FIRE AWAY. A few months ago I added a "comment" feature to Media Log. It was a soft launch: I wasn't able to set it up the way I wanted to, so I just sort of put it up, left it there, and waited to see what use readers would make of it. A few have added their thoughts, which I appreciate.

I just got finished making some improvements, and am now ready to go public with it. The main differences are that I've separated the permalink from the comments, and - more important - am now able to show how many readers have already left comments. You no longer have to click to see whether anyone has had anything to say.

I you read Media Log by e-mail only, you won't see any of the comments. All the more reason to read Media Log on the Web.

One other problem: in the course of republishing Media Log, I've encountered errors that have made archives before December 1, 2003, inaccessible. I'm not sure whether this problem can be solved. Any Blogger users out there have some insight?

COMING CLEAN AT THE WASHINGTON POST. A few observations about Howard Kurtz's front-page piece in yesterday's Washington Post about that paper's shortcomings in the run-up to the war in Iraq:

- The Post has less to come clean on than did the New York Times, which earlier this year published a mea culpa about its own gullible reporting on Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction. By contrast, the Post appears to have been more skeptical. Thus, though Kurtz's piece is certainly welcome, he doesn't document the kind of gross malfeasance committed at the Times, and especially by Ahmad Chalabi's favorite reporter, Judith Miller.

- What Kurtz mainly writes about is an imbalance: stories favorable to the administration were pretty much guaranteed page-one treatment, whereas those questioning White House claims were relegated to inside the paper. Given that, what I find shocking is that Walter Pincus's deeply skeptical reporting was given less emphasis than it should have been in part because he is apparently a lousy writer, and because the editors charged with whipping his copy into shape were overwhelmed by too much other work. Pincus's reporting was never more needed than it was during this period. The excuse that there was no one available to rewrite his stories is pathetic for a great newspaper.

- All hail Bob Woodward! Frequently criticized as a toady to those in power, Woodward - an assistant managing editor at the Post - not only comes across as someone who is genuinely anguished over the Post's tilt, but as Pincus's foremost advocate at a time when it mattered the most.

- Speaking of imbalance ... the Times published its "Editor's Note" inside the paper, whereas the Post published Kurtz on page one. Good for the Post. Like many Bostonians, I try to read the Times every day, but check out the Post's website only when there's something really important that I want to read. But this kind of transparency suggests there's something to the notion that the Post is on the upswing, whereas the Times is still struggling to re-establish its pre-eminence in the post-Jayson Blair, post-Howell Raines era. Josh Marshall wrote intelligently on this recently.

Overall, an excellent effort by Kurtz, and a great move by the Post's editors to put it on the front. The trouble is, the media always do a pretty good job of looking back. What will happen the next time?

A VICIOUS ATTACK ON PORTER GOSS. By ... Porter Goss! George W. Bush's pick to run the CIA told Michael Moore last spring that there was no way he could be hired by the CIA today. The interview - an outtake from Fahrenheit 9/11 - has been posted on Moore's website. You should watch it, but here's what Goss told Moore:

It is true I was in CIA from approximately the late '50s to approximately the early '70s. And it's true I was a case officer, clandestine services office and yes I do understand the core mission of the business. I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified. I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were Romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably. And I certainly don't have the technical skills, uh, as my children remind me every day, "Dad you got to get better on your computer." Uh, so, the things that you need to have, I don't have.

Here is Goss's defense, according to today's New York Times:

A spokeswoman for Mr. Goss, Julie Almacy, said his comments had concerned the skills needed to be an operative.

"He's certainly qualified to be the director," Ms. Almacy said. "He's talking about a case officer."

You know what? I'll accept that. Moore's coup is a nice little gotcha, but it has nothing to do with Goss's qualifications to manage the CIA. For that, we turn to this piece on Newsweek's website, by Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball, who report that Goss - as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee - has proposed letting the agency spy on and arrest American citizens. Here's my favorite paragraph:

"This language on its face would have allowed President Nixon to authorize the CIA to bug the Democratic National Committee headquarters," Jeffrey H. Smith, who served as general counsel of the CIA between 1995 and 1996, told NEWSWEEK. "I can't imagine what Porter had in mind."

Well, who knows what Porter had in mind? He's not talking. Besides, maybe he's not, you know, qualified to speak.

At the very least, it's time for congressional Democrats to rethink their plan to wave the Goss nomination through.

NOMAR-BASHING BY PROXY. The Globe's Gordon Edes might want to lay off the second-hand accounts of sports-radio tidbits. Today Edes writes:

"Curt on a car phone" - a.k.a. Curt Schilling - phoned in again yesterday afternoon to radio station WEEI to offer a few opinions on "The Big Show." According to co-host Sean McAdam of the Providence Journal, Schilling said Francona was being unfairly blamed for the team's erratic performance. During the course of a discussion regarding Nomar Garciaparra, Schilling brought up a comparison with Derek Jeter and said, "Derek Jeter is a winner."

I happened to be listening during an interminable drive home. And though that is what Schilling said about Nomar, it's not all that he said, and what got left out in Edes's account changes the meaning considerably.

In fact, Schilling said Garciaparra is a quiet player in the mold of his former teammate Randy Johnson, and that any Red Sox players who think Nomar's lack of more-vocal leadership had hurt their own ability to perform have no one to blame but themselves.

As to the matter of "Derek Jeter is a winner" (with the implication that Nomar isn't), Schilling said that in most respects he considers them to be nearly identical players. He added that Jeter has the image of a winner because he's been lucky enough to be on a team that gets into the World Series and help them win a championship - an opportunity Nomar hasn't had.

