Where was Patrick?

One of the odd side notes to last week’s overwhelming, 108-46 House vote against Gov. Deval Patrick’s casino plan was the absence of the governor, who, it was reported, had gone to New York City on personal business.

Now WBZ-TV (Channel 4) political analyst Jon Keller reports that Patrick was peddling his autobiography, and that he’s hoping for as much as seven figures. Keller writes:

According to a publishing executive who saw the proposal, it promises a highly personal account — “like Barack Obama’s first book” — of Patrick’s childhood growing up poor on Chicago’s South Side, his journey to Milton Academy courtesy of a scholarship program that helps underprivileged kids obtain top-shelf secondary educations, and his matriculation at Harvard University.

Not that it was a big deal that he’d skipped town — everyone knew the vote was going to go against him. Interesting nevertheless.

Patrick’s unfortunate NYT close-up

If you’re the governor of Massachusetts, this is not how you want to be featured on the front page of the New York Times.

“Early Dazzle, Then Tough Path for Governor” is the headline. The story, by Abby Goodnough, portrays Gov. Deval Patrick as becalmed, going nowhere because of his defeat on casino gambling and a general sense of malaise stemming from early missteps over his Cadillac and office drapes.

Patrick sounds as though he’s going to keep pushing casinos, and he criticizes House Speaker Sal DiMasi for killing his proposal. “We’re going to keep working on it until we get a Democratic [sic on the uppercase “D”; I do believe Patrick was referring to governance, not the party] process that’s functioning,” Patrick is quoted as saying. Well, now. If Patrick hasn’t learned that there is overwhelming consensus against casinos and the social ills they bring, then he’s learned very little. This doesn’t bode well for the rest of his term.

Discussion of the Times story has already begun at Blue Mass. Group. And though BMGers are generally pro-Patrick, the first few commenters seem to be relishing the governor’s troubles.

The Outraged Liberal today offers some sharp analysis, noting that the Boston Herald’s ongoing coverage of DiMasi’s predeliction for golfing with well-connected friends, backing state contracts for political allies and supporting more revenue-losing tax breaks for the film industry may prove more important than the Times’ one-day embarrassment of Patrick. The O.L. writes that “the net effect is a steady drip of stories no politician can relish.”

Jon Keller, whose otherwise fine blog still lacks permalinks, offers some withering thoughts on the realities now facing Patrick and on the Times’ reliance on Steve Crosby — chief of staff to what Keller calls the “Titanic”-like administration of Jane Swift — to make the best case for Patrick. Keller writes:

Patrick tells the Times: “I have a better idea this year about who to trust and who not to, and you better believe that’s helped.” Really? Of whom does he speak? The key cabinet member who’s being allowed to run wild with inside power-plays and other clumsy blundering that threatens to make hash of years of progress in a crucial policy area? The aides he’s becoming notorious for not listening to? Sal? Maybe Patrick can’t trust him, but he should have known that going in. The real question is: can he beat him at his game?

Overall, not a good media day for Patrick or DiMasi.

Jon Keller on the casino vote

WBZ-TV (Channel 4) political analyst Jon Keller on Gov. Deval Patrick, House Speaker Sal DiMasi and the casino vote:

The governor and other casino advocates lobbied hard for their position, using the same bag of tricks available to the speaker, everything from one-on-one meetings between legislators and a governor who could, if he chose, make their lives miserable back in their districts, to the profane strong-arm tactics of organized labor, who openly threatened to try to unseat legislators who didn’t toe their line. Nothing wrong with any of the above, that’s how it’s done. DiMasi and company just did a better job of it than Patrick et al.

No kidding. The anti-casino forces won this fight fair and square.

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.

Jon and Barney Keller

Boston Globe reporter Eric Moskowitz quotes me in his story today on WBZ-TV (Channel 4) political analyst Jon Keller‘s family tie to Republican congressional candidate Jim Ogonowski. Keller’s son Barney is Ogonowski’s spokesman, which has raised questions as to whether Jon Keller has a conflict in covering the race involving Ogonowski, Democrat Niki Tsongas and three minor-party and independent candidates.

Moskowitz represents me accurately, so no need to belabor this. But I do want to expand just a bit on the points I made to him yesterday:

  • There’s no conflict quite like having a spouse involved in a campaign you’re covering, and that’s not what we’re talking about here. No one has any control over what his or her adult kids do, and it’s just not that big a deal. Moskowitz seemed surprised when I told him that, and asked whether it would be natural to think Jon Keller would want Ogonowski to win because of Barney’s involvement. My response: no.
  • Some degree of disclosure is appropriate, and Keller has been doing that. I don’t think he has to disclose every time, but he should remind people now and again that his son is working for Ogonowski.
  • The reputation of the reporter has to be part of this, which is what I was referring to in my quote that not everything is a “one size fits all” situation. If anyone has a reputation as an equal-opportunity abuser of politicians, it’s Keller. It’s hard to imagine he wouldn’t go after Ogonowski if he had a reason to do so — although perhaps in some people’s minds that’s offset by the fact that Keller is somewhat conservative by Massachusetts standards.

As I also told Moskowitz, Keller’s a friend. It doesn’t affect my thinking on this, but it’s something you should know. And, yes, I recommend his book, “The Bluest State.”

Tribute to Sully

Because I was on duty in Maine last night, I missed Paul Sullivan’s final show on WBZ Radio (AM 1030). So I really enjoyed Jon Keller’s tribute on Channel 4. For some reason, I’m unable to generate a direct link, but it’s easily found here.

You can also find Sullivan’s last show in two parts on the WBZ home page, and I’m going to give it a listen.

Best wishes to Sully.

Megadittos on Leibovich II

Jay Garrity, the Mitt Romney aide who New York Times reporter Mark Leibovich says pulled him over and claimed to have run his license plate, is now under investigation in both Massachusetts (for allegedly impersonating a state trooper) and New Hampshire (for the Leibovich incident). Nice people you have working for you, Mitt.