More trash talk

The Christian Science Monitor now reports:

The night before journalist Jill Carroll's release, her captors said they had one final demand as the price of her freedom: She would have to make a video praising her captors and attacking the United States, according to Jim Carroll.

In a long phone conversation with his daughter on Friday, Mr. Carroll says that Jill was "under her captor's control."

Ms. Carroll had been their captive for three months and even the smallest details of her life -- what she ate and when, what she wore, when she could speak -- were at her captors' whim. They had murdered her friend and colleague Allan Enwiya, "she had been taught to fear them," he says. And before making one last video the day before her release, she was told that they had already killed another American hostage.

So what does Charles Johnson say from the risk-free comfort of Little Green Football Land? Check it out: "Note that all of these statements seem to come from the family, not from Carroll herself." Good grief.

This AP snippet doesn't quite jibe with the Monitor's report, but it's worth pondering as well:

Dr. David Wellish, a psychologist at the UCLA School of Medicine, said he had the impression Carroll was suffering from a psychological trauma known as "Stockholm syndrome," a survival mechanism in which a hostage begins to empathize with his or her captors.

"Jill Carroll clearly went down the Stockholm syndrome spectrum part of the way," he said, adding he thought it would take her "a few weeks to get over it and regain perspective."

Look, folks. Jill Carroll was a hostage for 82 days. She knew her life was in danger every minute she was held captive. Let's give her a couple of weeks to decompress and see what she's got to say. All right, Chuck?

Ex-Pilot photog speaks

Peter Smith, the freelance photographer who took the photo of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia doing the chin thing, has issued a statement on the Pilot's decision to stop giving him assignments.

Not that I can blame the Pilot, whose editor, Antonio Enrique, decided not to use or release the picture, only to see Smith turn around and sell it to the Herald. That may have been a poor journalistic judgment on Enrique's part, but he's got a right to make editorial decisions. As Enrique tells the Herald, "I need to try and find people I can trust." (More disclosure than you probably need to know: I worked as the Pilot's production manager for four and a half months in 1990 and early '91. Enrique came well after that.)

Anyway, here's the statement from Smith, who teaches photojournalism at Boston University:

Thanks for your interest in this story. It sounds like the focus today is on the Boston Archdiocesan newspaper, The Pilot and their editor's decision to fire me. Technically, that is incorrect usage of language. As a freelancer without a contract, I was not an employee of their newspaper. They can choose not to give me assignments in the future and this is not of large concern to me.

My prime obligation is to my students at Boston University where I am assistant professor of photojournalism. All actions that I have taken to date concerning the release of the photograph of Justice Scalia, have been made based on journalistic principals and ethics. The photograph is mine. The copyright is mine. The image was being misrepresented and a reporter was also being misrepresented.

On Monday, March 27, I had a conversation with Pilot Editor Antonio Enrique explaining that I had not released the photograph to the press and had no intention of doing so. However, as of Wednesday, March 29, the story evolved and required that I speak up and provide some clarity to it. I therefore felt obligated to release the photograph. I notified the Pilot in advance, concerning my intentions to go forward with the photograph, explaining my situation with News Editor Gregory Tracy.

I understood the moment that I released the photograph that The Pilot would in all probability not use me to cover their events in the future, but I had already decided that that was a sacrifice that I was willing to make to do the right thing. My students read newspapers too and they looked to me to understand the ethics involved with this situation and it wasn't academic but being played out in real time with their professor becoming increasing involved. I couldn't say one thing to them and then do another when the facts were so clearly laid out.

Though we disagree on this particular matter I still feel that The Pilot has been a wonderful paper to contribute to. Everyone there that I have worked for and worked with have been professional and very decent people. I will miss my association with them.

The Herald, naturally, blows past any distinction about the literal impossibility of firing a freelancer. The front-page headline today: "WHAT'S SICILIAN FOR ... YOU'RE FIRED?"

Media Nation's view is that both Smith and Enrique did the right thing, given that they have two very different missions.

Very ugly already

Media Nation reader J.F. passes along this astounding comment (via Andrew Sullivan) about Jill Carroll from alleged Imus funnyman Bernard McGuirk, best known for telling racist jokes:

She strikes me as the kind of woman who would wear one of those suicide vests. You know, walk into the, try and sneak into the Green Zone ... She cooked with them, lived with them ... She may be carrying Habib's baby at this point.

McGuirk said this yesterday. So never mind my comment that this is going to get very ugly very quickly. It already has.

