Katie Kingsbury, the opinion editor at The Times, said in a memo to her staff that Mr. Douthat made the case for “a religiously serious, intellectually restless conservatism.”
“He was right about things early, wrong about things honestly and never, not once, boring,” she added.
Douthat is incredibly boring, and I find it hard to imagine that Kingsbury disagrees. I also doubt she’ll have much trouble finding a more engaging conservative to replace Douthat if that’s what she wants to do. She might consider Kevin Williamson of The Dispatch, who, like Douthat, is a conservative Catholic, and whose recent takedown (sub. req.) of JD Vance’s book “Communion” is both hilarious and devastating.
As for Douthat, I thought perhaps CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss and “60 Minutes” executive producer Nick Bilton were planning to use him as a commentator. Nope. He’ll be a full-fledged correspondent, despite having no television experience and, as far as I know, no reporting background.
Bill Siroty was an early supporter of Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign. Photo (cc) 2003 by Elvert Barnes.
Bill Siroty, a New Hampshire political activist who died Sunday at 75, was one of the original political bloggers. I profiled him for The Boston Phoenix in November 2003 to find out how he’d turned his daily newsletter, New Hampshire News Links, into an influential outlet for political news ahead of that state’s presidential primary.
Paging through this 22-year-old story is like reliving the early days of the internet. There’s Chuck Todd, then with “Hotline,” now the retired moderator of NBC’s “Meet the Press.” There’s James Pindell, then with PoliticsNH.com, now with The Boston Globe. There’s Deborah “Arnie” Arnesen, still a force on New Hampshire talk radio. And there’s Josh Marshall, still blogging at his Talking Points Memo site. This was all before social media, which has distorted politics — and the media — beyond recognition.
My condolences to Bill’s friends and family, including his husband, Bill Stelling.
An unlikely bigfoot
Meet Dr. Bill Siroty: Physician, Dean supporter, and New Hampshire’s indispensable media activist
The Boston Phoenix | Nov. 7, 2003
NASHUA, N.H. — The doctor sitting across the table from me in the Southern New Hampshire Medical Center cafeteria, sipping iced coffee late on a Friday morning, would not be on anyone’s list of media stars in this state’s first-in-the-nation presidential primary.
William Siroty, a mild-mannered 52-year-old allergist and internist, doesn’t write about politics, analyze poll numbers, or blurt out pithy sound bites on TV talk shows. He speaks so softly that I have to ask him to repeat himself whenever a can goes clunk! in the soda machine behind me.
I’m heading out for a family wedding in a little while, but the media news keeps coming. Here are three stories you should be aware of.
📰 Trump backs down. “The federal government says it will drop its subpoenas compelling New York Times reporters to testify about anonymous sources in a case that involved President Donald Trump’s claims about a Qatari-gifted Air Force One jet” (CNN). My earlier coverage.
📰 Mass. Senate to boost public records. “Top Senate Democrats signaled Thursday they will seek a vote next week on legislation that would, like a bill passed last month in the House, subject both the governor’s office and the Legislature to some kind of public records framework, taking aim at the same topic already targeted by a question on the November ballot” (CommonWealth Beacon).
📰 Journalism cuts at UMass Dartmouth. “Student journalists at UMass Dartmouth are speaking out about what they say may be unfair treatment, or even retribution, after the university’s only journalism professor was let go — two months after a university dean wrote that the professor’s contract extension was already ‘approved’” (New Bedford Light).
Click here or on image to watch on Contrarian Boston.
On the latest edition of “Beat the Press with Emily Rooney,” we take a look at the Trump regime’s decision to subpoena New York Times journalists in an attempt to find out who told the paper about security problems on the new Air Force One, a corrupt gift from the Qatari government.
As we note, the Constitution does not protect journalists from having to identify their confidential sources if they are ordered to do so by a court. But the White House is running roughshod over long-established standards regarding how such demands ought to be handled.
We also examine how news organizations decided whether or not to carry Trump’s lie-infested speech about election security, and his threat to challenge the broadcast licenses of outlets that took a pass; and how the World Cup turned out to be a huge success in Greater Boston despite predictions by many in the media that we were headed for a disastrous confluence of chaos and gridlock. Plus, our panel’s Rants & Raves.
Emily is in the moderator’s seat, joined by our host, Scott Van Voorhis of Contrarian Boston; Lylah Alphonse of The Boston Globe, and me. Our producer extraordinaire is Tonia Magras of Hull Bay Productions.
One of several planes that have been used as Air Force One. Photo (cc) 2015 by Gage Skidmore.
In the waning days of the last Congress in December 2024, a Republican senator killed efforts to pass a federal shield law that would have protected journalists from being forced to identify their anonymous sources or turn over confidential documents.
If you value news and commentary like this, please sign up for free email delivery of new posts — and consider becoming a supporter for just $6 a month. Supporters receive a weekly email with exclusive content.
The so-called PRESS Act, which had passed the House unanimously, died when Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas — acting at the behest of Donald Trump, who’d just been re-elected — objected to an attempt to pass it by unanimous consent. Cotton said that passage would turn senators “into the active accomplice of deep-state leakers, traitors and criminals, along with the America-hating and fame-hungry journalists who help them out.”
