Kristol's Version

After Obama appeared with Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday, Wallace gathered around him his usual crew which includes the Daffy Duck of the right, William Kristol.

Kristol, who likes to "point out," used the opportunity to point out how Obama is faltering and stumbling and losing ground to the ever charging, ever tough Hillary Clinton. Then Kristol, practically unable to contain his glee, essentially jumped into the camera to further claim that Clinton not only has all that momentum but, (wait for it) SHE LEADS IN THE VOTE COUNT, TOO.

I'd like to make that an exact quote but I don't have a transcript. However, there is no question it is exactly what he was saying. Loud and certain, no waffling.

Skip forward a mere 24 hours to Kristol's column in the NY Times:

Furthermore, if you add up the votes in all the primaries and caucuses — excluding Michigan (where only Hillary was on the ballot), and imputing the likely actual totals in the four caucus states, where only percentages were reported — Clinton now trails in overall votes by only about 300,000, or about 1 percent of the total....

Note all those qualifiers in the column. Compare his assertion in the friendly, and shall we say, less constrictive environs of FOX News to that of the NY Times, which still clings (sadly, often weakly) to some standards for truthfulness. (And even in the Times, Kristol still tenaciously includes Florida and its disallowed primary in this version of his count.)

He can't even agree with himself.

I can hardly wait to see if he has yet a third version in The Weekly Standard where he is Editor.

Well, actually I can wait.

Kennedy responds....

I get so few comments here so I was delighted that Dan Kennedy himself chose to read and respond to my last, just below, about using first names of public figures. I am particularly pleased that Kennedy (notice I don't refer to him as Dan) would take time to do that because my post was about his Media Nation blog, and because I particularly respect his opinion.

Since comments are public I thought I'd post it here in a more prominent place, along with my reply.

Dan Kennedy said...

I don't know. His first name is unusual, which acts as kind of a branding. And his last name sounds more like a first name. Couldn't that have something to do with it, too? And what about Rudy (Giuliani)?

I say:

Patrick isn't, to the best of my knowledge (limited I admit), involved in this kind of branding, nor is his staff or advisors. And neither is Obama.

As for Rudy, this was a famously unlikable man, and before his campaign dropped off the face of the earth I am guessing he tried putting forth “Rudy” to soften his image. But though he used his first name as his website address he still referred to himself there by his full name. And the various articles and blog entries I just googled also used both, except in a few cases when it was a second reference within the same piece.

I support allowing the individual to decide how he or she wants to be known, and in a respectful environment we should honor that.

So, fine to say FDR or Give-Em-Hell Harry or Ike. Not so with Patrick or Obama.

And really, I believe that in the cases of Patrick and Obama people use their first names to diminish them and not to show informality or respect or because of any branding, except for the negative kind. The racial aspect also remains.

First Names ....

There is a media blog called Media Nation, written by a smart, concerned, informed Boston professional named Dan Kennedy. I have mentioned it before, and it is (almost) always worth reading.

Today Media Nation focused on Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, dealing with Patrick's continuing deflation in the public eye after a high rolling beginning. That appears, certainly, to be true. But it not what this is about.

This is about the comment section so commonly available at the end of blog posts (including mine).

In the case of Kennedy's piece about Patrick I noticed that the large majority of those posting comments called the Governor by his first name only. So it was Deval this and Deval that. And Kennedy, in his header also calls him Deval.

I wonder whether, even the most anti-Bush people would write about him in public as George? Or refer to Cheney as Dick (without the obvious joke)? And though Hillary Clinton wants to be known as Hillary only, that's clearly to differentiate (and distance) herself from her husband.

So why do it with Governor Patrick? Just as a certain group have taken to using Barack instead of Obama. And does it, just perhaps, have to do with the fact that they both happen to be Black?

Just asking.

The Primary...

The New York Times has written a (link)wonderful editorial about the Pennsylvania primary.

Please, read it. Please.

Marathon....

Yesterday was a beautiful day in Boston and everyone who could showed up. Either to run or to watch. I don't live too far from the finish line so I walked over later in the day as the late arrivals were heaving across the end marker, showing the pain but also the joy in having completed the task.

