Education: "Thank God for Massachusetts"

On education, the The Atlantic Monthly is an interesting magazine. It's honest enough to be honest about the facts in its education reports and articles. An article some time ago on No Child Left Behind made clear that the target that every single American must possess adult-level math and English literacy skills by 2014 was a political decision. Politicians simply didn't have the courage to admit that somebody learning English, or with severe learning disabilities, wasn't going to get there. In the current issue, the Atlantic gives some notice to Diane Ravitch, who has reversed her stand for the test-and-punish system for something that matches up with research. She has gone back on previous policies based on the copious research that speaks in another direction.

Of course, while admitting the facts -- something the Boston Globe generally doesn't do -- it still pushes the common viewpoint of an elite thoroughly unfamiliar with public education. Of course, the Atlantic sees that nothing in education can't be fixed by the judicious firing of many people. Hence, a worshipful article on what "Teach for America" can tell us (hint, it's common sense to anyone familiar with public education, and epiphanic for the ignorant). This issue's profile of Diane Ravitch is knee-capped by a harrumphing parenthetical that the editor disagrees with her, and a coda for "balance" that praises the superintendent in Rhode Island who arbitrarily fired every teacher in her high school.

So, much like the Wall Street Journal on economics, the Atlantic gives every sign of strong fact-based reporting on education that is utterly ignored by the editorial staff. Hence an article online that includes the following:

One cannot help but thank God for Massachusetts, which offers the United States some shred of national dignity—a result echoed in other international tests. "If all American fourth- and eighth-grade kids did as well in math and science as they do in Massachusetts," writes the veteran education author Karin Chenoweth in her 2009 book, How It’s Being Done, "we still wouldn’t be in Singapore’s league but we’d be giving Japan and Chinese Taipei a run for their money."

I can't see why we'd want to emulate that gerontocracy. They do well on test scores and horrible on democracy. I also highlight this author's kowtowing to the Chinese-mandated name for Taiwan.

What did Massachusetts do? Well, nothing that many countries (and industries) didn’t do a long time ago. For example, Massachusetts made it harder to become a teacher, requiring newcomers to pass a basic literacy test before entering the classroom. (In the first year, more than a third of the new teachers failed the test.) The state also required students to pass a test before graduating from high school—a notion so heretical that it led to protests in which students burned state superintendent David Driscoll in effigy. To help tutor the kids who failed, the state moved money around to the places where it was needed most. "We had a system of standards and held people to it—adults and students," Driscoll says.

Does the article mention how the standards were arbitrarily set when not enough teachers and students weren't failing? No. Does it even attempt to find a reason for Massachusetts' success beyond the preset viewpoints of the editors of the Atlantic? Of course not. But it does admit the truth -- the Bay State was once the national leader on education. We may still be, but not for long.

I say "was" advisedly. Obama's people plow ahead with Bush's failed policies on education. One innovation is to dangle a fractional percentage boost in federal funding for Massachusetts if we dumb down our standards, double the amount of testing in the classroom, short-circuit local democracy, and change laws to fit the model of an education secretary whose own reputation is built on cheap tricks, articles like this need to be cherished. Because I doubt they'll be written five years from now.

From time to time

This blog went dark as personal life got more complicated, aside from a very few occasional posts. Honestly, I figured that what little I felt a need to say I could say on BMG.

That was before my recent post on BMG suggesting Menino for Senate was picked up by the Globe, who asked the mayor's office for a reaction. Meanwhile, the Herald is pushing Brown for Prez. Imagine that -- a ticket where Sarah Palin is the experienced candidate.

Crazy Commonwealth we live in. I may need to resume blogging.

Huh? What?

You mean I'm supposed to keep this blogging thing going still? Since when?

Okay, it's been a bit of a break enforced by real-life. I have a great thing lined up on the reality v. the rhetoric of pensions, I'll type and buff up in the next few days. However, there's good stuff out there worth reading:

I've dabbled (here and here for starters) in the Globe's inability to talk straight about education, but this guy is doing a comprehensive series on the subject over at BMG. Wow.

Speaking of which, Arne Duncan (whose self-reported success stories fall apart under close scrutiny) cheers on the arbitrary firing of Rhode Island teachers. I wonder if the Obama Administration would be so enthusiastic if the victims were financiers rather than teachers. As I note here, the Globe's reaction is that this is a blunt questionable reaction that is nonetheless a good idea.

If you want to learn what real government waste looks like, check out this publicly built, brand-new $160 million airport in Japan that hosts... one flight per day.

