Why is McPhee sorry?

If the Boston Herald is going to report on Michele McPhee’s on-air apology for seeming to draw a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia, shouldn’t the paper also report what she was apologizing for?

On Thursday, the Boston Globe’s “Names” column included this item on McPhee:

WTKK apologized yesterday for a comment by Michele McPhee that seemed to equate homosexuality with pedophilia. McPhee, the brassy Boston Herald reporter who hosts a daily, two-hour talk show on 96.9 FM, was talking about the trend in the fashion industry toward skinny models. After saying that the industry is largely dominated by gay men, McPhee said: “And who do homosexual men like? Little boys.” Asked about the comment later, McPhee declined to talk to us. But a station official then issued the following statement: “Michele’s comments were made in the context of a fashion industry that designs women’s clothes for atypical body types. She regrets if her remarks were taken to mean anything else, as no other meaning was intended.”

Globe item prompted some further ruminations by John Gonzalez of Boston Magazine.

The Herald finally weighed in today. But though Herald reporter Jessica Heslam quotes McPhee’s apology at length, we never quite learn why she’s sorry.

Heslam does write, “Station officials have refused to release an audiotape of the comment in question.” But surely McPhee could have confirmed the quote reported by the Globe for her fellow Herald staffer. And failing that, the Herald could have have reproduced what McPhee had “reportedly” said. It’s not like she was denying it.

Same as it ever was

After all that, we’re going to have Howie Carr back in his old time slot on WRKO (AM 680) and a new/old Imus show in the morning on WTKK (96.9 FM)? Apparently so. WRKO is milking Carr’s return for all its worth, running a huge “I’M BAAACCK!” graphic on its Web site this morning.

Prediction: Howie’s numbers will be better than they were before he disappeared from the airwaves, at least for a while. He’ll have an opportunity to show some energy and attract some new listeners — or maybe bring back a few old ones who’d given up on him in recent years. But Imus, who hasn’t had the benefit of all the free publicity Carr received during the past few months, will have to rebuild.

Brian Maloney, who earlier this week was wondering if Carr might move to a talk station in Charlotte, N.C., now says, “Other than a higher salary, Howie doesn’t seem to have won a single battle.” Other than a higher salary? Good grief. We should all be such losers.

And why can’t someone come up with a new idea in this market that actually works?

“Unprincipled pragmatism”

Noted civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate, blogging at ThePhoenix.com, says Gov. Deval Patrick is more interested in liberalism than he is in liberty. The bill of particulars:

  • Patrick’s proposal to outlaw Internet gambling, which would, of course, cut into the revenues from the three casinos he hopes to see built.
  • His support for an expanded anti-free-speech buffer zone around abortion clinics.
  • His opposition to the decriminalization of marijuana.

“Surely it is possible to be a liberal, supporting a society that does not allow its most vulnerable members to sink into an abyss, while advocating at the same time the maximum individual liberty consistent with what the Supreme Court has called ‘an ordered society,’ ” Silverglate writes. “Thus far it does not appear that Deval Patrick is that kind of liberal. But maybe it’s still too early to give up hope on this score.”

Politics and the BPL (II)

Fired Boston Public Library president Bernard Margolis goes after Mayor Tom Menino in today’s lead story in the Boston Globe. And Margolis’ comments are in perfect accord with this week’s Boston Phoenix editorial, which I flagged last Friday.

According to Margolis, the mayor had actually rebuffed his efforts to strengthen the branch libraries — a shortcoming supposedly responsible for Margolis’ ouster — and then turned around and used that as an excuse to get rid of him.

Globe reporter Donovan Slack’s story includes this:

Margolis said he knew in May that his contract would not be renewed, when [Menino chief of staff Judith] Kurland visited him at the library. After taking a tour and perusing 17th-century documents from the Bay Colony, she delivered the news.

“She said, ‘I want to tell you that your contract will not be renewed when it’s up next year,’ ” Margolis said. “She said, ‘If the trustees don’t go along with it, they will be removed.’ “

Kurland confirmed that she had told Margolis his contract would not be renewed, but she denied that she had talked to him about replacing trustees not willing to go along. “What I said was, ‘We do have the votes not to reappoint, if you want us to take a vote on it,’ ” Kurland said.

The only way Menino can make amends for this stunning exercise in political bullying is to bring in a first-class replacement for Margolis. We’ll see.

Welcome back, Bruce

A couple of months ago I wrote an exceedingly unkind commentary for the Guardian about Bruce Springsteen’s then-forthcoming album, “Magic.” I thought the single released in advance of the album, “Radio Nowhere,” sounded generic enough to have been recorded by a Springsteen imitator. Given that his last two albums of original material were the loathsome “The Rising” (2003) and the instantly forgettable “Devils & Dust” (2005), I didn’t hold out much hope for “Magic.”

