from sportsillustrated.cnn.com
we keep hearing about the most is Charlie Rose. Charlie, call us!
![hthomas-790317[1].jpg](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/hthomas-790317%5B1%5D-thumb.jpg)
mensnewsdaily.com
Politico blog Shenanigans is reporting that Helen Thomas, long-time Presidential correspondent, may be about to lose her front row seat in the Press Briefing Room.
Apparently, being the first woman officer of the National Press Club, the first woman member(and president) of the White House Correspondents Association, and the first woman member of the Gridiron Club, not to mention covering every president since John F Kennedy, does not necessarily entitle Thomas to a front row seat. But at this point it' s up in the air; White House Correspondents' Association President Steve Scully says only "I can tell you categorically no decisions have been made."
The rationale for such a move? It seems the latest White House Press Room renovations will only create one extra seat per row but many of the cable news networks having been hankering after a front row seat for some time. Who will be the winner in this reverse game of musicals chairs? Well, if it's between CNN or Fox, then, a Politico source wondered, "how do you choose between the two?" (Hmmm, how, indeed.)
This isn't the first time Thomas has been moved to the back of the room. A number of years ago she was given back row status for Press Conferences because she gave Bush a hard time no longer worked for a wire service (she's technically a columnist now).
According to Thomas it makes no difference where she sits, "I know how to shout". After watching her chase down Steven Colbert at last year's White House Press Association Dinner, we have no doubt.
Associated Press
Associated Press
Here in LA, Barack Obama's entry into the race is causing some consternation among influential Dem-leaning showbiz types. To put it in Hollywood terms: do you back the established franchise with proven appeal in a niche audience but questionable growth potential (Clinton)? Or do you go with the new hot indie film that has enormous amounts of buzz, but which nobody's actually seen (Obama)? Okay, we're over-simplifying and mixing metaphors, but in Slate, Kim Masters reports on Steven Spielberg co-hosting an Obama event with Messrs. Katzenberg and Geffen (both Obama-declared), even though he still has strong ties to the Clinton camp.
Of course, money aside, it's unclear if being closely linked to Hollywood will be a net asset or liability in the upcoming election.
* If you don't get the headline, you are not a Hollywood insider.
Jeralyn Merritt
Ted Wells announced they will rest their case tomorrow. Neither Libby nor Vice President will testify. Wells said he and Jeffress advised Libby and he accepted their advice.
The defense wants to call the three CIA briefers tomorrow for about 20 minutes. Wells said he will play some Russert tapes to the jury which will show he testified falsely.
The jury will go home now as the federal courthouse is closing. Legal arguments will continue...
Associated Press
If you're thinking of seeing a movie because of an enthusiastic Larry King blurb, know this: Larry King loves movies in general, in the abstract. But just because there's a glowing King pronouncement splayed on a movie ad saying something like 'Fun and Very Funny!' ('You, Me and Dupree,' and believe us, no and no), doesn't mean he actually loved the movie. Or liked the movie. Or was able to follow the movie. That's the gist of Patrick Goldstein's LAT film column today. For instance, King says of 'Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest': "I had no idea what was going on... I turned to my wife and said, 'What is this movie about? I don't get it!'" Somehow, this sentiment got expressed in the print ad as "Finally, a Movie Worth Seeing Over and Over Again!" [Insert your own Walter Monheit joke here.]
![abc_gma_sawyer_ahmadinejad[1].jpg](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/abc_gma_sawyer_ahmadinejad%5B1%5D-thumb.jpg)
mediabistro.com
Going where neither George Bush or Condoleeza Rice seems to deem necessary, Diane Sawyer sat down yesterday for a face-to-face interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Viewers of "Good Morning America" were greeted this morning by a head-scarf wearing Sawyer who addressed them thus:
"Good Morning from Iran, I'm Diane Sawyer."
During the interview, Sawyer grilled the Iranian President regarding accusations that Iran is sending weapons over the border into Iraq to aid in the fighting.
Ahmadinejad, who remained calm and pleasant throughout (we, too, wish it were spring) avoided directly answering most of Sawyer's questions, though some of his ideas did sound strangely familiar.
It wasn't clear whether Ahmadinejad was taking a swipe at Sawyer or the American press during this exchange (we imagine it was probably a bit of both):
Sawyer: Are you here to solve the problem of the American government in Iraq?However it became clearer at the end of the interview when Admadinejad apparently turned to Sawyer and said:Ahmadinejad: These are some points that must be discussed at the diplomatic level. You are just a journalist.