RedMassGroup shows its true feelings -- remember when offices didn't belong to the holder, but they were all "the people's seat"?

Why is it that I read the headline "US school cancels prom because of 'lesbian date'" as a headline, I just know that this school will be located south of DC?

And of course, I could never say no to noternie (purveyor of Someday I Will). That's coming up soon.

Question of scale I guess...

Why is something like this presented as a human interest oddity:

A shaman in Norway has suggested aboriginal people in B.C. might have cursed the Nordic country's Olympic athletes...when Norway's early results in the Vancouver Games were not as good as expected, the Norwegian broadcaster NRK sought out a Sami shaman — or indigenous spiritualist — who speculated his counterparts in B.C. might be the cause.

The main reactions are ones of mocking dismissal, treating this story as a spiritual amuse-bouche. Meanwhile this is seen as a serious (if outrageous) statement by millions:

Pat Robertson, the host of the "700 Club," blamed the tragedy on something that "happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it."...
The Haitians "were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III and whatever," Robertson said on his broadcast Wednesday. "And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the French.' True story. And so, the devil said, 'OK, it's a deal.' "

Thinking of this sort has engendered actual discussions here and here, for example.

As for the wider scope of the Vancouver 2010 games, it's been interesting contrasting the coverage from American/Canadian sources, and the far less fawning -- even acerbic -- British. I'd say a lot of the British writing makes sense.

PS: I wrote up a thing of Louis Riel months ago. Think the story of that 19th century isn't still sharp? Check this out:

Liberals are demanding a Tory MP apologize for criticizing Métis leader Louis Riel. Edmonton MP Peter Goldring sent out a pamphlet in December to "set the record straight" about Riel's actions in the late 1800s...Winnipeg Liberal MP Anita Neville said the Conservative party should apologize to the Métis for what she calls a "smear campaign" against the founder of Manitoba.

Reading elections: Lessons from Japan

Today, a note on how implacably elections are reduced to a single-issue frame so quickly and easily. Many Bay Staters are reasonably irritated that outsiders (especially those in Washington, DC) are taking Brown’s victory last week as a repudiation of the health care reform process underway in the nation’s capital. While health care was an issue in this election, it was not the only issue. Such a view ignores Brown’s skilled campaign, the Coakley implosion, Democratic over-confidence, and a number of other factors in the result. Worse still, it led to a short press to force House passage of the Senate health care bill, almost regardless of the bill’s contents.

Many bad effects of the special Senate election stem not from the results themselves, but a widespread inability to view an election result as having more than one cause. Just as the Brown victory was likely a combination of the factors listed above (see Nate Silver’s dissection) but has been reduced to a health-care referendum by DC Republicans, it has been simplified a populist surge among Bay State Republicans, and a poor Coakley campaign among most Democrats. However, this tendency to over-simplify election results is not necessarily ideological, nor is it restricted to the American press. One obvious example is the tendency to view every Israeli election as turning on relations with the Palestinian government(s). The fact that Netanyahu was largely elected on economic concerns rather than relations with Fatah and Hamas was almost ignored worldwide. A smaller example presents itself today in the BBC’s summary of the recent election for the mayoralty of Nago on the island of Okinawa. I choose the BBC as the high-water mark of thinking English-language journalism, and even that august organization has failed the test today.

This election occurred against the background of change in Japan. Recently elected prime minister Yukio Hatoyama has declared an interest in a more equitable relationship with the United States, and has been seeking allies within and without Japan on that score. Meanwhile, the US military was well into plans to move a large base on Okinawa (a source of great tension with the surrounding Japanese) per government request, when Hatoyama was elected. His activism on this issue has led to some arch tension between the two countries.

Anyway, let’s get into the story. The prospective new site of the base, the city of Nago on Okinawa, held a recent election wherein a candidate opposed to the base won election, beating the incumbent by a 53-47 margin. And universally, this election is being back-labeled as a referendum on the incoming American base. If the BBC is playing the role of FoxNews, Hatoyama is playing the role of the Republicans, trying furiously to spin a victory of a distant candidate who shares a belief on one issue as confirmation that the people are on his side.

But there are many things at play here (a partial list of issues from the subjective Stars and Stripes for example). Japanese frustration with incumbency has reached levels beyond even the American public and is narrowly targeted at the Liberal Democratic Party, that of the former mayor of Okinawa. The victor, Susumu Inamine, was kept at arm’s length by the government throughout the campaign, the actions of a popular party that wants to claim someone else’s victory of their own only after the fact. At the same time, the LDP is identified with the assimilation of the unique religious and cultural traditions and dialect of Okinawa into the larger Japanese culture, a trend that concerns many Okinawans. Add to this the ongoing problem of the economy – the main point of discussion about the base in Nago wasn’t about the cultural disruption of the American military, but the economic impact of it – not to mention the ground-level dynamics of the election, something that was a major factor in last week’s result for Brown.

