Author: Kevin B. O'Reilly

The job so far

/ Kevin B. O'Reilly

What I would like, ideally, is an internship (or a job) where I come in and am assigned a new story every morning. That is how I would learn the most, by having a beat and covering something every day. That’s how I would learn the most about writing on deadline, getting information, talking to sources and so on. Knight Ridder/Tribune isn’t working that way.

KRT does have its advantages, though. I can work on a mix of different kinds of stories. I’ve done some spot news, a couple of softer things, and am working on some less timely news features. My supervisor, Ray Walker, is probably one of the nicest people I’ve ever met. But he definitely exercises his editorial discretion. I will take a look at something in the daybook (a listing of Congressional hearings and news “events” in D.C.) and think, “I could write a story on this,” but he’ll say, “You can go to that, but don’t write a story on it.”

That’s a little frustrating. I’d like it if he (or someone else) came to me and said, “Do go to this and do write a story on it.” Whenever a story gets pitched to me, it’s always something lighter and less timely. And that’s OK, I guess. That’s their prerogative, especially since I’m not interning in the Washington bureau, just on the other side of the floor.

By the way, I’m working in the National Press Building, the top two floors of which house the National Press Club. You may have seen it on C-SPAN’s coverage of the National Press Club luncheons, where they have a newsmaker give a talk on some subject or another. Last week Ted Kennedy gave a speech on health care, which I wrote a story about. I thought I did a good job with it. I have no idea if it got picked up anywhere, of course, because I need to get my hands on Lexis-Nexis to search for it (and my other stories). KRT does not track which paper picks up which stories.

Well, they’re kicking me out of here again. Hasta luego.

You may have already won …

/ Kevin B. O'Reilly

Chuck Karczag of OneManGang’s World of Pain (Chuck, please get rid of the “World of Pain” part) has named me the winner of his “Educate the OneManGang” contest. See my winning entry. Yet I haven’t received any e-mail with instructions about the $15 Amazon.com gift certificate I’m supposed to get.

Seems a little fishy. I hope I didn’t just recommend a bunch of books for nothing more than the satisfaction of sharing good books with a friend. That would be a big rip-off. I’ll let him slide for now because he’s traveling the world (maybe that’s where the “world of pain” thing comes from).

In the Federal City, you’ve been blown and shown pity …

/ Kevin B. O'Reilly

…  in secret for pieces of change.

Cato’s Ronald D. Rotunda does a fine job of showing how Dick Durbin and Richie Daley are trying to get Congress to sidestep the Constitution and give the go-ahead for Chicago to expand O’Hare Airport. Of course there are the pragmatic arguments against expanding O’Hare, which is largely a sweetheart deal for Daley and his political friends to make more money off big construction projects.

But the constitutional argument is one that hasn’t seen much light, just as it rarely does. Rotunda writes:

The Constitution gives Congress plenty of ways to deal with O’Hare, but they all cost money: Congress can use its spending power to expand the airport; it can give the state money on the condition that it expand the airport; it can order federal officials (the Army Corps of Engineers) to build the O’Hare expansion. But Congress may not simply order or authorize state or city officials to violate state law and act like federal employees.

The proposed federal law dealing with the expansion of O’Hare Airport subjects Illinois to special burdens that are not applicable to other states or to private parties. And it authorizes Chicago, a city created by the state, to do that which Illinois law prohibits.

The deal stinks in a classic Chicago way. And everybody yawns …

Bringing economics to life

/ Kevin B. O'Reilly

Though I already know much of the material, I’m really enjoying the economics class I’m taking as part of the Institute on Political Journalism, and a big reason for that is the professor, Tom Rustici of George Mason University’s famed economics department.

At times he comes off a little too preachy, repeating points and overstating things in a way that makes me wince. I guess I always get antsy when others are espousing points of view I basically agree with but doing so in a way I find … simplistic, I guess is the word, though I’m not sure. But there are moments when his windy lectures (three hours long, after a full day of work, in a room with uncomfortable chairs) really hit home.

