Category: Uncategorized

Controlling the casino-gambling narrative

House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate president Therese Murray

CommonWealth Magazine’s Michael Jonas says that Massachusetts House Speaker Robert DeLeo, by focusing on the jobs that casino gambling would bring, is trying to control the narrative in a way that is not in accord with reality. (Boston Globe story on DeLeo’s proposal for two casinos and four racinos.) Jonas writes:

The battle over casinos is always a battle to control the narrative. If the narrative stays focused on jobs and putting people who are hurting and in real economic distress back to work, proponents win. If it’s about predatory gambling and the state partnering up with rich casino moguls to pick the pockets of the lower-income residents who will disproportionately be the ones dumping their paychecks into the slots DeLeo wants installed at the state’s four racetracks (two of which are in his Winthrop-based district), the prospects could get, well, dicey.

Jonas observes that compulsive-gambling rates double in areas where casinos are located — and that problem gambling isn’t just an unfortunate byproduct of casino (and racino) gambling, but part of the business model.

The great Gladys Kravitz surveys the landscape as well, and pronounces DeLeo’s speech yesterday to be a “trifecta”: (1) experts are already saying the racinos DeLeo envisons will have to grow into casinos in order to survive; (2) New Hampshire and Rhode Island officials responded by reviving their own casino plans; and (3) the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe’s fading hopes of building a casino in Middleborough got a jolt of life.

It’s an absolutely miserable situation. DeLeo, Gov. Deval Patrick and Senate president Therese Murray are all on record as supporting casinos. Patrick’s most plausible opponents in the governor’s race, Republican Charlie Baker and independent Tim Cahill, are pro-gambling as well.

United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts is where you can find out everything worth knowing about casinos and slot machines.

Photo (cc) allegedly by Martha Coakley, although I doubt she took it, and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

A new comments policy — now with real names

Starting today, I am going to implement a policy I’ve considered for well over a year but have hesitated to try until now. If you want to post a comment, you’re going to have to use your real name — first and last.

I realize this will mean fewer comments. My expectation is that this will be a good thing, as the signal-to-noise ratio will improve and the quality will rise. Perhaps some of our frequent pseudonymous commenters will come out from behind their online personae and continue posting. Perhaps some folks who have held back from commenting for fear of being anonymously attacked will now feel safe to weigh in. (I’ll confess I haven’t been as tough in moderating comments as I should be. I’ll try to do better.)

My thinking has been influenced by Howard Owens, who insists on real names at The Batavian and who swears he can always tell when someone is faking. I’ve also been influenced by the high quality of dialogue at the New Haven Independent, even though editor Paul Bass does allow anonymous comments. The Independent also has the greatest comments policy I’ve ever come across, and I recommend it.

Here is Media Nation’s comments policy:

1. The use of real names, first and last, is required. If you have information (such as a news tip) that you want me to be aware of but you don’t dare to identify yourself, you can always send an e-mail to da {dot} kennedy {at} neu {dot} edu.

2. The purpose of comments is to encourage civil discourse. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. If you wouldn’t say it to someone’s face, then don’t say it here. And now we’ll know who you are.

3. Comments on this site are moderated. Comments are posted to a queue, and will not appear on Media Nation until I have approved them. If you believe I should not have allowed a comment to be posted, send an e-mail. I’ve been known to change my mind.

4. Media Nation shall be held harmless. Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Internet-based interactive services — including Media Nation — are not responsible for material posted by third-party contributors.

Media Nation is an ongoing experiment, and this is not likely to be the last word on comments. We’ll see how it goes.

Live-blogging the anti-SLAPP hearing

I’m watching the anti-SLAPP hearing here. Background on the case here.

And that’s a wrap. The Supreme Judicial Court will consider the arguments it heard this morning and issue a decision at some later time. It strikes me that the questions were equally tough for both sides — that Harvey Shapiro, the lawyer for journalist-activist Fredda Hollander, and Bruce Edmands, the lawyer for developer Steven Fustolo, were kept on the defensive during their arguments. No way of saying how this will come out.

To repeat my disclosure: I was paid by Fredda Hollander to write an affidavit (pdf) for her during an earlier stage of the case.

10:03 a.m. Edmands says Shapiro is correct that the media are covered in California, but the law is very different. If Shapiro wants anti-SLAPP protection extended to the media in Massachusetts, Edmands says, then “the correct forum is not this court, respectfully, but the Legislature.”

10:01 a.m. What about letters to the editor? asks one of the justices. Isn’t that petitioning? “It doesn’t have to go directly to the government body. Every official in town reads it,” he says. Edmands responds that letters are “widely understood to be expressions of opinion by the author,” unlike “factual” news stories.

The justice follows up by asking if the publisher wouldn’t be “petitioning” by publishing the letter. Edmands replies that it would be, but that the publisher should be treated differently from a reporter.