The fact is that this election result was the sum of an array of elements, and not one issue -- you have a complex beast that’s being oversimplified by media from outside the electorate.

Kinda like our own Senate election. One wonders how many frustrated Okinawans today are having words put into their mouths by the Japanese prime minister and the worldwide media, just as is happening here in Massachusetts. Something to keep in mind next time we’re told why an election ended the way it did -- at home or abroad.

PS: Not at all related, but worth passing on; I present to you the most professional newscaster in Australia. That's the danger of using a live feed as a backdrop.

I make the National Review!

For all the wrong reasons, of course. The Scott Brown subpage at National Review picked up my last post here (via BMG) as "When Massachusetts Democrats stop being polite and start getting real". My biggest exposure since DailyKos picked up on a sarcastic remark I made almost exactly one year ago. I guess I do my best writing in January.

I was pleased that the writer understood the tone I was attempting, although he indicated so with a dated cultural reference. Naturally, National Review was mendacious about what I said, claiming (without any supporting links) that the agenda promoted by Brown was prevailing public opinion. Of course, polling is against the excise tax on good health care plans and oppose the War in Iraq and believe we've done all we can there. But who reads NR for the truth.

The best part, of course, is in the last line. Unwilling to give anyone else the last word, the post ends with an attempt at flippancy:

With this kind of support for Coakely, who needs negative ads?

A tip to this guy: it's tough to condescend if you can't spell a candidate's name right.

PS: Andrew Sullivan quotes my title, too. This should be my last blog post...I'm peaking.

What a train wreck...

"They can’t mess with our religion," Mr. Johnson told The Boston Globe. "They owe us a small lump sum for this."

This statement encapsulates the current brouhaha in Taunton. In sum:

[A student's] father, Charles Johnson, stirred up controversy when he told reporters of various newspapers this week that his son was suspended for drawing a picture of the crucifixion as part of a class project to draw a picture about the holidays.

... District officials say the boy told his teacher that it was himself on the cross, not Jesus. The drawing was not part of a school project. The boy was not suspended from school, but rather given a psychological evaluation out of concern that the picture was a cry for help. The picture circulated by the media is not the same one that prompted teachers to report the boy.

The town’s mayor called for [the superintendent] to apologize to the boy and his family. But he has since decided to back the school’s decisions.

The Christian Science Monitor, there. Area columnists such as this dingbat, this fool, and that moron are trying to feel outraged, not even mentioning the lack of factual clarity in this situation. It's reminiscent of the Gates Arrest affair, where we had a he-said/he-said disagreement about basic facts that occluded any chance of seeing what really happened. Some people remain determined not to learn their lesson, but would rather implicate one side based on no real knowledge whatsoever. Thus the media stampedes to finger-pointing, oblivious of their own obliviousness.

I find it suspicious that a teacher could, or would, single-handedly order a psychological evaluation of a child. I find it odd that the aggrieved party starts demanding monetary compensation from Minute One. I find it curious that the mayor changed positions quickly, even at the cost of opening himself up. I find it disturbing that some people just love the idea of being persecuted. I wouldn't be the faintest bit surprised to learn that this father has what the media likes to call a "colorful history". You don't convert that fast from victimization to extortion without lots of practice.

Now, the school did make a mistake in presuming that this young child knew the true nature of a cross. Apparently, he had recently visited a large, religious seasonal lighting display, where I'm sure Jesus on the cross was visible. However, a young mind may not realize that the cross was an instrument of torture, pain, and execution...he may well think that's just "where Jesus is", just as Santa is in a sleigh. The connection adults create between a cross and pain is not necessarily in the mind of a child, where the cross is mainly a symbol of some ideas he is told to believe. Without clarifying that issue (which the school apparently failed to do), there resulted a rush to judgment. As usual the purported victim, the child, is quickly becoming rather ignored.

The same sort of rush to judgment that is happening now in the media. In their eagerness to drive the bandwagon, they haven't checked for its integrity. I would suggest cooling down, waiting for the facts or even reconciling oneself to the idea that the facts may never be known, instead of a starting a new Christmas Persecution.

Not that that's going to happen.

Western Iowa loves the Falcons, and other thoughts...

