from nytimes.com
The story at the top of the NYT's most-emailed list for the Books section yesterday and today is not actually about a book. It is about the wildly popular, all-consuming, mass-market phenomenon of — wait for it — poetry. As it turns out, poetry is pretty exciting, because it happens to be the subject of a giant, public, in-your-face smackdown of the New Yorker by the New York Times. Drama!
In this case, poems are made by fools like the New Yorker's Dana Goodyear — not that you'd know from any sort of disclosure on last month's long piece on the Poetry foundation and how it is using its $150 million-odd bequest from Eli Lilly heiress Ruth Lilly, who, as it turned out, rather liked poetry. NYT poetry critic David Orr — who is never one to pull a punch — pulls none here, either, calling the New Yorker on the utter lack of transparency in Goodyear's piece, and then going even further and calling into question just what, exactly, is the motivating purpose behind the New Yorker's poetry selections. As smackdowns go, it's sort of awesome.*
Here's what the casual reader would not have known: Goodyear, who wrote the piece, is a poet herself.** She's also the former assistant to editor David Remnick. She's also had her poems published in the New Yorker more times than most established American poets, including poet laureates. Goodyear is now 30; in 2002, when she was 25, she was the most-published poet in the magazine. A cynic might think there was a coincidence.
A cynic might think a lot of things, actually, after this article, in which Orr meticulously takes apart Goodyear's piece bit by bit. He begins by damning her with the faint praise of calling it "a slick production" and then goes on to call out her careful descriptives, which suggest that New Money + Mass-Market Ideals = Crazy Rich People Ruining Everything. Then he examines her sources, revealing that they are selective, contradictory and, in some cases, quoted entirely out of context (he emails at least one of them to check). And that's just the first half.
YouTube.com
Variety ran a report this weekend on the growing tangles in the ever-tightening bonds between large networks and YouTube. The user-generated mammoth has for months been a source of headaches for major broadcasters like CBS and NBC Universal, who've found themselves in a love-hate relationship with the high-traffic site that both poaches (technically, anyway) their material with no compensation and also guarantees that more viewers will see it. Writers Ben Fritz and Michael Learmonth describe the left-hand-versus-right-hand battle going on between large network marketing and legal departments: while the former feeds clips to the site to increase exposure, the latter simultaneously fires off angry letters to YouTube officials demanding that all unauthorized content (which, in the absence of a formal agreement, means all content) be removed. It's a vivid portrayal of the symbiotic tightwire that so-called "big media" is tiptoeing in dealing with the website, and a telling look at just how frazzled the entertainment industry has gotten since the Internet's revolution of the way viewers consume video.
There's no doubt that networks are wise not to ignore the promotional value of YouTube exposure, but playing both sides isn't a longterm solution. So far, definitive decisions in big media have typically involved coming down on one side or the other, with Viacom demanding that all content be removed from the site and buying up potential competitors while networks like the BBC cut deals to actively supply and cross-promote clips. Meanwhile, channels like Fox are reportedly pushing Fox-owned MySpace as an alternative, but can't win support from rival networks who fear giving owner News Corp. a leg up in the race. And as the big media clan continues its maneuvering, jockeying for position and mulling over how to beat the web Goliath, YouTube has the last laugh while its traffic just keeps on rising.
from myspace.com
Today's little intra-media fracas has given us no choice but to launch a new feature, Ombudsblogger, which from now and 'til evermore will walk the hallowed halls of media, sternly issuing yellow cards to anyone who is running, shoving, or trying to stuff a freshman in a locker. Today's media spat involves Radar and Page Six. Here's what happened: A Radar staffer's cellphone accidentally dialed someone who passed it on to Page Six, resulting in six minutes of staff meeting being piped straight into the newshole. Tough break, Radar, but it happens, and anyhow, now you've got the city looking out for all the naked hot people you're going to have in your next issue. Instead, Radar lobbed back a seriously nasty salvo directed not at Page Six, where the buck stops with Richard Johnson, but specifically at Corynne Steindler, currently the most junior person on the masthead.
