The Dixie Chicks and Clear Channel

The Boston Globe editorial page today runs a curious correction: “An editorial Tuesday misidentified the radio chain that pulled the Dixie Chicks from its country stations’ playlists in 2003. It was Cumulus Media, not Clear Channel Communications.” The editorial is linked from the correction.

Well, now. The way the Globe first had it is certainly the way I remember it. What happened?

To begin with, you will not be surprised to learn that Clear Channel itself loudly pats itself on the back for not doing what a lot of us think it did. Here’s what the corporate Web site says in part:

MYTH: Clear Channel radio stations banned air-play of the Dixie Chicks after political comments.

FACT: The radio company that banned the Dixie Chicks was Cumulus Media, not Clear Channel. That company also hosted the CD-smashing ceremony outside its Atlanta, Ga. headquarters, during which bulldozers crushed the group’s CDs. Simon Renshaw, the Dixie Chicks’ manager, told the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee in July that Clear Channel Communications did not ban the group’s music and had received a “bad rap.”

According to the blog Facing South, published by the Institute for Southern Studies, Cumulus‘ behavior was indeed more outrageous than Clear Channel’s — so much so that U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., once warned the company that its actions were turning it into a symbol of everything that’s wrong with media consolidation.

Still, it’s not as though Clear Channel stations never banned the Dixie Chicks. In March 2003, two Clear Channel stations in Jacksonville, Fla., dropped the Chicks following Natalie Maines’ “we’re ashamed” remarks about President Bush at a concert in London. So did the Clear Channel station in San Antonio, Texas, where the company is headquartered. And that’s just based on my quick Googling this morning.

Clear Channel also organized pro-war, anti-Dixie Chicks rallies across the country, featuring the loathsome Glenn Beck. And this Wikipedia entry strikes me as a pretty balanced summation of the charges against the company:

There is speculation that Clear Channel … may have directed their stations to [ban the Dixie Chicks], but the company states this was solely the work of local station managers, DJs, and angry fans. Some critics of Clear Channel, including the editors of Rock and Rap Confidential, say otherwise, claiming that Clear Channel executives, in a bid to gain support for various policies they were pushing in Washington, instigated the boycott among its country music stations to send a message to other musicians that criticizing President George Bush’s administration could hurt their careers through reduced airplay, etc.

It looks to me as though the original Globe editorial was true but not accurate. The correction is accurate but not true. Will the third time be the charm?

A doze of Finneran

Sounds like Tom Finneran’s new morning show on WRKO Radio (AM 680) is off to a somnolent start. Media Nation confesses to having missed yesterday’s debut and to having no time to listen this morning, but here are a couple of early reviews. First, the Phoenix’s Adam Reilly:

[J]ust before 9, a guy called up and said, basically, I never thought I’d be calling in to Tom Finneran, but here I am, and I like the discussion you’re having about Iraq. Finneran responded with a long soliloquy: We’re all entitled to an epiphany moment, I spent 26 years in the Massachusetts legislature, I was the most conservative Democrat ever, blah blah blah. Then he tried to bring the caller into the conversation — but he’d hung up.

Next up is Michael Levenson of the Globe:

“Speaker DiMasi and I are going to challenge you and the lieutenant governor to a pleasant, social, recreational round of golf,” Finneran told [Gov. Deval] Patrick. “There’ll be no press coverage. We’ll have a lot of fun.”

As his producer waved frantically from a glass booth, yelling for Finneran to ask about DSS, Finneran appeared not to notice. Instead, he urged Patrick not to be afraid to take trade missions.

“You are the very best salesman we have,” Finneran told Patrick. “And if the press gives you a hard time, you know you’ve got comfort and protection over here.”

I’m sorry, but that’s just gruesome.

You will not be surprised to learn that Brian Maloney, of Save WRKO, is unimpressed.

Finneran’s predecessor, Scott Allen Miller, maintains his silence. Scotto, to his credit, has taken the high road, even though WRKO’s corporate owner, Entercom, has not come through with the new gig that had been hinted at in the press.

Finally, the Herald keeps its fangs uncharacteristically sheathed, as Jessica Heslam weighs in with a balanced, pro-and-con piece.

Citizen journalism on the air

A small television station in Santa Rosa, Calif., has eliminated most of its news staff and will replace its evening newscasts with contributions from citizen journalists. The station, KFTY-TV, is owned by Clear Channel. Thus, this has all the makings of a profit-driven fiasco — a perversion of the promise of citizen journalism.

