Category: Uncategorized

Is that all there is?

I’ll reserve judgment over the latest contretemps regarding Manny Ramírez. But I do want to flag an unsettling quote from Bob Lobel in Dan Shaughnessy’s column today.

It was Lobel, formerly of WBZ-TV (Channel 4), who took to WEEI Radio (AM 850) earlier in the week to report that Ramírez had (a) been fined six figures for shoving traveling secretary Jack McCormick and (b) infuriated management by taking three straight called strikes from Mariano Rivera to protest his punishment. Now Red Sox officials are denying it — especially (b).

Here’s Lobel talking to Shaughnessy:

I don’t think this is false information. It’s not something I’d make up. It didn’t come to me in a dream. I know it’s not in their best interests to talk about this, but I’m pretty confident with what I said.

Whoa. Lobel doesn’t think this is false information? Now, there’s a lofty standard. Given that Gordon Edes has reported the fine was about 10 percent of what Lobel claims, I think Lobel owes us more, although he obviously can’t out any anonymous sources he may have.

As for Manny looking at three straight pitches, I watched that game, and yes, it was disconcerting. But Ramírez had preceded that with some big-time loosening-up in the on-deck circle. If he were trying to send a message to management, you’d think he’d just kneel there, immobile.

I forget who the television analyst was, but his explanation that Manny was looking for a pitch in a specific location made sense to me. When Rivera is on, he’s not exactly easy to hit.

Sorry for the relative dearth of links. I’m having Internet problems today.

Bill O’Reilly and “shut up”

In a letter to the Phoenix, Rich Goggin of Peabody says I was wrong to claim, as I did in the recent Muzzle Awards, that Fox News Channel host Bill O’Reilly “loves nothing more than to tell his guests to ‘shut up.'” Goggin instructs me thusly: “Except O’Reilly only did that once, seven years ago.”

Really. Now, I’m going to make an assumption, but I’m pretty sure the source of Goggin’s misinformation is O’Reilly himself. O’Reilly’s claim was included in Robert Greenwald’s documentary “OutFoxed.” It is followed by a hilarious stream of O’Reilly telling both guests and non-guests alike, over and over, to “shut up.” Here is the clip:

As Ronald Reagan once said, facts are stupid things. And if that’s not enough for you, Mr. Goggin, Jack Shafer of Slate wrote way back in 2003, “Bill O’Reilly says ‘shut up’ the way other people say ‘um.'” He follows that with one, two, three … OK, make that 30 examples.

I posted a comment to Goggin’s letter, but it doesn’t seem to have taken yet. I don’t know if he’s a Media Nation reader, but perhaps someone will send him this way. Meanwhile, my advice for him is to shut up.

It’s all about the debt

Boston Herald reporter Christine McConville quotes me today in a story about GateHouse Media’s ongoing financial woes, which have now extended to closing the chain’s weeklies in Taunton and Avon.

As best as I can figure out — and I’ve been making some inquiries — it’s all about GateHouse’s $1.2 billion debt. But as McConville notes, when you talk to insiders, you can’t help but be surprised by lack of panic.

What you hear is that the debt has been structured in a way that makes it quite a bit less onerous than outside analysts assume. The truth? Well, it’s out there, I guess.

As for the closing of those two papers, it’s always a shame when the doors are padlocked, but this doesn’t strike me as a huge deal. The weekly Taunton Call and Avon Messenger operated in the shadow of the Taunton Gazette and the Brockton Enterprise, dailies also owned by GateHouse. The company’s Wicked Local Web sites for the two communities remain intact.

Regional publisher Mark Olivieri explains here and here.

The vagaries of search

Yes, I’m looking for help from the brain trust again.

A year ago I published a free, online edition of my book on dwarfism, “Little People.” Unfortunately, I’ve done it in a way that renders it nearly invisible to Google.

Here’s how I handled it. I uploaded the book to a subset of my personal Web site. The top page for the book is home.comcast.net/~dkennedy56/littlepeople.html. Then I registered the domain name littlepeoplethebook.com and set it to forward to that page.

My other ventures are not exactly invisible to Google. But when I Google “Dan Kennedy” “Little People”, a link to the book doesn’t come up until the eighth page. And when I search for text inside the book, it doesn’t come up at all.

Interestingly, “Little People” is better represented on Google by Cape Cod Today, whose publisher, Walter Brooks, was kind enough to serialize my book last fall.

Yes, I know I could get a hosted solution, but I’m not willing to spend any money. Would it help if I moved the book to a higher level? (Example: home.comcast.net/~littlepeople.) I could do that, but I don’t want to bother unless it’s really going to make a difference.

