Politico’s no-names, no-details attack on Cain

Herman Cain

I’m sure we haven’t heard the end of this, so no need to wade in too deeply just yet. But if you haven’t heard, Politico yesterday posted a story claiming that the National Restaurant Association had paid settlements to two women who said Herman Cain had sexually harassed them while he and they worked there.

It is a curious story, to say the least. There are no names — Politico says it’s protecting their identities, as though we were talking about rape victims. And though Politico reports that it has seen the documents, the details it presents are murky, to say the least.

As Dan Gillmor says, “I will believe Politico’s story when they name an actual source or two, or show documentation. Until then, it’s pure BS in my mind.”

Meanwhile, consider the headlines on these two follow-up stories:

• Politico: “Cain attacks, doesn’t deny POLITICO report”
• The Associated Press: “Cain denies report of sexual harassment”

Labor unrest hits the Union Leader

Manchester Newspaper Guild members on the picket line.

Some serious labor unrest has hit the  New Hampshire Union Leader, as the Manchester Newspaper Guild voted 76-0 on Wednesday to turn down a contract proposal. According to the Guild, management has threatened to lay off six employees and implement a 10 percent pay cut if the two sides can’t reach an agreement by Monday.

The Guild claims that management “has demanded an across-the-board, 10-percent reduction in Guild salaries, cuts in sick time, a longer work week, the revocation of protections for full-time jobs, and the elimination of unpaid union leave, among other givebacks.”

Tony Schinella of Patch recently reported that the Guild picketed a Rick Perry event and wants all presidential candidates seeking an endorsement from the Union Leader to ask that management “bargain respectfully with its unions.”

The Union Leader does not appear to have covered the contract dispute in its own pages. Management is, of course, welcome to respond in the comments.

The photo, which accompanies the Patch story linked above, was provided to Patch by the Newspaper Guild.

Talking up terrorism and the right to free speech

It was Peter Gelzinis’ column in today’s Boston Herald that got me thinking about the case of Tarek Mehanna, the Sudbury man on trial for terrorism-related charges in U.S. District Court in Boston.

Mehanna’s lawyer, J.W. Carney, argues that Mehanna’s activities have been limited to advocacy on behalf of Al Qaeda, which is protected by the First Amendment. But prosecutors, as Milton Valencia reports in today’s Boston Globe, have been suggesting that Mehanna is guilty of actual terrorist activities, including traveling to Yemen to receive training.

So I sat up and took notice when I saw this quote in Gelzinis’ column, in which federal prosecutor Aloke Chakravarty tells the jury that Mehanna had translated documents such as “39 Ways to Serve and Participate in Jihad” into English. “Simply agreeing to do that is a crime in this country,” Chakravarty said.

Well, it may be a crime, but if it is, the law under which Mehanna has been charged is almost certainly unconstitutional. Essentially, Mehanna is being charged with incitement to violence, a category of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment, and can thus be prosecuted. But the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that speech cannot be considered incitement unless it presents a genuine threat of immediate harm — a right-here, right-now standard that does not apply to general calls for violence.

In 1969, the court ruled that a Ku Klux Klan leader named Clarence Brandenburg could not be prosecuted for calling for “revengeance” (no, not a word, but Klan leaders tend not to be too brite) against Jews and African-Americans, ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio:

Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

Eight years later, the courts overturned efforts by officials in Skokie, Ill., aimed at preventing a neo-Nazi group from marching through the streets of their community. The Supreme Court, having spoken in the Brandenburg case, declined to get involved.

To the extent that Mehanna’s alleged crimes amount to pure advocacy, even of violence against the government and of terrorism, his speech is protected by the First Amendment. As Carney says, “We can hold onto these views, and we can speak them, even if it’s what upsets the United States government. It’s what makes the United States so great, so strong, and so free.”

I find it shocking that Chakravarty read to the jury an ode Mehanna allegedly wrote to commemorate the terrorist attacks of 9/11. If that isn’t protected speech, well, I don’t know what is. It’s the speech we find most loathsome that is in the greatest need of protection. Keep that in mind as this case moves forward.

First Amendment rights and wrongs

In an effort to respect the First Amendment‘s guarantee of freedom of religion, the Upton selectmen have given short shrift to another provision of the First Amendment: “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”

According to Jessica Heslam of the Boston Herald, the selectmen recently voted to reject a request by local Catholics to hold a “rosary rally” on the town common, citing the separation of church and state.

But as noted civil-liberties lawyer and Friend of Media Nation Harvey Silverglate tells Heslam, there is no constitutional problem with allowing a prayer rally on public property as long as other groups are accorded the same right of access. Another civil-liberties lawyer, Chester Darling, goes further, saying, “Those selectmen belong in federal court.”

Prediction: The selectmen are going to change their minds.

Update, Oct. 28: Well, that was fast.

