Magazines on The Huffington Post

Rolling Stone Restaurant: Magazine To Open Restaurant And Nightclub In Hollywood

2009-12-04T09:42:39Z

Rolling Stone is about to take a leap into the entertainment industry, starting with a large-scale restaurant and nightclub in Hollywood.

Owners of the venerable magazine hope to leverage its status as a preeminent chronicler of the rock music world and pop culture into a new business built on food and drinks. The first Rolling Stone outpost is set to open next summer at Hollywood & Highland Center.

Anis Shivani: "Don't Be Evil": How Larry Page and Sergey Brin Really Think and Should We Worry About Google's Dominance

2009-12-03T11:26:38Z

INSIDE LARRY & SERGEY'S BRAIN
By Richard L. Brandt
Portfolio, 244 pages. $24.95

'Searching and organizing all the world's information is an unusually important task that should be carried out by a company that is trustworthy and interested in the public good."
--Larry & Sergey's statement to Wall Street in their 2004 IPO filing.

The challenge for any chronicler of a Silicon Valley company is to distinguish between hype and reality. In Google's case, because of its indisputable financial success, the task becomes harder. After all, when Google has cornered $20 billion of advertising revenue a year--revenue that has come from struggling newspapers and other traditional producers of "content," which are in danger of losing their footing altogether--the vast flows of money can hide many simmering problems. It is remarkable that after ten years of escalating market dominance, Google's one truly successful innovation remains its search engine; it has developed more than 150 other applications, but they're either not as popular as competitors' products, or have failed to generate revenue.

The first question Richard L. Brandt addresses is Google's ambition to be the world's librarian. Google has always been very clear that it wants to digitize every bit of information. This raises obvious questions about the power Google possesses over this information. Why is it that the world's governments are not organizing and digitizing this information? Obviously, it's natural to worry about a single corporation becoming the potential gateway to everything that has ever been written or said. Since Brandt did not have personal access to the Google founders, one might have expected greater skepticism toward the self-proclaimed ethical motivations of Google's founders--embodied in their ubiquitous motto, "Don't be evil." This ethos must be seen in the context of the period of Google's emergence; the great computer giant of its era, Microsoft, was being assailed from all corners--the public, competitors, and governments alike--for being the epitome of evil.

Libraries, it is to be noted, do not charge for their content. So far, neither does Google. But we are at a very early stage yet in the life of the Internet, and it remains to be seen how this evolves. That the gatekeeper should be a single private entity, which moreover imposes its own model of advertising (which may or may not work for every content provider), should provoke concern. It is the business model inside Google's algorithms--Google's own brain--that we should be concerned about, rather than the degree to which Larry Page and Sergey Brin's brains might be virtuous and ethical.

Google is the single greatest force currently putting pressure on existing business models for publishing, broadcasting, communications, and entertainment. Google, with its Android phone software, has entered the telephone business. The way Google looks at it, all forms of communication can be redefined as search--search according to Google, that is. Google is wary of competing portals--such as Facebook, or the iPhone, or anywhere else users congregate and feel most comfortable--posing a challenge to its preeminence as the Internet's homepage of choice. It has tried to keep the homepage simple, free as it is of clutter and distractions, and has not shown any inclination to be a portal, such as AOL, paradigmatically, tried to do.

But as time goes by and we get more and more used to Google as the homepage, it becomes more and more difficult for any competitor to pose a challenge. Inertia is a large part of the explanation, but so is ease of use--in that sense Google harkens back to the revolutionary Mosaic and Netscape browsers, which made the Internet accessible to all. Undoubtedly, Google's search produces better results than any competitor's, which is partly due to the self-reinforcing nature of Google searches. The more consumers use Google search (yielding cookies that refine future searches by the same user), the better it gets at what it does. In all these ways, Google gives us what we need, with the least friction possible; yet in all these ways Google also poses a potential danger of a monopoly using the wealth of the world's knowledge and information for its commercial purposes.

Certainly, reading about Google's success story is a restorative counterpoint to the legends of evil committed in the recent past by Wall Street, Detroit, and other American corporations, which created little value yet rewarded executives extravagantly. Google has fundamentally altered the world, probably far exceeding the capacity of any single government to do so. Politics is now potentially more transparent and accountable than ever before. Users can find information cheaper and quicker and better than ever before. There is no aspect of our lives that hasn't shifted, sometimes crucially, in response to the revolution of information Google has been instrumental in bringing about. Yet Google aims to be all-encompassing, and that always has to bring its own hazards. As Brandt notes, Google claimed it wasn't interested in developing a browser, but it did, with Chrome. Google is posing a direct challenge to Apple's iPhone, with its Android telephone software, available through Verizon. When Google introduced Gmail, it was revealed that information compiled from emails would be used to target advertisements to users.