But you know what? Clear Channel’s bottom-line-driven motivation aside, this might prove worthwhile. As the ironically named station executive Steve Spendlove is quoted as saying, “There will be a loss in local coverage, I’m not going to lie to you. But there are a lot of other places to get most of that information.”

It’s hard to tell from this Wikipedia entry how well-served the Santa Rosa area is. But assuming that residents still have two or three local newscasts from which to choose, having another outlet doing something completely different strikes me as something well worth trying.

Here is another story on the Santa Rosa situation. And here is the KFTY Web site.

Counting on Anna Nicole

Tim Rutten of the Los Angeles Times writes that the death of Anna Nicole Smith may be among the first celebrity stories to land on the front pages of quality newspapers in large measure because of Internet traffic. Rutten explains:

Throughout the afternoon Thursday, editors across the country watched the number of “hits” recorded for online items about Smith’s death. These days, it’s the rare newspaper whose meeting to discuss the content of the next day’s edition doesn’t include a recitation of the most popular stories on the paper’s website. It’s a safe bet that those numbers helped shove Anna Nicole Smith onto a lot of front pages.

What makes this of more than passing interest is that serious American journalism is in the process of transforming itself into a new, hybrid news medium that combines traditional print and broadcast with a more purposefully articulated online presence. One of the latter’s most seductive attributes is its ability to gauge readers’ appetites for a particular story on a minute-to-minute basis. What you get is something like the familiar television ratings — though constantly updated, if you choose to treat them that way.

As someone who believes in the more interactive, “news as a conversation” model espoused by Dan Gillmor, Jay Rosen and others, I’m troubled by Rutten’s observation. This isn’t good, is it? And I say that as someone who believes Smith’s death probably deserved to be on page one — just not as a result of Web numbers.

Then again, this isn’t the inevitable consequence of greater interactivity — it’s less than that. As Rutten notes, this is a matter of editors emulating their television counterparts and following the ratings. And let’s not forget, though TV executives may know how to win any given night by going downscale, news audiences overall have been shrinking for more than 20 years. What feels good right now isn’t necessarily what succeeds in the long run.

Newspaper editors — the good ones, anyway — have traditionally aspired to something better. Unfortunately, being able to measure reader interest is going to make it harder to resist the urge to pander. (Thanks to Media Nation reader R.P. for alerting me to Rutten’s column.)

Stomach-churning details

The Boston Herald’s page-one stunner today is uncorroborated, but it’s on the record — and revolting. Jessica Van Sack’s interview with James McGonnell and Kelly Williams about Michael Riley, charged with murdering his 4-year-old daughter, Rebecca, with prescription medication, is stomach-churning. (McGonnell is Riley’s brother-in-law; Williams is McGonnell’s fiancée.)

As for Department of Social Services commissioner Harry Spence’s yet-again defense of his agency (Globe story here; Herald story here), my head tells me that he might be right, but my heart tells me that we’ve heard enough excuses over the years. Sorry, Mr. Spence, but Gov. Deval Patrick ought to personally escort you from the building by the end of today.

The fatal attraction of free

Frank Beacham, in an essay at TVTechnology.com, identifies the biggest challenge facing citizen journalism: the relentless attempts by corporate media companies to co-opt well-meaning amateur reporters, photographers and videographers into giving away their work in order to fatten someone else’s bottom line.

Beacham is especially upset with Yahoo and Reuters, which are teaming up to add citizen contributions to their mix while paying little or nothing for them. Beacham writes:

It’s a good thing that Abraham Zapruder, the pioneering citizen journalist who aimed his 8mm movie camera toward the Kennedy motorcade in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, was not dealing with Reuters. It’s doubtful he would have gotten the $150,000 payment — about half a million in today’s currency — when he sold the footage to Life magazine.

Who do these media companies think they are fooling? They are making a blatant attempt to build news organizations based on free user- provided content.

There is, however, a significant flaw in the corporate-defined citizen-journalism model. Good journalism may be hard, but technology is easy. And rather than giving it away to Yahoo, Reuters et al., most citizen journalists are doing it themselves.

Earlier this week the Knight Citizen News Network released an important new report titled “Citizen Media: Fad or the Future of News?” Unlike Beacham’s essay, the Knight report focuses on so-called hyperlocal journalism — blogs dedicated to one community, or even to just a neighborhood.

And, here, the DIY ethic is alive and well. I haven’t had a chance to do more than skim the report, but I can tell you that the focus is on independent sites. Many of these are being run by professional journalists with an eye toward making a profit, such as the New Haven Independent and Baristanet — a new opportunity for journalists trying to survive in a shrinking business. Some corporate media experiments, such as GateHouse’s Wicked Local sites in Eastern Massachusetts, are given a look as well.

