Harry Shearer
I am allowed to riff on my own book title, but I had a second "clarifying moment", as the Prez likes to say, this week. I was socializing with some folks, one of whom was a broadcasting executive. And, in the midst of the usual conversation about New Orleans (Exec: how's it doing? Me: fine, no thanks to the national media. Exec: what do you mean?), this person uttered the kind of statement you...
by Mary Ellen Mark for New Yorker
What do you get when you send esteemed and erudite New Yorker editor David Remnick around the world with the wildly popular former president of the United States, Bill Clinton, to talk about his life, work, legacy, and not-at-all-controversial-or-in-the-news-lately wife Hillary ? Quite a lot, actually: A massive 23-page story (with photos, poems and cartoons, but still) with anecdotes, frank exchanges, keen insights and some really, really good soundbytes. What you don't get is a link: The piece is not available online. Which means that what you also don't get is any online presence. At all.
Which for a piece like this is saying something. Before I list a few of the gems you'll find if you, too, invest the thirteen hours needed to read it all, I will note one quote from Clinton: "I am sick of Karl Rove's bullshit." Incredibly, one week after publication, a search for "I am sick of Karl Rove's bullshit" on Google will yield one hit: A link to ABC's "The Note" that actually takes you to the wrong link and requires a search through the archives and then moving forward a few pages before a measly excerpt may be had. What does this tell us? It tells us that the New Yorker PR department needs to send their press releases out more widely online (and make it available the next week somewhere other than Google cache), and that the New Yorker can't rely on Remnick's cachet, Clinton's galvanizing popularity and the tantalizing possibility of Republican trashtalk to bring a 23-page article to life in the blogosphere without a little help.
Here is a non-exhaustive list of nuggets from the piece; those looking for a precis can find one of sorts in the New Yorker PR dept's aforementioned 1,066-word account, as well as a New Yorker Q&A with Remnick here.
As the Tribune Co. struggles to reach a detente with the Chandler family after this summer's bitter power struggle, it is meanwhile under increasing pressure to sell off its largest paper, the Los Angeles Times. The WSJ's Sarah Ellison reports that, in addition to the Chandlers, there has been "a push by some rich and powerful citizens in Los Angeles" for a sale of the LAT to "local interests." Some of those citizens incude SunAmerica founder Eli Broad, supermarket magnate/Clinton pal/Page Six allegation-maker Ron Burkle, and entertainment mogul (and Sumner Redstone employee) David Geffen. (According to the WSJ, Geffen's offer was an "informal, all-cash offer"; th e paper is commonly estimated at approximately $2 billion. Yowsers.)
The Tribune board is scheduled to meet this Thursday, and it is at that meeting that CEO Dennis FitzSimons is expected to present a plan for the future of the Tribune Co. Tribune Publishing president Scott Smith said that the LAT is essential for its content-generation amongst Tribune papers, and contributes a quarter of annual revenue to the bottom line. But Smith's call for job and cost cuts have been resisted by LAT Editor Dean Baquet and publisher Jeffrey Johnson, who have dug in stubbornly in open defiance of their bosses.
Ellison maps out the LAT's history and vitals here; find the backstory to the Chandler/Trib feud here .
GOOD Magazine
Yesterday in the NYT, Sharon Waxman took an indulgent look at GOOD Magazine, the new magazine founded on the desire to improve the country with good works and the exhortation to those at the top to use their affluence and access for the common good. The WSJ had the backstory earlier this summer, detailing how founder Ben Goldhirsh took his inheritance to fund the mag after losing his father, Inc. founder Bernie Goldhirsch, to brain cancer, only a few years after losing his mother to cancer as well. The first issue is out and has some heft behind it; New Yorker columnist James Surowiecki think-pieces on America's popularity, Neal Pollock writes on the financial realities of modern parenthood and contrasts it with what existed when he was a child (also pleasing New Yorkers with a mini-diss on L.A.), Jeffrey Sachs on fighting poverty, and Russian writer Gary Shteyngart on why he likes the U.S.A. (Capitalism is up there, natch). That last one isn't an irony; the do-GOODers aren't out to tax away the hard-earned inheritances of its readers, but rather to emphasize a socially-conscious agenda into the realities of high achievers across the board.
Waxman's GOOD coverage stays away from Goldhirsh's sad story, which was the focus of the WSJ piece, and instead focuses on the neophyte magazine-makers who wave away the details with big ideas (they've eschewed any sort of magazine-expert consultancy; though ETP will note that they do have a publicist). The NYT also notes the pedigree of the staff (the rather blatantly named Albert Gore III is associate publisher) and the audience (the rather blatantly misspelled Kurt Andersen gives the concept the thumbs-up (note that the spelling of his name from yesterday has still not been corrected online).
A little commentary: It's amazing how an earnest, menschliness-first magazine concept invites detractors. Gawker reviewed GOOD last week, dismissing most of the content and saying "Lord, does the earnestness get grating." (They also say that they're not sure what Goldhirsh is paying per word, but that's no secret: On Shteyngart's piece they confirm that it's $2. ETP should note here, however, that we don't know if it's in the print version, which we've only flipped through; our online bias is showing). However, someone else's bias is showing: Regular Gawker readers would have expected a nasty review, given that Gawker had trashed GOOD's concept and founders long before the mag was in print. This was how Gawker wrote off the WSJ article detailing Ben Goldhirsh's loss of his father and struggle to figure out how to use his inheritance in a meaningful way:
Ben inherited a large chunk of change from his pop with the intention that he do something entrepreneurial. Ben's come up with Good, a magazine for rich kids who've inherited large chunks of change and need help in figuring out how to give it away.
They followed up with a mocking mock-up of a GOOD cover, with the tagline "Pat Yourself On The Back, You Rich Bastard, You're GOOD" and coverlines like "The Eternal Dilemma: Can You Spend It Faster Than Dad Made It?" Let's recall that this is in direct reference to a guy who lost both of his parents to cancer and is now an orphan. Goldhirsh would probably have preferred not to have had to make such a choice, but in any case using his inheritance to make a go of something that aims to make a difference seems a far cry from 'spending it faster than dad made it.' GOOD is not perfect; the website could use some work (you can't even find a cover image on it, and they've got to get their HTML characters down) but the contributions seem impressive thus far, the blog is newsy and useful (though needs to take better care with stating rumor as fact) and they seem to have some good ideas to match their good intentions. Not a bad example, considering what else is out there.
*Let the record reflect that Gawker can't help being GOOD itself sometimes, which we always notice, and appreciate.
Paul Krassner
Dear Katie,
I guess it must be worth $15-million for you to sink from the courage of your public colonoscopy to the cowardice of your current gig. All right, I realize you can't be Keith Olbermann--the most outspoken, witty, progressive newscaster on TV--but please don't try to sell me on the notion that your precious little "freeSpeech" moment, with a different guest commentor each week, is a genuine contribution to the open marketplace of ideas....