Attacking Jill Carroll

And so it begins. Check out the conservative blog Little Green Footballs on Jill Carroll's interview with her kidnappers shortly before her release, in which she makes some remarks critical of the United States' decision to go to war in Iraq. LGF adds portentously: "Note that even after her release, Carroll maintained that she had been treated well by her captors -- so it would appear that this journalist for the Christian Science Monitor made these anti-American comments voluntarily."

Regardless of whether the remarks she made in her forced interview were anti-American, does it therefore follow that it was anti-American for her voluntarily to say merely that she'd been treated well? I don't get the logic. Then again, footballs aren't green, are they?

On WRKO Radio (AM 680) this morning, Scott Allen Miller responded to an unhinged caller by asking whether Carroll was "Patty Hearst" or a "co-conspirator." I'm not sure whether Miller was actually taking that point of view or simply trying to summarize what the caller had said -- although this, on the WRKO Web site, may answer my question: "Scott wondered if there is anything fishy, Ollie North style, about the release, and why is she still wearing a burka." I don't get the Ollie North reference; I do get "fishy."

In any case, get ready. This is going to become very ugly very quickly.

Picture perfect

The Boston Herald has managed to squeeze a third front page out of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's less-than-polite gesture. Peter Smith, the freelance photographer who was on assignment for the Pilot, has let the Herald publish it.

Scalia's fingers-under-the-chin salute is exactly how Herald reporter Laurel Sweet described it in her original Monday story. The question, for those of you who care, is whether or not it's "obscene," as Sweet reported. I think it's been pretty well established that it isn't. The Herald's subhead: "Obscene? You be the judge."

Correction: I originally, and mistakenly, wrote that the Herald had devoted four fronts to Scalia's digits. In fact, the paper took Tuesday off.

"She is OK. She is safe."

American reporter Jill Carroll has been released after 82 days of captivity in Iraq. The story is just breaking -- I heard it on NPR while driving to work this morning -- but, at least in these early hours, the Washington Post's Jonathan Finer seems to have the most detailed account.

Carroll was reportedly turned over to people at the headquarters of a Sunni political party by "unknown people," according to Tariq al-Hashimi, the party's secretary general. "She is OK. She is safe. She is more or less scared," Hashimi told the Post. "I told her calm down and we would take care of her."

David Cook, Washington bureau chief of the Christian Science Monitor, for which Carroll had been freelancing, told the Associated Press, "She was released this morning, she's talked to her father and she's fine." Also, BBC News covers Carroll's release here.

It had long since become obvious that Carroll's kidnappers would have nothing to gain by killing her. The Iraqi people seemed to be genuinely appalled at her ordeal. That the incident could make such an impression when Iraqis themselves are kidnapped and murdered every day was unusual, and it may well have saved Carroll's life.

Even so, she was in an incredibly dangerous situation, her fate at the mercy of people who couldn't be counted on even to act in their own best interests. Her life was at risk right up until the moment of her release. After all, she had been threatened with execution on several occasions.

Just yesterday, the Monitor posted an item about an appeal that Carroll's twin sister, Katie, had made on Al-Arabiya television. An excerpt of Katie Carroll's remarks:

I am speaking to you today because it has been nearly two months since the last video of my sister was broadcast. We have had no contact with her nor received any information about her condition. Since that time, I've been living a nightmare, worrying if she is hurt or ill. There is no one I hold closer to my heart than my sister and I am deeply worried wondering how she is being treated. No family should have to endure having their loved one taken away from them in this way.

This morning, the nightmare is over.

Update: The Washington Post story has been expanded, with Ellen Knickmeyer's byline having been added to the account. Carroll herself tells the Post: "I was never hurt, ever hit. I was kept in a safe place and treated very well."

Tabloid finger food

Media Nation expresses its deep regrets this morning for not being all over the Boston Herald's "did Scalia flip the bird or didn't he" imbroglio.

For the Herald, it's been tabloid heaven: three days of front-page headlines about a Supreme Court justice having made "an obscene gesture," as Herald reporter Laurel Sweet unqualifiedly called it in her original Monday story. And so what if today's story is about Scalia's subsequent letter to the editor credibly denying all?

When it comes to such important matters of state, it strikes me as appropriate that we turn to the definitive source: Wonkette, which posted this explanation from About.com. The analysis from Wonkette (whoever that is these days):

The Herald article is a little vague, but we're inclined to agree with this reader: Justice Scalia's gesture wasn't a full-fledged flipping of the proverbial bird. But it still wasn't exactly the most polite of actions; in some quarters, it could be interpreted as pretty darn close to giving someone the middle finger. So we will downgrade Nino a few levels on both the vulgarity and coolness scales.

