Lots of media fallout today from “the call.” Let’s sift through some of it.
First, the good. Eileen McNamara got the Governor to go on the record when, apparently, no one else could (beyond the written statement released yesterday afternoon). Her column is not at all fawning; to the contrary, it takes him to task for what everyone now agrees was a serious error. Patrick himself described the call to McNamara not only as a mistake, but as a “stupid mistake.” He elaborated:
“I don’t get to draw a line between my private self and my public self. Maybe I’m resisting that a little bit, and that’s why I keep making these stupid mistakes.”
Righto.
Now, the fair. Frank Phillips gets another front-page, above the fold article on this, in which he recounts Patrick’s apologies, both written and to McNamara, and tosses in a few other random quotes from legislators and the always unintentionally hilarious Jeffrey Berry from Tufts. Fair enough. Phillips broke the story, so he gets to enjoy it, and the article itself seems more or less unobjectionable, if utterly predictable. One can certainly question the Globe’s judgment in placing this article above the fold, thereby drowning out the news of Scooter Libby’s conviction — is the second-day story on the call really more important than the conviction of a former high-level administration official? Methinks not. But them’s the breaks.
And now, the bullshit. Steve Bailey’s sneering column on the Business page says more about Bailey than it does about Patrick. He starts by mischaracterizing the circumstances surrounding Patrick’s departure from Ameriquest’s board, perhaps hoping that no one will really remember how that went down. Then he goes on to ask a bunch of rhetorical questions designed to paint the most unseemly possible picture of the circumstances surrounding the call, not once acknowledging that most of those questions have in fact been answered — and have been answered in a manner that is generally favorable to Patrick. Two examples: First, Bailey asks, with respect to Patrick making the call not in his official capacity: “Does that mean Patrick left the State House and found a pay phone on Beacon Street? Or did he call from the back seat of his Cadillac?” Hey, guess what Steve: they have these nifty things called “cellular telephones” today. That’s what Patrick used. If Casey Ross could figure that out, so could you. Second, Bailey asks, “Does the governor really think a free pass comes with winning 56 percent of the vote?” Um, no, Steve, as you’d know if you had bothered to read Eileen McNamara’s column or Frank Phillips’ article before you wrote your silly piece. Do you even read the paper you work for?
Vennochi has a web-only piece that doesn’t add much — it asks rhetorical questions not that different from Bailey’s, and again seems unaware of Patrick’s interview with McNamara that answers them. And the Globe editorial page chimes in as well, in a reasonable piece that more or less echoes a lot of the discussion on BMG yesterday. So hopefully everyone at the Globe has had their fun today, and maybe everyone can move on.
Oh wait — Brian McGrory doesn’t write on Wednesdays. Now there’s something to look forward to!
posturing about conflict of interest immediately precedes his own pandering, free-advertising puff piece about one of his bosses.
who does he think he is kidding. I think stopping him before any of his republican agenda goes through is a good idea.
<
p>
The people of massachusetts have to direct the legislature to develop a direction for the massachusetts economy and constitution. We have been undermined and it is about time we come to terms with reality.
<
p>
Deval Patrick is now being seen for what he is and this will happen for all the so-called deomocratic miracle candidates, that appeared on the scene with absolutely no interest or experience in political life or leadership.
<
p>
this is a disaster of 1776 proportions.
You’re saying the American Revolution was a “disaster”? Or were you unhappy with the profit margin of the musical by the same name?
If I thought the way you did, I’d go insane. But don’t let me stop you.
<
p>
PS. Since when was 1776 a disaster? I think it kind of worked out well for us, but that’s just me.
If I understand you right,
Deval messed up big time. The media covered it.
“How predictable – shame on the media.”
<
p>
Is that your point?
<
p>
Not avery good one if I may say.
to speak for David, but I’m pretty sure he said one article was good, one article was okay and the other bad. That’s not exactly your representation of his words, however.
<
p>
Yet, why is your point mutually exclusive? Why can’t both Deval mess up and some elements of the media be at least a little hypoerbolic? Is that scenario really that hard to imagine?
<
p>
david examines each article, likes McNanara’s because it gives us Deval’s spin.
here’s how he descibes Phillips.
<
p>
“Phillips broke the story, so he gets to enjoy it, and the article itself seems more or less unobjectionable, if utterly predictable.’
<
p>
Here David tolerates Phillips in an obnoxious way.
<
p>
The he gets touchy about Bailey making jokes and takes them seriously. (Thanks for pointing out the cell phone to us david.)
