An old lie recycled

Unexpectedly, it’s turned into Charlie Pierce Week here at Media Nation. Why? Because conservative media critic Tim Graham is smearing Pierce with a five-year-old lie — a lie that Graham had a hand in spreading in the first place.

Pierce has a story in the new Esquire on the presidential campaign. Graham doesn’t like it very much. Fair enough. But Graham, writing for NewsBusters, begins with this:

Charles Pierce is the infamous Boston Globe writer who tried to insist in 2003 that if Mary Jo Kopechne had survived Chappaquiddick, she would enjoy all the senior citizen benefits provided by Ted Kennedy’s beneficent policies.

Graham links to an old item at his own organization, the Media Research Center, which later bestowed on Pierce its “Quote of the Year” for what it considered his extreme liberal bias.

I’ve written about this several times before, and I don’t feel like doing it again; just read this and this. As you will see, Graham deliberately misconstrues what may be the single meanest thing ever written about Ted Kennedy (by a liberal, anyway), strips out the irony and sarcasm, and then pretends that Pierce is tastelessly using Kopechne’s death to praise Kennedy.

Since the record has been corrected several times, Graham is no longer mistaken. Now he’s lying.

Younger and cheaper (III)

Yet another knowledgeable source tells me that there will be some external hires at the Globe. My judgment is that this source supersedes the previous source.

What we’ve got here is the eternal blogger’s dilemma. Standard blogging practice is to post information as it becomes available. When stuff like this happens, though, I find myself wishing I’d done it the old-fashioned way — make calls, and hold off until I have the whole story.

Anyway, I’m now confident that I do have the whole story. Start polishing those résumés, kids.

Piercing talk radio

Charlie Pierce is on a talk-radio rampage. Last month he went after WTKK (96.9 FM), and specifically Don Imus, Michael Graham, Jay Severin, Laura Ingraham and Michele McPhee, whom he doesn’t actually name, referring to her only as “a woman who sounds like she’s shouting her program off the back porch of a three-decker in Revere.”

Now he’s back, targeting Tom Finneran of WRKO (AM 680) as host of “one of the lamest shows in the history of the electric radio device.”

I can’t say I disagree, except to note that McPhee doesn’t actually shout. It only seems that way.

JFK’s posthumous terrorist-coddling

Why is it that hardly anyone bothers to notice that the Hamas spokesman who “endorsed” Barack Obama did so by comparing him to John Kennedy? I mean, it’s weird, and Obama is right to label Hamas a terrorist organization. But by embracing Obama, Hamas is clearly trying to portray itself as reasonable and moderate. Which makes John McCain’s attempt to exploit this all the more deplorable. This is about Hamas trying to change its own image, nothing more.

Joe Lieberman has jumped in, too.

McCain’s Burma shave

Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff reports that John McCain has chosen a convention chair who once worked as a lobbyist for Burma’s repressive government.

“It was six years ago,” protests Doug Goodyear. Well, gee, he’s got a point. In 2002, the military junta had only been in power for 40 years.

Even better: According to Isikoff, Goodyear got the call because the other guy McCain was considering had once represented Ferdinand Marcos as well as the corrupt former prime minister of Ukraine.

Spyware versus spyware

Hmmm … within the last 20 minutes, I started getting a message that my Mac has either a virus or a spyware problem whenever I try to access a Blogspot blog. The message, from Google (which owns Blogspot), begins:

We’re sorry … but your query looks similar to automated requests from a computer virus or spyware application. To protect our users, we can’t process your request right now.

It happens with both Firefox and Safari, but I have no problem accessing non-Blogspot sites. I could install a spyware-wiping program, but this review says wiping out all my private data, including cookies, should accomplish the same thing. Which I just did. No go.

Interestingly enough, I can’t even view Media Nation, although I can get into Blogger in order to post, edit and moderate comments.

Thoughts?

11:25 a.m. update: Shhh! I just switched to a neighbor’s WiFi connection, and everything works fine. I’ll try rebooting our network later today.

1:15 p.m. update: Seems to be OK now, without rebooting.

The Monitor’s hybrid strategy

Don Aucoin reports in today’s Boston Globe that the venerable Christian Science Monitor might be heading down the road blazed by the Capital Times in Madison, Wis. — a hybrid Web/print model, with the print newspaper coming out just once a week.

According to Aucoin, at the moment the Monitor is considering only a modest tweak — a weekly edition to supplement the daily. But, reportedly, there is a possibility that the weekly might eventually replace the daily. If that happens, the print edition could conceivably become an example of “reverse publishing,” a digest of the best content that’s already been published online.

Recently the Capital Times abandoned its paid daily edition in favor of two weekly free tabloids, a news-oriented product that comes out on Wednesdays and an arts-and-entertainment paper on Thursdays. At the same time, the online edition is being pumped up. This is a promising model likely to be emulated. A mostly online paper saves considerable printing and distribution costs without abandoning the print advertising market entirely.

I’ve tended to think of the Monitor as mainly a Web publication for some time now. I mean, where would you grab a print copy? At a Christian Science Reading Room? As long as the church remains committed to high-quality journalism, a shift to a mostly online paper might ensure the paper’s survival.

The Monitor also enjoys an ideal ownership model. These days, papers as diverse as the St. Petersburg Times, the New Hampshire Union Leader and the U.K.’s Guardian are often held up as examples of possible salvation for the news business, as they are all owned by non-profit organizations. (Disclosure: I write a weekly online column for the Guardian.)

So, too, with the Monitor. Unfortunately, as Aucoin notes, the church blew an inordinate amount of money on failed ventures in television and radio about 15 years ago, and has never really recovered. Church ownership may be benign, but in this case it doesn’t come with very deep pockets.

More than anything, the Monitor needs to carve out a new mission. In its heyday many decades ago, the Monitor thrived because it was the quality alternative — usually the only quality alternative — to the local rag. At a time when you can access any news source you want through the Internet, the Monitor must make a case for why you would want to read it instead of, or in addition to, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, et al.

In recent years, the folks running the Monitor have been pretty forward-looking in terms of moving past print. It’s encouraging that they’re still pushing in that direction.