Brandt, like other chroniclers of Google, emphasizes Larry & Sergey's similar intellectual upbringing, their common Montessori background, and their shared experience at Stanford graduate school, all of which are generally said to be the source of the free-flowing environment at the company. Yet this is too banal to be given much explanatory credence when it comes to Google's eventual success. There is nothing particularly new in this, as far as Silicon Valley goes. The challenge for a chronicler of Google is to separate the corporate mythology--the way the Google founders talk about the 20% time engineers are allowed to devote to their own projects, or the way the company has bent over backwards to provide food and daycare, and even massages, on campus--from the corporate business philosophy.

To the extent that Larry & Sergey are math prodigies--or computer geeks, if you will--and lack the humanistic dimension, we are carried forth into the brave new world on the wave of their shortcomings. They both seem to display a cavalier disregard for the value of content, as Brandt suggests at numerous points. Why would authors write books for free? Only to enrich Google with advertising dollars? What would be the quality of free books? If the existing publishing, journalistic, and broadcasting environments entirely collapsed tomorrow, one suspects Larry & Sergey wouldn't be too unhappy. Content--some sort of content--can always be procured. Free, as Chris Anderson recently pointed out in his new book, can work for authors, musicians, and other content producers, but why should advertising be the sole support for creative work? Surely that would have an effect on the quality of journalism or writing, if that were the case. Yet Google's brain knows no other dimension than to capture advertising dollars through the greatest possible numbers of clicks.

Outside Google, the talk may all be about controlled chaos, yet hierarchies obtain--as they must--within Google. Engineers are a cut above nonengineers. The company makes no bones about it. Again, this reflects Larry & Sergey's bias that data drives everything, that there is no other calculus for decision-making. One might argue that this dilutes the quality of Google's search. It's better than anything else out there, but what is out there is pathetic, as measured by the utterly soulless efforts of Microsoft, Yahoo, and AOL, which wanted to serve as portals where users were captured and walled-off from other options, rather than as neutral arbiters of information. So Google search is an advantage over these barbaric early manifestations of what search never should have been, yet the vaunted PageRank algorithm often fails to value quality over quantity. And moreover, Google doesn't seem particularly interested in measuring the quality of, say, a New York Review of Books article on a particular subject, or of a scientific journal's, compared to the random musings of some uninformed ignoramus, should that have succeeded in getting the most views. The elevation of the engineer's data-driven, linear, antihumanist mind might have something to do with this manifestation in search results.

PageRank, Larry's great innovation, we learn from Brandt's interviews with Google's competitors, might not have been such a great innovation after all. The technology was open and available to others to exploit; the fact that they didn't do so speaks to Google's competitors' disinterest in making the Internet experience pleasurable and efficient and quick for users. Yet the public mythology of Google's discovery of its magic algorithm needs to be brought down a few further notches. CEO Eric Schmidt--who was brought on with some reluctance at first, after insistence by Google's venture capitalists--is variously seen as not being particularly effective, or as the genius who produces the first part of the "controlled chaos" equation. Actually, it doesn't take a genius to be the CEO of a corporation in as dominant a position, relative to its competitors, as Google currently is.

There's no denying that Google's corporate vision includes making things as easy for the user as possible. After all, the dominant late-nineties Internet portal was AOL, and we all remember how user-friendly that was! And we all remember the horrendous banner advertisements flashed on MSN. Google has insisted on not including advertisements on its homepage. Advertisements, when they do appear to the side of search results, are unobtrusive. Yet, again, there is a sense in which advertising--because it is so effective in the form Google uses it--has become the engine of growth, rather than being the outcome of the growth of valuable information on the Internet. It makes no difference to Google what viewers view, as long as it results in advertising dollars. AdWords, borrowed form GoTo (later renamed Overture), which places advertising on search pages, and AdSense, which places ads on other Web sites, are the two key innovations. In response, competitors like Microsoft have eyed Yahoo to try to develop a counter to Google's dominance of the advertising market, but nothing has come of it so far. The logical conclusion to what Google is doing would seem to be the eventual end of all forms of middlemen, so that advertising becomes completely automated, without the human touch. Not everyone will lament the end of the advertising executive or salesman, but there will be other consequences for content should that happen--consequences we ought to think about.