At times when I'm really, really bored, I head over to Awful Announcing, a great blog on sports media, and stare at the broadcast maps, and ask pointless questions. These are maps that show which NFL games are broadcast by a particular network at a particular time...and they lead to strange thoughts. I'll borrow one to demonstrate:

RED: Washington Redskins @ Philadelphia Eagles (FOX, 1pm)
BLUE: Tampa Bay Bucs @ Atlanta Falcons (FOX, 1pm)
GREEN: Carolina Panthers @ NY Jets (FOX, 1pm)
YELLOW: Seattle Seahawks @ St. Louis Rams (FOX, 1pm)

Most of this makes sense...each team's metro area sees their game. There's a top-line match-up for most uninvolved media markets. This particular Sunday afternoon, it was Washington-Philadelphia.

But it's the weird little parts that confuse me. Why is a small chunk of New York prevented from seeing the Jets? Blackout rules can't really apply . Does Western Iowa really love the Falcons or Bucs that much, or is a local on one of the teams? Is there a knot of enthusiastic Panthers fans in Louisiana? Why can't Miami watch their division rivals, the Jets?

I'm sure there are perfectly good reasons for all these strange little oddities. I just have no idea what they are.

Globe staff has fun?

I am given to understand that some of the greatest fun that can be had by newspaper staffers is the juxtaposition of different items for humor's sake. Unlike those in the rarified air of opinion-making, these folks carry out subtle digs for the benefit of alert readers.

Hence I wonder if it's a coincidence that we see this article in today's Globe:

It looks as if five questions will be on next year’s statewide ballot in Massachusetts...a third would lift the cap on the number of charter schools from its current 120.

About two inches away from that article comes this:

A Springfield charter school placed under investigation by state education officials after its test scores spiked dramatically is now being run by a convicted felon....Swan pleaded guilty in 2007 to a $900,000 bid-rigging scheme at the Southwest Community Health Center where he was director. He was sentenced to two years of probation, including a year of house arrest.

On the other hand, an expert in bid-fixing is completely at home in Paul Reville's world of education.

I could go much more in-depth about this on the utter lack of democratic control or accountability for charter schools, but I'm just not in that kind of mood today. But I can't stop wondering how aggressively charter schools sought signatures from students' families on their ballot question -- using school resources for such politicking is par for the course for these non-public institutions.

However, I would refer you to this piece about changing school start times, something I brought up earlier in my occasional series on cheap and easy ways to improve public education.

Boston Globe endorses Charter Schools, hope

The Boston Globe today continued its practice of endorsing any Democrat running for charter schools. In 2006, they went for Deval Patrick in the primary, a man who never attended a public school in Massachusetts outside of photo ops. In 2008 it was Barack Obama, a man whose "Race to the Top" program seeks to avoid other branches of government, or respect of federalism, in its efforts to push the privatization of education. And today it was Alan "Who?" Khazei, who hopes to leverage this endorsement into a stunning jump into third place next Tuesday.

There are two significant commonalities to Deval, Obama, and Khazei: they speak in generic terms of hope and good intention, and they advocate the privatization and union-busting of education through the lever of charter schools. Of course, the insanely rich people running the Globe into the ground have their own problems with unions, and they know a fellow-traveler when they see one:

Khazei speaks admiringly of streetwise education reformers who, having seen challenging conditions in urban classrooms, dreamed up such innovations as charter schools and Teach for America.

Take it from this massive corporation -- those unions get in the way of "streetwise reforms" such as pay cuts, curtailing benefits, unilateral policy changes, and arbitrary firings. Heck, invading a country on no real provocation was a "streetwise foreign policy reform", too. The Globe's liberal use of magic words doesn't strengthen their argument. Then again, as I've noted before, the Globe's grasp of public education is alarmingly tenuous. When the editorial board writes about its "high hopes" for Khazei, I think it's clear what they're hoping for.

Something you won't see in the Globe...

It turns out that when you get layers of bureaucrats out of the way, and you get out from underneath the privatizers and sloganeers in the Governor's Office, you can get some good education done. Though still a work in progress, a Boston school actually run by teachers is proving to be successful, according to one skeptical parent.

As a pilot school, the BTU school is still part of Boston Public Schools, but it has more freedom when it comes to curriculum and budget matters. Among the biggest differences between the Union school (as I saw it referred to in school literature) and standard BPS schools:

• Instead of principals, they have co-lead teachers. These teachers will probably teach about one period a day and spent the rest of their time on administrative tasks.
• All students have Spanish three times a week.
• Students also have music every day.
• Science and social studies are integrated into the curriculum, rather than having special teachers assigned to those subjects. History lessons start at the K1 level. I feel like social studies and science often get left behind in this age of testing.
• Although school had only been in session for nine weeks, there were many student projects hanging in the hallways.
• Several classes have already been on field trips to the arboretum and Spectacle Island.

