from gothamist.com
Jossip had the rumor, NYT has the confirm: Judith Regan was fired late this afternoon, officially, by publisher HarperCollins, the parent company for her imprint, Regan Books, "effective immediately." The termination was confirmed this evening by HarperCollins president and CEO Jane Friedman in a two-sentence release, according to the Times.
The annoucement comes in the wake of the outcry following Regan's planned publication of the O.J. Simpson 'confession' book, "If I Did It, Here's How It Happened," which Regan had also produced as a planned two-hour special to run on Fox during November sweeps. After the public recoiled in distasted and revulsion from the crass, sordid attempt to capitalize on the decade-old tragedy, Rupert Murdoch-owned parent company NewsCorp. pulled the special and recalled the book.
The NYT says it is "unclear whether Ms. Regan has been dismissed only from HarperCollins, or terminated entirely from the News Corporation," but Jossip, which had the unconfirmed rumor of Regan's firing shortly after 7 p.m., reported hearing that Regan had been fired by Murdoch "after an intense back-and-forth following the O.J. Simpson book scandal." Given the above, it seems highly unlikely that Regan would remain at NewsCorp in any capacity after being removed from the head of the company that bears her name. There was speculation about Regan's tenure following the Simpson scandal (not to mention her bizarre justification for it, published in the Murdoch-owned New York Post), but conventional publishing industry wisdom held that she made too much money for NewsCorp. to let go. Rupert Murdoch, however, made a point of putting morality over money when he canceled the O.J. special and book despite taking a hit on NewsCorp's original investment, in a move that may be seen to continue that trend.
Meanwhile, this evening is the NewsCorp holiday party at the Hilton for all NewsCorp properties including HarperCollins, Fox and the New York Post; presumably Ms. Regan will not be joining in the festivies.
— Nick Douglas
CNN via TVNewser
Oh, my Lord, is CNN really running this poll on its FRONT PAGE? Ugh, yes, it is. TVNewser brings us this particular slice of ridiculousness (part of the reason why he's the best) and confirms that, yes, panda cubs are winning (in a split of 61% - 39%, which means both have a higher approval rating than President Bush). As if that isn't bad enough, they also offer this video segment which asks "Is the Brangelina baby cuter than a panda cub?" (That's under today's Top Stories; right now the top video is "Puppy chews off baby's toes.") That poll was totally skewed; puppies weren't even an option. Neither were kittens! Way to be balanced, CNN.
After meeting with the owners of the Philadelphia Daily News and Philadelphia Inquirer, negotiators for the Newspaper Guild of Greater Philadelphia presented "a contract full of pain and insult" at a members-only meeting. In an e-mail to members, the bargaining committee chair said that while the publisher "should be ashamed of" the contract that ends corporate pension contributions and destroys the seniority system, it's "far better" than what the company first offered negotiators. (In other words, rock, meet hard place.)
The contract also gives workers one three-day sick pass per six months; a second sick leave in six months only earns 65% of a worker's pay. Workers reacted in dismay:
"What if somebody gets really sick?" shouted one member. "What if someone gets cancer?" "The company doesn't care," replied a Guild negotiator.
The Philadelphia Weekly says it's uncertain whether the three-year contract will pass, despite the fact that negotiators have asked members to vote "yes," in about the most tepid endorsement possible:
It is a contract full of pain and insult. It is a contract that requires sacrifice and trust. It is a contract that Brian Tierney and the local investors should be ashamed of... [but]...The end result is the contract you're being asked to support - one that is FAR better than the company wanted you to have.
They do, however, tell members to go ahead and be angry: "Be angry. We are. But vote YES."
— Nick Douglas
from ivillage.com
More drama surrounding Marie Claire this month, despite a cover featuring a color photo of someone smiling: AdAge reports that someone with a grudge* had been anonymously sending around last month's Radar article reporting that Hearst execs were "completely freaking out" about the mag's dropping newsstand performance since editor Joanna Coles took over the top spot (separately reported by WWD), specifically sending the piece to important mag advertisers lik L'Oreal. Long live the Christmas spirit!
AdAge's Nat Ives quotes Marie Claire VP-Publisher Susan Plagemann calling the Radar article "irresponsible and inaccurate," though Radar quoted two separate sources (one a "high-ranking editorial source" and the other a "well-placed insider") plus "sources with access to sales data," and offered a Hearst spokeswoman the opportunity to confirm the reported low October newsstand number, which was declined. Meanwhile, Jossip ran an item hooked on the WWD pieces which was actually quite favorable to Coles, but the Hearst PR department asked them to take it down, saying, according to Jossip, that it was "wildly inaccurate" (though, again, WWD had been the first to report sliding sales at the newsstand). AdAge reports, meanwhile, that ad pages are down 1.4% from last year (Glamour's are up 7.3%), and that the declining-circulation trend has been manifest since the first half of the year (when it was down 16%, though subscriptions are up 17.9%).