<
p>
BTW David, what are the real facts about Deval and Ameriquest?
<
p>
The predatory lender victimizing many poor in America’s cities. And here comes Deval to sit on the board, just like at Coke and Texeco.
<
p>
How come Disney or Ben and Jerry’s didn’t ask Deval to sit on their boards? Why only companies with reputations and government investigations related to treating the little guy like shit?
Was anyone forced to take out a mortgage with Ameriquest? Is it possible that Patrick improved the company? With respect, Ernie I don’t understand what seems to be a reflexively anti-business mantra. Maybe I am missing something in your argument.
Deval seems to have a patternn in the private industry of being a hired gun for window dressing when “his own” are being victimized.
Help Coke and Pepsi as the fend off charges of being racist institutions. Bwe there for window dressing for Ameriquest as they hard sell sub prime loans to people who shouldn’t be in them.
C’mon Bob, now you guys are business friendly and the business you defend id Ameriquest.
You are defending Ameriquest? Hmmmmm
<
p>
Is there any other way possible? Frank Phillips’s article didn’t really add much information. Essentially, it repeated yesterday’s info – only adding in Eileen McNamara’s quotes and info. If Phillips wanted to be more than just obnoxiously tolerable, he would have been the one who got those quotes to begin with – before he published yesterday’s article that was found wanting.
It only makes them angry.
<
p>
Reporters file on deadline – how COULD they have been aware of McNamara’s piece when they wrote the stories, since Deval wasn’t making details available to anyone but her?
<
p>
Watch for another puff piece appearance with Emily Rooney next!
Phillips and the editorial were both able incorporate McNamara’s interview, so I just don’t see how the others couldn’t (especially Vennochi’s column, since it was a web column).
I recall reading Venocchi’s column pretty early in the day yesterday, certainly before today. It was on Boston.com There is no time listed, but the date says March 6, so maybe that is the answer to the question. However, as you point out, it could have been updated by her given its web-based format.
Which could not possibly affect how they cover the story, now could it?
I am a Patrick voter and supporter. I dismissed the caddy/helicpoter/drape stories as silly and irrelevant. I’m not big on symbolism or the message sent by office decor. I am big on action, and the governor’s action in this case was very, very disturbing.
<
p>
The real damage here goes beyond the nuts and bolts of how wrong this call was. The governor’s action has destroyed some measure of trust. If he made this call, how many others has he made, or will he make? I wonder. If this was really a rookie mistake, then the governor is not nearly as smart as I thought he was. Or is there something more to this? I wonder. I shouldn’t have to wonder.
<
p>
Also, as a former practioner in the much maligned MSM, I have a nit to pick with David’s post.
<
p>
He takes, Steve Bailey, and Joan Venocchi to task for failing to read Eileen McNamara’s column.
<
p>
It is often impractical, sometimes impossible, and usually not advisable for one columnist to read another’s column before publication. Sure, (=-speculation warning-=) (=-speculation warning-=) word probably got around the Morrissey Boulevard offices that McNamara had the governor on record, but many columnists don’t work from the newspaper office, and, given the deadlines on a daily newspaper, would have no reason to know. It is entirely possible that she got the interview close to the deadline, long after the other two columnists had filed.
<
p>
It’s the job of an editor to spot obvious inconsistency among reporters or columnists. It his the editor’s job to see the big picture. You might fault the editor here, but I don’t think this rises to the level where an editor should intercede. The Globe has pretty strict guidelines about editing column copy. Remember, all three are columnists, with legitimate license to write based on their informed opinions, and we have a legitimate right to hold them individually (not their paper) accountable.
<
p>
As for news judgement, in my opinion this story belongs above the fold, in front of ScooterGate.
didn’t even acknowledge Patrick’s statement that what he did was a mistake, a statement that went out yesterday afternoon. So regardless of whether he should or shouldn’t have known what McNamara said — and somehow Frank Phillips managed it, so I don’t see why it should have been so hard — my point stands.
But, Phillips is a reporter, it’s his job to know what the governor said, right up to the deadline.
<
p>
That said, mine is a minor nitpick, and not intended to detract from your well reasoned and thoughtful analysis of the coverage.
<
p>
Certainly, the MSM is deserving of criticism on many fronts. However, it is a recurring pet peeve of mine that bloggers occasionally demonstrate little understanding of deadlines, or other facts of daily journalism life that do not exist in the blogosphere.
<
p>
Hope nitpicking a nitpick doesn’t make me a nitwit.
