The problem with the MA media and Democrats.

[Mass]

For a long time, I have thought the treatment reserved to Senator Kerry was due to a problem with Senator Kerry. I have come to realize that it is not so, but by large a certain leaning toward center right politicians. It may have been that Senator Kennedy was such a giant that they did not dare be too nasty at him (well, the Harald did not hesitate to attack his private life, but not in the same way they do with others).

However, in the last year or so (and even in the last 4 years, it has become more and more clear that there is a political (as well as social) bias in our newsmedia. I started to notice it in the early 2000s, where the coverage of Jane Swift was below all standard. Certainly, I do not agree with her politics, but, just as last year when Martha Coakley ran for senator, the coverage was frankly sexist. Since 2006. the treatment of Deval Patrick is at the same lowest standard (with some racist underpinning that is really disturbing).

More recently, the double standard of treatment between Scott Brown and Deval Patrick, both when it comes to going out of state or promoting their book, is also stunning. But the kicker has certainly been reached today, where the Herald and the Globe have a lengthy treatment of a 50 year old story about Ted Kennedy renting a brothel in Mexico.

http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20110228report_ted_kennedy_arranged_to_rent_chilean_brothel/

or

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2011/03/01/fbi_memo_tied_kennedy_to_brothel_leftists_in_61/?page=full

Seriously, people from MA need to learn that their late senator had an "ïnteresting" private life? These issues were not covered during his life, I guess.:sarcasm:

What gets me is that the Globe beats the Herald at this muckraking game, by front paging it.



So, apologies to the Globe. It is not that they hate Kerry. It is that they are just another Murdoch-like paper.
and

[Blaukraut]

1. Exactly. I don't know if this should make Senator Kerry feel better

or worse. Glad that it's not a personal vendetta against him, or disturbed that the anti Dem bias is so entrenched even in our local media. I saw channel 5 news reporting on the Teddy story and couldn't believe my ears when they asked in 'concerned' tones if this will hurt Obama's chances and help Brown in '12.

[Mass]

2. I think Channel 5 is worth than WBZ abd WHDH, but they all had that as a story.

Because it is so relevant. However, this story was to my knowledge not covered http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/02/28/wmass_to_receive_federal_funds_for_rail_projects/

Because, as we all know, what happened 50 years ago is more relevant to people than the possibility to create jobs in the state.

[Blaukraut]

4. Nothing about this on local news. Saw it reported on the Ed Show

on MSNBC, mentioned in passing as a part of a conversation with a Wisconsin shop owner. This is excellent news. Of course the comment section in the Globe is the usual uninformed sewer with a couple of notable exceptions. Thank you, KarenCor. :P

[Luftmensch067]

7. WBUR (NPR station) had it this morning

They repeated it about five times in a one-hour period! Frankly, I don't know how anyone is reporting this with a straight face.

[karynnj]

3. OMG - EMK was not even Senator yet

Given 1969, I doubt anything on Ted Kennedy's personal life would even change his reputation - let alone hurt a sitting President, who was an innocent baby in 1961 when this occurred. As to helping Brown, his own book shows that his own life was likely not completely squeaky clean. (I completely assume that his stories of cocaine (which he rejected for orange juice) and Calvin Kline trying to tear off his shirt - likely was to inoculate him from any skeletons there.)

There is no reason - other than National Enquirer prurience that this FBI story needs be told and no way is it front page news.

[Blaukraut]

5. You read Brown's book?? And what is this about a shirt and CK??

It sure does seem that Scotty is getting in front of a couple of potential embarrassments!

[Mass]

6. Here. The Herald covered it (though it was through Margaret Eagan, who is, I guess, their token

democrat.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view/2011_0222lucky_for_scott_beefcake_sells/

I am so fed up with the guy. Cant he decide to do like Sara Palin and quit in the middle of his term. Unfortunately, we wont be that lucky.