POLICY MEETS REALITY. Allegations of a horrible crime on the North Shore have led to an odd divergence in the way the media are playing it. Last week, police arrested Mary Jean Armstrong, 35, of Beverly, and charged her with prostituting her nine-year-old daughter in return for cocaine. Two men - Richard Lapham and Robert L'Italien - face charges as well.

The Globe has refrained from reporting that Armstrong is the mother of the alleged victim. In a piece published yesterday, reporter Katie Nelson wrote: "Because it is Globe policy not to reveal the identities of victims of alleged sexual crimes without their consent, the paper is withholding the children's connection to the suspects."

WBZ-TV (Channel 4) and WBZ Radio (AM 1030) have been following the same policy. I do not know what other broadcasters have been doing.

The Herald is making it clear that Armstrong is the girl's mother, as you will see from this Tom Farmer story. More to the point, so is the hometown paper, the Salem News. This piece, by Julie Manganis, was blasted across the front page yesterday. Manganis's lead: "Police say Mary Jean Armstrong confessed to bartering her daughter for cocaine, claiming she was so desperate for drugs that she traded sex with the 9-year-old as many as 50 times since last summer."

Nor was yesterday a first. Since the story broke last week, the News has reported on the mother-daughter connection on several occasions. (To my knowledge, no one has reported the daughter's name - nor should it be.)

What's the right answer? I'm not sure, though I'm leaning toward the News and other media outlets that have reported the relationship. This is a terrible story, and it's one that can't fully be told without noting that Armstrong has been charged with letting men rape her own daughter. I think the benefits to making the public aware of this outweigh any theoretical negatives.

As for the Globe and WBZ deciding to continue withholding that fact - well, two cheers for standing on principle. But they're no longer in a position to protect the victim, because the Salem News has already made the decision for them.

In a small community, what the local paper does is far more important than the choices made by big media organizations. That's because readers of the News are far more likely to know Armstrong and her daughter than are the Globe's customers.

NEW IN THIS WEEK'S PHOENIX. Forget the national polls. The presidential election will be decided in as few as 10 key states. So far, at least, it's looking good for Kerry.

Also, the sputtering economy forces belt-tightening at 135 Morrissey Boulevard.

A FREE-SPEECH OUTRAGE. When it comes to campaign-finance reform, I've already gone over to the dark side. So please don't be shocked by my recommendation of this George Will piece, in the current Newsweek, on the latest ironic twist in the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law.

It seems that an anti-abortion-rights group called Wisconsin Right to Life may not be able to run a television ad after August 15 - that is, within 30 days of the state's US Senate primary - because the organization had the temerity to name one of the candidates in that primary. That would be Senator Russell Feingold, the Democratic incumbent and co-author of the law that bears his name.

Now, Will has been railing against the anti-speech consequences of campaign-finance reform for years; I'm new to the cause (although I've always opposed this particular provision of McCain-Feingold). Will also opposes abortion rights; I'm pro-choice. But the example he cites illustrates perfectly how so-called reform is stifling political speech. Will writes:

The political class hates having independent groups of citizens butting into the country's political conversation. The premise of McCain-Feingold is that elections are the private property of the political class, whose members should be empowered to control the topics of discussion during any election season. During the debate on McCain-Feingold, speaker after speaker complained that "issue-advocacy ads are a nightmare" (Sen. Paul Wellstone) and that McCain-Feingold is "about slowing political advertising" (Sen. Maria Cantwell).

Fortunately, the rickety scaffolding of campaign-finance regulations is collapsing and being replaced by wholesome chaos. Internet fund-raising by candidates, and the gushers of contributions to the 527 advocacy groups (named for the pertinent provision of the tax code), are demonstrating the futility - not to mention the unwisdom - of government attempts to impose a regime of speech rationing.

Here, at least, I think Will's reasoning is faulty. The 527s exist solely to get around McCain-Feingold. If we had a rational system - unregulated (more or less) giving, coupled with instant disclosure on the Internet - then the 527s never would have been born.

Liberal 527s such as MoveOn.org and America Coming Together are doing excellent work, but without McCain-Feingold, the millions of dollars they are raising would be going directly to political candidates. As they should.

It's an outrage to the First Amendment that an independent organization can't say anything it likes about a political candidate at any time it wishes. Free speech is free speech, and political speech should enjoy the highest protection of all.

Instead, we have certified good guys such as Senator John McCain and Representatives Marty Meehan and Christopher Shays filing an amicus brief in federal court to keep Wisconsin Right to Life off the air.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IS NOT JUST FOR THE PRESS. The First Amendment belongs to everyone - not just to those who carry a press card. If you were hauled before a grand jury and ordered to reveal what someone had told you in confidence about a crime that was being investigated, you would have to testify. Or go to jail.

That's why Time magazine's Matthew Cooper is behind bars today in the ongoing investigation into the Valerie Plame leak. [Correction: Cooper's jail stay is on hold pending appeal.] Plame, as you may recall, was an undercover CIA operative until last July, when syndicated columnist Robert Novak exposed her identity in the course of dumping on her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, the protagonist of that infamous mint-tea-sipping trip to Niger.

Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor investigating who leaked Plame's name to Novak, apparently believes that Cooper and NBC's Tim Russert have information that he needs. Russert avoided jail by providing Fitzgerald with some information. Josh Marshall writes that Cooper's behavior is more honorable than Russert's, but I think that judgment is premature. We don't yet know what Russert did or didn't say. For that matter, we may never know.

This case carries with it enormous implications for freedom of the press, and it's just starting to unfold. But unless you're prepared to argue for special privileges for reporters that the rest of the public doesn't enjoy, you might want to hesitate before expressing any outrage at Fitzgerald.

