Cuban Tries to Score Online

Billionaires can be bloggers, too.

And if you're Mark Cuban, high-tech entrepreneur and basketball team owner, blogging enables you to communicate directly with the fans -- and slap some sportswriters with such labels as "the new moron in town."

In the coverage of him and the Dallas Mavericks, Cuban says, "there was not a whole lot of fact-checking done, not a whole lot of accountability," and blogging "was my chance to correct what needed to be corrected. Too many times I read what I was doing from people I'd never talked to -- 'rumor had it,' 'sources say.' " He says blogmaverick.com "has changed how the media deal with me" because if reporters are sloppy, "they know I'll call them on it."

But, he insists, "I don't really try to get even with people."

For millions of critics, activists, watchdogs, partisans and just plain opinionated folks, online commentary is a way of drawing an audience. Show-business types have taken up blogging, from Rosie O'Donnell, who writes in verse, to Pat Sajak, a self-described "conservative entertainer" who complains that the media is unfair to conservatives.

Cuban, who founded Broadcast.com and starred in a reality TV show last year, can make news any time he wants. But by blogging -- to an audience he estimates at 300,000 -- he eliminates the media middleman.

Last month he headlined one posting: "ABC should suspend Jim Gray until he apologizes." He cited an NBA telecast in which Gray, interviewing Mavericks star Dirk Nowitzki, said he had asked Cuban if the team's chemistry had improved after the trade of another player, Steve Nash. Cuban insisted that he had never mentioned Nash in talking about team chemistry and that "what Gray did is pretty much the definition of slime reporting."

"I thought he was wrong. . . . To me this was a whole bunch of nothing," Gray says. A transcript shows Cuban had told Gray on ESPN that he meant "no disrespect to Steve," but the team now had "great chemistry."

"I've gotten along well with Mark over the years," Gray says, adding that they discussed the incident and "we basically agreed to disagree." Cuban says he's moved on after giving Gray a "one-game suspension" -- meaning he was barred from interviewing Mavs players for one game.

"He doesn't pay my check," Gray says. "I don't work for Mark."

Cuban isn't shy -- the NBA has fined him more than $1.2 million in five years for out-of-bounds comments -- and the blog reflects that. He has called Chicago Tribune sports columnist Sam Smith "clueless" for criticizing Cuban's constant tinkering with the Mavericks.

"He's always been a bully and is not used to people standing up to him," Smith says. "I'm a columnist -- I write my opinion. I don't have to check with him. . . . If you question what he's done, he can be very vindictive about it." Smith, who's amused by the blog, says Cuban has called Tribune editors to try to get him fired. Cuban says he e-mailed them to ask whether their employees had to meet accuracy standards.

Cuban has also written that "the new moron in town is Chad Ford of ESPN.com" after Ford, who declined comment, criticized the Nash trade. Cuban says his beef is with journalists who don't bother to check with him, since he says he's easily accessible by e-mail. He gets 1,000 e-mails a day and considers them important feedback from customers.

In January, Cuban caused a stir by proclaiming on the blog that President Bush should show restraint by canceling his lavish inauguration parties. He said later he had voted for the president, twice.

Cuban used his online platform to promote his television program "The Benefactor" (and criticize the Dallas Morning News's coverage of the reality show). When he wanted to disclose last month that he was funding the Electronic Frontier Foundation in a Supreme Court appeal of an entertainment industry lawsuit against online sharing of music and videos, he did it on his blog:

"This isn't the big content companies against the technology companies. This is the big content companies, against me. Mark Cuban and my little content company."

Cuban recounted how he launched HDNet Films and other digital information firms, working in a plug: "Our first theatrical release will be 'Enron, the Smartest Guys in the Room,' which will be released in theaters on April 22nd of this year."

Talking Points Fallout

Conservative critics had a fine time kicking around ABC's Linda Douglass and The Washington Post's Mike Allen for reporting on a mysterious strategy memo about the Terri Schiavo case that the reporters said was distributed to Republican senators.