I think it’s likely — or at least I hope — that the very real problem identified by Beacham will turn out to be self-correcting. Corporate media executives who genuinely want to use citizen-media tools to build community and experiment with new business models will be rewarded for their efforts.

But those who think they can profit by suckering amateurs into giving away their content will soon discover that what they’ve created a host of new competitors.

Beam sends a message to Welch

The quote of the day comes from Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam, who tells the New York Observer what would be wrong with a Jack Welch-led buyout of the Globe: “Jack Welch and David Geffen’s idea of journalism is like a Charlie Rose interview. ‘Gosh, Mr. Welch, tell us more about your fabulous career.’ That’s not our idea of journalism.”

Geffen, of course, is the entertainment-industry mogul who wants to buy the Los Angeles Times from the Tribune Co.

The Observer reports that New York Times Co. chief executive Janet Robinson will meet with the Globe staff on Feb. 8 and 9 to address the recent spate of bad news coming out of Morrissey Boulevard, including the closing of foreign bureaus, 125 job cuts at the Globe and at its sister paper, the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, and the company’s recent decision to devalue the Globe and the T&G by more than $800 million.

The Phoenix’s Adam Reilly has a good roundup here.

The questions all along have been two-fold: Will the advertising climate in Greater Boston turn around? And will the Times Co. sell?

It appears that Robinson is going to tell the troops “yes” and “no.” And that would be moderately good news. If you consider what’s going on in the newspaper business right now, continued Times Co. ownership might well be the least bad alternative.

Something (or someone) better might come along in two to five years. But for now, the Times Co. is probably a safer bet to preserve the Globe’s core local mission than any other prospective owners.

And kudos to Beam for dissing a zillionaire who could still somehow wind up as his boss. (Via Romenesko.)

But what about 2002?

Scott Helman of the Boston Globe weighs in today with a curious — or perhaps I should say incurious — profile of Peter Flaherty, who is described as Mitt Romney’s “go-to guy for conservatives.”

Romney, of course, has engendered considerable skepticism on the right with his shift from moderate to conservative on social issues, especially abortion and gay rights. Flaherty’s job is to tell conservatives that Romney’s conversion is sincere and not a matter of mere political expediency.

Flaherty’s key talking point: “Obviously I’ve got to believe he’s for real, or I wouldn’t be wasting my time.”

Trouble is, the only evidence Helman cites that Romney used to be a moderate dates back to 1994, and to that illuminating YouTube video of Romney trying to out-liberal Ted Kennedy during their Faneuil Hall debate for the U.S. Senate. There’s no question that Romney has moved well to the right since then.

But there’s also no question that Romney has moved well to the right since 2002, when he ran for governor as a moderate — and, significantly, when Flaherty went to work for him, according to Helman’s story.

Take, for instance, this AP story from October 2002 in which Romney’s then-running mate, Kerry Healey, defended her boss as being every bit as pro-choice as his Democratic rival: “There isn’t a dime of difference between Mitt Romney’s position on choice and Shannon O’Brien.” Romney himself said that he “will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose … I will not change any provisions in Massachusetts’ pro-choice laws.”

Or consider that in 2002 Romney opposed a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage. Or that, also in 2002, his campaign distributed pink-colored fliers at Gay Pride that read, “Mitt and Kerry wish you a great Pride weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference.”

Which brings us back to Flaherty, who defends Romney’s conservative credentials on the grounds that he wouldn’t waste his time working for someone who did not genuinely hold such views. The obvious question is why Flaherty was so willing to waste his time in 2002.

The irony-deprived

That would be today’s Boston Globe editorial page. And MetroWest Daily News editor Richard Lodge. And Media Nation.

Think back over the past few days to how many people have defended the Mooninite pranksters on the grounds that they were promoting a well-known cartoon — well-known, at least, to a certain subset of teenagers and twentysomethings, a category that most definitely does not include, uh, me.

Does that mean that our governmental and public-safety officials must be expected to have an advanced degree in pop culture before deciding what to do about a bunch of circuit boards with batteries and wires sticking out? Such things have been known to blow up, you know.

How could we be so stupid? It’s simple. We don’t watch this stuff. We don’t know about it. We don’t have time. Sorry.

But Jay Fitzgerald is right — if Mayor Tom Menino tries to ban the “Aqua Teen Hunger Force” movie over this, then he really has lost his mind.