It's not that Cooper isn't doing the right thing. He is. It's just that there may be no good alternative.

STUMPING WITH BUSH. I drove up to Stratham, New Hampshire, on Friday to watch George W. Bush address the faithful at an outdoor rally and picnic. It had been four years - since the South Carolina primary, in 2000 - that I'd had a chance to see Bush in such a setting, and I'd forgotten how effective he can be. Not to mention how out of touch with reality.

The Portsmouth Herald says there were 5500 people attending, which seems a bit high. I watched from the TV riser next to Jorge Quiroga, of WCVB-TV (Channel 5), who estimated the crowd at about 2500. That seems more like it. But there's no question that a lot of Bush supporters (non-supporters not allowed) turned out at Stella and Douglas Scamman's farm. Indeed, I had to park at a supermarket and walk about a mile up the road.

For a half-hour or more, band music was blasted through the PA system, including a number that I only know as the theme from Monty Python. Finally, at about 1 p.m., a few minutes late, we could see that Bush was slowly making his way to the podium. He was introduced by Senator Judd Gregg, who's up for re-election. Gregg immediately invoked 9/11, speaking reverently of the moment when Bush took a bullhorn amid the rubble of the World Trade Center and vowed revenge. Bush, Gregg said, offers "leadership with resolve and purpose to defeat terrorism, to defend America, and to assert leadership around the world."

Dressed in a light blue shirt, tieless and with rolled-up sleeves, Bush then grabbed the podium and talked for 45 minutes - a stemwinder for him, and curious given the amount of criticism John Kerry has received for speaking only a few minutes longer than that in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. Of course, Bush had a captive audience, and didn't have to worry about anyone changing the channel.

"Listen, there is no better way to spend a Friday afternoon than at a picnic in New Hampshire," Bush said. "We won New Hampshire last time, we're going to win New Hampshire this time, and we're on our way to a great victory in New Hampshire."

What followed was all boilerplate, as he spoke partly from notes and partly from memory. He talked about his family (he was on his way to Kennebunkport for a family wedding). He paid tribute to New Hampshire Republicans such as Gregg ("an amazing senator"), Senator John Sununu, Governor Craig Benson, and Congressman Jeb Bradley. He was folksy. "You might remember I was knockin' on doors here a while ago. Like four years ago. And I met a lot of good folks here," he said, conveniently omitting the fact that most of those good folks voted for his rival, Senator John McCain.

Bush's spin on terrorism, Iraq, the economy, Dick Cheney ("I didn't pick him for his looks"), education reform, and the like is not worth repeating, although it bears noting that he appears ready to keep hacking at Kerry for his choice of North Carolina senator John Edwards - a trial lawyer - as his running mate. "We need to get rid of these frivolous and junk lawsuits," he said. "My opponent made his choice, and he put him on the ticket. I made my choice - I'm standin' with the docs and the patients."

Bush did not mention this frivolous lawsuit, which he brought against a rental-car company in 1998. No doubt if he'd hired Edwards he could have done a lot better than $2500.

When Bush is relaxed and in front of a friendly crowd, he comes across as looser and more human than Kerry seems to be able to manage. There are little touches. ("I want to thank the youth football coaches who are here today ... thanks for being good moms and dads") There are deftly worded attacks, such as his mocking criticism of Kerry for voting against $87 billion to support US troops and to reconstruct Afghanistan and Iraq. ("There's nothing complicated about supporting our troops in harm's way," he said, never mentioning that he, in fact, had threatened to veto the $87 billion if it weren't structured to his satisfaction.) There is the almost-undetectable, coded attack on lesbians and gay men. ("We stand for institutions like marriage and family, which are the foundation of our society.") There is the unadulterated horseshit, such as his call to "rally the armies of compassion," which surely are needed more than ever after four years of him and Cheney.

More than anything, there is 9/11, which is clearly the theme of his re-election campaign, and which will be on full display at the Republican National Convention in a few weeks. He ended as Judd Gregg had begun, talking about that day at Ground Zero. "I remember a guy grabbing me by the arm ... he looked at me with bloodshot eyes and said, 'Don't let me down,'" Bush said, adding: "I will do whatever it takes."

"Four more years! Four more years!" came the response from the crowd.

Will this work? I don't know. Can well-performed schmaltz overcome four years of failure and deceit? The Republicans have this down to a science. On the other hand, they reached their high-water mark in presidential campaigns in 1984, when Ronald Reagan was re-elected. The last time they won a majority was in '88, when Bush's father defeated Michael Dukakis.

This shouldn't work, but it might give Bush a temporary push heading into the fall. I'm hardly original in saying this, but I think it's pretty obvious that it's all going to come down to the debates. One thing Democrats need to keep in mind, though, is that Bush - frequently derided for his tongue-tangled ways - can be a more effective communicator than they think.

PUTTING IT TO REST I: KRANISH. Here is the Globe's account of Michael Kranish and the Kerry-Edwards campaign book. As you'll see, it fits with accounts in the New York Times and the New York Daily News, and offers a bit more background. No apologies or retractions from Rush Limbaugh or Matt Drudge this morning.

The Globe article, by Susan Milligan, also reports that the paper stands by its story regarding John Kerry's former commanding officer, George Elliott, who claims Kranish misquoted him yesterday on the matter of Kerry's service in Vietnam. Let's look again at this key passage in Kranish's story, shall we?

Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star.