For example, last Thursday night he talked about price controls, including the minimum wage. He told us how during the Great Depression his grandfather used to provide his family with a middle-class lifestyle as an outstanding manual laborer. Then he began to go blind. Once he was 90 percent blind he was laid off and his family was plunged into dire poverty. The family subsisted, in part, on piece work his grandfather used to do from home.

One day, federal bureaucrats showed up at the door to enforce the recently passed minimum wage that was part of the National Recovery Act. They told him he couldn’t do the piece work anymore, though there was no way he could produce enough to earn the minimum wage that had been set by the federal government.

Searching for the NRA link provided above, I found the lyrics to a folk song from the ’30s which, naturally, mourns the death of the “blue eagle,” the mascot of the legislation. Ah, those old lefties crack me up. I’m sure they cracked up Rustici’s granddad too.

Michael Jordan — exposed to the max

/ Kevin B. O'Reilly

The last in Michael Leahy’s series on Michael Jordan’s season with the Washington Wizards is a humdinger. The series appeared in the Washington Post’s Style section and you can access all the earlier stories from the link provided above.

In this story, Leahy provides pretty strong evidence to show that the Wizards violated NBA rules to keep practices closed so they could cover up Jordan’s injury. He also shows how because he was injured, Jordan rarely practiced and the Wizards, consequently, rarely had a full scrimmage where they could, presumably, learn how to play with Jordan and improve as a team. Further, Leahy provides several examples of how Jordan distanced himself from his young teammates and humiliated them in many of his cutthroat gambling games.

Does that mean that the comeback was a bad idea and actually made the Wizards worse in the long run? I don’t think so, when you consider how much money Jordan made the Wizards and the NBA even in the aborted season he played. Sure, he worsened the Wizards draft spot, but he brought excitement to Washington basketball that hadn’t been seen since the late 1970s. Sure, there will be a dropoff of interest once Jordan retires (that’s assuming he returns next season), and it just may be that the the young punks didn’t learn much or get better playing with Jordan.

But that excitement will carry over into whomever takes over when Jordan’s gone, and that money will come in handy on the free agent market.

The Washington City Paper’s Erik Wemple writes that Leahy’s breaking this story is a perfect example of how the Post’s sportswriters, and sportswriters generally, suck up to big stars. Well, yes and no. It is obviously true that Michael Wilbon, in particular, has long been an uncritical fan of Jordan’s. And there are certain points when it’s in the interest of a sportswriter to be an adoring fan, especially when it comes to possible book deals — as Wilbon almost landed with Jordan. Why do you think the Tribune’s Bob Greene was picked to co-write a book with Jordan, and not Sam Smith?

But there are other factors here. Leahy had the luxury of not having to file stories every day or several times a week, as a beat writer or columnist does. Leahy had the luxury of time. He also didn’t need to stay on anybody’s good side. Jordan was the only story he was covering, and once he was done with this series he’d probably never write about the man or the team again. He could afford to burn bridges in order to expose the truth. You expect a daily stream of information from beat writers, and if they’re lucky they might break a big story, but it’s not a big secret that beat writers have a symbiotic relationship with their sources.

One cannot afford to piss off the other. The source has to give a certain amount of time to the writer and at least humor him, but the beat writer in turn must pick and choose what’s really crucial to write about. Is it worth writing that Jordan can be a prick toward his teammates when it means you won’t get another quote from him all year as the Wizards beat writer?

That’s precisely why you assign people like Leahy the job. That’s why newspapers and TV stations have investigative teams. They are given the resources (time and money) and the protection to expose what doesn’t get reported every day. That doesn’t mean the beat writer or columnist is falling down on the job. It just means that their job is different. Journalists understand that, and so do intelligent news consumers, I think. We don’t expect Peter Jennings to play exactly the same role as Bob Woodward.

News alert: Tiger’s winning streak comes to an end

/ Kevin B. O'Reilly

WASHINGTON — Tiger Woods may have held off Phil Mickelson and Sergio Garcia at Bethpage Black, but he’s no match for Britney Spears.

Woods finished second to the 20-year-old dance-pop sensation in Forbes magazine’s annual ranking of the 100 most powerful celebrities. Twenty-four other athletes made the list, but Michael Jordan is Woods’ only company in the top 10, coming in at No. 9.