I'll admit to concern over the new practice of having teachers moonlight in science or social studies, as if those subjects require less specialized knowledge and training than math, ELA, or music. I've witnessed this in action a few times, and it never works out well for the students.

Pilot schools are the way to go...frankly, one thing our public education system needs is more diversity, moving away from the academic pipeline model...many more pilots, vocational, aggie, and especially magnet schools. This is a good first step.

Of course, you'll never see anything positive about teachers or public education in the Globe, which came out powerfully in favor of two unfunded mandates from schools. If these mandates pass and schools prove unable to do more with less, I'm sure the Globe will reiterate how evil all unions are.

Scot LeHigh tries other fields

After reading Scot's evident confusion over the legislative process, where voting to push a bill on isn't the same as voting for the final bill, I wonder how things would go if LeHigh had to analyze other fields. This what Scot said about Capuano's vote:

Oh my. For Capuano’s sake, let’s hope the congressional health plan offers coverage for candidates who become so dizzy from turning political somersaults that they suffer self-inflicted injuries to the foot.

Of course, Capuano's position hasn't changed -- he's pushing for health care reform, even if that means changing the button he pushes on his voting thingy at different stages of the process. Something apparently too complex for LeHigh to understand.

So let's ask Scot about football:

Oh my. Belicheck keeps changing his mind about Tom Brady. In one drive alone, he flip-flopped three times! Brady threw the ball...then he didn't. Then he did again. How is any football fan to have confidence in Belicheck if Belicheck can't decide whether Tom Brady should throw the ball??

Scot on the stock market:

Oh my. My stockbroker sure seems to be dizzy. Just three months ago, he told me to buy a stock. A month ago he said to "hold" it. Now today he wants me to sell. I've learned a lot about my stockbroker this season...and it's not good.

Scot on medicine:

Oh my. My doctor sure is out to lunch. I went to see him yesterday and received a flu vaccine. Yesterday, the vaccine was a good thing. So I saw him this morning for another shot, and he said no! Aren't vaccines a good thing? That flip-flopper in a lab coat better not turn me down tomorrow...

Scot on being a pedestrian*

Oh my. The guy walking down Beacon Street in front of me is making me dizzy. For the last two blocks, when he's gotten to the curb, he's kept walking. Suddenly, on this key issue, this key block -- he stops! This idiot better get out of my way, because consistency is what counts no matter the situation, and I'm crossing the street right now no matter what this guy thinks...

*Granted, there's likely no better word to describe LeHigh's writing as pedestrian...

More flailing from the Globe on education

I'm indebted to Mark Bail for pointing out another Boston Globe attempt to rationalize its hostility to labor organization in education. Unsurprisingly, what we have is an emotion commanding an army of words, all of which are marching around the page in search of an idea. The sole theme about the Globe's "coverage" of union organization in public education is that something is going wrong, and it must somehow be the unions' fault. Last summer the Globe talked about middle shcools. This year, it's pilot schools and/or Teach for America, depending on the paragraph you read. Here's an early line from the editorial:

But no collaborative spirit is evident in the union’s resistance to bringing the acclaimed Teach for America program to Boston or creating more pilot schools.

Anyone familiar with the modus operandi of the modern media probably is already noticing a favorite technique -- slip in a favorable adjective with no substantiation. Just who is "acclaiming" Teach for America is never specified. The person speaking so well of the program, our anonymous Globe writer, wants you to accept on face-value the greatness of a program that will make you a teacher in just five weeks of training! Never mind that an "accelerated" college-based program for college graduates comprises a full year of courses, with enough credits to get you halfway to a master's degree. TfA can do it in five weeks. Idealism is a necessary, but hardly sufficient quality of good teaching, and heaven forbid teaching professionals are less than eager to see their qualified colleagues turned out the door in favor of an Insta-Teacher.

The editorial isn't about Teach for America, of course, but rather about the handiest club of the day with which to beat labor, which for a couple paragraphs is Teach for America. Having gotten no mileage out of its first claim, the Globe turns to another, pilot schools. In fact, we quickly learn that this is op-ed isn't about Teach for America, but, um, pilot schools. Or something...

