CONFUSION AND INCOMPETENCE. Boston Globe ombudsman Christine Chinlund gets a B-minus today for her assessment of what went wrong with those hardcore porn pictures that made their way into the Globe on Wednesday. The photos were promoted by Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner and local activist Sadiki Kambon as possibly depicting US soldiers raping Iraqi women.

Chinlund is utterly believable in describing the comedy of errors that led to a photo's being published in which the porn pictures were visible. In newsrooms, as in life, whenever a mistake can be explained in terms of confusion and incompetence rather than malicious intent, go with confusion and incompetence.

It remains inexplicable how or why Globe editors, once they realized they had a problem, decided merely to shrink the photo rather than pull it altogether. Yes, shrinking did make the porn more difficult to see, but come on folks. Get it out of there. Chinlund writes:

First edition carried the Page B2 photo three columns wide - big enough to make out the roughly 1-inch square sexual images within it. In later editions it was made smaller at the request of Michael Larkin, a deputy managing editor, who said that although he could not discern the sexual images on the page proof he viewed, he wanted to play it safe, given the story's content.

Play it safe? Playing with fire is more like it.

Where Chinlund falls short is in her narrowly stubborn insistence that because she couldn't find the porn photos on the Internet, she can't verify that Turner and Kambon were indeed passing off porn shots as evidence of American atrocities:

Various sources last week said the photos displayed by Turner came from a pornography website, and they may well have, although I could not trace it to the source. I did find one news website with a note from a woman identified as the porn site operator. She was quoted as saying the images, shot in Hungary, had been removed because they were used for anti-American purposes.

This morning I did my regular Friday-morning stint on The Pat Whitley Show, on WRKO Radio (AM 680). Whitley and his producer, Amy Hirshberg, told me that on Wednesday, when they were first alerted to the Globe's miscue, they were able to find the photos on a porn site within minutes. Since then, they said, the site has been taken down.

Chinlund also fails to acknowledge that Sherrie Gossett has done some very credible reporting on the origin of these photos for WorldNetDaily.com. In fact, a Globe editorial today blasting Turner for his "reckless and inflammatory" actions is better on this score, forthrightly stating, "Turner's photos appear to match ones found on a pornographic website."

In the Boston Herald, columnist Cosmo Macero today criticizes (sub. req.) the Globe for reporting on Turner and Kambon's news conference, noting that other journalists who attended the conference decided it wasn't worthy of public attention. Macero observes that the article written by the Globe reporter who covered the news conference, Donovan Slack, was "loaded ... with expressed doubts about the photos' authenticity."

The Globe certainly could have chosen not to run the story. Maybe that would have been a better decision than the one its editors made. But Slack's story wasn't the problem. Metro editor Carolyn Ryan told Chinlund, "Our intent ... was to bring some scrutiny to allegations" that Turner had made, "specifically his claims that he had evidence of extensive abuse committed by US soldiers." Slack's story succeeded in doing that.

Unfortunately, as Chinlund notes, the photo not only became the story, but it also cast Slack's report in a "less skeptical" light.

By the way, the Wall Street Journal's "Best of the Web" site leads with the Globe controversy, and relies heavily on Media Log's running coverage. So please check it out.

And barring any further developments, that's a wrap.

THE FALLOUT CONTINUES. Former Marine major Cecil Turner writes:

Dan,

If anything, you're being too kind to Turner, Kambon, and the Globe.

More than a week ago, someone tried to peddle those pictures on Roger L. Simon's blog, and it was immediately debunked. A casual glance at the photos shows out-of-date and mismatched uniforms, improperly worn, wrong color t-shirt and boots, and lack of unit patches. Even without knowing about the porn site, there is no way this should have stood for a minute.

Turner's "just wanted to get verification" story is nonsense - and certainly wouldn't require a press conference. The technique of proffering a slanderous statement and hoping something will stick was old when practiced by Roman senators, and the Globe should never have fallen for it. The real story here is that Nation of Islam is spreading Islamist propaganda - and it certainly appears to be intentional.

regards,

Cecil Turner
Major, USMC (Retired)

Also, in my quick update this morning, I neglected to note that the Globe failed to include some pretty vital information in its "Editor's Note" today - or, for that matter, anywhere else in the paper: the fact that these photos had been exposed as fakes quite a bit before Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner and local activist Sadiki Kambon unveiled them at a news conference on Tuesday.

Yes, reporter Donovan Slack's story was properly skeptical, but if either she or her editors had known that the photos had already been identified as having come from commercial porn sites, this never would have seen the light of day. Those who hadn't been following the tale of the fake rape photos on the Internet would have had to buy today's Herald to find out the whole story.

Chuck Turner popped up on The Pat Whitley Show on WRKO Radio (AM 680) this morning and continued to peddle the line that he never wanted the media to publish the photos, just verify their authenticity. He called the Globe's decision to publish the photos a "serious mistake," and said he was "shocked and surprised." (Time out: the Globe didn't "publish" the photos; it published a photo of Turner and Kambon showing the pictures to the media. I still think that's an important distinction, because in the edition I saw yesterday, the images were so tiny that I really couldn't make them out. Still, there's no question that the Globe ran it big enough to shock in earlier editions.)

What crapola. You don't call a news conference to release photos that you don't want published. You don't say - as the Globe quoted Turner as saying - "The American people have a right and responsibility to see the pictures."

Here is the text of a press release sent out on Monday by Kambon's organization, the Black Community Information Center:

Release of US Military rape photographs in Iraq!!!

Assignment Desk/City Desk:

The Black Community Information Center Inc. will hold a press conference on Tuesday, May 11th, 2004, 9:30 a.m. The purpose of the press conference is to release copies of dramatic photos of members of the US Military, gang raping innocent Iraqi women in Iraq.

The press conference will be held in the Curley Room at Boston City Hall (5th Floor) in downtown Boston, Massachusetts.

For more information, call [phone numbers deleted].

Sadiki Kambon
Director, BCIC Inc.

Now, it's true that at the news conference Turner asked the media to use their contacts to authenticate the photos. But the tone of this press release admits to no doubt whatsoever, does it?

NEW IN THIS WEEK'S PHOENIX. Jessica Lynch and Lynndie England - the damsel in distress and the castrating bitch - symbolize our shifting perceptions of the war in Iraq.

THEY KNEW. BUT THEY PRINTED IT ANYWAY. That's the only interpretation I can put on an "Editor's Note" in today's Boston Globe apologizing for the publication of a photo showing pornographic depictions of rape. Here's the note:

A photograph on Page B2 yesterday did not meet Globe standards for publication. The photo portrayed Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner and activist Sadiki Kambon displaying graphic photographs that they claimed showed US soldiers raping Iraqi women. Although the photograph was reduced in size between editions to obscure visibility of the images on display, at no time did the photograph meet Globe standards. Images contained in the photograph were overly graphic, and the purported abuse portrayed had not been authenticated. The Globe apologizes for publishing the photo.

