Tag: Marty Baron

Marty Baron warns press against fear and timidity

Marty Baron

Earlier today I attended an event honoring Boston Globe editor Marty Baron as the 2012 winner of the Stephen Hamblett First Amendment Award, presented by the New England First Amendment Coalition.

Baron is the second winner. The first, in 2011, was retired New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis, a longtime defender of the First Amendment.

Baron’s talk is well worth reading in full. Afterwards he sent me the text at my request, and I’m pleased to present it here. I was particularly struck by this, which comes near the end of his speech:

The greatest danger to a vigorous press today, however, comes from ourselves.

This is a moment in American history when the press has been made a fat target. The press is routinely belittled, badgered, harassed, disparaged, demonized, and subjected to acts of intimidation from all corners — through words and actions, including boycotts, threats of cancellations (or defunding, in the case of public broadcasting), and even surreptitious taping, later subjected to selective, deceitful editing. Our independence — simply posing legitimate questions — is seen as an obstacle to what our critics consider a righteous moral, ideological, political, or business agenda. In some instances, they have deployed scorched-earth tactics against us in hopes of dealing a crippling blow.

In this environment, too many news organizations are holding back, out of fear — fear that we will be saddled with an uncomfortable political label, fear that we will be accused of bias, fear that we will be portrayed as negative, fear that we will lose customers, fear that advertisers will run from us, fear that we will be assailed as anti-this or anti-that, fear that we will offend someone, anyone. Fear, in short, that our weakened financial condition will be made weaker because we did something strong and right, because we simply told the truth and told it straight.

The full text of Baron’s prepared remarks — minus an improvised shoutout he gave to classmates from Lehigh University who were on hand — follows.

***

This award is named after a great publisher, Stephen Hamblett, who helped build a great newspaper, the Providence Journal.

The first award was given, last year, to a magnificent journalist, Tony Lewis — whose talent and erudition made him a leading expert on the First Amendment and one of the country’s pre-eminent columnists, at the New York Times.

And today I get to stand before so many extraordinary leaders in the field of journalism — publishers, writers, editors, journalists of every type — whose dedication to our craft and our mission serves as inspiration to me daily.

So, I am honored that I was invited to be with you to accept this award. And I am deeply grateful for what it means. This is recognition not solely for me, but also for all of my colleagues at The Boston Globe, many of whom were kind enough to be here today. Continue reading “Marty Baron warns press against fear and timidity”

Former Liberian dictator threatens to sue Boston Globe

Days before the Boston Globe published a withering editor’s note essentially retracting its Jan. 17 story about former Liberian dictator Charles Taylor’s alleged ties to the CIA, African news sources were reporting that Taylor was threatening to sue the Globe for libel.

Taylor escaped from a jail in Plymouth, Mass., in 1985, under circumstances suspicious enough to stoke rumors that U.S. authorities were involved. He is now facing charges in a war-crimes trial stemming from his brutal reign.

This past Monday, two days before the editor’s note appeared, the New Dawn, based in the Liberian capital, Monrovia, quoted Taylor’s lawyer, Courtenay Griffiths, as saying that Taylor denied having worked as a spy for the U.S. government. The article includes this:

“I spoke with Mr. Taylor,” Mr. Griffiths said. “He was very adamant that he has never worked for any American (spy) agency. The Liberian Security Agencies have worked … His National Patriotic Party of Liberia (NPFL) … But he as an individual has never worked (for the US Intelligence Agency).

“I know Mr. Taylor is very angry and he is not taking this likely [sic],” Griffiths told the New Dawn.

The story was carried in All Africa, which aggregates African news from a variety of sources. It includes the text of a letter Griffiths said he sent to Globe editor Marty Baron and others at the newspaper demanding copies of the documents they relied on in putting together their report. But the Globe now tells us there are no documents.

The editor’s note couldn’t be much tougher. It begins: “A front-page story on Jan. 17 drew unsupported conclusions and significantly overstepped available evidence when it described former Liberia president Charles Taylor as having worked with US spy agencies as a ‘sought-after source.'”

It goes on to describe the Globe’s longstanding Freedom of Information Act request that U.S. officials turn over documents related to what if any relationship the government had with Taylor. But though the Jan. 17 story, by longtime Globe staff reporter Bryan Bender, appears to be based at least in part on the documents, the editor’s note says otherwise:

[The US Defense Intelligence Agency] offered no such confirmation; rather, it said only that it possessed 48 documents running to 153 pages that fall in the category of what the Globe asked for — records relating to Taylor and to his relationship, if any, with American intelligence going back to 1982. The agency, however, refused to release the documents and gave no indication of what was in them.