We have let Google slide on many things--its China censorship, to allow it to remain viable in that huge market (though nothing Google does seems to stall the rise of Baidu, the local search engine); its occasionally cavalier public posture toward privacy; and its indifference toward copyright laws--because we feel good about Google. That is both the most tremendous asset (unmatched by, say, Microsoft) and also perhaps the weakest foundation on which to build the world's greatest library. On the other hand, Brandt is right to wish that Google might become an ISP. Our experience of accessing the Internet would probably become much better. We shall see if Larry & Sergey's collective brain can keep up with the spontaneous evolution of the Internet, as embodied in the worldwide community of users. That is the greatest logic of all, and it may supersede the planning and visionary capacities of any Internet corporation--even one as sanctified and mythologized as Google.

Tiger Woods, Obama On Golf Digest Cover Together (PHOTO)

2009-12-01T12:33:42Z

Tiger Woods and President Obama share the cover of the January issue of Golf Digest with a cover story titled, "10 Tips Obama Can Take From Tiger."

The cover comes amidst the biggest scandal of Woods' career, and as Obama is set to address the nation on his decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

The two have enjoyed a close relationship, with Woods calling Obama's election "incredible," participating in his pre-inauguration ceremonies, and visiting the White House.

See the cover:

Charlie Rose Gets BusinessWeek Column

2009-11-30T16:36:41Z

Charlie Rose has been named a columnist in the new BusinessWeek magazine.

Rose, who broadcasts his show from Bloomberg's New York studios, will join the magazine when Bloomberg LP takes ownership of the property from McGraw-Hill.

"His BusinessWeek column will showcase smart conversations with the best thinkers, CEOs, politicians and other newsmakers," Bloomberg LP said in an announcement. "Each week, Rose will offer insights into and takeaways from those who impact and drive the global business and financial markets."

"I am excited, inspired and honored to join BusinessWeek as it becomes part of the Bloomberg family," Rose said in the announcement. "It offers me an opportunity to work with Norm and the new team at BusinessWeek as we engage the ideas and people that impact our life and work. This relationship makes new possibilities for me in the global conversation."

"Charlie Rose is a legendary journalist who has interviewed virtually every important player in the world of business and finance," said Norm Pearlstine, Bloomberg's Chief Content Officer, who will serve as BusinessWeek's chairman. "No one is more adept at engaging influential leaders in thoughtful and meaningful conversation and we are delighted to bring his talent to BusinessWeek."

Earlier this month, it was announced that Maria Bartiromo and Jack & Suzy Welch would end their columns when Bloomberg took over the magazine.

Linda Milazzo: Teflon Dick: How Cheney Uses Media For Protection

2009-11-30T04:52:15Z

On January 29, 2001, just nine days after taking office, Dick Cheney created The National Energy Policy Development Group, commonly known as the Cheney Energy Task Force. The task force was charged with the critically important task of designing America's national energy policy. Although the group's efforts would directly impact the entire nation, the new Vice President refused to divulge the names of its members or their specific activities, claiming the Executive Branch's right to confidentiality.

To challenge Cheney's claims of privacy and acquire the names and activities of the task force members, the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits, but the courts denied their initial requests and subsequent appeals. On July 18, 2007, the Washington Post revealed the names of members of the task force, which included executives of major conglomerates Enron, Exxon, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, the National Mining Association, and more.

Cheney's refusal to divulge the identities of the members of his task force was the earliest indication of the absolute power America's 46th Vice President presumed. His refusal demonstrated the covert nature of his Vice Presidency and his belief that transparency was not a requirement of the Executive Branch. The policies and practices predicated upon Cheney's presumption of confidentiality remained constant for the full eight years of his Vice Presidency. They ushered in the era of the Bush/Cheney Imperial Presidency that exercised sweeping authority, bypassed established law, and caused widespread concern amongst scholars and average citizens for the future of our democracy.

On August 27, 2004, future Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman wrote the following criticism of Mr. Cheney's pursuit of privacy and power:

"Mr. Cheney's determination to keep his secrets probably reflects more than an effort to avoid bad publicity. It's also a matter of principle, based on the administration's deep belief that it has the right to act as it pleases, and that the public has no right to know what it's doing.

As Linda Greenhouse recently pointed out in The New York Times, the legal arguments the administration is making for the secrecy of the energy task force are "strikingly similar" to those it makes for its right to detain, without trial, anyone it deems an enemy combatant. In both cases, as Ms. Greenhouse puts it, the administration has put forward "a vision of presidential power . . . as far-reaching as any the court has seen."

From January of 2001 right through today, Dick Cheney has committed unconstrained, and as yet unprosecuted offenses, that include circumventing the Constitution, sanctioning unlawful torture, contributing to the outing of a CIA agent, concealing information from Congress, and lying the nation into war. The tragedy of Cheney's unrestrained lawlessness is further compounded by his unprecedented authority to preside over economic and foreign policies so calamitous that they drove this nation financially, militarily and morally into the ground. Despite his constant international and domestic catastrophes, for his first six years in office Cheney's crimes were supported by an ideological Republican legislative majority and a weak Democratic minority, both of whom succumbed to Bush and Cheney's Unitary Executive.

