Category: Uncategorized

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.

Last Friday Mike Pesca of NPR interviewed me for “Day to Day” about “X-Men: The Last Stand.” This latest X-Men sequel has the whiff of eugenics about it: A cure is developed for the mutants’ genetic flaws, and much of the plot is built around the theme of “should they/shouldn’t they.”

Pesca, bless his soul, remembered that I had written “Little People,” a book about dwarfism, a few years ago. He asked me to compare Halle Berry’s dilemma to that of a family faced with the prospect of having a child with dwarfism. Would they choose abortion? (Some would.) Would they choose a genetic “cure” if one were available? (Almost certainly.)

Anyway, Pesca’s interview with me was broadcast today. You can listen to it here.

Here’s a possible piece of the puzzle that is Matt Clement. We all know how well he pitched last year until he got hit in the head with a line drive. Well, it turns out that last year he pretty much stopped throwing his sinker. What about this year? From Dan Shaughnessy’s Boston Globe column of March 14:

The tall, veteran righty made his first appearance of the spring against big league hitters yesterday and threw four shutout innings against the Dodgers in City of Palms Park. He gave up two hits, no walks, and fanned three. He said he liked the way he threw his sinker, a pitch he largely ignored last year.

“That’s as good as I’ve thrown my sinker since my first couple of years with the Cubs,” said Clement. “It’s a pitch I pretty much forgot about, although it got me hit in the head once last year.”

So he was successful without his sinker last year — and when he threw one to Carl Crawford, it nearly got him killed. To my eye, it looks like he’s been throwing the sinker a lot this year. Why?

“I fully support our First Amendment rights. But I would love to put restrictions in it that [protesters] can’t be within 10 miles of a military funeral, not just 300 feet.”

“All’s not Wells for Red Sox” (Boston Herald); “Wells is hit after doing well” (Boston Globe).

Sean McAdam: “Clement may be far from reliable, but how many fifth starters are? Now, with Wells’ expected absence, Clement’s role becomes larger and the Red Sox pitching shortage becomes more acute.”

By popular request!

Bronson Arroyo on Monday: 7 innings, 6 hits, 1 earned run, 6 strikeouts, no walks. He’s now 6-2, and his 2.29 ERA leads the National League.

Matt Clement on Wednesday: 4.1 innings, 9 hits, 8 earned runs, 4 strikeouts, 4 walks, 1 hit batter (that drove in a run). He’s now 4-4. I don’t doubt that taking a line drive off his leg hurt his effectiveness, but the man’s ERA is now 6.31, which makes him 44th out of 49 American League pitchers.

Yes, I know the Red Sox tried to trade Clement in the off-season and no one wanted him. But isn’t that even more of a reason to hold onto Arroyo?

Meanwhile, Wily Mo Peña, the player for whom Arroyo was traded, is about to be benched, as Coco Crisp is finally just about ready to play. Wily Mo has not set the American League on fire.

But don’t worry — David Wells is back tonight.

My two cents’ worth on the “to comment or not to comment” debate, which Jay Fitzgerald captures here and here.

Glenn Reynolds once told me that he thought blog comments work best at medium-size sites. Too small, and comments are too rare to be worthwhile. Too big, and you get overwhelmed. Reynolds’ blog, InstaPundit, is ranked 14th by Technorati. Thus, if Reynolds turned comments on, it’s pretty much guaranteed that his site would be flooded with more posts than anyone could possibly read. Not much value there.

Take a look at David Corn’s site. Paging down the list this morning, I see 31 comments to one post, 109 to another, and 263 to another. Now, what good is that? When I go to Corn’s blog, I want to read what he has to say, not what’s rattling around in the brains of hundreds of other folks. There may be some wheat in there, but I can’t possibly take the time to sift through the chaff. More important, there could be some genuinely nutty, irresponsible comments. Is Corn supposed to screen them all?

Jay Rosen, who is as obsessive as he is smart, actually does take the time to sort through the comments in his PressThink blog. Once he’s posted an item, he’ll go back and write an “After Matter” roundup of reaction by other blogs and the best of his commenters. It’s got great value, but who, other than Rosen, has the time to do that? (I doubt Rosen has the time to do it, either. He just does it.)

Media Nation probably falls into the “medium size” category that Reynolds was referring to. I generally get somewhere between two or three comments or 15 to 25, depending on the topic. It’s not so tiny as to look foolish, but it’s also not so huge as to be useless. I’ve often been able to correct my posts thanks to smart commenters. Depending on how much time I have, I’ll post responses. Still, I find comments far from ideal. A few observations:

• I don’t like anonymous comments, and would turn them off if I could. I could restrict commenters to those willing to register with Blogger, but I don’t see much point to it, since people could still post anonymously.
• The late David Brudnoy taught me an unfortunate truth about talk radio: that the callers tend to be dumber than listeners who never call, making it a challenge for the host to keep matters elevated enough not to alienate the audience. Media Nation certainly gets its share of thoughtful, intelligent comments, and I appreciate those. But Brudnoy’s observation has obvious applicability to blogs, including this one.
• Commenters can commit libel, issue threats and engage in all manner of antisocial behavior, and it’s unclear how much responsibility I bear legally. I can delete comments, but I can’t always do it quickly. And if I delete one comment but fail to delete another, doesn’t that somehow make me liable for the one I let go? Maybe, maybe not. I’d just as soon not find out.

My bottom-line take on all this is that a blogger’s site is his or her own, and it has to be an individual decision whether to allow comments or not. I don’t think a lack of comments reflects on a blogger’s credibility in any way. After all, if you’ve got something to say, you can always start your own blog.

“O’Malley asks forgiveness for church sins” — Headline in today’s Boston Globe.