Two arguments down

Charles Foster Kane has done such an impressive job of picking apart one of Gregg Jackson's spurious propositions that I'm inspired to take on another one. Like Kane, I'll rely on columnist Thomas Sowell's description of what's in Jackson's book, "Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies," since Jackson himself won't send me a copy.

According to Sowell, one of the "liberal lies" that Jackson exposes is the idea that "the Constitution of the United States provides for 'separation of church and state.'" Sowell continues:

Among the historical facts [brought forth by Jackson] is that there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about a "separation of church and state," despite how often that phrase has been repeated in the media, in politics, and even in courts of law.

Over the years, liberal judges have twisted the First Amendment's phrase about "free exercise of religion" to mean the opposite -- that you are not free to exercise your religion if atheists or members of non-Christian religions say that they are offended.

Whatever the best social policy might be as regards Christmas displays or the use of vouchers in parochial schools, none of this is banned by the Constitution. Some judges, however, use the Constitution as a blank check, authorizing them to ban whatever they don't like and call it Constitutional law.

Now, I think we've all known since the sixth grade that Jackson and Sowell are correct about the wording of the Constitution. Here is what the First Amendment actually says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

But does it therefore follow that the "separation of church and state" is a myth foisted upon an unsuspecting public by liberals, the media and -- well, you know, the liberal media? You will probably not be surprised to learn (although Jackson might be stunned) that the phrase and the concept go back to the Founders.

Because the Constitution is terse and at times cryptic, all good legal scholars -- even conservatives -- rely on contemporaneous source material to help them determine the meaning and context behind particular sections. (One might even say especially conservatives, since it is they who say they are most interested in sticking to the Framers' original intent.)

The Federalist, of course, is the best-known example of this extra-constitutional source material: a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay with the intent of persuading the state of New York to adopt the Constitution. The Federalist, however, was written before the Bill of Rights. Thus we must look elsewhere.

It turns out that Madison, sometimes called "the Father of the Constitution," as well as the author of the First Amendment, is also the father of the separation of church and state. Here are a few quotes on the subject from our fourth president:

The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).

Thomas Jefferson's views are often dragged into the debate by those who oppose church-state separation, since Jefferson himself was no friend of the Constitution. Far better to rely on Madison, as strong a supporter of the Constitution as there was in the early days of the Republic, as well as the undisputed expert on the meaning of the First Amendment.

Note what I am not saying. I'm not saying that every single action taken by the courts in the name of "the separation of church and state" is proper. I think we need to be reasonable. Obviously every person's idea of reasonable is different, but lines have to be drawn somewhere. Personally, crèches on public property and the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance don't bother me, but mandatory school prayer does, even if there's an opt-out provision.

The point is that the concept has a long and noble history going back to the drafting of the Constitution. Gregg Jackson's assertion that the Constitution does not provide for the separation of church and state is technically accurate -- but manifestly untrue.

The Texas Railway Killer and me

It wasn't until last night that I heard about the execution of Angel Maturino Resendiz, the so-called Texas Railway Killer, with whom I had a close psychic brush seven years ago. First he murdered a minister and his wife whom I'd gotten to know a bit. Then I spent one harrowing night thinking he was coming after me and family. (He wasn't. But still.) You can read about it here and here.

It's Muzzle time

My annual Fourth of July roundup of those who undermined free speech and civil liberties in New England is in the new Phoenix. Please have a look.

Best wishes to The Commish

ESPN's Peter Gammons, a pioneering baseball writer for the Boston Globe, is recovering from surgery to treat a brain aneurysm.

More on that UN document

A news story in today's New York Times mentions this item by retired American diplomat Victor Comras. It is the same item referenced by the Times editorial to which I linked last night.

Comras writes that "reports on US monitoring of SWIFT transactions have been out there for some time. The information was fairly well known by terrorism financing experts back in 2002." And he quotes from a publicly available (though not this morning) report he wrote for the United Nations:

The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centres are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The Group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries.

Now, there's exposure and there's exposure. I suppose you could argue that the terrorists don't spend their time perusing the UN's Web site (although I wouldn't be surprised if they do), but that articles published on the front of the Times are likely to capture their attention. But we're starting to slice the salami pretty thinly here.

A number of people have made the point that the terrorists already knew their finances were being tracked. Now we know that it's been publicly known since at least December 2002 precisely how that tracking is taking place.

Cries of espionage and even treason are starting to look fairly ridiculous.

The White House and its defenders also give the game away by refusing to differentiate between the NSA no-warrant wiretapping program -- obviously illegal, given that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires warrants -- and the SWIFT program, which appears to be on more solid legal ground.

By lumping them together, folks like U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., make it clear that they're only interested in scoring points against the media.

Update: More on Comras from today's Boston Globe:

Victor D. Comras , a former US diplomat who oversaw efforts at the United Nations to improve international measures to combat terror financing, said it was common knowledge that worldwide financial transactions were being closely monitored for links to terrorists. "A lot of people were aware that this was going on," said Comras, one of a half-dozen financial experts UN Secretary General Kofi Annan recruited for the task.

"Unless they were pretty dumb, they had to assume" their transactions were being monitored, Comras said of terrorist groups. "We have spent the last four years bragging how effective we have been in tracking terrorist financing."

Read the whole thing. It's starting to look like the Times' best defense is that this is very old news.

Update II: By the way, I'm not saying this line of defense is something of which the media ought to be proud. Take it away, Jay:

The media is now faced with two unattractive scenarios: A.) Defend the articles as news -- and face up to the consequence that outlets reported on what appears to be a lawful and effective program or B.) Admit the articles weren't news -- and face up to the consequence that the public now knows outlets didn't do basic pre-publication research.

I'm not sure I agree, but at the moment I can't say I disagree, either. How's that for decisiveness?

Common sense and SWIFT

Because I'm still thinking my way through this, I'm intrigued when I see anything calm and reasonable on the SWIFT story. From Andrew Sullivan, conservative and pro-war:

If I were Bill Keller (fat chance, I know), I probably wouldn't publish. On the other hand, publishing it does not, it seems to me, obviously render the program ineffective. And the Malkinesque charges of treason seem a little, er, excitable.

The New York Times will publish an editorial tomorrow that contains this intriguing passage:

[A] United Nations group set up to monitor Al Qaeda and the Taliban after Sept. 11 recommended in 2002 that other countries should follow the United States' lead in monitoring suspicious transactions handled by Swift. The report is public and available on the United Nations Web site.

I couldn't find it. Has anyone got a link? A relevant excerpt?

The "T" word

A reader called my attention to Jules Crittenden's latest in the Boston Herald, in which he accuses the New York Times of treason. Obviously I disagree. It will be interesting to see whether this is the Herald's front page tomorrow.