In 1994, the BTU and the Boston Public Schools agreed to establish pilot schools, flexible but still unionized schools that were meant to be the system’s response to independent, nonunionized, charter schools. When that reform bogged down because of union concerns about the number of unpaid hours teachers were putting in at pilots, the city granted the BTU concessions in a 2006 pact aimed at resolving that issue.Despite that, however, the BTU leadership unsubtly discouraged efforts to convert traditional schools to pilots.

So we are once again told to take on faith the Globe's opinion that the teacher's union was making things difficult for the city three years ago (this time about pilot schools), so we should be angry about labor rights today. It seems that this writer believed that two half-points would equal one supported claim. It does not.

Regardless, the writer pushes on. (This op-ed is worth reading, only to get an approximate sense of what an op-ed must look like early in the editing process). The Globe apparently feels that it has succeed in its mission of making its readers angry about...well I'm not sure what. But they should be angry, and the readers should be anti-labor and pro Thomas Menino and the school committee. After flailing around long enough to fill the empty space on the op-ed page, the writer goes for his/her coup de grâce:

So here’s a word of advice to the BTU. If you want to be treated like a partner in school-improvement efforts, you have to show that you’re a willing partner.

Considering that the Globe's corporate parent is trying to balance its poorly managed books on the back of its own union, it's no surprise that labor is a bad guy in its pages. However, the editorial staff of the Globe is ostensibly able to write a column that makes a central point and backs it up with evidence, and on that score this column fails. There is a theme -- unions bad! -- but no claim upon which to hang that theme, much less evidence to back up the claim.

And I'm sure that's the fault of the teacher's unions, too.

Vennochi on Anonymity: Preserving the Gatekeeper Role

Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi, who occasionally gets things right, brandishes her Old Media bona fides in a column today. Over at BMG, regular poster "Ernie Boch, III" has been agitating for a boycott of Howie Carr's radio show. Now, Carr is a Jurassic mouthpiece, a spokesman for everyone left behind in an era of equality and fairness, and the city would be better off without him on radio. At some point, I'm not really sure why, "Ernie" took it upon himself to see if he could make that happen.

EBIII, as he is known, is getting a little traction on this. As with many bloggers, EBIII chooses to remain anonymous, which has created some headaches. Both Howie Carr and car dealer Ernie Boch, Junior are trying to find someone to spill EBIII's name, presumably to do to him what a lowlife Alaskan politician to an anonymous blogger last year. Carr feels under threat, and Boch, Jr. apparently is sick of dealing with stupid potential customers who don't get a joke. So setting out to violate a person's right to privacy seems fair to them, I guess. I don't think too many people need to take lessons on integrity from Howie Carr and a car dealer, and Joan doesn't help with her column. The key line:

But the issue is also the Internet’s ability to give cover to critics who don’t have to do what Carr does - own their opinions.

Bloggers take the cover of anonymity for good reason -- they don't have the protections that Carr and Vennochi do, but want to talk anyway. See, Carr (and Vennochi) get plenty of help in the quest to "own their opinions". They have jobs that require them to have and "own" opinions, and have contractual language that encourages and protects that exercise. They rake in good money in this quest, and their value often goes up if fired for a particularly bold opinion, at which point they get a new contract with a different media outlet. Unlike many bloggers, Howie & Joan get rewarded for crazy opinions, whereas many of us would get rewarded with a pink slip in our personal jobs. Vennochi even belongs to a union (the Boston Newspaper Guild) that runs to court regularly in case anyone thinks of firing Vennochi because she declared her opinion.

On the other side is EBIII, who doesn't have these protections built into his working and personal life, and may work in any of a dozen jobs that would result in his firing if it became known that he is using his First Amendment rights on his own time (just put "blogger fired" into Google if you require case studies).

Vennochi is calling out people who would dare to use the same rights as her, despite not enjoying the extensive protections she enjoys. This is equivalent to a big kid showing up for Pop Warner football all suited up, and complaining that everyone else on the field wants to wear pads as well. If Vennochi would like to get EBIII (or myself) membership into a union which will go to court for me so quickly on this issue, we could probably work something out. Until then, EBIII is smart to take advantage of the security extended to his personal and professional life that anonymity provides, a security used by an illustrious roster that includes Mark Felt and Ben Franklin.

I think what upsets so many traditional media outlets -- ones that used unnamed sources for anything from the President's policy priorities to the condition of Tom Brady's shoulder -- is that EBIII is choosing anonymity for himself. Media is used to the privileged position of granting anonymity to "worthy" sources with something to interest them, and refusing to those protections to those who don't "deserve" them. Anonymity provides bloggers with the chance to enter the conversation even when it involves personal risk. Nobody has to beg a reporter or have access to offer in return for that protection -- we just take it and keep on running.

