Rosebud redux

Citizen Charles Foster Kane has returned to the blog wars after a long absence, and he’s immediately going after Gregg Jackson for an approving reference to “evangelical Christian field hands who bring in the harvest.”

Anyway, I scanned through Jackson’s column and was equally amused at Jackson’s reference to Mitt Romney as “by far the most left wing GOP presidential candidate in American history.”

Obviously Jackson is referring to the moderate, pre- presidential- campaign version of Romney. Even so, it’s not difficult for a sentient being to think of any number of Republican presidential candidates over the years who have been well to Romney’s left — even the Romney of 1994 or 2002. How about — well, gee, Rudy Giuliani? Remember him? Pro-choice, pro-gay rights, nice and soft on illegal immigration; you get the picture. And if I remember correctly, his presidential campaign wasn’t all that long ago.

In 1980, an obscure Republican congressman named John Anderson challenged Ronald Reagan for the nomination. He became such a liberal darling that, when he ran as an independent that fall, he helped Reagan by pulling votes away from the Democratic incumbent, Jimmy Carter.

Are you paying attention, Gregg? Get this: Mitt Romney wasn’t even the most left-wing GOP presidential candidate in American history named Romney. That would have been his father, George, who ran in 1968 and who was a true progressive. Mitt even said his father marched with Martin Luther King Jr. He didn’t, but he could have.

The early front-runner in 1964 was Nelson Rockefeller, so liberal at that stage of his career that many observers thought he should become a Democrat.

Or how about Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and ’56? Alas, the divisive cultural issues of today were not on the table in the 1950s. But Ike stifled the Republican Party’s nascent right wing, consolidated the New Deal, enforced federally ordered school desegregation and warned against the power of the “military-industrial complex.”

Anyway, I come not to bury Gregg Jackson, which is ridiculously easy to do, but to praise Citizen Chuck on his return.

More troubles for newspapers

The ongoing good news/bad news paradigm in which the newspaper business finds itself continues. According to the trade publication Editor & Publisher, advertising revenue dropped by the largest proportion in 50 years from 2006 to 2007 — and online revenue gains, though still impressive, are beginning to slow.

So where’s the good news? Readership isn’t really declining when you add print and online together. I must admit, though, that the utter lack of ideas on how to pay for the journalism that the public continues to seek is starting to put me in a pessimistic frame of mind.

And it’s not that newspapers as we know them — either in print or online — have to thrive in order for journalism to survive. But though I see plenty of projects that do some of the things that newspapers do, none comes close to being a replacement.

I know that better days are ahead, but right now it’s discouraging. I just hope the latest news is more recession-driven than it is a sign that we’re heading over the cliff.

More on Patrick’s book

The Globe’s Matt Viser and Frank Phillips report that Deval Patrick will receive a $1.35 million advance for his autobiography, which is scheduled to be published in 2010. Doubleday will be the publisher.

A few observations.

First, Patrick obviously has an interesting story to tell. I’m not sure if it’s $1.35 million worth of interesting, given that he’s an essentially local figure. (Even if he is from Chicago originally.) But the size of the advance doesn’t strike me as entirely crazy — just half-crazy.

Second, 2010 is the year he’s up for re-election as governor. It strikes me that Patrick wouldn’t have agreed to a 2010 release date if he didn’t already have a pretty good idea of what he hopes to be doing then. Serving in a Democratic White House? Laying the groundwork for a 2012 presidential run of his own? Or something as mundane as seeking re-election?

Finally, Peter Porcupine makes an excellent point about Patrick’s decision to show his book proposal to New York publishers last week rather than see the casino bill through. Yes, it was headed for certain, overwhelming defeat. But shouldn’t the captain go down with his ship? Patrick’s view of the world, P.P. suggests, is that “the captain is the only one in the lifeboat.”

Obama’s cringe-inducing comments

This is painful. Try not to cover your eyes as you read the top of this Ben Smith post at the Politico:

In appearance taped for airing this morning on “The View,” Senator Obama makes news by saying he might have left Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ if the Rev. Jeremiah Wright had not retired.

In a clip posted by ABC, Obama says: “Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country — for all its flaws — then I wouldn’t have felt comfortable staying there at the church.”

Last week, Obama staked out the position he’s going to have to live with. He delivered a fine speech on race, but never quite came to terms with Wright’s occasionally loathsome rhetoric. Now it just looks like he’s pandering.

Steve Bailey says farewell

The Boston Globe’s Steve Bailey, the city’s last bigfoot columnist, says farewell — and reminds us of journalism’s importance:

Newspapers, in print and online, continue to provide our common language. After a lifetime spent in newsrooms, I believe this as much as I believe anything. Flawed though they are, newspapers are our town common, the place where we meet, learn about one another, and debate what is right and what is not. They amuse us, and they anger us. And to the extent that people opt out of that common conversation, we are the lesser for it.

Bailey’s right, and he’s not being nostalgic. The conversation is moving online and spreading out, but it’s not separate and apart. It exists in a symbiotic relationship with journalism.

And best wishes to Bailey, who’s heading for London for a job with Bloomberg.

Where was Patrick?

One of the odd side notes to last week’s overwhelming, 108-46 House vote against Gov. Deval Patrick’s casino plan was the absence of the governor, who, it was reported, had gone to New York City on personal business.