But you know what? I think this is where we may be heading. No one is going to charge Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Bill Keller with treason, but Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Rep. Peter King and others are calling for an espionage case to be brought against the paper.

The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz today writes on his blog: "Man, I have never seen this kind of Times-bashing before."

I'm afraid we may just be getting started.

Action Jackson

Not long ago I let a right-wing radio host named Gregg Jackson trash me in several lengthy rants on Media Nation's comments section. Jackson is pushing a book called "Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies," and no doubt he was hoping to move some product at my expense. I've had worse done to me. I actually offered to read his book and take the time to research and write a point-by-point refutation.

Well, this is funny. I just found out that on June 16 he trashed me again, on his own blog -- and I can't leave a comment! Apparently it's fine to come into my house and start screaming and yelling. But when I knocked on his door, I encountered this: "Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time." I guess he was afraid of getting inundated, given that he actually got one person to reply to his attack on me. (That person disagreed with Jackson, by the way.)

As for my offer to review his book, here's what he wrote: "Message to Dan. If you want to purchase my book you can do so by ordering it and paying for it. That’s how free market capitalism works my friend. You can pre-order on Amazon or B&N. Why would I give you a copy?"

Uh, message to Gregg. When someone offers to review your book, whether friend or foe, the proper response is to sprint to the post office and send it off post-haste. That's how the conservative commentator Russ Smith got a copy of my book on dwarfism, "Little People," a few years ago. Russ reviewed it for the Wall Street Journal and called it "extraordinary." Gregg, I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that's a damn sight better than you're going to do.

By the way, Jackson ironically titles his post on me "How to Win A Debate With a Liberal" (sic on the capitalization). Well, here are two ways: (1) Don't let him post a comment to your blog, and (2) don't provide him with a review copy of your book even after he promises to read it and write about it.

Gregg, my offer still stands. But I will not buy it. Nothing personal. I don't pay for books I write about. Neither does anyone else. Get a clue -- and get a grip.

Targeting the Times

The Manhattan Institute's Heather Mac Donald goes after the New York Times in a big way over the financial-tracking revelations. Writing for the Weekly Standard, she begins:

By now it's undeniable: The New York Times is a national security threat. So drunk is it on its own power and so antagonistic to the Bush administration that it will expose every classified antiterror program it finds out about, no matter how legal the program, how carefully crafted to safeguard civil liberties, or how vital to protecting American lives.

I'll give her this: To my layman's eyes, she seems to make a pretty good case that the program is legal. Mac Donald continues:

The Supreme Court has squarely held that bank records are not constitutionally protected private information. The government may obtain them without seeking a warrant from a court, because the bank depositor has already revealed his transactions to his bank -- or, in the case of the present program, to a whole slew of banks that participate in the complicated international wire transfers overseen by the Belgian clearinghouse known as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or Swift. To get specific information about individual terror suspects, intelligence agents prepare an administrative subpoena, which is issued after extensive internal agency review. The government does not monitor a terror suspect's international wire transfers in real time; the records of his transactions are delivered weeks later. And Americans' routine financial transactions, such as ATM withdrawals or domestic banking, lie completely outside of the Swift database.

This strikes me as fairly persuasive, and quite different from the NSA warrantless wiretapping program that the Times exposed last December. On the other hand, Mac Donald's attack on the Times is so sweeping that I can't imagine she's all that troubled by the NSA program, either. So I don't know.

It does seem that one of Mac Donald's fellow-travelers on the right, the blogger Captain Ed, undermines her case against the Times at least in part by writing:

The continuing arrogance of Keller and his two reporters has damaged our national security, and in this case on a ridiculously laughable story that tells us absolutely nothing we didn't already know in concept. They keep pretending to offer news to their readers, but instead all they do is blow our national-security programs for profit.

This is quite an odd assertion, is it not? On the one hand, the idea that this is news is "ridiculously laughable." On the other, the Times "has damaged our national security." Well, which is it? (Via "Today's Blogs" on Slate, which also linked to Media Nation's item on Times executive editor Bill Keller's open letter.)

It seems to me that there are several crucial differences between the wiretapping and financial-tracking programs -- and perhaps chief in importance is the fact that the financial program depends on subpoenas issued to SWIFT. That would appear to give this a patina of legality that's utterly lacking from the wiretapping saga.

President Bush, naturally, is calling the Times' behavior "disgraceful," which is the same word he used to describe its revelation of the wiretapping program -- a program that, on the face of it, violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires warrants.

Of more interest are the comments of Senate minority leader Harry Reid, who, unlike the president, demonstrates an ability to distinguish between the two programs. A Reid spokesman tells the Times that Reid believes the SWIFT program "does not appear to be based on the same shaky and discredited legal analysis the vice president and his allies invoked to underpin the NSA domestic spying program."

Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., wants to prosecute the Times, and U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., wants to investigate the White House.

All is murk.

Keller on the SWIFT story

There is much good in New York Times executive editor Bill Keller's letter to readers explaining why the Times decided to publish details of the anti-terrorism program that tracks financial transactions. More than anything, the mere fact that he believes journalists must explain themselves to the public shows the how deeply the notion of transparency has taken root.

Still, three aspects of his letter strike me as odd. I'll take them one at a time.

1. Consider how Keller begins his second paragraph:

Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.) [My emphasis.]

Did Keller let anyone edit this? It was the Times and other news organizations that revealed the existence and the details of this program -- not angry bloggers and pundits. For Keller to try to toss the blame back into the laps of his critics suggests that he himself was pretty angry when he sat down to write. Unseemly.

2. Later on, Keller pulls an old trope out of his hat:

Our default position -- our job -- is to publish information if we are convinced it is fair and accurate, and our biggest failures have generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or to report fully enough. After The Times played down its advance knowledge of the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy reportedly said he wished we had published what we knew and perhaps prevented a fiasco. [My emphasis.]

This is accurate but not true. On the eve of the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Times published a front-page story, above the fold, reporting that U.S.-trained Cuban exiles were prepared to invade their homeland at any time. Two details were omitted, neither of which the Times' editors could be sure about: the role of the CIA and the date of the invasion. (Of course, if the date had been published, the White House simply would have changed it.)

At first Kennedy was furious. But some time later, after the invasion had ended in disaster, he did indeed voice his now-famous regret that the Times hadn't published all it knew, thus creating a media myth that has endured to this day. Keller, of all people, should know that.

3. Finally, Keller writes:

It's worth mentioning that the reporters and editors responsible for this story live in two places -- New York and the Washington area -- that are tragically established targets for terrorist violence. The question of preventing terror is not abstract to us.

Huh? It seems here that he's trying to say we shouldn't question his motives because, if there's a terrorist attack, Times people might be among the victims. Well, gee. So would a lot of other folks.