9:57 a.m. Edmands says the anti-SLAPP statute has never been extended to the media. It’s pointed out to him that a Superior Court decision did just that. “Don’t knock the Superior Court,” says one of the justices. “Some of us are graduates of the Superior Court.”

9:55 a.m. To clarify — Hollander and her husband, Bill Lee, were active in a North End neighborhood organization. She contends that her journalism for the Regional Review was an extension of that activism.

9:53 a.m. Justice asks what about a newsletter editor railing about an issue to his or her members. Edmands reponds that that would be closer to petitioning activity, but that’s not what Hollander did.

9:52 a.m. Edmands: “I think the statute was really intended to protect people who appear before governmental body … and speak out about their concerns.”

9:50 a.m. Now we’re hearing from Bruce Edmands, lawyer for developer Steven Fustolo, who’s suing Fredda Hollander for libel.

9:47 a.m. Justice asks if all investigative reporting would be covered. Purpose is “to cover something that is wrong so that the government will take action.” Shapiro replies that, yes, such reporting would be covered by anti-SLAPP law.

9:46 a.m. Justice asks if any other jurisdiction has adopted Shapiro’s interpretation. Shapiro replies that California anti-SLAPP law covers First Amendment activity. “They have uniformly covered journalists.” But he concedes the California law is broader in terms of activities that are protected.

9:43 a.m. Justice says applying anti-SLAPP to newspaper reporter is “a whole different kettle of fish.” Shapiro responds that “it embraces broader concepts of petitioning.” He adds: “Using the press is a fundamental form of petitioning.”

9:40 a.m. The justices are concerned that Shapiro’s interpretation would obliterate libel if anti-SLAPP can be invoked.

9:39 a.m. The justices question Shapiro about the lack of a personal stake journalists generally have in the stories they cover, whether they express an opinion or not. The idea is that the anti-SLAPP law generally covers only political activists with a stake in the outcome.

9:37 a.m. Justice asks Shapiro if community newspapers should be treated differently from the Globe or the Herald. Shapiro responds that if the reporter is writing in a way that “enlists public support,” then that is “petitioning activity” and should be covered.

9:36 a.m. Harvey Shapiro, lawyer for Fredda Hollander, is arguing before the state’s Supreme Judicial Court right now.

Alpha-testers wanted

Shhhh … no one is supposed to know. But would you mind taking a peek at an early version of what may wind up as the new Media Nation? It’s built with WordPress, and you’ll find it here. Don’t bother clicking around — I’ve got a long way to go. I am strictly asking for your first impression. Better than the current look and feel? Worse? Or no different?

A Taylor-made Globe?

In what may prove to be very good news for readers of the Boston Globe, a group led by Stephen Taylor — a prominent member of the family that sold the paper to the New York Times Co. in 1993 — has, if I’m reading the tea leaves correctly, moved into the pole position to buy the paper.

Beth Healy reports in today’s Globe that Taylor and California-based Platinum Equity have made it to the next round, and that both groups will tour the paper around Labor Day. Meanwhile, a group led by Partners HealthCare chairman Jack Connors and Boston Celtics co-owner Stephen Pagliuca — pointedly described as having submitted “the lowest bid” — will be on the outside looking in. Whether that might change is unclear.

No new owner of the Globe, not even a Taylor, is going to restore the glory days. But the Taylors were very good stewards of the paper, and Stephen Taylor, a former Globe business executive, is said to be one of the sharper members of his family. In addition, a Media Nation source who knows him tells me he’s a good guy.

Connors, too, is a good guy. But he’s also involved in just about every civic and business group in Greater Boston, and it’s hard to believe he could offer the Globe the sort of independent leadership it needs. Given that he and Pagliuca are said to be interested in pursuing some sort of non-profit arrangement, you also have to wonder whether they’ve got enough capital to pull it off.

According to Healy, both the Taylor group and Platinum submitted bids to buy the Globe, the Telegram & Gazette of Worcester and Boston.com for about $35 million (a far cry from the $1.1 billion the Times Co. paid 16 years ago for just the Globe) and agreed to assume $59 million in pension liabilities.

Given that Times Co. chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. recently said price will not be the only consideration, I would think a group with deep roots in both Boston and journalism would have an advantage over Platinum, whose executives may be interested mainly in the real estate.

For big-money investors, $94 million is not an enormous sum. I suspect that what will separate the winner from the losers in this deal is the willingness and ability to keep losing money until the paper can be restructured into a profitable business. And yes, I’m confident that someone can do it.

More: Over at Beat the Press, Ralph Ranalli laments the exclusion of the Connors group, arguing that non-profit is the only viable model for the newspaper business moving forward. Ralph and I agree, though, that Platinum would be bad news all around.