In other words, at some point editors realized the pictures that Turner and Kambon were showing off were too graphic to be published - but rather than remove the photo altogether, they simply shrunk it down and hoped no one would notice.

This isn't good. For crying out loud, this is a paper that killed Doonesbury a couple of weeks ago because B.D. shouted out "son of a bitch!" after he learned that his leg had been blown off. What are these people thinking?

I do believe it's ombudsman Christine Chinlund's week to write this coming Monday.

Meanwhile, the Boston Herald is having fun with this today. Inevitably, the tabloid reports that the Globe is "reeling" from the mistake (how does one reel?), and points out that the photos obtained by Kambon had already been exposed by the website WorldNetDaily.com as porn shots being passed off as evidence of American atrocities. The Herald quotes a statement from Globe editor Martin Baron:

"This photo should not have appeared in the Globe," editor Martin Baron said in a statement. "First, images portrayed in the photo were overly graphic. Second, as the story clearly pointed out, those images were never authenticated as photos of prisoner abuse. There was a lapse in judgment and procedures, and we apologize for it."

The story also recycles some of Globe reporter Donovan Slack's very candid quotes to WorldNetDaily.

An unusually long Herald editorial, headlined "Prouder Than Ever to Be an American," includes this swipe: "It's a nation where that daughter puts herself in harm's way to protect the freedom of the press which allows Boston Globe editors to run bogus photographs of American soldiers raping Iraqi women."

Not a proud moment for the folks on Morrissey Boulevard.

MORE ON THOSE FAKE RAPE PHOTOS. This is going to be a bigger story than I thought. (Hardly the first time that's happened!) Matt Drudge has posted an image from an earlier edition of today's Boston Globe in which the photo of the fake pictures of American soldiers raping Iraqi women was run bigger - big enough so that their graphic nature is more evident, even to my aging eyes - and in which the headline ended with "Photos Purported to Show Abuse," a rather different spin from "Councilor Takes Up Iraq Issue."

Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr was going nuts on his WRKO (AM 680) talk show this afternoon, repeatedly accusing the Globe of "libeling" American soldiers. Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner called in and declined Carr's invitation to apologize. I wasn't rolling tape, but essentially Turner said that he didn't want the press to publish the photos, he simply wanted news organizations to attempt to verify their authenticity.

Of course, that completely contradicts this Turner quote in the Globe story: "The American people have a right and responsibility to see the pictures." But never mind.

Word is that the Herald's "Inside Track" is going after the Globe tomorrow morning. Tomorrow is also Mike Barnicle's turn to write. Will he resist the urge to pile on his former employer?

Now, huffing and puffing aside, I still think the two most important facts are these:

1. Donovan Slack's story is completely legitimate, making it clear that there was no way of authenticating the photos that Turner and community activist Sadiki Kambon showed the media, and even raising the possibility that it was all an Internet fraud - as it indeed turned out to be. You could argue that the Globe shouldn't have run the story, but a newspaper does not have to defend covering a City Hall news conference called by a well-known elected official. The issue is how the Globe covered it, and in that regard, there is no issue. Carr himself admitted as much on the air today.

2. Which brings us to the George Rizer photo of Turner and Kambon showing those fake images to the media. I'll wait to see what the Globe says tomorrow, but I'm willing to bet that no one even looked at those tiny images - that the subjects of the photo were Turner and Kambon, and that that's as far as anyone thought things through. Obviously the Globe blew it, but there's no way anyone in that newsroom deliberately ran photos of a gang rape.

MORE FOOLISHNESS FROM TURNER AND KAMBON. An alert reader urged me to check out Margery Eagan's April 8 column in the Boston Herald. The subject: national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice. The speakers: City Councilor Chuck Turner and local activist Sadiki Kambon.

Turner was quoted as saying that Rice isn't concerned "about the plight of the majority" of African-Americans. Okay, she's a foreign-policy wonk, not a domestic-policy analyst. But then Turner added that Rice is a "tool to white leaders.... It's similar in my mind to a Jewish person working for Hitler in the 1930s." Say what?

Kambon, naturally, was even more outrageous, calling her "Condoleezza White Rice" and "The Negro Security Adviser."

CHUCK TURNER, IRAQI RAPE ALLEGATIONS, AND THE GLOBE. The right-wing website WorldNetDaily.com is having a wicked good time over an apparent fraud perpetrated on (by?) Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner and African-American activist Sadiki Kambon, and reported in today's Boston Globe.

At a City Hall news conference yesterday morning, Turner and Kambon showed photos that they claimed depicted American soldiers raping Iraqi women. "The American people have a right and responsibility to see the pictures," Turner was quoted as saying.

Today, Sherrie Gossett writes in WorldNetDaily.com that the photos are identical to pictures "taken from pornographic websites and disseminated by anti-American propagandists," a story that she's been reporting on in recent days.

Gossett also writes that today's Globe "came complete with graphic photos" of the alleged gang rape. But that's not quite right. The Globe story, by Donovan Slack, is accompanied by a photo by George Rizer of Turner and Kambon displaying four of the pictures for the benefit of journalists who'd come to the news conference. The pictures look like they might be graphic, but it's hard to tell given the size and the angle. Still, I'm sure Globe editors wish they hadn't run Rizer's photo.

Gossett includes some extremely entertaining quotes from Slack:

Asked whether the photos were the same as the porn photos WND already investigated, reporter Donovan Slack said, "I have no idea. I'm surprised the editor even decided we should write about it."

She added: "Oh my God, I'm scared to answer the phone today."

"It's insane," said Slack. "Can you imagine getting this with your cup of coffee in the morning? Somehow it got through all our checks. Our publisher's not having a very good day today."

Slack sent the photos to WND, which immediately confirmed they were the same porn photos reported on last week.

Slack quipped, "I'll be working at Penthouse soon."

The photos aside, Slack's story sounds all the right notes of skepticism. She quotes a spokesman for the Defense Department as saying, "I would caution that there are many fake photos circulating on the Internet." She also notes that the Nation of Islam, which purportedly supplied the photos to Kambon, would not verify their authenticity. Turner told reporters, "We cannot document their authenticity. But you have the ability to do that."

Nor did the Globe give this story a lot of play. It's a short piece on page B2, beneath the bland headline "Councilor Takes Up Iraq Issue." The subhead, "Turner Releases Purported Images of Rape by Soldiers," reinforces the notion that the story is about a city councilor speaking out more than it is about the subject of his outrage.

Now, I'm sure the Globe will be publishing some sort of statement, maybe as early as tomorrow. But the person who really has something to answer for is Chuck Turner. Kambon is Kambon. No one would take seriously the notion that photos of Iraqis being abused by American soldiers would somehow fall into his hands.

