W. Bush. And yes, I imagine he has. But so what?

We can probably rule out three others named by Brooks (whom I have met): Jesus, Rousseau, and Jefferson. The question remains: What was the point of this particular disclosure?

Robert Luskin, the lawyer for White House chief political adviser Karl Rove, has given an interview to Byron York in National Review Online that fleshes out the theory that Rove was not exposing CIA operative Valerie Plame but, rather, was seeking to warn Time magazine’s Matthew Cooper off a bad story. This is worth reading, not least because it might actually be true.

The whole Plame matter could turn out to be one of those celebrated scandals that falls apart upon close inspection – although President Bush still has to deal with the fact that he said he would fire whoever leaked Plame’s name to the media. Rove may not have broken any law, but it appears that he did leak her identity, if not her actual name.

How complicated is this? Check out Boston Globe columnist Robert Kuttner’s piece today, headlined “Second Thoughts on Leak Case.” For that matter, I’m prepared to take back at least some of this, depending on how events play out.

Steven Greenhouse has a good and important story on the front page of today’s New York Times about the exploitation of janitors, especially those who are illegal immigrants. Unfortunately, it’s undermined by a failure – it’s not clear whose – to do some elementary fact-checking.

Greenhouse writes that Isaias Garcia, who claims he’s owed $22,000 in back pay, is “a 24-year-old immigrant from Mexico … who lives with his wife, 5-year-old son and 4-year-old daughter in a one-bedroom apartment in Anaheim.” But the accompanying photo, by Monica Almeida, shows not two but three children. The caption reads: “Isaias Garcia says he is owed $22,000 in overtime pay and has complained to the California labor department. Mr. Garcia is shown with his son Diego, 13; wife, Rosario; daughter, Adela, 4, and son Josue, 5.”

If Diego is indeed Isaias’s son, then Isaias became a father when he was 11 years old. Not scientifically impossible, but it certainly strains credulity. Could Diego be a neighbor? A nephew? Isaias’s younger brother? For the answer, I suggested keeping an eye on tomorrow’s corrections.

If there’s one thing to love about the Boston Globe’s new Sidekick insert – and there may indeed only be one thing – it’s that the comics are finally the right size. When the Globe moved the funnies from the main part of the paper into Sidekick, they got bigger, too. For those of us who spend a few minutes with the comics each morning, this is a cause for celebration.

Some history, pulled up not from any research I’ve conducted, but from the imperfect recesses of my memory:

The large-format comics in Sidekick are nothing new, but, rather, are a return to the size that comics were in the past. Broadsheet newspapers were traditionally much wider than they are today. Most of us recall that, a few years ago, the Globe shrank itself a few inches, and is today narrower than the New York Times. But I’m not talking about that. A true broadsheet is the width of the Wall Street Journal, which is at least a half-column wider even than the Times. Today the Journal looks like an anomaly; but that format was once standard. That was the width of the Woonsocket (Rhode Island) Call, for instance, when I was a Northeastern co-op student there in the 1970s.

With such a wide format, comics could be published side-by-side at the size that God – or at least Charles Schulz – intended them. But as the pages got narrower, the comics got squeezed. There are a few exceptions. When Garry Trudeau returned from a leave of absence in the 1980s in order to resume “Doonesbury,” he won a concession forcing newspapers that wanted to carry it to run it at the old, traditional width. Bill Griffith, who does “Zippy,” may have the same arrangement: in looking at the Globe of July 1, I see that both “Doonesbury” and “Zippy” are 6 3/8 inches across, whereas everything else is less than 5 3/4 inches.

In Sidekick, by contrast, every comic strip is right around 6 1/2 inches wide. It’s much more readable that way, and the art pops out as well. It would be nice if other newspapers were to emulate the Globe. It might even encourage artists to go for more detail and complexity than can be accommodated at the narrower width.

Elsewhere, Mark Jurkowitz talks with Globe publisher Richard Gilman about Sidekick.

David Corn, at TomPaine.com, offers some perceptive speculation as to why Judith Miller is in prison and Robert Novak isn’t. The headline – “Novak Squealed” – does a disservice to Corn’s thoughtful analysis. (Via Jay Rosen.)

Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that Time magazine’s Matthew Cooper may not have quite received the personal release that he claimed before deciding to testify about his anonymous source, top Bush political adviser Karl Rove. An excerpt from the team story, which carries Adam Liptak’s byline:

LIPTAK: “A short time ago,” Mr. Cooper said, “in somewhat dramatic fashion, I received an express personal release from my source.”