In light of the recent information about this story from today’s Globe and the filing of an Ethics Complaint by the Mass GOP, this excuse for the Governor has to stop. He maybe a “rookie” governor but he is also a lawyer and conflict of interest should not be anything new to him. In fact, being a lawyer should have given him better insight into the conflicts posed by this call then say, a venture capitalist.
<
p>
Patrick told the Globe today,
<
p>
<
p>
He is trying to hide behind the short tenure as an excuse for an ethical laps that a first year law student would be able to recognize.
I don’t think “is this a conflict of interest” is the first thing that pops into your mind when someone asks for your help. Maybe that’s just me.
I work as an environmental consultant and I constantly have to ask myself that questions. I do a lot of work with municipalities, lawyers, banks and developers and we are always examining potential conflicts of interest in the work that we perform. As a lawyer who has passed the bar exam, I am sure he is aware that he should be doing the same.
<
p>
From Answers.com on the bar exam,
<
p>
Having to take and pass the MPRE isn’t really going to mean that every lawyer knows all there is to know about conflicts of interest etc., and particularly in a given situation. Dirty little secret here: A couple of weeks before the MPRE, BarBri (the people who teach the review courses prior to the bar exam) give a two or three hour class on the MPRE and what you need to know and then give you study materials. You then study for about 2 or 3 hours before the exam and you have all you need to know to pass the test. (Corollary to the dirty little secret is that the same holds true for the Bar Exam, just on a bigger, longer scale…BarBri tells you what you need to know to pass, you memorize it, pass the exam, forget all you learned).
<
p>
Another problem is that you take the MPRE once before the Bar Exam. If that was 20 years ago, laws/practice/rules can change.
<
p>
Not trying to excuse behavior etc., but I always find it amusing when non-lawyers assume a lawyer should know something regarding a particular area of the law. In truth, you memorize what you need to know to pass the exam and then you go off and practice. You’ll know the area of law you work in, and off course you are familiar with other areas, but by no means an expert.
I was responding to Ryan’s post that…
<
p>
<
p>
What I did was point out that “conflict of interest” is something he is aware of based on the fact that his training is as a lawyer. I provided the quote I did to show that lawyers are required to consider conflicts of interest. Conflict of interest is not a “particular area of the law” but a concept in ethics that should stay with a lawyer even if it was 20 years ago that he had to pass a test on it.
State and Federal have different rules.
<
p>
He should look into that.
It was online at 7 pm yesterday, and may have been posted earlier. But there’s no way to know that unless you happened to notice it at the time.
AR,
<
p>
I just made the same point above, sorry I had not made it this far down thread yet to acknowledge your contribution.
<
p>
I recall it being there even earlier, perhaps by 4 or 5pm.
The real issue with this call (and the events of the weeks preceding) is not so much with the substance. Rather, it’s become much more of a indication that the Administration is having some serious difficulties managing the politics of the office.
<
p>
One of the critical requirements of the job of Governor of the Commonwealth is being able to (1) handle the media and (2) stake out a strong role for the Executive vis-a-vis the legislature. That the Governor is failing at controlling the former is quickly leading to his losing a grasp on the latter goal.
<
p>
It may not be “fair” and it may not be “right”, but that’s how it works. If the Governor keeps generating potential stories that will give him negative press, and fails to begin understanding why this is happening, then he will simply become weaker and lose grasp on any sort of agenda he wants to put forward.
<
p>
This is the situation that appears unfolding now, and the Administration needs to get a better handle on things or it will become more and more irrelevant down the line.
when you assert that “Patrick’s interview with McNamara… answers” Vennochi’s rhetorical questions.
<
p>
<
p>
These are in fact very different from Bailey’s questions. He snipes and tries, as you write, to muddy up this matter by mixing in other unrelated criticisms and his own biases. Vennochi, however, asks exactly the questions on everyone’s mind. (And her piece came out first – last night.)
<
p>
What Patrick has done so far has not been to answer, but to spin. And spinning is about all he can do at this point. He certainly can’t say nothing, and so far he’s gotten closer to saying the right thing about the call. But we as the audience of his spin need to be a little more skeptical before we declare matters settled.
<
p>
Finally, you don’t need to exhort us to “move on” – from this, from Caddygate, or from any of it. None of this stuff threatens to stop time. What it should do, however, is incline us further and further away from granting Patrick the benefit of the doubt, and more toward coming at him with the sort of questioning, critical edge that true civic engagement demands.
<
p>
Jeremy
Because he ends his column o’ outrage about conflicts of interest with a shill for a fund run by one of the Board members of the NYT Co.: owner of the Globe.