Weekly Standard Executive Editor Fred Barnes, after checking with the office of Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), said the stories were evidence of "crude liberal bias. . . . The offensive part -- it didn't come from Martinez -- left the strong impression that Republicans are callous and cynical in their attempt to save Schiavo's life."

But after The Post reported that a Martinez aide had fessed up as the author and resigned, reactions have been mixed. One critical blogger, Josh Claybourn, apologized to ABC News. Powerline blogger John Hinderaker says he "made a mistake" in concluding it was "an inauthentic document," but still quarrels with the two news organizations' descriptions: "The memo was not a 'GOP talking points memo' prepared by party leaders or distributed only to Republican senators." Barnes says he was "wrong about its origin" but that if a similar strategy memo from a Democratic aide had leaked, "it wouldn't have been paid any attention to by the media."

ABC spokesman Jeffrey Schneider says "we obviously took a lot of heat on this story from many quarters" and that the Martinez disclosure "vindicates Linda Douglass, who is an outstanding reporter who was dragged through the mud."

Flagrant Foul

On Sunday, April 3, Mitch Albom's sports column in the Detroit Free Press involved the Final Four basketball game the day before between North Carolina and Michigan State.

In the crowd, he wrote, "there were two former stars for Michigan State, Mateen Cleaves and Jason Richardson," who "sat in the stands, in their MSU clothing, and rooted on their alma mater." Except that the two men weren't at the game. Which Albom had no way of knowing, since he filed the column Friday, before the basketball game.

That, the best-selling author admitted in a column last week, was "a bad move." Although the former players told him they planned to attend, "I wrote it in the past tense, as if it already had happened. . . . You can't write that something happened that didn't. I owe you and the Free Press an apology."

Albom has been suspended, and Free Press Publisher Carole Leigh Hutton has ordered an investigation. "It's pretty obvious" that editors should not have approved the story, says Public Editor John X. Miller, and that "the alarm should have been raised" before publication.

Hunting Small Game

"New Study Links Hunting to Small Penis Size," said the press release, citing work from the "Diminutive Male Genitalia Disorder Research Organization."

Yes, it was another one of those April fool spoofs, this one from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and a couple of papers, including London's Independent, bit. But the PETA folks were surprised at an e-mail from Washington Times outdoors editor Gene Mueller.

"You might have something there. . . It might apply to a fellow I know who's not well endowed, but who's one heck of a hunter," Mueller wrote. "But then there's my brother, Lou, who's amply endowed but also loves to hunt."

Mueller says he "kind of suspected it was just tongue-in-cheek" and that he was just baiting his "enemies. They'd like nothing better than for me to disappear, because I write about hunting and I advocate hunting."

PETA spokesman Michael McGraw says outdoors writers such as Mueller "don't necessarily present a balanced view" and that the gag was "a lighthearted way to draw attention to a serious issue," which is "killing of defenseless animals."

More Memo Repercussions

More on that "talking points" flap and Mel Martinez, from Ann Althouse

"Is Martinez off the hook now that [aide Kevin] Darling has resigned? Darling is the very definition of scapegoat. Martinez was the Senate 'point man,' according to the article, and he passed the memo to Harkin! He claims not to have read the memo, the very talking points he was urging on everyone else. He can only distance himself from the memo by portraying himself as horribly inept. But he was the point man! A point man with his points. The finger points at him. At least at him. But is Martinez a darling of the Senate Republicans? Will they close ranks around him, or isolate him because he makes the rest of them look bad?"

A site called the Ghost of Joe Liebling's Dog notes the former HUD secretary's controversial history:

"Poor Mel Martinez. People just keep putting nasty words in his mouth without his knowledge. It's so sad.

"In his primary race against Bill McCollum, someone on his campaign staff -- entirely without Poor Mel's knowledge -- made a series of 'hateful' attacks on McCollum. . . .

