Media Nation

When our daughter, Rebecca, was born more than 13 years ago, we never would have suspected that the genetic anomaly with which she was diagnosed — dwarfism — would one day be the media flavor of the month. Actually, it’s been quite a bit more than a month now, as media depictions of people with dwarfism are becoming increasingly common.

Just recently, the Discovery Health cable channel broadcast an outstanding documentary on a dwarf couple from San Francisco, Joe and Ginny Foos, and their children. Called “Dwarf Family: Meet the Fooses,” it did so well that it migrated up the dial to channels that people actually subscribe to, like TLC and Discovery. The Fooses themselves have started a blog for anyone interested in learning more about the film.

Now comes a far more ambitious effort by TLC — if, by “ambitious,” you mean an attempt to connect with a wider audience. “Little People, Big World” stars Matt and Amy Roloff and their four kids, who live on a 34-acre farm outside Portland, Ore. The New York Times ran a lengthy feature on the program last week in advance of its Saturday debut.

We were out on Saturday — at a Little People of America function, actually — but last night had a chance to see both the hour-long pilot and the first two half-hour episodes in a TLC rebroadcast. The series is to run over about 20 weeks. TLC has put together a comprehensive fan site with video clips and interviews.

The program — about 90 percent straight documentary and 10 percent “The Osbournes” — was fascinating to watch. We know the Roloffs a bit: Matt is a past president of LPA, and I interviewed the entire family for my book, “Little People: Learning to See the World Through My Daughter’s Eyes,” at the LPA national conference in Salt Lake City in 2002. The following year, LPA’s conference was held in the Boston area. The photo I’ve included with this item is of Becky with Matt and Amy at that 2003 get-together. (Am I hoping “Little People, Big World” gives my book a new life? Oh, yes. Did I mention that you can buy it by clicking here?)

I think what people will find most interesting about “Little People, Big World” is its depiction of the Roloffs as an absolutely normal family with normal desires and problems. There is a tendency when depicting people with disabilities to show them as somehow better than ordinary — courageous, perfect beings who overcome all odds. By contrast, the Roloffs’ four kids — three of whom are average-size, which may surprise some viewers — are as wild as any normal kids would be. Matt and Amy argue over money and her need to work two jobs following his being laid off. Their house is every bit as much of a disaster as yours and ours might be.

When Becky was a baby, about the most positive depiction of dwarfism we could find was an Argentine film called “I Don’t Want to Talk About It,” a coming-of-age story about a young woman who’s a dwarf. It’s a fine piece of work that falls apart in the last 15 minutes when the heroine decides that the only way she can truly find herself is to run away — and, I kid you not, join the circus.

Now, positive media depictions of dwarfism have become almost routine, thanks to Meredith Eaton‘s role as an attorney in the television series “Family Law,” Peter Dinklage’s wonderful movie “The Station Agent,” and even dumb reality shows like “The Littlest Groom.” Will this help Becky Kennedy ease herself into a more accepting world? I don’t know. But it certainly can’t hurt.

As promised, here is the link to Jon Keller’s new political blog. It’s fairly tame so far, but that could be because Keller hasn’t had a chance to sink his teeth into John Kerry yet.

New York Post publisher Paul Carlucci tells the Boston Herald that a possible deal to print the Post at the Boston Globe’s plant in Dorchester will not hurt the Herald. According to Herald reporter Jesse Noyes, “Carlucci said the number of Post copies sold locally would remain the same as that currently shipped to the Hub. About 6,000 copies of the New York tabloid are now distributed in the Boston area.” That contradicts Steve Bailey’s Globe column of last Wednesday, in which he reported that the Post deal could call for as many as 30,000 to 40,000 copies to be printed at 135 Morrissey Blvd. (Then again, since I first posted this item, a knowledgeable source has told me that the two figures may not be irreconcilable.) But let’s wait and see.

The single biggest threat to the emerging grassroots media is that, as the Internet gets faster, not all content will be treated equally.