Now we see the consequences of Cotton’s recklessness. Michael M. Grynbaum reports in The New York Times that three of the five Times journalists who exposed security problems on the new Air Force One — a corrupt gift to Trump from the Qatari government — received subpoenas ordering them to reveal their sources.
Joseph McCarthy’s anti-communist witch hunt discredited the just-the-facts model of journalistic objectivity. Photo via the Encyclopedia Britannica.
On Nov. 21, 1954, Palmer Hoyt strode to the podium at the University of Arizona to accept the John Peter Zenger Freedom of the Press Award. Hoyt, the editor and publisher of The Denver Post, was being honored for his courage in standing up to Joseph McCarthy and his anti-communist witch hunt — a notable exception to the timidity shown by much of the press in tangling with the Republican senator from Wisconsin.
Hoyt used the occasion to call out publishers who had enabled McCarthy’s campaign of lies and character assassination. As quoted in Bill Hosokawa’s 1976 book, “Thunder in the Rockies,” an authorized history of the Post, Hoyt told his audience, “It is true that the number of newspapers critical of McCarthy has grown during the last year or two. But there are still many of them who are his supporters, his apologists, even his devotees.” Moreover, he denounced McCarthy’s journalistic toadies for being “as short-sighted as they are self-destructive.”
The larger target of Hoyt’s disdain was the notion of journalistic objectivity, or at least a certain definition of that much-used and much-abused term.
Protesters on Monday in Biddeford, Maine. Photo (cc) 2026 by Emma Davis / Maine Morning Star.
For the second time in a week, an ICE agent has shot and killed a man, this time in Biddeford, Maine, southeast of Portland.
The circumstances are murky. The Trump regime claims that the victim of Monday’s shooting, a Colombian named Joan Sebastian Guerrero, was endangering public safety as he attempted to drive away. There’s no evidence for that, and given the official lies that were told about the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti earlier this year, we have every reason to be skeptical. It’s notable, too, that Guerrero was reportedly not even the person ICE was looking for.
Earlier today, Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell’s office put out a photo and a statement saying that he’s sick, not dead or comatose. The conspiracy theories started immediately. I’ll begin with a straight-news post on Bluesky from Phil Lewis, an editor at HuffPost:
Social media users started questioning when the newspaper he’s holding had been published. I’ve seen suggestions that it’s from April. Well, no. In fact, it’s the front page today’s Washington Post sports section. (And minor props to McConnell for grabbing the sports pages.)
Even more ridiculous: You can see in the top photo that McConnell has the requisite four fingers and a thumb on his left hand. Almost immediately, though, an image started circulating showing McConnell with five fingers, thus “proving” that the photo is an AI fake. If you hadn’t seen the original, you might even believe it. mfa08 is an anonymous Bluesky account with 1,000 followers.
With the meltdown of Graham Platner’s U.S. Senate candidacy still playing out, I want to take a look at how The New York Times let it slip away.
The pieces are clearly visible, so you may already know where I’m going with this. But it’s worth tying them together and asking how the Times could come so close to breaking it wide open only to be relegated to the sidelines while Politico delivered the final blow.
If you value news and commentary like this, please sign up for free email delivery of new posts — and consider becoming a supporter for just $6 a month. Supporters receive a weekly email with exclusive content.
Early Monday afternoon, rumors began spreading on social media that a big story was about to break. Platner, a Maine Democrat, was reportedly canceling campaign events. Then it dropped: Politico published an interview with Jenny Racicot, a 41-year-old Maine woman, who claimed that in 2021 Platner entered her home and drunkenly, violently raped her.
GBH headquarters in Brighton, Mass. Photo (cc) 2011 by Commonist.
There are some new details today on how Boston’s two news-focused public media stations, GBH and WBUR, are faring a year after Donald Trump and the Republican Congress zeroed out all public funding.
Recently I wrote that GBH chief executive Susan Goldberg had sent a memo to her staff touting new levels of fundraising success, including more than 50,000 new donors and members as well as 3% raises for everyone. Now The Boston Globe’s Aidan Ryan expands on that (sub. req.), reporting, among other things, that GBH has begun a new statewide radio show in collaboration with New England Public Media of Massachusetts, with which it recently merged, and with its Cape Cod operation, CAI. (NEPM had technically been part of GBH since 2019.)
The weekly program, “In Common,” debuted on July 4 and will be broadcast on Saturdays at 2 p.m. It’s also available as a podcast, which is a good thing given that time slot.
As Mike Deehan first reported in Axios, GBH will also receive $500,000 in state money during the next fiscal year, which is a first for public media in Massachusetts. The money comes from the millionaires’ tax, which is restricted to education and transportation. Ryan reports that the money will be spent on children’s television programs.
Fundraising and revenue from events are up at WBUR as well, Ryan writes, noting that WBUR and GBH are fundamentally two different types of entities — although both are committed to digital, GBH has a massive television operation in addition to a local radio station, whereas ’BUR is primarily a radio station. It’s in radio that the two operations compete on local news coverage.
Last August I wrote for CommonWealth Beacon on plans Goldberg and WBUR chief executive Margaret Low were making to negotiate the post-federal-funding era. At a webinar sponsored by the New England chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, they said they planned to emphasize trust and community.
That approach seems to be working so far, with the public responding to the harm done by Trump and his legislative lemmings. The question is whether public media outlets across the country can hang on until January 2029, when the political tides may shift in the White House and in one or both branches of Congress.