Democracy and the Senate (II)

The notion that the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald represent ideologically opposite editorial positions is overblown. The Herald and its editorial-page editor, Rachelle Cohen, aren’t really all that conservative. And the Globe, whose editorial page recently transitioned from longtime editor Renée Loth to former Washington-bureau chief Peter Canellos, is just contrarian enough on issues like charter schools to keep liberals agitated.

An exception is today. The Globe offers its full-throated endorsement to Sen. Ted Kennedy’s proposal that would allow Gov. Deval Patrick to name an interim senator in the event of a vacancy. The interim would serve until a special election could be held five months later. With Kennedy’s battle against brain cancer apparently entering its final stages, the matter has taken on special urgency.

In supporting Kennedy’s proposal, the Globe criticizes the Legislature for having taken the gubernatorial appointment away five years ago, when it appeared that Sen. John Kerry might be elected president and Democratic leaders at the Statehouse did not want then-governor Mitt Romney, a Republican, to name Kerry’s successor. The Globe calls the 2004 law “a partisan bill.”

Which, of course, it was. And which leads the Herald to invoke that same 2004 action as a reason to reject Kennedy’s current proposal, in an editorial headlined “Hypocrisy factor.” Continue reading “Democracy and the Senate (II)”

Democracy and the Senate

Ted Kennedy, battling brain cancer, strikes exactly the right balance in his letter (pdf) to state officials on how his seat in the U.S. Senate should be filled.

In a story broken by the Boston Globe’s Frank Phillips, Kennedy endorses a 2004 law that took away the governor’s ability to fill a Senate vacancy and gave it to the voters instead. But Kennedy also calls for an amendment allowing the governor to appoint an interim senator who would serve during the five-month period preceding the special election. Finally, Kennedy suggests that the governor appoint someone who promises not to seek election.

The law was changed five years ago when it looked like Sen. John Kerry might be elected president. Legislative leaders wanted to make sure that then-governor Mitt Romney, a Republican, would not have the ability to choose Kerry’s successor. Once and future Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom refers to that on Twitter today:

Wishing Dems now calling for Gov to appt Kennedy replacement stood with Romney in 2004 when they took that power away from him.

(Fun random fact: I ran into Fehrnstrom on the summit of Mt. Monadnock recently.)

But Democrats did the right thing then, even if it was for partisan reasons. As Kennedy suggests, they should leave the law alone, but not let the seat go unfilled for five months.

The wisdom of the 2004 law was proved after President Obama’s election last fall. First, then-Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich disgraced himself and his office by putting Obama’s Senate seat up for sale — an action that led to federal corruption charges against him. The appointment went to the supposedly incorruptible Roland Burris, who turned out to be highly tainted himself.

Then, after Obama named Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York as his secretary of state, Gov. Donald Paterson turned the appointment of a successor into a circus, using anonymous aides to smear Caroline Kennedy, who wanted the job but was clearly unprepared. The post eventually went to an obscure Albany-area congresswoman, Kirsten Gillenbrand.

No one is suggesting that Gov. Deval Patrick would pull a Blago or even a Paterson. But senators should be elected, not appointed, as has been the case since the 17th Amendment took effect in 1913. Kennedy’s proposal honors that proposition while plugging an unnecessary gap.

Photo of Kennedy (cc) by Will White and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

Don Hewitt, 1922-2009

I felt no need to say something nasty or snarky (or much of anything) yesterday when syndicated columnist Robert Novak died. He was, in essence, a minor figure, and he probably would have agreed with that assessment. I do think his sins have been exaggerated over the years, especially with respect to the Valerie Plame Wilson case. As Jack Shafer observed in Slate, it appears that Novak didn’t even realize the value of what he had.

On a strictly personal basis, Novak appears to have been well-liked, despite his reputation for prickliness. I once did a brief telephone interview with him for a profile I was writing of someone who’d worked with him. He was charming and generous with his time. I found his column to be a hodgepodge of indeciperable bits of insiderdom, but I enjoyed his glowering “Prince of Darkness” television persona. Late in life, Novak found his true calling.

Now we learn that Don Hewitt (photo), a longtime CBS News producer and the creator of “60 Minutes,” has died at the age of 86. Hewitt was a great journalist — among the greatest of his generation. No, “60 Minutes” has never been all that it could have been. But Hewitt was forced to work within the constraints of a commercial television system that put more and more emphasis on profit during the course of his long and productive career.

I think it was Hewitt himself who once said that, in one respect, “60 Minutes” was the worst thing that ever happened to network news. Why? Because it was the first time network executives realized they could make money from what had previously been regarded as a public-service obligation.

As with Walter Cronkite, Hewitt’s death’s is an enormous loss, bringing us back to a time when television news was better than it is today.