The Massachusetts State Police Drug Lab kerfuffle produced very different front-page coverage in Saturday’s local dailies.
(Via the Newseum’s Today’s Front Pages):
Check inside for further details.
Elizabeth Warren’s soi disant Native American heritage has drawn fire not just from incumbent Sen. Scott Brown, but also from Native Americans.
Except it’s hard to know that from the Boston Globe coverage.
Cherokee chief rips Brown campaign
The principal chief of the Cherokee Nation denounced Senator Scott Brown’s campaign staffers on Wednesday for what he called offensive and racist behavior against Native Americans, and he called on Brown to apologize.
A day earlier, Democrats released a video filmed outside a Brown campaign event showing Republican staff members, including an aide in Brown’s Senate office, performing tomahawk chops and shouting war whoops amid a crowd of boisterous supporters of both candidates.
The gestures appeared to mock Elizabeth Warren’s professed Native American ancestry.
“The conduct of these individuals goes far beyond what is appropriate and proper in political discourse,” the chief, Bill John Baker, said in a statement. “The use of stereotypical ‘war whoop chants’ and ‘tomahawk chops’ are offensive and downright racist. It is those types of actions that perpetuate negative stereotypes and continue to minimize and degrade all native peoples.”
But . . .
Buried deep in the piece was this:
[Sen. Brown’s] campaign also released a comment from a member of the Pequot tribe calling Warren a fraud for her undocumented claims of Native American ancestry.
Cut to . . . the Boston Herald’s coverage:
Native Americans rip Scott and Liz
U.S. Sen. Scott Brown delivered his “one and only warning” to staffers about their behavior after a video captured tomahawk-chopping supporters, but while a top Cherokee official demanded Brown apologize, other Native Americans said they’re still waiting for Elizabeth Warren to admit she’s no Cherokee.
“For the most part, I saw it as stupid behavior,” Twila Barnes said of the clip featuring Brown supporters doing war whoops and toma-hawk chops. “But Elizabeth Warren has stolen our entire identity. If she had been a real Cherokee, they wouldn’t have behaved like that. They were doing it because she’s fake.”
Fake heritage, fake issue, fake outrage – take your pick.
The fall television season is upon us, which means the return of familiar shows and the debut of new ones. It also means TV reviews, to see which one are worth watching.
Or not, if you read both local dailies.
Case in point: the ABC’s new drama series Last Resort.
The Boston Globe’s Matthew Gilbert likes it, he really likes it:
There’s no question in my mind that most TV sci-fi dramas have some precedent in “The Twilight Zone.” Rod Serling’s stark, brilliant anthology series, which ran from 1959-63, messed with all kinds of cosmic possibilities – about existence, about childhood, about time and space, about good and evil, about politics, technology, and the future. There were humans, aliens, robots, mutants, dreams, and apocalypses, the last of which are particularly popular these days in primetime. From “Lost,” “FlashForward,” and “Fringe” to “Revolution” and ABC’s fascinating new “Last Resort,” TV is still toying with the what-ifs and watch-outs explored in TV’s great uber-ancestor.
But the Herald’s Mark Perigard? Not so much.
‘Last Resort’ aptly named
Nuke-happy network drama’s a bust
An anti-Muslim video created by an idiot and posted to YouTube has provoked violence worldwide.
Tonight, a commercial network releases an expensive-looking drama that casually drops two nuclear bombs on Pakistan and obliterates millions — off-screen, thankfully.
It gets better.
Our “hero,” late in the hour, detonates a nuclear bomb on American soil — just to prove a point.
To be fair, “Last Resort” does not insult ideology — it merely knocks your intelligence.
Anybody got a coin we can flip?
Yesterday’s rally shenanigans by staffers of Sen. Scott Brown (Whomp ’em) went straight to the front page 0f today’s Boston Globe.
Warren decries actions outside Brown event
In a tough new ad and in his attacks at last week’s debate, Senator Scott Brown has stoked questions about Elizabeth Warren’s professed Native American ancestry. But the difficulty of seizing on the controversy without crossing into uncomfortable racial territory became apparent Tuesday with the release of a video showing Republican staff members, including an aide in Brown’s Senate office, performing tomahawk chops and war whoops outside one of his campaign events.
