A Media Nation reader passes this along. Apparently this was up on the Indians’ Web site yesterday, then taken down.
Mitigation sought in Middleborough
A Middleborough developer who pays $29,000 a year in taxes to the town wants some of his money back. The reason? The proposed casino is croaking his business. Eileen Reece reports in the Brockton Enterprise:
The developer, whose units are located near the site of the proposed casino, has had problems selling the units as prospective buyers are unsure how close their homes will be to the casino, explained [Selectman Adam] Bond.
“This is a true, dead center, right-on negative impact,” said Bond, who was instrumental in negotiating the casino contract with the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe.
It’s impossible to judge the veracity of this claim, since Bond wouldn’t identify the name of the developer. The selectmen, naturally, are already trying to figure out whether they can deal with the developer in secret.
But Bond, who wants to be town manager despite lacking the minimum qualifications for the job, isn’t exactly known for saying a discouraging word about the proposed casino. So this seems pretty credible, at least on the surface.
Locker-room material
From the Cleveland Indians’ Web site.
A judicial breach of privacy
Superior Court Judge Allan van Gestel‘s contempt for privacy ought to concern all of us. And his latest is hardly the first time he’s made a dubious decision involving the rights of individuals.
Van Gestel recently ordered the ticket service StubHub to turn over the names of about 13,000 customers to the New England Patriots as part of the team’s crackdown on ticket scalping (Globe story here; Herald story here). In a particularly ridiculous gesture, van Gestel ordered the Patriots not to reveal the names to anyone else. But isn’t it the Patriots from whom those customers were most trying to conceal their identities?
Van Gestel is also the judge who’s blocked Herald columnist Howie Carr from taking his talk show from WRKO (AM 680) to WTKK (96.9 FM). I’m not going to argue the legalities of noncompete clauses, right-to-match provisions and the like. Morally, though, there’s something reprehensible about telling Carr he can’t work for any radio station but WRKO until 2012, even though Carr’s contract expired last month.
And say, your honor, does Carr have any recourse regarding the “Virtual Howie” that’s now online at the WRKO Web site?
Finally, in 2000 I bestowed upon Judge van Gestel a Phoenix Muzzle Award for his mind-boggling decision to impose prior restraint on a group of anti-gay activists who had recorded a sex-education session for teenagers and were playing it for anyone who cared to listen.
What the anti-gay hatemongers did was contemptible. It also happened to be protected by the First Amendment, which van Gestel later acknowledged by removing the media from his order.
Editor’s statement
Jessica Heslam reproduces an e-mail from Jon Keller’s editor, Michael Flamini:
Jon Keller’s The Bluest State is a political book written by a journalist for a trade audience. His book is based mainly on his years of reporting on the state and local governments of Massachusetts and its politicians, and includes coverage of public events and press conferences attended by many journalists. Jon Keller’s book is a lively and controversial work with a pointed thesis. The Bluest State is more akin to an op-ed piece than to a work of historical analysis or an academic treatise. It is unreasonable to expect extensive footnotes for each and every quote, or a lengthy bibliography. What’s more, references are made in the book’s index and throughout the text to quotes and facts reported in other newspapers, including the Boston Herald and the Boston Globe. Thus, Jon Keller discloses to his readers, throughout his book, that he has occasionally relied on others’ reporting (in addition to relying on his own prodigious reporting) when he sometimes includes quotes made by individuals or other facts previously reported.
More on Keller
Great comment from an anonymous poster to Media Nation. Here’s just a small excerpt:
It’s true that in newspapers, journalists usually attribute quotes that were gotten by another publication to that publication. But I almost never see this in books. I’ve seen books that have almost nothing but quotes from primary sources that don’t mention anything about where they came from. The fact that “everybody does it” does not, of course, make something right. But let’s not pretend that what was done here is anything other than the norm.
He’s absolutely right. Keller is being singled out for a practice that is rampant throughout the entire book industry. Read the whole thing. I guarantee you there are local authors quaking in their boots tonight at the prospect that they’ll be next.
The Herald and Jon Keller
Boston Herald media reporter Jessica Heslam writes that Jon Keller’s book, “The Bluest State,” is “riddled with almost three dozen instances of direct quotes and other material lifted from numerous newspaper articles without any attribution.” Her story, teased on the front page, is leading Romenesko right now. So any hope Keller might have had that this would go away is pretty much gone. We’ll be talking about this for a few days, at least.