"I still don't think he shot the guy in the back," Elliott said. "It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

Elliott said he was no under personal or political pressure to sign the statement, but he did feel "time pressure" from those involved in the book. "That's no excuse," Elliott said. "I knew it was wrong ... In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."

A misquote? I don't think so. A misquote is when you get a couple of words wrong, or if you twist the context. Elliott may be using the word "misquote," but what he's really claiming is that Kranish fabricated the whole thing. I don't believe Elliott, and neither should you.

PUTTING IT TO REST II: NOMAR. This one's for you, P.G. Chicago Tribune sports columnist Rick Morrissey yesterday blasted (reg. req.) the Boston media for its treatment of Nomar Garciaparra on his way out the door. Morrissey writes:

The Red Sox know they messed up. We know the Red Sox know they messed up because, ever since they dealt him to the Cubs, they have tried to tear him down. This is what you do to buildings that are dilapidated and lack character. You don't do it to one of the best players in team history.

ON GETTING IT AND NOT GETTING IT. The New York Times' Elisabeth Bumiller reports on George W. Bush's comments at the Unity Conference yesterday, in which he said he has come to oppose the practice of admitting "legacies" - the children of well-connected and/or wealthy alumni - at colleges and universities:

Mr. Bush said that he assumed Mr. Martin had brought up the issue because of the president's Yale legacy, but Mr. Bush also joked that "in my case, I had to knock on a lot of doors to follow the old man's footsteps." Mr. Bush apparently meant that he had to work hard to succeed.

What? Oh, well. Here is the Globe's Anne Kornblut on the same matter:

Asked to describe his feelings about legacy admissions, Bush replied, "I think it ought to be based upon merit." Asked whether his response meant that he thought colleges should abandon preferences for alumni children, he said, "Well, I think so, yes."

And in a knock on his own mediocre grades, Bush said, joking: "I had to knock on a lot of doors to follow in the old man's footsteps."

Well, yeah. Was this really that hard to figure out?

MORE ON THE SLIME MERCHANTS. The New York Times tomorrow will report that the Globe's Michael Kranish had nothing to do with a forthcoming official Kerry-Edwards book, Rush Limbaugh's and Matt Drudge's sneering accusations notwithstanding. Writes Jim Rutenberg:

... Public Affairs, publisher of Mr. Kerry's campaign book, said Mr. Kranish had been retained to write the foreword for a different book, and that when it struck a deal to publish the campaign's platform, it dropped plans to publish that book.

Which, of course, is what Paul Colford wrote in the Daily News. Rutenberg continues:

Martin Baron, editor of The Boston Globe, backed up that version of events in a statement and also stood by the quotes from Commander Elliott in his paper. "The quotes attributed to Mr. Elliott were on the record and absolutely accurate," he said.

Too bad for Kranish that he got caught up in this mind-bogglingly sick offensive to denigrate Kerry's service in Vietnam.

SLIME MERCHANTS AT WORK. Based on what I've heard so far, it sounds like Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge are sliming Globe reporter Michael Kranish. What a surprise.

Kranish reported today that George Elliott - Kerry's former commanding officer, who'd once defended Kerry and had then gone on the attack against him - was defending him again, sort of. Now we learn that Elliott is back to attacking Kerry, and claiming that Kranish misquoted him. A very strange story indeed.

Limbaugh and Drudge think they know what happened with Kranish. They've learned that Kranish wrote the introduction to a book - which they describe as the "official" Kerry-Edwards campaign book - and that therefore Kranish is in the tank.

Limbaugh calls Kranish "a paid Kerry political biographer!" (Gratuitious exclamation point his.)

Drudge writes: "BOSTON GLOBE journalist Mike Kranish has been commissioned to write the foreword of the Kerry-Edwards campaign book - just as he is covering the campaign in an official capacity as a journalist for the BOSTON GLOBE!" (Gratuitious exclamation point and CAPITAL LETTERS definitely his.)

But wait. Drudge triumphantly links to this piece by New York Daily News reporter Paul Colford as alleged proof of Kranish's perfidy. Yet it seems to me that it doesn't say what Drudge thinks it says. Colford reports that PublicAffairs has canceled plans to publish a book called Kerry/Edwards: Their Plans and Promises, which was to include an introduction by Kranish. Instead, Public Affairs will "bring out an authorized edition of the Democratic duo's personal campaign manifesto," to be titled Our Plan for America: Stronger at Home, Respected in the World. There is absolutely no mention of Kranish's being involved in that project.

In fact, on the evidence thus far it seems that Kerry/Edwards was to be an unauthorized book on the Kerry-Edwards campaign. It makes sense. Kranish is the co-author of John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography by the Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best - which, by the way, is not especially kind to Kerry. That book, too, was published by PublicAffairs. No doubt the publisher saw an opportunity to take advantage of a relationship it already had with Kranish.

I still want to know more. In particular, there's a weird reference in Colford's piece about excerpts of the now-canceled Kerry/Edwards book having been available on the Kerry-Edwards website. But the idea that Kranish would risk his job by taking money to write part of an official campaign book - or even to do it for free - strikes me as preposterous.

MEA CULPA. Globe sports columnist Dan Shaughnessy on Wednesday wrote that he wanted to make it clear he'd never referred to Nomar Garciaparra as a "cancer" on the Red Sox: "Nowhere in this space was Garciaparra characterized as a 'cancer' in the Sox clubhouse. The word 'polluted' was used (which admittedly may be harsher for some), but you won't find 'cancer' tossed about casually here."

Now, I have no idea whether Shaughnessy is a Media Log reader. But on Monday, I did refer to columns written by him and the Herald's Gerry Callahan as concluding that Garciaparra "had become a cancer on the team." I did not directly attribute the word "cancer" to either one of them; rather, I meant it as a summary of what they had written. (And, in fact, neither actually used the word.)