The editor’s note concludes:

Taylor, now standing trial before a UN special court on charges of rape, murder and other offenses, denies he was ever a source for US intelligence. The Globe had no adequate basis for asserting otherwise and the story should not have run in this form.

There is still much that we don’t know. For instance, on Tuesday, Africa Review reported that Griffiths had “acknowledged that the Liberian Security agencies as well as his [Taylor’s] National Patriotic Party of Liberia worked or associated with US intelligence organs but not himself personally.” That’s hardly a blanket denial.

And at Foreign Policy’s Passport blog, Joshua Keating doesn’t seem all that upset about Taylor’s injured feelings. Calling the Globe’s note a “near retraction,” Keating nevertheless ends with this: “The fact that these ‘records relating to Taylor and to his relationship, if any, with American intelligence’ [quoting the Globe] exist but the CIA won’t release them is only going to increase the curiosity about what they contain. The correction is unlikely to stop the rumor mills in Monrovia, Washington, or The Hague.”

Bender is a good and careful reporter, and it seems pretty clear that there are other shoes yet to be dropped. The only thing we can say for certain at this point is that it’s all way too weird to come to any conclusions.

What will Robinson’s departure mean for the Globe?

Janet Robinson

What will the apparently less-than-pleasant departure of New York Times Co. chief executive Janet Robinson mean for the Boston Globe, its second-largest newspaper?

Obviously it’s way too early to say. But no sooner had the word gone out last night than Globe editor Marty Baron tweeted, “Grateful for her support of the @bostonglobe: New York Times CEO Janet Robinson to retire.” Not that it’s possible to read too much meaning into that.

On the other hand, Financial Times columnist John Gapper read plenty of meaning into the Times’ own account of Robinson’s retirement, tweeting, “Sulzberger fired Robinson, according to NYT (in ninth para)” (via the inestimable Jack Shafer). And what does that ninth paragraph say?

Last Friday, Mr. Sulzberger called a meeting with Ms. Robinson on the 15th floor of the company’s Manhattan headquarters. He raised the issue of installing a different type of leadership at the company, according to people familiar with the meeting who declined to be identified discussing confidential company business.

The Times Co. has done a far better job than most newspaper companies of transitioning to the digital age. The Times and the Globe have pioneered the introduction of flexible paid digital editions. Moreover, both papers are performing financially much more strongly than they were when the bottom nearly fell out of the entire industry back in 2009. So you’d think Robinson would be on the plus side on those two key issues.

Nor do I think it’s credible to believe she was ousted because of the Times Co.’s collapsing stock price. As Ira Stoll notes at Future of Capitalism (via Romenesko), $10,000 worth of stock in 2004, the year she took over, would be worth $1,855 today. But that’s an industry-wide trend, and, seen in the context of major newspaper companies like Tribune falling into bankruptcy, the Times Co. seems to have done rather well.

So it will be very interesting to see what the real reason is for her abrupt, well-compensated ($4.5 million next year) departure.

Unrelated observation: Given their travails of recent months, how cool is it that I’m able to credit both Jack Shafer (now with Reuters) and Jim Romenesko in the same blog post? The natural order has been restored.

An outrageous order of secrecy

Keep an eye on this one. Earlier this week, a clerk-magistrate in Suffolk Superior Court ruled that the details of criminal charges against former probation commissioner John O’Brien and Scott Campbell, who was a high-ranking aide to former state treasurer Tim Cahill, should be kept secret.

It was an outrage, done at the request of Campbell’s lawyer, and the office of Attorney General Martha Coakley has decided not to contest it. As Globe editor Marty Baron, whose paper is contesting the order, puts it:

If anything should be fully open to the public, it’s a court case involving allegations of malfeasance by a high-level public official. We feel an obligation to do our part to make sure the public gets the information it needs and deserves.

The Globe editorializes about the matter here.

Jill Abramson named to lead the New York Times

Jill Abramson

I have no particular insight into the announcement that New York Times executive editor Bill Keller has decided to step aside. But it’s big news in the media world, and it will be worth keeping an eye out to see whether there’s a story behind the story. Jim Romenesko is gathering links. It is, of course, significant that the Times’ next top editor, Jill Abramson, will be the first woman to run what is arguably our leading news organization.

Keller will write a column for the Sunday opinion section, which is being redesigned. His column for the Sunday magazine hasn’t exactly been well-received, so it’s hard to believe Keller is what we Frank Rich fans have been waiting for. But Keller is obviously a fine journalist, and he may rise to the occasion when he’s not dashing something off in addition to his other duties.

