Talk about burying the lede. The New York Times today reports on the latest regarding AOL’s long, slow slide into oblivion. Near the end is this:
Other ideas include closing Patch, AOL’s local news initiative that has reporters in 850 towns. Eliminating the money-losing service would free $160 million and lift AOL into profitability.
AOL chief executive Tim Armstrong insists he’s not going to abandon his strategy of transforming the service into a profitable content-provider. But the Huffington Post side of things brings in so many more visitors, with fewer employees, that you really have to wonder how long he and his shareholders can resist the urge to close Patch.
Not to repeat myself (OK, to repeat myself), but I don’t wish Patch ill. Given that it is hiring young and some not-so-young journalists, I’d like to see it find a profitable place in the local-news media ecosystem. But it’s never been clear how Patch can make money. Business Insider has been especially withering, but its negative outlook is hardly unique.
(Note: This item has been corrected. See below.) If Attorney General Martha Coakley thinks David Portnoy broke the law, then she should charge him. If not, then she should leave him alone. What she shouldn’t do is send state troopers to his house to intimidate him into removing nude photos of Tom Brady’s 2-year-old son from his sleazy website, Barstool Sports.
A number of legal experts, including Coakley herself, have concluded that Portnoy did not violate child-pornography laws because there was no “lascivious intent,” according to the Boston Globe. Indeed, Portnoy’s crude commentary about the size of the boy’s genitals may actually have helped him, since he demonstrated that he is a moron rather than a pervert.
But Coakley, having come to the conclusion that Portnoy broke no law, had no business dispatching police officers to his home to tell him what content was appropriate and inappropriate for his website. Portnoy said the officers were polite, but as First Amendment lawyer Jonathan Albano tells the Globe, “There’s an inherent element of coercion when civilians are faced with police in uniforms.” I’m glad Portnoy finally removed the photos, but the principle is that law-enforcement officials shouldn’t tell people that it would be a good idea if they stopped engaging in legally permissible conduct.
That’s not to say Portnoy didn’t show incredibly poor judgment. The Boston Herald reports that — yes — Howard Stern is among those taking Portnoy to task, telling him during an appearance on his radio show, “I have three daughters and I gotta tell you, Dave, I would never post a picture of a child and comment on their genitals, and I’m known for outrageous commentary.”
There would have been no free-speech issue if, instead of state troopers, Portnoy had opened his door and found Tom Brady and a couple of Patriots linemen standing on his front porch. It would have been a lot more satisfying, too.
Correction: It has come to my attention that I misunderstood the timeline. At the time that state troopers visited Portnoy’s house, Coakley’s office was still investigating, and had not yet decided whether to bring criminal charges against him. The troopers did ask that Portnoy remove the photos, and he voluntarily did so. It was only after that that Coakley decided no crime had been committed.
Four months after being fired by WTKK Radio (96.9 FM), Jay Severin is returning to the air — this time with WXKS (AM 1200), a Clear Channel-owned station that has tried to build a talk-radio alternative around nationally syndicated right-wingers like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. The Boston Herald reports today that Severin will helm afternoon drive (3 to 6 p.m.) starting this Thursday.
Severin, who has a long history of making incendiary racial and sexual remarks, was canned after a preening, offensive monologue about his alleged swordsmanship with interns. More to the point, I suspect, was that his ratings had plummeted, making it hard to justify his reported $1 million salary. No word in the Herald as to what Clear Channel is going to pay him.
Rob Eno wonders if Severin might actually beat his replacement at ‘TKK, Doug Meehan, since Severin will be following Limbaugh — “gold in the talk radio game.” (Meehan’s lead-in is Michael Graham, so I can certainly understand Eno’s reasoning.) Problem is, Boston has always been one of Limbaugh’s weakest markets. Indeed, when Clear Channel converted ‘XKS to a right-wing talk station a couple of years ago, it called itself “Rush Radio.” Now it’s just “Talk 1200,” which suggests that executives don’t see Limbaugh as much of a local asset.
A far bigger issue is WXKS’s weak signal. Though promos tout its 50,000 watts of power, that doesn’t translate into listenability. Driving in from the North Shore earlier today, it wasn’t until I hit Revere that the static finally dropped to a tolerable level. Even liberal talk station WWZN (AM 1510), with its notoriously weak signal, came in more clearly.