Actually, Sweet's article was not "a little vague." It described Scalia's gesture accurately, and then wrongly labeled it "obscene."

Card not in the cards

President Bush is so unpopular in Massachusetts that I can't imagine former state legislator Andy Card, who just resigned as Bush's chief of staff, would be considered anyone's idea of a hot property anymore. Still, there was a time when Card's name would come up whenever people got to talking about Republican gubernatorial candidates in Massachusetts.

Adam Reilly of the Boston Phoenix has already posted the question: "Card for governor?" Jon Keller of WBZ-TV (Channel 4) asks the same question, and provides an answer: "The speculation is already starting. Allow me to put a quick fork in it." Elias at "The Chimes at Midnight" doubts that Card will get in, but imagines there will be enough buzz that Card will at least have to issue a denial (via Universal Hub).

Media Nation's prediction: Card is going to receive a courtesy call from Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey by the end of the day, if he hasn't gotten one already. And that's as far as this is going.

Taking a look at Windows

I love my Mac, but it doesn't love me. I just got my iBook G3 back from Apple following its sixth repair in three years. And guess what? It's working again, but I can no longer adjust the brightness on the screen. My three-year extended warranty expires Wednesday. I should get it back to the shop, but I don't want to give it up again. Such are the frustrations of a longtime Mac lover.

Lately I've been thinking the unthinkable: The next time I upgrade -- say, in six months or so -- I might actually take another look at Windows. Never mind the hardware problems -- I'm frustrated at the number of sites I keep running into whose multimedia features only work with Windows (MSNBC.com, for instance), or that make the experience for Mac users so painful that it's not worth the effort (NECN.com).

How is it that WBZ-TV (Channel 4), to name just one example, can get it right? I have no trouble watching old friend Jon Keller on my iBook. For that matter, there are plenty of Mac-friendly multimedia sites, from NYTimes.com to Youtube.com. It can be done, and apparently it's not even hard.

But as someone who's supposed to keep up on the intersection between journalism and new media, I find it pretty frustrating when I run into a section of AOL.com or Yahoo that is restricted to Windows users.

Nor would the switch be all that difficult. I almost did it a half-dozen years ago and gave up in frustration over incompatible software. Now, though, it would be trivial. Almost every program I use these comes in two (or more) flavors, Windows and Mac: Microsoft Office, Firefox, Ecto for blog-posting, Mozilla for Web design, and, of course, Apple's own iTunes. About the only program I use regularly that doesn't have an exact Windows equivalent is iPhoto -- and I know Adobe makes some cool consumer-level stuff for Windows customers.

Are Apple's new MacBooks sexy? Oh, yes they are. But I'm really beginning to wonder.

"Little People," big review

I've written an essay for Slate on the TLC reality series "Little People, Big World." The show is about a dwarf couple, Matt and Amy Roloff, and their four kids. Please have a look.

Herald radio?

Let's say Pat Purcell sells Community Newspaper Co. and keeps the Boston Herald. According to Steve Bailey's sources, the deal for CNC plus The Patriot Ledger of Quincy and The Enterprise of Brockton could bring $370 million to $400 million. That's a lot of money.

Now, Purcell doesn't own The Ledger or The Enterprise. But I'm guessing that most of that money would go to Purcell, given that CNC comprises about 100 papers in communities that are, for the most part, more affluent than those served by The Ledger or The Enterprise. So it sounds like Purcell stands to make a very nice profit, given that he paid a reported $150 million for CNC about five years ago.

So what's next? Keep an eye on this column by Greg Gatlin, which appeared in the Herald on Thursday. In it, Gatlin calls for a loosening of FCC regulations that currently prohibit one person or corporation from owning a radio or TV station and a daily newspaper in the same market. Such a loosening almost happened two years ago, but Congress and the courts put the kibbosh on the FCC's deregulatory frenzy. Now that the furor has died down, the FCC might try again.

At one time Purcell was talking about some sort of deal with Brad Bleidt, the former owner of WBIX Radio (AM 1060), now playing keyboards in a prison rock band. And certainly it doesn't hurt the Herald that many of its marquee personalities are on the radio: Gerry Callahan, Steve Buckley, Mike Felger, Margery Eagan, Howie Carr, Cosmo Macero and the Tracksters. (Am I missing anyone?) At the same time, though, it must gall Purcell that he has no control over any of this.

This is the kind of synergy that could work. I doubt too many folks who read Purcell's Wellesley Townsman want the neighbors to notice that they've got a Herald on their front doorstep. On the other hand, an aggressive urban tabloid and an in-your-face radio operation make perfect sense. And Purcell may soon have the money to make it happen.