"McCollum is 'anti-family' and a political opportunist who can't be trusted.

"McCollum, according to a Martinez for Senate flier, is 'pandering to the radical homosexual lobby.'

"Poor Mel explained, 'Words were used that were not mine, and were not of my choosing. Those words were spoken by others.' He said that 'he did not review the flier or see its contents before it went out.'

"After winning the primary against the anti-family opportunistic tool of the radical homosexual lobby, Poor Mel 'had to apologize to McCollum to get his endorsement. He reshuffled his campaign staff and demanded to see all ads before they ran.'

"By an astonishing (and sad) coincidence, the same sorts of things happened all over again just weeks later.

"'[A] Tallahassee group with Republican ties ran a newspaper ad across the state with a large picture of Osama bin Laden, inferring [sic] that he would support [Poor Mel's opponent] Democratic Senate candidate Betty Castor and presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry.' Poor Mel's staff said that they knew nothing, NOTHING, about the ad and didn't condone it.

"The Martinez campaign sent a statement to Cuban-American radio stations condemning the law enforcement officers involved in the Elian Gonzalez case as 'a crew of armed thugs.' Poor Mel had to tell Judy Woodruff on national TV that this was 'inappropriate,' even though it wasn't his fault! It was all a big mistake: 'I never said that. It was something put out by someone in my office.' "

DeLay's Dilemma

Newsweek has a piece that sounds ominous for Tom DeLay, a lunch with lobbyist-under-investigation Jack Abramoff:

"For years, nobody on Washington's K Street corridor was closer to DeLay than Abramoff. They were an unlikely duo. DeLay, a conservative Christian, and Abramoff, an Orthodox Jew, traveled the world together and golfed the finest courses. Abramoff raised hundreds of thousands for DeLay's political causes and hired DeLay's aides, or kicked them business, when they left his employ. But now DeLay, too, has problems -- in part because of overseas trips allegedly paid for by Abramoff's clients. In response, DeLay and his aides have said repeatedly they were unaware of Abramoff's behind-the-scenes financing role. 'Those S.O.B.s,' Abramoff said last week about DeLay and his staffers, according to his luncheon companion. 'DeLay knew everything. He knew all the details.' . . .

"Will Abramoff attempt to bargain with federal prosecutors by offering up DeLay -- and does he really have the goods to do so?"

One GOP congressman has broken ranks, the AP reports:

" 'Tom's conduct is hurting the Republican Party, is hurting this Republican majority and it is hurting any Republican who is up for re-election,' Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn., told The Associated Press in an interview, calling for DeLay to step down as majority leader."

Of course, Shays is the guy who just called the Republicans the party of theocracy.

National Review Editor Rich Lowry says the press has gone too far in crusading against Tom DeLay:

"What is happening to DeLay is a ritual with all the carefully scripted but irrational rules of an Aztec sacrifice ceremony. First, the target is deemed 'dogged by ethics questions.' Then, every scrap of negative information is splashed on the front pages, until out of exhaustion the target's supporters abandon him. Finally, six months after the target's demise, everyone scratches their head and wonders, 'What was that all about?'

"There is no doubt that DeLay has gotten too comfortable with the perks of power and had a cringe-making relationship with a sleazy Washington lobbyist named Jack Abramoff. Given the ways of Washington, these shouldn't be firing offenses, especially when the outrage over them is driven less by good-government zeal than frank partisanship. House Democratic campaign head Rep. Rahm Emanuel has been open about making ethics charges a linchpin of the Democratic political strategy.

"The independent ethics groups that have been decrying DeLay's practices, such as Democracy 21 and Common Cause, are allies in this partisan push. Their contributors are hyper-Democrats like George Soros, and their staffers are often former Democratic politicos."

Lowry makes a passing reference to the fact that Newt did the same thing against the Dems but conveniently brushes it off.

