ARTS & FARCES internet

Ever since last Sunday morning, I’ve been trying to find the words to describe last Saturday’s (9 December 2011) show by Dean Magraw’s Red Planet at the Artist’s Quarter in Saint Paul. I don’t have the words—the show completely blew me away.

Dean Magraw is one of the best guitarists on the planet. He studied classic guitar at the University of Minnesota and then at Berklee. He’s serious about his music. In some 30 years, he’s been playing music of all genres, but truth be told, his Red Planet configuration—with Chris Bates on bass and Jay Epstein on drums—is one of my favorites. Because you’re never sure what you’re going to hear or what you just heard. Because it’s informed a whole lot by John Coltrane.

Shortly after the tracks were recorded in 2008 for Red Planet’s first release, Space Dust, Magraw got sick—real sick. Last spring, the trio began performing again and Magraw hasn’t slowed a bit.

Saturday’s show was among the best of the year—and at US$10 (we always pay double because, well, it’s the Artist’s Quarter) it was the absolute standout bargain of the year. The first set was supposed to begin at 9PM, but Epstein and Bates were up the block playing klezmer music, so we got a treat of a brief Magraw solo on the white Strat to open the show. I remember a “Jesus On the Mainline” in there somewhere. I love it when Magraw plays that white Strat, but damned if the weird Jerry Jones sitar isn’t growing on me.

The entire show was incredible, but the standout highlight had to be the second set opener; more than an hour of at least one Magraw original, at least two reading’s of Coltrane’s “Amen,” and I can’t remember what all else. Red Planet’s read of Thelonious Monk’s “Waltz Time”—Monk’s only recorded exploration of waltz time—was also a very pleasant surprise.

Dean Magraw’s Red Planet at the Artist’s Quarter, 9 December 2011.

A special bonus: Claudia Schmidt has been at several recent Magraw shows and says she’s moved to the Twin Cities. This should get really good, really fast.

In a decision that will have ramifications for anyone who writes online without a corporate benefactor, US District Judge Marco A. Hernandez in Portland, OR has drawn a clear distinction between “journalists” and “bloggers.” And that distinction is much more expensive than one might think.

Curtis Cartier, writing for the Seattle Weekly, reports that Hernandez awarded a financial firm US$2.5 million in its defamation lawsuit against Crystal Cox, a blogger who wrote articles critical of the business and one of its co-founders. Hernandez threw out all of the business’s complaints except one that he found defamatory because it was more “factual in tone” than Cox’s other articles and a reasonable person would likely consider it factual.

Cartier reports that Cox “argued in court that the reason her post was more factual was because she had an inside source that was leaking her information.” Oregon, like Minnesota, has a media shield law and Cartier cites the relevant section of the Oregon law:

“No person connected with, employed by or engaged in any medium of communication to the public shall be required by ... a judicial officer ... to disclose, by subpoena or otherwise ... [t]he source of any published or unpublished information obtained by the person in the course of gathering, receiving or processing information for any medium of communication to the public[.]”

Cox refused to disclose her source. Hernandez ruled that Cox “did not qualify for shield-law protection not because of anything she wrote, but because she wasn’t employed by an official media establishment,” writes Cartier who provides the relevant passage from Hernandez’s opinion:

“... although defendant is a self-proclaimed ‘investigative blogger’ and defines herself as ‘media,’ the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law.”

So much for the vaunted “rule of law.” The Oregon shield law clearly covers Cox’s activities, as does the Banamex v. Narco News ruling by the New York Supreme Court, extending the findings of the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case to online media.

Update: Wednesday, 7 December 2011 2:27AM CST: To be clear, as Dan Gillmor points out, journalism is—or should be—a function of those who practice it, not a class of employment.

Update: Thursday, 8 December 2011 7:02PM CST: Kashmir Hill, writing for Forbes, digs a little deeper into this case and discovers that Cox offered the financial company “reputation services” after setting up numerous websites containing content critical of the company and one of its co-founders. While this is despicable behavior, it’s at best only tangentially relevant to the issues at hand.

As Kevin Padrick, the financial firm co-founder subject of Cox’s writings, tells Curtis Cartier, writing for the Seattle Weekly, “And even if Cox was entitled to heightened First Amendment protection [via the Oregon media shield law] we are confident the jury would have found in our favor using a higher standard given the lack of any proof of the truthfulness of Cox’s statements.” The truth is an absolute defense against libel, and apparently Cox didn’t have any; therefore she would have lost anyway.

Hill goes on to reference another attempt to define “media” by Judge Hernandez toward the end of his ruling:

“Defendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist. For example, there is no evidence of (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or (7) contacting ‘the other side’ to get both sides of a story. Without evidence of this nature, defendant is not ‘media.’”

