Perils of being a monthly, take 247: GQ trumpeted it's "Of The Year!" issue with a tri-cover extravaganza (Jay-Z represents! Will Ferrell parties! Leo...shines?) plus a whole host of Men of the Year, like Al Gore, Spike Lee, Stephen Colbert and Keith Olbermann, plus a pyromaniacal Lindsay Lohan. But GQ had to go one further, and therein lay their downfall: They anointed Pam Anderson and Kid Rock their "Newlyweds Of The Year" complete with lovey-dovey interview and ultra-romantic slideshow (depending, of course, on how you define "lovey dovey" and "romantic"). Alas, some features are just not meant to last the month, and this is one of them: Both Pam AND Kid filed for divorce today, racing each other to the courthouse to seek legal disengagement from one another with the ink barely dry on their fleshy, tonguey photo spread in the magazine. So sad. GQ was quick, changing their hed from "GQ: Newlyweds of the Year!" to "Pam & Kid: The Last Interview Before They Split," but the you can still catch the "Newlyweds of the Year!" tagline on the interview and photo essay. We just like writing "Newlyweds of the Year!" 'cause it sounds so GQ.
The LAT is the latest to come out with a glowing profile of MSNBC'c Keith Olbermann, whose ratings have been a-climbin' in recent months, contributing to and along with those of his network. Matea Gold's article hits on the Olbermann "Special Comments" excoriating the Bush administration, how his leftward tack resonated with viewers who felt unrepresented, and his gleeful attacks on Bill O'Reilly, saying that his gloves have "come off."
She notes something new, too — Olbermann, up 21% in the ratings since this time last year, is also up for contract renewal, and is in the process of negotiations with the network. The gloves seem to be somewhat off with respect to that development, as expressed in this comment:
"It is, to some degree, a perfect setup," he said of his relationship with the network. "They leave me alone, I leave them alone, and I deliver what they need, both in terms of journalism and the money end of it, the ratings."
Translation: The show is mine, the success is mine, and I can take it anywhere.
It's a far cry from the "family" rhetoric employed by MSBNC General Manager Dan Abrams earlier in Gold's piece, but Olbermann does have a point: His ratings are great, his schtick is working, and his profile is rising and rising. When he started he was a three-day substitute who parlayed lucky timing and a strong performance into a four-year contract. Now he's MSNBC's newest rising star. So he's probably earned an upgrade. But can he really go anywhere? It's a good guess that Fox isn't beating down that door (right, Irina Briganti?) and there's been no buzz about him going elsewhere (unlike, say, Anderson Cooper at 60 Minutes). The LAT article doesn't mention it but this summer's NYT profile by Bill Carter traces Olbermann's volatile work history, including sore spots recently at MSNBC (like calling co-worker Rita Cosby "dumber than a suitcase of rocks" and sending nasty emails to a fan). Then again, Olbermann was just named one of GQ's "Men of the Year" (which earned the magazine the opprobrium of a fuming O'Reilly as a result), and, well, there are those ratings (which have been eating into O'Reilly's, as Olbermann is only too happy to point out). So, the upshot for Olbermann and MSNBC seems to be, really, that they both need each other. That, of course, doesn't make for the most effective hardball negotiations — but recognized and appreciated by both sides, it can sure make for a fine feeling of family.
Disclaimer: I am an occasional commentator on MSNBC's "Scarborough Country" and know MSNBC GM Dan Abrams. I do not know Keith Olbermann, who has never said that I was dumber than a suitcase of rocks. But, give it time.
Today the NYT's David Carr writes on the proliferation of subpoenas for journalists in grand jury cases, and the ensuing jail time when sources, claimed protected by journalistic privilege, are not revealed. He cites the example of Eve Burton, general counsel for Hearst Corp., whose job description now includes the "chronic, grinding task" of "keeping Hearst reporters out of jail." Burton's department has received 80 subpoenas in the past year and a half, as compared with "maybe four or five" in the preceding two-year period. Meanwhile, the New York Times is currently fending off a subpoena for phone records of reporters Judith Miller (again) and Philip Shenon to uncover their confidential sources in a case relating to Islamic charities. The NYT has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction of the government request; the Justice Department has asked come back and specifically asked the Supreme Court to ignore them. And a federal court plans to investigate the confidential sources of Washington Times reporter William Gertz regarding "improper communications" from government sources. Meanwhile, Josh Wolf remains in jail for refusing to testify and hand over videotape that may not even be relevant to the grand jury investigation that's jailing him for it. Says Burton: "The culture of the press as an independent body is now under attack and if this continues, will come to be seen as an investigative arm of the government."
Currently, Burton is seeking to defend two San Francisco Chronicle reporters, Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada, from being jailed for refusing to reveal who leaked grand jury information in the Balco steroids case; if jailed, they'll face longer sentences than any of the actual defendants in that case. Carr hits it on the head right here: "But government prosecutors, in the name of protecting the sanctity of the grand jury process, are still trying to throw Mr. Williams and Mr. Fainaru-Wada in jail for 18 months." (Emphasis added.)
Something is out of whack here. The deprivation of liberty under law is supposed to be a high bar, reserved for serious matters of crime and punishment. There may well be arguments on a case-by-case basis of the urgency of revealing confidential information, but the urgency of enforcing the muscle of the Grand Jury process should not be one of them. Josh Wolf's incarceration — with the request for review, and for bail, denied — is a particularly egregious case, especially since the court threw the burden of proof on Wolf rather than his accusers. "This young blogger does not represent any threat to national security, so keeping him in custody is a completely disproportionate step," said Reporters Without Borders in a statement following the court's ruling on Wolf. Similarly, the Balco defendants have already been sentenced; giving Williams and Fainaru-Wada a harsher sentence serves no judicial purpose.