But Turner is a prominent elected official who lent both his good name and the imprimatur of City Hall to this fiasco. Without Turner, this story never would have been reported.

THE TERRIBLE DEATH OF NICHOLAS BERG. Okay, I've seen the video. Good Lord, what a horrible, undeserved death Nicholas Berg suffered at the hands of terrorists in Iraq. A website I'd been directed to couldn't make the connection, but it took me no more than a few minutes to locate and download a copy with LimeWire. Such is the modern media environment. I have nothing profound to say about this horrific act. A few random observations:

- Berg's family is probably right that their son was singled out for execution because he's Jewish. An odd wrinkle, though, is that his killers apparently said nothing about Berg's being a Jew on the five-minute-plus videotape. By contrast, when Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was beheaded by terrorists, their propaganda video dwelled at length on Pearl's Jewish background.

- When CBS News aired the non-gruesome parts of the Pearl video two years ago, it was widely criticized. When the Phoenix posted a link to the entire video, and published two small images, including Pearl's severed head, in its print edition, it set off a nationwide controversy. By contrast, the pre-execution portions of the Berg video have already been widely aired. At least one rather mainstream website, based in Arizona, has already posted the entire video. And pro-war radio talk-show hosts this morning are demanding that the major networks air the video, under the guise of reminding Americans of why we're fighting. Why the difference? I've always believed the media showed unusual deference to Pearl's family - far more than they would under most circumstances - because Pearl was a fellow journalist. More important, sadly, is that we've all become increasingly desensitized after nearly three years of constant war.

- Unlike the Pearl video, which was a pretty unambiguous portrayal of Islamist terrorism, the meaning of the Berg video depends entirely on one's preconceived notions about the war in Iraq. Supporters of the war will argue that it shows why we must keep on fighting. Opponents will counter that it's further proof we shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place. As for those who say - as the terrorists themselves claimed - that it was in direct response to the abuses and torture at Abu Ghraib, I'm with CNN's Aaron Brown, who said last night, "The fact is these guys never need a reason to kill Americans, hostages or otherwise. If it is in their interest, and it is sick to think that killing an American in Iraq is in anyone's interest, but if it is they would have done it anyway. Danny Pearl was murdered and what exactly was the reason for that?"

THE ROYAL "WE." David Brooks is no more responsible for the quagmire in Iraq than Andrew Sullivan is. Still, it's interesting to see how the New York Times columnist takes (that is, doesn't take) responsibility for his failure to think things through as opposed to the blogger/essayist's squarely wrestling with his conscience.

Sullivan's lamentations, which I flagged yesterday, were filled with the first person singular. By contrast, here is an emblematic passage from Brooks's column this morning:

We were so sure we were using our might for noble purposes, we assumed that sooner or later, everybody else would see that as well. Far from being blinded by greed, we were blinded by idealism.

...

We didn't understand the tragic irony that our power is also our weakness. As long as we seemed so mighty, others, even those we were aiming to assist, were bound to revolt.

As Tonto explained to the Lone Ranger, "Who's 'we,' Kemosabe?"

DRIVING US AWAY. You could look it up (I don't feel like it), but Media Log has predicted on at least several occasions that this July's Democratic National Convention will be a five-alarm disaster for anyone who lives in, works in, or even thinks about Boston.

Yet now that Anthony Flint is reporting in today's Boston Globe that operations to shut down I-93 each day will begin as early as 4 p.m., I'm ready to make a counterintuitive prediction. I now think everyone has been so thoroughly freaked out by months of apocalyptic scenarios (can I take just a little bit of credit?) that everyone is going to take the week off and the locals are going to barricade themselves inside their homes.

Media Log's newest prediction: this is going to be the easiest week for driving around the city since just after the invention of the automobile.

MIND YOU, HE SAYS HE STILL WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE WAR. Andrew Sullivan writes:

The one anti-war argument that, in retrospect, I did not take seriously enough was a simple one. It was that this war was noble and defensible but that this administration was simply too incompetent and arrogant to carry it out effectively. I dismissed this as facile Bush-bashing at the time. I was wrong. I sensed the hubris of this administration after the fall of Baghdad, but I didn't sense how they would grotesquely under-man the post-war occupation, bungle the maintenance of security, short-change an absolutely vital mission, dismiss constructive criticism, ignore even their allies (like the Brits), and fail to shift swiftly enough when events span out of control.

No chortling here. This is a monumental tragedy. I opposed the war from the beginning, but always thought that the reasons to go to war were good ones - not WMDs (remember, the UN weapons inspectors were just starting to gear up) and the non-existent ties to Al Qaeda, but the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe caused by Saddam Hussein's Hitlerian regime, compounded by more than a decade of Western sanctions.

If Bush had only taken the time and shown the patience to build a genuine international coalition, things might look very different today.

GOOD RUMMY, BAD RUMMY. From William Safire's New York Times column today:

Shortly after 9/11, with the nation gripped by fear and fury, the Bush White House issued a sweeping and popular order to crack down on suspected terrorists. The liberal establishment largely fell cravenly mute. A few lonely civil libertarians spoke out. When I used the word "dictatorial," conservatives, both neo- and paleo-, derided my condemnation as "hysterical."

One Bush cabinet member paid attention. [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld appointed a bipartisan panel of attorneys to re-examine that draconian edict. As a result, basic protections for the accused Qaeda combatants were included in the proposed military tribunals.

Perhaps because of those protections, the tribunals never got off the ground. (The Supreme Court will soon, I hope, provide similar legal rights to suspected terrorists who are U.S. citizens.) But in the panic of the winter of 2001, Rumsfeld was one of the few in power concerned about prisoners' rights. Some now demanding his scalp then supported the repressive Patriot Act.

From Seymour Hersh's latest, in this week's New Yorker:

The Pentagon's impatience with military protocol extended to questions about the treatment of prisoners caught in the course of its military operations. Soon after 9/11, as the war on terror got under way, Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly made public his disdain for the Geneva conventions. Complaints about America's treatment of prisoners, Rumsfeld said in early 2002, amounted to "isolated pockets of international hyperventilation."

Safire is a serious civil libertarian who doesn't mind whacking his fellow conservatives, so his observations about the Good Rummy can't be dismissed lightly. But it's pretty obvious that Rumsfeld's occasional good deeds have been overwhelmed by his disdain for anyone and anything that interfered with his ability to do what he damn well pleased.

CREDENTIALS? THEY DON'T NEED NO STINKING CREDENTIALS! Joanna Weiss reports in today's Boston Globe on the Democratic National Committee's plan to issue press credentials to some bloggers. There's a numbers game going on, and apparently not everyone who wants credentials will get them.

This isn't going to matter to establishment types. For instance, Weiss mentions Josh Marshall, who writes Talking Points Memo; but Marshall's got nothing to be concerned about, since he also writes a column for the Hill, a print publication. (Media Log plans to be at the convention as well, blogging and also reporting for the print edition of the Phoenix.)