The last time the executive editor’s job changed hands was in 2003, when Howell Raines and his deputy, Gerald Boyd, stepped down following the Jayson Blair scandal. At that time Boston Globe editor Marty Baron, whose résumé included a stint as a Times editor, was considered for a top job at the Mother Ship. (Little-known fact: Keller turned down the chance to replace the retiring Matt Storin as the Globe’s editor in 2001, recommending Baron instead.)

That seems unlikely to happen this time, as Washington bureau chief Dean Baquet has already been announced as Abramson’s managing editor for news. Baquet is a former editor of the Los Angeles Times, where Baron also spent a good part of his career.

New York Times photo.

Scott Brown’s very bad — no, very good — day

Scott Brown

Monday started out looking like a very bad day for U.S. Sen. Scott Brown. But it turned out to be quite the opposite, as two media outlets backed away from reports that were embarrassing to Brown, and Brown himself smartly broke with the Republican Party over Medicare after seeming to have dithered. Let’s take them one at a time.

The handshake. On Sunday night, WBZ-TV (Channel 4) aired video that appeared to show Brown declining to shake hands with one of his Democratic rivals, Newton Mayor Setti Warren, at Newton’s Memorial Day parade earlier in the day. That’s how the report itself described it, and it appeared to be a small but classless moment for the senator. Brown’s supposed snub was the talk of local political blogs (including Media Nation) and Twitter feeds.

By midday, though, the Warren campaign was spreading the word that the mayor and the senator had already shaken hands before the video was shot. In an email to Media Nation late Monday afternoon, Channel 4 spokeswoman Ro Dooley-Webster acknowledged that “both campaigns confirm that Senator Brown and Mayor Warren greeted one another and shook hands earlier in the day.” Oops.

The incoherent quote. Late Sunday afternoon, the Boston Globe passed along an entertainingly incoherent Brown quote that he supposedly uttered in front of a business group:

“When I said last week that I was going to vote for the House GOP’s plan to abolish Medicare what I really meant was I was going to vote on it — and I have no idea yet which way I’m going to vote,” the Massachusetts Republican said in comments reported by Talking Points Memo.

Unfortunately for the Globe, that quote was a TPM parody of Brown’s position, not an actual quote. Though the faux quote does not appear in quotation marks, I can see where it would be a little confusing to a blogger in a hurry. On Monday afternoon, the Globe posted a correction and removed the Sunday post from its Political Intelligence blog. You can still read the cached version here.

According to the Boston Herald’s Jessica Heslam, the incident prompted Brown to write to Globe editor Marty Baron complaining about the use of “a manufactured quote” and saying the matter “could have been cleared up with a simple phone call to my office.” (Note: She tweaks Media Nation as well.)

The party pooper. Until Monday, Brown had been unclear on whether he would vote for U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan to eliminate Medicare and replace it with a voucher system that would be called — voilà! — Medicare. The Ryan plan has proved to be a poisonous issue for Republicans. In western New York, for instance, a Democrat may win a congressional seat for the first time in many years because of the issue.

Then, on Monday morning, in an op-ed piece for Politico (very interesting that Brown chose neither Boston daily), Brown declared he would vote against the Ryan plan because “as health inflation rises, the cost of private plans will outgrow the government premium support — and the elderly will be forced to pay ever higher deductibles and co-pays.”

Brown’s commentary includes the requisite amount of Obama-bashing and praise for Ryan. The bottom line for Massachusetts voters, though, is that they don’t have to worry that Brown will support dismantling a key part of the social safety net.

As Channel 4 political analyst Jon Keller observes, “Scott Brown understands the politics of survival in a staunchly Democratic state.”

It’s too soon to proclaim Brown the winner of his 2012 re-election bid, as Boston Mayor Tom Menino sort of did the other day. But state Democratic leaders know they’ve got their work cut out for them. The New York Times reports today that the party is stepping up its efforts to talk financial-reform crusader Elizabeth Warren into running.

Elizabeth Warren would be a formidable candidate, at least in theory, but it’s by no means certain that she’ll run. And it’s clear that top Democrats have real doubts about Setti Warren, Alan Khazei, Bob Massie and Marisa DeFranco, the Democrats who’ve gotten into the race already.

Monday-morning media morsels

A few media odds and ends for your Monday morning:

• Marjorie Arons-Barron, a communications executive who was previously the longtime editorial director of WCVB-TV (Channel 5), recently started a blog. Arons-Barron is as sharp an observer of state and local politics as we have, and you should definitely plug her into your RSS aggregator. It is no slam on the city’s newspapers to point out that she is easily a match for anyone opining at the Boston Globe, the Boston Phoenix or the Boston Herald.