Well, except intimidation. If that's the new judicial purpose, we're going to need a free, fearless press even more.
Related:
Imprisoned Vid-Blogger Josh Wolf Denied Request For Hearing, Bail [ETP]
Press Freedom: US Drops To 53rd Place [HuffPo]
Assault On Press Freedom [SF Chronicle]
In an adjunct to its rich vs. superrich series, the NYT Sunday Styles section continues its ongoing examination of how fancy people live and how it's different than commoners (first clue: Look at the hair. If it's not expensively-gilded tresses, it's hair gel. HAIR GEL IS VERBOTEN, PEOPLE!). This week, chronicler of upper-class trend stories Alex Williams explains why "status-conscious" New Yorkers are staying home on Saturday night (basically, to avoid "hordes of pleasure dilettantes wearing gelled hairstyles and quaffing Red Bull" or, God forbid, the awful people pictured above). The status-conscious paper talks to some of these status-conscious New Yorkers (they're so fabulous they make the news by staying home!), starting off with a socialite (who actually sounds quite nice, so if she's friends with Williams, as she probably is ), moving on to Canadace Bushnell (who has advice for the networks), Michael Musto (who won't use wire hangers, ever) and Jonathan Cheban, "publicist and a friend of Nicole Richie's" (you might want to consider getting her popcorn at that movie, friend). Meanwhile, only the Times Style section could pair this quote:
"Named for Saturn, the Roman god of agriculture (his wife, Ops, was the goddess of plenty), Saturday carried connotations of a bountiful harvest after a week of toil. For Christian Europeans of the Middle Ages, Saturday night was the evening they could indulge in wine and feasting before returning to piety and abnegation on the Sabbath."
...with this one:
"During the weekends, you get a lot of clutter, if you will," said Brian Kirimdar, 30, an investment banker. He and his wife, Ashley, tend to hide out in restaurants on Saturdays, avoiding all but a few of the Chelsea clubs. "You don't find too many bridge-and-tunnel people at Cielo or Marquee," he said. "You really have to pick and choose."
Sigh. It's so hard being a status-conscious New Yorker these days.
p.s. We'd take the Bay City Rollers over Cosmo Radio anyday.
Rachel Sklar
Greetings and welcome to RussertWatch. I know. It's been a while. As I've mentioned, I've been doing this: HuffPo's mediacentric Eat The Press, which you should all bookmark right now. Go on, I'll wait. There you go. We've had something of a revolving roster here, with subsequent MTP coverage migrating to news during the campaign season, when it became less important to watch Russert as to...
There are two interesting issues raised by the LAT's article on how the Borat lawsuits will affect the Bruno movies. One is how the Borat lawsuits will affect the Bruno movies. The other is how the LAT misleadingly titles some of its articles.
Let's look at these one by one. The LAT catalogues the challenges facing the Bruno movie deal which NBC Universal signed with creator Sacha Baron Cohen, whose Borat and Bruno characters were featured on his Da Ali G Show. With the success of the Borat movie, it will be harder to trick unwitting mockumentary subjects to appearing on film (Newsweek made this argument last week). Even if Bruno can fool said subjects, there's now the risk of legal liability afterward thanks to the rash of lawsuits that are being filed against Borat producers and the studio, Twentieth Century Fox. There's no question that Borat's profile is huge in America, thanks to about a gazillion magazine covers, TV appearances and reviews, so yes, it probably would be difficult to replicate the Borat formula. However, the LAT does not address the possiblity that Cohen & co. might (a) have already done so or (b) might actually not want to replicate Borat at all. Bruno is, after all, a well-established character of Cohen's, in frequent rotation on Da Ali G Show, so tons of usable footage might already be in the can. More likely, Cohen, whose entire act is based on improvising, is confident that Bruno can adapt. (Newsweek, you don't get a say here, you equated Borat with Tom Green humping a moose. Perhaps you missed the stellar box office returns of RoadTrip.) As for the lawsuits, yes, those could get expensive...for Fox. This movie hasn't even been made yet, so there's ample time to not fraudulently induce people to participate.
Interesting questions, but all hypothetical, as the LAT itself confirms: "Universal declined to comment for this story, but studio officials have indicated they plan to move forward with "Bruno." Yet they still stated that Borat "could mar" the deal. This implies that the deal is in danger, a suggestion which is wholly unsupported by the facts in the article. It doesn't stop the author from using loaded language to suggest it though: "Universal may already be feeling buyer's remorse" (unsupported); "Some critics" wonder if the gay Bruno will play in Peoria (which critics?); "lawsuits have added another layer of complexity for Universal" (again, unsupported by Universal and arguably the lawsuits will make it that much easier for Universal to anticipate and avoid legal pitfalls). The bottom line is that Universal's deal is worth $42.5-million, and so far, Borat has grossed $109.2-million. Even figuring Cohen's sweet deal for 15% of the gross, that's a pretty decent incentive for Universal.
We have no vested interest in the success of the Bruno movie, but this is the second time in less than a week that an LAT headline has led us astray; last week we complained that an LAT headline had promised details of how the O.J. Simpson project had been "a hot topic" inside Fox without actually delivering those details. Two may not be a trend, but in this case it's more than enough.
