Media Nation

From the Boston Herald: “Dog faces electric cuff after being collared.”

Are they really going to zap the poor pooch? Uh, no. You see, there’s this guy named Duane “Dog” Chapman, who’s in trouble for something or other.

So are they going to zap Chapman if he tries to leave the house?

No again. Whoever wrote the headline meant “electronic,” not “electric.”

I’ll spot them the “Dog,” since Chapman is apparently pretty well known in some circles. But “electric”? Come on.

At CBS News, “freeSpeech” is not to be confused with free speech. TVNewser reports that Bill Maher was asked to do a “freeSpeech” commentary for the “CBS Evening News with Katie Couric.”

But then CBS wouldn’t take yes for an answer: Maher was reportedly told that he couldn’t talk about religion, as he had wanted, and would instead be supplied with a list of “approved topics.”

No word on whether that would have been followed by “approved points of view.” (Thanks to Media Nation reader M.S.)

Update: Media Nation reader resonate1 says CBS News is denying this. I can’t find anything on that score, but John Eggerton, blogging at BroadcastingandCable.com, wonders if Maher might be “pulling our collective legs.” So, for the moment, file this under “Interesting if True.”

Update II: D’oh! Here’s the denial. Thanks again to resonate1.

Did Ed Ansin’s dog eat the FCC study?

At the same time that Ansin, the Miami-based owner of WHDH-TV (Channel 7), was adding WLVI-TV (Channel 56) to his portfolio (Globe coverage here; Herald coverage here), we were learning that former FCC chairman Michael Powell had ordered a draft report on the negative effects of media concentration destroyed.

Well, here’s one negative effect: About 120 people are expected to lose their jobs as a result of Channel 56 becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of Channel 7.

News accounts of the FCC study suggest that there is an apples-and-oranges quality in attempting to apply the study’s findings to the looming 7/56 duopoly. Take, for instance, this paragraph from the Associated Press story:

The analysis showed local ownership of television stations adds almost five and one-half minutes of total news to broadcasts and more than three minutes of “on-location” news. The conclusion is at odds with FCC arguments made when it voted in 2003 to increase the number of television stations a company could own in a single market. It was part of a broader decision liberalizing ownership rules.

The problem is that local ownership and media concentration are not exactly the same thing. Ansin’s Sunbeam Broadcasting is a far smaller operation than Tribune Co., the current owner of Channel 56. In that sense, Sunbeam is closer to being a “local” (in the sense of being close to the ground and engaged) owner than Tribune. Moreover, Ansin, since taking over Channel 7 some years back, has made a huge commitment to news, although you can certainly question (as I do) his commitment to quality.

In terms of media concentration, though, Channels 7 and 56 will soon have one owner instead of two. CBS already owns Channels 4 and 38. How long before Hearst-Argyle finds a UHF playmate for WCVB-TV (Channel 5)?

It’s true that the local television news market isn’t what it used to be. In a larger economic sense, I suppose it makes sense for Channel 7 to spread its newsgathering resources over two channels. But 56’s “The Ten O’Clock News” has a flavor of its own, less frantic than its 10 p.m. competition on Fox’s WFXT-TV (Channel 25). Soon, 25 and 56 will presumably compete to see who can most effectively keep viewers in a frenzy.

Timothy Karr of Free Press has posted a copy of the draft study on the Stop Big Media blog, and writes:

The report was an inconvenience to Michael Powell, who, throughout his tenure at the FCC, aided efforts by large media companies to further consolidate their power over local news outlets.

Had it seen the light of day, the FCC and their Big Media allies could no longer deny that locally owned media do a better job of covering local news.

The Boston TV market isn’t going to become any less local — but it is about to get more concentrated and less diverse. That’s bad news you’re not likely to see on 7 or 56.

Curt Schilling aligns himself with Media Nation, according to the Boston Globe’s Gordon Edes:

Schilling … all but called the spring training trade of Bronson Arroyo a mistake, and identified starting pitching as the foremost concern heading into the 2007 season.

“We came out of spring training, everybody said, ‘Well, you have extra starting pitching,’ ” Schilling said. “Nobody ever has extra starting pitching. If you have it on Monday, you don’t have it on Sunday. It never fails.”

The Boston Herald’s Michael Silverman has the same Schilling quotes, but leaves Arroyo out of it. Maybe Silverman wasn’t sure whether Schilling was referring to Arroyo or this guy.

And look at this. Despite a mid-season slump that had Media Nation’s critics very excited, Arroyo today is 13-9, with an ERA of 3.29. He’s given up just four earned runs in his last 24 innings. You want to add a run to his ERA to adjust for the difference between the National League and the American League? Go ahead. He’d still be the Sox’ second-best starter. And he’s pitched 213 innings; no Sox starter even has 200.

