Setting the record straight

My friend Adam Reilly of the Boston Phoenix is having a reading-comprehension problem today.

I have never remotely suggested, as Adam seems to think, that it doesn’t matter how much content the Boston Globe takes from GateHouse’s Newton Tab on its hyperlocal page for Newton. Nor have I said that it’s all right if the majority of Boston.com Newton‘s links come from the Tab.

What I have said is that GateHouse has little to complain about as long as the Globe is taking so little that you have to click through to the Tab’s Wicked Local Newton page in order to get the gist of the story. Which is what the Globe has been doing.

I also agree with Adam that the Globe is going to look silly if its Newton page doesn’t feature a good mix of Globe content, local bloggers and, yes, some links to the Tab.

Although I’m not privy to the details, I do know that Globe and GateHouse executives have been wrangling behind the scenes. For about a week, there was no Tab content at all at Boston.com Newton. Now there is again.

I don’t pretend to know exactly what the right mix is, but it does strike me that Globe editors tried to go about this the right way — and that the folks at GateHouse have, nevertheless, been appropriately prickly about the Globe using their content to boost its own local coverage.

Uncomfortable, yes, but ineffective, too

I read this story last night with the delight I normally reserve for accounts of casino-crazed former tribal leaders pleading guilty to federal corruption charges.

Only those with a childlike faith in the medical establishment could be surprised to learn that colonoscopies aren’t nearly as effective as had previously been thought. Of course, they are extremely effective in generating revenue, so no doubt we’ll continue to be told that everyone over 50 should get one every year blah blah blah.

Next time somebody feeds you that line, just ask a simple question: “Why?”

The Detroit newspaper experiment

As expected, the Detroit Free Press and the Detroit News announced today that they will offer home delivery only on Thursday, Friday and (Free Press only) Sunday. This deserves fuller treatment than I’m able to give it right now, though, in general, I agree with Steve Outing.

In fact, I’d go Steve one better. He says the papers ought to give their print editions away on non-home-delivery days. I suggest they come up with a five-day freebie in addition to their paid print editions, with the freebie consisting of an intelligently edited digest of what’s in the paid editions and online.

This is a move born of desperation, but it doesn’t have to be a negative. Handled right, this could be a way forward for many papers.

Keller whacks Patrick on transportation woes

Jon Keller posts a very tough critique of Gov. Deval Patrick following the resignation — or, should I say, the “resignation” — of Patrick’s transportation secretary, Bernard Cohen.

I don’t know nearly enough about the inner workings of the governor’s office to be able to offer an intelligent analysis. But Keller’s basic theme is that this represents a triumph of the old-line hacks over competent outsiders such as Cohen. Keller writes:

Cohen was a pure policy wonk who worked quietly and diligently to restore order to the state’s chaotic transportation planning and build working relationships with key political players. But he was not much of a headline-grabber or Patrick kiss-up. And he had a tendency to tell the truth about things, like the state’s utter inability to afford the commuter-rail extension to New Bedford that Patrick keeps insisting is still in the cards. So for his trouble, Cohen is now out, to be replaced by [James] Aloisi or someone like him, some wired-in smooth-talker who will convince the governor that he can sell the legislature on the huge toll and tax hikes Patrick apparently believes are necessary.

The Outraged Liberal takes a different view of the “ineffective” Cohen and writes: “While critics snipe that apparent successor James Aloisi was part of the team that created the mess, at least he knows where the bodies are buried.”

But Jay Fitzgerald says of Aloisi that “bringing back a key figure from the Big Dig Culture is an anti-reform disaster.”

And I agree with Jay that House Speaker Sal DiMasi is once again leading the good-government charge, writing an op-ed piece for the Boston Globe in which he calls for change before raising tolls or the gas tax. I’ll even forgive DiMasi for his hoary cliché of a lede.

Photo of Patrick (cc) by Allie Taylor and republished under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

The Journal’s flawed net-neutrality story

The Wall Street Journal today reports a potentially disastrous development, claiming that President-elect Barack Obama is softening in his support for network neutrality, which guarantees common-carrier status for all Internet traffic.

But it’s the story itself that may prove to be a disaster. The Talking Points gang is all over it and has found that (1) Obama has not changed his commitment to net neutrality; (2) Google denies [link now fixed; no, really] the Journal’s claim that it has shifted its support; and (3) academic Lawrence Lessig says what he told the Journal does not represent a change, either.

That’s three for three. How did this crap make it into the Journal? You’d think Rupert Murdoch owned it or something.