After the 2006 election, when Democrats took control of both Houses, Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to abide by her Constitutional duty to investigate Bush and Cheney's crimes. Irrespective of public clamor for backbone and accountability, the Democratic majority rolled over for Bush and Cheney. They financed their plunder and allowed America to decay from within. Structural chasms in bridges, roadways, pipelines, and schools were matched by ideological chasms over religion, economics, politics and war. As Americans battled each other, Bush and Cheney bombed and tortured on, comforted by knowing there would be no repercussion. For a full eight years, they wreaked havoc on America and the world, and today, post administration, both men remain free.

Bush and Cheney understand that they're vulnerable to prosecution. Bush, for the most part, has stayed out of the limelight, though he's recently become more visible, perhaps inspired by Cheney's success at using THE BIG TOOL - the media - for protection. Since the beginning of the Obama presidency, Cheney has used the media full on. He's commandeered its major outlets, newspapers, cable and network TV, and the most caustic outlet of all, talk radio, to attack the very sources he knows could bring him down - the President and Attorney General. Cheney's best defense is his mass media offense and he knows exactly how to use it.

Dick Cheney has used the complicit American media, his most powerful anti-prosecution tool, to near Machiavellian perfection. He understands implicitly that American media employs no ethical standards that would prevent it from promoting him despite the atrocities he has caused. Regardless of his catastrophic failures, the shameless complicit media freely provides Cheney the platform to attack the President and Attorney General and advance his standing as their fiercest political critic. Because of this granted visibility to pummel Obama and Holder, Cheney is more able to establish himself as a victim of partisanship should Obama and Holder try to charge him for his crimes. Through widely broadcast speeches, like the one below of Cheney bashing Obama on Afghanistan, the complicit media is helping to immunize Cheney - and it's doing so knowingly.

It's baiting for ratings and justice be damned!

Cheney's transparent media offensive places him squarely, frequently and loudly in the public eye attacking Obama and Holder, and setting the stage for an adversarial relationship from which he can claim that he's their target. He's banking on the theory of American exceptionalism to keep his contrived "adversaries" from taking him down. American exceptionalism implies that America as a nation is superior to the rest of the world. In lesser nations, political rivals are targeted and imprisoned. Exceptionalism presumes that superior America, with its highly evolved democracy, would never do the same. Exceptionalism presumes that political targeting only happens in undeveloped and undemocratic nations led by unsavory leaders; Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Museveni of Uganda, Nkrumah of Ghana, Putin of Russia, have all imprisoned their opponents. Cheney's calculus has determined that American exceptionalism would prevent America's leaders from publicly engaging in tactics they condemn - like imprisoning political opponents.

Last week, Cheney's Machiavellian strategy reached a whole new level when his daughter Liz raised his status from political adversary to political opponent by floating the prospect of candidate Cheney in 2012. Brilliant! Behold Dick's calculating progeny doing his bidding on Fox TV:

What better protection from legal worries than planting the notion of a presidential run, elevating Cheney from harsh critic to political rival. It's the epitome of legal immunity in exceptionalist USA. Of course, there's little probability that Cheney would actually run. His approval ratings are dismal and he battles for breath whenever he speaks. But this is media manipulation - not political reality. Truth rarely imposes itself on TV.

Then there's the blogosphere, and the Keep America Safe website, created by scions Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol to propagandize for Cheney. The Cheney cabal is in full media combat when it comes to protecting Dick Cheney.

Notice the front page attack on Attorney General Holder - though Cheney's attacked Holder for a while.

On August 30th on Fox News, Cheney characterized AG Holder's decision to conduct a review of CIA interrogations as 'politically motivated,' laying the groundwork for Cheney's future claim of partisan targeting should the AG investigate him. Recognizing that Cheney and his "BFF" Donald Rumsfeld are thought to have instigated and sanctioned the interrogations, there is strong indication that CIA investigations would lead the AG directly to Dick Cheney. Here's Cheney's politicization of Holder's decision, broadcast on Fox TV:

Could the Cheney media strategy be any more obvious than it is in this video?

The saddest and perhaps most despicable irony in this symbiotic relationship between Cheney and the all encompassing media is the manner in which the media permits itself to be the tool to thwart justice. I recognize that in this article I've reproduced the messages Dick Cheney wants to send. But I've done so in the context of revealing Cheney's manipulations. It's my sincere hope that all media stop providing Cheney the wherewithal to immunize himself from prosecution. But sadly that won't happen. American media thrives on the point-counterpoint model, and Cheney has fashioned his offense perfectly to fit it.