Sorry to nitpick. I actually find Keller's argument for publishing fairly compelling. He's especially persuasive in making the point that SWIFT, the international consortium that administers the data, will continue to cooperate as long as the operation is legal (and shouldn't if it isn't), and that the terrorists have long been on notice that we are doing everything we can to track their finances.

But it would have been that much stronger without the self-pitying touches and the ahistorical take on the Bay of Pigs.

Specter's confidential source

You don't need a subpoena to get the senior senator from Pennsylvania talking. From today's New York Times:

Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said that in one strategy session Mr. Bush told the senator he could not be identified as publicly supporting the Senate bill, which sought to tighten border control but also give illegal immigrants a chance to become citizens after paying fines. "Don't quote me, Arlen," Mr. Specter recalled the president saying, implying that Mr. Bush had spoken approvingly of the bill.

Pretty sleazy behavior, I'd say. Good thing Specter isn't a journalist.

Papi again

How does David Ortiz do it? Why does anyone pitch to him when the game's on the line -- even with Manny on deck? Unbelievable.

Following the money

I honestly don't know what to think about this week's revelation that the Bush administration has been tracking international financial transactions. My first thought was that it seems less abusive than the secret NSA no-warrant wiretapping program, but that there's much we don't know. A few observations:

• Surely the terrorists already knew they were being wiretapped. The Bush administration's only wrinkle with the NSA program was in breaking U.S. law. The financial program, though, strikes me as potentially something that the terrorists didn't know about. Consequently, I find myself wondering whether the New York Times and other news organizations exercised good judgment by revealing it.
• Financial privacy does not seem to be all that firmly established, and has apparently not been recognized by the Supreme Court -- although Congress did pass a law protecting it. Thus it appears that, once again, the White House broke the law when it didn't really have to.
• The financial program may have actually led to the capture of a significant Al Qaeda terrorist, which is more -- a lot more -- than can be said for the indiscriminate NSA program.
  

Given my handwringing, I was interested to see The Opinionator point (sub. req.) to this post at Homeland Security Watch. After making some of the same points I was thinking about, security analyst Christian Beckner writes:

Based on the content of the story, I’m glad that this program exists -- and although I usually err on the side of openness and disclosure, this is one program that I would've been fine to see remained cloaked in secrecy. This story could cause would-be terror financiers to rethink their money movement activities; and if SWIFT [the international consortium supplying the data] were to pull back from cooperation with the US government because of any controversy generated by this story (it's still too early to judge the political fallout from it, if any), then that would be a real shame.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has shown such contempt for civil liberties that it's possible we can no longer recognize a proper exercise of government authority when we see it. And yes, it's also possible that the newly revealed program is a lot more abusive of ordinary citizens than it appears at first glance. (Surely the foolishness in Miami can't be overlooked when assessing the White House's motives and competence.)

For the moment, we should all learn as much as we can and not get too far out in front of this.

How's that trade working out? (X)

Good grief.

More isn't better

There's an upside and a downside to the fact that space on the Web is essentially limitless. It's great that a news site like NYTimes.com can be used to upload supplemental material such as audio, video, extra photos and original documents. But it's not so great when someone decides that a tightly edited story in the print edition can undergo gasification on the Web.

To wit: This morning I was reading the online edition of the Times -- ostensibly the print analogue -- when I came across a disclaimer that accompanied a story about a video made just before a deadly protest last May in Uzbekistan: "This is an expanded version of the article that appeared in the print edition."

Sure enough. I copied and pasted the online version into Microsoft Word, and it clocked in at 3,750 words. According to LexisNexis, the print version is just 2,949 words.

Extra stuff for those with the time and interest to peruse it is great. But please, let me read the basic story without having to plow through an extra 800 words.

Gitell moves on

I just got off the phone with my friend and former Boston Phoenix colleague Seth Gitell, who wanted to let me know that he was back on Romenesko. Seth is resigning as Mayor Tom Menino's press secretary in order to research a story about his father's experiences in the Green Berets. He's writing it for the Atlantic Monthly.

Seth and I had a great time together at the Phoenix. The highlight was probably our road trips to Philadelphia and Los Angeles for the 2000 national political conventions. We hit Geno's during our week in Philly; English-language disputes aside, I thought the place was hugely overrated.

No doubt Menino will miss Seth, but I know that his father's story is one he's been wanting to tell. Jerry Gitell is a fascinating guy, and was an enormous help to me in writing this 2002 piece (ignore the date at the top of the page) on revelations that former senator Bob Kerrey may have committed war crimes in Vietnam.

Seth: Good luck.

We shall overcome Sony's DRM

Media Nation's loving family got me the new Bruce Springsteen CD, "We Shall Overcome," for Father's Day -- and delivered me into the not-so-loving arms of Sony.

My iBook refused to recognize the CD. I read the fine print on the jacket and saw this: "The audio side of this disc does not conform to CD specifications and therefore will not play on some CD and DVD players." I flipped it over, and the video side loaded perfectly.

Hmmm. I tried a cheap old CD player in the kitchen -- no problem. Next I loaded it, CD-side up, into Mrs. Media Nation's PowerBook, and got it to play. I ripped it to iTunes, burned a new CD, and then stuck that into my iBook. Problem solved.

So what's going on here? This Wikipedia post suggests that it's simply a matter of DualDiscs (CD on one side, DVD on the other) being too thick for some CD players. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, though, because both my iBook and my wife's PowerBook have the same slot-loading mechanism. Springsteen's last album, "Devils & Dust," is also a DualDisc, and it loads just fine; it's the music that isn't much good.

This and this, on the other hand, place the blame squarely on Sony, claiming that its notorious digital-rights-management (DRM) scheme has been installed on "We Shall Overcome." It seems that on Windows machines, loading the CD might even damage your files.

Now, a question for Apple: The PowerBook that plays "We Shall Overcome" is running OS X 10.2.8, which is several years old. The iBook that won't is running 10.4.6. Has Apple deliberately messed with its operating system in order to give Sony something to sink its fangs into?

And to think I bought a few shares of Apple this morning.

Update: It doesn't seem to be a Mac OS issue. That's good news. But I don't think it's just a simple matter of disc thickness, either.

How's that trade working out? (IX)

This says it all:

Arroyo (9-3) gave up a run in the first and Carlos Beltran's 19th homer leading off the ninth. He struck out five and walked one in his third career complete game, second this season.

"He's a tremendous competitor. He is fearless, and one of the better pitchers in baseball -- and I mean pitchers," Cincinnati manager Jerry Narron said. "It's a lot of fun to watch. You sometimes think it's a lost art for guys that know how to pitch. He's one of those guys."