As for Severin’s return, it will be interesting to see if anyone cares. Somewhere, Scot Lehigh is quietly celebrating. But I’ve missed it if anyone has been pining for Severin’s return to the Boston airwaves.
Jonathan Albano (right) at a forum at Boston University last year on "Legal Liability in the Age of WikiLeaks." At left is First Amendment lawyer Robert Bertsche. I was the moderator, and I'm sitting in the middle.
Could David Portnoy face criminal prosecution for posting nude photos of Tom Brady’s 2-year-old son? I’m guessing no. But he’s taking a huge risk that some ambitious prosecutor might at least want to make a name for him- or herself by going after Portnoy and his sleazy website, Bar Stool Sports.
We begin with lawyer and former prosecutor Wendy Murphy, who is quoted as telling WCVB-TV (Channel 5): “The whole purpose was to get people to look at [the child’s] genitalia, so absolutely — 20 years maximum and a $50,000 fine on top of that.” That’s certainly an opinion that should make Portnoy sit up and take notice. But it also seems to be a distinctly minority view.
The Boston Herald’s Dave Wedge reports today that neither the FBI nor Norfolk County District Attorney Michael Morrissey’s office would confirm or deny whether there’s an investigation under way. That’s standard procedure for the FBI. But it may be significant that the DA’s office said nothing. Unless everyone was just heading down to the Cape on a Friday afternoon.
David Frank of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly adds Attorney General Martha Coakley to the list of officials who would neither confirm nor deny an investigation. But though Frank calls the pictures and Portnoy’s description of the young boy’s genitals “creepy” and “tasteless,” he casts serious doubt on whether a crime was committed:
I’ve talked to several lawyers today, from both the prosecution and defense side, who say there’s no chance Portnoy will ever be hit with a possession of child pornography charge. Portnoy’s post, as out of bounds as it is, simply doesn’t support the elements of the crime.
On the other hand, Frank quotes noted First Amendment lawyer Jonathan Albano as saying Brady and his wife, Gisele Bündchen, might be able to file an invasion-of-privacy suit on their son’s behalf and have some hope of succeeding.
“You’re talking about the publication of a 2-year-old’s private body,” Albano tells Frank. “Unlike Gisele, you can’t say that the child is a public figure, and why should he have less privacy rights than anyone else?”
I’m sure Mitt Romney wishes he’d made the point he wanted to make yesterday without saying “corporations are people.” We’ve all had some fun with it, including me. That said, can we stop playing stupid?
Romney was making a fundamental, noncontroversial point: corporations are groups of people, and if you raise taxes on them, they’re going to pass those costs on to the public. Or should I say he was trying to make that point — he said, “You can raise taxes,” then got pulled in another direction.
New Haven's mayoral debate was held at the Metropolitan Business Academy.
Debates are easy. Civic engagement is hard.
That might be the lesson of last night’s multimedia mayoral debate in New Haven, sponsored by the New Haven Independent, a nonprofit news site, and La Voz Hispana, a Spanish-language newspaper.
As with several previous events organized by the Independent (most notably an education forum starring school-reform critic Diane Ravitch last November), the debate featured several different ways people could watch and participate. You could just show up, of course. But you could also watch one of two different livestreams, one provided by NBC Connecticut, the other by the New Haven Register, the local daily; post comments in real time; or add your thoughts after the debate. As of this writing, 15 comments have been posted at the Independent and 20 at the Register’s website.
Four candidates are running against Mayor John DeStefano, who’s been the city’s top elected official since 1993, and who may be vulnerable this time around because of budget problems, a rising crime rate and a sense that the electorate may be experiencing what might be called DeStefano fatigue.
But with five candidates on the stage, five journalists asking questions and another four journalists live-blogging the proceedings and interacting with those posting comments, keeping track of what was going on proved to be a bit of a challenge. (Fun fact: One of my colleagues at Northeastern, journalism professor Laurel Leff, has been working at the Independent this summer and was one of the live-bloggers.)
And though the hall itself was reportedly packed, it’s unclear how many people were watching at home. About 20 members of the public posted comments to the “Cover It Live” section during the debate, not counting me.
Of course, it would be easy enough to put together a more streamlined debate, but that would involve nixing the civic-engagement part of it. And getting people interested in local affairs is a key goal at the Independent — as it should be at all news organizations, since people are not going to pay attention to the news if they fundamentally don’t care about what is happening in their communities.