Kevin Convey on the art of tabloid-headline writing

There’s an interesting profile of former Boston Herald editor Kevin Convey, now editor of the New York Daily News, in the current issue of the Colby College alumni magazine. Written by old Northeastern friend David McKay Wilson, the profile begins with a good anecdote about the Daily News’ collector’s-item front page following the killing of Osama bin Laden: “Rot in Hell!”

Convey’s suggestions — “Dead,” a play on the famous Daily News front page on the execution of convicted killer Ruth Snyder, and “We Got Him” — were deemed not quite right before a copy editor came up with the winner.

“Tabloid headlines are a very demanding form,” Convey told Wilson. “You are putting big words on a page that 530,000 people will buy and 2 million will read. It’s like journalistic haiku.”

Talking about information literacy at Bentley

I’ll be part of a panel discussion this evening at Bentley University on information literacy, along with Elizabeth LeDoux, senior lecturer and director of the Media and Culture Program at Bentley, and Cynthia Robinson, research director at Bain Capital.

Titled “Who Wrote This and Why Should I Care? Evaluating and Understanding Information in a Business Context,” the discussion will begin at 6:30 p.m. at Bentley’s LaCava Campus Center, room 305AB.

The moderator will be Chris Beneke, associate professor of history and director of Bentley’s Valente Center for Arts and Sciences. We’ll also hear from Kathy Aronoff, special projects librarian at Bentley, and Elizabeth Galoozis, reference librarian and coordinator of user education.

It should be a wicked good time, and I hope to see you there. Here’s a copy of the program.

The Providence Journal’s print-first strategy (II)

Just out of curiosity, I tried out the Providence Journal on Mrs. Media Nation’s iPad last night. And though I haven’t changed my mind about PDF-based e-editions being generally miserable to navigate and read, the iPad app does make the experience decidedly less miserable.

Being able to use my hands to tap on stories and flip through the paper made using the e-edition sort of all right. I would have been hugely impressed if this were 2001 instead of 2011. Of course, if I wanted to look at the paper exactly as it was published, I’d go buy a copy — which, as I have argued, appears to be exactly what Journal officials have in mind.

But if the e-edition turns out to be reasonably priced, it may prove to be a viable option for people who’ve moved away and still need their daily fix of the Journal. I wonder if we’ll ever find out how many e-subscriptions the Journal ends up selling? I can’t imagine it will be more than a handful.

Theo by the numbers

In Theo Epstein’s 1,600-word op-ed for today’s Boston Globe, the word “I” appears 41 times, “my” 15 and “me” 10. “Team”? Six.

Want to advertise on Media Nation?

If you are a local — or maybe non-local — business that would like to boost your visibility by advertising on Media Nation, please drop me a line at dkennedy56 {at} gmail {dot} com. I’d love to have someone share the overhead space with Prince Lobel.

Libel suit against Herald will proceed

Judge Raymond Brassard

A Superior Court judge recently refused to throw out a libel suit brought against the Boston Herald by a woman who claims the paper defamed her by falsely reporting she’d had sex with an inmate during a visit to the Old Colony Correctional Center in Bridgewater. The suit was filed in 2010, and I posted some background on the case at that time.

The plaintiff, Joanna Marinova, accompanied state Rep. Gloria Fox, D-Boston, on a visit to the prison in May 2009. The Herald published a front-page story on May 28 of that year by reporter Jessica Van Sack saying that Fox had snuck Marinova in to see her boyfriend, a convicted murderer named Darrell Jones, and that Marinova had been “previously bagged for engaging in ‘sexual acts’ with the killer con.”

Marinova says the story is false. According to prison records introduced as part of the lawsuit, Jones had been disciplined for kissing Marinova and rubbing her leg, but there was no suggestion the two had had sex.

According to a story in the current Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly (sub. req.), the Herald’s lawyer, Elizabeth Ritvo, argued that the case should be dismissed because Marinova’s contention that the Herald had claimed she and Jones had sex was “a strange and tortured interpretation” of what the paper actually published.

But Judge Raymond Brassard disagreed, saying “it seems to me that not only a reasonable reader, but virtually any reader, even a First Amendment lawyer would read that and think this person was involved in some sort of sexual intercourse with this man at the prison. I don’t know how a reasonable person could think otherwise.”

Marinova’s lawyer is David Rich, who was part of the legal team that successfully sued the Herald on behalf of former judge Ernest Murphy several years ago. In an unrelated action, Tom Scholz, leader of the band Boston, is suing the Herald for libel over accusations that were made following the suicide of lead singer Brad Delp.

Marinova had also sued WHDH-TV (Channel 7), which broadcast a story similar to the Herald’s. Lawyers Weekly reports that the two sides have apparently reached a settlement.

The hearing that led Judge Brassard not to grant the Herald’s motion for summary judgment was held on Sept. 22. I have posted the document here.