After David Wright's one-out single, Arroyo retired Jose Valentin and Xavier Nady to end it on his 116th pitch.

"I didn't take a pounding in any inning at all," Arroyo said. "I had plenty left in the tank."

But all hail Kyle Snyder.

About that Rove indictment story

Rick in Duxbury passes along this essay on the Karl Rove indictment that wasn't. A pretty good read, though I'm not sure anyone took TruthOut.org seriously to begin with.

Meanwhile, Media Nation is on a secret mission this week. Blogging will be light at best.

More trouble for the Globe

Things are looking up at the New York Times Co., but not at its Boston outpost. The Associated Press reports that company-wide advertising was up 4.4 percent in May. The story continues:

In the news media group, advertising revenue rose 5.6 percent at its New York Times group and 7.1 percent at its regional segment, while ad sales slipped 6.9 percent at its New England media unit.

The New England unit comprises the Boston Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette. (Via Romenesko.)

Watch once, pay twice

Because it's easy to get bogged down in technical arcana when discussing a topic such as net neutrality, I'm particularly taken with an argument offered by Siva Vaidhyanathan of New York University. Without net neutrality, Vaidhyanathan explains, Internet service providers -- mainly the cable and phone companies -- get paid twice. It's an easy, consumer-friendly message, and more people need to hear it.

Let's say you've got broadband now, and are paying $50 a month. In a few years, your ISP might roll out a new, ultrafast connection that will let you download a full-length movie in just a few minutes. It might even be fast enough that Web-based television becomes a realistic possibility. Do you think you're going to pay the same $50? Of course not. You'll pay $70, or $100, or whatever, and if it allows you to get rid of other expensive services, you'll be glad to do it.

But the ISPs want to charge extra not just to you but also to content providers that wish to take advantage of the faster connection. Here's how Vaidhyanathan explained it in a recent interview with NPR's "On the Media":

[W]hat they're actually proposing doing is double billing. They want to charge me and you, consumers getting broadband service, a very high rate and extort money from the service providers, so that those willing to write the big check get their stuff delivered faster to you and me. That's not a fair business practice, nor is it really healthy for the sort of information and cultural environment and economic playing field that we really want to see on the Internet.

Net neutrality simply means treating ISPs as common carriers, requiring them to treat all content providers equally while allowing them to charge customers different fees for different levels of service. This is exactly how the phone companies have always been regulated, and it is how the Internet has evolved -- at least until now.

This is not the world's sexiest issue, yet it's crucial to our hopes of a democratic, diverse media. That's why groups ranging from MoveOn.org to the Christian Coalition are fighting for net neutrality. The Internet is the only medium in which major media conglomerates have no delivery advantage over the scruffiest amateurs. The ISPs are trying to change that, and we'll all be the losers if they win.

Visit Save the Internet today. And if you haven't seen it yet, check out this Moby PSA.

The so-called liberal media

It's one of the great mysteries of our time: If the news media have a liberal bias, as is generally supposed, why is the press so much more deferential to Republicans than it is to Democrats?

You might disagree with that premise, but I don't think it can be denied. Bill Clinton was ripped apart for a nonexistent scandal (Whitewater) and for his personal failings (the Lewinsky matter). Al Gore was battered for minor exaggerations and for things he didn't even say (such as the false assertion that he'd claimed to have "invented" the Internet). John Kerry was deeply wounded by the obvious lies of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration has never really been held to account for offenses both high (launching a disastrous war on the basis of hyped intelligence) and low (Dick Cheney's shooting an elderly hunting partner in the face).

In recent years, media observers such as Eric Alterman ("What Liberal Media?") and Joe Conason ("Big Lies") have tried to explain this conundrum. Now comes former Salon media columnist Eric Boehlert, whose "Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush" (Free Press) documents in sometimes mind-numbing detail the ways in which the media routinely pick over every minor Democratic flaw while ignoring much more important instances of perfidy on the Republican side.

My own view -- not entirely original -- is that though much of our major media are imbued with a mild liberal cultural bias on issues such as gay rights, reproductive choice and the role of religion in society, that bias does not extend to the way they cover politics. Indeed, it often seems that the way liberal reporters make their bones is by tormenting liberal politicians. And with partisan Republican media such as the Fox News Channel, Rush Limbaugh's radio show and the Wall Street Journal editorial page constantly charging "liberal bias," life is much easier for journalists if they tilt to the right.

Boehlert's book would have benefited from a stronger analytical tone. His methodology is largely one of documenting media somnolence in the face of outrageous behavior by Bush, Cheney, et al. and then asking his readers how the media would have reacted if a Democrat had engaged in similar offenses. Most of the material Boehlert offers will be familiar to readers who follow this stuff. The principal strength of "Lapdogs" is that Boehlert shows the easy treatment of Bush has continued since the 2004 election, thus updating the earlier work done by Alterman and Conason.

Slate's Jack Shafer recently criticized "Lapdogs" on the grounds that Boehlert largely confines his critique to television news and talking-heads shows, giving a pass to our two most important news organizations, the New York Times and the Washington Post. If the Times and the Post aren't part of the problem, Shafer asks, how can Boehlert complain that the media lean Republican? But I don't read "Lapdogs" the way Shafer does; in fact, Boehlert cites numerous examples from both papers. A very short list would include:

• The Times' decision to hold its Pulitzer Prize-winning story on the secret, no-warrant NSA wiretapping program from before the 2004 election until December 2005.
• The Post's repeated editorializing in favor of the war in Iraq.
• The Times' indulgence of Judith Miller's flawed reporting on Iraq's supposed weapons capabilities.
• The Post's role in concocting that fake Gore quote about "inventing" the Internet, endlessly repeated by the sneering Washington press corps.

Boehlert gives due credit to media watchdogs such as the Daily Howler and Media Matters for America. Ultimately, though, that's the problem with "Lapdogs." The distinctive voice and edge Boehlert usually brings to his work is frequently missing here, replaced by his voluminous but not fully digested research.

Still, there's a lot of valuable information in "Lapdogs," and it shows how the goal of the right, as Boehlert puts it, "is to create a news culture where there are few if any agreed upon facts, thereby making serious debate impossible." That is by far the most disturbing aspect of the media wars taking place today, and Boehlert does a good job of shining a light on it.

A weird omission

Tom Friedman today responds (sub. req.) to General Motors' criticism of an earlier column. He writes:

After the May 31 column appeared, G.M.'s vice president for global communications, Steven J. Harris, and his colleagues denounced my argument in a formal statement and on G.M.'s corporate blog. This is an important issue, so let me respond to their response.

Yet nowhere does Friedman reveal that GM tried to place a letter in the Times and was told to forget it unless said letter was toned down. (Nor, for that matter, does the online version of his column link to the GM blog.)