[Blaukraut]

8. Jeez. Is he a politician or a sex symbol? Both?

The saddest part of all this is that enough MA voters will choose the empty-headed pretty (middle-aged) boy over someone eminently better qualified to represent us.

[karynnj]

9. Nope - just read the reviews and articles found by google

There were no details, just Brown's comments on when he lived the studio 54 life. I suspect that, like many, in that setting, he might have partied more than he is admitting. The comment in the review was that - as he was identified as the "casmo guy", there were people (he named 2 but I forgot the other) who would try to tear his shirt off.

- Wanted to add that I don't think ANY possible story there could hurt Brown now - but it could be embarrassing and this lets him get his story out first. (Think Obama's book mentioning his drug use - that no matter how HRC's allies tried, did not hurt him.)

[ProSense]

10. The entire media

shamefully right-leaning. The Kennedy piece was a real WTF?

I hope hyping Brown comes back to bite them and Republicans in the ass.

Will Brown vote for Wyden-Brown? He voted to repeal the health care law.

[beachmom]

11. Actually, these media outlets are full of liberals that are always

in a defensive crouch lest the wrath of the right wingers befall them. Frankly, I would prefer transparent conservative journalists who call it as they see it over these weak kneed liberal journalists who try to out do the other in getting the right wingers to "like" them. Of course, they'll never be accepted or respected by the Right yet they cater, cater, cater to them.

I really have had it with what Jay Rosen calls The View from Nowhere. They pretend not to have a point of view but instead end up being the worst of both worlds. Look at NPR and PBS -- they drift rightward while the Right has knives out to destroy them.

As to the Ted Kennedy story, there is a reason the Globe put it on the front page -- it sells papers. It's tawdry and attracts readers. I've read a lot about the Huff Po lately, and there are a lot of "tricks" to getting eyeballs, and famous politicians and brothels all in the same story is one way to do so.

Finally, you have to understand these political journalists only respect Savviness. They have never viewed JK as being particularly savvy and doubled down on that view after he lost in '04. Meanwhile, they think Brown IS savvy which is why the worship continues. Never mind if he isn't that smart or is all over the place on votes. He appears to be savvy in dealing with P.R. so that is their prevailing view.

[karynnj]

16. I think Kerry is as savvy as any other politician, but that there is a tension between

his ability to see good political (or diplomatic) paths and the ambition to be President vs a very strong moral core that has often driven him to spend energy and capital on things that do not have a political pay off - or can have a negative one. If he had just the former, he likely would have been seen as one of the most savvy politicians there is. If he were just the latter, on one hand he would never have voted for the IWR, but it is likely that he already would have out of the Senate - if he had ever won election to it.

In Clinton's book, in his discussion of the 1996 race, while not giving Kerry credit for many things he should have, Bill Clinton wrote that Kerry spent years working for disadvantaged kids - something that does not get votes. The sentence struck me as weird - as it seems to be what a good Senator should do - and Clinton seemed to both praise Kerry for it, while making it seem mystifying. What it seemed to be saying is that, Clinton would have worked on things for their political payoff - often doing good, but always doing what leads to the reward. Not to mention, there is nothing in Kerry's past like Clinton's craven political action of returning to Arkansas for the execution of criminal to show he was tough on crime and for the death penalty.

A clearer example, was that almost as soon as he entered the Senate, when vets came to him talking about being recruited for gun and drug running to aid the Contras, one source had a Kerry quote that that was not what he planned to do as a Senator, but it was to stop things like that that he became an activist. Now, with Reagan as President, the country moving rapidly to the right, and at least half the Democrats proudly supporting (legally) the Contras, committing time to this was not just not a good political move, but one that was very likely to have long term negative impacts. (In fact, you could argue that it was one reason for losing Florida) Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas - and had to know that something was happening, but kept a blind eye towards it - likely because of the political risk.