Well, now. I’ve been listening to “Magic” for a month, and I’m both chagrined at my earlier haste and pleasantly surprised. I still don’t like “Radio Nowhere,” but it’s not so bad when it kicks off his best album in many years. I realize I’m late to the party here, but I have to buy my CDs like everyone else. I figured I’d at least have my say before Springsteen hits Boston later this week.

What gives “Magic” its strength is that Springsteen has abandoned the strained attempts at profundity that marred “The Rising” and “Devils.” I’m hardly the first to say this (Springsteen himself says it here), but “Magic” is a pop album — the closest he’s come to such an achievement since “Tunnel of Love” (1987). “Tunnel,” in turn, might be his last completely satisfying album, depending on how you feel about “The Ghost of Tom Joad” (1995). I like “Tom Joad,” but I realize that a lot of people don’t.

Smack dab in the middle of “Magic” is “Girls in Their Summer Clothes,” perhaps the most perfect little pop song Springsteen has ever written. The underlying melancholy in the chorus — “The girls in their summer clothes, pass me by” — befits someone in his late 50s.

It’s not all confection by any means. There’s a current of antiwar sentiment here, stated most explicitly on “Last to Die.” The album is full of highlights, but right now I’m loving “You’ll Be Coming Down” and “Your Own Worst Enemy,” two relaxed, mid-tempo rockers. Bruce’s confidence in his material shines through in his singing, too — he’s dropped some the annoying tics that had crept in over the years, such as swallowing the ends of his lines.

A word, though, about Brendan O’Brien’s production: terrible. I don’t understand what Springsteen sees in this guy. I understand that Springsteen wants to update his sound, and some of O’Brien’s little flourishes, like the strings that open “Girls,” are nice. But the sound is muddy and distorted throughout. “Magic” is almost OK on my iPod, but it’s nearly unlistenable in my car. It’s as if I’m listening to a radio station that’s not quite tuned in.

Maybe recording last year’s fine album of old folk songs, “We Shall Overcome,” re-energized Springsteen’s writing. Other than “Girls in Their Summer Clothes,” I don’t know if we’ll be humming any of these 10 years from now. But this is a genuine comeback.

Taranto’s wrong, too

Maybe after Rupe closes the deal, he’ll let Wall Street Journal commentators get LexisNexis accounts. The lack thereof is the only explanation I can think of for James Taranto’s endorsement of David Brooks’ factually deficient claim that Ronald Reagan’s speech in Philadelphia, Miss., was not a big deal during the 1980 campaign.

As I demonstrated last week, it was an enormous issue, with a number of media outlets reporting on what some saw as racial insensitivity on Reagan’s part, and with Jimmy Carter’s campaign beating the drums on several occasions.

Yet Taranto writes: “Why does Reagan’s Philadelphia speech loom so much larger in today’s liberal imagination than it did when Reagan was alive and active in politics? Because today’s liberals yearn for their elders’ moral authority.” Nice line. Too bad it depends on believing something that isn’t true. Taranto is generally one of the sharper knives in the drawer, but he’s wrong about this.

Oh Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood. Some commenters to my previous item think I’m accusing Reagan of having been a racist. I’m not, although he clearly didn’t mind playing racial politics on occasion. My interest in this item is based solely on Brooks’ factually incorrect notion that the Philadelphia speech was not a big deal until recently. In fact, it was one of the biggest issues of the 1980 campaign. I remember it as someone who lived through it, and my research shows that I’m right and Brooks is wrong.

Hat tip on this to Media Nation reader MTS.

An awkward moment for Obama

My friend and former Phoenix colleague Michael Crowley has beaten me to it.

Yesterday I was listening to the podcast of “Meet the Press,” which this week featured Sen. Barack Obama. For the most part, it was standard-issue Tim Russert, as Obama easily batted away questions of the tired old “how can you be for campaign-finance reform when you raise money from special interests” variety.

But, as I was driving past Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Custom House, I nearly had to pull over for this exchange:

Russert: [O]ther critics will say that you’ve not been a leader against the war, and they point to this: In July of ’04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of ’04. And this: “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.” It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it.

Obama: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party’s nominees’ decisions when it came to Iraq.

Obama — shading the truth then, telling it straight now? Not a very good campaign slogan. Or as Crowley writes, “Obama might argue that there’s a difference between speaking as a nominee and speaking about the nominee. Still, even by his own account, this episode hardly seems to live up to the tough standards he set last night” — referring to a rousing speech Obama had given in Iowa the night before.

In July 2004, Obama went beyond cooling down his rhetoric in order to accommodate John Kerry and John Edwards, and his explanation for that now is cynical. Obama’s flagging campaign has caught a few sparks in the past week. It will be interesting to see whether he did himself any real damage yesterday.

Update: Media Matters reports that Russert creatively sliced and diced Obama’s comments from three years ago. No surprise there. But what concerns me is what Obama said yesterday.