This has been a matter of some notoriety on the Web. For Friedman not to acknowledge it (or was it an editor?) is not only wrong -- it's just plain weird.

Back to Ohio

Blogger just ate a longer post on this subject, so I'll make it short. I just finished reading Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Rolling Stone article in which he argues that the 2004 presidential election in Ohio -- and, thus, the nation -- was stolen. Bobby's kid is unlikely to be taken seriously, but his monumental research, a lot of it based on earlier work by Mark Crispin Miller and U.S. Rep. John Conyers, seems irrefutable. So why aren't the New York Times and the Washington Post all over this?

Rove not guilty, but hardly innocent

Anyone who's been paying attention already knew that Karl Rove didn't break the law when he helped blow former CIA operative Valerie Plame's cover. Jack Shafer, among others, explained as far back as 2003 that you practically have to be a sworn enemy of the United States to be prosecuted under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Scooter Libby, after all, was charged with lying about leaking, not with leaking per se. The expressed desire of Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, to see Rove "frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs" was never realistic.

All of which means that the positive spin accompanying the news that Rove will not be charged is unwarranted. Rove has not been cleared in any meaningful sense. He is, in fact, guilty of a deeply unethical act. David Corn, who's followed this story as closely as anyone, explains:

[S]everal essentials are well-established: Rove leaked classified information that may have harmed national security; the White House said he hadn't and that leakers would be fired; Rove remains at the president's side today.

Not that any of it is going to matter. Former ambassador Wilson's own headline-seeking and dissembling, well-documented by the incomparable Bob Somerby, has always made this a more complicated matter than most critics of the Bush administration are willing to admit.

Still, it's appalling that Rove is being treated as though he's been exonerated when, in fact, he did exactly what he was accused of doing all along.

Hope for MSNBC?

MSNBC is the sleeping giant of cable news. As the only one of the three all-news channels backed by a network news division, MSNBC could establish itself as the quality leader tomorrow -- make that tonight -- if the owners at General Electric so desired. Instead, it staggers on in third place, year after year, foisting dreck hosted by the likes of Rita Cosby, Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson upon an unsuspecting public. (Or not, since no one's actually watching.)

Let me qualify that a bit. Cosby's nothing but a third-rate sob sister, but Scarborough, stiff and weird though he may be, is willing to listen more and shout less than most of his peers. Carlson is a terrific writer and a charming guy, but I don't think he's ever found his footing on television. Each may be capable of doing better, but neither of their shows was ever conceived of as news.

So Media Nation did not exactly hang the black crepe when Rick Kaplan was shown the door earlier this week. Ratings have gone up during his tenure, but from where I've been sitting (that is, on the couch), MSNBC has just been marking time the past couple of years.

Now Dan Abrams will get his chance. As the host of a tabloid law show, he is not, to say the least, the first person who'd come to mind if your interest is in seeing MSNBC become a serious news outlet. But I was somewhat heartened to see that he considers Keith Olbermann's and Chris Matthews' shows, easily the two best on the network, to be models for the direction in which he wants to move. (I'm not saying I'm a huge Matthews fan, and I'm not saying I don't wish Olbermann's program, "Countdown," were a bit less contrived. I'm just saying that everything else is much, much worse.)

And, Dan, here's an idea, free of charge: Hire Aaron Brown to be the host of a prime-time, hour-long newscast. Give it a try. What the heck. Brown wasn't exactly a ratings king on CNN, but he did better than his replacement, Anderson Cooper.

Somehow, though, I don't think much is going to change at the News Channel That Viewers Forgot.

Spam is back

And I'm moderating comments again. Now, this could persuade me to end comments. Sorry, but life is too short.

Media Nation's Zarqawi contest

Among the odder phenomena related to the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the notion advanced in some circles that liberals are unhappy because the deadly raid makes President Bush look good. Media Matters offers this example, in the form of a deeply stupid exchange between Fox News host John Gibson and Republican strategist Ed Rollins.

Yes, Nick Berg's poor father has said some strange things, but he is, after all, still grieving.

Anyway, Media Nation this morning issues a challenge. If you can find a credible example of a mainstream liberal expressing anything other than delight at Zarqawi's demise, send it along and I'll post it. An explanation of the rules:

• "Credible" means from the horse's mouth. If Sean Hannity, for instance, claims that Liberal X uttered Outrage Y, that doesn't count. However, if you've got proof that Liberal X did indeed say Outrage Y, that counts.
• "Mainstream" means someone whom we don't have to spend a half-hour researching to figure out who he is. Also, Ward Churchill doesn't count.
• In determining the validity of any particular entry, I am judge, jury and executioner.

In a twist, conservative blogger Glenn Reynolds accuses Newark Star-Ledger columnist Paul Mulshine of falsely claiming that Reynolds had criticized the media for not being sufficiently appreciative of Zarqawi's death.

I followed the links, and I'd say Reynolds comes closer to making that accusation he wants to admit. The Himmler aside is telling.

That nice lady in the green room

Does this make Ann Coulter better or worse? Worse, I'd say.

Fingers crossed

The spam attack appears to be over, and I have turned off comment moderation.

Whose religion?

When the going gets tough, President Bush trots out the gay-marriage bogeyman. Bush got exactly what he wanted this week. The constitutional ban that he supposedly backs was easily defeated, thus giving him a chance to excite his dwindling base while keeping the issue low-profile enough so as not to alienate normal Americans.

Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post put it nicely: "What uncharted realm lies beyond brazen cynicism? A wasteland of utter shamelessness, perhaps?"

But if Bush's motives are obvious enough, what's the deal with Peter Steinfels? The New York Times religion columnist devotes an entire piece today to exploring the notion that legal recognition of same-sex marriage could violate the First Amendment rights of religious conservatives.

I'm not going to take on Steinfels' microanalysis of whether an evangelical Christian college might be forced to allow married same-sex couples to occupy its dorms or lose its tax-exempt status. In fact, I would go so far as to say that there is some chance of that happening.

Rather, let me address the macro argument that seems to elude Steinfels: Whose religion? There are, in fact, mainstream religious organizations in this country that support the right of same-sex marriage. The fact that Unitarian Universalist clergy may only perform such marriages in Massachusetts is just as much a violation of religious liberty as the hypothetical examples cited by Steinfels. (Disclosure: I'm a UU.) Reform Jews, Congregationalists and members of several other denominations also support same-sex marriage -- or, at least, oppose a constitutional amendment.

Next time Steinfels chooses to write about this topic, he might consult the Web site of an organization called Clergy for Fairness, and ask some of the leaders how their religious liberty is being threatened by the likes of Pat Robertson, James Dobson and, yes, President Bush.

