Casino study fails laugh test

When you hire a consulting firm that makes its living from casino gambling, then you can be pretty sure it will tell you casinos are a good thing. That’s the message of the Spectrum Gaming Group’s report to Gov. Deval Patrick, which has been touted as giving a boost (Boston Herald) to Patrick’s casino dreams, even if the three he has proposed wouldn’t bring in quite as much money (Boston Globe) as the governor had claimed.

The real eye-opener, though, is a Cape Cod Times story by David Kibbe, who reports that Spectrum says the state should act in large measure because the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe has the right, under federal law, to open a gambling casino in Southeastern Massachusetts. The Mashpee, as we know, propose building the world’s largest casino in Middleborough.

The inevitability theme has been used repeatedly, and, indeed, was a big reason that the Middleborough town meeting last year voted to approve a deal the selectmen had negotiated with the tribe, then voted against an advisory question asking whether folks wanted a casino in the first place.

In fact, though, there is a whole host of reasons why a Middleborough casino is not inevitable. Here is the great Gladys Kravitz’s list of the top 10 reasons why a casino will not be built. To my mind, the most compelling reasons are that the Middleborough casino would be farther from the Mashpee’s tribal lands than the feds generally allow, and that there are enough questions about the process used to ram the deal through at town meeting that opponents could keep this tied up in the courts for years.

Finally, consider that the governor’s office paid $189,000 to Spectrum knowing ahead of time that the outcome would be pro-casino. Take a look at Spectrum’s Web site and see how it makes its money. “Services for Casino Operators, Developers and Owners.” “Services for Suppliers to the Gaming Industry.” “Professional Services for Indian Nations.” (Would that include telling Gov. Patrick that a tribal casino is inevitable?)

This doesn’t pass the laugh test.

Piece of cake

I can’t believe how easy it was to switch to a new template. I think it’s a huge improvement, and I haven’t even added a photo to the header, which I plan to do soon. I’m going to hold off on the HaloScan comments — let’s just see how it goes for a while.

What do you think of the NewsTrust widget on the left? I think it’s a neat idea, but I’m curious to see whether it slows down loading to an unacceptable degree.

Nameless mom whacks nameless paper

How much anonymity can you load into one column? The Boston Herald’s Joe Fitzgerald tried for a Guinness record yesterday, attacking a newspaper he can’t bring himself to name (if you haven’t guessed, it’s my esteemed former employer, the Boston Phoenix) with the words of an alleged hard-nosed reporter-turned-mother whom he won’t identify. Pretty gripping stuff, eh?

Comment trouble?

I received an e-mail a little while ago telling me that some of the comments to this post had disappeared. My correspondent wondered whether it was deliberate. It was not. Among the comments that are now gone was one I wrote to frequent Media Nation commenter O-Fish-L. Not sure what’s going on.

Perhaps the time has come to chuck the whole thing and turn comments over to HaloScan.

ABC and anthrax: Case (almost) closed?

I want to expand a bit on what I wrote yesterday about ABC News reporter Brian Ross’ interview with TVNewser. I think Ross largely met the challenge about his anthrax reporting posed earlier this week by Jay Rosen and Dan Gillmor, even if he didn’t answer their three questions point by point.

To back up a bit: ABC News reported in October 2001 that three, and then four, anonymous sources were claiming the anthrax sent to then-Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle’s office contained a substance — bentonite — that marked it as being of Iraqi origin. In several of ABC’s stories, it was noted that the White House had denied there was any such connection. Nevertheless, some critics, most notably Glenn Greenwald of Salon, have suggested that this may have been a diversionary tactic, as the notion that Saddam Hussein was trying to poison us was certainly in the administration’s interests in building a case for war.

Then, on Nov. 1, Ross appeared on the air with another anthrax report. This time he said something more specific (quoted from TVNewser and verified on LexisNexis):

The White House said that despite initial test results which we reported suggesting the presence of a chemical called bentonite, a trademark of the Iraqi weapons program, a further chemical analysis has ruled that out. The White House says there are chemical additives in that anthrax including one called silica.

As Greenwald noted yesterday, there was little reason at the time to think this was anything other than yet another White House denial, and that ABC was sticking by its story. (I’ve read the full transcript of the Nov. 1 report, and I agree.) But Ross’ comments to TVNewser make it reasonably clear that the network was, in fact, retracting its story. Not only was the White House denying the anthrax contained bentonite, he says now, but so were his anonymous sources, whom he has described as current and former government scientists. From TVNewser:

Ross says he was told it was not bentonite not just by the White House, but by the same sources from the original report. But by not telling viewers, some have questioned whether Ross’ sources were simply lying to ABC News to begin building a case against Iraq.

“It wasn’t meant to read that way,” said Ross. “From my point of view it gave national credibility to have on the record attribution and not some anonymous scientists.”

And yet, as Greenwald and others have pointed out, Ross’ stories reporting there was an Iraq-anthrax connection relied entirely on “some anonymous sources.” Somehow we were supposed to know that ABC had shifted from We’re sticking by our story despite White House denials to We’re retracting our story because of White House denials. ABC should have made it clear at the time that its anonymous sources had changed their minds, and that the network was retracting its story.

Although I have no reason to doubt Ross, I still think ABC News needs to grapple with this in a more transparent, systemic way. If Ross’ account is correct, then his anonymous sources were acting in good faith and there’s no need to expose their identities. But we deserve to know how ABC came to retract a significant scoop without anyone quite realizing the retraction had taken place.

Rosen is not mollified in the least; Gillmor takes a more measured view, though he, too, is unsatisfied.

What we’re all keeping an eye on now is the unfolding story about Bruce Ivins, the Army scientist who committed suicide last week just as it seemed that the authorities were closing in. The FBI’s case against Ivins as the sole anthrax attacker seems pretty persuasive, even though there are some obvious holes in it. We’ll have to see how well it holds up.

New troubles for a voice from the past

John DePetro, the ratings-challenged radio talk-show host who was run out of town after he referred to the Green Party’s Grace Ross as a “fat lesbian,” may not be doing as well in Providence as had been believed.

According to the Boston Herald and the Providence Journal, DePetro’s 6 to 10 a.m. program on WPRO Radio (AM 630) had recently zoomed from 11th to fourth in the Arbitron ratings. But now it appears that someone may have been cooking the books.

No word on whether DePetro himself was involved.

Brian Maloney has more here and here.

ABC’s non-correction correction

Salon’s Glenn Greenwald writes that ABC News now claims that it corrected its story on the Iraq-anthrax connection way back on Nov. 1, 2001.

But as Greenwald notes, all ABC’s Brian Ross did on that date was say that the White House disputed the network’s reports that some of the anthrax could be traced to Iraq. That’s not new: ABC had included the White House’s denials in every one of its stories. Nor, according to Greenwald’s research, did ABC ever retract its stories or say that they were wrong.

Not good enough. ABC still needs to make a full accounting as to what went wrong.

More: Ross’ statements to TVNewser bring us closer. It may be that ABC’s big mistake was not making it clear at the time that it was retracting its stories. If that’s what it was doing.

And by the way: I should make it clear that I’m feeding on Jay Rosen’s posts on Twitter.