A huge change at the Phoenix

The most earth-shattering change in the Boston Phoenix's 40-year history was announced yesterday: Barry Morris, president of the company from its earliest days, said he'll retire soon. He'll be succeeded by Brad Mindich, currently the executive vice president and the son of founder, publisher and chairman Stephen Mindich. Mark Jurkowitz has all the details, including comments from Morris and the text of a company-wide e-mail sent out by Brad Mindich.

Barry is absolutely driven, and is widely credited with transforming the Phoenix into the revenue machine it's been for most of its existence. That, in turn, has allowed the Phoenix to engage in the sort of high-level journalism that has made it one of the three most important print outlets in the city, along with the Globe and the Herald. It's nice to see that he's retiring at an age -- 61 -- at which he's still got many good years ahead of him. According to Brad's e-mail, the phrase "Gone Fishin' " is literally true in Barry's case.

Meanwhile, the Phoenix (disclosure: I'm still a contributing writer) is, like all newspapers, undergoing a significant transformation, as editorial and business-side folks try to figure out how to get ready for the looming post-print era. Earlier this year the paper went through a change in design and format. The same is true of the Web site, which is expanding with blogs and interactive features.

But it's not going to be the same without Barry.

A split decision for Purcell?

A lot of people were talking about this yesterday, and the Boston Globe's Steve Bailey nailed it down sufficiently to put it into print (scroll down) today: Pat Purcell will sell his 100 or so suburban papers in Eastern Massachusetts and hang on to the Boston Herald. The deal would presumably get Purcell out of the heavy debt he took on to buy the local papers from Fidelity Capital a few years ago.

Still, Purcell -- who tried to hire Bailey a couple of years ago -- cautions that there's nothing to announce. So who knows?

But wait a minute ...

This suggests that the good news online for the New York Times Co. has mostly to do with its About.com subsidiary.

Doing fine online

From a Web site called MediaBuyerPlanner.com:

New York Times Co. newspapers' online ad revenues, including those for the New York Times, Boston Globe, and Sarasota Herald-Tribune, surged in February -- up 23 percent from a year ago ...

You can't tell from this how well the Globe's Boston.com site is doing. But this is additional confirmation that the online incarnation of the Globe is doing fine -- or would be, if overall revenues were enough to offset the decline of the print edition.

And, of course, the Globe is not alone. Earlier this week, the New York Times reported that, at the San Jose Mercury News, revenue from help-wanted ads has plummeted over the past five years from $118 million annually to $18 million. Why buy an ad when there's Craigslist?

The Craigslist effect probably isn't quite as devastating at the Globe as it has been at the Mercury News. But no doubt it's bad enough.

Coming to a head

I have class in six minutes, so I'll keep this brief. But it looks like things might be coming to a head at both of Boston's troubled dailies.

Mark Jurkowitz of the Boston Phoenix reports on a "palpable buzz" that Pat Purcell's efforts to sell the Boston Herald and his Community Newspaper subsidiary may lead to a major announcement at any moment. Yes, I know this is cryptic, and it's unclear whether Purcell will actually bug out or simply line up new investors. But it does appear that the uncertainty that hovers over One Herald Square may finally lift.

Meanwhile, the news at the Boston Globe just keeps getting worse. The Boston Business Journal yesterday reported that a 12 percent plunge in advertising revenues at the Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette is doing serious damage to the New York Times Co.'s bottom line.

The Herald weighs in with a two-fer on the Globe's woes today, with Jay Fitzgerald handling the news side and Brett Arends offering analysis.

The Globe appears to be silent on these developments.

More on the Globe's woes

Jay Fitzgerald reports in today's Boston Herald that New York Times Co. chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. is paying a visit to his company's troubled Boston Globe subsidiary next week. Globe spokesman Al Larkin describes the visit as routine, but Fitzgerald's sources tell him that the Globe may be preparing for another round of job reductions, including those of some high-ranking managers.

And please check out the comments to my Monday post on the Globe's ongoing revenue woes. I've been expanding on my argument that you can't talk about declining circulation unless you also take into account the fact that Web readership of the Globe (and other papers) is soaring. That doesn't mean the Globe couldn't be better -- it just means that the readership situation isn't as dire as the plummeting print circulation figures would indicate.

That said, one Media Nation reader yesterday reminded me of something I haven't given enough (or any) attention to: the fact that some proportion of people who read the Globe online are also subscribers to the print edition. In my mind, I've been counting those people twice. No question that that fuzzy math undercuts my argument to some degree.

Are the wheels coming off?

