Category: Uncategorized

First thoughts on the Herald redesign

As you can see from the page image at left, at least one late edition of today’s Boston Herald included the Red Sox’ heart-thumping win over the Angels. But not the one I bought on the North Shore at 3 p.m.

I’d be perfectly happy if the Herald switched to Web-only distribution. But I can’t imagine this is what Pat Purcell had in mind when he outsourced printing to Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal plant in Chicopee.

Herald editor Kevin Convey tells the Phoenix’s Adam Reilly there are still some bugs to be worked out:

In the early going, we’re being extremely conservative about our press times and deadlines to make sure we get the paper out on the street. As time goes by, I expect that our ability to put complete information in more papers will increase to a considerable degree.

As promised, the paper looks a lot better, even though it has shrunk vertically by quite a bit. Photos, including color, are sharp both inside and out. The stories were already so short that making them a bit shorter still shouldn’t make much difference.

In the current confused media environment, it’s hard to say with whom the Herald is competing. Mainly, it’s competing for people’s time. If I had 20 minutes to while away, I’d much rather drop 75 cents on a new, slick-looking Herald than, say, pick up a free Metro Boston, because the Herald’s got more and better content. And now it looks better, too.

On that basis, the new Herald is a success.

The rape-kit controversy revisited

Embedded video from CNN Video
Among the many myths that have enveloped the Sarah Palin candidacy is the notion that the rape-kit nastiness of a few weeks ago has somehow been debunked. It hasn’t. What we knew then holds up quite well. As I wrote on Sept. 11:

The man Sarah Palin appointed to run the Wasilla police department thinks that forcing rape victims to pay for their own forensic tests is just a swell idea. He said so himself a little more than eight years ago.

Every word of that is true. Moreover, as mayor, Palin fired the previous police chief in order to put this guy, Charlie Fannon, into office. It strains credulity to believe that she didn’t bother to read her hometown paper, the Frontiersman, the week that Fannon whined about a new state law ordering that the practice be ended, complaining that it could cost Wasilla taxpayers $5,000 to $14,000 a year.

There is no record — none — showing that Palin ever publicly disagreed with Fannon, reprimanded him or said anything whatsoever about this reprehensible policy. Maybe she was too busy reading the Economist.

Fannon also said this: “In the past we’ve charged the cost of exams to the victims’ insurance company when possible. I just don’t want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer.”

Now, we’ve all seen commentary suggesting that because the bills were sent to the insurance company, there was nothing wrong with the practice. But by treating rape as a medical problem rather than a violent crime, Wasilla authorities were sending precisely the wrong message in a state with the nation’s highest sexual-assault rate. Charging a victim’s insurance company is the same as charging the victim.

Neither the victims of non-sexual assaults nor the families of murder victims are forced to deal with their insurance companies for the cost of police investigations. By singling out rape, Fannon was wallowing in ugly old stereotypes.

We know a little bit more than we did a few weeks ago. We know that Wasilla wasn’t the only community engaging in this practice, although there is still testimony that it was among the most egregious offenders. We still don’t know for certain whether Palin knew, but I (dislocating my shoulders in order to give myself a pat on the back) have been careful about that from the beginning.

Rachael Larimore of Slate has supposedly debunked this story in two parts (here and here), as has Jim Geraghty of National Review. Go ahead and read them. They haven’t. Incredibly, Fannon doesn’t even make an appearance in Geraghty’s piece. Larimore trots him out briefly, for the sole purpose of invoking the insurance rationale.

The best summation of what we know and what we don’t know was reported by CNN on Sept. 22. Read it, watch it. And then try to claim there’s nothing to this controversy.

Instant update: Eric Boehlert weighs in on the rape-kit story in quite a bit more detail.

InstaPundit threatens “massive resistance”

InstaPundit Glenn Reynolds yesterday posted favorably on Question One, the Massachusetts ballot measure that would repeal the state income tax. And he does so, in part, with an unsupported smear and a non-existent quote. (Via Hub Blog.)

“Most of the people complaining live, directly or indirectly, off the taxpayers’ dime, of course,” writes Reynolds, offering not a shred of evidence for that remarkable assertion. Most? Please. Then he adds: “And they’re pledging a campaign of ‘massive resistance.'”