My friend Susan Ryan-Vollmar writes in Bay Windows this week: "Civil marriage rights are a civil rights issue and a moral issue. One of the reasons why we have succeeded here in Massachusetts is because the issue has been framed in those terms."

By failing to frame it as a moral issue elsewhere, gay-marriage advocates allow their opponents to claim morality for themselves -- and they allow journalists such as Steinfels to be led astray. Yes, Steinfels quotes liberals who think the notion of a constitutional clash is real, and no, I don't doubt that it could happen. But there are Americans are being denied their religious liberties right now, and Steinfels should have paid attention to them, too.

Coulter cracks up

Sorry for the late hit, but I'm accustomed to ignoring Ann Coulter. But watch this, and ask yourself why anyone ever invites her to appear anywhere.

Michael Graham reproves his worthlessness here.

Comment spam

I am going to moderate comments for a while in order to stop a flood of comment spam that's coming in. No, not you, Mike. A robot has managed to penetrate Blogger's word-verification system and is posting long lists of pornographic links to old posts. Sorry for the inconvenience.

It's John Sullivan

I tuned in Jon Keller's report on independent gubernatorial candidate Christy Mihos' running mate tonight more for a laugh than anything. I did laugh, but it was with delight.

I know John Sullivan. He was town moderator in Winchester back in the late 1970s and early '80s, when I was covering Winchester for the Daily Times Chronicle of Woburn. He was terrific -- smart, dry and charming. When town meeting would drag on night after night, week after week, as was sometimes the case in Winchester, Sullivan was the only entertainment available.

Frank Phillips has posted the official announcement.

Off the top of my head I can't even tell you how an independent candidate for lieutenant governor would get elected. There's no primary, so I guess Sullivan automatically wins if Mihos somehow manages to defeat his major-party rivals.

Too bad Sullivan can't get elected lieutenant governor in his own right. He'd certainly have my vote.

The death of Zarqawi

Even if no rational person believes that the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi will end the violence in Iraq, it's certainly good news that he's been killed. John Burns of the New York Times reports on the raid that ended in Zarqawi's death. Writing in the Washington Post, Ellen Knickmeyer and Jonathan Finer assert:

His killing is the most significant public triumph for the U.S.-led coalition since the 2003 capture of Saddam Hussein, although analysts warned that Zarqawi's killing would not stem the tide of insurgency and violence in Iraq any more than Hussein's capture did.

Al-Jazeera runs a chilling piece on the reaction of Zarqawi's family. Zarqawi's older brother is quoted as saying, "We expected that he would be martyred. We hope that he will join other martyrs in heaven." That's the problem: There's no shortage of the hatred that created Zarqawi.

Rory Carroll writes in the Guardian:

We can assume that al-Qaida in Iraq will attempt reprisal attacks as soon as possible, to show it is still in business; also that the organisation will operate at less than full steam while it tries to fill its leadership void.

Beyond that, the significance of this week's US strike on Baquba, 40 miles north of the capital, is difficult to gauge. Too much mythology, too much spin, encrusts the name Zarqawi to know at this stage whether his death is a turning point or a footnote.

Writing for the Daily Standard, Dan Darling, a "counterterrorism expert," calls Zarqawi "one of the most accomplished mass murderers in the modern history of terrorism." Yet Darling concedes that the extent of Zarqawi's power and influence have always been something of a mystery. Darling concludes:

Zarqawi's death is unlikely to prove the immediate end of either al Qaeda in Iraq or the Iraqi insurgency, as Zarqawi was, by his own account, only a servant or representative of al Qaeda's international terrorist organization. Yet it must be noted that Zarqawi was also a monster of unspeakable proportions. The United States, its coalition allies, and the new Iraqi government have much to be thankful for in bringing an end to this mass murderer's career.

Well, that's certainly true. And not just mass murder: up close and personal, too, as Zarqawi was believed to have personally been involved in beheading hostages. Zarqawi's death may have little more than symbolic value, but symbolism matters.

Hark, the Herald

The Boston Herald was whacked today with two separate accusations of lifting material from other publications without giving credit.

In the stranger of the two incidents, the Huffington Post reveals that the Inside Track (barely) rewrote an Editor & Publisher item about -- yes! -- plagiarism. Trackster Gayle Fee says she was in a rush and concedes that she should have credited E&P. The item appears to have been removed from the Herald's Web site. (Via Romenesko.)

Also today, the Weekly Dig has documented some close similarities between a Herald story on people who answer their cell phones even when they're not ringing and a New York Times story on the same subject. London's Daily Telegraph appears to have been a source, too.

Meanwhile, Herald publisher Pat Purcell tells the Boston Business Journal that he hasn't ruled out free distribution (although he's skeptical), and that he'd love to outsource his printing so that he no longer has to rely on presses that are, in some cases, 50 years old.

Kirk Davis re-emerges

GateHouse Media's acquisition of Community Newspaper Co. (CNC) and Enterprise NewsMedia is now complete, according to a statement by GateHouse CEO Mike Reed.

GateHouse -- formerly Liberty Group Publishing -- is paying a reported $400 million to buy the 100-newspaper-plus CNC chain from Boston Herald publisher Pat Purcell, as well as the Enterprise NewsMedia's holdings: the Patriot Ledger of Quincy, the Enterprise of Brockton and 23 affiliated weekly papers on the South Shore and in Old Colony.

As Media Nation predicted, Kirk Davis is back big-time, as he has been named to run the business operations of the combined groups. Davis was the top business executive of CNC when it was owned by Fidelity, but left not long after Purcell bought the company in 2001. Until today, he's held a lower-profile position as chief executive of Enterprise NewsMedia.

Now Davis instantly becomes one of the most powerful newspaper executives in Eastern Massachusetts, rivaling Richard Gilman, who runs the Boston Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette for the New York Times Co., as well as the Times Co.'s minority stake in Metro Boston and the New England Sports Network.

The complete text of Reed's statement follows:

I'm pleased to announce that we have successfully closed on our acquisition of CP Media Inc. (Community Newspaper Company) and Enterprise NewsMedia LLC. Thank you for your patience as we worked diligently and expeditiously to complete the purchase. On behalf of the management and employees of GateHouse Media, we welcome you and look forward to a successful transition and promising future.

Effective today, I am also pleased to announce that Kirk Davis, CEO, President and Publisher of Enterprise NewsMedia LLC, will assume the additional responsibilities of CEO, President and Publisher of Community Newspaper Company (CNC). Kirk will report directly to me. I'm also pleased to announce that Greg Rush, Chief Operating Officer and Associate Publisher of CNC will continue in his current role, reporting to Kirk.