Mark Jurkowitz reports that the Boston Globe might actually have lost money during January and February of this year. Granted, the Globe and its sister paper, the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, created some unusual one-time grief for themselves thanks to that credit-card mess-up. But this is a long way from the Knight Ridder-style laments that newspapers, though profitable, just aren't profitable enough for Wall Street.

It's important to remember that the Globe and other daily newspapers are not, for the most part, losing readers -- at least not in any great numbers. Rather, readers are migrating to those papers' Web sites. I freely confess that this item, which I wrote last October, oversimplifies matters. The point, though, is that newspapers are losing advertising to bank and department-store consolidation and to free-classified sites like Craigslist and Monster.com, even as readership is holding up pretty well.

But can papers keep those readers when they continue to hack away at the journalism? Not forever. That's the dilemma.

All Howie, all the time

Last week I received an e-mail from someone who thought it was curious, to say the least, that "60 Minutes" failed to mention former Massachusetts Senate president Bill Bulger in its piece on ex-Whitey Bulger goon Kevin Weeks.

I didn't do anything on it at the time, but Romenesko today links to a worthwhile piece by J. Max Robins, who doesn't think "60 Minutes" has played it straight when it comes to the Bulgers -- or to Howie Carr, on whose radio show Robins is a regular.

Good, asterisk-laden quotes from "60 Minutes" executive producer Jeff Fager.

Here is the Web version of the "60 Minutes" piece.

The renting of the Pentagon

I'm afraid I know the answer to this already, having spent the last half-hour poking around the Web. But does anyone know if it's possible to rent, borrow or buy "The Selling of the Pentagon" in either DVD or VHS? I would like to show it to my History of Journalism students, but it seems to have disappeared off the face of the earth.

Update: Problem solved. And thank you for the suggestions I received.

Keeping the lie alive

Ramesh Ponnuru, writing for National Review Online, repeats a lie about Charles Pierce today. I'm calling it a lie because the essential untruth of this has long since been established, and because -- something I didn't know until today -- Ponnuru had a hand, however slight, in creating this lie. [But wait! It wasn't Ponnuru -- it was Jonah Goldberg. See "Update and correction," below.]

Anyway, the purported subject of Ponnuru's item (at least I think it was Ponnuru; Jonah Goldberg's name is slapped on this, too) is something Pierce wrote that established him as such a hopelessly out-of-touch liberal that he actually believed Ted Kennedy's support for social problems more than negated his reprehensible behavior in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. Imagine that. Only in the People's Republic of Massachusetts! Here is Ponnuru's item:

Ramesh: That reminds me of the winner of MRC's wackiest comment award from 2004 (the year I was a presenter):

"Charles Pierce, Boston Globe Magazine:

" 'If she had lived, Mary Jo Kopechne would be 62 years old. Through his tireless work as a legislator, Edward Kennedy would have brought comfort to her in her old age.' "

But hold on. The truth is that Pierce was employing irony in the service of a breathtakingly vicious putdown of Kennedy, in the midst of a profile that was far, far tougher than the Kennedys are accustomed to receiving in the Globe. Here is what I wrote at the time. As you will see, the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto, an honest conservative, accurately described what Pierce had written as a "paragraph of pure poison." And a letter-writer to the Globe Magazine divined that Pierce had written "a savage attack" on Kennedy. (Fun fact: Mark Steyn didn't get it. But of course.)

Unfortunately, that didn't stop Brent Bozell's Media Research Center from completely misconstruing Pierce's intent. Here is the MRC's account of the award, complete with video I watched a little of before my computer choked (I'm not sure whether to attribute that to a bandwidth problem or good taste), in which Jonah Goldberg called Pierce's line "one of the most metaphorically moronic observations ever penned by a journalist," and joked about Pierce hanging out with Jim Morrison and Osama bin Laden.

From there it was a simple leap. Bernard Goldberg picked up the MRC's award in his idiotic book "Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite." (No, I haven't read it, but I most definitely have read its predecessor, "Bias: A Media Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News." I am confident that "Arrogance" is more of the same.) And a lie was born -- a lie that smears both Pierce and the Globe.

It lives on.

Update and correction: Anon. 5:04 has figured out what's going on here, and my hat's off to him (or her; and while I'm at it, I'm not wearing a hat). In the original National Review Online item, posted yesterday at 4:24 p.m., Jonah Goldberg was addressing Ramesh Ponnuru. So it was written by Goldberg, not Ponnuru. Then, at 5:27 p.m., Ponnuru wrote:

One of Lindgren's commenters mentioned the Pierce quote, and another one responded that it had been taken out of context -- and linked to this article by Pierce about the controversy. Not having read the original article, I'm inclined to take Pierce's word on his intent.