Bloggers have just as much of a right to be there as anyone else. Particularly out of it is Jerry Gallegos, head of the House Press Gallery, who told Weiss, "Anyone with a computer and home publishing can call themselves whatever they want. If it's a retired couple that just decides they've got an opinion, that doesn't make them a news organization. It just makes them a retired couple with an opinion and a website." Yeah, but Grandma and Grandpa might just be kicking the ass of the hometown daily to which Gallegos would issue credentials without a question.

Still, there's some serious naïveté on the part of bloggers if they think credentials are going to do much for them. There are lots of great stories at conventions, but very few of them take place inside the convention hall. Even fully credentialed mainstream journalists are only rarely able to gain access to the floor - not that there's any great thrill in that other than to be able to say you were there. Mainly you wander the building checking out the news-org set-ups and looking for interesting people to talk to.

Outside is another story, and it strikes me that that's where bloggers could do their most important work: at the protests, at the parties, panels, and seminars, and at the numerous events that will be staged by those trying to get their message out. I'm not aware of anything being planned that's as cool as the "shadow conventions" Arianna Huffington put together in Philadelphia and Los Angeles four years ago, but certainly something - no doubt many somethings - will pop up.

Here's a dirty little secret: even credentialed reporters inside the hall watch the convention on television. So bloggers ought not to worry about credentials and bring their laptops to Boston. They'll have plenty to write about.

REAL TROUBLE AT AIR AMERICA. Turmoil is one thing, not meeting payroll is quite another. The Chicago Tribune reports that two more top-level executives are leaving Air America Radio, adding, "The company also failed to make its scheduled payroll Wednesday, leaving its staff of roughly 100 radio personalities, writers, and producers unpaid until Thursday."

Question: how could the Air America people be in this much trouble after only five weeks? This was always a long shot, but they did seem to have money and brains. Well, it sounds like the money's hard to find, and the brains are leaving. The story concludes:

Last week, according to two sources familiar with the matter, paychecks to some of the network's talent - a group that includes Al Franken, Janeane Garofalo, and Randi Rhodes - bounced, and Rhodes joked on the air about not being paid.

A scheduled payday for the staff on Wednesday came and went without checks, though the staff was paid on Thursday. [President-of-the-week Jon] Sinton chalked up both cases to "technical issues."

Technical issues? It's possible. I suppose.

CHANDLER TO CARR: SHUT UP. Boston Globe Steve Bailey weighs in on the battle between Boston Herald columnists Howie Carr and Mike Barnicle, which I wrote about yesterday. Herald editorial director Ken Chandler tells Bailey: "I am not going to tolerate people on the Herald payroll sniping at each other in print."

Chandler says nothing about Barnicle's writing a valentine to House Speaker Tom Finneran without disclosing that his wife, FleetBoston executive vice-president Anne Finucane, had made a $500 campaign contribution to Mister Speaker (Carr's allegation, unverified by Media Log).

BATTLE OF THE SNAKES. In case you missed it, there has been some excellent eye-boinking going on in the pages of the Boston Herald between columnists Howie Carr and Mike Barnicle. I would say there's tension in the newsroom, except that both specialize in making themselves as scarce as possible. (Neither one is a full-time staffer.)

On April 29, Barnicle wrote (sub. req.) his first recognizably Barnicle-like column since his return to the Boston newspaper wars earlier this year. That is, he penned a shameless suck-up piece about House Speaker Tom Finneran, currently under investigation for his testimony in a court case over redistricting, testimony that may have been just a tad disingenuous.

My favorite Barnicle line: "When he [Finneran] arrived in the Legislature, the witch at the public stake was Kevin Harrington, the Senate president who got hounded out over a signature on a campaign check." Poor Kevin Harrington! As with a lot of what Barnicle writes, this is technically true, but it ignores the fact that a signature on a campaign check can be a serious matter depending on whose signature you're talking about, and whether the person to whom it belongs has any recollection of ever having written it on said check. On course, a lot of what Barnicle has written over the years isn't true, technically or otherwise.

For good measure, Barnicle compared Finneran to Ted Williams, Eric Clapton, and Michelangelo. Hand me the barf bag.

Carr, who's been referring to himself on his WRKO Radio (AM 680) show as the Herald's "non-fiction columnist" since the Barnicle comeback, lashed back (sub. req.) yesterday with a tough column on the friends of "Tommy Taxes" - the lobbyists, the ex-pols, and others who have showered Finneran with so many campaign contributions that he had nearly $500,000 in the till at the end of last year.

Carr also drops this bomblet:

It's astounding that with friends like these, Tommy Taxes could be teetering on the edge of an indictment. He's even had press vermin penning fiction about what a swell guy he is, and guess what - the pipe artist's wife maxed out to Tommy Taxes with a $500 contribution. Odd that the hack forgot to mention his wife's largesse in his piece.

That, of course, is a reference to Barnicle's wife, Anne Finucane, an executive vice-president at FleetBoston Financial and perhaps the most powerful woman in town.

Now, I don't want to go overboard in praise of the sneering Carr. To say that Finneran is "on the edge of an indictment" is a bit like saying that George W. Bush is on the edge of impeachment. That is, some of us might wish it to be true, but there is no evidence for it.

But if this is to be a battle of the snakes, my snake is Howie. Scales down.

TODAY'S TORTURE HIGHLIGHTS. I can't find more than a fragmentary mention this morning of an allegation that an American soldier put a harness on a 70-year-old Iraqi woman and rode her like a donkey. Andrew Miga includes a reference in his Boston Herald roundup. This, obviously, bears watching.

The Washington Post has obtained more photos from Abu Ghraib.

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, a liberal supporter of the war in Iraq, calls for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign.

NEW IN THIS WEEK'S PHOENIX. Stuck in neutral: Democrats fret as John Kerry's presidential campaign falters in the face of George W. Bush's $50 million assault.

MEDIA CONSOLIDATION IN THEORY AND IN PRACTICE. The New York Times' Jim Rutenberg reports today that Disney is trying to renege on a deal to distribute Michael Moore's latest documentary, Fahrenheit 911, which "harshly criticizes President Bush." The deal between Disney's Miramax division and Moore was blasted by right-wingers at the time that it was announced last year. Example: this screed at FrontPageMag.com.

So what happened between then and now? According to Rutenberg's piece, it appears to be a matter of one hand not knowing how much cash the other hand was hauling in. He writes:

Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.

Eisner denies the allegation.

Still, this is sleazy, reprehensible stuff, just one step short of dictating to ABC News what sorts of stories it may or may not cover based on Disney's corporate interests. Moore does not enjoy a great reputation for accuracy, but this isn't about journalism, it's about business. Eisner ought to be ashamed of himself, but I suspect that's not an option.