Nevertheless, it was sloppy and insensitive of me, especially given that Shaughnessy's daughter, Kate, is a leukemia survivor. Referring to someone who's a negative influence as a "cancer" is pretty common usage, dating back at least to John Dean's warning to Richard Nixon. It's also a lousy expression, and I'll try not to use it again.

GLOBE SCOOPS UP COLLINS. Former Herald television critic Monica Collins, dropped last November amid a wave of cost-cutting, will soon surface at a new location: 135 Morrissey Boulevard. Collins has been brought in to write an every-other-week essay for the Boston Globe Magazine, and to contribute to the paper's City Weekly section as well.

"It's the proverbial I-couldn't-be-happier-and-I'm-looking-forward-to-the-opportunity," says Collins, who, until recently, had continued to write a weekly column for the Herald, "Downtown Journal," on a freelance basis. Her first Globe Magazine essay will appear on September 19.

Says Globe Magazine editor Doug Most: "We're excited about it, because I do think she has a voice in this town. She's knowledgeable about the people and places that make this city tick."

Collins also appears Fridays at 9 a.m. on WRKO Radio (AM 680) to talk about media issues on The Pat Whitley Show (as do I and the Globe's Mark Jurkowitz), and writes a syndicated column called "Ask Dog Lady."

DOES ROGER AILES KNOW ABOUT THIS? The most entertaining news from the Kerry campaign trail comes in the last paragraph of Anne Kornblut's story in today's Globe:

Some 200 business leaders endorsed Kerry yesterday, including executives from Oracle, Bank of America, and three other companies who flew here to attend the round-table. They decried rising US deficits and what several said was a chilly international business climate under Bush. Peter Chernin, president and chief operating officer of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, said that the Bush administration's "isolationist" and "occasionally bellicose" rhetoric was bad for US financial interests and trading abroad.

Odd, but searching for "Chernin" at FoxNews.com yields nothing since August 2003. You'd think they'd want to get this up right away, so that they could be fair and balanced and all. In fact, Media Log looks forward to the sight of Sean Hannity interviewing his boss on the depradations of George W. Bush.

NEW IN THIS WEEK'S PHOENIX. An enterprising blogger digs up the unexpected: journalists who make financial contributions to politicians.

RACIAL PROFILING AT BUSH-CHENEY 2004? The Arizona Daily Star reports that the Bush-Cheney campaign demanded to know the race of a photographer that the paper had assigned to cover an appearance by Dick Cheney last Saturday. Managing editor Teri Hayt refused, but the photographer - Mamta Popat, who is of Indian descent - was allowed to attend the Cheney event anyway.

As you'll see when you read the story, the demand came from the campaign itself, and was supposedly related to security concerns. Yet in this follow-up, the Secret Service takes the hit, calling the need for racial identification part of its standard security procedures.

Hmmm ... then how come the Phoenix wasn't asked for the race of reporters who would be covering the Democratic National Convention? We received nine passes for the FleetCenter, including a seat high above courtside, and I guarantee you we weren't asked who anyone's color was. And in case you didn't notice, the Secret Service practically ran the DNC.

I've covered maybe a half-dozen events over the years in which the Secret Service was involved, and I've never once been asked to state the color of my skin. Yes, I know, someone named Kennedy is probably white, but my brother Randall Kennedy shows that's not always the case.

So is the Secret Service telling the truth? If so, then why did the initial demand come from the Bush-Cheney campaign rather than from the agency? And if the Secret Service is not telling the truth, doesn't that amount to partisan flak-catching on behalf of the Republicans?

And why has no one written about this except David Mark?

[Update: D'oh! Click here for just a few of the other folks who've commented on this.]

NOMAR - WELL, MORE. I'm trying to find a way to wrap up the Nomar Garciaparra media war. I'm hoping that this column (sub. req.) by the Herald's Howard Bryant will do it. Bryant has obviously made the effort to talk to anyone who'll talk, and to place it all in some kind of perspective. The result is a piece that makes management look better than Nomar, but that has more nuance and depth than other commentaries I've seen. Bryant writes:

... Red Sox sources say the organization's mindset was to try and win a championship with Garciaparra in the lineup, let the relationship atrophy during the winter and part through the no-fault excuse of being unable to agree on a contract.

Neither side wanted to be the bad guy with the public. The result was an air of insincerity on both sides. The Sox didn't want the responsibility of trading a player of Garciaparra's enormity and the shortstop didn't want to deconstruct his iconic status with the fans by telling them he wanted out.

What made it fall apart, Bryant says, is that Garciaparra, for the first time in his career, was letting "his feelings toward the organization affect how he approached games. For seven years, he had never undermined the team, and now they believed he had." The result: an almost panicked trade in which the Red Sox got the short end of the stick.

IN BED WITH THE EVIL EMPIRE. This can't be good, can it? Never mind the blight of media concentration coming to regional sports networks. If the Red Sox' New England Sports Network and the Yankees' YES Network merge, aren't the Yankees always going to be the senior partners?

Plus, then the New York Times Company - owner of the Globe and the Times - would wind up owning a piece of both teams, not just the Sox.

NOMAR NO MORE. The Globe's Bob Ryan and the Herald's Steve Buckley (sub. req.) have additional perspective on the Nomar Garciaparra trade today. Ryan professes mystification, while Buckley positions himself about two-thirds of the way toward management, more or less siding with Theo and company while giving Garciaparra his due.