I wonder if, now that JK likely no longer has Presidential aspirations, whether the tension will be less - as he more often listens to his conscience. This will likely lead to the media thinking him even less savvy, but I suspect that the rewards of playing the game are less and the rewards of following his own conscience are more. I seriously doubt that the possible, though unlikely, loss of a sixth term is worth not standing for things he believes in. It also may be that at this point, following his view of what makes the world better is also what ultimately improves his legacy. He has nothing to gain from being a political hack.

[beachmom]

18. That's not the prevailing view in DC.

To them, he is by default unsavvy. So when he is obviously savvy (like his diplomacy in Afghanistan with Karzai), the press is completely surprised and wrote all these fawning articles to underline their surprise. Still, within a few weeks it was back to the CW that JK is unsavvy and transparently ambitious in a cringeworthy way (i.e. the whole SoS speculation).

[karynnj]

20. I quite agree

They also ignore that with NO support from any of them, he won the Democratic nomination for President and came very very close to the Presidency in 2004. In 2006, he was positioned near perfectly - in fact, likely so perfectly on the issues, that it was necessary to take him out - and they found an opportunity.

On the SoS speculation, they are the ones who can't see the forest for the trees. They ignore the situations where JK takes a position different from Obama - such as in Libya, Honduras, North Korea, and Afghanistan. (In fact, they IGNORE their own 2009 stories and now say Kerry supported Obama on Afghanistan as if his stated opinion was in favor of what they did.) They also ignore that Kerry was 100% on target on Egypt - and luckily for Obama, sources like Al Jazerra reported Kerry's position and linked him to Obama.


They also ignore that while JK wanted to be SoS, he was completely gracious when after giving Obama the keynote speech, an important endorsement and being an incredible campaign surrogate AND the person the media identified as eminently qualified, Obama made a strategic political choice. After the Egypt letter when the SoS thing came up again - Kerry's spokesperson was excellent in pointing out that the speculation was because he was doing such a great job in the role he already had. (In fact, I remember several times where Biden spoke of potentially being JK's SoS - and Holbrooke did as well at least once - Kerry never brought up any cabinet position - other then when he refused to say if he would rule out accepting one.)

[karynnj]

12. The Boston Globe NOW puts the article in perspective - it was Judicial Watch

- a right wing group - that uses various appeals to make things appear real when they aren't. Now the BG is pointing out that MUCH of the FBI file stuff was never verified. Somehow, this does not make up for a front page story.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/blogs/the_angle/2011/03/hoovers_fbi.html

(Judicial Watch in 2004 petitioned the Navy to investigate Kerry's awards. In September the Navy issued a statement that his awards were properly awarded. This did not stop them from repeating that "they were under investigation" - and later distorting the words of teh Navy to make it seem like they did not 100% back JK, which they did. )

[Mass]

13. Unfortunately, it is a blog only article, which means nobody will read it.

In addition, it is still highly irrelevant and is an editorial, which means that the reporting team has NOTHING to do with this.

[karynnj]

14. Exactly - a very small fig leaf for what they did

They really should be ashamed of themselves. Even if Teddy were alive and had the ability to speak out, it is just wrong to print a non-verified story from 1961. (Note that it was wrong to go after anything George Bush did when he was young and irresponsible - or under 40.)

I didn't realize that it was blog only - I only got that it was back pages, after the fact, and an editorial.

[Mass]

15. It took just two days to the Globe to publish an editorial saying there no there there.

Sigh.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2011/03/03/files_say_little_about_kennedy_but_plenty_about_hoovers_fbi/

Files say little about Kennedy, but plenty about Hoover’s FBI

[Mass]

17. You know something is wrong with the newsmedia when it is a comedian that does this reporting.

http://www.google.com/reader/view/?hl=en#stream/feed%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2Ftalking-points-memo

During this time, the true news continue to tell us that teachers are paid more than the average population. Because, of course, you can be teachers without a HS diploma, and teaching is an easy job. :sarcasm: (Or are the stats for postgraduate workers not available or not giving the message the media want to send?)