ATROCITIES REDUX. To listen to John O'Neill and his merry band of Kerry-bashing veterans, you'd think that atrocities never took place during the Vietnam War. In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, O'Neill wrote:

John Kerry slandered America's military by inventing or repeating grossly exaggerated claims of atrocities and war crimes in order to advance his own political career as an antiwar activist. His misrepresentations played a significant role in creating the negative and false image of Vietnam vets that has persisted for over three decades.

...

During my 1971 televised debate with John Kerry, I accused him of lying. I urged him to come forth with affidavits from the soldiers who had claimed to have committed or witnessed atrocities. To date no such affidavits have been filed.

Michael Kranish reports in today's Boston Globe on yesterday's news conference by the anti-Kerry Swift Veterans for Truth.

What everyone seems to have forgotten is that, last month, the Toledo Blade won a Pulitzer Prize for its investigative reporting into atrocities committed by US troops in Vietnam in the late 1960s. The Blade found that "[w]omen and children were intentionally blown up in underground bunkers. Elderly farmers were shot as they toiled in the fields. Prisoners were tortured and executed - their ears and scalps severed for souvenirs. One soldier kicked out the teeth of executed civilians for their gold fillings."

Atrocities did occur. Kerry knew it when he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971, and the Blade filled in many of the details 32 years later. Given the horrors of Abu Ghuraib, denial of past abuses is not a moral option.

LEHIGH BLASTS SEVERIN. The Globe's Scot Lehigh has written two fine columns on Jay Severin, the "towelhead"-bashing talk-show host at WTKK Radio (96.9 FM). Here's today's; here's last Friday's.

Here's my take on Severin, from last Thursday's Phoenix.

THE HORROR, CONT'D. Likely to become a Media Log standing head in the days to come. Reuters is now reporting that two Iraqi prisoners in US custody may have been murdered - one by an Army soldier, the other by a private contractor hired by the CIA.

The English-language website of Al-Jazeera gives an indication of how the Abu Ghuraib story is playing in Arab and Muslim countries. This is from a story headlined "Abu Ghuraib Prisoners Speak of 'Torture'":

One of the released detainees who was forced to pose naked in a human pyramid has told Aljazeera that the acts committed against them were so horrible that he still could not get himself to speak about most of it.

"They wanted to humiliate us. It was disgusting", said Hashim Muhsin.

"They covered our heads with plastic bags and hit our backs with sharp objects, which added to our wounds".

"They then took off all our clothes, made us stand next to the wall and carried out immoral acts that I cannot even talk about", Muhsin continued.

He said "women soldiers took pictures of naked men and did not care".

The New York Times website reports that Democratic senator Tom Daschle and Republican senator John McCain are demanding that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld be held accountable. Rumsfeld is reported to be "deeply disturbed." Senator Ted Kennedy is quoted as saying:

We have a great sense of revulsion, not only because of these actions, but we also recognize what the dangers are for American troops if they are ever taken prisoners and the kind of treatment that they would be subject to. And this has been a major setback to our interests in that region.

Meanwhile, Josh Marshall notes that George W. Bush still hasn't apparently bothered to read the Taguba report. Marshall's headline: "Shaken, but Apparently Not Stirred."

WHAT DID MENINO SAY? On Sunday, the Boston Globe's Rick Klein reported that Boston mayor Tom Menino might ignore Governor Mitt Romney's orders to verify the residency of same-sex couples seeking to marry. Klein quoted Menino as saying, "There is a good chance I might defy the governor, but we're still looking at our options. It's about civil rights. It's about uniting people. It's about showing that we don't discriminate in the city of Boston."

Today, the Boston Herald's Brian Ballou has a similar story that includes this:

Menino disputed a published report that he said he may defy the governor and instruct city officials not to ask for proof of residency from same-sex couples seeking to get married.

"I never said that," he said.

Media Log awaits clarification, but in the meantime I'll hazard a guess: "I never said that" can be translated as "I shouldn't have said that" or possibly "I said it, but it isn't quite what I meant."

THE HORROR. Thirty-four years ago Seymour Hersh won a Pulitzer Prize for exposing atrocities committed by American soldiers in the Vietnamese village of My Lai. Today he's front-and-center on another horror story involving US forces - this one involving the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Saddam Hussein's former torture center.

The details of the story were first reported last week by CBS's 60 Minutes II. Hersh has additional information in the current New Yorker on the conclusions of an investigation conducted by General Antonio Taguba. This is sickening, disgusting stuff - Iraqi prisoners forced to strip naked and simulate sex with each other, raped with broom sticks, ordered to masturbate in front of female American soldiers.

Was it an isolated event? Not likely. Hersh writes:

As the international furor grew, senior military officers, and President Bush, insisted that the actions of a few did not reflect the conduct of the military as a whole. Taguba's report, however, amounts to an unsparing study of collective wrongdoing and the failure of Army leadership at the highest levels. The picture he draws of Abu Ghraib is one in which Army regulations and the Geneva conventions were routinely violated, and in which much of the day-to-day management of the prisoners was abdicated to Army military-intelligence units and civilian contract employees. Interrogating prisoners and getting intelligence, including by intimidation and torture, was the priority.

The New Yorker's website also includes 10 photos of the torture taking place. Sadly, the Americans depicted in these photos are obviously enjoying themselves.

So how many future terrorists have we created? Hersh again:

Such dehumanization is unacceptable in any culture, but it is especially so in the Arab world. Homosexual acts are against Islamic law and it is humiliating for men to be naked in front of other men, Bernard Haykel, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at New York University, explained. "Being put on top of each other and forced to masturbate, being naked in front of each other - it's all a form of torture," Haykel said.

A New York Times editorial today also takes note of reports that British soldiers, too, have tortured Iraqi prisoners. The editorial concludes:

Terrorists like Osama bin Laden have always intended to use their violence to prod the United States and its allies into demonstrating that their worst anti-American propaganda was true. Abu Ghraib was an enormous victory for them, and it is unlikely that any response by the Bush administration will wipe its stain from the minds of Arabs. The invasion of Iraq, which has already begun to seem like a bad dream in so many ways, cannot get much more nightmarish than this.

Liberal supporters of the war in Iraq such as Times columnist Thomas Friedman have argued that the war was justified because we needed to puncture the bubble of Arab-American terrorism by building a decent, stable society in the heart of the Middle East. It's a seductive proposition.

But as the horrors of Abu Ghraib show, Tom Friedman was not in charge of the war; and in any event, war against and occupation of a country that was no threat to us is no way to achieve some idealistic vision of American-imposed democracy.

The world can be a pretty ugly place. The White House utopian dreams have made it quite a bit uglier.

WE LIVE IN A POLITICAL WORLD. Two good pieces at Mediachannel.org on the controversy over ABC's Nightline, on which Ted Koppel will read the names of American soldiers killed in Iraq tonight.

