Submitted by Alfred J. Lemire, Sep 4, 2007 19:45

Jon Keller's book should be worth reading, though likely flawed. This resident of Worcester wonders whether Mr. Keller assesses the role of the state's news media in making Massachusetts "the bluest state. Worcester, for example, has three broadsheet newspapers on newsstands on Sundays, the local Sunday Telegram, The Boston Globe, and The New York Times. The New York Times Co. owns all three. The company's Massachusetts satellites differ only a little from the New York paper's news slants and editorial positions. The Worcester paper never managed to include a single word on the substance of the Swift Boat Veterans' charges against John Kerry in 2004; a reporter provided only a two-line criticism of the Swift Boaters that Senator Kerry uttered. That was typical. With the tilt of local coverage--the same reporter found Deval Patrick's convention speech "inspiring"--and the AP, which has veered left in recent decades, and New York Times News Service wire coverage, any conservative economic or social position or statement will be falsified or distorted, if reported at all. (The paper Sunday included an AP report from Cannes in which George Clooney claimed that Barack Obama was like a "rock star," while Clooney had been labeled a "traitor" for opposing the Iraq War. The AP reporter did not challenge that and other assertions. Who gave Mr. Clooney that label? One would like to know. One will never see a reporter produce a similar kissy-kissy piece on a Republican candidate.) There is much else to criticize in the Worcester paper's coverage of government, politics, and culture. It's become a propaganda paper. This former staffer and newspaper reporter, who respects the role of journalists in a free society, doesn't like how wire and local articles and photos propagandize rather than inform. The news media in this state stinks of corruption. One can accept the rot only if one believes the press should slavishly support the policies, programs, and personalities of the Democratic Party's left and one finds nothing wrong in journalists functioning as spear-throwers for the left. If one believes the role of the newspapers and television stations is to support the liberal side and harm any other, then the news media function well: editors, reporters, and most columnists and correspondents are thus doing good jobs. The editors and reporters for Völkischer Beobachter, Pravda, and Izvestia all did their jobs well, too. Since most likely avoided service on various fronts or executions at home, they get more respect from me than contemporary news people in the state. But for someone interested in a free press that provides fair and truthful reports on politics and culture--all the matters likely to affect the rules by which society lives--the press in the state is morally unfit and corrupt. Nothing it reports or claims on politics or culture can be trusted. If one wants to know why Massachusetts is "the bluest state," look to the total domination of the news media. (Mr. Patrick recently nominated a third-rate judge to serve on the state's highest court. Criticism from the press: muted and limited.) I also wonder whether Mr. Keller took into account how school children and young adults get one-sided presentations of current developments from teachers at all levels of the state's education system. Or the fecklessness of the local Republicans . . . but one can write only so much on the state's one-party rule.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.