'Decade From Hell': Time Mag Trashes The '00s

2009-11-25T15:28:22Z

As the first decade of the 21st Century draws to a close, Time has taken a look back and concluded that it is the "worst decade ever":

Bookended by 9/11 at the start and a financial wipeout at the end, the first 10 years of this century will very likely go down as the most dispiriting and disillusioning decade Americans have lived through in the post-World War II era.

We're still weeks away from the end of '09, but it's not too early to pass judgment. Call it the Decade from Hell, or the Reckoning, or the Decade of Broken Dreams, or the Lost Decade. Call it whatever you want -- just give thanks that it is nearly over.

The magazine also posted this video to their cover story online. It shows the baby on the cover of crying as confetti floats to the ground.

WATCH:

Joanna Dolgoff, M.D.: The Latest Trend In Modeling: Airbrushing Babies

2009-11-20T16:55:58Z

Society's craze with thinness has found a new target: our babies. It is no longer just women and teens who have to be thin to be considered attractive; our babies must as well.

According to a new BBC documentary, My Supermodel Baby, many magazines airbrush their baby models to "put them across in the best light". The airbrushing ranges from removing spittle to erasing creases of fat. Erasing fat creases from babies? Isn't that what makes them adorable? Isn't that how babies are supposed to look? Is nothing sacred anymore?

Daniella Delaney, the editor of the magazine Practical Parenting and Pregnancy said, "Babies are not like adults. You can't stop them from dribbling, so you might remove that bit of dribble from the chin. Or if the baby has just been crying, and their eyes are red, we might lighten the eyes. Or if they have just woken up because they have had a nap on the way in and we photograph them, we might remove a little bit of sleep." She said she was not aware of a policy regarding erasing fat creases but the casting director for her magazine's photo shoot, which was covered in the BBC documentary, admitted that many changes were made to the baby model. "We lightened his eyes and his general skin tone, smoothed out any blotches and the creases on his arms," he said. "But we want it to look natural."

Yes, a naturally perfect-looking baby. I don't think so!

Jo Swinson, the Liberal Democrat MP for East Dunbartonshire, who has campaigned against the use of airbrushing in magazines, said: "People will be appalled that a magazine would not think images of beautiful healthy babies are alright as they are and instead have to conform to some standard. The idea that babies must look more perfect - that they can't have creases in their skin - shows the obsession with a particular ideal. Where does this end?"

I couldn't agree more! What kind of message are we sending to our children? We are telling them that anything less than "perfection" is not okay. I am not worried that the baby models are lying in their cribs worrying that they didn't look good enough in the photo shoot. But what will this baby's parents say to her when she grows up and looks back on those pictures. "Look at this picture of you. Isn't it adorable? Of course, you didn't really look like that back then. We had to airbrush your thighs because they were just huge!"

And even if the conversation doesn't actually go like that, this baby model will grow up to wonder why her other baby pictures look different from the ones that everybody fawns over. Eventually, she will realize that even as a baby, she wasn't good enough as she was.
When I received my four year-old daughter's school picture last year, I must admit that I was slightly disappointed that she was making a goofy face. She was looking at the camera but her eyes were kind of droopy. But not for a moment did I consider airbrushing her "imperfection" away. I want to look at pictures of my daughter, not some idealized version. And truthfully, I find her ideal regardless of how she looks.

In the fourth grade, I had a huge space between my front teeth and braces. I was pretty awkward looking- and I knew it. I can't imagine how wounded I would have felt if my parents had airbrushed that space, or even my braces. Now, I laugh when I look at that picture. And I am glad to have it to show my daughter that everybody goes through awkward phases- and that is okay! Plus, that picture got a pretty big laugh when it flashed across the screen at my wedding rehearsal dinner.

Airbrushing our children's imperfections sends the message that our kids are not good enough as they are. We are demonstrating that there is an ideal way to look and that we should all strive to look that way. And who wants to teach that to their children? I, for sure, do not. I will take my daughter's goofy-faced picture and hang it on my wall with pride. Nothing could make her any more perfect in my eyes.

Conde Nast To Publish Digital Version Of Wired For Apple Tablet

2009-11-18T17:50:57Z

Here's yet another content creator convinced that Apple has a tablet device in the works: Condé Nast says it will have a digital version of Wired magazine ready for the rumored gadget by the middle of next year and will eventually create similar versions for all of its 18 titles.

Karin Tanabe: Magazines, Magazines, Oh Where Have You Gone?

