Patrick by the numbers

Jon Keller weighs in with a neat bit of media criticism, observing that today's Boston Globe story on Gov. Deval Patrick's relative popularity in Western Massachusetts is based on a poll of just 70 people — "a sample so small, it's meaningless," as Keller notes.

Commenting on comments with Keller

WBZ-TV (Channel 4) political analyst Jon Keller will be interviewing Doug Bailey and me about Bailey's column in today's Boston Globe, in which he argues that newspaper comments are worthless. (They are if you're going to do them the way the Globe and the Boston Herald do them. But we'll talk.)

The segment should pop up on the 11 p.m. news.

And by the way, has anyone yet figured out the identity of the anonymous blogger whom Bailey attacked?

Thursday update: Here's the link to Keller's story.

An anonymous straw man

Doug Bailey want you to know there's a local blog out there that's not as reliable as maybe it should be. (Imagine that.) But he doesn't want you to know what the blog is. Bailey, a former Boston Globe staffer-turned-media consultant, writes on the Globe's op-ed page:

I recently contacted a blog that has apparently gained a reputation as an "authoritative source" on local news to point out an outrageously inaccurate — and easily verifiable — item posted on the site, attributed to one of its many "insiders." The editor of the site conceded to me his "inside" information had actually come from an anonymous posting he saw on a newspaper website. If this wasn't outrageous enough, this site has developed a following among traditional media reporters who apparently believe this blogger is wired and who regularly republish his missives unaware that his "exclusive" sources come from anonymous comments on their own websites. The identities of the "insiders" are unknown even to the original blogger.

Without the name of the blog and its author, and a chance for him to respond, the value of Bailey's anecdote is approximately zero. Let's have it, Doug. And let's see the Globe give his target an opportunity to defend himself.

Younger drivers are a bigger problem

We have become obsessed with elderly drivers. Today's example: this story in the Boston Globe about an 83-year-old woman who crashed through the front of a Natick liquor store. My guess is that it wouldn't even have made the Globe a year ago.

To be sure, there are elderly drivers who should be off the road. But it's long been known that younger drivers are more dangerous than older ones. That perspective has been entirely lacking from recent coverage.

In 2001, for instance, the Washington Post reported that the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety had found that older drivers were involved in fewer crashes than any other age group, but that the fatality rate in those crashes was higher because the elderly drivers themselves were more likely to die of their injuries. From the Post:

The studies show that older drivers kill fewer motorists and pedestrians than any other age group and have the lowest crash rates per licensed driver....

Younger drivers aged 16 to 24 had the highest accident rate, more than double the rate for older drivers.

My 95-year-old uncle continues to drive. I know that anecdotal evidence is suspect, but I think his sense of responsibility is typical of his generation. He no longer drives at night, and he's talked about public-transportation options for the day that he should give up his license.

More-frequent testing for older drivers is probably a good idea. But coverage has grown completely out of proportion when you consider the reality of who's the greatest menace behind the wheel.

NPR ombudsman Shepard responds

NPR ombudsman Alicia Shepard has responded to my item of last week in which I criticized her for defending NPR's policy of refusing to refer to waterboarding as "torture." She writes:

Yes, President Obama and AG Eric Holder have said that waterboarding was torture. I'd personally call it torture. But if you were an editor at the Globe, would you say that someone tortured another person? Or would you want to use a direct or indirect quote, i.e., "John Smith said the guard tortured him"?

I'm not trying to say what is and is not torture, but is every abuse classified as torture now or are there degrees? When a police officer throws a suspect to the ground and handcuffs them, is that torture or simply abuse?

Would it be better to, say, describe the technique and then say some call it torture? I do not think enhanced interrogation techniques is acceptable either. That's why I come down on describing the technique and adding that some call it torture.

Shepard asks, so I'll attempt a few answers.

I'm not sure what Shepard thinks there is to gain by skiing down the slippery slope from waterboarding to getting rough with a suspect during an arrest. In my original item, I strictly limited my remarks to waterboarding, recognized as torture by just about everyone on the planet.

The opinions of Obama and Holder are entirely unnecessary to determining whether waterboarding is torture.

As John McCain and others have pointed out, the United States executed several Japanese military officers for waterboarding American prisoners of war after World War II. And as I wrote last week, if NPR really can't bring itself to use the T-word, perhaps it can describe waterboarding as "an interrogation technique once considered so heinous by the United States that it hanged Japanese officers for doing it to Americans."