And in case there was a threat that Vennochi would be taken seriously, she follows up with:

The blogosphere opened up the public conversation to new, thoughtful voices, but it should not provide a shield to hide biases and private agendas.

How many times, over and over again, have we dirty smelly bloggers been forced to root out the biases and private agendas of media sources and participants that the media is too lazy or stupid to find themselves? That's half of Media Matters' business, pointing out the sloppily hidden agendas of media outlets.

PS: The funny thing is that most of us dirty online commentators know the "real names" behind the majority of blogger handles, and the fact that these figures don't only demonstrates how far out of the loop they really are.

Ms. Whalen vindicated

The woman whose report of a possible house break-in led to the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. said she never mentioned race during her 911 call and is “personally devastated’’ by media accounts that suggest she placed the call because the men she observed on the porch were black, according to a lawyer acting as her spokeswoman.

This is backed up by the 911 recording, and the Commissioner of the Cambridge Police Department. I had earlier said:

However, the local blogosphere has quickly grasped at their own beliefs and scant rumors in the press to invent the rest ... what disturbs me the most is the instant assumption that the woman who first called the police did so because she is a racist. It's closer to a conservative caricature of progressives than anything else. David Kravitz, a normally cool-headed blogger at BMG, makes this assumption on zero proof. While I don't always agree with David, I was taken aback that simply phoning the police because a man of a different skin color is breaking into a house makes you a racist...It's well known how deleterious an accusation of racism can today. Usually, there is some proof offered, but today all we to go on is an unconfirmed claim by a substandard tabloid paper about a woman being vigilant -- perhaps over-vigilant but again we don't know -- about her neighborhood.

...for right now, if some of these claims are echoed ("this all started with Whalen", according to a Globe commentator), the greatest victim of this episode will not be Henry Louis Gates or the Cambridge Police Department, but Ms. Whalen -- the party with the fewest resources to defend itself in all of this.

NB: In his promotion comments (the bit in italics) at a post at BMG, David does walk back his earlier comments, and is to be commended for it.

Given that Ms. Whalen is alone in this mess as not having a university, union, or government agency to back her up, it is to the commentariat to acknowledge when they were wrong, and apologize if rhetorical flights led to slanderous remarks. I am not hopeful, but willing to wait to see if that indeed happens. It's about integrity, folks.

Update: The Phoenix catches up: "And I gotta say: while I think my point about what Whalen's words do/don't say about her mindset was correct in the abstract, I feel pretty shitty having made it. Because after listening to Whalen's call to police, I'm pretty sure she happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and has gotten a raw deal from the press--myself included--as a result...Not only does Whalen not want to talk about race, she's calling on someone else's behalf...Ms. Whalen, please accept my sincere apology for speculating about your motives before I had sufficient information. "

I'd hope that some of the more off-the-handle folks around Boston will be less in a hurry to impugn someone's reputation based on the latest rumors passed on by the Herald next time.

Good day for the Ayatollahs...

In a great little read about geopolitical history titled Who Hates Whom, the author Bob Harris repeatedly references major events that were underreported because they occurred around the time of the death of Anna Nicole Smith.

I frankly think that the Iranian Revolution may be headed in this direction. Of course, the brave protesters in Iran don't need any external help, and most of the dynamics of the situation in Iran point clearly to a split within the leadership of the country. However, I do believe that the finger has been light on the trigger because the world is watching Iran -- why else would they work so hard to shut down coverage?

Not that the traditional press has covered itself in glory in covering these Iranian protests (much more airtime spent on Jon&Kate), but now I expect they'll ignore Iran altogether. When faced with a choice between celebrity pablum or international reporting, I think it's easy to guess which the media will go for. I have no real problem with Michale Jackson -- I tend to like the music he recorded during his "African-American male" phase and credit him for basically introducing white America to James Brown's dance moves. However, I don't think the importance of his death, which will surely be of the scandalous and confusing variety, matches the importance of the changes now underway in Iran. I expect all manner of coverage about his "legacy", "controversies", and all that rot will dominate the media, giving the monsters who run I ran enough shadow time to send out the Basij to do some random thuggery.

Anyway, it's already happening...

Amusingly, a misspelled variant of his name (”Micheal Jackson”) is the fourth most popular search right now, beating out Iran.