So Ponnuru is blameless in this affair, and I'm sorry I doubted him, given that he's struck me in the past as being pretty reasonable. For that matter, so has Goldberg (Jonah, that is; certainly not Bernie!). But Jonah's way, way off on this, just as he was when he presented the "award" two years ago.

Correcting the "clarification"

Good grief. Read this (third item), about this.

Howie's new nemesis

Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr may have bigger problems with David Boeri than with Whitey Bulger or Kevin Weeks. Boeri, a respected reporter for WCVB-TV (Channel 5), has written an exhaustive deconstruction of Carr's much-hyped book, "The Brothers Bulger," for the new Boston Phoenix.

The numerous Carr errors that Boeri cites strike me as piddling for the most part, although I can understand why someone who has done as much reporting on the story as Boeri has would be irritated. Probably the most egregious error Boeri alleges involves what might be called "the tale of two cars." It's arcane, but it speaks to the crucial question of how hard the FBI did or didn't try to find Bulger when he disappeared a decade ago.

More damaging to Carr is what all these small errors add up to: that "The Brothers Bulger" is little more than a clip job, pieced together from what reporters for the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald have written over the years -- right down to the inevitable mistakes that get made in the rush of daily journalism, but that certainly should have been fixed before being placed between two hard covers. As Boeri tells it, Carr just didn't have the time to do any original reporting for his own book.

As Boeri observes, Carr is hardly the Lone Ranger of the Bulger saga. A host of first-rate Boston journalists have unearthed voluminous amounts of information about Bulger and his corrupt ties to the FBI. Carr, despite his self-styled persona as the world's oldest juvenile delinquent, is a reliable and fearless reporter, which Boeri acknowledges. But so are current and former Globe reporters such as Dick Lehr, Gerry O'Neill, Kevin Cullen and Shelley Murphy, all of whom come in for kudos from Boeri. So is Boeri himself.

Though Boeri doesn't name names at the Herald, columnist Peter Gelzinis immediately comes to mind as someone who was every bit as courageous as Carr in his willingness to go after Bulger -- and Gelzinis did it while living on the Bulgers' turf, in South Boston, rather than in the wealthy suburbs. (Not that it matters. If former Bulger associate Kevin Weeks is telling the truth, Carr's living in Acton was no obstacle to the Bulger gang's almost taking murderous revenge. Carr today lives in the even-more-upscale Wellesley.)

Will Carr fire back? He's certainly got plenty of opportunities -- in the Herald, on his radio show on WRKO (AM 680) and on either of his two Web sites (click here and here). My guess is that he won't. Boeri is too respected, and he's got the goods.

Besides, Boeri isn't accusing Carr of being an unethical journalist -- just lazy. I suspect Carr can live with that, as long as the checks keeps rolling in.

The ugly side of politics II

I'm late getting to this, but did you see the "Editors' Note" in today's New York Times? To wit:

The cover photograph in The Times Magazine on Sunday rendered colors incorrectly for the jacket, shirt and tie worn by Mark Warner, the former Virginia governor who is a possible candidate for the presidency. The jacket was charcoal, not maroon; the shirt was light blue, not pink; the tie was dark blue with stripes, not maroon.

The Times's policy rules out alteration of photographs that depict actual news scenes and, even in a contrived illustration, requires acknowledgment in a credit. In this case, the film that was used can cause colors to shift, and the processing altered them further; the change escaped notice because of a misunderstanding by the editors.

Nothing about making Warner's teeth look too big for his head, but it's a start.

Wolfe at WRKO's door

Irene Sege's profile of Jason Wolfe in today's Boston Globe raises a lot more questions than it answers. Wolfe, the 38-year-old vice president of programming at all-sports WEEI Radio (AM 850), was recently named to the same position at its news-talk sister station, WRKO (AM 680).

Wolfe helped turn WEEI into a huge success by encouraging a crude, locker-room approach that often veers into homophobia. (To be fair, he also presided over the hiring of Michael Holley and Mike Adams, the two best things to happen to the station in years.) Now, what will Wolfe do to WRKO? It's a station many of us still care about thanks to the glory days of Jerry Williams and Gene Burns, even though it has offered less-than-compelling listening in recent years. (Disclosure: I've been known to cash a few freelance checks from the station, although not for quite a while.)