Here's what we think: By all means, attack each other. Pull each other to bits — over stuff that matters. Someone goofs, or is careless? Great, call them out. It'll make everyone more careful. Someone has a conflict of interest they don't disclose? Well then, feel free to provide the whole picture. That stuff is important. But why are low blows necessary? If you've got a solid leg to stand on, they shouldn't be. So okay, here we go:
Sigh. We wish that had been all. But then Radar had to go and cross the line into abject dickery, ceding the moral highground for a nasty frat-boy laugh. Yeah, you heard me. FOR SHAME. Here's why:
Moral highground: Page Six. You're better than this, Radar — but crap like the above will makes us doubt it soon enough.
Hugs and kisses,
The Ombudsblogger
p.s. We're not even getting into the whole Burkle thing. We've already done that. But, you know.
p.p.s. We've corrected this post, which originally said the call went to Page Six. It went to someone who likes Page Six, we guess.
NYTimes.com
This week's Sunday Times offered a delve into the life and times of New York Observer owner Jared Kushner. After the obligatory mentions of Kushner's lack of media experience, campaign-ready poise and troubled family history, the piece, written by freelancer Allen Salkin, forays into the media neophyte's aspirations for his paper and relationship with famed editor Peter Kaplan (a partnership that's proven bumpy in recent months). Salkin paints a jovial picture of the duo, with a patriarchal Kaplan downing cheap beer with his youthful owner at Yankee games and describing him using faulty lines from "Citizen Kane." While he quotes not a one, Salkin notes that Observer staffers were initially less than thrilled with their new owner's heavy office presence, quoting former editor Choire Sicha as saying, "Oh, big young daddy's here!" to describe Sundays when his then-boss was found in the office (though tempers were reportedly assuaged when Kushner started having pizza delivered during late Tuesday night closings). The piece certainly highlights Kushner's youthful idealism (his inner monologue on buying the paper: "Wow, you accomplished something you didn't think you'd have a one-in-a-million chance of doing") and hefty work ethic (spending days, nights and weekends at the Observer office while simultaneously finishing his JD/MBA) - but when it comes to the question of whether his acquisition can ever actually turn a profit Salkin ends on a less-than-beaming note, citing the woeful tale of Metropolitan Transportation Authority chairman Peter Kalikow, who went bankrupt after a failed stint as owner of the New York Post from 1988 through 1993.
Meanwhile, Gawker (now led by Sicha, who jumped from the Observer to Gawker Media's managing ed position in mid-January) offers a bit of backstory behind the piece, casting über-publicist Steven Rubenstein (who reps Kushner) in the role of orchestrator. Reportedly prompted by threats of an unflattering profile of his client in New York Magazine, Rubenstein, according to Gawker, offered Salkin and a Times photographer access to a closing-night party last month. We'll admit, we found it a tad surprising that Kaplan was the only Observer staff member quoted about Kushner - or friend, or family member, or associate. Does no one know this guy? The pizza detail was pretty shocking as well (in almost twenty years of midnight-oil closings, no one's ever made it a policy to order dinner?). New York Mag Communications Manager Lauren Starke won't comment on whether a Kushner profile is indeed in the works, so it looks like we'll just have to wait and see whether Rubenstein's reported dealmaking was indeed successful in keeping the harsher hounds at bay.
CNN.com
The Most Trusted Name In News is now the news itself: CNN is heavily promoting its exclusive interview with anchor Thomas Roberts, who has come forward with his story of teenage sexual abuse by a Catholic priest. Roberts, a CNN Headline News anchor since 2001, came out of the closet during last September's Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association conference. The story currently has prominent front page placement on CNN.com, with the "Full Story" link leading to Roberts' detailed first person account of his relationship with Father Jerome F. Toohey, Jr., whom he approached for guidance during his parents' divorce. Roberts describes his subsequent depression, emotional isolation and eventual suicide attempt after the abuse began. Meanwhile, Roberts will tell his story tonight on Anderson Cooper 360 during a one-hour special titled "Sins of the Father" (promos for which have been running on the network all day).