PS: In other news, Deval Patrick has rushed out to claim credit for the Senate's ethics bill. Deval had nothing to do with it except a couple whining videos, but he's working overtime to take credit, and shockingly the usual crew over at BMG can't wait to agree. Apparently, this is all a big win for him (remember when everything was good for John McCain? Same thinking applies). Yawn.

Dying newspapers...

I've grabbed this from the website of the late Rocky Mountain News. A sad look at the death of a newspaper older than the state of Kansas:


Final Edition from Matthew Roberts on Vimeo.

Along with the news that Seattle and Philadelphia mainstays are on the ropes, ya gotta wonder what the future is for newspapers.

Americans worried about education. Media, not so much

Interesting piece via TAPPED...education is the top priority, as in more than Iraq or the economy, for young African-American adults. Education is appearing in the top three issues for general election voters as well. We can expect a plethora of debate questions and media coverage on education plans to match examinations of gas prices, mortgages, and Iraq policies soon on the campaign trail.

Haha...just kidding. The media doesn't "do" education. Over some 20 primary debates between Democrats, one questioner mentioned education once.

A thought on the whole Clark-Obama thing

Reflecting on the imbroglio about Clark's critique of McCain, and Obama's quick abandonment thereof, I think that not all actors are being taken into account. To wit, the fourth actor in this whole drama -- the media.

I've read elsewhere (including here) the theory that the Obama campaign hoped for a quick end to the whole patriotism argument with a quick comment. Bob over on BMG sharply points out that in his speech about race, Obama stated a desire to move past these types of ticky-tack discussions. And for the most part, during the Primary he was able. I can agree that Hope Central felt that a quick denunciation would not only eliminate Clark from VP contention, but put this debate back into a bottle right quick.

However, what has changed recently is Obama's opponent -- and the media's feelings there toward. The media was constantly willing to abet Obama in completing his strategy, due to their fondness for him, and their unquenchable hatred for all things Clinton. Obama quite ably directed the media during the primary campaign, and the media quite ably obeyed. However, now he's facing McCain, the Man the Media Built. This vestigal loyalty (somewhat thin due to McCain's weak poll numbers) keeps the media from too enthusiastically obeying Obama's directives.

Also, Obama was earlier seeking to close out debates on race and gender, two arguments with which the media is still manifestly uncomfortable. Most pundits don't like talking about such things lest they make a mistake and lose the respect of other pundits. Plus, the obstacles proffered by Hillary's gender versus those offered by Obama's race was a minefield without a correct answer of standard response. Thinking, risky journalism simply isn't in the interests of Punditocracy, Icnc.

However, patriotism is a subject they love to debate, partially because the script is already written: Republicans have it, Democrats not really. Asking the media to stop questioning a Democrat's patriotism and respect for the military is like asking a 6-year-old not to see her favorite movie over and over.

If Obama's campaign is honest with itself, it will accept that they won't have the media on their side from now on, and will adjust strategy accordingly. Hopefully this week will be filed under "learned it the hard way".

Democrats Divided! Check out...some guy!

Clinton v. Obama was the greatest hit on the 24-hour news networks since "We Invade Kuwait" -- impassioned storylines, a clear good guy v bad guy conflict, long-term drama, the importance of reg'lar people, et cetera. But just like so many other television series that went on longer than they should have , the media is trying to extend the storyline past its natural finish.

When even Clinton has conceded and freed her delegates, when McCain is bereft of a significant chunk of support from his Congressional GOP fellows, the media wants to keep stretching Clinton v. Obama. Take this shocking announcement from CNN's Politcal Ticker:

After a bitter primary battle Clinton conceded the race to Barack Obama last week urging her supporters to back her rival. [Will] Bower heard the message, but he is not going to follow it. Instead, he said in an interview he plans to vote for Republican John McCain and has formed “Party Unity My A–,

This was directly linked from the front page of CNN.com, and boy oh boy does it mean ill winds are blowing. Unity is a must, and there's a prominent group forming that's going to fight it. Stop the presses...somebody important in the Clinton campaign is not joining up with the Obama wagon! Worse still, he's based in Washington State, a swing state in 2008! This is a serious problem from Obama...otherwise it wouldn't be at the top page of CNN. Party unity is not going to occur, we're doooomed! Panic! Democrats Divided! Somebody ask Dick Morris what he thinks of this!

What's that? Bower's not in the Clinton campaign? Okay...so he's probably on the state committee, or the chair of a county committee at least, right? Um, maybe county DA? Hey, CNN, what's Bowers' title and position within the party, anyway?

36 year-old Washington resident

Huh. Suddenly the whole thing seems a bit...overblown.