Casino fight turns nasty

The Outraged Liberal, who gets up even earlier than Media Nation (can that 5:27 a.m. time stamp be correct?), says everything I was going to say about the state of the casino-gambling fight. I wouldn’t spin it quite the same way, though. Mr. Liberal takes House Speaker Sal DiMasi to task for his “increasingly strident and personal approach to the issue.”

Well, yes, today’s Globe coverage makes it quite clear that DiMasi is taking it personally. But just because he’s getting personal doesn’t mean he isn’t right. From Matt Viser’s story:

One representative who met with the speaker yesterday said DiMasi “made clear that he wants to win this thing.”

“It’s trying to convince you, ‘I’m right, the governor’s wrong, and we really want your vote,’ ” said the representative, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was private. “I thought it was going to be on substance, talk about the pros and cons. But it’s been made pretty clear that it’s more than that.”

Now, this particular legislator apparently thinks DiMasi’s approach is light on substance. But it’s also clear that DiMasi is taking a principled position — “I’m right, the governor’s wrong.” And, in fact, DiMasi’s right and the governor’s wrong. Am I missing something here? Let’s not forget that the speaker is relying in part on data generated by state Rep. Dan Bosley, who’s been studying this issue for years.

Then, too, Gov. Deval Patrick himself appears to be getting personal as well. According to Globe columnist Joan Vennochi (don’t take the buyout, Joan!), DiMasi is getting his back up because he believes Patrick and his minions have been sliming him in the press. Not all that competently, either — DiMasi may be golfing with casino backers, but he’s also telling them “no,” while Patrick has rolled over for them.

Mr. Liberal has come around to the anti-casino position, but he still wants more data and for “cooler heads to prevail.” I’m not sure why. Patrick’s three-casino proposal is the most damaging idea any governor has come up with in a long time. What’s needed is to defeat it — soundly, and by a wide enough margin that he doesn’t try again.

Media Nation on the air

I’ll be a guest on “Radio Boston,” on WBUR (90.9 FM), this Friday at 1 p.m. to talk about the future of the newspaper business. The program will be repeated on Saturday at 1 p.m., and will be available online as well.

Also this Friday, I’ll be on “Greater Boston with Emily Rooney” (WGBH-TV, Channel 2), at 7 p.m. for our weekly “Beat the Press” media roundup.

Spitzer reportedly to resign

The Times is now reporting that New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer is expected to resign this morning.

I’ve been thinking about why, in the post-Bill Clinton era, Spitzer can’t just brazen out what is at its heart a sex scandal. I think there are three reasons. (There are always three, aren’t there?)

  • The hypocrisy angle. Spitzer is simply too closely associated with having gone after prostitution in the past. He can hardly argue that it’s a victimless crime now. By the way, it turns out that the 2004 bust I referenced yesterday still hasn’t come to trial.
  • The money angle. The thousands of dollars Spitzer spent on prostitutes came from one of three sources: (a) his personal funds; (b) campaign contributions; (c) taxpayer dollars. If the answer is anything other than (a), he’s got big, big problems.
  • The jerk angle. Judging from the coverage, it seems that no one can stand him, and that the Democrats will be just as happy to see him depart as the Republicans. He can’t survive something like this without allies, and apparently he has none.

That said, we should remember that few people believed Clinton could survive revelations of his scandalous behavior with Monica Lewinsky. If Spitzer decides suddenly to dig in his heels and stay, who’s to say he can’t survive — provided his answer to the money question is the right one?

Bailey skewers “gaming” study

There are so many reasons that we’re going to miss Globe columnist Steve Bailey. Among those reasons is his staunch, principled, fact-based opposition to casino gambling. Bailey’s got a good one today, poking holes in the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce study — not that it already didn’t pretty much look like Swiss cheese.

Something I had missed, but that Bailey picks up on right away: the very title is “Casino Gaming in Massachusetts,” thus relying on the preferred PR term for gambling rather than the English language. His description of so-called revenues as gambling losses is dead-on. And he wonders how long it will be before Donald Trump starts seeking a tax cut.

Bailey’s column comes on the same day that the Globe’s Sean Murphy reports that slot-machine revenues are plunging in Connecticut and Rhode Island, showing that oversaturation is already taking a toll. People only have so much money they can lose, apparently. The Patrick administration says it sees no need to revise its numbers, which makes sense once you understand they’re based on nothing but wishful thinking in the first place. (Plus whatever Clyde Barrow jotted down while hanging out in parking lots.)

In today’s Herald, Scott Van Voorhis offers some horrifying tales of gambling addiction, but says advocates are neutral on Gov. Patrick’s three-casino plan because of the money he would include for treatment. The advocates seem not to understand that there will be a lot more gambling, and a lot more addiction, if people don’t have to drive all the way to Foxwoods.

Not to mention that treatment money can always be cut. Especially if it’s needed to give a tax break to Donald Trump.

What Spitzer may be waiting for

The New York Times reports that Eliot Spitzer won’t resign as governor of New York today. Why would he prolong the agony? Here’s a guess: When investigating corruption involving public officials, the feds sometimes consider it a victory if they can merely force an elected official out of office.

If I recall correctly, former Massachusetts House Speaker Charles Flaherty’s resignation from office was part of the agreement he worked out with federal prosecutors. Spitzer knows that once he’s stepped down, he’s lost all his leverage. Better to negotiate from a position of — well, you couldn’t exactly call it strength at this point. But at least he’s still got something to barter away.

Not worth enough to sell?

This hurts. According to Silicon Valley Insider, New York Times Co. chief financial officer James Follo says the company would like to sell the Boston Globe — except that, at the moment, it isn’t worth enough to put it on the block. Michael Learmonth writes:

In a presentation to the Bear Strearns [sic] media conference in Palm Beach, Fla., Follo singled out the Boston Globe as an underperforming asset that could be sold off, but that recent newspaper valuations made that unlikely in the near-term. Similarly, [Times Co. CEO Janet] Robinson said The Times’ local papers could also be sold, but that similar newspaper groups have not sold at a high multiple, so the Times is more likely to hold on to them, for now.

It’s not encouraging to realize that Times Co. executives think of Boston’s paper of record as something they’re stuck with. But there you have it. One silver lining: Follo apparently thinks things will improve at some point. (Thanks to Media Nation reader B.D.)

Why Spitzer has to go

Alan Dershowitz explains in today’s New York Times:

“Men go to prostitutes — big deal, that’s not a story in most parts of the world,” Mr. Dershowitz said.

But he also said he had been surprised when Mr. Spitzer prosecuted a prostitution ring in 2004.

“I always thought he was somebody who would come down on crimes with real victims,” Mr. Dershowitz said. “Prostitutes aren’t victims — they’re getting paid a thousand dollars an hour, and the johns aren’t victims. What upset me the most was that they wiretapped thousands of e-mails and phone calls. In an age when terrorism needs to be stopped, they’re devoting these kinds of resources to a prostitution ring?”

Here is the Times account of that 2004 bust — 18 people arrested thanks to Spitzer’s efforts, apparently for doing nothing worse than what Spitzer appears to have done. I couldn’t find any follow-up stories. Does anyone know if any of them went to prison?

Citizen journalism (?) and Spitzer

The ever-classy New York Post is letting its readers write headlines for the Eliot Spitzer story. A sampling:

  • HYPO-QUIT!!!!
  • The “Emperor” Has No Clothes!
  • ELIOT MESS!
  • Love Potion for Client #9

Those last two aren’t bad. But I’ll bet the Post itself comes up with something better for tomorrow’s edition.