Woods also was ranked second last year, finishing behind actor Tom Cruise. Jordan dropped three spots from his No. 6 ranking in 2001.

The rankings are based on earnings, Web hits, press mentions, major magazine cover stories, and TV and radio appearances over the last 12 months. Predictably, money is the biggest factor in the financial magazine’s rankings, but it’s not decisive.

"The power ranking underscores more than just the amount of money a celebrity earns, but the extent to which they capture the public imagination," said Forbes Senior Editor Brett Pulley.

Even though Woods earned $70 million compared to Spears’ paltry $39.2 million, Spears won out by drawing 617,000 more Web hits and gracing seven more magazine covers.

While Woods was edged out in the last round, Pulley sees him topping the list for years to come.

"The amazing thing about Tiger Woods is that he got $62 million this year, but only nine or 10 million of that money came from golf," Pulley said. "At this rate, he’s on track to earn a billion dollars by the time he’s 35."

In addition to a mega-deal with Nike, Woods also locked up endorsement deals with Disney and the Upper Deck trading card company.

"I can’t imagine him going anywhere for a while," Pulley said.

The same may not be said for His Airness, who barely snuck into the top 10 after heading the list in 1999. While Forbes ranks Woods fourth in money earnings, Jordan is listed 28th and he probably would have finished even lower in the overall rankings if not for all the attention garnered by his return to the NBA with the Washington Wizards, Pulley said.

The next highest athlete on the list is Formula One driver Michael Schumacher, who netted $67 million from a two-year deal with Ferrari. Schumacher was at the center of controversy recently when Ferrari ordered another of its drivers to let Schumacher win a race.

Three-time NBA champs Shaquille O’Neal and Kobe Bryant come in at Nos. 30 and 31, while Mike Tyson fell from 11th last year to 35th this year. He earned $23 million but most of it went to pay off debts, according to press reports.

Lennox Lewis is ranked three spots behind Tyson in the Forbes power rankings, but he showed his power when he knocked out Tyson on June 8.

Baseball stars Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Sammy Sosa, Manny Ramirez and Ken Griffey Jr. also made the list, and four other NBA players are included — Kevin Garnett, Grant Hill, Scottie Pippen and Alonzo Mourning.

Four of the five tennis players on the list are women, which says something about the lack of star power on the men’s tour right now. Venus Williams and Martina Hingis ranked 60 and 64, respectively.

Cover girl Anna Kournikova finished at No. 67 on the Forbes list — three spots ahead of Jennifer Capriati and five in front of Serena Williams — despite being ranked only 55th in the world by the Women’s Tennis Association.

Kournikova has never won a singles title, but makes up for her mediocre play with plenty of endorsements. Capriati has won three Grand Slam tournaments and Serena Williams has won two, but Kournikova had more than twice as many Web hits as the two combined.

Andre Agassi was the only male tennis player on the list at No. 53. Particularly glaring is the absence of any NFL stars on the list. St. Louis Rams quarterback Kurt Warner has won two MVPs in three years but is nowhere to be seen in the Forbes power rankings.

Another quarterback, Peyton Manning of the Indianapolis Colts was ranked No. 60 last year, thanks to an $8.4 million signing bonus.

"Peyton Manning is the NFL’s top endorser," Pulley said, "but in general football players are more anonymous when they’re on the playing field. It probably does take a little bit more" for football players to get good endorsement deals.

Other sports figures on the list are: No. 56 Jeff Gordon, NASCAR driver; No. 65 Arnold Palmer, golfer; and No. 74 Jacques Villeneuve, Formula One driver.

The Forbes Celebrity 100 issue hits the newsstands Monday. The magazine bases its earnings estimates on confidential sources with knowledge of celebrity finances.
___
© 2002, McClatchy/Tribune Information Services

Dry clean only

/ Kevin B. O'Reilly

As in, you should only have one choice of dry cleaners. At least, you might believe that if you read a sign at the Uptown Valet dry cleaners a few blocks away from where I’m living at Georgetown. I went in there to drop off my sportcoat the other day and after I had completed the transaction I saw a sign posted on the register.

It said, and I paraphrase: “We have not expanded next door. Another dry cleaners has decided to open next door even though you know we offer the best service and the best price. We are very unpleased by this unfair and inappropriate act.”