Wolfe tells Sege he wants to make the station "more exciting." That sounds like a code phrase for something bad. Certainly mid-morning host John DePetro has made things more exciting by telling his listeners that murder victim Imette St. Guillen was "asking for trouble." I don't want to make too much of this -- I've also heard DePetro says that what happened to her was not her fault (obviously). But I agree with Mark Jurkowitz's observation that WRKO has been "shamelessly milking this for all its worth."

Also, Wolfe seems to have liberated afternoon host Howie Carr to be himself, which is surely an ominous sign. I've definitely noticed that the David Scondras tape, which had been banned for a while, has been restored to airwaves.

When Wolfe took the helm, WRKO was in the midst of adding more local programming with a greater emphasis on quality. It would be a shame if he decided that what the station needs is WEEI-style towel-snapping "excitement."

The ugly side of politics

The New York Times Magazine, to put it mildly, is not known for its flattering photo-editing. Still, I thought yesterday's treatment of former Virginia governor Mark Warner was over the top. After all, the magazine was introducing a potential presidential candidate to a readership that, overwhelmingly, had not seen him before. Far from being another take on a well-known person, this was our first look at the Democrat Who Might Challenge Hillary.

And what a first look photographer Alexei Hay gave us -- 1940s-style lighting combined with a supremely unattractive obsession with Warner's teeth and chin. Warner ends up looking like a half-forgotten character actor who plays a small-town murderer in an old movie you think you might have seen some years ago.

For comparison, I've included an official photo of Warner. Maybe its depiction of Warner as a steel-jawed man of destiny is as deceptive, in its way, as the Times' -- but surely it's no more deceptive than the Times'.

Philadelphia story

Two competing versions of the sale of the Knight Ridder newspaper chain to McClatchy Co.

First, from a New York Times story that, according to the home page, was updated at 7:33 a.m. today:

Analysts speculate that the company could shut down The Philadelphia Daily News and possibly sell The Inquirer, since the business climate in Philadelphia is sluggish and the papers face tough competition from a ring of suburban dailies. On the other hand, they say, The Inquirer generates a lot of cash, something McClatchy will need as it goes into debt to pay for Knight Ridder.

From a Wall Street Journal story stamped 7:38 a.m. today:

McClatchy, which is paying $67.25 a share for the rival publishing chain, plans to sell a dozen Knight Ridder newspapers, including the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Philadelphia Daily News and the San Jose Mercury News. McClatchy said those papers are located in cities that "do not fit the company's longstanding acquisition criteria, chiefly involving growing markets."

Based on this, at least, it looks like while the Times was speculating, the Journal was finding out what was really going on.

Catching up: From the Times' 8:47 a.m. update:

The combined company plans to sell 12 Knight-Ridder papers, including both its papers in Philadelphia, the Inquirer and the Daily News, along with The San Jose Mercury News, according to the announcement. Knight-Ridder papers, including both its papers in Philadelphia, the Inquirer and the Daily News, along with The San Jose Mercury News, according to the announcement.

The words of Tom Fox

Tom Fox sounds like he was a remarkable person. A Quaker working with the people of Iraq, he was kidnapped several months ago. This weekend it was learned that he'd been tortured and murdered by his captors. Lest we forget, he leaves three fellow hostages behind. Their organization, Christian Peacemaker Teams, released a statement on Friday that says in part:

We mourn the loss of Tom Fox who combined a lightness of spirit, a firm opposition to all oppression, and the recognition of God in everyone.

We renew our plea for the safe release of Harmeet Sooden, Jim Loney and Norman Kember. Each of our teammates has responded to Jesus’ prophetic call to live out a nonviolent alternative to the cycle of violence and revenge.

Fox kept a blog during his time in Iraq called Waiting in the Light. At the moment, it's still online. ElectronicIraq.net has posted excerpts here and here. I find Fox's analysis of how the United States ended up in Iraq particularly striking. Wrote Fox:

It has become increasing evident to me that after stripping away all the rationales for the US invasion of Iraq, what is left is the reality that the current U.S. Administration felt compelled to invade from a basis of hate. I can envision them saying, 'Saddam is evil. We hate evil. Therefore we need to rid the world of this evil man and his cronies.' I can see that actions taken by Saddam could lead them to feel hatred towards him. He and his associates built palaces and enclaves where they lived in luxury while across the Tigris River was a slum where over a million residents of Baghdad lived in poverty and squalor. He maintained control of the country by devoting huge amounts of material resources to his military and security forces, a decision that allowed the infrastructure of the city to deteriorate. And most hateful of all was his use of imprisonment and torture to keep the population of Baghdad living in a state of fear.