If allowed to stand, this ruling sets a dangerous precedent. Some of the best journalists I’ve known were not educated in journalism, did not hold credentials, and rarely played the he-said, she-said, “other side” game. They did, however, adhere strongly to journalistic standards, honored confidentiality, and kept copious notes. As Hill closes her piece for Forbes, “Yes, there are bloggers who are journalists. But just because you have a blog doesn’t mean that what you do is journalism.” I’m not suggesting that Hernandez should have thrown the case against Cox out—she was clearly unable to prove the truthfulness of her statements. I’m arguing that Hernandez was misguided to use who is and isn’t a journalist or “media” to underpin his ruling. The case could have—should have—been decided on the merits of defamation.

If the Minneapolis Star Tribune didn’t face plant its corporate self into the ground this week, it at least broke the sound barrier in its nosedive into inevitable irrelevance. In an unsigned editorial, the Twin Cities’ paper of record maintained that disgruntled Target employees—and especially Anthony Hardwick, the Omama part-timer who petitioned the company to rethink opening for business at midnight on Thanksgiving—should “be grateful to have a job.”

Target has always gotten a pass in the Twin Cities. When Wal-Mart began opening big box stores in the central cities the left was foaming-at-the-mouth against, but when Target did the same thing, barely a peep could be heard. Three years ago, when Nick Coleman wrote a column about Target refusing to refund the purchase of an 80-year-old woman with an eyepatch and leg brace in a wheelchair, the comments were so vicious against Target, the paper censored them. The cops were called because the woman refused to leave until the store returned her money. The cops put her on a stretcher and transported her to the hospital for physical and mental health evaluation.

Coleman was canned less than a year later and it’s nothing new that the nosediving Strib would defend one of its presumed largest advertisers. But this editorial, the day before US Thanksgiving, was over-the-top ornery and just plain mean:

“... but when nearly 14 million Americans are unemployed, complaining about work hours is grossly self-indulgent.


Many unemployed workers would love a steady paycheck to stave off a home foreclosure or, in the most desperate cases, to cover the cost of Thanksgiving dinner.


When times were better, retail giants forcing employees to work on treasured family holidays could easily be painted as corporate greed run amok. But today it’s hardly fair to paint merchants as retail Scrooges.”

And, predictably, no comments were allowed.

We can do better than this, and with a full third of Americans living in poverty or near poverty, we should expect and demand more from our local media. We can begin by honoring Buy Nothing Day and when you do buy, buy local at a sustainable level from sustainable local businesses.

Every time I think I’ve heard everything there is to hear from Los Lobos, they serve up something that just takes my breath away. That’s amazing after 40 years of playing together and more than 30 years recording together. Last year’s Tin Can Trust was one of the three best releases of the year, so I shouldn’t have been surprised when last Friday’s show at the Varsity Theater in Dinkytown by the band’s primary lyricist (Louie Perez) and primary songwriter (David Hidalgo) was one of the best live shows I’ve seen this year.

Friday’s show—Hidalgo and Perez were accompanied by Los Lobos drummer Cougar Estrada and bassist Juan “El Unico” Perez (most recently of East LA’s Quetzal)—more than made up for a fairly weak and quite disappointing Los Lobos co-bill with Los Lonely Boys at the Minnesota Zoo last summer. It was a tight set, and most band members had been sick after an especially grueling European tour, but the set was far too short and low energy; I was hoping for and expecting more, especially after last year’s spectacular two-night stand.

Although the show was billed as David Hidalgo and Louie Perez (Dos Lobos?), it had the feel of a mid-1990s Latin Playboys show. Indeed, one of the highlights from the first set was “If” from the 1994 self-titled release. The other standout in the first set was a most excellent “Saint Behind The Glass.”

David Hidalgo and Louie Perez.

The second set saw Hidalgo break out the always-welcome accordion for a couple of tunes. Highlights from the second set were a positively shattering “Burn It Down” (with Rosie Flores on vocals), an outstanding “Ten Believers” (again from 1994’s Latin Playboys), and a scorching “The Long Goodbye.”

On the heels of one of the worst musical experiences of my life at the Widespread Panic show last Tuesday comes one of the best when Dean Magraw (electric guitars), Bruce Kurnow (harmonicas), and Michael Bissonnette (percussion) assembled for two sets at the Aster Cafe in Minneapolis.

The trio first played publicly 5 July 2011 delivering two stellar sets at Saint Paul’s Black Dog Cafe. That show was breathtaking with very, very few rough edges. Covering everything from Magraw and Kurnow originals, to reads of John Coltrane and Joe Zawinul, it was clear these three were on to something very special.

They played again on 15 September at the 318 Cafe in Excelsior. I didn’t make it to that show, but I’m sure it was interesting.

For the Aster Cafe show, Dean Magraw broke out his acoustic guitar and Michael Bissonnette added more instruments—including homemade pistachio shell rattle anklets and an Aztec death whistle that totally freaked me out—to his percussion kit.

Michael Bissonnette and Dean Magraw, Aster Cafe, Minneapolis, 27 October 2011.