But over at the New Republic, Michelle Cottle offers a view similar to Lowry's (except she can't stand DeLay):

"What on God's green earth was the Times thinking?

"POLITICAL GROUPS PAID 2 RELATIVES OF HOUSE LEADER screamed the [NYT] headline (in all caps, naturally), as the subheds piled on: OVER $500,000 SINCE 2001; DeLay Wife and Daughter Got Money for Work Tied to Campaigns. So seductive was the scent of scandal that AOL featured the story on its opening screen, complete with a sour headshot of the beleaguered majority leader.

"But titillated readers anticipating details of a gross ethical -- possibly even legal! -- breach by DeLay were in for disappointment. As it turns out, there is nothing shady about the payments to the congressman's kin. Daughter Dani and wife Christine have long been actively involved in DeLay's political career -- planning events, raising money, organizing schedules, helping manage the occasional campaign. Were the two women out of line for demanding money for their services? Presumably not, since even the Times acknowledged (though not until well into the piece) that DeLay is far from the only lawmaker who has allowed relatives to cash in on his political career; others include Democrats such as Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Howard Berman. (Hell, if political nepotism were a crime, half the Bush and Cheney clans would be in jail by now.) . . .

"Now I'm all for kicking a goon when he's down -- especially an arrogant, power-mad goon like DeLay. But the Times' push to turn a mole hill into page-one material isn't just a case of questionable journalism -- though that, of course, is what the paper of record should be fretting about. In crass political terms -- say, from the standpoint of the countless Dems quietly relishing the additional bad press for their nemesis -- the piece also has the potential to be actively counterproductive, steering the conversation away from DeLay's actual misdeeds, while lending credence to the congressman's eternal protestations that he is being unfairly targeted by his ideological enemies."

Gannon's Poor Memory

Jeff Gannon surfaced Friday at a National Press Club forum, and Editor & Publisher was there:

"The panel had closed with Gannon refusing to say, under repeated questioning, how long it had taken him to get his credentials to the White House, something for which others have had to fight. Another panelist, Matthew Yglesias of The American Prospect, commented: 'I have a hard time believing that you don't have a recollection of how long it took you to get access to the White House.' Gannon replied: 'I guess they felt it was my turn.'

"Although often under attack, Gannon rarely raised his voice, although at one point he boomed, 'I'm not the one who was waving documents at the president saying, "Hey you were not serving your time in the Texas National Guard!" ' "

John Aravosis at Americablog who exposed Gannon/Guckert's X-rated past, says Wonkette carried the day:

"Wow. She blew me away. The woman totally kicked his $200 an hour [butt]. It was incredible theatre. I'm a truly truly truly impressed. . . .

"Not to rehash the entire saga, but there's been some concern among liberal political bloggers that the mainstream media always picks Wonkette to represent serious political blogging at panel discussions, etc., when she's not a serious political blogger, rather she's a raunchy political humorist. A very, VERY funny raunchy political humorist, but still, if you're a serious political commentator, it's understandable that you'd get tired of people always having you represented by a comedienne, even a very funny one. . . .

"Relentless. I think he ticked her off when he started defending Armstrong Williams by saying the administration had to pay him because none of the mainstream media would report fairly on No Child Left Behind. I get the feeling that while she plays one on the Web, this is a woman who tolerates no fools."

Jeff Gannon, for his part, revises and extends some of his remarks, such as:

"Fox News -- 'I really don't consider Fox News to be conservative.' Two points here:

"1. Fox is closer to the middle in terms of stories covered, much to the dismay of its conservative viewers. They'd like more stories about judicial nominees, pro-life issues, tax reform, education, religion and immigration. Fox doesn't really stray too far from the herd in topics, but it certainly approaches them from the right.

"2. Media establishment types like to cast Fox as conservative but would never describe CBS and CNN as liberal. That is simply dishonest."

I somehow doubt that journalists want to be lectured about honesty by a guy who wasn't even using his real name.