• During the special-election campaign for the U.S. Senate, a mystery blogger started a site called kennedyseat.com and became a respected source of links and information. After revealing himself to be Conor Yunits, the son of a former Brockton mayor and something of an aspiring politico in his own right, he has begun what looks to be a more permanent project called MassBeacon.com. Worth watching.

• CommonWealth Magazine, the quarterly public-policy journal published by the Massachusetts Institute for a New Commonwealth, has a new online look and a new URL. Not only is it a lot slicker and easier to read, but it is more closely tied to its blog, CommonWealth Unbound. Of particular interest is a section called Civic Journalism, with blog posts by and interviews with the likes of Globe editor Marty Baron, former Globe editor Matt Storin, former Globe columnist Eileen McNamara (do I detect a trend?) and Phoenix reporter-turned-media consultant Dorie Clark.

• Richard Adams, who has been editing my weekly commentaries for the Guardian since I started writing them in mid-2007, has been promoted, and is now writing a blog for the paper’s Web site. I especially like his item on President Obama’s summit with House Republicans, which begins: “When the Republicans invited President Obama to address their congressional House delegation in Baltimore today, they had no idea how badly it would turn out for them.” Definitely RSS-worthy.

McGrory to return to column-writing

Brian McGrory
Brian McGrory

Boston Globe veteran Brian McGrory is giving up his post as metro editor and returning to writing his column, according to an e-mail sent to the staff by editor Marty Baron, a copy of which was obtained by Media Nation a little while ago.

McGrory will be replaced by Jennifer Peter, currently the city editor. The switch will take place in January.

Baron’s e-mail is full of praise for McGrory, who, he says, asked for a promise to return to his column when he agreed to take the metro editor’s job in May 2007. And, indeed, Baron should be happy with McGrory. The Globe’s local coverage has been excellent this year despite internal turmoil caused by the New York Times Co.’s wrangling with the Globe’s unions and its subsequent attempt to sell the paper — an attempt that ended in management announcing it had decided to hold on to the Globe.

When McGrory gave up his column, he was replaced by Kevin Cullen. But, based on Baron’s e-mail, it sounds like McGrory’s column will be in-addition-to rather than instead-of: “To his fellow columnists: We’ll be working out a new schedule.”

More from the Boston Phoenix’s Adam Reilly and the Globe’s MetroDesk blog.

The full text of Baron’s e-mail follows:

To all:

When Brian McGrory became Metro editor, he set a clear and ambitious course. Stories would be unique and enterprising. They would not only be important; they would be interesting and entertaining. There would be humanity and no lack of humor. The quality of writing would be top-notch.

Those were goals in May, 2007. Today, we can honestly say he has accomplished them all, brilliantly so. This is a Metro staff that day after day sets the state and local news agenda. Under Brian’s strong and skilled leadership, the staff routinely beats the competition on major stories. Investigative moxie has been built into its DNA. We’ve dramatically improved our hour-by-hour, minute-by-minute presence online.

And this is a staff with a wide-ranging repertoire. We have stuff that hits hard when called for. We also have reportorial gems that surface the personality — and the characters — of the community. These are stories of emotion and empathy, of sorrow, joy, and laughter. Whatever the story, one thing is for sure: The writing matters. And it sparkles, often because Brian himself applied the polish.

Now I have to let you in on something Brian told me when he graciously and enthusiastically took on the job of Deputy Managing Editor/Local News: He wanted advance permission to return to his column after two years. I gave it, of course. If Brian was going to lend his talents to the entire newsroom, this was a loan term I could scarcely refuse.

We’re well past two years, and we’re nearing three. Brian has reminded me of my commitment, and I’m going to honor it. He’ll be returning as a columnist in early January. (To his fellow columnists: We’ll be working out a new schedule.) I’m sad to have one of America’s best journalists step out of a position that is central to our success. I know, though, what we gain: The return of a superb columnist, also one of America’s best, and just the sort of eloquent and forceful voice for the Globe in the community that is also critical to our success.

So much of what our newsroom has achieved in recent years is a product of Brian’s ferocious work ethic, deep contacts in the community, his dedication to craft, boundless creative thinking, and a leadership style that is both inspired and inspirational. Think back on a remarkable run of coverage: revelations about corruption at the highest level on Beacon Hill; investigations into abuse of disability pensions; magnificently comprehensive, vivid, and sensitive coverage of Senator Kennedy’s illness, death and funeral; the inner workings of City Hall, and the circles of influence, revealed as never before; and scoops and works of distinctive enterprise that are truly too lengthy to list here. He has set a high standard for us all.