So yes, if I were an editor at the Boston Globe, you're damn right I would refer to waterboarding as torture. That seems about as solid as referring to oil as a fossil fuel, or baseball as a sport. By eschewing the term "torture" to describe a practice that the entire international community regards as such, NPR is not being neutral. Rather, it is embracing a euphemism that places the network squarely on the side of the torturers and their enablers.

NPR should not use enhanced interrogation techniques on the English language.

Thursday update: I was not as precise as I wanted to be when I wrote about "everyone on the planet," as I was in a rush and had lousy Internet access. Last week, Bob Garfield of "On the Media" interviewed Shepard and made the point I was trying to make:

The U.N.'s High Commissioner for Human Rights says that waterboarding is torture. The International Committee of the Red Cross have called what the U.S. did "torture." Waterboarding is unambiguously in violation of the International Convention on Torture, which has been ratified by 140-some countries.

The United States is among those 140 countries, but, as the Associated Press reported in 2002, the Bush administration sought to block enforcement of the measure when inspectors wanted to visit Guantánamo.

Torture is not only a moral problem, but it has a precise legal meaning that most definitely encompasses waterboarding.

Calling torture torture

Alicia Shepard is as sharp a media observer as they come. A longtime writer for the American Journalism Review and the author of "Woodward and Bernstein: Life in the Shadow of Watergate," she is a serious and respected voice.

That said, I'm scratching my head over how wrong Shepard gets it on NPR's refusal to use the term "torture" to describe the "enhanced interrogation techniques" practiced during the Bush years. Shepard, now NPR's ombudsman, writes:

I recognize that it's frustrating for some listeners to have NPR not use the word torture to describe certain practices that seem barbaric. But the role of a news organization is not to choose sides in this or any debate. People have different definitions of torture and different feelings about what constitutes torture. NPR's job is to give listeners all perspectives, and present the news as detailed as possible and put it in context.

Let's forget "certain practices" and focus on just one: waterboarding, long recognized as torture. In November 2007, Sen. John McCain pointed out that the United States executed Japanese officers after World War II for waterboarding American prisoners of war.

And when McCain was challenged, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Web site PolitiFact.com investigated McCain's assertion. Its conclusion: McCain was right — a number of Japanese officers were hanged, and others were sentenced to long prison terms, because they had engaged in waterboarding.

Shepard writes that rather than describing waterboarding as torture, it makes more sense just to say what happened: "To me, it makes more sense to describe the techniques and skip the characterization.... A basic rule of vivid writing is: 'Show, Don't Tell.'"

All right. Perhaps NPR can eschew the T-word and instead describe waterboarding as "an interrogation technique once considered so heinous by the United States that it hanged Japanese officers for doing it to Americans."

Share your thoughts on Obama's presser

Friend of Media Nation Jon Keller has written a post at Beatthepress.org in which he endorses Dana Milbank's account in the Washington Post of President Obama's "prepackaged entertainment" at Tuesday's White House news conference.

As you may already know, Obama called on Nico Pitney of the Huffington Post, saying, "I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?"

I don't want to provide too much set-up before turning this over to you, but here is what Pitney wrote for HuffPo about what happened. Pitney says that though he was invited to prepare a question based what Iranians had been talking about online, no one at the White House knew what he was going to ask; and that though he was, indeed, escorted into the briefing room, he had been told ahead of time that there was no guarantee he'd be called on.

Now, I have two questions for you, which I want you to answer only after reading Keller, Milbank and Pitney.

1. If you relied solely on Milbank's account, would it be your understanding that Obama knew what Pitney's question would be?

2. Since, according to Pitney, Obama neither knew the question nor had promised to call on him, did either the president or his press operation do anything wrong, unethical or even disrespectful to the other reporters in the room?

Department of redundancy department

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert pokes fun at Newt Gingrich this morning for calling Judge Sonya Sotomayor a "Latina woman racist," writing that Gingrich is "apparently unaware of his incoherence in the 'Latina-woman' redundancy in this defamatory characterization."

Herbert is technically correct. But as we all know, Sotomayor's most controversial public pronouncement came during a 2001 speech in which she said:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

Watch Herbert tie himself into knots as he attempts to allude to that statement without quoting it directly.

For the record, I don't think Sotomayor is incoherent, redundant or a racist.

Full disclosure

The New York Times today runs an op-ed piece by James Glassman, who argues that the Obama administration's plan for saving General Motors is unfair to the company's bondholders. But shouldn't the Times have noted that Glassman was the principal author of "Dow 36,000"?