Now WBZ-TV (Channel 4) political analyst Jon Keller reports that Patrick was peddling his autobiography, and that he’s hoping for as much as seven figures. Keller writes:

According to a publishing executive who saw the proposal, it promises a highly personal account — “like Barack Obama’s first book” — of Patrick’s childhood growing up poor on Chicago’s South Side, his journey to Milton Academy courtesy of a scholarship program that helps underprivileged kids obtain top-shelf secondary educations, and his matriculation at Harvard University.

Not that it was a big deal that he’d skipped town — everyone knew the vote was going to go against him. Interesting nevertheless.

Paul La Camera on Mike Barnicle

Paul La Camera, general manager of WBUR Radio (90.9 FM), e-mails Media Nation about a recent report by Adam Reilly at ThePhoenix.com that he may bring former Boston Globe and sometime Boston Herald columnist Mike Barnicle to the public-radio powerhouse to do commentary:

Dan —

I write this as an individual with a personal history in the matter and not in any way on behalf of WBUR. I am also specifically directing this to you, since it appears your Media Nation site has become a certain center for the controversy.

Of course, the matter or the controversy I am citing are related to my long-time association with and still strong feelings for Mike Barnicle.

Not to rehash history of a decade ago, but when I stood with Mike some 10 years ago at WCVB-TV, it was based on what then was a 15-year working relationship during which he served our station in the highest professional manner. As you and others remind me, there was the George Carlin summer reading recommendation, which I continue to believe was blown out of proportion and hardly was a capital offense, particularly in light of 15 years of distinguished and unquestioned work.

If you recall, the frenzy even extended to irresponsible accusations about Mike’s military service claims. I was always grateful that I was able to address and right those charges as well.

Since all of the above transpired, including what occurred at the Globe, Mike has worked for any number of news organizations, including Newsweek.com, NBC, MSNBC, and I understand is currently preparing reports on the Pennsylvania Primary for the Today Show.

As I said to Adam Reilly of the Phoenix, it has been 10 years. From any rational perspective, as evidenced by the above listing of media outlets of the highest standards and standing, it is time to move on.

Mike has a remarkable gift and I continue to believe his voice is missed in Boston.

Sincerely,
Paul La Camera

So — will Barnicle actually pop up on WBUR’s airwaves? Stay tuned.

Patrick’s unfortunate NYT close-up

If you’re the governor of Massachusetts, this is not how you want to be featured on the front page of the New York Times.

“Early Dazzle, Then Tough Path for Governor” is the headline. The story, by Abby Goodnough, portrays Gov. Deval Patrick as becalmed, going nowhere because of his defeat on casino gambling and a general sense of malaise stemming from early missteps over his Cadillac and office drapes.

Patrick sounds as though he’s going to keep pushing casinos, and he criticizes House Speaker Sal DiMasi for killing his proposal. “We’re going to keep working on it until we get a Democratic [sic on the uppercase “D”; I do believe Patrick was referring to governance, not the party] process that’s functioning,” Patrick is quoted as saying. Well, now. If Patrick hasn’t learned that there is overwhelming consensus against casinos and the social ills they bring, then he’s learned very little. This doesn’t bode well for the rest of his term.

Discussion of the Times story has already begun at Blue Mass. Group. And though BMGers are generally pro-Patrick, the first few commenters seem to be relishing the governor’s troubles.

The Outraged Liberal today offers some sharp analysis, noting that the Boston Herald’s ongoing coverage of DiMasi’s predeliction for golfing with well-connected friends, backing state contracts for political allies and supporting more revenue-losing tax breaks for the film industry may prove more important than the Times’ one-day embarrassment of Patrick. The O.L. writes that “the net effect is a steady drip of stories no politician can relish.”

Jon Keller, whose otherwise fine blog still lacks permalinks, offers some withering thoughts on the realities now facing Patrick and on the Times’ reliance on Steve Crosby — chief of staff to what Keller calls the “Titanic”-like administration of Jane Swift — to make the best case for Patrick. Keller writes:

Patrick tells the Times: “I have a better idea this year about who to trust and who not to, and you better believe that’s helped.” Really? Of whom does he speak? The key cabinet member who’s being allowed to run wild with inside power-plays and other clumsy blundering that threatens to make hash of years of progress in a crucial policy area? The aides he’s becoming notorious for not listening to? Sal? Maybe Patrick can’t trust him, but he should have known that going in. The real question is: can he beat him at his game?

Overall, not a good media day for Patrick or DiMasi.

McCain and his media admirers

Neal Gabler has a first-rate analysis in today’s New York Times on the media’s love affair with John McCain. He writes:

Seeming to view himself and the whole political process with a mix of amusement and bemusement, Mr. McCain is an ironist wooing a group of individuals who regard ironic detachment more highly than sincerity or seriousness. He may be the first real postmodernist candidate for the presidency — the first to turn his press relations into the basis of his candidacy.

Though McCain is hardly what you would call a staunch, steady conservative, he is, in fact, deeply conservative about most issues, including reproductive choice, same-sex marriage and, most notably, foreign policy and the war in Iraq. Yet reporters, and even liberal commentators, Gabler notes, choose not to believe him, because his view of how the world works is essentially in line with that of culturally liberal journalists.

My own sense about McCain is that though he cares deeply about foreign policy, everything else to him is just politics. I do get the feeling that, if he’s elected president, his domestic agenda will essentially be defined by expediency.

The media’s relationship with the candidates will be crucial this fall, especially if Hillary Clinton — detested by many journalists — somehow wins the Democratic nomination. Can the press fairly cover a race when it loves one candidate and loathes the other? If past performance is any indication, you would have to say “no.”