Media Nation

Obama, one year later

The Guardian has put together a package of commentary on the first anniversary of President Obama’s election. Mine is here.

Should “anal retentive” be hyphenated?

Two weeks ago today, the Twitter feed Fake AP Stylebook was launched upon an unsuspecting planet.

Journalists who had long labored under the tyranny of the Associated Press Stylebook know that they’re supposed to use 1950s-style postal abbreviations for states, spell out the numbers one through nine and abbreviate street when it’s an address (17 Smith St.) but not a place (Smith Street).

Until now, though, we couldn’t be quite sure why the word Bible is always capitalized. It is, the Fakesters solemnly explain, a matter of pragmatism: “You don’t want to get letters from those people.”

Over the weekend I reached out to the Fakesters. Callie Kimball at Wired.com makes it sound like unearthing their identities was a journalistic coup worthy of Woodward and Bernstein, but I just asked them, and they told me. The founders, Mark Hale, 31, and Ken Lowery, 28, may soon have a book deal. If they are not the first to parlay Twitter into fame and fortune, they may well be the quickest.

The Fake AP Stylebook is also the subject of my column in the Guardian this week. It should go up later today tomorrow; I’ll link to it once it’s live.

The following e-mail transcript has been lightly edited, including (gasp) for AP style. Turns out I know it better than they do.

Media Nation: Who are you?

Mark: I’m co-creator Mark Hale, an Indiana native living in Louisville, Ky., with my fiancée and our menagerie of pets. I’ve left college twice, the first time from a Japanese studies program. The second time I left from a journalism program that included an internship as editor of the school paper, which is what led me to the simple joy of the real AP Stylebook. My interest in journalism coincided nicely with the weblog boom of the early 2000s, and I began commenting on comic-book-related sites and eventually started my own. Ken and I met through comments on our weblogs and have been acquaintances since. We’ve been in near-constant contact the last two years or so.

Ken: I’m Ken Lowery, a copy editor for the United Methodist Reporter, based in Dallas. I’m also a freelance movie critic and have wanted to be a journalist since I was a kid.

The rest of our team (whom we call our Bureau Chiefs) are made up of journalists, bloggers, cartoonists, graphic designers, a couple English professors, a professional librarian, a lawyer and others. We’re a diverse group, but we all like to write and we’re all big huge nerds.

MN: How did you come up with the idea of doing the Fake AP Stylebook?

Mark: Ken and I were chatting two weeks ago, and he showed me the feed for the real AP Stylebook on Twitter. With the proliferation of “fake” accounts, labeled and otherwise, I remarked to him, “I can’t tell if I’m sad or relieved that this isn’t a joke feed.” Ken got hit by a lightning bolt, he wrote a post about how television shows are denoted and I wrote one about Dr Pepper, each on our own feeds. Then he decided we should start it on its own feed, and off we went.

MN: Have you heard from people at the Associated Press? What have they told you?

Ken: We’ve spotted a few AP writers in our “response” feed, and they’re fans. We were also approached early in the feed’s life by a curious AP reporter who wanted to do a story, but that ultimately didn’t go anywhere.

Naturally, if and when the book becomes a reality, we’ll be changing up the title.

MN: You’ve been at this less than two weeks, and by Sunday you already had nearly 34,000 followers on Twitter. Are you surprised at the way this has taken off, or was world domination part of your plan from the beginning?

Mark: Tuesday, Nov. 4, will be the first day of our third week.

“Surprised” is pretty mild. We had no plans other than making each other laugh at first, and then dragging our friends into it so they could make us laugh, too. Given the talent of the people involved, I’m not surprised people like it; I’m just surprised there are so many. The number of followers is nearing the population of my small Indiana hometown.

MN: Not to get political on you, but is wingnut one word or two? Or should it be hyphenated?

Mark: Typically, no hyphen. Capitalize when referring to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles action figure Wingnut.

MN: What’s next?