This is rather complex -- after all, shouldn't we hate evil? What I think Fox is saying is that though it may be natural to hate evil, it is dangerous to act on the basis of that hate, because it becomes easy to become caught up in the same evil that you're trying to vanquish. Sadly, Fox himself, a man who had transcended such weaknesses, fell victim to the weakness -- to the evil -- of others.

By the way, there's a story making its way around blogland that Rush Limbaugh actually poked fun at Fox and his fellow missionaries when they were taken captive last November, saying, "But any time a bunch of people that walk around with the head in the sand practicing a bunch of irresponsible, idiotic theory confront reality, I'm kind of happy about it, because I'm eager for people to see reality, change their minds if necessary, and have things sized up." See the Daily Kos on this. Unbelievable, except that it's not.

If he wanted to, Limbaugh could have an apology up on his Web site right now. He does not.

Howie's new agent

Howie Carr ought to give Kevin Weeks a cut from the sale of his book, "The Brothers Bulger." Weeks, a one-time associate of the notorious James "Whitey" Bulger, tells "60 Minutes" that he nearly assassinated Carr several years ago, but couldn't bring himself to pull the trigger because Carr was holding his infant daughter.

The Boston Globe today runs a low-key story on Weeks' claim on page B2 by Ralph Ranalli, himself the author of a Bulger-related book on FBI corruption called "Dark Alliance." But the Boston Herald, understandably, goes nuts. The front-page splash reads, "Howie Carr to would-be assassin: YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE GUTS." Carr's column (sub. req.) begins:

Kevin Weeks didn’t have the stones to shoot me.

That's what I told Ed Bradley of "60 Minutes." And for the record, I don't believe any of the stuff he told Bradley about my alleged near-murder. You watch Sunday night and tell me who you believe.

So his serial-killing boss Whitey Bulger hated me. This is news? Whitey wanted to murder me. Stop the presses. There’s an old saying: Never send a boy on a man's errand, and that’s what Kevin was, a boy. He played Robin to Whitey's Batman.

Good stuff! And talk about having it both ways -- Carr can simultaneously market himself as someone who was nearly killed by the Bulger mob while at the same time mocking one of Whitey's hit men for lacking the testicular fortitude to follow through.

"The Brothers Bulger" is sitting at #10 on the New York Times Best-Seller List right now, but that will change -- especially after the "60 Minutes" interviews with Weeks and Carr air this Sunday.

Amazon.com's ratings are so flaky that they're almost meaningless. But for what it's worth, "The Brothers Bulger" is at #90 this morning, while Week's own "Brutal" is at #1,192. Methinks Weeks' "revelation" is going to do more for Howie's sales than for his.

More: Jay Fitzgerald on why this is bad news for Bill Weld.

"Clarification" of the month

Who is that robed man? Apparently the winner of the Boston Globe's Seán O'Malley Lookalike Contest. The photo at right ran Monday to illustrate a story on the archbishop's personal, "colorful" side. Taken at one of O'Malley's favorite bookstores, the picture did not survive the transition from the paper edition to the Globe's Web site. Fortunately, the official Media Nation copy of Monday's Globe had not yet been recycled when I read the "For the record" column in today's Globe. Here is the relevant item in full:

Clarification: A photo caption that accompanied the continuation of a Page One story Monday on Archbishop Sean O'Malley gave the impression that it was showing O'Malley looking at books at Schoenhof's Foreign Books in Harvard Square. Although the newly named cardinal likes to shop at the store, the photo was of a customer who identifies himself as Father Paul of Jesus.

Well, now. Why a clarification and not a correction? Here is the caption that ran with the photo: "Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley is a regular at Schoenhof's Foreign Books in Harvard Square. Store manager Rupert Davis (left) said he buys books 'that will help him better grasp the people.' " No, the caption does not specifically say that the guy in the robe is O'Malley. But come on. It's a photo of a bookstore where O'Malley likes to shop, and the image is dominated by someone who looks almost exactly like O'Malley. A wimpy clarification isn't good enough; it deserves a correction.

This calls to mind the thumbs-up photo that the Boston Herald ran of O'Malley the day after he was designated a cardinal -- a photo that looked like the archbishop was celebrating when in fact the small type revealed that it was just a file shot. It's nice to see that a lack of access isn't stopping folks at the dailies from running precisely the pictures of O'Malley that they want to illustrate their stories.

Dwarfs and the media

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.

Keller online

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.

More on the Post-Globe deal

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.

Grassroots media under attack

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.

Born to blog

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.

Murdoch follow-up

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.

At least he can live in Washington

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.

Thank God We're a Two-Newspaper Town*

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.

Rupe to Herald: Drop dead!*

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.