The giant broadband providers — phone companies and cable systems — are talking about charging a fee to Web services that want to take advantage of the higher transfer rates and fatter pipes that will come online in the next few years. The inevitable result is that Web sites such as Amazon.com, eBay and, for that matter, multimedia news sites such as NYTimes.com and MSNBC.com will pay for those blindingly fast speeds — but that citizen-journalism projects such as H2otown, Universal Hub and the Narco News Bulletin will get left in the dust.

For anyone who hopes that technology will push the media in a more democratic direction, this is an incredibly dangerous development. Worse, it takes place at a time when deregulatory zeal permeates the White House, Congress and the FCC, leaving little hope for government intervention.

Ken Belson’s article in today’s New York Times is just the latest of many I’ve seen recently on the two-tiered (or many-tiered) Internet to come. Belson treats this simply as a business and consumer story, with little or nothing about its implications for the broader culture. In fact, this goes much deeper than that. Holding prices down is a worthy goal, but it’s just a tiny part of the real story for consumers — that is, for citizens.

Jeff Chester, who heads the Center for Digital Democracy, has been warning of this development for years now. Check out the CDD’s Digital Destiny Campaign to get an overview of the issues. Here’s a taste:

The broadband revolution — still in its infancy but offering the potential for a new, more democratic media system — has arrived…. But in order for that potential to be realized, community leaders, media activists, and representatives of the nonprofit sector must become more actively engaged in the broadband build-out process. Without question, the new high-speed networks are headed our way, but whether they simply deliver more of the same conglomerate culture, or whether they open new opportunities for civic discourse and cultural expression, will depend on the actions that communities take today.

Danny Schechter has more Jeff Chester, on AT&T’s proposed acquisition of BellSouth.

In a related matter, Adam Liptak wrote in yesterday’s Times that a move is afoot to hold Web publishers responsible for odious content such as apartment ads that discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity and religion. Liptak focuses primarily on Craigslist, which allows users to post ads — in most cases free of charge — with no intervention on the part of the site’s staff.

Liptak quotes people who argue that the immunity Internet service providers enjoy is no longer necessary or good public policy. Law school dean Rodney Smolla tells Liptak, “The Internet has now matured to the point that we are beginning to see that the ordinary rules of law that govern our lives in physical space should also govern our lives in cyberspace.”

Well, much as I hate to side with those who engage in discrimination, I think it’s important to point out that the more-than-a-century-old telephone business is not thought to have matured in the way that Smolla thinks the Internet has. You can’t sue the phone company for the illegal activities that callers may engage in for a very simple reason: the calls aren’t screened, and it would be impossible to enforce such liability.

In a similar vein, Liptak reports that Craigslist receives two million ads every month — and has a total of 19 employees. What Smolla is arguing, in effect, is that Craigslist’s very business model ought to be illegal — that is, unless it commits to hiring enough employees to screen every ad, then it should be sued into oblivion. And what would appear to be a blow against those who engage in discrimination would, in fact, be aimed primarily at the grassroots media.

For too many powerful people, the goal is a biggest, better, faster Internet — dominated by the same handful of corporate giants that control most of the rest of our media. The battle is being fought right now.

WBZ-TV (Channel 4) political analyst Jon Keller is going to start blogging on Monday. Keller’s blog is supposed to pop up somewhere here, according to a press release from the station, which continues, “Jon will update ‘Keller @ Large Blog’ several times every weekday with reports on breaking, political news as well as political analysis and his take on the political scene and upcoming election season.”

I’ve known Keller since we worked at the Phoenix together in the early 1990s. A couple of years ago we even debated the merits of John Kerry’s presidential campaign on The New Republic’s Web site. Keller’s a natural, and I’m looking forward to reading what he’s got to say.

The Boston Globe’s Steve Bailey has a squib at the end of his column today following up his Wednesday piece on the possibility that former Boston Herald owner Rupert Murdoch might sign a printing deal with the Globe for a local edition of his New York Post. Current Herald owner Pat Purcell, who once worked for Murdoch, has told his employees that Murdoch actually explored a printing deal with the Herald first, but the Herald lacked sufficient press capacity.

New York Times staff reporter James Bennet has almost no editing experience, but he’s the new editor of The Atlantic Monthly. That’s a title former managing editor Cullen Murphy earned many times over but never received. Bennet is the perfect choice for what is now, officially, just another Washington magazine.