CNN isn't the first news outlet to make its own news a top story; from the New York Times' reports on Jayson Blair to ABC's extensive coverage of anchor Bob Woodruff, the newsworthy goings on of staff have been quickly claimed (and often just as quickly stamped "Exclusive") by mainstream outlets. Personal stories, like Katie Couric's on-air colonoscopy and Dan Abrams' first person account of his battle with testicular cancer, are usually guaranteed extensive play on a reporters' home network. CNN's Roberts exclusive ranks a bit higher on the opportunism scale since it isn't exactly brand new news - word of Roberts' abuse first became public in 2005, when the anchor testified at Toohey's trial that the priest had sexually abused him from 1987 to 1989 (Toohey then pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 18 months in jail). A year later, Roberts also publicly expressed disappointment when a Baltimore County Circuit Judge approved the priest's request to serve out the final eight months of his sentence in home detention rather than prison. Still, it's the first time the anchor has sat down to discuss his story in depth, and revealed the effects that childhood sexual abuse have had on his life - a truly gutsy move, no matter the media circumstances.
from nytco.com
Are fences mending in the NYT Co. boardroom? Publisher and chairman of the board Arthur Sulzberger Jr. recently has invited Morgan Stanley, who has recently called for the NYT to end its longstanding dual-class share strucutre, and fellow big-stake holder T. Rowe Price Group to make presentations to the NYT board of directors. The Wall Street Journal's Sarah Ellison calls it "a sign" that the NYTCo. may be looking to appease irascible investors, and extending the olive branch of "listening" to them even if they are so not planning to change that dual-class share structure.
The NYT Co. invited Morgan Stanley money manager Hassan Elmasry, who controls 7% of the company's Class A shares on behalf of Morgan Stanley, which lack the clout of the family-owned Class B shares. Elmasry agitated for the end of the dual-class structure and the splitting of Sulzberger's chair and publisher roles; the NYT responded, rather petulantly, really, by pulling their assets from Morgan Stanley. This move marks a definite and strategic olive branch before next month's annual meeting; said Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis to the WSJ: "We believe in open discussion and dialogue and felt it important for all our board members to have a chance to hear outside views and thoughts." Hooray, sunshine and puppies! Ish.
According to Ellison's sources, it looks like the NYT is "girding" for more opposition from major shareholders, who, led by Elmasry, may withhold their votes for directors at the AGM if they don't like feel the NYT Co. has listened to them, and acted accordingly. Elmasry is concerned because the NYT co has "lost almost half its value" over the past five years (though so, too, have other companies like Down Jones, while Tribune and Gannett are down by around 20 - 30%, and WaPo is up 25%). Read more about the details of ownership, voting power and shareholder conflict here.
New York Times Hears Key Holders' Complaints [WSJ]
Recent media trend-let: middle-aged people checking out social networking sites and writing bemusedly about their findings. But one oldish fogey actually has something interesting to say. In the new Atlantic VH1 exec and media deep-thinker Michael Hirschorn predicts that we're in a social networking bubble, and that even Myspace will crumble, or at least decline, despite the general sense that it's now ensconced in internet culture. Two central points: first, once the new-ness and open feeling of the site (which Hirschorn likens to "freshman year at college") wears off, users are left with functionality options that pretty much just replicate the internet as a whole. And second, MySpace phenoms (such as Tila Tequila) are getting wise to the notion that if they move their content off MySpace, they can actually monetize it, instead of essentially bequeathing their page-views to Newscorp.
It's an interesting, and persuasive, position. Everybody, put Hirschorn in your top eight! Or at least read the piece.
from youtube.com
This weekend, the NYT Real Estate section wondered, "How could a rising sea level and pummeling storms affect the trillion dollars' worth of property New Yorkers call home?" Er, badly, as it turns out. So put that down on your list of things to worry about.
It's a departure from the usual Real Estate section fare, as our old pal Ankush Khardori points out: "I typically expect to see pieces about bankers buying swanky new pads with gigantic bonuses; about Manhattanites moving to the suburbs; about suburbanites moving to Manhattan; or even about Manhattanites moving to the suburbs and then moving back to Manhattan. But not this." Unfortunately, it looks like the "this" is a long-overdue reality for NYC, with hurricane preparedness apparently appallingly low and the risk of "more frequent" and "vicious" storms apparently pretty real. (Interestingly, the NYT reports that insurance companies "factor climate change into their risk assessments," which has resulted in some insurers "refusing to renew homeowners' policies in the eight downstate counties (including metropolitan New York) most vulnerable to hurricanes and other major storms that could proliferate in a warming climate." Wow. Are those effects of global warming real enough for you?).
