popular thinking

WHERE HAVE YOU GONE, DAN KENNEDY?

Remember when Boston had a full-time professional media critic? Ah, those were days. But Dan Kennedy as blogger isn't the same as Dan Kennedy at the Boston Phoenix, especially when he lets Mark Jurkowitz get away with such clearly biased garbage as his last weekly missive, "High Noon at the Herald." Really? High Noon? Coulda fooled me.

Two points need to be corrected.

1) I may not have lived in Boston that long, but even I know that this city remains a two-newspaper town. So Jurkowitz doesn't make sense when he writes: "And at this point, even if he were to infuse the Herald with resources from a CNC sale, it’s hard to envision a scenario for turning the paper around. And that’s why any impending deal will go a long way toward determining Boston’s future as a newspaper town." Even he should remember that there are many residents in and around Boston who would never, ever, ever read the Globe. They're staunchly loyal to the Herald, based on history and based on the fact that it's not the Globe. The same is true for some Globe readers. Whomever owns the Herald at the end of 2006 will realize that, even if Jurkowitz has forgotten it.

2) But even more outrageous is this ANONYMOUS quote in Jurkowitz's article: “Nobody in their right mind would be thinking about [buying] paid dailies,” bluntly asserts one analyst.
REALLY? I suppose that analyst hasn't heard of McClatchy, which, oh, that's right, just bought most of Knight Ridder. Or all of the chains and investors eager to buy the 12 KR papers McClatchy won't keep. Other than all of those people, sure, nobody in their right mind. That Jurkowitz would use an anoymous quote to prop up this sham without rebutting it or acknowledging what's actually going on in the newspaper industry says a lot about where he stands. It's one thing to not like the Herald. But to avoid reality, well, where is Dan Kennedy when we need him?