Hmm … if they offer the best service at the best price, why are they worried about the folks opening up next door? My favorite part is the accusation that it’s “unfair and inappropriate” for another dry cleaners to move in next door. I wonder if McDonald’s says the same thing when a Burger King opens across the street. Needless to say, I’m going to a different place in the future, and it’s closer to home too.

Who are you, and what have you done with Luis Castillo?

/ Kevin B. O'Reilly

That’s what you’ve got to love about baseball — how some guys just seem to come out of nowhere. Hitting streaks are so precarious. Even a great hitter — which Castillo is not — can have an off night or face a really tough pitcher and go 0-for-4.

But when you’re hot, you’re hot. You may be a mediocre player, but if you get into a groove and the ball starts looking like a grapefruit up there, people start mixing you up with Rogers Hornsby and Joe DiMaggio. Castillo’s streak won’t get past 40, however.

So much to blog, so little time

/ Kevin B. O'Reilly

But I’ll try to get in what I can before they kick me out of the library in half an hour. Gene Healy and Eve Tushnet have already summarized more or less what happened at the blog roundtable I attended last night.

Naturally, none of the very perceptive questions Healy asked were answered by any of the panelists, but moderator’s questions are usually ignored in these types of situations. Stan Evans did a great job of bluffing his way through the discussion, since he clearly had no idea what the hell people were talking about half the time. I’d look over in his direction as someone else was talking and he’d have this bemused look on his face.

But he made some very good points that apply across all media, and one thing he said particularly struck home with me. One thing I find attractive about the blogosphere and opinion writing in general is that I love the attitude. I can pick and choose what I agree with, creating a feedback loop that reinforces what I already think in an entertaining and informative way.

However, there is still this real world of supposedly objective, mainstream journalism that libertarians and free-marketeers need to crack. It’s not good enough to just be blogging in reaction to the latest blunder in The New York Times, or writing an opinion column, or publishing in places like Reason. Those things definitely have their place, but I kind of realize two things about myself and my career at this point: The first is that I’m not any better as a writer than the folks who work for Reason or Cato or any of the traditional ideological organs of libertarian and free-market thinking. I’m certainly not any smarter, or even as smart. I’m not needed there, and frankly I’m not wanted there.

But where I can do some good, I think, is at the small suburban paper where I’ll be the one voice asking the tough questions that don’t get asked about zoning laws, taxes to pay for schools and so on. And I don’t mean as a columnist, but as a reporter who is skeptical of government and of politicians and is looking to show how so many government policies lead to bad results. That I think I can do, and there I think can be of some value.

That’s where I stand now, anyway. I could change my mind in five minutes, and ultimately it all depends on who is the first to offer me a job. Will it be you?

One more thing, on personal info on blogs: I love it. But then again, I’m a nosy sort of person. If someone is a good writer and an interesting person, even the very mundane can be entertaining or insightful. If you like a blogger enough to read about his views on politics, then why shouldn’t his views on bank hassles be of equal interest — if he or she delivers them in the same well-written fashion?

By the way, the Fund for American Studies has a sweet place. Very fancy digs. And free drinks and free dinner. Not bad. I’ve got to find more of these things around town. Here I am sitting at home eating macaroni and cheese like a sucker.

Web site of the week: Audiogalaxy

/ Kevin B. O'Reilly

For KRTeens

When Napster finally bit the bullet and filed for bankruptcy last June, teen music lovers scrambled for alternatives to the once-popular music-swapping service. Many have turned to Audiogalaxy.com (http://www.audiogalaxy.com).

Unlike Napster, which ran afoul of the record industry and the law for allowing its users to trade copyright-protected music, Audiogalaxy.com makes an effort to block copyright-protected songs.

The site gives 25 megabytes of free server space to new artists who don’t mind giving away their music for free as they struggle to make a name for themselves. In addition to their tunes, you can read profiles and concert reviews of many of the acts, submitted by Audiogalaxy users.

The site is organized by category, so you can find out about site-recommended artists in genres ranging from rock to hip-hop to electronica.