Or I could set it up as a Blogger or WordPress.com site.

Thoughts?

One in five

With the Massachusetts Legislature on the verge of repealing a 1913 law that’s made it difficult for out-of-state gay and lesbian couples to marry here, we’ve reached a remarkable moment in the rise of same-sex marriage — more remarkable than perhaps most people realize.

Yes, only two states allow same-sex marriage: Massachusetts and California. But, since May, the state of New York has recognized same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, making it possible for New York couples to marry in, say, Canada or Massachusetts.

The combined population of Massachusetts, California and New York is 62.2 million — nearly 21 percent of the total U.S. population of 299.4 million. That means one in five Americans lives in a state where same-sex marriage is recognized.

California voters might repeal same-sex marriage this November. But given that the state’s Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, opposes the anti-marriage referendum, there’s reason to be optimistic.

A final observation about Massachusetts. Yesterday’s state Senate vote to repeal the 1913 law was unanimous. The vote in the House is expected to be overwhelming. Can we finally stop the charade that gay marriage was forced on us by “unelected judges,” as critics inevitably charge?

It may have taken the state’s Supreme Judicial Court to start the debate. But last year opponents failed to win over the mere 25 percent of legislators needed to place the question on the ballot. And now our elected legislators are taking the final steps toward normalizing same-sex marriage, secure in the knowledge that most of their constituents either support marriage equality or don’t strongly object.

More: Esther offers some observations at Gratuitous Violins.

Old ethics and new media (VI)

Howard Owens, GateHouse Media’s director of digital publishing, has responded to YouTube’s decision to remove the Beverly Citizen’s controversial video of the “Horribles” parade.

According to Owens, YouTube acted after receiving a complaint from someone whose face was visible in the video. Apparently YouTube has a privacy policy under which it will take down a video at literally anyone’s request. Owens sums it up as follows:

We simply cannot allow YouTube, or any other business partner, to subvert our editorial independence. If YouTube wants to get in the game of hosting video for established news organizations — which it is doing — then it needs to respect the editorial judgment and independence of the news professionals in those organizations. If YouTube is unwilling be a true media partner, then, at least for GateHouse, we will need to seek alternative means of distribution of our videos.

Now, it’s easy enough to say that YouTube should act as a common carrier, similar to the phone company, and carry any traffic that comes its way, regardless of content. As a free-speech advocate, I would much prefer a policy like that.

But it’s not that simple. YouTube is successful in part because it does a good job of keeping out pornography and graphic violence. It’s the PG-13 nature of YouTube that makes it an attractive venue for media companies like GateHouse in the first place.

On the other hand, Owens is absolutely right that if the folks at YouTube are going to remove news videos arbitrarily, then there’s no way a news organization can do business with them.

I haven’t changed my mind about the video — I still would have edited it to remove the eight-foot-long penis and some of the more offensive signs. But that has to be the news organization’s call, not that of the service hosting the video.

I realize this post is entirely one-sided, and I hope YouTube has something to say. Soon.

Wednesday morning update: An unnamed YouTube spokeswoman tells the Boston Herald that the video was “inappropriate,” but leaves it at that.

GateHouse financial outlook dims

While we’re talking about GateHouse Media, you might be interested in knowing that the bad financial news continues. The trade publication Editor & Publisher reports that the company’s stock price is flirting with the $1 mark, which could trigger a series of unfortunate events.

Stock analyst Tom Corbett of Morningstar is quoted as writing that the company’s shares “could be worthless,” and that it is conceivable that “its debt could become due immediately, resulting in a possible liquidation scenario.”

Much as company officials might not want to hear it, Corbett’s dire report fits with a recent post on the blog 247WallSt.com, which predicted that the Rochester, N.Y.-based chain — which owns some 100 newspapers in Eastern Massachusetts — could be broken up or worse by the end of the year.

Old ethics and new media (V)

Looks like GateHouse Media has taken matters into its own hands.

If you go to the Beverly Citizen’s “Horribles” parade story now, you’ll see that the video featuring the eight-foot-long water-spouting penis and the crude signs is back online.

The difference: The video is now hosted by Veoh Networks rather than YouTube.

More on that Obama cover

In my latest for the Guardian, I argue that the Obama campaign and its supporters on the left have made way too much of the New Yorker’s satirical cover depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as flag-burning, Osama bin Laden-loving terrorists.

Which puts me at odds with Jon Keller, who included me in a piece on the controversy last night on WBZ-TV (Channel 4).