By Dan Kennedy • The press, politics, technology, culture and other passions
The Weekly Dig’s Web site loads a lot faster than it used to.
You know, guys, there’s this thing called Blogger. It’s free, and you can set it up in about two minutes. You could use it to get some of your content online while you continue with the endless redesign. What do you think?
Adam Gaffin points out that it’s not July anymore. But what I want to know is this: Isn’t it kind of pushing things to run a vodka ad, complete with audio, on an “under construction” page?
My latest commentary for the Guardian is a response to Russell Baker’s depressing take on the state of the news media, which appears in the current New York Review of Books.
Secretary of State William Galvin might want to take a close look at today’s Enterprise of Brockton, which reports the following:
A town police lieutenant, who was in charge of security for Saturday’s town meeting that approved a casino for Middleboro, and his family could score more than $2 million if the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe buys land they own near the casino site.
Middleboro Police Lt. Bruce Gates and two siblings own 204 acres of land off Precinct and Thompson streets. The land consists of a handful of parcels, which abut 125 acres already in the hands of the tribe.
The tribe is now negotiating with Gates and his family for their land, said Wampanoag spokesman Scott Ferson.
“We hope to have an agreement in the next week or two,” Ferson said.
This, of course, would be the same Middleborough police department that reportedly refused to let casino opponents distribute their leaflets while at the same time allowing supporters to enter wearing orange T-shirts and white caps emblazoned with a pro-casino message.
In other casino-related news:
The real story from Saturday’s “vote” was that while a majority at the FedEx-style town meeting supported the warrant article dealing with the agreement, they also voted against the idea of a casino coming to Middleboro in the next warrant article.
This came as a surprise to no one. During the three-week campaign, hundreds of voters we spoke with did not want a casino, but they were afraid if they did not vote for the agreement, the casino was going to come anyway and the town would receive nothing in return.
The truth is out there.
Ugh. I’ve already made my thoughts known about Rupert Murdoch’s acquisition of the Wall Street Journal, both here and in the Guardian. So I’ve really got nothing new to say now that he’s finally pulled it off. (Indeed, this has gone on so long that opinion-slingers like me have run through our ammo two or three times already.) But the Journal is well on its way from being a great, independent paper to a very good paper with a grasping, interfering owner.
I love Eric Alterman’s take in The Nation. Alterman argues that because the Journal’s news pages will be seen as less serious under Murdoch, so will its nutty right-wing editorial page. Alterman writes:
The silver lining of this takeover is that when Murdoch destroys the credibility of the Journal — as he must if it is to fit in with his business plan — he will be removing the primary pillar of the editorial page’s influence as well. In this regard his ownership is a kind of poisoned chalice.
Locally, meanwhile, let the outsourcing (and selling?) begin. Last week, the Globe’s Steve Bailey reported that Herald publisher Pat Purcell — who bought the Herald from Murdoch, his old mentor, in 1994 — would look to strike a deal for the Herald to be printed at a Dow Jones-owned plant in Chicopee should the Murdoch deal succeed. (Dow Jones is the Journal’s parent company.) Purcell confirmed his interest in a Herald story two days later the same day.
The Herald’s current property, next to the Southeast Expressway, is worth far more than its crumbling plant. A printing deal would presumably enable Purcell to sell the property and reduce his costs by vast sums, and might even ensure the long-term financial health of his paper.
Today the Globe reports that the Globe itself is in negotiations to print the Patriot Ledger of Quincy and the Enterprise of Brockton.
Now, follow the bouncing newspaper owners:
Murdoch’s victory could be just the beginning for local newspaper readers.
Oh, my. Jim Cramer, the screaming loon of CNBC, hopes Murdoch will push the Journal so that it finally matches the relevance of, yes, the New York Post business pages. By the way, the Post’s business coverage is quite good. But come on.
Michael Paulson reports in the Globe that the New England Conference of the United Methodist Church is urging fellow Methodists to divest from companies that are supporting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.
The Methodist statement begins even-handedly enough:
Despite renewed talk of peace between Israelis and Palestinians, the hard reality is that Israel’s actions on the ground in the region, as well as Palestinian militant attacks on Israelis, place enormous obstacles in the way of progress toward peace.
So why does the conference propose punishing Israel alone? This is nasty business. Someone should ask Hillary Clinton, a Methodist, where she stands.
Today’s Globe editorial on Middleborough keeps the string alive — there’s no mention of the second vote, to reject the casino itself. But if you look back to those golden days of, oh, last Thursday, you’ll see that at least one Globe reporter thought the second vote was very important indeed.
In a preview of the Middleborough town meeting for Globe South, Christine Wallgren wrote:
The first of the two ballot items authorizes selectmen to enter into an already-negotiated agreement with the Mashpee Wampanoag and their backers to build a casino complex.