Mark: We and the Bureau Chiefs are currently pulling together a sample chapter as part of a book proposal. We’ve been approached by three agents, and have finally signed on with one.

We hope to work in a good deal of the Twitter material, but so far we seem to be cranking out original material at a good clip. Other than that, we’re going to continue trying to make people laugh for free on the Internet. That’s where the real money is these days, after all.

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.

Globe still ignores Middleborough’s “no” vote

The myth lives on in the Boston Globe. Christine Legere writes today that the town of Middleborough “enthusiastically agreed to host what was to be the state’s first gambling house” two years ago.

In fact, residents attending a chaotic outdoor town meeting that summer voted decisively against allowing a casino to be built in Middleborough. As the Globe’s Sean Murphy reported in CommonWealth Magazine, “the vote was overwhelming against a casino,” even though town meeting had approved a casino deal with the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe earlier in the day.

I do love the quote Legere has from former selectman Adam Bond, the leader of the casino pack in 2007, in referring to the Wampanoags’ scaled-down plans:

It’s gone from a Tiffany operation with an arena, restaurants, and a large hotel to a gin mill with a buffet table. A small casino with a little food and some rooms says “Go gamble and have hookers.”

Bond goes on to suggest that a referendum be held to see if Middleborough voters support having a casino built in town. They don’t, and they didn’t two years ago, either.

My affidavit in the anti-SLAPP case

Fredda Hollander, an activist-journalist who will appear before the state’s Supreme Judicial Court on Monday, has given me permission to post the affidavit (pdf) I wrote for her at an earlier stage of her case. It’s a public document, but given that I was paid to write it, I wanted to check in with her first.

The issue at stake is fairly complicated, and really doesn’t have all that much to do with libel, even though her claim is related to a libel suit filed against her. A North End developer, Steven Fustolo, is suing Hollander for libel in connection with articles she wrote for a local newspaper, the Regional Review. Hollander counters that she did not libel Fustolo, and that his suit is a form of harassment covered by the state’s anti-SLAPP law. SLAPP stands for “strategic lawsuits against public participation.”

The anti-SLAPP statute — similar to ant-SLAPP laws in other states — is designed to protect political activists from being harassed by their well-heeled targets, who can afford to abuse the legal system as a form of intimidation. The law specifically states that “petitioning” activity is protected. Hollander’s lawyer, Harvey Shapiro, argues that the grassroots advocacy journalism Hollander engaged in qualifies as “petitioning” in the sense that she was attempting to influence government decisions.

The implications for bloggers and citizen journalists are potentially huge. Not only are such folks frequently motivated by their strong opinions on local issues, but they are far more vulnerable to being damaged by a meritless libel suit than would an established news organization. (Please note that I am not saying Fustolo’s suit is meritless. I am merely saying that, if it is, then Hollander deserves to be able to use the anti-SLAPP law in order to persuade a judge to dismiss his claim.)

Unfortunately I will not be able to attend Monday’s argument because of a family matter. Assuming all systems are go, I’ll be watching the webcast instead.

An activist-journalist SLAPPs back

Adam Gaffin has posted an excellent summary of an important press-freedom case that will be argued before the state’s Supreme Judicial Court on Monday.

Fredda Hollander, an activist-journalist who once wrote for a local newspaper called the Regional Review, is arguing that a libel suit filed against her by a North End developer should be thrown out on the grounds that it amounts to harassment illegally aimed at silencing her.

The developer, Steven Fustolo, counters that the law on which Hollander is basing her claim — a state law that bans “strategic lawsuits against public participation” — was never intended to protect journalists.

Disclosure: I was a paid expert for Hollander, writing an affidavit arguing that community-based advocacy journalism should be protected under the so-called anti-SLAPP law.

The Globe’s ancien regime makes a comeback

I have no particular insight into Boston Globe publisher Steven Ainsley’s retirement announcement, or why senior vice president Christopher Mayer was chosen as his replacement. But I do think Adam Reilly of the Boston Phoenix gets at two important possible reasons.