2009-11-18T10:21:11Z

First Playgirl, published since 1973 (c'mon ladies, support a good cause!), got the ax. Then CosmoGirl, Men's Vogue, Domino, Hallmark Magazine, Portfolio, Vibe, Southern Accents, Cookie, Gourmet, and, most recently, Metropolitan Home. No naked men, no southern chintz, and no minimalist interiors so white and clean that you never dare drink red wine again? What happened to my tomes of aspirational living? These 100+ glossy pages that appeared magically in my mailbox bearing gifts of oiled-up men wearing nothing but a smile, must-know stock tips, and recipes for "so simple even a child could make it!" pumpkin pie, have been ripped from my hands by a lack of readership and advertising dollars.

It's a tough time to be working in the magazine industry. As managing editor of a luxury lifestyle rag, I've felt the burn too. Everyone loves the internet! Including me, of course. I don't need Playgirl to satiate my desires -- there is enough porn online to fulfill the needs of a battalion of perverts. There are also enough decorating blogs to inspire you to redo your interiors every minute, and finance tips for the mathematically-challenged galore. But sometimes don't you want to dog-ear a page or have a seasoned editor weed through oodles of information for you?

At the rate we're going in the magazine industry, I wonder if the glossies will follow the way of newspapers -- killing off the fluff like travel and book reviews, sharing content across titles, and small magazines going under while the mighty stay afloat. For those of us who love to throw an industry-specific magazine about golfing through Greenland in our suitcase, it's been a tough year.

Yes, the web is an exciting platform for magazines, as are iPhones, Kindles, and all the other whirling electronic devices we tape to our hands. But Vogue on a Blackberry is not Vogue the magazine. Advertising dollars and subscription and newsstand profits don't fuel an online publication. Lumped together, major magazines take in a total of around $20 billion a year, but a very small slice of those profits come from the web. Publishers need the magazine to be lucrative to keep the website afloat.

The New Yorker, Bazaar, Lucky, Elle Décor and a slew of other magazines still make it into my hands week after week and month after month. But I'm worried that even the popular kids are getting depressed, looking rather anorexic and desperately in need of a holiday binge.

Will 2010 bring even less titles and shrinking piles of pages for me to flip through? Oh, probably. So I'll just take a moment to pay my respects to the ones we lost this year.

IN MEMORIAM

Metropolitan Home/Hachette Filipacchi
1981 - December 2009

Gourmet/Conde Nast
1941 - November 2009

Cookie/Conde Nast
2005 - November 2009

Southern Accents/Time Inc.
1977 - September/October 2009

Vibe/Wicks Group
1992 - June 2009

Best Life/Rodale
2004 - May 2009

Portfolio/Conde Nast Publications
May, 2007 - April 2009

Blender/Alpha Media
2001 - April 2009

Travel & Leisure Golf/American Express Publishing
March 1998 - March/April 2009

Domino/Conde Nast
April 2005 - March 2009

Wondertime/Walt Disney Publishing
2006 - March 2009

Country Home/Meredith Corp.
1986 - March 2009

Hallmark Magazine/Hallmark Cards
September/October 2006 - February/March 2009

PC Magazine/ Ziff Davis
1982 - January 2009

Electronic Gaming Monthly/Ziff Davis Media
1989 - January 2009

Men's Vogue / Conde Nast
2005 - December 2008/January 2009

02138/ Manhattan Media
2006 - December 2008/January 2009

Plenty
2004 - December/January 2009

Teen/Hearst Magazines
1954 - Winter 2008/9

GQ Men Of The Year 2009 Covers: Obama, Tom Brady, Clint Eastwood Among Honorees (PHOTOS)

2009-11-17T10:05:03Z

GQ has unveiled its annual "Men of the Year" covers, and for the second straight year Barack Obama has made the list.

Obama was named Leader of the Year.

GQ also honors Tom Brady (Comeback of the Year), Clint Eastwood (Badass of the Year), the "Hangover" stars Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis, and Bradley Cooper (Funnymen of the Year), and Chris Pine (Breakout of the Year).

The covers will be available at newsstands nationwide on November 24.

See the covers (PHOTO CREDIT: Martin Schoeller/GQ) and vote for who you think deserves the honor most below:

In 2008, Ted Kennedy's tribute to Obama led GQ's Men of the Year coverage.

Sarah Palin: Newsweek Cover Showing My Legs "Sexist" (PHOTOS)

2009-11-17T08:47:27Z

Sarah Palin took to Facebook Monday night to declare the Newsweek cover depicting her in runner's shorts as "sexist."

In a Facebook note to her almost 1 million fans, Palin said that Newsweek's choice of photo — which she shot for Runner's World magazine — was "unfortunate." Her full comments:

The choice of photo for the cover of this week's Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this "news" magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant. The Runner's World magazine one-page profile for which this photo was taken was all about health and fitness - a subject to which I am devoted and which is critically important to this nation. The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention - even if out of context.