[beachmom]

19. Yeah, Stewart was in top form.

Honestly, all the teacher bashing these past few years struck me as suspicious, and I'm not even from a family of teachers. The bashing of teacher's unions and teachers in general needs to stop. The worst offenders come from "liberals" like Joe Klein.

[Mass]

21. Today the Globe certainly rose to high levels of stupidity.

In an editorial on Libya, they succeed to mildly criticize Kerry while taking the same position he took.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2011/03/08/for_now_us_must_resist_call_for_no_fly_zone_over_libya/

For now, US must resist call for no-fly zone over Libya
March 8, 2011

IF IT becomes clear that Moammar Khadafy is using air power for mass killings of civilians, then Senator John Kerry’s call for the creation of a no-fly zone should be heeded. But until then, President Obama should take the advice of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and senior military officials who oppose the idea. They warn that a no-fly zone would require attacks on Libyan air defenses — an act of war — followed by extensive patrolling of the skies over a large country. It’s a big commitment, with plenty of potential pitfalls, and Obama should resist it for now.
...
If Khadafy’s air power, which is currently targeting rebel fighters and arms depots, were to be directed as an all-out terror weapon against the civilian population, then Obama should heed Kerry’s call for a no-fly zone. In that event, it should be a a NATO mission, preferably supported by the Arab League and the African Union. Ideally, it would also have UN Security Council authorization to blunt the inevitable claims of American interference.
...

Am I wrong to think this is what Kerry said on CBS? So, what is it? Laziness? Lack of reading comprehension?

Though, after reflection, this editorial is about as stupid, if anything because I cant make sense of this. Hell, Obama was a student when he lived in a basement. Given prices in Boston, even 20 years ago, most students were lucky to be able to secure a basement. The comparison with Jefferson or Washington totally escapes me. And what does that have to do with securing a legacy in any case?

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2011/03/08/obama_up_from_the_basement/

Obama: Up from the basement
March 8, 2011
E-mail|Print|Reprints|Comments (7) Text size – +
John Adams had a mansion in Quincy. John F. Kennedy had a compound in Hyannis. Barack Obama has the basement apartment in Somerville where he lived while attending Harvard Law School in the late ’80s and early ’90s. Two years ago, Somerville aldermen approved a resolution asking the city to designate Obama’s building at 365 Broadway, in the Winter Hill neighborhood better known for organized crime, with a commemorative marker. But the city hasn’t moved, and neither has Obama’s former landlord, John K. Holmes, who remembers fixing the future president’s dishwasher and getting his electricity repaired.


Tweet Be the first to Tweet this! to take shape before I do anything,’’ explains Holmes, who nonetheless says he has pondered what he might put on a plaque — “that he formulated his sense of right and wrong here, that he saw the people of Somerville as hardworking, that he lived in a basement.’’

Obama seemed amused when the idea of a plaque was mentioned to him by Melissa Hurley Sullivan, the wife of the alderman who sponsored the original resolution. So when he visits the Boston area today, the president probably won’t be disappointed to find that his former dive remains unmarked. He might be more struck to learn that the rent — $900 a month when Obama lived there 20 years ago — has barely risen: It’s $1,150 now.

It says as much about the US presidency that one lived in a Somerville basement as that many lived on Virginia plantations. Obama’s place in history is secure, but Holmes is right: Let him build a legacy before beginning the commemorations.

[karynnj]

22. I agree with you - that is precisely what JK said

He said that what the Obama administration was doing was very good and he said:
"I would only consider it's implementation if Gadhafi himself were using it as a means of terror, as a means of massacring large numbers of civilians. And I think it is only then that the global community would say, 'Uh-oh, we've got to do something'," http://www.voanews.com/english/news/US-Senators-Push-for-a-Libya-No-Fly-Zone-117499793.html

This is not only what the BG is for, but absolutely an example of the "global test" that Republicans pretended was hard to understand in 2004. The sad thing is that the BG is not alone in trying to portray JK more hawkish than he was - the NYT did as well. It is interesting seeing Obama follow JK's first statement - saying both that Gadaffi must go and that top officials need to consider that they could be tried for war crimes if they follow and there is massive killing. I wonder if the false equation of JK's position with McCain's, McConnell's and Lieberman's, while taking JK's position for themselves, is because this follows Egypt where no one was better in taking a consistent position that really did attempt to understand both sides.