Danny Schechter, noting Koppel's credentials as an establishment conservative, writes, "It is likely to embolden more critical journalism in the unbrave patriotically correct world of US media."

Meanwhile, Timothy Karr reports that the Sinclair Broadcast Group, which is protesting Koppel's alleged politicization of the war in Iraq by refusing to run Nightline on its eight ABC affiliates, makes 98 percent of its political contributions to Republicans.

Politics is in the eye of the beholder.

MEDIA LOG ON CNN. I'll be on CNN's Reliable Sources this Sunday (11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.) talking about media coverage of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. I'm told I'll be on with Boston Globe reporter Michael Kranish, lead author of the Globe Kerry bio, and National Review Online's Jonah Goldberg.

AN INTRIGUING TERROR CONNECTION. Is there an actual, provable link between Saddam Hussein's former regime and international terrorism? That's always been the big question. If the White House had been able to prove such a connection, a whole lot more people would have supported the war in Iraq.

This editorial in today's Wall Street Journal tells what is known so far (which is admittedly not much) about a terrorist attack that was foiled in Jordan earlier this month. Among the allegations: the terrorists had planned to use poison gas, which could have killed as many as 80,000 people; the gas came from Syria; it might have been shipped to Syria from Iraq before the war; and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whom the Bush administration says was given carte blanche to operate in Iraq by Saddam's government, may have been behind the plot.

Here is a piece from the Christian Science Monitor of Tuesday covering much of the same ground.

Obviously we need to wait for a much more in-depth report. It's always curious when the Journal's right-wing editorial page runs with something that its news section - one of the finest in the world - has ignored. But this is potentially a huge story.

HATE SPEECH AT UMASS. There is opposing the war but supporting the troops. There is opposing the war while openly mocking the troops. And there is a UMass student by the name of Rene Gonzalez, who actually manages to trash the memory of Pat Tillman, the NFL star who joined the Army Rangers after 9/11, and who was killed in action in Afghanistan.

Gonzalez, after calling Tillman an "idiot," writes in the Daily Collegian:

Tillman, probably acting out his nationalist-patriotic fantasies forged in years of exposure to Clint Eastwood and Rambo movies, decided to insert himself into a conflict he didn't need to insert himself into. It wasn't like he was defending the East coast from an invasion of a foreign power. THAT would have been heroic and laudable. What he did was make himself useful to a foreign invading army, and he paid for it. It's hard to say I have any sympathy for his death because I don't feel like his "service" was necessary. He wasn't defending me, nor was he defending the Afghani people. He was acting out his macho, patriotic crap and I guess someone with a bigger gun did him in.

Wow. I guess what surprised me the most is that Gonzalez is described as a graduate student. Most people get such crap out of their systems by the time they're 21 or 22.

Well, Gonzalez's views are protected by the First Amendment, if not by the rule of common sense or decency.

DOUGLAS BRINKLEY'S VERY BAD DAY. The historian and John Kerry biographer gets one upside the head from Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam. I'd say Beam has Brinkley dead to rights in his portrayal of him as a campaign surrogate.

Here is Brinkley's Tuesday piece for Salon (sub. req.) on the non-story of whether Kerry threw his ribbons or his medals over the fence in 1971. Pretty convincing. But - idiotic as this controversy may be - why can't Kerry explain it as succinctly and convincingly as Brinkley, Tom Oliphant, and Robert Sam Anson?

Naturally, Mickey Kaus thinks Anson's account is evidence of more shocking Kerry lies.

NEW IN THIS WEEK'S PHOENIX. When Bob met Dubya: Woodward's latest is a lot easier on the president than the author wants you to think.

Also, Jay Severin's Muslim moment.

LET THEM EAT BOEUF! Media Log's slogan: You can't make this stuff up!® I just found this nugget near the end of John Harris's Washington Post story of last Saturday on Republican efforts to cast Senator John Kerry as a wealthy elitist:

There has been an echo of this kind of down-home invective in the controversy over Kerry's statement that foreign leaders secretly back his candidacy. Pressed last Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" on where and when the leaders told him this, Kerry declined to say, but he noted: "You can go to New York City and you can be in a restaurant and you can meet a foreign leader."

This prompted House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) on Monday to sneer: "I don't know where John Kerry eats, or what restaurants he attends in New York City. But I tell you, at the Taste of Texas restaurant - it's this great steakhouse in Houston, Texas - the only foreign leader you meet there is called filet mignon."

Boneless steak for a bonehead. Don't you wish Tom DeLay was your congressman?

COMMON USAGE. Not long after writing a piece on the rivalry between the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald, I received a message from inside Wingo Square. My informant complained I hadn't noted that the title of the redesigned Boston Globe Magazine's front-of-the-book section - "Boston Uncommon" - was already being used by Herald sports columnist Howard Bryant.

Fair enough. But it turns out that "Boston Uncommon" is about as original as "it was a dark and stormy night." Click here and you'll see what I mean. "Boston Uncommon" has been used to describe wedding and honeymoon packages, attractions for students, and crab cakes. It's the name of a vocal group, the title of an article about Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, and the headline on a story about a Palm Beach County gardener who moved there from Boston.

The Christian Science Monitor used it for a things-to-do piece. TCPalm.com, a Florida website, used it for an 82-year-old guy who was planning to run the Boston Marathon. The Cincinnati Post used it to describe a former Ohio State football star named David Boston.

Titles are often used to evoke a sense of the familiar rather than dazzle with originality. They also can't be copyrighted, although they can be trademarked for certain limited purposes. (Very limited, as Roger Ailes learned when he went after Al Franken.)

Does any of this matter? No. Just thought I'd share.

AIR AMERICA'S GROWING PAINS. Ridiculous though it may be, it appears that the death watch has already begun for Air America Radio. The Chicago Tribune reported yesterday that two of the liberal network's top executives, Mark Walsh and Dave Logan, have left the building - Walsh under his own power, Logan possibly not. This comes on the heels of a legal and financial dispute that has left Air America without stable homes in Los Angeles and Chicago.

The New York Times follows up today. And Michael Harrison, publisher of Talkers magazine, tells the Washington Post the obvious: "Chaos is not a good sign." A nitwit named Corey Deitz goes so far as to argue that Air America hosts Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo should emulate Gordon Liddy. What, by going to prison?

Needless to say, Air America can't be heard in Boston, either, unless you're paying for satellite radio or listening to the live stream over the Web.

Obviously Air America is going through growing pains, or maybe something rather worse than that. But the network is still only a month old. The unanswered question - and the key to the whole operation - is how much money its backers are prepared to spend to get this thing off the ground. If they're willing to spend whatever it takes for a year or two, then the current chaos doesn't matter. If they were hoping to break even within months after launching, then one suspects they didn't know what they were getting into in the first place.