The second item — placed on the warrant by the casino opposition — asks voters whether they want a casino built in town at all. While it is nonbinding, casino opponents hope a negative vote will show state and federal authorities that a casino is not welcome under any terms….
Rejection of the idea of a casino in town would send a message to state and federal officials who must act on other aspects of the tribe’s casino proposal.
“This way, people get to actually vote on whether they want a casino, rather than just voting on a flawed agreement,” said casino foe Richard Young. “This would send a message to the selectmen, and I think at least some of them would take it to heart. They could fight this. Other towns have fought and won.”
Another casino foe, Jacqueline Tolosko, said: “I’ve been told by [state] Senator Marc Pacheco and by [US Representative] Barney Frank that if residents of this town don’t want a casino, they will back us. I think the vote on this is very important.”
Opponents have said they hope a negative vote would have some impact on how state and federal authorities react when the tribe looks to put the land in trust and obtain a compact for expanded gambling.
Exactly. So why does the Globe continue to ignore this important wrinkle? Last Thursday, Wallgren got the nuances right: the first vote was on the agreement with the Wampanoags; the second vote was on the casino itself. Today’s editorial blasts past all that. When is the Globe going to get it right?
I couldn’t believe it when John Harwood, on “Meet the Press,” defended that ridiculous Washington Post column about Hillary Clinton’s alleged cleavage on the grounds that she’s too “calculating” not to know what she was doing. So I’m glad that Media Matters was similarly appalled.
“Gladys Kravitz” is a hoot, but she can sting, too. Here she is on casino proponents who supposedly mocked Jacquie Tolosko, leader of the anti-casino group CasinoFacts.org, when she became emotional:
It’s difficult for me to comprehend what kind of sociopathic low-brow trailer trash would do that sort of thing to a person so courageous as to stand before three-thousand strangers and speak from the heart, but clearly they’re charter members of that same sad deluded faction which actually believes a casino is their friend.
Kravitz has a warning for the media as well, writing that “it’s apparently going to be up to us to get the word out about the NO vote, because the Fourth Estate seems to have taken a vacation day.”
Jeff Keating, writing for the Greater Boston Blog, makes a terrific find — Government Center, a collection of computer-assisted-reporting (CAR) resources at Boston.com. I especially like the Dunkin’ Donuts finder. But seriously — this is great stuff, and I’ll add it to the list of resources I give my students.
Here are a few of Media Nation’s favorite CAR sites:
Have any I should know about? Please pass them along.
The most complete story on what comes next for Middleborough is this one, which appears in the Cape Cod Times and The Standard-Times of New Bedford. Obviously there’s a long way to go before anyone breaks ground on a casino. Reporters Curt Brown and Don Cuddy write:
Despite the overwhelming vote in favor of a casino, [casino opponent Richard] Young said he feels the public expressed its true sentiments Saturday when it rejected a nonbinding question to approve casino gambling in town.
But only about half the voters were still at town meeting when the nonbinding question was decided.
True, but as I have already explained, that doesn’t negate the validity of the question. And half of nearly 4,000 is still a huge turnout for a town meeting. Sabutai comes through again in a comment on Blue Mass Group, placing in their proper perspective the “yes” vote on Article 2, to approve the agreement with the Wampanoags, and the “no” vote on Article 3, to reject the casino itself (bolds are his):
I realize there is an interest in spinning the votes on 2 and 3 to undercut questioning of the result. The media has embraced the spin of the town officials and the pro-casino side. Fact is, having some 1,500 people vote on a question is probably the second-highest total in Middleborough history. Given that the third article pre-dated the second and was submitted by petition, it’s interesting that it was relegated to “garbage time”. Again, the interests of the Tribe came before the interests of the citizen of Middleboro. I’m not expecting that the votes wouldn’t be close on those two articles considering how the town was divided, but they should at least be consistent. The fact that the votes were not indicated the failure of this meeting.
Speaking of spin embraced by the media, the Globe today still can’t bring itself to mention the “no” vote on Article 3. What is going on over there?
Finally, here is what Casinofacts.org, the anti-casino group, is saying about Saturday’s vote:
Middleboro says “Yes” and “No”
The article to enter into an agreement with with Tribe passed. The article about whether or not people wanted a casino did not pass. I think this is very telling on the effect of “vote yes or else”.
So Middleboro said “Yes” to an agreement(or else) and “No” to wanting a casino.
Now that the vote is over, we’ll be taking a few weeks to catch up on work, home, family and decide what the next steps will be.
I’m not going to stop posting on this, but I am going to turn it down to a slow simmer, and keep watching as the story unfolds.
Hilarious. A Media Nation reader passes along this e-mail from Stephen, a downtown lawyer: “So when is Middleboro going to change its name to John Kerry Ville? (We voted for the casino before we voted against it.)”