Kirk has been in the community newspaper industry for over 20 years. He has served in his current role since 2004. Prior to joining Enterprise NewsMedia, Kirk served as a senior executive at Community Newspaper Company from 1995 through 2001. He held the position of president and publisher from 1998 through 2001. He understands the local newspaper business extremely well, the Boston market extremely well and recognizes our potential to grow and better serve our readers and advertisers.

Throughout this process, I’ve been impressed with the management team members I've met from Enterprise NewsMedia and CNC. In addition, I've been very impressed with the overall companies that all of you have been instrumental in assembling. Both companies have great newspapers and great businesses. I'm confident that, under Kirk's leadership, we can build on our proud tradition of being the region’s premier provider of local news and information.

I look forward to supporting your efforts however I can be of help. Again, we feel privileged to have acquired both companies and look forward to getting started.

I understand Kirk is planning a series of employee meetings in July. I'll look forward to attending some of those meetings. It's our intent to keep you apprised of our progress.
Thank you!

GateHouse Media is in the process of moving from Illinois to Rochester, N.Y. And, by the way, the aforementioned Greg Rush is Purcell's son-in-law. Purcell needs to maintain the content-sharing arrangement he has with CNC. Rush's presence should help ensure that.

And keep an eye on what's next. Reed is the former chief executive of the Alabama-based Community Newspaper Holdings Inc., which last year purchased the Eagle-Tribune of Lawrence, the Daily News of Newburyport, the Salem News and the Gloucester Daily Times.

As I said in my earlier item, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see those four papers added to GateHouse's holdings in, say, the next year or two. That would create an unprecedented newspaper behemoth in Eastern Massachusetts, with the Globe, the Herald and the Telegram & Gazette functioning as the group's only significant rivals.

Is this kind of giantism good for community journalism? Of course not. Davis has always struck me as a well-intentioned guy who cares about the news to the extent that the cost of gathering it doesn't exceed the miserly budgets set by ownership. But where is the localism in all this?

Yes, local coverage will be the bread and butter of the CNC/Enterprise group. Wicked Local, an experiment over which Davis has presided, is promising. But for those of us who believe that local ownership matters, today's announcement is just another example of what's gone wrong in the newspaper business.

Ownership concerns aside, though, I'm actually optimistic that the new owners have deep enough pockets to improve their new papers. Let's hope.

Because "Iraq" begins with "I," not "V"

Christopher Hitchens, deep into self-parody, writes a piece for Slate called "Why Haditha isn't My Lai." He's absolutely right, of course. This is 2006, not 1968, which obviously makes the two incidents significantly different. And let's not forget that Vietnam is part of Indochina, whereas Iraq is in the Middle East.

Hitchens, sharp analyst that he is, also notes that the alleged atrocities in Haditha just took a few minutes, whereas William Calley and company spent all day slaughtering civilians in Vietnam. Also, the Viet Cong were much, much nicer than those nasty Iraqi and Islamist insurgents.

You will not be surprised to learn that Mark Steyn is traveling down the same road as Hitchens. Peter Daou captures Steyn and Hitchens perfectly: "Steyn is a self-styled 'conservative' worshipped by many on the right for his Hitchens-esque turns of phrase (no, not a compliment) ..." But read the whole thing -- Daou's got some classic lines in there.

The charges regarding Haditha have not been proved. But if they're true, or substantially true, then the analogy to My Lai will be perfect -- tragically so.

Damon un-Moored

Some more tidbits about Peter Damon, the injured Iraqi war veteran who's suing filmmaker Michael Moore for using a news clip of him in "Fahrenheit 9/11" in a way that Damon claims falsely portrays him as a critic of President Bush. (Earlier items here, here and here.)

-- MSNBC.com gossip columnist Jeannette Walls today quotes Damon's lawyer, Dennis Lynch, as denying that Damon and his parents joined Sen. Ted Kennedy on the podium for an anti-war speech in 2004. Lynch is wrong, which raises the question of why he chose to deny reality rather than come up with a plausible explanation. Walls also writes:

In another film, one blasting Michael Moore [Walls is apparently referring to the Dick Morris-narrated "Fahrenhype 9/11"], Damon was quoted as saying that he disagreed with Moore's documentary, which he called "propaganda." But when asked if Moore had he right to make the movie, Damon replied, "That's the reason we go off to fight -- to defend his right to make a movie."

Of course, that was before Lynch dangled visions of $85 million before his eyes.

-- Speaking of Lynch, this post to the Democratic Underground has a bunch of material on his ties to ultraconservative causes. D.U. is obviously a partisan site, and I don't like the idea of guilt by association. But, as you'll see, the post consists almost entirely of links to Lynch's own writings. Moreover, it fills in a few pieces of the puzzle regarding Lynch's agenda, if not necessarly Damon's.

Boston trivia fans will note the tenuous connection to former Boston mayor Ray Flynn.

-- Here are some interesting thoughts on the fair-use exception to copyright law. As the blogger A.J. Schnack observes:

While the lawsuit is clearly part of a larger effort to get that leftie-commie Michael Moore, it is going to be an interesting and important test case that will either chill the work of nonfiction filmmakers (if it succeeds) or set in stone a rule to guide us in the future -- we can use clips from news programs (and the people interviewed in them) to make our own case -- even if the case we are making is the opposite of what the person being interviewed believes.

Moore-haters, pay careful attention to what Schnack is saying. He's not saying that Moore has the right to distort or alter Damon's words. What he is saying is that a journalist, a nonfiction filmmaker or an author has the right to use someone's words in the service of his or her own agenda, even if that person is offended, as long as the person is portrayed accurately. It's that right that Damon and Lynch are trying to topple. You might know it by a more familiar name: the First Amendment.

-- Finally, it's now been four days since we learned that Damon might have been against the war before he was for it. I've done a pretty thorough search, and can find no evidence that he has spoken since that revelation was posted at Reason.com.

Certainly Damon had proven that he can deliver some pithy sound bites. Has Dennis Lynch told him to shut up? And why might that be?

Go, Jon, go. My friend Jon Keller did a long interview with Damon last week, before the Ted Kennedy revelation. Here's how Keller ends his piece: "One final note. Damon says he supported the war when he went over, and he still supports it now." Time for a follow-up, I'd say.

The $85 million question

We live in a binary world. Michael Moore may have committed bad journalism by making injured veteran Peter Damon look like a critic of the war in Iraq. (Or maybe not.) Does it therefore follow that Damon deserves $85 million? There's pristine journalism and there's legally actionable journalism; then there's the other 90 percent. That 90 percent is the zone in which Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" falls. (Earlier items, with links, below.)

Yet folks who ought to know better are so consumed with contempt for Moore that they're abandoning their common sense. This morning, for instance, I did a 15- or 20-minute stint with Scott Allen Miller on WRKO Radio (AM 680). Miller leapt to Damon's defense, claiming it would be no different if he spliced in a humorous quip from Mayor Tom Menino after an item about crack cocaine. Well, of course it would be different. In the NBC News clip at issue, Damon was, in fact, talking about his injuries. Moore didn't change that.