"Those were combative questions. Women should not be asking tough questions about war, but about love and family and culture."
Video of both the interview and Sawyer walking the streets of Tehran (and getting head scarf tips from women passersby - is that "culture" enough?) during an anti-American protest can be seen here.
Just this morning, David Westin, president of ABC issued this memo regarding Diane's recent string of interviews:
"Any news organization would be proud to have had any one of these reports in a given year. To have all four in the course of a few months -- each taking us places we've never been and opening our eyes to parts of the world that matter to all of us -- is truly remarkable."
from NewYorkSocialDiary.com
First-time novelist Bridie Clark has never done time in a federal prison, nor has she ever seen combat action. But the willowy 29-year-old did serve her own hellish tour of duty, working in the trenches as an editor for a recently-disgraced publishing czarina known for her abrasive behavior and her penchant for the lowest of lowbrow commercialism (yes, we're talking about Judith Regan). Ms. Clark survived the experience, and her new novel, Because She Can, is a testament to this tenure, if not an outright diary.
Like The Devils Wears Prada, Clark's roman a clef (which came out last week and was celebrated last night, in a hedge fund-sponsored style grand enough to bring the esteemed David Patrick Columbia way downtown) offers an insider's look at a world that the general public persists on viewing as glamorous, complete with a fashion-conscious young heroine and a villainous female foil (not to mention the illustrated cover art). But does Vivian Grant, Ms. Clark's "composite" of bad bosses, live up to the real Judith Regan? Given all the ugly facts that have surfaced in the wake of her very public firing from Harper Collins, it seems that truth may actually be meaner than fiction in this case, and we're not the only ones to note this.
Eat The Press spoke with Ms. Clark about the perils of chick lit, getting panned by gossip queen Liz Smith and obscenely bad bosses who may or may have said that the media is run by a Jewish cabal that is "out to get her."
Is Vivian Grant, who is your protagonist's bitchy boss, Judith Regan?
No. Not exactly. It genuinely is a composite. I've been reading these pieces that draw an exact parallel, but it's a composite. I think the experience of having a hellacious boss is universal.
That seems hard to believe, given all the high-decibel material you had to draw from. Working under her must have left an imprint, if you will.
Yes, definitely, working for Judith had a huge impact on me. Judith's a force of nature-- both creative and destructive, often at the same time. But I also learned a lot and had a chance to work with some great authors. I escaped without much permanent damage.
Yet you and your publisher seem to be maintaining this arm's-length approach, avoiding any direct linkage to Judith. Do you fear some personal reprisal? Like, that she's going to come into a restaurant and challenge you to a fistfight?
I would lose that fight, and no, I don't have a fear of that. She's a busy woman. She's got bigger fish to fry.
Join us after the jump for more on what it's like to work with for Regan, what Clark thought of the O.J. book, and who you don't want writing your teenage daughter's diet book.
Associated Press
Remember last week? Do you? Remember when NYT publisher Arthur Sulzberger, at Davos, said "I really don't know whether we'll be printing the Times in five years, and you know what? I don't care, either?" That remark caused a media mini-flutter. And apparently, he was just kidding, or riffing, or musing. Maybe he meant 'five years' figuratively, like in that David Bowie song, which, now that we think about it, also includes a line that goes "News guy wept and told us, earth was really dying." Sulzberger: closet glam-rock fan? Hmm.
Tomorrow, reports the Observer's Media Mob, he will deliver a speech to his staff, reaffirming–on Valentine's Day–his love for and commitment to print. The Observer has some of the prepared text . Highlight: "[L]et me clear the air on this issue. It is my heartfelt view that newspapers will be around–in print–for a long time. But I also believe that we must be prepared for that judgment to be wrong."
Pandagon via CNN via YouTube
Amanda Marcotte, one of the two embattled bloggers for the John Edwards campaign, has resigned following the flap over her pre-Edwards blog postings harshly critical of the Catholic church's stance on birth control and abortion, which, along with fellow blogger Melissa McKewen of Shakespeare's Sister (who made reference to President Bush's "wingnut Christofascist base") earned swift and furious denunciation from the Christian Right, specifically voiced by Catholic League president Bill Donohue, who called them "anti-Catholic, vulgar, trash-talking bigots." Right, now you're caught up.