If Jason Varitek, David Ortiz, Jon Lester, Manny Ramirez, Tim Wakefield, David Wells, Trot Nixon and Jonathan Papelbon (have I missed anyone?) hadn’t gotten hurt or sick, Arroyo’s departure would have mattered big-time. And it still might next year.

I have an interview with veteran media activist Jeff Cohen in the new issue of the Boston Phoenix. Cohen has just written a book on his years with CNN, Fox News and MSNBC called “Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media.” He’s also the founder of FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), a left-liberal group that monitors media bias.

The bulk of the book is about Cohen’s stint as senior producer for his friend and fellow progressive Phil Donahue, who landed a show on MSNBC only to be muzzled by executives terrified that they would be accused of liberal bias. Cohen tells me:

We could have had a show with aggressive, articulate, passionate people saying things on national TV seen nowhere else. And it would have happened night after night. This was the time that independent, smart, active news consumers were turning away from the mainstream and looking for alternatives. MoveOn was doubling its size during this time, and we were being muzzled. We could have been an alternative in the mainstream. The best of both worlds. And our ratings would have climbed.

Instead, “Donahue” was canceled in early 2003, just before the war in Iraq got under way.

The MetroWest Daily News endorses Deval Patrick today — and mentions both of his opponents. See how easy it is?

Patrick is really racking up the endorsements, isn’t he?

The Boston Phoenix has endorsed Deval Patrick in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, while also throwing a kiss to Chris Gabrieli. But — in keeping with my theme of the week — why no mention of the third candidate, Tom Reilly, whom the paper ripped in an editorial just a week ago?

Similarly, the Phoenix chooses Deb Goldberg over Tim Murray in the governor’s race — and disappears Andrea Silbert. The paper also weighs in on the secretary of state’s race, Congress, and the state Senate.

Now that the semester has begun, blogging is probably going to be somewhat lighter than it was over the summer. I’ll try to concentrate on quality, not quantity.

I’ve been spending some time yesterday and today setting up a blog for a class I’m teaching called “Beat Reporting: The Journalism of the Web.” It’s a portal for blogs by my students. I’ll also post certain types of new-media items that might not be quite right for Media Nation. Please have a look.

On Sunday the Boston Globe endorsed Deval Patrick in the Democratic primary for governor without mentioning either of his opponents, Chris Gabrieli or Tom Reilly, in what polls show is a tight race.

Yesterday the Globe endorsed Tim Murray for lieutenant governor, again invoking the silence-is-golden rule by not whispering the names of Andrea Silbert or Deb Goldberg, who are also running for the Democratic nomination. Murray is thought to be ahead, but I don’t believe anyone has ruled out Silbert or Goldberg given the low name recognition of all three candidates.

So today the Globe endorses incumbent Secretary of State Bill Galvin, who’s running against the longest of longshots — voting-rights activist John Bonifaz — and the editorial goes out of its way to throw a kiss to Bonifaz, who’s virtually unknown and has no money.

Don’t get me wrong — I’ll take today’s endorsement of Galvin over the Patrick and Murray efforts. As I said the other day, endorsements should be about making comparisons, and you can’t do that when you only mention the candidate you’re endorsing. I just find it a little weird that the Globe would deviate from its custom in the one race where the challenger has almost no chance.

Update: The Boston Herald manages to work in references to Bill Bulger and Joe Moakley in its endorsement of Tom Reilly. But Deval Patrick and Chris Gabrieli end up on the cutting-room floor. Same with the Herald’s embrace of Deb Goldberg.

I’ve written plenty of candidate endorsements over the years. And I think it’s safe to say that the heart of any editorial that urges voters to support a particular candidate is the notion of comparison. You should vote for Candidate X because of her own fine qualities and because Candidate Y would take us in the wrong direction. Or, We think Candidates A and B are both well-qualified, but Candidate A has more experience. You get the idea.

But today the Boston Globe endorses Deval Patrick in the Democratic gubernatorial primary without ever mentioning his opponents, Chris Gabrieli and Tom Reilly. This is longstanding practice at the Globe, but it isn’t a good one. At its most absurd, the editorial page once endorsed a challenger over an incumbent for a congressional seat without once mentioning the incumbent. That’s sticking to an arbitrary formula at the expense of informing the public.

This Globe editorial, published on Friday, is actually much more informative than today’s endorsement. Headlined “It’s all becoming clear,” the piece did, indeed, make it clear — that the Globe was on the verge of endorsing Patrick — and it drew comparisons about the three candidates following their Thursday debate.