But the facts appear more complicated than they seemed in court. Mr. Cooper, it turns out, never spoke to his confidential source that day, said Robert D. Luskin, a lawyer for the source, who is now known to be Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser….

Mr. Cooper and his personal lawyer, Richard A. Sauber, declined to comment on the negotiations, but Mr. Sauber said that Mr. Cooper had used the word “personal” to mean specific.

Hmmm. I certainly wouldn’t want to find myself faced with the same dilemma as Cooper, but I find myself wanting to know more. This would appear call into some question the “Time bad/Cooper good” paradigm that took hold after Time Inc. editor in chief Norman Pearlstine decided to turn over Cooper’s notes and e-mails.

Finally, Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff is fairly persuasive in writing that Rove’s leak to Cooper was not intended as political retribution but, rather, was aimed at warning Cooper off what Rove believed – or least hoped to persuade Cooper – was a bad story. It may well turn out that there was less to the whole Valerie Plame matter that met the eye. If that’s the case, then White House officials will have to ask themselves why they failed to learn the first lesson of Watergate: it’s the cover-up, stupid.

If you haven’t done so yet, be sure to read Anne Barnard and Thanassis Cambanis’s tale of love amid the terror, which was the cover story of yesterday’s Boston Globe Magazine. It is that exceedingly rare example of a feature story that seems too short. Barnard and Cambanis did yeoman’s work covering what was supposed to be the post-war period in Iraq, only to chronicle the tale of a promising beginning that devolved into kidnappings and suicide bombings.

What I particularly like about their magazine story is that they integrate their romance and marriage into a larger narrative of what went wrong in Iraq. In their hands, the personal never seems forced or inappropriate. Rather, it’s a way of illuminating the bigger story.

The article is accompanied by a photo gallery that includes a few shots not available in print. As is the case with many publications, the Globe Magazine (and the paper as a whole) are getting better at offering multimedia options online to supplement what’s in print.

A particularly impressive example of this was the magazine’s three-part feature last spring on the Charlestown High School boys basketball team: click here, and you’ll find not just the story, but a slide show narrated by the reporter, Neil Swidey. The dilemma, of course, is that the online version ends up being more compelling than the print version. But that’s a problem facing the entire media business.

I’m something of a skeptic when it comes to shield laws. The whole point of the First Amendment is that it belongs to all of us, not to the media by themselves. As soon as you pass a law saying that reporters don’t have to give up their confidential sources, then you – or, rather, the government – has to start defining who’s a journalist and who isn’t. Not impossible, perhaps; judges make these kinds of determinations on a case-by-case basis all the time. But hardly an ideal situation.

Still, news that the Cleveland Plain Dealer has decided not to publish two investigative reports so as not to expose its journalists to the possibility of imprisonment shows that the situation has really gotten out of hand post-Judith Miller, post-Matthew Cooper. Mark Fitzgerald reported on this yesterday in Editor & Publisher. Robert McFadden has a follow-up in today’s New York Times. Plain Dealer editor Doug Clifton says the stories are “profoundly important,” but that he doesn’t dare risk publishing them following the imprisonment of Miller, who has refused to give up her source in the Valerie Plame matter.

Clifton’s stance may be part overreaction, part grandstanding. In fact, nothing has changed legally, and his reporters are presumably no more or less likely to be called before the grand jury than they would have been before the Plame matter brought the question of journalistic privilege to public prominence. In 1972 the Supreme Court ruled, in Branzburg v. Hayes, that journalists, like all citizens, must testify before the grand jury when called to do so. As a practical matter, the courts have tended to rely on a balancing test called for by one of the dissenters, Potter Stewart. But that’s a custom, not a constitutional principle.

Still, there’s no question that the government is ratcheting up its efforts to haul journalists into court and force them to testify. As Mark Jurkowitz observes, this is taking place at a time when public confidence in the press is at a low, making it all the harder for the media to fight back. We don’t know what the Plain Dealer isn’t telling us – but Clifton’s decision to hold back suggests that we shouldn’t lose sight of the reasons that journalists must sometimes rely on confidential sources. Even if Clifton is making the wrong choice, the chilling effect of Miller’s imprisonment is already hurting the public.

Welcome back. On a personal note, welcome to the first real post to Media Etc., which now enters beta mode before its official unveiling. No more test posts – if I have nothing to say, I won’t say it. I also probably won’t post regularly until, say, mid-August, just before the fall semester begins. I plan to keep this low-key until I’ve worked out a few more bugs. So, shhhh! For the moment, let’s keep this just between us, okay?