Well, now. Follow Reynolds’ link, and you’ll come to a story on the Web site of WCVB-TV (Channel 5) that contains nothing even remotely akin to the phrase “massive resistance.” Nor does anyone say the magic words in an accompanying video story by Channel 5’s Jorge Quiroga.

For that matter, if you search Google News for the phrase “massive resistance,” you will find nothing pertaining to Massachusetts. And if you try Google Blog Search, you will get exactly one hit: Reynolds’ post.

Palin calls freedom of press a “privilege”

All right, I am assuming far more coherence and meaning in Sarah Palin’s ramblingly incoherent interview with Fox’s Carl Cameron than is warranted. But I do want to call your attention to this amazing passage, flagged by Jake Tapper of ABC News:

As we send our young men and women overseas in a war zone to fight for democracy and freedoms, including freedom of the press, we’ve really got to have a mutually beneficial relationship here with those fighting the freedom of the press, and then the press, though not taking advantage and exploiting a situation, perhaps they would want to capture and abuse the privilege. We just want truth, we want fairness, we want balance.

To which I say: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

Thanks to Media Nation reader MTS, who found it on Daily Kos.

Presses stop, Herald continues

Boston Herald columnist Peter Gelzinis weighs in with a nice take on the end of an era, as the paper’s ancient presses grind to a halt. Starting tomorrow, the printing of the Herald will be outsourced to a plant in Chicopee.

Herald reporter Jay Fitzgerald says goodbye to the presses on his blog.

Just because this is a smart move doesn’t mean there isn’t a certain sadness associated with it, especially for the employees who’ve lost their jobs.

About 10 years ago, publisher Pat Purcell gave me a tour of the subterranean presses. Back then, he wanted to let people know that the Herald wasn’t moving because, among other things, it would be too difficult to relocate what was a significant manufacturing operation.

But times have changed. No doubt within a year or two, the Herald, shorn of its presses, will have moved to a much smaller space.

What Palin might have said

Sarah Palin’s re-take on what papers she reads and what Supreme Court decisions she disagrees with reveals, among other things, the ineptitude of her handlers. Palin herself deserves most of the blame, of course. But to let her give answers to Fox’s Carl Cameron that sounded like brazen lies was pretty unforgivable.

Imagine, if you will, what the reaction would be if she’d said something like this:

You know, Carl, when Katie asked me those questions I was tired and irritable, and I guess I had something of a brain freeze. I apologize to Katie. Her questions were perfectly fair. And I should have answered them.

When I’m home, I read the Anchorage Daily News, of course. I have to. I am the governor, after all. And believe it or not, the AP makes it all the way up to Alaska, so there’s plenty of national and international news in there, too. Those East Coast liberals seem to think we’re cut off from the rest of the world. I do try to read some of the national papers on the Web, but I’m a pretty busy person, what with five kids and a state to run.

Not that I’m home much lately. Good thing for USA Today — it’s right there outside our hotel room every morning, and I try to flip through it between campaign stops. I catch Fox News and some CNN. I say thanks but no thanks when MSNBC comes on. I’ve got a subscription to National Review, but those back issues have a way of piling up.

As far as the Supreme Court goes, I don’t know the names of cases. Who does? But that decision about the Exxon Valdez outraged every resident of Alaska. And I don’t think they ought to be telling states they can’t execute child molesters, either.

But I’ve got to be honest. How long have I been at this? Five weeks? I’m not going to pretend that I follow the Supreme Court every day; I’ve got enough to do keeping an eye on the Alaska legislature. That will change if I become vice president.

If Palin had said something like this, who would not believe her? Cameron, instead of snickering, would be trashing the mainstream media for not taking Palin seriously.

I’m reminded of Bob Kerrey’s line that Bill Clinton was an unusually good liar. Among Palin’s many problems is that she comes off as an unusually bad liar. And her handlers are making it worse.

Sarah Palin, our well-read legal scholar

I love it. Sarah Palin now says she reads the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Economist, and objects to Supreme Court decisions regarding eminent domain, the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the death penalty. And if only Katie Couric hadn’t pissed her off, she’d have told us earlier.

As you’ll see, even Fox’s Carl Cameron can’t take her seriously.

(Links now fixed.)