UPDATE: Newsweek editor Jon Meacham has defended his magazine's choice of cover image. Read more here.

The full cover appears below:

What do you think?

Jack Welch, Maria Bartiromo End BusinessWeek Columns

2009-11-13T17:43:35Z

Two of BusinessWeek's more popular — and well-known — columnists are ending their columns now that Bloomberg LP has bought the magazine from McGraw-Hill.

Jack Welch, who has written a column for the magazine with his wife Suzy for four years, and Maria Bartiromo will no longer be writing for BusinessWeek when Bloomberg takes over.

"We did it for four years and it was tougher than we ever thought," Welch told the New York Post. "Every Sunday it was like a guillotine hanging over our heads."

Business Insider noted earlier in the day Friday that Bartiromo's FaceTime column would be coming to an end.

Conde Nast Ad Pages PLUMMET 31.6% In 2009

2009-11-11T16:28:00Z

Conde Nast's ad-page numbers are in, and they explain why the company has had such a rough 2009.

The company lost 8,359 ad pages at its monthly magazines, according to estimates it released Wednesday. That is a 31.6 percent drop from last year.

Charlotte Safavi: Met Home Gets the Hatchet

2009-11-11T16:03:05Z

It feels like déjà vu. Metropolitan Home is the latest decorating magazine to go under the guillotine.

Only yesterday Hachette Filipacchi Media U.S. announced the closure of the magazine fondly known as Met Home to the urban, sophisticated home decor cognoscenti.

December 2009 will be the last issue of a surprisingly stable publication that has been under the leadership of Editor-in-Chief Donna Warner for 17 years.

Metropolitan Home was not the first shelter magazine closure for the parent company. Hachette Filipacchi Media U.S. shuttered Home magazine in 2008, and is in the throes of an open house for increasing ad revenues and maintaining stable readership for its' remaining luxury title Elle Décor.

Mediafinder.com, an online database of North American periodicals, has reported the loss of more than 300 magazine titles this year. In 2007 and 2008, around 1,200 publications folded.

Time Inc.'s Southern Accents, Cottage Style and InStyle Home; Hearst Corporation's O at Home; Conde Nast's House & Garden and Domino; Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc.'s Blueprint; and Meredith Corporation's Country Home are some of the better-known decorating magazines that have bit the bullet.

If style-icons Martha Stewart and Oprah Winfrey cannot make it in the home decorating marketplace, there is little chance for style-specific chic magazines like Metropolitan Home.

Problem is people buy décor-based magazines -- as opposed to lifestyle magazines that cover home design, like Real Simple -- when they really want to decorate.

Then they buy individual copies at a premium and/or subscribe to monthly issues for a bargain in exchange for decorating ideas. Unlike with other print media hurt by the Web, people who decorate their homes love to flip through the pages of magazines, and clip 'favorite room' photos and paste them in 'design scrapbooks' to serve as personal inspiration or to show their interior designers. They relish scouring the magazine stands.

Internet sites with imagery also provide creative input, but because color and print quality varies, it is more useful, not to mention more easily portable, to have an actual magazine when shopping for interiors.

The bottom line is people are not seriously decorating much right now. The precursors to decorating -- remodeling existing spaces, moving to bigger homes and having disposable incomes -- are at a low. Recession hurts. The housing market does not help.

Take me. I love home design magazines, I write and style for them, and I like to think I have decent taste. But I am not in the decorating mode.

These days my mindset is to freshen up an old sofa with inexpensive store-bought slipcovers or throw pillows, not to purchase a new pricey custom-made sofa. I shop for accessories with economy in mind -- table lamps at Target or flower vases at Crate & Barrel. Lest I get too generic, I have also taken to regularly hitting flea markets and estate sales; I picked up a beautiful, slightly damaged 1930's iron statue for $45 this past weekend.

Truth is I am truly sorry to see Met Home go, but for now, until the economy recovers, that is just the way it is.

Cathy Whitlock: Support the Magazines

2009-11-10T16:26:15Z

It's a scene that is becoming all too familiar as yet another magazine closes and more space opens up on the newsstands. The formula is simple -- a bad economy means consumers aren't spending therefore no advertising which equates into fewer and fewer editorial pages and less money -- you get the picture.

Today's casualty is the twenty-six-year-old veteran publication Metropolitan Home, a unique magazine that boasted a more contemporary and architecturally interested consumer as its base.

We have watched numerous glossies go down in the shelter category (think home and garden) such as House and Garden, Domino, Home, Oprah's O at Home, Blueprint, Southern Accents, Country Home and Cottage Living. And in a related category, Gourmet's demise left many a bereft foodie behind.