You don't have to be an expert in magazines to know that the November Marie Claire cover was terrible (Black and white. Close up. Not smiling. Yellow lettering. Yick) and Radar's wasn't the first report of trouble under the Coles regime. So it's interesting to note the efforts coming 
from up top at Hearst to squelch the rumors — rumors which they have not refuted with anything other than general plaudits ("Our business is fantastic. Our business has been fantastic every single issue since Joanna Coles has been our editor in chief") that don't go to the actual numbers (which, judging by the unchanged WWD item and Radar's update from Hearst, are accurate). It's great that Hearst is standing behind Coles in the face of these negative items (which have actually been quite fair, often mentioning the sliding numbers in the same breath as Coles mission of making the magazine "smarter"), but when you stack it all up the protestations of Marie Claire just aren't convincing — and we all know what it means when someone doth protest too much.
*Inadvertent non-color non-smiling covergirl Sarah Michelle Gellar pun.
**We're not sure if this non-smiling Jennifer Connelly is an alternate MC cover, but if it is, someone really hasn't learned their lesson.
— ETP Staff
Marty Kaplan
When it comes from the Wall Street Journal's editorial page.
The WSJ's Hanukah gift to FCC Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein is a bit of a pistol-whipping for their insistence that the proposed AT&T-BellSouth merger doesn't create a company that extorts protection money from Web sites that want fast access to your computer.
The paper says that the two Democrats on the FCC "are carrying water for rich special interests" -- hello?...
starkedsf.com
Today the AP's Daniel Yee takes a good, long look at Hooter's, as have many a customer over the years (sometimes three times a day, as in the case of one man quoted). The pickup for the story is 83 outlets and counting (plus whatever isn't online), presumably with matching stock images to match. While the article doesn't necessarily break much new ground — the big takeaway here is that the scantily-clad waitresses wearing the word "HOOTERS" across their chest are the main draw — it is interesting to see how the chain has thrived (it takes in $900 million in yearly sales and is projected to reach the $1 billion mark in 2007). Yee collects the usual assortment of quotes — from the execs who point out that the food is delicious, from the waitress who says that gosh darn it, its all about having fun, from the feminist activist who points out that the restaurant is called Hooters — and gets us all caught up on the fate of the Troy, Mich. liquor license controversy (license for new location denied; case still pending). But really, the story is that this story was picked up 83 times, and counting. If you doubt, see the assortment of breaking-news headline choices below:
Hooters and its customers admit: It's 'the girls' [Sarasota Herald-Tribune]
Waitresses help Hooters succeed [Courier News]
Despite controversy, Hooters prospers [Durham Herald Sun]
Girls help boost Hooters' profits [Montgomery Advertiser]
The key to Hooters' success: Less is more [Spokesman Review]
Less is more [Cincinnati Post]
Journalistic correction watchdog Regret The Error compiles a giant, comprehensive, hilarious list of the best, most egregious, how-could-the-copyeditor-have-missed-this-one print errors of the year, with a special honorable mention to the U.K.'s Sun: "This site simply wouldn't be possible without you." Local fare does not escape mention, of course, including the New York Times apologizing for misspelling the department store Gimbels (not "Gimbel's" which the NYT realized it had misspelled 120 times and never corrected) and which recommended way, WAY too many chili peppers for Superbowl meatballs (though surprisingly, Alessandra Stanley sneaks by without mention). RTE editor Craig Silverman dubs this year "The Year of the Belated Apology," as exemplified by this from the Lexington-Herald-Leader:
It has come to the editor's attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission.
Just a tad more egregious than the sex poll that got its results mixed up with another poll, resulting in an 40% responding to the question "How kinky are you?" with "We both love any and all animals."
There are a multitude of other eye-popping examples, some of which are not at all funny — Silverman has a collage of newspaper covers after the Sago miners were thought to have been found alive that is just heartbreaking. But for the most part the round-up is entertaining and provides a cautionary look about there but for the Grace of God we all may go, and reminds us never to let the Sun catch us drinking, smoking, or snogging.
Crunks '06: The Year in Media Errors and Corrections [Regret The Error]