But you know what you want. You want The Commissioner. Media Log delivers! The great thing about Peter Gammons is that he always seems to have the inside story, even on those occasions when subsequent developments leave you scratching your head. Anyway, here's Gammons at ESPN.com:

Garciaparra did not hang out with teammates, and this season became increasingly distant as his body language became despondent. That he didn't play in Yankee Stadium in the July 1 classic when Derek Jeter gave up his body for an out got a little exaggerated, but veteran teammates constantly made private comments like "he is the biggest disappointment of my playing career - I never knew what he was like."

...

Nomar was bitter, he was embarrassed to not play as he wanted because of his heel injury (three teams that do statistical ratings of players had him as the worst defensive shortstop in the game, because of the injury). Then, when the Red Sox got to Minnesota this weekend, Garciaparra told trainers Jim Rowe and Chris Correnti that his heel wasn't right and that not only would he have to skip the weekend, he expected to have to go on the disabled list for most of August to be right in September. But when Epstein told Cubs GM Jim Hendry that there is a medical issue, Hendry said he wasn't concerned - which led the Red Sox to believe that Arn Tellem, Garciaparra's agent, was telling the Cubs he is fine. Translated, as Warren Zevon would say, "Dad, get me out of this."

Nomar was a great, great player, and he may be once again. But for whatever reason - and I'm certainly not holding management blameless - his situation in Boston had become untenable. Keep an eye on the off-season and see what he signs for. I'll bet it's for a lot less than the $60 million he turned down from the Sox - or even the $48 million "market correction" offer they later made.

SUN SHINES ON KELLER. Josh Gerstein of the New York Sun profiles political analyst Jon Keller, of WLVI-TV (Channel 56). Gerstein's focus is on Keller's disdain for John Kerry, and he calls Keller "the reporter he seems to loathe more than any other." I'm quoted as well, although Gerstein is quick to point out that I hold "a more charitable view of the senator."

MEDIA LOG MEETS WONKETTE. Almost! I was on CNN's Reliable Sources on Sunday, as was Ana Marie Cox, of Wonkette.com. Only I was in a dark little studio in Watertown, while she was in Washington (presumably; I haven't seen the tape). Anyway, here's the transcript. Don't get too excited - she watched her language.

HARK, THE HERALD. There's a hilarious piece in this week's New Yorker on how the Herald covered the Democratic National Convention. "If I produced a newspaper as boring as the Globe, I'd kill myself," editorial director Ken Chandler told John Cassidy.

I do want to take issue with one of Cassidy's assertions - that the Herald outsells the Globe in the city. He writes:

Although the Globe is a much bigger, wealthier paper than the Herald, its strength lies in the suburbs. Inside the city limits, the Herald, which has a total circulation of about two hundred and fifty thousand, outsells the Globe on newsstands.

Now, that is absolutely true, but it doesn't tell the whole story. The reason that the Herald outsells the Globe in the city is that so few copies of the Herald are home-delivered. According to the latest numbers from the Audit Bureau of Circulations, the Globe's total Monday-through-Friday circulation is 452,109, and on Sunday it's 686,575. By contrast, the Herald's daily number is 248,988, and on Sunday it's just 152,625.

But look at the difference in "single-copy sales," which basically applies to everything that isn't home-delivered. Here the Herald has a huge lead Monday through Friday, beating the Globe by a margin of 171,689 to 82,157. (On Sunday, the Globe actually beats the Herald in single-copy sales, 177,246 to 98,148.)

Do the math. From Monday through Friday, 82 percent of Globe customers get their paper via home delivery, whereas nearly 69 percent of Herald customers are grabbing it at newsstands, from street boxes, at convenience stores, whatever. Obviously a substantial number of Herald customers are suburbanites who get the Globe delivered at home and who then buy a Herald on their way to work. That's why the Herald experiences such a huge dropoff on Saturday (176,454 total, and 120,063 in single-copy sales) and Sunday.

Of course, Cassidy is right when he says that the Globe's focus is more suburban than the Herald's. But the numbers don't tell the whole story.

By the way, Globe columnist Adrian Walker makes what I'm pretty sure is his debut as a Herald critic today. And here is a good piece by Tom Scocca in the New York Observer on how Globe editor Martin Baron hopes the Kerry campaign will raise his paper's national profile.

NO REAGAN. When Ronald Reagan died recently, George W. Bush's fans tried to compare their man to the Gipper. No, they didn't try to claim he was as gifted a communicator as Reagan. (To put it mildly.) But, like Reagan, they said, Bush is committed to a few big ideas, and leaves the details to others.

Now, I was no fan of Reagan, and am more than a little bemused by the Republicans' largely successful effort at turning him into their Franklin Roosevelt. Nevertheless, Reagan towers over Bush. If you don't believe me, read Strobe Talbott's review of Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended, by Jack F. Matlock Jr., published in this week's New York Times Book Review.

Matlock depicts Reagan as understanding almost from the beginning that Mikhail Gorbachev was a different kind of Soviet leader - and that Reagan responded with a single-minded intensity and engagement aimed at appealing to and reinforcing Gorbachev's best instincts. Talbott writes:

Matlock describes in telling detail how Reagan rehearsed for his first meeting with Gorbachev, which took place in Geneva in November 1985. Reagan assigned the role of the Soviet leader to Matlock who, for maximum authenticity, played his part in Russian, mimicking Gorbachev's confident, loquacious style. Matlock also sent Reagan a series of "spoof memos" that were "interlaced with jokes and anecdotes," based on an educated guess at what Gorbachev's own advisers were telling him in preparation for the encounter.