Brown said such behavior is “not something I condone,” but declined to apologize.
“The apologies that need to be made and the offensiveness here is the fact that Professor Warren took advantage of a claim, to be somebody, a Native American, and used that for an advantage, a tactical advantage,” Brown said.
Pretty lame. But there was no ‘splainin’ from Brown in the Herald, which dismissed the story with a page 4 squib:
Warren on tomahawk chop video: Cut it out!
Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren says she was “appalled” at a video that appeared to show supporters of U.S. Sen. Scott Brown — including at least one staffer — performing war whoops and tomahawk chops, saying if one of her campaign workers did such a thing there would be “serious consequences.”
Asked whether she was appalled as an American Indian, Warren told reporters: “I am appalled as an American.”
“I think everyone knew what he was up to,” said Warren, who has been dogged by a growing scandal over her unsupported claims of Cherokee heritage and her professional claims of minority status.
This isn’t going to get any prettier, folks.
The Naive American – sorry, Native American – heritage of Elizabeth Warren continues to be batted around in the local dailies today. Boston Herald columnist Margery Eagan tells Warren running for office means always having to say you’re sorry.
Here’s what might help Elizabeth Warren in this oh-so-close U.S. Senate race: some apologies, some mea culpas.
Yesterday during an interview with Jim Braude and me on News Talk 96.9, Warren was asked — yet again — about the issue that just won’t go away.
“Do you feel that guilt that you checked the box?” asked a caller from Wellesley, who admitted that she, too, had checked the Native American box when pursuing a government job in the ’80s, and still feels bad about it.
Had Warren said what she should have said when the Herald first broke the Native American story months ago, it wouldn’t be a big story anymore. That is, that she regretted checking her own Native American box. That it was a mistake. That she was sorry.
Far from apologizing, Warren has doubled down on her dual heritage, as the Globe reports today:
US Senator Scott Brown and his Democratic rival Elizabeth Warren launched dueling ads Monday over her claims of Native American heritage, an issue that has provoked the most serious personal attacks in their race.
The sniping began when Brown launched a 30-second spot, entitled “Who knows?” The ad features grainy clips of television reporters talking about Warren “identifying herself as Native American to employers. . . . Something genealogists said they have zero evidence of.”
At the conclusion, a reporter asks Warren: “Is there anything else that’s going to come out about you that we don’t already know?” The Democrat laughs in response. “You know, I don’t think so, but who knows,” she says . . .
By late afternoon, Warren unveiled a 30-second spot that struck back at Brown’s, defending her heritage. “As a kid I never asked my mom for documentation when she talked about our Native American heritage. What kid would?’’ Warren asks, looking directly into the camera. “But I knew my father’s family didn’t like that she was part Cherokee and part Delaware. So my parents had to elope.’’
“Let me be clear,” she adds, “I never asked for, never got any benefit because of my heritage. The people who hired me have all said they didn’t even know about it.”
Well, we all know about it now. And it’s not going away anytime soon.
Both local dailies front-page debate stories today as campaign season shifts into high(er) gear.
Via the Newseum’s Today’s Front Pages:
The Globe piece is pretty straightforward:
Higher stakes than for Obama
After months of sniping from a distance, President Obama and Mitt Romney are nearing the unsparing crucible of one-on-one debates that could alter the dynamics of the presidential campaign.
For Romney, particularly, the stakes are enormous.
After a month of missteps and missed opportunities — from his convention speech, to his reaction after the US ambassador’s death in Libya, to a video in which he described nearly half the country as government-dependent “victims” — Romney faces three debates in the national spotlight, beginning Oct. 3 in Denver, that could bolster or bury his chances.
“Unquestionably, he has to do well in the first debate,” said Rob Gray, a Republican strategist who was a senior adviser in Romney’s successful 2002 campaign for Massachusetts governor. “There’s more on the line for him, whereas Obama has proven before that he can handle it.”
The Herald, on the other hand, has three – count ’em, three – columnists on debate patrol. Start with Joe Battenfeld’s cover story:
A glimpse inside Mitt’s strategy
He’s not Mitt Romney, but he got to play one in debate practice. And he says the real Mitt needs to resurrect his personable performance from 10 years ago to beat President Obama in their upcoming face-to-face showdowns.