As Ankush notes, the piece is pretty Manhattan-o-centric (though the other boroughs will get it pretty bad, as per the map accompanying the piece). That's in keeping with the RE coverage generally (Look at these other boroughs! People are moving there!) but this article is way bigger than that, since it folds in the very real effects of global warming — not the catastrophic effects that seem so far away to average Americans and James Inhofe, but the inevitable effects of nature, and the more immediate industry-affecting changes affecting the insurance industry, with costs being passed on directly to the consumer (it is at this point that we note the clashes between insurance companies and Katrina claimants). Watch for this to become a very big issue in the coming years.
The Real Riddle of Changing Weather: How Safe is My Home? [NYT]
Journalism hits the Times real estate section [Penguins on the Equator]
NB: The illustration above is from An Inconvenient Truth from that part where Al Gore explains how rising sea levels will submerge coastlines across the world. Manhattan sorta gets it, as it turns out.
fhh.hamburg.de
Looks like Minnesota has become the next in a recent string of rulings protecting bloggers from legal action. The St. Paul Pioneer Press reports that a Minnesota state court tossed out a libel suit against a blogger, effectively ruling that Internet publications should receive the same legal protections as newspapers and broadcast news outlets on the issue. The judge's ruling was good news for Michael Brodkorb, the conservative blogger behind the site minnesotademocratsexposed.com, who ran into trouble with a local PR executive Blois Olson after he wrote a post suggesting Olson had criticized a Democratic congressional contender because her campaign refused to hire one of Olson's associates. In his dismissal, Judge Timothy Blakely cited a definitive 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case stating that public figures (which, according to the Court's definition, includes "limited public figures" like Olson) must prove malicious intent or reckless disregard for the truth in order to win defamation claims - in effect placing a near-insurmountable obstacle in front of plaintiffs, since malice is so difficult to prove.
Lawsuits against bloggers have been all the rage lately, and show no sign of slowing down, particularly as new and different situations keep popping up involving potentially harmful (and often false) information about individuals posted on the Internet. Meanwhile, courts are employing legal justification from Supreme Court cases to the 1966 Federal Communications Decency Act for protecting Internet writers, service providers and their readers/users from judgments. All of which spells out a pretty clear path for bloggers to freely post content that may ruffle feathers. With stakes continually rising as web traffic increases and bloggers gain legitimacy alongside traditional media, for now, at least, it looks like the courts have their back.
washingtonpost
The fresh eye of a visiting anchor: Brian Williams' week in Iraq was a microcosm of the challenges the press faces in covering Iraq; trying to balance coverage of the consistent violence with the optimism of the military who is providing the protection. "So many nightly newscasts begin with Iraq," Williams says. "It is quickly emerging as the story of our times. This trip will now educate and color the way I write about this story. There is absolutely no substitute for going out and touching it and seeing it." NBC says that this trip has been planned for ages and was so not a bid to buttress slipping ratings; even so, its certainly generated a lot of coverage. [WaPo]
Time springs forward: Eighty-four year old Time magazine will introduce its first major overhaul in fifteen years this Friday. The changes will include four new sections, a smaller cover logo, shorter news items and points of departure throughout the magazine that lead to the Time.com website. [NYP]
Meanwhile, Kit Seelye has more, in one of her final dispatches as media doyenne over at Business Day. Sniff. Mourn also the unique Time syntax of the "Milestones" section: Gone. Because Stengel said so. [NYT]
A little less select: Beginning March 13 the New York Times will makes its TimesSelect features available to students and teachers for free: "This is the most important generation for us to reach out to." The NYT believes the children are our future, teach them well and let them lead the way. [MediaPost]
Can I ride your magic bus? The NYT's fascination with all things Google continued this weekend with a long feature on the company's shuttle system, ferrying its iPod-listening laptop-plunking PDA-wielding genius employees happily to the Mothership and back. This, plus the legendary cupboards filled with candy, is a factor in the decision to accept an offer. That and the fact that Google is going to own the world. [NYT]
Jack Shafer, going for $100: The only thing new in David Carr's Village Voice-drama wrap-up piece is that Jack Shafer once jumped to kick a guy in the butt because Michael Lacey said he'd pay $100. The infraction was, er, nebulous at best, but Shafer left $100 richer. That was just a little less work than Carr did on this column, for which he spoke to two people. [NYT]
MyNews? In what is being considered a threat to the community news site Digg, MySpace is planning on launching it's own news service where any one of its 100 million members will be able to post news stories. Members will then be able to comment and rate the stories. Pretty genius way to harness user-generated content, actually. [Guardian]
