Buzz Around Boston

The security line stretched as far as the eye could see -- and then some.

It took forever to make it to the metal detectors at National Airport on Saturday morning -- and then, even without my shoes, belt and computer, I got pulled out for the full wand treatment.

Not a good omen, I thought.

The shuttle flight was packed with media people -- Jim Lehrer, Ray Suarez, Roger Simon (who, by the way, has the uncanny ability to live for a week out of one small suitcase). But shouldn't it have occurred to the good folks at the TSA that the D.C.-Boston route would be unusually busy this weekend?

Landed in the rain. Hopped in a cab, hit the Ted Williams Tunnel and -- total gridlock. Took forever to get downtown -- and this was before the city shut down I-93, the main north-south highway here. This did not fill me with confidence. Boston, after all, has never hosted a major political convention before.

Activists with blue-and-red Kerry/Edwards signs lined the route to the media party at the massive new Boston Convention Center (did they expect to change any minds?). Past the red carpet, there were thousands of journos, lots of free booze and virtually nothing to eat when I was there (a dangerous combination).

Up in the VIP area, publishers, bureau chiefs and reporters were all buzzing about how there won't be much news at the convention, despite the large contingents they have brought with them (The Post has 60). One prominent newspaper executive wondered why ABC, CBS and NBC would bring large numbers of people to Boston and then air only one hour a night on three of the nights. It wasn't like 1980, after all, when Ronald Reagan actually discussed a co-presidency with Gerald Ford and there was something meaty to cover. Another executive said his son wanted to know whether anything unexpected would happen at the convention. If it did, came the reply, it would probably be outside the hall and not at all fun to cover. Yet all the big papers are adding extra space for the week.

There were several hundred copies of the Boston Globe's biography of Kerry sitting on a table, but one of the co-authors, Michael Kranish, assured me they were not for sale. The books were being given out to media big shots as a way of spreading the word.

On Sunday morning, the cover of the Boston Herald had the city's big story -- the Red Sox/Yankees brawl at Fenway.

Did my CNN show from a gorgeous spot at the Charlestown Navy Yard, across the river from FleetCenter. An abandoned naval exercise room with dusty treadmills was used for makeup. During the show a sightseeing boat pulled up, made a loud announcement and the tourist piled off, staring at me, Bob Schieffer, Gloria Borger and Ann Compton. Nice to be the center of attention for a few brief moments.

The Post has a cozy little space in an incredibly ugly, two-story white structure outside the arena, next to the elevated subway and near the 20 porta-johns (which don't look like they'll be enough for the media mob). You only have to go through two separate metal-detector checkpoints to get there, past the ABC News banner with a 10-foot-high picture of Peter Jennings. Around the corner is Halftime Pizza, whose owner drew flak for putting up a pro-Bush banner.

Inside FleetCenter, I tried to conduct an interview, but got distracted when several pigeons, who did not have credentials, flew by.

I was talking with a colleague about how Chris Matthews seems to be on TV all the time. Later, walking past Faneuil Hall, I saw a big crowd. MSNBC was doing a show in the middle of a crowded marketplace, and there was Chris, yakking away. At one point he played to the crowd by yelling "A-Rod," the zillion-dollar Yankee shortstop who was involved in a brawl with the Red Sox at Fenway. Everyone booed on cue.

Bumped into an Atlantic Monthly editor whose magazine has a Ryan Lizza piece coming out on Barack Obama, the Illinois Senate candidate. Seems Obama had a few-less-than-flattering things to say about Kerry before he was picked to keynote the convention, and Tim Russert asked him about that on "Meet the Press." Only the editor couldn't find anyone on a Sunday who could post the piece online. Timing is everything in this business.

On the security line this morning, there were two television cameras shooting footage of all of us standing there waiting (amid a disgusting pile of discarded water bottles, soda cans and coffee cups). It was the ultimate self-referential moment. We're all covering each other now.

Deborah Norville was on line. She said she had "parachuted in" to cover the convention for "Inside Edition," noting that MSNBC has preempted her prime-time show for live coverage.

Jesse Jackson was just inside the gates. A Boston Globe reporter asked what he thought of Bill Clinton's speech tonight. He compared Clinton to Nelson Mandela, praised Kerry and recounted a conversation Friday in which he asked Bush for a meeting on securing a proper (read, non-Florida) vote.

"He said I'll talk to Karl Rove and I'll get back to you," Jackson said, before launching a discourage on hunger in America.

Sometimes the news is inescapable.

This just in: Just read a stinging critique on how utterly liberal a newspaper the New York Times is. Even more amazing, it appeared in the New York Times. Ombudsman Daniel Okrent draws blood again. To wit:

"For now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed. . . .

"Start with the editorial page, so thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right. . . .

"In the Sunday magazine, the culture-wars applause-o-meter chronically points left. On the Arts & Leisure front page every week, columnist Frank Rich slices up President Bush, Mel Gibson, John Ashcroft and other paladins of the right in prose as uncompromising as Paul Krugman's or Maureen Dowd's. . . .

"For those who also believe the news pages cannot retain their credibility unless all aspects of an issue are subject to robust examination, it's disappointing to see The Times present the social and cultural aspects of same-sex marriage in a tone that approaches cheerleading. So far this year, front-page headlines have told me that 'For Children of Gays, Marriage Brings Joy,' (March 19, 2004); that the family of 'Two Fathers, With One Happy to Stay at Home,' (Jan. 12, 2004) is a new archetype; and that 'Gay Couples Seek Unions in God's Eyes,' (Jan. 30, 2004). I've learned where gay couples go to celebrate their marriages; I've met gay couples picking out bridal dresses; I've been introduced to couples who have been together for decades and have now sanctified their vows in Canada, couples who have successfully integrated the world of competitive ballroom dancing, couples whose lives are the platonic model of suburban stability.

"Every one of these articles was perfectly legitimate. Cumulatively, though, they would make a very effective ad campaign for the gay marriage cause. You wouldn't even need the articles: run the headlines over the invariably sunny pictures of invariably happy people that ran with most of these pieces, and you'd have the makings of a life insurance commercial.

"On a topic that has produced one of the defining debates of our time, Times editors have failed to provide the three-dimensional perspective balanced journalism requires."

I hope Okrent is ready for a flood of angry e-mails--from other Times staffers.