Air America continues to add affiliates, including WMTW Radio (AM 870) in Portland, Maine. The station is changing its call letters to WLVP, which veteran radio-watcher Scott Fybush guesses stands for "Liberal Voice of Portland."

One thing I wonder about is whether the liberal audience that Air America has targeted really understands how bad talk radio is most of the time. Everyone talks about how successful Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are, but they host dreadful, almost unlistenable shows - smug, boring, unentertaining agitprop that is nearly impossible to listen to unless you've been lobotomized. Air America wants to rise above that, but it's hard to do so hour after hour after hour. Conservatives may be willing to listen to such crap, but that's one of the reasons that they're conservatives.

Time will tell whether Air America is going to succeed, and money will determine how much time there is. Everything else is irrelevant.

THE SILENCE OF THE LEAKEE. There is a magical moment laying bare the media-political axis toward the end of today's James Risen New York Times story on Defense Department neocon conspiracy theorist Douglas Feith ("the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth," according to General Tommy Franks).

Risen writes this about Michael Maloof, one of several deep thinkers Feith brought in to concoct ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda:

Mr. Maloof's Pentagon career was damaged in December 2001, when his security clearances were revoked. He was accused of having unauthorized contact with a foreign national, a woman he had met while traveling in the Republic of Georgia and eventually married. Mr. Maloof said he complied with all requirements to disclose the relationship. Several intelligence professionals say he came under scrutiny because of suspicions that he had leaked classified information in the past to the news media, a charge that Mr. Maloof denies. His lawyer, Sam Abady says that Mr. Maloof was a target because of his controversial intelligence work and political ties to conservative Pentagon leaders.

Today's question: is there any chance whatsoever that Risen doesn't know whether or not Maloof had leaked classified information to the news media?

NOT-SO-TABLOID VALUES. The Boston Herald today opted for substance over sensation in a heartening way. Like the Boston Globe, the tabloid led with Superior Court judge Margot Botsford's ruling that the state's system for financing public education is inadequate and discriminates against poorer communities.

The front-page splash in the Herald is "SAVE OUR SCHOOLS," along with a photo of Julie Hancock, the Brockton 10th-grader who is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. (Hancock is the daughter of Brockton School Committee member Maurice Hancock.) Inside is a meaty, two-page package - a lead story by Kevin Rothstein, sidebars by Rothstein on Hancock and school-funding activist Norma Shapiro, a column (sub. req.) by Mike Barnicle (who failed to stay on message, instead going off on a bender about gay marriage), and a chart showing educational inequities between rich and poor communities.

The Globe's coverage, by Anand Vaishnav, is fine, and I'll certainly take the Globe's supportive editorial over the Herald's miserly stance. But the Herald's package was, I hope, a sign that acting editor Ken Chandler's reign isn't going to be all sex and celebrity.

SMEARING KERRY'S SERVICE. There has always been something uniquely John Kerry-ish about the matter of whether it was his medals or his ribbons that he threw over the fence at that antiwar rally in Washington more than three decades ago, or even whether medals and ribbons are or are not the same thing. As Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi writes today, "A person watching Kerry run for president wants to shake him and say, 'Stop, please stop.'"

Still, ABC News's "exclusive" on Good Morning America yesterday is an utter disgrace - an attempt to make something out of nothing, and to impugn the integrity and patriotism of someone who came to oppose an immoral war in which he had fought. Tom Oliphant's eyewitness account in today's Globe ought to put this non-story to rest.

"God, they're doing the bidding of the Republican National Committee," the Globe's Patrick Healy quotes Kerry as saying of ABC. Kerry's right, and it's frighteningly reminiscent of the way that the media took dictation from the Republicans in going after Al Gore four years ago.

Yet Healy also undermines Kerry's ability to defend himself by getting something else half-right. In response to the ABC/GOP smear, Healy writes, "Kerry turned the issue against the president, saying for the first time that Bush was far more vulnerable on matters of Vietnam-era choices because of questions about whether he completed his service in the Texas Air National Guard. 'He owes America an explanation about whether or not he showed up for duty in the National Guard. Prove it,' Kerry told NBC." Healy then adds:

Kerry has said for months that he would not question the president's Texas Air National Guard record even as his allies, such as the Democratic National Committee chairman, Terry McAuliffe, and former US senator Max Cleland, suggested Bush had been "AWOL" at times in the early '70s and may not have completed his Guard service. Kerry said that, as a Vietnam veteran, he had come to terms with others' decisions about serving their country during the Vietnam era, and once defended President Clinton for not serving.

And then this, farther down in the article:

Republicans, meanwhile, pounced on Kerry's comments about Bush yesterday, noting his past pledge not to criticize the military service of other members of the Vietnam generation. "It's another example of John Kerry saying one thing and doing another: He said he would never question the president's honorable service in the National Guard, but now he is lashing out," said Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for the Bush campaign. "It is a purely venomous political attack, and the American people will reject it."

Now, I can't cite chapter and verse. But I've followed this pretty closely, and it seems to me that Kerry has always said the issue he considered out of bounds was Bush's decision to serve in the Texas Air National Guard rather than opt for potentially more hazardous duty in the US military. To my knowledge, though, Kerry has never said he would not question whether Bush didn't serve in the National Guard. (Oof. Triple negative. Sorry.) Those are two completely different issues. Choosing to serve in the Guard is one thing; blowing it off is quite another. And if the Republicans are going to attack Kerry's military service, it is absurd to think that Kerry shouldn't fight back.

E.J. Dionne has a terrific column in today's Washington Post on the Republicans' loathsome attempts to smear Kerry's military record, noting that Bush's fellow Republican John McCain has come to Kerry's defense. Asks Dionne: "Now that McCain has spoken, will Bush have the guts to endorse or condemn the attacks on Kerry's service? Or will he just sit by silently, hoping the assaults do their work while he evades responsibility?"

Sadly, I think we already know the answer.

SEVERIN'S WORDS. The Boston Globe has obtained a transcript of WTKK Radio (96.9 FM) talk-show host Jay Severin's remarks of last Thursday, which he both defended and expressed "regret" for yesterday afternoon.

There appears to be something for everyone. On the one hand, Severin was right about what he actually said. He did not say, "I've got an idea, let's kill all Muslims," as claimed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has called for his firing. As Severin correctly said yesterday, his actual words to a caller were, "You think we should befriend them; I think we should kill them."

On the other hand, Severin offered virtually no context, at least according to the Globe report, by Michael Rosenwald. At one point, Severin is quoted as having said, "My suspicion is that the majority of Muslims in the United States, who regard themselves as Muslims first and not as Americans really at all, see an American map one day where this is the United States of Islam, not the United States of America. I think it pays to harbor those suspicions."

That doesn't sound like someone who was only advocating the killing of Islamist terrorists.