However, the main reason people visit Audiogalaxy.com is to make use of its extensive search engine. Although many music files are blocked because they violate copyright law, many others sneak through.

If you’re a music fan, you’ll love the selection offered by Audiogalaxy. But hurry! You might want to log on before the record industry finds a way to shut this site down too.
___
© 2002, McClatchy/Tribune Information Services

Kennedy slams GOP Medicare prescription drug plans

/ Kevin B. O'Reilly

WASHINGTON — Sen. Edward M. Kennedy attacked Republican Medicare prescription drug proposals Tuesday, charging they were not generous enough to meet seniors’ drug needs.

The president’s proposal "doesn’t even pass the laugh test," Kennedy said. As for the House Republican plan unveiled Monday, the Massachusetts Democrat said "it doesn’t work in terms of substance and in terms of the delivery mechanism, it fails."

The remarks were made after a speech in which Kennedy proposed 12 programs intended to further his longtime goal of universal health coverage.

"The only thing worse than not passing a Medicare prescription drug reform would be to pass a phony program that undermines the coverage that already exists," Kennedy said.

Kennedy supports a Senate bill that would cost $500 billion, while the House Republican bill before the Ways and Means Committee would tally $350 billion.

Apart from cost, a major difference between the GOP and Democrat plans is how the drugs would be delivered to Medicare beneficiaries. Republicans would have patients buy coverage from HMOs or private insurance companies, while Democrats would cover the drugs directly as part of the existing Medicare program.

"The benefit package is just going to be structured by the insurance company," Kennedy said of the Republican plan. "It’s not a serious effort."

Republicans and Democrats also differ on deductibles, monthly premiums and coverage limits.

Kennedy’s proposal was dismissed by Christin Tinsworth, a GOP staffer for the House Ways and Means Committee.

"We’ve constructed a generous, reasonable and responsible plan to provide help for seniors with their prescription drug costs," Tinsworth said. "Right now, seniors aren’t getting any help. We’re saying they should get help. We’ve constructed this bill within the $350 billion allocated to us in House budget resolution. (The Democrats) are just kind of doing whatever suits them."

House Democrats have proposed an $800 billion prescription drug plan, which Tinsworth called "a pie-in-the-sky press release proposal."

Kennedy was optimistic that Senate and House Democrats could easily work out the $300 billion that separate their plans.

"The differences between the Democrats in the House and Senate could be worked out in about half an hour or 45 minutes," he said.

During his speech at the National Press Club, Kennedy proposed measures aimed at reducing the number of uninsured Americans. He also proposed requiring any business employing more than 100 people to offer health insurance equal to the coverage that members of Congress and the president receive.

Kennedy also proposed or expressed support for the following measures:

— Expanding eligibility in the Children’s Health Insurance Program to the parents of low-income children.
— Working on mental-health parity legislation.
— Making Medicaid available to non-poor families.
— Requiring medical providers to adopt electronic bill processing.
— Adding funds for diabetes and stroke research.
— Authorizing the FDA to further regulate the sale and advertisement of tobacco products.
— Making it harder for pharmaceutical firms to keep generic competitors off the market.
— Toughening regulations on direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising.
— Creating a federal government index of leading "family health" indicators, including health coverage, child poverty and high school graduation rates.
___
© 2002, McClatchy/Tribune Information
Services

How hypocritical can you get?

/ Kevin B. O'Reilly

I guess that’s a rhetorical question, but I have an answer for you. Take Fred Barnes. Please. He spoke to an IPJ group last Sunday, I think it was, on whatever he wanted to talk about, I guess. There was no topic.

So he rambled on for a bit about what you should read to stay up on the news, that you had to get a fresh angle on stories, and that print was the most influential medium in D.C. Don’t do TV, he said. “Sure, the money’s nice, but it just takes up time you could be using to write.” OK. Then why do I see him on TV three times a day? Why has he made his whole career off peddling second-rate opinion columns but jumping in front of a camera every chance he gets.

Learn to practice what you preach, Fred. Jeez. Yeah, the money’s nice. Just say so, then. Don’t pretend like someone’s twisting your arm, making you do TV when you’d gladly be earning less money and remain completely anonymous like most scribes in the nation’s capital. Ah, well.