Shortly before setting off for Geneva, Reagan dictated a long memo of his own, laying out his assessment of the man he was about to meet. The Reagan game plan was to look for areas of common interest, be candid about points of contention and support Gorbachev's reforms while (in Matlock's paraphrase) "avoiding any demand for 'regime change.'" He cautioned the members of his administration not to rub Gorbachev's nose in any concessions he might make. Above all, Reagan wanted to establish a relationship with his Soviet counterpart that would make it easier to manage conflicts lest they escalate to thermonuclear war - an imperative for every American president since Eisenhower.

Can you imagine anyone writing such things about Bush's diplomatic style, say, in 2018? I can't. Bush's entire approach to foreign policy has been disengagement other than the occasional diktat, coupled with almost a pathological need to rub our allies' noses in the reality of American military power.

BYE, BYE NOMAR. If Nomar Garciaparra were determined to leave town after the season, then that alone justified the blockbuster trade. Let's be serious: the Red Sox are not going to the World Series this year. If they could make themselves even a little bit better by not letting Nomar just walk away, then so be it.

But the Globe's Dan Shaughnessy and the Herald's Gerry Callahan (sub. req.) claim it was quite a bit worse than that - that Garciaparra had become a cancer on the team, and that the Sox will be better off without him.

Yes, I realize that Shaughnessy and Callahan are the Negativity Twins. (Although if they were all that negative, you'd think they'd be ripping the front office for botching chances they had to sign Nomar.) Callahan, in particular, seems out of line in all but accusing Garciaparra of faking the seriousness of his Achilles' tendon injury.

Still, both columns have the ring of truth. Shaughnessy writes:

His misery dates back to before this season. After the Sox beat the Oakland A's in the fourth game of the 2003 Division Series, the Sox boarded the team bus for the first leg of their journey back to Oakland for the series finale. Everyone was buoyant and gripped with the prospect of going to Oakland and winning Game 5 ... everyone except for the star shortstop. He got on the bus, turned toward the excited throng, and said, "Why is everyone so happy? As soon as we lose, everyone's just going to rip us."

That was Nomar. The ultimate downer. The wonderful talent who hated playing in a place where people cared too much.

Garciaparra was a great player, and may be again, and I hate to see him go. But the Red Sox have certainly proven over the years that they can lose with him. So it's not as though he was indispensable.

GOOD ENOUGH AND THEN SOME. Everyone seems to think that John Kerry is a lousy speaker. In fact, he's quite a good speaker when he has a decent speech to deliver and is in front of a big crowd, where his old-fashioned, stemwinder style doesn't seem too archaic. His speechifying is not terribly well-suited to television, which is an obvious problem in this, the sixth decade of the television age. That didn't matter so much last night, though, because he was speaking not to the television cameras directly but rather to the Democratic faithful, with TV simply capturing that.

Kerry got exactly what he needed. He got to introduce himself to that segment of the public that hasn't been paying attention up until now. He put himself forward as a more-than-plausible alternative to George W. Bush. And he managed to humanize himself somewhat, even though he praised his wife with exactly the same solemnity that you might imagine he would use to declare war.

The modern style is to talk, not orate, and to smile often. Kerry orates, and he almost never smiles as he's speaking. But he's learned to compensate for that by grinning broadly whenever he isn't speaking, a technique he used quite effectively in the primary debates last winter. The cameras capture him darkly glowering as he delivers his message, which isn't necessarily a bad thing when he's talking about serious issues. But then he comes off as relaxed and smiling during the pauses.

Last night in the FleetCenter, it seemed like Kerry was rushing his speech, stepping on applause lines, plunging ahead inaudibly as the crowd continued to whoop it up. But later, I watched maybe the first 10 minutes on the C-SPAN replay, and it came across differently. Kerry was miked so that the crowd wasn't nearly as loud. You could hear the cheers, but as background. So although I've heard several commentators say that Kerry was rushing, I'm not sure it came through that way to the viewers at home.

One thing that surprised me was the harsh tone of Kerry's speech. I think it may have been a smart move, but it was also a risky one. The rule of thumb in modern political campaigns is that the candidate takes the high ground while surrogates - the running mate, party officials, and the like - slash and smear. George W. Bush has been doing his share of Kerry-bashing, but he's left the heavy lifting to Dick Cheney and Republican Party chairman Ed Gillespie.

Last night, though, Kerry did some of his own dirty work. For instance:

I will be a commander-in-chief who will never mislead us into war. I will have a vice-president who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws. I will have a secretary of defense who will listen to the best advice of our military leaders. And I will appoint an attorney general who actually upholds the Constitution of the United States.

The reference to John Ashcroft, in particular, elicited the loudest applause of the speech, matched only - and oddly, I thought - by Kerry's promise to boost stem-cell research. I didn't quite get that. Perhaps, to Democrats, the roadblocks Bush has erected to slow stem-cell research are emblematic of a world view based on his particular religion rather than science, and represent the arrogance of a man who places his personal beliefs above the good of the country. (But that would just be a guess!)

The heavy reliance on military symbolism and the strong emphasis on foreign policy were most un-Democratic. It's possible that it will backfire on Kerry, given the lack of specifics he offered in dealing with the war in Iraq. On the other hand, his handling of the war, should he become president, will be entirely dependent on his negotiations with other countries. We all know that the leaders of those countries would rather deal with Kerry than Bush; but Kerry obviously can't negotiate until he becomes president.

Late last night, I graded Kerry's speech as an A-minus for content and a B for delivery. Now that I've seen that he didn't appear to be rushing things on TV as much as it seemed in the arena, I'll upgrade the latter grade to a B-plus. Not bad. In fact, quite a bit better than not bad.