Many in the four deep crowd remained, cheerfully applauding each competitor, taking their photos, and straining to try to find Lance Armstrong who was running for the first time.

It was a peaceful and contented crowd, and a moving positive event.

This morning when I went by the same location the barriers were down, the litter mostly picked up, remnants of the race largely gone. By tomorrow the area will be returned to normal.

I was thinking about all that while I am getting ready to watch the results in another long-distance race... in Pennsylvania. This one is is different though. By tomorrow when the results are in, and the crowds gone, we most likely still will not know the winner --- only the losers. Us. As usual.

In that marathon the garbage will long remain, the ugly aftermath will linger, barriers still up, the political pollution continuing to foul the air and diminish our possibilities.

WBZ-TV ... say good-bye to all that

Today in Boston the CBS owned television station, WBZ, laid off about thirty staff members. Thirty! Including several of the best known on-air personalities.

The company did the same in other cities where it is an owner, including San Francisco and Chicago, according to reports. But it is in Boston where I live, and at WBZ where I worked (off-and on) in a variety of capacities, including News Director, for oh-so-many years, where the largest number were sent packing.

Probably most everyone knows that newspapers across this country are in sad shape, owners and editors and writers praying they might find some way to recapture their lost readers and attract new ad dollars. No one is predicting how our print media will look in, say, 10 years or so. It's the internet, not paper, which is is the Holy Grail,

I can tell you that inside television, back years ago when I was so involved day-to-day, there was always a kind of built in smugness about layoffs and revenue. We used to tell everyone that we were a recession-proof industry, grabbing viewers faster than an amoeba multiplies. That we'd never have to lay off anyone. We were "golden." The only question was how much profit would increase from the year before. To have let even one someone go, and called it a layoff, would have been embarrassing. Thirty at a time would have been seen as cataclysmic.

We fired people, sure. Firing we did regularly, with a kind of calculating pleasure. But only individuals. Usually lower level staffers, or managers caught up in the unending political intrigue. Anchor talent, the most visible representations of television franchises, were also tossed aside the moment after their ratings fell off, or when they got too uppity about money, or when they pissed us off, or when someone newer or hotter became available. It was a management tool, firing was, designed to keep staffers off balance and afraid, and to drive home how unconcerned we were about losing this person or that one.

(I recall sitting in a room full of overworked, struggling television people who had been showing up seven days a week trying to develop a new local programming venture of great importance to the company. They had finally gotten up enough courage to ask for a meeting with the President of the television station group to tell him that they were discouraged, tired, overworked and maybe underpaid. After dancing around it for a while, someone finally spoke up. Without missing a beat the President said in a soft voice more terrifying than if he had yelled: "Listen. You hear that?" The room became quiet, the occupants strained to hear whatever it was it was he was referring to. After a moment the President raised his arm and pointed upward. " Come on. Listen. It's a 747. And it is circling. And it is filled with people. And all of them want your jobs." The meeting ended. Everyone knew he meant it.)

Now it has changed. People stay a very long time at television stations, there are contracts, pay is considerably higher, hours more appropriate, and there is even gratitude for performance and service. Loyalty is often rewarded. Management and ownership is more enlightened, generally. Abuse still exists I am sure, but not as blatant, not as callous as when we were "golden." People still get fired, especially on-air talent and news management, but a surprising number of employees stay for a very long time. Here in Boston that is particularly true at WBZ and the ABC affiliate, WCVB, both of which have a coterie of people, many well-known, who have been around for years.

What has changed is that now television itself is not doing too well. The networks have been losing their audience base for years and revenue is down. At the local stations there has also been a serious fall off in audience size and advertising year-to-year as well. Television is finally getting tossed around in the same boat with newspapers. And its future is just as uncertain. The trouble is, the jobs are gone, the audience is not terribly interested or engaged, the advertising is drying up.

So, today when all those people were let go at WBZ-TV no one who had been folling developments within the industry could really be surprised. Layoffs? Oh sure, we knew it was coming.

So, listen. You hear that? That plane load of people is still circling. Many plane loads. But for most of those thirty folks who used to be at WBZ in Boston, and for the others elsewhere, there will be no place to land.