By the way, Bennet might be great. But given the magazine’s award-winning track record going back to the early 1980s under editors Murphy, the late Michael Kelly and William Whitworth, it’s telling that owner David Bradley was unable or unwilling to hire someone with a higher profile in the magazine world.

Two headlines about Red Sox slugger Manny Ramírez’s first day in camp:

HERE WE GO AGAIN
Manny arrives at Sox camp with same old baggage in tow

MANNY’S BETTER LATE
Ramirez arrives at Sox camp with new attitude

Good thing we’ve got those dueling perspectives. But wait! Both headlines are from today’s Boston Herald. The first is the back-cover tease, which leads you to Tony Massarotti’s column. The second is Jeff Horrigan’s report on Manny’s arrival.

*With apologies, as always, to Boston Magazine.

Boston Globe columnist Steve Bailey has a blockbuster this morning — although you can snicker, if you like, about how far he had to travel to get it. It seems that international media mogul Rupert Murdoch is negotiating to print 30,000 to 40,000 copies of his New York Post every day at the Globe’s Dorchester headquarters.

As Bailey points out, such a deal would seriously threaten the Boston Herald, which Murdoch rescued in the early 1980s and sold to his longtime protégé Pat Purcell on favorable terms — reportedly less than $20 million — in 1994. Writes Bailey:

I love the New York Post; it is one of my great guilty pleasures. But having a smarter, livelier tabloid more readily available in Boston — even a New York tab — will do Purcell no good. For the Globe printing the Post represents new revenue; hurting the Herald is a bonus.

I’ve never been among those who believed Murdoch would someday swoop into Boston to rescue his former underling. But I also never believed Murdoch would deliberately hammer a nail in the Herald’s coffin, either.

Bailey also reports that Purcell’s efforts to sell the Herald and his 100-paper suburban chain are moving forward hesitantly, with Purcell rejecting a bid of between $160 million to $170 million. Have newspaper values deteriorated that much in the past year? Last year at this time, I reported that the Hollinger chain — in a rare break from its troubles with former head Conrad Black — had offered $240 million to $260 million for Purcell’s properties.

Then again, it was never clear just how serious that offer was. All we know is that the sale didn’t happen. And perhaps it won’t again.

*If you don’t get the reference, click here.

The New Republic is fine. That’s not to say it’s perfect; it could be better, it has been worse. But New York Times reporter David Carr’s article on TNR’s latest transition at the top of the masthead, from boy wonder Peter Beinart to boy wonder Franklin Foer, is tonally off. Yes, circulation may have slid 40 percent in recent years. Yes, it may not generate as much attention as it once did. But that’s because the distribution model is all wrong.

TNR is a good magazine tied to a better Web site. But by charging for online content, it has removed itself from the conversation over public policy that its owners and staff members so much want to be a part of. TNR lives for public debate. But if bloggers can’t link to its content, then it might as well not exist.

These days, Slate gets far more attention. Is it better than TNR? It depends on your taste; if it is, it’s not by a lot. But Slate — like TNR, a moderately liberal, smart, delightfully mean-spirited magazine about politics and culture (Michael Bérubé calls Slate a “slightly newer republic”) — is free and, more important, freely linkable.

Last fall, when my subscription to the print edition of TNR expired, I renewed as a digital-only customer. It was cheaper, and I could read the magazine on my schedule rather than our letter-carrier’s. It is a sign of TNR’s fundamental misunderstanding of the new environment that I received letter after letter begging me to return to the hallowed ranks of paid subscribers (I thought I’d never left), as well as a phone call from a telemarketer almost tearfully asking why I hadn’t renewed.

In fact, I’m probably reading TNR as closely as I ever have, and doing it earlier in the week, since I’m no longer waiting (and waiting) for the print edition to arrive. But I don’t mention it or link to it nearly as often as I’d like, because Media Nation’s readers can’t follow along unless they, too, are TNR subscribers.

In a way, Foer has an easy task in making The New Republic relevant again. All he has to do is persuade Marty Peretz and his fellow owners to rejoin the conversation from which they withdrew. The magazine may be “financially stable,” as Carr reports. But it’s heading for oblivion.