Corruption charges cloud Middleborough casino

Glenn Marshall, the former chairman of the Mashpee Wampanoag tribal council, faces federal corruption charges in connection with his efforts to win governmental recognition for the tribe. Marshall was the driving force behind plans to build a $1 billion casino in Middleborough.

According Jay Fitzgerald of the Boston Herald, the charges include making illegal campaign contributions to members of Congress, guided by imprisoned former superlobbyist Jack Abramoff, whose name has come up before in connection with the tribe.

Marshall stepped down in August 2007 after it was learned that he was a convicted rapist who’d lied about his military service. No word on whether his new legal woes are tied to Shawn Hendricks, his handpicked successor.

All this at a moment when the casino industry is falling apart — making it unlikely, Matt Viser reports in the Boston Globe, that Gov. Deval Patrick will revive his three-casino proposal any time soon.

Given the charges against Marshall, it looks like everything is up in the air — not just the proposed Middleborough casino, but whether the Mashpee are even a legal tribe with the right to build such a monstrosity.

It truly is a great day for Middleborough.

Update: Gladys Kravitz says all that needs to be said.

Chuck Turner trashes the First Amendment

Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner may or may not end up doing time. But if the indicted councilor has his way, local journalists — including Joan Vennochi of the Boston Globe, Adam Reilly of the Boston Phoenix and Joe Fitzgerald of the Boston Herald — will be subject to legal sanctions for failing to presume that Turner is innocent.

On Friday, the Herald’s Ed Mason reported that Turner had sent a letter to Gov. Deval Patrick asking that a task force be appointed that would investigate “collusion” between federal prosecutors and the media.

Over the weekend, John Guilfoil, the founder and editor of the online magazine Blast, posted the full text of Turner’s screed. In it, Turner calls for nothing less than the abolition of the First Amendment. Guilfoil, a former student of mine, writes, “Five words, Councilor: ‘Congress shall make no law.'”

Turner, in case you’ve forgotten, is under federal indictment, charged with taking cash bribes in connection with the Dianne Wilkerson case.

Tellingly, Turner cites Deuteronomy, the Quran, the Roman Code, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution in his argument to muzzle the press, yet makes absolutely no mention whatsoever of the First Amendment, which clearly states: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” (Subsequent amendments, as well as Supreme Court decisions, have broadened “Congress” to include all governmental bodies at the federal, state and local levels.)

Turner blasts columns by Vennochi, Reilly and Fitzgerald, saying they have “unashamedly proclaimed my guilt.” He also claims that Globe columnist Adrian Walker’s interview with Ron Wilburn, the cooperating government witness, is proof that the FBI’s affidavit against Turner is full of lies (not how I would interpret it). And Turner includes this tantalizing tidbit:

Even Howie Carr, self proclaimed protector of the public good and verbal slayer of public officials who betray their trust has not even mumbled one word about the fact that the US Attorney’s wire is making accusations against him.

Really? Does anyone know what Turner is referring to? The ball’s in your court, Howie.

Not to save the best part for last, but Turner closes by recommending legal sanctions against journalists who discuss “the ‘evidence’ in the court of public opinion before it has been presented in a court of law,” including:

  • “State legal policy should be significantly reformed to promote respect for the presumption of innocence among state officials, mass media representatives, and citizens.”
  • “Mass media outlets must be prohibited from spreading information that conflicts with the presumption of innocence.”

Now, let me move on to the fallacy at the heart of Turner’s proposal to round up journalists and send them to re-education camp. Yes, the legal system is required to presume that Turner is innocent unless it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that he is not. But the media are under no such constraints.

Turner is free to avail himself of the libel laws if he believes a journalist has said something about him that is false, defamatory and, as he is a public official, made with knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. And there are circumstances in which the courts will intervene by way of gag orders on the lawyers in order to balance the First Amendment with the Sixth, which guarantees the right to a fair trial.

But this is not North Korea, or even Britain, where the press has far fewer protections than it does in the United States. (I’ve had a couple of interesting discussions with my editor at the Guardian, whose home office is in Manchester, England.) In the U.S., everyone is free to speak and write the truth as he or she sees it.

By the way, I am willing to grant Turner the presumption of innocence. Taking cash from a supplicant shows incredibly poor judgment, but let’s wait and see if it adds up to a criminal act. (Although I was unimpressed by Turner’s claim that the photo might have been doctored — a subject with which Turner has some passing familiarity.)

Regardless of whether Turner is guilty of bribe-taking, though, he has already convicted himself of holding freedom of the press in utter contempt.