Jeffrey Robbins, a Boston attorney who played the role of Romney as Democrat Shannon O’Brien prepared for the debates in the 2002 Massachusetts governor’s race, divulged for the first time key details of the Democrats’ strategy to turn Romney into “Gordon Gekko” — a strategy that ultimately failed then.
Robbins predicts Obama’s debate plan will come right out of the playbook 10 years ago, when Democratic gubernatorial nominee O’Brien tried to reinforce Romney’s image as a greedy, out-of-touch businessman.
Bit of a stretch there, eh?
Next up is Holly Robichaud’s piece giving advice to Romney.
Like Brown, Mitt must pack a punch in his debate
Last week it was great to see an aggressive U.S. Sen. Scott Brown take on Lizzy Warren. After months of her endless whining commercials, Brown called her out on multiple issues — including her fake American Indian status, helping Travelers Insurance avoid paying poisoned asbestos workers and her whopping $350,000 salary for teaching one class at Harvard University.
Brown had the right combination of talking directly to voters and discrediting Fauxahontas. He showed how a candidate can remain likable, but still deliver a solid punch.
Our former Gov. Mitt Romney would do well to take a page out of this playbook. President Obama is not going to be forced out of the White House if Romney keeps playing defense. It is time to put points on the board.
Finally, Kimberly Atkins weighs in:
Wisdom of pols’ rules is debatable
WASHINGTON — The debate season is in full swing, and with it we are seeing the emergence of a nifty approach by some candidates as they prepare to face their rivals face-to-face: avoidance by agreement.
The true pioneer of this debate is U.S. Rep. John Tierney who, as the Herald reported, insisted sponsors of two of four scheduled debates with GOP challenger Richard Tisei focus only on certain topics and preclude the participants from asking questions of one another.
Of course, this conveniently will allow Tierney to avoid an issue both Tisei and national Republicans have focused on: his in-laws’ gambling ring and his wife’s federal tax-evasion conviction.
Atkins goes on to relate other debate-related kerfuffles before offering some free advice to candidates, such as “[Elizabeth Warren] could try to throw U.S. Sen. Scott Brown off his well-rehearsed game by demanding that the candidates be barred from using the word ‘professor,’ thanking the moderator after each question or referring to a truck at any point.”
The hardreading staff would be all for that.
One of the sharpest shots Scott Brown landed on Elizabeth Warren in Thursday night’s Massachusetts U.S. Senate debate concerned her defense of Travelers Insurance in an asbestos case several years ago.
Brown whacked her pretty good in the debate, and continued the same yesterday, as the Boston Herald was happy to trumpet this AM (via the Newseum’s Today’s Front Pages):
SCOTT ON LIZ: SHE CAN’T HIDE
U.S. Sen. Scott Brown said Elizabeth Warren’s refusal to answer questions about her lucrative work defending an insurance giant against asbestos victims will not stand — and vows to hammer her about it in their next debate.
The non-response from Warren, who touts herself as a consumer champion, in a Thursday debate has dominated the buzz after the clash.
(To be fair, the Herald did give Warren’s subsequent response a perfunctory, if dismissive, mention in this editorial.)
The Globe, meanwhile, provides a bit more balance in its piece today:
As the Globe reported in May, Warren did represent Travelers in the 2009 asbestos case, but at the time, the company was seeking to unlock a $500 million settlement account for victims, a step many victims supported. After Warren’s work on the case had ended, however, Travelers won a separate court ruling that allowed the company to avoid paying out the settlement. That ruling is under appeal.
“Elizabeth Warren got involved to protect the settlement,” against a challenge from another insurance company, said David J. McMorris, a lawyer at Thornton & Naumes in Boston, who represented victims in the case.
McMorris and several officials from an asbestos workers’ union showed up outside Brown’s headquarters to defend Warren’s role in the lawsuit.
“It should be very, very clear the victims would have no chance to get paid by Travelers were it not for the work of Elizabeth Warren,” McMorris told reporters. “She’s been with the victims then, and she’s with the victims now.”
McMorris has donated $467,435 to Democratic politicians, according to the Brown campaign, which sent out a press release about McMorris’s contributions minutes after his comments.
Warren has been inexplicably inept in handling this issue. The Herald, on the other hand, has been predictably adept at avoiding both sides of it.