First, Mayer, despite being just 47, is a holdover from the Taylor regime. That might prove reassuring to the jittery Globe newsroom, especially given that a group led by former Globe executive Stephen Taylor recently fell short in its attempt to buy the paper back from the New York Times Co.

Second, Mayer is described in Beth Healy’s Globe story as “an architect” of the recent dramatic price increase, which, despite plummeting circulation, reportedly led to an 18.4 percent rise in circulation revenue at the Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette during the third quarter.

More than anything, I’m reminded of editor Matt Storin’s retirement in the summer of 2001. Earlier in the year, Storin presided over what had been up to that time the most wrenching downsizing in the paper’s history. By sticking around until after all the blood had been spilled, Storin gave Marty Baron a chance to start with a clean slate.

Though we don’t know whether Ainsley’s retirement is voluntary, it strikes me that he performed the same role during this year’s labor-management war that Storin did in 2001.

Finally, Ainsley showed a sense of humor, though I suspect it was inadvertent. According to Healy’s story, Ainsley “is interested in nonprofit work.” Insert cymbal crash.

Ralph Ranalli has further thoughts at Beat the Press. At the Boston Herald, Jessica Heslam and Christine McConville note that Ainsley made $1.9 million last year. A good job at a good wage, for sure.

On hiatus

I’m in New Haven on business today and will be dealing with some family business on Friday. Which means I might not get to post again for a few days.

Go, Pedro!

Tweeting from City Hall

Adam Gaffin of Universal Hub has some big-time fun with the Boston Herald’s story on city employees who use Facebook and Twitter during work hours. Gaffin reproduces a photo of the Herald reporters who wrote the story, Jessica Heslam and Dave Wedge, from — yes — Heslam’s Facebook account.

“What are they using them for?” asks Gaffin. “What are they hiding? Ooh, insinuation is fun!”

Kidding aside, you have to admit that there’s an appearance problem with the way some city employees are using social media. Heslam and Wedge focus on Amy Derjue, a former Boston Magazine blogger who was hired earlier this year to serve as City Council president Mike Ross’ $39,000-a-year spokeswoman.

Derjue is something of a young-woman-about-town, and I follow her on both Facebook and Twitter. (If you page through her 340 Facebook friends, you’ll see a wide array of local media and political folks, including Gaffin, me — and Wedge.) Some of her posts make me cringe, and Heslam and Wedge dutifully provide some cringe-worthy examples. But I’ve never heard anyone suggest she wasn’t smart, hard-working and energetic. For what it’s worth, she has complained to me on behalf of her boss, which suggests dedication to her job.

More to the point, most of us — and you can be sure Derjue falls into this category — are never fully off work. If we’re expected to tend to business when we’re off-duty, then we have to be allowed some fun during the formal workday as well. And, as Gaffin writes, “Why, it takes sheer seconds to post something to Facebook or Twitter.”

An aside that may help illustrate my point. Yesterday John Robinson, editor of the News & Record in Greensboro, N.C., tweeted that he was being yelled at by a “legislator who resigned in disgrace.” When I responded at how impressed I was with his multi-tasking, he replied, “Yes, tweeting while yelling. What else am I supposed to do? Listen?” This was not a private conversation — it was seen by all 1,196 of Robinson’s followers and all 2,019 of mine. Welcome to 2009.

Ross tells the Herald that he hired Derjue in part for her social-networking expertise. And, indeed, Ross has a pretty lively Twitter feed and Facebook account. For Derjue to post to her personal sites while working on her boss’ would, as Gaffin says, take “sheer seconds.” You can question her judgment, but her social-media activities are not evidence of dereliction.

Derjue seems to have partly disabled her Facebook account (I could be wrong; Facebook mystifies and annoys me), and she hasn’t posted to Twitter since last night. No doubt she’s licking her wounds at the moment. I’m interested to see how she’ll respond.