Fortunately, JK's position was correctly portrayed on Al Jezeera - which is important as we will need some leaders with some credibility in the Arab world - and JK has worked to have credibility. Do you think the BG could destroy Kerry's credibility with the center left?

The other editorial is pretty vapid. I bet his housing was quite average for Harvard Law students - just as my daughter's share of a NYC apartment - slightly less than $1000 is typical for NYC grad students. This is not the wealth of JFK or the poverty of Abe Lincoln, but pretty much the average. (Obama did not live his life in poverty - his grandparents were able to send him to an exclusive private high school. I don't know if this was on scholarship or not, but it means that he had an elite education. )

[karynnj]

23. Continuing as Scott Brown's campaign megaphone, the BG prints his OP-ED today on jobs

This after three articles since Friday - one saying he is a power player in the Senate, they give him an op-ed. (I can't believe that JK chooses not to offer his to the BG and prefers the Bh and smaller papers.)

Here is Brown's Op-ed - http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/03/08/the_job_ahead_of_us/

Nowhere does he explain his votes against the small business jobs bill, that actually does things similar to his recommendations.

[Mass]

24. Brown's Oped does nothing to elevate the level of the OP secition today.

Totally empty.

To be honest, Kerry had a frontpage , above the fold article yesterday about Libya and several other articles. The difference is that Kerry's articles are about things that actually matter, not political process.

But I have often wondered about the fact that Kerry's Opeds are rarely in the BG. It is hard for me to think that they would blow him off like that.

[karynnj]

25. True, but the BG has had articles on every piece of legislation that

Brown sponsors or co-sponsors. Including the pretty strange Bill Nelson/Scott Brown bill that would have the IRS give taxpayers a "receipt" that explains where tax money went. Many comments asked how much this basically propaganda piece would cost. The Boston Globe never countered the 2004 lie that Kerry never had any legislation passed - and many have further distorted that to he never wrote any legislation.

The fact is the bill with Klobichar is similar to many Kerry/Snowe bills in the past. Other things like getting the money hidden overseas and taxed is a long time Kerry position and he and Baucus have written legislation that actually does this for some of the money and it passed.

I only noticed that the opeds were NOT usually in the BG when you mentioned it.

[karynnj]

26. Now they have Brown's position on a no fly zone and are incorrectly making JK more hawkish

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2011/03/brown_no_rush_o.html?comments=all&plckCurrentPage=0

Great comment by someone -
Funny how folks in the past have blamed the BG for being very pro-lib/dem; this article seems to be leaning the other way! "Theo" appears to want to stir the pot up a bit by stating the two senators differ, making Kerry appear to be the warmonger and Brown the calm, cool collected one. However, both set conditions of civilian casualties (Kerry, an airial "massacre", Brown the use of mercenaries) to implement a no fly zone. Sounds pretty similar to me. I guess the "contrast" is that Kerry wants to "prepare" now and not wait until the evidence starts to flow in. Kerry also indicated he wants Allies involved where Brown didn't say. From my standpoint is seems that Kerry has thought it thru a bit more and is trying to be proactive, giving Khadafy reasons to restrain his actions (i.e. a plan, planes, and hellfire missiles ready and waiting!). Brown on the other hand is almost encouraging Khadafy with his words, aluding to a position that nothing should be done until it becomes a moot point!

(IMO This is a fantastic summary of the differences - but I think an aerial massacre is a more legitimate and pertinent cause for a no fly zone than the use of mercenaries, which in fat is already supposed to be the case. (They seem to have turned off comments about an hour ago - so I can't make that point.)