In fact, the Independent recently won a national award for the Ravitch event and for several issues-oriented webcasts it’s hosted in collaboration with the NBC affiliate. Yesterday, Independent publisher and editor Paul Bass spoke with John Dankosky of WNPR Radio (who also participated in last night’s debate as a live-blogger) about the New Haven mayoral race and his vision of how media technology can be used to involve the public in the conversation.
It’s something that the preening panelists at last night’s Republican presidential debate in Ames, Iowa, might think about.
New Haven Independent photo by Thomas MacMillan. Republished by permission.
It looks like House Speaker John Boehner put out a fake quote attributed to President Obama, and that no one is going to call him on it.
Here it is in the New York Times: “President Obama likes to talk about being ‘the adult in the room’ — but there’s nothing ‘adult’ about political grandstanding.” Politico’s got it, and so does the Hill. What’s missing from these accounts is the fact that, as best as I can tell, Obama never said it, even though Boehner’s statement helpfully places the phrase in quotation marks.
If you hop on the Google, you’ll find numerous references to Obama’s being “the adult in the room.” It’s a line being promoted by his aides and denigrated by his critics. Fine. But there’s a huge difference between having someone say it on your behalf and saying it yourself. The former is a tactic; the latter is kind of icky.
As journalistic sins go, this one is kind of minor. But when the Speaker quotes the president in a derogatory way, using words the president never actually spoke, the media ought to call him out on it, no?
State officials want you to know that there is absolutely no reason for you to worry about the massive sinkhole that’s been discovered beneath a portion of the Big Dig. As a public service, Media Nation wants to remind you of other Big Dig problems — just teeny little glitches when you think about it — that you also don’t have to worry about:
Corroded 110-pound light fixtures that could fall on your car while you’re driving through, but that have been supposedly fixed. What? Sounds dangerous? Why, state transportation secretary Jeffrey Mullan didn’t even think it was necessary to tell Gov. Deval Patrick. Mullan is now leaving state government because he didn’t get a raise.
Leaks so extensive that they are beginning to damage the steel girders that support the Tip O’Neill Tunnel. Oops — sorry to sound like an alarmist. Our leaders want you to know that the leaks are the equivalent of the water that comes of “three garden hoses.” How can something you use to water your lawn possibly be dangerous?
Crashing three-ton ceiling panels of the sort that killed Milena Del Valle in 2006 as she and her husband were driving to Logan Airport. Again, no problems — they’re using better glue now or something.
If there are any other Big Dig problems that you absolutely, positively don’t have to worry about, please add them in the comments. Those are just the ones I could come up with off the top of my head.
Given the New York Times’ rather rhapsodic take on the New Yorker’s iPad app, I was surprised by how underwhelming it turned out to be when I finally gave it a test. I installed it on Mrs. Media Nation’s first-generation iPad, loaded in the current issue — and found it to be almost identical to the PDF-like version that the New Yorker makes available to its print subscribers, a.k.a. the “digital edition.”
There was one key difference, and I’ll grant you it’s an important one: the digital edition requires you to move the pages around on your computer screen, making them bigger and smaller and switching around among columns, maneuvers that have long made most of us despise PDFs. The iPad version, by contrast, automatically formats to the screen. That’s a big improvement.
Other than that, though, I found the app to be rather flat and uninspiring. Yes, the Times review emphasized that it was designed for people who just want to read rather than be dazzled. But there’s a middle ground between a plain reproduction of a magazine and a distracting multimedia extravaganza. I’d have liked to see the New Yorker aim for that middle ground.
That said, it was a nice way to read Ryan Lizza’s excellent profile of Michele Bachmann — especially since the mailman hasn’t seen fit to deliver our print edition yet.
I’d feel better about the war against craft brewers being called off if State Treasurer Steve Grossman had had a few harsh words to say about his Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission. Last week the ABCC proposed a rule that came out of nowhere, threatening the livelihoods of business owners and the jobs of their employees.
Though Grossman conceded the ABCC made a “mistake,” the commission apparently is still going to hold hearings concerning a rule that 50 percent of the ingredients used by craft brewers come from Massachusetts — a requirement that is literally impossible to meet.
Rather than hearings, what we need is a new ABCC. Or no ABCC. Take your pick.
State officials want you to know that there is absolutely no reason for you to worry about the 