The book, published in 1999 just before dot-com stock-market crash, is one of the most unintentionally hilarious artifacts of the '90s boom. Hell, no, I haven't read it, and thank you for asking. The title is more than enough.

Newspaper runs Obama assassination ad

A Pennsylvania newspaper published an advertisement on Thursday calling for the assassination of President Obama. The ad, buried in the classifieds, says:

May Obama follow in the footsteps of Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, & Kennedy!

According to this item at the Daily Kos, the ad — published in the Times Observer of Warren, Pa. — appears to have made it into the paper by accident. Publisher John Elchert is quoted as saying, "It is unfortunate that it made it to press. The person who took the ad didn’t recognize the significance of the names. We canceled the ad and turned the information over to the authorities."

In an apology published in today's edition, the Times Observer reports that the identity of the person who placed the ad was provided to local police, who in turn alerted federal authorities. (Via Greg Mitchell. The story is currently leading Romenesko as well.)

Image from Capitol Beat, which has also been covering the story.

Warsh responds to Paulson

David Warsh wrote a letter to the Boston Globe over the weekend responding to Michael Paulson, who, in turn, was responding to Warsh's observation — which I think I'm characterizing correctly — that the Globe's coverage of the pedophile-priest scandal was perhaps more popular with the Pulitzer judges than it was with readers.

Specifically, Warsh objects to being called "insane."

One point Warsh makes that is undeniable is that the Globe's relentless pursuit of younger readers has not paid off. That doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea. But by putting so much effort into trying to convert non-readers into readers, the Globe — and many other newspapers — may only have succeeded in the opposite.

My earlier item, with links to Warsh's and Paulson's previous salvos.

Show us the money (III)

The Boston Globe today runs an "Editor's Note" saying that Ariel Ayanna, whose family was the subject of a feel-good story about people trying to get by with less money, "never meant to suggest" that he isn't looking for a job.

It will be interesting to see if this is the end of it.

Update: And, no, that wasn't the end of it. The Ayannas have posted a blog item taking issue with both the Editor's Note and with a letter to the editor that they submitted and then retracted because of proposed cuts that they say eliminated most of their criticism of the Globe.

"I guess I was pretty naive to think I could express myself accurately and without censorship," writes Amiri Ayanna.

My offer for the Globe to respond here remains on the table.

Show us the money (II)

Boston Globe columnist Maggie Jackson yesterday gave us a feel-good story about families who are enjoying all kinds of togetherness now that they've had to downsize their careers and get by on less money than it costs to drive through the tollbooths on the Tobin Bridge every day. Jackson's lead example: the Ayanna family of Somerville, mom, dad and two kids making it on $35,000 a year.

Well, now we know that they're not making it, and that all is not the bliss that Jackson describes. We can thank Amiri Ayanna, who has been open enough about her family's situation to leave a series of comments here about life since her husband, Ariel, was laid off from his $170,000-a-year job as a corporate lawyer. To wit:

• The Ayannas pay $1,850 a month for the mortgage on their Somerville condo. But they are trying to negotiate that down, and may soon be forced to move into a studio apartment — with a 5-year-old boy and a baby.
• Jackson wrote that Ariel Ayanna is "considering becoming a stay-at-home dad for a year." Not true, says Amiri: "I wanted to clear up one other inaccuracy stated in the Boston Globe article: Ariel is enjoying his family time now, out of necessity, but is very actively and strenuously looking for work, since, as I stated, our financial situation is fairly tenuous."
• Amiri also has this to say: "I agree our finances were painted way too rosily by this article (many things were selectively excluded from the lengthy interviews with both myself and my spouse, and our family was used as a story 'hook' because we were willing to disclose specific dollar numbers, I think)."

What seems clear is that the Ayannas are doing a lot better on $35,000 than most of us would — but that it's not their choice, and that Jackson massaged their situation to fit a pre-existing template. The result: a story that is accurate, for the most part, but that is fundamentally not true.

If Jackson and/or the Globe would like to respond, I will, of course, post it immediately.

Show us the money

There has got to be something missing [or maybe not? see below] from Maggie Jackson's account of the Ayanna family in today's Boston Globe. She reports that the Ariel and Amiri Ayanna and their two young kids are living in Somerville "on $35,000 a year in unemployment and savings" now that Ariel has lost his job as a $170,000-a-year corporate lawyer.