And, uh, Scotto: Could WRKO survive a legal precedent that playing unaltered, accurate news clips can cost you tens of millions of dollars if someone doesn't like the context? For that matter, could any talk show or news organization?

Even more ludicrous, the Boston Herald today editorializes in Damon's defense. The editorial ends with this:

Ordinarily we're not huge fans of taking every dispute to court. But any lawsuit that attempts to show Moore for the pompous fraud he truly is surely deserves a hearing on the merits. And any man who would exploit and distort the words of a genuine American hero is beyond contempt.

Question: Does Herald publisher Pat Purcell support the idea that he could be hauled into court every time someone thinks a Herald reporter has quoted him accurately but out of context?

I don't want to go too far out on a limb without having a chance to see "Fahrenheit 9/11" again. But based on what I've read, it doesn't even sound like Damon himself was taken out of context -- rather, he simply doesn't like the context in which he appeared. He is seen in an NBC News clip talking about the pain he's in following a terrible accident in which he lost both of his arms while repairing a Black Hawk helicopter.

Yes, the clip is surrounded by anti-war and anti-Bush material, but none of it is attributed to Damon. He was talking about a new painkiller he was trying; Moore was more interested in Damon's injuries. Not to sound insensitive, but so what? Moore obviously has the right to tell the story he wishes to tell as long as he doesn't distort Damon's views. It doesn't sound like he did. Damon's a war hero, and his complaints deserve to be heard. But that doesn't mean he deserves $85 million. Or, for that matter, the price of a movie ticket.

(An aside: Let's get over the whole notion of whether Moore is a journalist. It doesn't matter. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a form of advocacy journalism, regardless of Moore's status as a journalist, a filmmaker, an entertainer or whatever.)

Then there's the whole matter of whether Damon is a latecomer to the pro-Bush brigades. Scotto, for one, seems to think Damon and his parents appeared at an anti-war speech by Sen. Ted Kennedy, at the liberal Center for American Progress, simply out of respect for the office that Kennedy holds.

It's possible. I'll withhold judgment until we hear from Damon. But it's hard not to notice that the Kennedy revelation came shortly after noon yesterday, and Damon, as far as I can tell, has not yet been heard from.

The bottom line is this: If every act of journalistic malpractice (if that's what this even was) were worth $85 million, the news media -- and the First Amendment -- would cease to exist. No doubt there are those who would be happy about that.

Well, that was quick

It's all over for Peter Damon, who once stood next to Ted Kennedy as the senator delivered an anti-war message -- a message that, by all appearances, he agreed with at the time. Thanks to Dan.

Suing Michael Moore

The double-amputee war veteran who's suing Michael Moore over the way he's portrayed in "Fahrenheit 911" seems to be depending on a fairly novel legal theory. Politics aside, journalists and filmmakers everywhere should be rooting for Moore.

According to the Boston Globe and Reuters, Peter Damon, who lost both arms in an accident while repairing a helicopter, is alleging only that Moore used an NBC News clip of him being interviewed. As best as I can tell, Damon's not claiming that Moore distorted that interview in any way. Rather, Damon's upset because he's a supporter of President Bush, and Moore incorporated the clip into his notoriously anti-Bush documentary.

"It was kind of almost like the enemy was using me for propaganda," Damon was quoted as saying. "What soldier wants to be involved in that? I didn't lose my arms over there to come back and be used as ammunition against my commander-in-chief.''

Now, I haven't watched "Fahrenheit 911" again to analyze the Damon segment. But I will grant him that Moore may well have given his viewers the mistaken impression that Damon was being critical of Bush. As Reuters reports:

In "Fahrenheit 9/11," the footage of Damon follows a statement by Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington, who says of the Bush administration: "You know they say they're not leaving any veterans behind, but they're leaving all kinds of veterans behind.''

But as long as Damon himself was portrayed accurately, his legal claim ought to be dismissed.

No doubt Moore faced hurdles simply using the NBC News footage. Even though the fair-use doctrine of copyright law clearly allows third parties such as Moore to show excerpts for the purpose of commentary, media corporations have gotten more and more aggressive about protecting their turf. NPR's "On the Media" recently reported on how difficult it's become to claim fair use; click here and here for transcripts.

If the subjects of interviews, accurately portrayed, can now sue over contextual complaints such as Damon's, then the First Amendment would be dealt an enormous blow. Damon has suffered a lot, and it's a shame that he believes he was used as an unwitting tool. But was Moore supposed to seek Damon's permission before using the news clip? Ask him what he thought of the president? That's apparently what Damon and his lawyer believe. I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.

Herald columnists freed

When Boston Herald publisher Pat Purcell sold his Community Newspaper subsidiary last month, he talked about beefing up the Herald's online presence as part of his survival strategy. Today he takes a step in that direction, making his columnists freely accessible. Bloggers everywhere will be delighted. The Herald touts the move here.

It strikes me that Purcell had put himself in an untenable middle position. On the one hand, the Herald is an urban tabloid that depends almost entirely on newsstand sales. By giving it away online, he runs the risk that many readers will get what they want out of it in five or 10 minutes at their computers: the Inside Track, the front page, maybe a columnist or two. In fact, I argued last year that Purcell should consider getting rid of the Herald's Web site entirely.

On the other hand, if Purcell really believes the Web can become part of his long-term strategy, it makes no sense to wall off the columnists by making them available only to his tiny number of home-delivery subscribers and to online readers willing to pay an extra fee. Even the New York Times has had only modest success with its TimesSelect program. The Herald ain't the Times.

Overall, then, a thumb's up. You can't have a successful Web site if you don't offer your most popular content. So welcome back, Peter, Margery, Howie, Wayne, Gerry and Steve. And, yes, even you, Joe.

Actually, they don't have to

Of all the strange utterances to issue forth from Michael Lacey, the Phoenix-based New Times head who swallowed up the Village Voice some months back, today's, in the New York Times, is among the strangest.

Asked how non-New Yorker Erik Wemple, the newly named Voice editor, would play in New York, Lacey replied: "That's just a thing that New Yorkers are going to have to get over."

Well isn't that interesting? Maybe Lacey bought the Voice because he was under the impression that New Yorkers are required to pick it up every week. It's every newpaper mogul's dream, of course, but only Lacey seems to think it's reality.

This is not to disparage Wemple, until now the editor of the Washington City Paper, where he enjoys a good reputation. But Lacey needs to understand that he's not going to shove anything down the throats of New Yorkers unless they want it shoved.

Here is the official announcement.