While the Boston Herald is all over this story about a drive to register welfare recipients to vote, the Boston Globe plays catch-up. Details at IGTLTDT.
While the Boston Herald is all over this story about a drive to register welfare recipients to vote, the Boston Globe plays catch-up. Details at IGTLTDT.
Yesterday ABC’s political digest The Note parachuted into the donnybrook between Scott Brown (R-Have You Met My Wife?) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Why Can’t We Be More Like the Chinese?) and delivered an entirely uncritical overview of the hottest U.S. Senate race in the country.
Massachusetts Senate Race Pits the Colonel vs. the Professor
BOSTON — Ask any Republican or Democrat to name the most important Senate races in the fight for control of the Democratic-led chamber, and they will undoubtedly include one state in particular: Massachusetts. The state’s Republican Sen. Scott Brown will go up against Democrat and Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren in what polling indicates is likely to be a close race.
The problem with the Note piece is that it’s more narrative than analysis, reproducing the candidates’ statements instead of scrutinizing them.
Exhibit A:
“Bottom line is, I’m the second-most bipartisan senator in the U.S. Senate,” Brown said. “I’ve done exactly what I said I was going to do, which is to read the bills, understand them, see how they affect Massachusetts, our country, our debt, our deficit and vote.”
That’s true only if you measure 2011 Senate votes (see Boston Globe piece here). But it’s not true if you consider key votes from 2010 to 2012 (see Globe piece here). A small detail, to be sure, but one worth, er, noting.
Warren gets a similar pass on statements such as this:
“America’s middle class is getting hammered and Washington is rigged to work for the big guy. That’s what got me into this race, and that’s what I will talk about.”
Uh-huh. Tell that to the homeowners whose foreclosed house she flipped. Or the asbestos victims she fought against on behalf of Travelers Insurance.
Agree or disagree with the hardworking staff’s criticism, you have to admit The Note failed to do its due diligence.
Beyond any quibbles over the facts, that’s the central issue here.
Will Whitey actually take the stand as his lawyer asserted yesterday? The jury’s still out at the local dailies. Details at IGTLTDT.
The hardwincing staff has previously noted the campaign usage by Sen. Scott Brown (R-Folding Laundry) of his wife, former WCVB-TV reporter Gail Huff.
Now comes the latest incarnation (via Politico’s Morning Score):
SCOTT BROWN’S “GAIL” features the Republican senator’s wife announcing that she’s taking a leave of absence to work on his campaign because what he’s doing is so “vitally important.” Gail Huff reports for ABC 7/WJLA, which is owned by POLITICO parent Allbritton Communications.
The video:
As my former colleague Emily Rooney might say:
Toe-curling.
Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal A-Hed:
The Loudest Olympic Fans? The Hardbitten Folks in the Press Box
Some Journalists Leave Objectivity at Home When Covering the Games; ‘What Joy!’
LONDON—Minutes after British track-and-field darling Jessica Ennis sped over the finish line for a heptathlon gold in front of 80,000 spectators at the Olympic stadium Saturday, BBC sportscaster Steve Cram took stock of the jubilation—in the broadcast booth.
“We all stood on our feet and applauded,” Mr. Cram reported. “To a man, everybody in the broadcasting positions that we’re in—and there’s some hardened hacks in here as well…all stood up.”
Not cheering – but joyous – WSJ columnist Jason Gay’s account of Andy Murray’s long-awaited coming-out party:
Finally, a Golden Moment for Murray
He seemed stunned, as if unsure of what to do. For the tiniest fraction of a second, Andy Murray stood between the baseline and service box, expressionless. There was no immediate drop to his knees, like Bjorn Borg once did in this cathedral. There was no impromptu snacking on the hallowed grass, like Novak Djokovic one summer ago.
Then it registered. Murray dropped his racket. He buried his face in his hands. He crouched low, knees bent. It was over. Official.
He’d done it. The arrival so many had predicted for him was here.
So now – maybe – men’s tennis has a Big Four. However it turns out, the Olympics was the Big For Andy Murray.
The dog days of August have taken on a whole new meaning this election year. Political ad spending (a.k.a. attack advertising) has already reached Brobdingnagian levels usually reserved for the waning days of a campaign.
From MSNBC’s First Read:
Last week, the campaigns, political parties, and outside interest groups spent almost $40 million in TV ads in the presidential contest, according to ad-spending data from SMG Delta. And this week, with the Americans for Prosperity $25 million buy for the next month (which breaks out to some $5 million per week), that number could very well jump up to $45 million or $50 million — in August. And in just 8-12 battleground states.
This is the Depraved New World of political campaigns. And it’s not limited to the presidential election. From yesterday’s New York Times:
Outside Cash in Missouri Race Could Be a National Model
WASHINGTON — Missouri’s long, divisive Republican Senate primary draws to a close Tuesday, but after all the intraparty fireworks, it is the incumbent Democrat, Senator Claire McCaskill, who remains in deep trouble.
As the three Republican candidates have battled it out, Ms. McCaskill has had to buckle down as well. Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS, David and Charles Koch’s Americans For Prosperity, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the 60 Plus Association have dumped as much as $15 million into the state since July 2011 to keep her on her heels.
And on her toes.
For her part, Ms. McCaskill has made the outside money the main opponent of the campaign.
One McCaskill advertisement says: “They just keep coming back. Secret money attacking Claire McCaskill. These big oil and insurance companies don’t want you to know who they are.” As a stream of televisions showing her competitors’ ads moves across the screen, it continues: “Claire McCaskill will fight them. Always has, always will.”
Well, maybe not always. We’ll see in November.
Boston Globe reporter Glen Johnson’s Political Intelligence column riffs on Elizabeth Warren, whiffs on Boston Herald attribution. Details at IGTLTDT.
Yesterday the hardreading staff at It’s Good to Live in a Two-Daily Town noted that the Boston Sunday Globe had two major takeouts on its front page.
Turns out, they also appeared on boston.com – here and here.
The hardworking staff seems to remember that when the Globe split its website into boston.com (pay with information) and BostonGlobe.com (pay with money) in September of last year, Globe execs said the former would provide “a limited selection of stories from the paper.”
But if the two biggest stories from Sunday’s paper can be had for free on boston.com, why would anyone subscribe to the pay site?
BostonGlobe.com certainly had a less-than-auspicious debut. From the Boston Business Journal in February:
The Globe has 16,000 digital subscribers after four months of going live, according to the Times’ earnings report. It started its online experiment with about 5,800 digital subscribers, according to the latest Audit Bureau of Circulations report, so the net gain is about 10,000.
The hardsearching staff is still trying to find current numbers, but for some reason 44,000 is stuck in our head.
Anything you can add, splendid readers?
Meanwhile, any response, Globe execs?