JULY SURPRISE. The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz reports that the White House waited to announce the arrest of a major Al Qaeda figure in Pakistan until yesterday at 3 p.m. Kurtz notes that the New Republic had outlined precisely this scenario a few weeks ago.

The only surprise is that this didn't get major coverage the night of Kerry's speech. Either the media were too geared up to change directions, or they're not falling for this garbage anymore. Maybe both. (Correction. It was not the White House that announced the arrest. My error, not Kurtz's.)

IN THE HOUSE. I don't have an Internet connection inside the FleetCenter, so I can't do any real-time blogging. But I thought I'd bang out a few observations for later upload. I'll skip Kerry's speech tonight and deal with that in the morning.

8:10 p.m. I've been here for about 15 minutes, high above courtside, stage left and slightly behind the main podium, surrounded by folks from Slate and the New Republic. If anyone tries to leave, he or she won't be able to get back. Slate's Tim Noah has already tried. I am trying to limit my liquid intake.

Wesley Clark is speaking, and he delivers a speech heavy on militarism and patriotism. "The flag!" (Wild cheers.) "Enough is enough!" "Under John Kerry ... we're going to attack and destroy terrorist threats to America!" "America! Hear this soldier! Choose a leader! ... Protect our liberty! Renew our spirit!"

8:18 p.m. Joe Lieberman arrives, to the strains of Neil Diamond's "Coming to America." He manages not to say, "Is this a great country or what?" He does say of Kerry and Edwards, "They're not just going to win the popular vote, as Al Gore and I did. They're actually going to get to take office."

8:39 p.m. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is speaking: "Hope really is on the way." Groan.

A few minutes ago we got an advance copy of Kerry's speech. It's l-o-n-g.

I thought it was funny when they played "Mr. Big Stuff" for Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell last night. But why are they playing it for Pelosi?

8:42 p.m. Willie Nelson and an African-American choir sing a song that appears to be called "The Promised Land." No, not the Bruce Springsteen song of that name.

Kerry's speech is embargoed, but I'm not posting this until after he delivers it, so what the hell. It looks like his refrain will be "America can do better. And help is on the way." Gee, what happened to "hope is on the way"? Has it already arrived?

8:46 p.m. Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright is speaking: "He [Kerry] will use intelligence to shape policy, not twist intelligence to justify policy."

9:02 p.m. Kerry's speech is good. And harsh! If his delivery passes muster, it's going to give him a big boost. Check this out: "I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation - not the Saudi royal family." Look for Prince Bandar to start spinning on the No-Spin Zone, like, tomorrow.

9:06 p.m. Carole King comes out to sing "You've Got a Friend."

9:11 p.m. John Kennedy on the video screen while his voice crackles over the PA system: "Let the word go forth from this time and place ..." The reaction is pretty tepid, and it occurs to me that the whole JFK thing is starting to sound like my parents' invoking Franklin Roosevelt. Except that FDR had only been gone 20 years when I was 10. If you're 10 today, JFK has been gone for nearly 41 years.

No wonder Bill Clinton got a bigger hand than JFK when Clark started rattling off a list of "great Democrats."

9:12 p.m. They're projecting on the screen pictures of Republicans who are planning to vote for Kerry-Edwards.

9:17 p.m. The late Texas congresswoman Barbara Jordan appears on the big screen.

9:21 p.m. Out come Andre Heinz, Chris Heinz, Vanessa Kerry, and Alexandra Kerry. Of the two daughters, Vanessa goes first. "There was not one moment when he doubted his ability to win," she says. Really? Not even in November and December? It's probably true. Politicians are a different breed.

She also says that when he told his dying mother that he would run for president, her response was, "It's about time."

Alexandra tells the now-familiar story of her father administering CPR to Vanessa's hamster its cage had fallen overboard during a boating trip. "The hamster was never quite right after that, but he lived." She also recalls what he told her when she was an angst-ridden 19-year-old: "Remember that you're alive and that you're an American. Those two things make you the luckiest girl in the world."

9:36 p.m. The video begins to play. Fortunately, I can watch it on a TV in the press row in front of us. It's short - less than 10 minutes. Your typical gauzy bio with vaguely patriotic music in the background.

It accomplishes the important task of going over his war record and anti-war activism, since Kerry himself is only going to talk about that a little. But wait! Network coverage hasn't kicked in. But wait again! They probably wouldn't have carried it anyway ... on Tuesday, I had to switch to C-SPAN to watch the Teresa video. What can I say? I like videos.

9:47 p.m. A video on the Worcester fire, and Kerry's involvement in the aftermath.

9:50 p.m. The crews of Kerry's two swiftboats come out. The biggest hand is for Jim Rassmann, whose life Kerry saved - and who, in turn, saved Kerry's campaign when he surfaced in Iowa last January. "Nobody asked me to join this campaign. I volunteered," says Rassmann, a Republican.

Rassmann introduces Max Cleland, who receives a hero's welcome.

9:56 p.m. Cleland begins speaking from his wheelchair. He talks about being elected to the Georgia state senate in 1971, a young veteran missing three limbs, and seeing Kerry on television. "He put everything I was feeling into words," he says. "Even before I met John Kerry, he was my brother."

10:02 p.m. Cleland has entered the main part of his speech, just as the networks join us. Tells a story about pressing a Bible into Kerry's hand at Kerry's South Carolina campaign kickoff. "My fellow Americans, John Kerry has never let me down, and he won't let you down, either."

Kerry will be at the podium in a few moments.

11:34 p.m. Just made it back to the filing center. Instant grades: A-minus speech; solid B delivery. Much more tomorrow.