My purpose here is not to pick a fight with Heslam. She found what she found, and she has a reputation for getting her facts straight. And I suppose Media Nation readers have a right to treat what I say about Keller, the political analyst for WBZ-TV (Channel 4), with suspicion. As I have made clear in the past — most recently last Saturday, when the Boston Globe reported that Keller’s son, Barney, was the spokesman for Republican congressional candidate Jim Ogonowski, and that Keller had disclosed that fact only occasionally — Keller is a friend of mine. I also gave “The Bluest State” a favorable review (with appropriate disclosure) in the Guardian recently. So I write this item in that spirit.
So what do I think? My opinion is based on having known Keller for the past 16-plus years as well as from having read “The Bluest State” fairly carefully. It comes down to three things:
- I believe Keller is incapable of deliberately violating the ethics of journalism. He is an honest reporter and a craftsman who takes great pride in his work. Which leads to my next two points.
- A fair reading of “The Bluest State” makes it absolutely clear that Keller has written an amalgam combining some original reporting with a lot of material that, at this point, is essentially in the public domain. I find it hard to believe that anyone would think Keller had personally interviewed everyone he quotes.
- Keller’s methodology is hardly unusual. Op-ed-page columnists regularly quote kings, prime ministers and presidential candidates without specifying that they didn’t actually interview those people. And you can be sure that if you leafed through just about any political book aimed at a general (as opposed to an academic) audience, you will find numerous examples of quotations not attributed to the news outlet that conducted the original interview.
I respectfully disagree with Samuel Freedman, who teaches at Columbia’s Graduate School of Journalism and writes for the New York Times. Freedman tells Heslam that Keller made it appear he personally conducted every interview. I suspect Freedman hasn’t actually read the book, because if he had, he would come to the opposite conclusion.
In fact, Heslam herself offers evidence that all but proves my point, writing:
In one example from Keller’s book, he took five direct quotes from neighbors, a parent, a school board member and city councilor from four Globe articles written in 1988, 1989 and 1990 on the controversy surrounding the Commonwealth Day School on Brattle Street in Cambridge.
The ’80s? Would anyone honestly believe Keller was passing off nearly two-decade-old quotes as having come from his own reporting? Of course not.
Keller could have avoided this with footnotes, but that’s atypical in the trade press. But, again, the lack of footnotes is not evidence that Keller was trying to pass off other news outlets’ interviews as his own. Rather, in a book aimed at a general audience such as “The Bluest State,” the assumption is that readers will take it on faith that Keller got it right — not that he interviewed everyone who’s quoted.
Update: Adam Reilly agrees, and makes a telling observation about the different ways that Keller handled his own material and his second-hand research.
Water, water everywhere
In my latest for the Guardian, I take a jaundiced view of the campaign against bottled water.
A privilege for the privileged
Amy Gahran of the Poynter Institute writes that a proposed federal shield law would actually be a step backwards. Under the original version, the bill would protect “a person engaged in journalism” from having to reveal his or her anonymous sources, a definition seemingly elastic enough to cover bloggers.
The new version, by contrast, covers “A person who, for financial gain or livelihood [Gahran’s emphasis], is engaged in journalism,” which would largely restrict the shield law’s protections to professional journalists. Gahran writes:
Journalism is a practice, not a priesthood. At its core it’s about committing acts of journalism, not about getting a degree, being employed, or even getting paid. I think a federal shield law with such exclusive language would only serve to diminish the practice and independence of journalism, especially among people who are sticking their necks out entirely on their own to do it.
She adds that she hopes President Bush vetoes it. (Don’t worry; he will.)
As we’ve seen in recent years, journalists have no constitutional right to protect their anonymous sources if they’re call into court to testify. Judith Miller‘s case is the best-known, but there are many others as well.
Forty-nine states either have shield laws or state-court opinions that essentially require judges to consider all other options before forcing journalists to testify. But there is no such protection at the federal level, which is why Congress is now considering such legislation.
The trouble is, as Gahran notes, the First Amendment recognizes no special privileges for journalists as a class. Nor should it. The First Amendment is for all of us. By passing a shield law that protects journalism as an activity, Congress would be honoring the spirit of the First Amendment. The change Gahran rightly worries about would only protect members of the “priesthood.”
It would be interesting to learn why the language was changed, and who was behind it.
NPR’s “On the Media” has a good summation of the shield-law debate.
Scotto heading to Albany
Former WRKO Radio (AM 680) talk-show host Scott Allen Miller is heading to Albany, N.Y., to become program director and morning-drive host at WROW (AM 590). This will be Scotto’s second stint in the Capital District.
Mrs. Media Nation hails from the Albany suburbs, so I have some familiarity with the region. I’ll send Scotto off with this Albany Times Union multimedia package on “Central Ave: Broken Dreams, Second Chances.”