SEVERIN DENIES CHARGES. I just listened to Jay Severin's opening monologue on WTKK Radio (96.9 FM). Severin addressed the claim made by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that he had said on his show last Thursday, "I've got an idea, let's kill all Muslims." Severin denied ever having said such a thing, blasted the Boston Globe for reporting CAIR's charges without contacting him first, but nevertheless expressed "regret" to anyone who was offended by his remarks.

Calling it "a big story about imagined hate speech," Severin said, "If we were to make a tape of it, I could find maybe 1000 recordings ... with my saying the following words: all Muslims are not terrorists, all Muslims are not our enemies. But, so far, all the terrorists killing us are Muslims." He referred to Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby's Sunday piece on Arab and Muslim hatred toward the United States, and to a front-page story in today's New York Times headlined "Militants in Europe Openly Call for Jihad and the Rule of Islam."

Severin said that his remark about killing Muslims came in response to a caller who advocated peaceful relations with those elements of the Islamic world that hate the US. "When he said to me, 'I think we should be befriend them,' I said, 'I have a different notion, a different policy. I think we should kill them,'" Severin said today. He added: "I certainly regret any misunderstanding. I certainly regret any discomfort that may have been caused by the misunderstanding of my remarks." But he said that he has been "very clear, very contextual, very consistent" in saying that the US should kill its Muslim enemies - not that it should kill all Muslims.

"My remarks were not taken out of context. Someone made up my remarks," Severin said. He charged that CAIR simply took what a listener had e-mailed to the organization and wrote up a press release demanding that Severin be fired. "Those words were never uttered by me. Not off the air, not on the air, not ever. Never uttered by me," he said, calling CAIR's characterization "100 percent false. A fantasy, a fabrication, totally made up."

Severin also accused the Globe of not checking with him before going to press. (The Globe's story was published on Sunday, not Saturday, as I mistakenly reported earlier today.) He said someone at the Globe told him today that the reporter, Jessica Bennett, had tried to reach him and failed. But Severin said, "I'm in a 24/7 business. Everyone knows how to contact me."

He added: "My statements weren't taken out of context. My statements were made up, and then printed by the Boston Globe. Now, I wish to repeat that I'm not here to offend anyone. [Media Log aside: Hah!] I'm here to provoke thought, I'm here to express opinion."

A few off-the-cuff observations:

- A couple of quibbles aside, I basically believe Severin. I am thoroughly disgusted by his referring to Arabs and Muslims as "towelheads," by his suggestions that the US should nuke its enemies, and by his advocacy of scorched-earth tactics in Iraq. But I listen to him enough to know that it's not credible to imagine he would suddenly call for the deaths of "all" Muslims. He's always been clear that he wants us to kill Islamist terrorists who are trying to kill us. And, of course, we should.

- Severin refers to the Globe as "a ridiculously irresponsible major newspaper" for going to print without first contacting him. But according to Bennett's story, she did contact the station's general manager, Matt Mills, who reportedly declined to comment. She also refers to Severin's remarks as "alleged," which does qualify things a bit. CAIR had put out a press release on the wires the day before the Globe story ran. Assuming that Bennett genuinely attempted to reach Severin and couldn't, her and the paper's choice was either to run with what they had or hold it. Maybe they could have waited another day, but I don't think the decision they made was wrong.

- Severin makes no reference to an e-mail that Mills supposedly sent to CAIR in which he said: "I have spoken to Jay Severin and he knows we take this seriously and do not condone offensive remarks toward any religious groups and he will be apologizing on his show Monday afternoon. He did not intend to offend anyone." Maybe Mills will now claim that he never sent any such e-mail. But assuming that he did, it sounds like Mills was upset with his star talk-show host. Severin should have talked about that rather than blaming everything on CAIR and the Globe.

Maybe he will later this afternoon. Unfortunately, I won't be listening, because I'm on deadline with other matters.

SEVERIN REPORTEDLY TO APOLOGIZE. Well, this should be interesting. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) claims it has been promised that WTKK Radio (96.9 FM) talk-show host Jay Severin will apologize today during his show for saying, "I've got an idea, let's kill all Muslims." Severin allegedly made that remark last Thursday.

CAIR quotes from an e-mail the organization says it received from the station's general manager, Mark Mills: "I have spoken to Jay Severin and he knows we take this seriously and do not condone offensive remarks toward any religious groups and he will be apologizing on his show Monday afternoon. He did not intend to offend anyone."

Severin's alleged outburst reportedly came he while talking about a supposed Muslim plan to take over America, even if it takes centuries. CAIR is calling for Severin to be fired. The organization's chairman, Omar Ahmad, is quoted as saying: "We believe a mere reprimand and apology is insufficient and demand that he be taken off the air as he would be if he had attacked any other religious or ethnic group."

The Boston Globe reported on Severin's latest on Saturday.

I didn't hear Severin, so I don't want to prejudge this. I'll wait to hear what he has to say shortly after 3. But if past is prologue, this is unsurprising. As I've observed previously, Severin regularly refers to Arabs and Muslims as "towelheads" and illegal immigrants as "wetbacks." He has often advocated the use of nuclear weapons against enemies of the United States. And with the death toll in Iraq rising, Severin has expressed frustration that the US military is engaging in urban warfare - thus costing American lives - instead of essentially leveling areas where the Iraqi opposition is strong.

But doesn't Severin have a First Amendment right to say such things? Yes, of course. What he doesn't have is a First Amendment right to host a talk show. Hate speech is protected, but it's up to the management of WTKK to decide whether it wants to pay for such garbage. And CAIR has a First Amendment right to protest and to demand that Severin be fired.

Recently another 'TKK talk-show host, Mike Barnicle, apologized for using the word "Mandingo" in referring to the marriage of former secretary of defense William Cohen, who's white, and former Boston television personality Janet Langhart, who's black.

Last October, WEEI Radio (AM 850), after initially trying to ride it out, suspended John Dennis and Gerry Callahan for two weeks after they jokingly referred to a gorilla that had escaped from the Franklin Park Zoo as a "Metco gorilla." Metco is a program that lets urban African-American kids attend public schools in the suburbs.

Two months before that, one of 'EEI's sister stations, WRKO Radio (AM 680), parted company with John "Ozone" Osterlind after Osterlind allegedly called for the "eradication" of the Palestinian people on the air. (At the time of his departure, Osterlind disputed what happened, and a complete tape of his offending remarks has never surfaced. And a disclosure: WRKO pays me to talk about the media on The Pat Whitley Show every Friday at 9 a.m.)

All this is only tangentially tied to the uproar over indecency. That, after all, only dates back to the Super Bowl. Rather, what all of these local incidents have in common is that they involve ugly joking, or even hate speech, about race, ethnicity, and/or religion. Such a thing would have been unheard of - literally - 10 years ago, but it has become a staple as corporate-owned radio chains have continued their downward spiral.

I suspect that Severin will slide by with an apology, and that he'll be able to claim his remarks were made within an entirely political context. In any event, stay tuned.