On her personal blog, the widely-read and highly-opinionated Pandagon, Marcotte posted a typically outspoken entry specifically noting her resignation, clarifying her initial position and helpfully framing the incident in terms of Scripture, quoting from John 8:1-11 wherein Jesus says "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone." Way with words, that one. Funnily enough, it turns out that Mr. Donohue has a history of casting stones, specifically in comments like saying Hollywood "is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular." Also funnily, those comments were somehow left out of the initial reports on the matter (see CNN's report, which is also missing (a) a sense of blogosphere context but not (b) the vague implication that, somehow, Clinton blogger Peter Dau from Salon's Daou Report had objectionable material in his blog record, too. CNN: WTF?).
Marcotte, meanwhile, explained her resignation in practical terms, citing her inability to do her job: "It was creating a situation where I felt that every time I coughed, I was risking the Edwards campaign... I signed on to be a supporter and a tireless employee for them, and if I can't do the job I was hired to do...then I won't do it." This is probably the best solution for the Edwards campaign, who dodges a bullet without having to antagonize the netroots or navigate thorny free-speech issues; and it's probably best for Marcotte, who will no doubt continue to write sharply and freely at Pandagon (and who will probably see a few plum assignments come her way thanks to the raised profile). As for how it bodes for the place of the blogosphere in mainstream political life, we'd wager it represents the necessary growing pains of that process as the vernacular of the blogosphere meets the carefully-packaged world of professional politicking. Unfortunately for Marcotte, she was the first one in the way, so the first to be thrown under the bus. As for the other vulgar, trash-talking bigots in question — we doubt there are any resignations coming down the pipe anytime soon. But hey, we're willing to be surprised; judge not lest ye be judged.
Announcement [Pandagon]
A Blogger for Edwards Resigns After Complaints [WaPo]
CNN, MSNBC aired Donohue's criticism of Edwards bloggers without noting his bigotry [Media Matters]
Background:
"Situation Room" Report on Marcotte, Edwards et al [CNN via YouTube]
Poor Wolf Blitzer, perpetual straight man, mincemeat of Cheney, captive to the whims of whoever happens to be manning the "Situation Room" screens. It's not his fault that he went from a semi-sanctimonious Lou Dobbs to this, and yet:
ETP almost sprayed Diet Coke not once but twice on this clip, once on the watch and again on the disbelieving rewind. (NB: We caught an earlier moment the day of, where Jack Cafferty asked Wolf: "So, Anna Nicole Smith still dead?" and Wolf replied nervously and humorlessly in the affirmative.) Note though that, in making fun of the media for over-covering the Anna Nicole Smith story, Jon Stewart & Co. spent not one not two but THREE separate segments on same, featuring correspondents Rob Riggle, John Oliver, and Jason Jones, barely leaving time to make fun of the "Is Obama Black Enough?" debate with correspondent Larry Wilmore. (All well and good, but, ahem. Daily Show peeps. Give us some honey-haired Samantha Bee, yo.) The interview with Supreme Court scholar Jeffrey Rosen, looking like it might be off to a dry start, got surprisingly giggly and giddy as they started making fun of Scalia, who apparently refers to himself in the third person, and is — shocker! — something of a bully. (Stewart: "Scalia's a dick!"). Is there anything cuter than watching a law professor get excited over his subject matter? Aw.
p.s. Speaking of being giddy and giggly, could Stewart/Colbert have been more excited about their geeky Howard Roark joke? Personally, I would have found it more effective had Colbert been standing naked on the edge of a cliff, but that's just me.
cnn.com
usc.edu
We suspect that the overlap of Eat The Press readers and Second Life players is minimal. It's just a gut feeling. And we still can't quite believe that advertisers are taking Second Life seriously as a platform. If you convince someone in a computer-generated virtual reality world that they they want to buy, say, a pair of Dockers, when they turn off the computer, do they still want the Dockers? Or do you have to re-convince them? There are so many complicated cultural and philosophical and cognitive questions here that thinking about it aches a little bit. Aches in a pleasant way.
So we were pretty fascinated by this Hollywood Reporter interview with Philip Rosedale, CEO of Linden Lab, from which Second Life spawns, about advertising and other media in the virtual world. Our favorite snippet:
Second Life is different than the real world because of the marginal cost of making [advertising] bigger. If you buy billboard space (in the real world), there's an ability to impose online advertising on people that is pretty leveraged. That amount of leverage does not exist in Second Life because people are in control of their own attention. You don't have to sit and listen to beer ads. On the flip side is that what many advertisers are doing in Second Life are way more interesting than what they're doing in reality. They'll consume happily because of the sheer novelty.
In other words, Second Life is a good place to buy advertising, because people like consuming ads there, because they don't have to consume as much advertising as they do when they're not in a fake virtual world. Scary, paradoxical, and probably correct.
(More on Second Life from ETP)