Another accomplishment — a huge one — is that he has constructed a remarkable team of reporters and editors. From that talented team comes his successor, Jennifer Peter, who as City Editor has been a marvelous leader in her own right: committed, driven, versatile, deeply knowledgeable. You have to wonder at her seemingly limitless capacity for work and her infinite patience. You have to admire her comfortable manner and how easily she listens, drawing out the best in others. I know for a fact that Brian leaned constantly on Jen for some of the soundest judgment in the newsroom.

Jen knows the Globe well, having led the staff on some of our biggest stories. You’d be hard-pressed to find someone with her range and experience, and her appointment is a good reminder that the Globe newsroom has a remarkably deep reservoir of talent.

Jen’s professional career in Boston began in 2002, when she was hired by the Associated Press as a general assignment reporter and then quickly moved to the State House. She became the AP’s lead reporter on the legalization of gay marriage and its local reporter assigned to John Kerry’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

Jen has built an impressive career at the Globe in the last five years. She became co-editor of the Globe North section in 2004, the Globe’s state political editor in January 2007 and then city editor later that year. She has coordinated the local news report and directly overseen coverage of schools, police, transportation, and Boston’s neighborhoods.

As political editor, she directed coverage of the tumultuous early days of the Patrick administration and the final gay marriage vote, with all the drama that preceded and followed it. As city editor, she played a central role in coverage of the Tai Ho fire, which killed two firefighters, and the controversies it ignited; the so-called Craigslist killing; and Senator Kennedy’s brain cancer diagnosis and death. She has worked powerfully well with reporters on some of our most memorable enterprise.

A New England native — born and raised in rural New Hampshire (Gilsum, population 500) — Jen majored in English and Fine Arts at Amherst and then received her master’s degree in journalism from Syracuse University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communication. South Boston is her home today.

Before coming to Boston for the Associated Press, Jen covered a lot of ground in her early reporting career. She started at a two-reporter newspaper in Sun Valley, Idaho, and then moved on to The Day in New London, Conn., where she covered state politics, the explosive expansion of gambling in southeastern Connecticut, and the region’s troubled nuclear power plants. After taking a position at The Virginian-Pilot in Norfolk, Va., she covered municipal government and the state legislature. She also served on the paper’s investigative reporting team, collaborating on stories about patronage within the state sheriff’s department, routine violations of a law designed to protect the Chesapeake Bay, and Capital One’s role in directly writing a law that allowed it to charge higher interest rates.

So we’re in for a smooth transition in Metro when it takes effect with the New Year. We’re also in for another period of strong leadership.

Please congratulate Jen on her appointment as Deputy Managing Editor/Local News. And, Brian, many thanks for your enormous and enduring contributions to a great news organization.

Marty

Accountability in the post-newspaper age

Here is the video of Princeton University professor Paul Starr at last night’s program on “Public Accountability After the Age of Newspapers,” featuring Starr, Boston Globe editor Marty Baron and me. Update: Video of the entire program has been posted here.

The event was sponsored by the Rappaport Center for Law and Public Service and the Ford Hall Forum, and was held at Suffolk Law School. The moderator was law school professor Alasdair Roberts.

As you will see, one of Starr’s main themes was that, with the Internet having hollowed out the economic model for the newspaper business, government needs to step up with some type of subsidy — preferably an indirect subsidy created by tweaking the tax code, for instance. (Here is Starr’s recent congressional testimony on that subject.)

Before you start spluttering, Starr would not favor newspapers over other forms of media. And he pointed out that he’s not talking about anything new: Newspapers as we have come to know them got a huge assist in the earliest days of the republic through massive postal subsidies.

“Newspapers … have helped to create a self-aware urban public,” Starr said.

Baron disdained subsidies, saying, “I feel very strongly about our independence, and we have to maintain that.”

Instead, Baron suggested two governmental changes — a shift in the copyright law aimed at extracting money out of Google News and other aggregators, and an end to what he called the “antiquated” cross-ownership ban, which prevents media companies from owning a daily newspapers and a television or radio station in the same market.

Starr disagreed with Baron on copyright, noting that if linking without permission were made illegal (an extreme remedy that Baron did not actually suggest), the Web as we know it would soon cease to exist.

(Personally, I think the fair-use provision of copyright provides all the protection that newspapers need. If Globe executives want to opt out of Google, all they have to do is insert some code. They don’t for the simple reason that Google provides the Globe and other newspapers with a considerable amount of Web traffic.)

I talked about emerging alternative models at the local level, such as the New Haven Independent, CT News Junkie, Baristanet.com and the Batavian — projects that are too small to replicate the newspaper’s traditional mission in its entirety, but that have established themselves as vital news sources in a time of cutbacks.