Jackson writes:

[T]he job loss had some unintended perks: The family was able to save money — and spend more time together — on a two-week camping trip to attend a cousin's Texas wedding. And Ariel, who is considering becoming a stay-at-home dad for a year, is around more often to cook, practice violin with their 5-year-old son, and play with their 9-month-old son.

"It's hard to slow down. It's hard to step back," says Amiri Ayanna, who plans to begin a master's degree program at Harvard Divinity School this summer. But "it's a blessing in disguise."

Well, fine. But don't you think there's something awfully suspicious about that $35,000-a-year figure? We're not told if the Ayannas rent or own. But Somerville is a high-cost community. If they were somehow able to get away with paying just $1,500 a month in rent or mortgage payments, then they've only got $17,000 left for everything else — heat, electricity, food and (unless he's teaching himself) violin lessons for the 5-year-old. Their trip to Texas — which they write about on their blog — may have been cheap, but it surely wasn't free.

Either there's a large pile of money lurking in the background or the Ayannas are truly miracle-workers. But Jackson leaves us in the dark. Given how many people are struggling these days, it's pretty cavalier to suggest, on the basis of no evidence, that we could all live like the Ayannas if we were only willing to eat at home more often.

Update: Amiri Ayanna checks in, and says it's all legit. Hard to see how they make the numbers work, but there you go.

Obama and the media at 100 days

In my latest for the Guardian, I take a look at 100 days of the media covering the Obama presidency.

Media Nation in the news

I'm quoted in Stephanie Clifford's article in today's New York Times on a controversial front-page ad in the Los Angeles Times that sort of (but not really) looked like a news article.

NewsTrust J-hunt: The final five

My stint as host of NewsTrust's journalism topic area comes to an end today. Here are five stories I submitted this morning:

• For The New York Times, the digital future is now by Daniel Terdiman, CNET News
• TV Paparazzi Turn Cameras to Corporate Titans by Brian Stelter, The New York Times
• About that newspaper "doomsday" list by Alan D. Mutter, Reflections of a Newsosaur
• How Newspapers Must Change to Survive by Michael S. Malone, ABC News
• Brawl Street: Get Read to Buy Low! And Sell Die by Jon Stewart, "The Daily Show"

I could write an entire post on the last item, but I'll just say this: Stewart is perhaps the best and most important media critic we've had since A.J. Liebling.

His dissection of CNBC's Jim Cramer last night — as well as his two eight-minute pieces lampooning the so-called experts of CNBC (here and here) — will have, I predict, a major and well-deserved negative effect on the network.

On and on the NewsTrust J-hunt goes

But it all ends tomorrow! Today's five six picks:

• Many Would Shrug if Their Local Newspaper Closed by Andrew Kohut, Pew Research Center
  
• Iraqi who threw shoes at Bush jailed for 3 years by Hamza Hendawi, The Associated Press
• Life, online, after the Rocky Mountain News by Robert Niles, Online Journalism Review
• Google News Archive Search Shows Promise for News Organizations by Amy Gahran, Poynter.org
• Newspaper failures are old news. It’s time to focus on solutions. by Tom Regan, Christian Science Monitor
• The MinnPost Model: Is it sustainable? by Matt Snyders, City Pages

Here, once again, is NewsTrust's journalism topic page. Please consider taking part.

NewsTrust: The J-hunt continues

Five more stories on journalism for your perusal:

• APIs: The new distribution by Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine
• Defogging the Economic Crisis by Jamie McIntyre, American Journalism Review
• Why is Jim Cramer shouting at me? by Gabriel Winant, Salon
• CPJ calls for Iranian president's intervention in Saberi case by the Committee to Protect Journalists
• Behind the Incredibly Shrinking Media by Paul Armstrong, Business Week

If you'd like to join in the fun, sign up for NewsTrust and visit the journalism topic page.

Five more for NewsTrust's journalism hunt

Here are five more pieces about journalism that I've posted to NewsTrust.

• Get Off the Bus: The Future of Pro-Am Journalism by Amanda Michel, Columbia Journalism Review
• Preaching Ethics, D.C. Pol Threatens to Squash Tiny Paper by Marc Fisher, The Washington Post
• Four Types of Online Aggregation by Howard Owens, HowardOwens.com
• Journalism Goes Local with Times, Patch, New Start-ups by Michael Learmonth, Advertising Age
• Want to save your local paper? Read this first. by Alan D. Mutter, Reflections of a Newsosaur

Again, I invite you to register with NewsTrust, review stories and submit some that you find as well.