It's gotten so bad that there is even a website dedicated to the situation -- "Magazine Death Pool -- Who Will be Next?" (www.magazinedeathpool.com) who wryly notes, "If you've got 'home' or 'garden' in your title, you've got one foot already on the banana peel."

It's hard for me to imagine we are reaching a time where everything will be read on the Internet. The beauty of the magazines -- particularly when the theme is food, fashion, art, lifestyle or design -- is being able to read (and more importantly save) articles at my leisure while lounging on the sofa, beach, airplane or in the bathtub -- somehow curling up with the laptop and facing electrocution amidst the bubbles doesn't have the same luxurious experience.

So who is left standing? Architectural Digest, Traditional Home, Elle Decor, Veranda, Dwell, Metropolis and House Beautiful just to name a precious few. And while I have "a dog in the hunt" as they say in the South, (I am a contributing writer for Traditional Home and have written for many of the shelter rags), I hate to think of even more institutions going down the drain.

Support your magazines. For the price of a nice lunch you can get a subscription and keep these publications going. Or the next time you are on the plane you can read the plastic safety instructions located in front of the airsick bag. It's your choice.

Scott Smith, "Sports Illustrated King," Selling Collection For $2 Million

2009-11-09T18:33:56Z

Meet Scott Smith -- the self-proclaimed "Sports Illustrated King."

Smith has over 10,000 original copies of Sports Illustrated editions and about 98 percent are signed by the cover star. And for just about $2 million this whole collection could be yours!

Metropolitan Home Magazine Folds

2009-11-09T16:03:11Z

Another home magazine has been demolished.

Metropolitan Home will cease publication with its December issue, Hachette Filipacchi Media U.S. said Monday.

Conde Nast Looks To China For Growth

2009-11-09T08:21:01Z

With the gloss off the US ad scene, mag giant Conde Nast is looking to China, hoping to drum up business in the fast-growing nation.

The push to the East is happening at a time when cuts are digging deep at Conde -- from the closure of Gourmet and parent mag Cookie to double-digit job losses at its Midtown offices.

"In emerging markets like China . . . the magazine business and magazine development continue to go very strong," Jonathan Newhouse, chairman of Conde's international arm, said in China over the weekend.

Maria Rodale: How to Get Your Kids to Read

2009-11-06T10:09:43Z

It occurs to me that I might have found the secret formula for getting kids to read. While the media and teachers complain that kids don't read anymore, I can't get my kids to stop. Even Lucia, who is too young to read, is a voracious reader. I jokingly yell at Eve (age 12), "How many times do I have to tell you to STOP reading!" She would read while walking and eating if we would let her. And not only is Maya (age 27) a published romance novelist, but she's about to get her master's degree in literary history, and has read the works of Proust...all of them.

So what's the secret?

1. Be a reading role model. Thanks to mirror neurons in the human brain, our kids will mimic whatever we do. So if we spend a lot of time reading, they will spend a lot of time reading. It doesn't matter whether it's People magazine, romance novels, or literary fiction--the act of reading in front of our kids makes them want to read. So if you want your kids to read, read in front of them. Read newspapers, magazines, books, and cereal boxes.

2. Buy books like candy. When we go food shopping, we always end up in the book and magazine aisle (in fact, that is our "home base" if anyone gets lost). It's our "reward" for completing our chore. Everyone gets to buy a book or a magazine, and I don't judge too harshly what anyone picks. For the little one, it keeps her occupied during the checkout process. If Eve can't find a good book since she has read all of them already, I let her buy those teen celebrity magazines--after all, we are in the magazine business, and I want to encourage future magazine readers! But a fresh, new book is just as exciting as a candy bar, is much better for you, and lasts a hell of a lot longer.

3. Indulge their pleasures. My husband isn't a big reader--unless it comes to sports stuff. It's not my cup of tea, but if that's what gets him reading, then I'm all for it. Eve has read the whole Twilight series--I think about nine times. That's OK with me. Lucia likes Thomas the Tank Engine, even though she's a girl. But she also loves the Disney Princesses. The great thing about books is that there is something for everyone, and for every pleasure. Anytime people use book preferences to pass moral judgment, I get angry...the whole idea that certain books are good and others are bad--or that people should only read "literary" books--is what gives reading a bad name all together.

4. Read aloud. Lou has always read to Eve before bed--they've done Narnia and The Hobbit--and he has ultimate patience reading to Lucia, over and over. My favorite read-aloud story is from a time when Eve came down with pneumonia. One of my favorite books growing up was the Little House on the Prairie series. I was devastated that Maya never wanted to read them, and Eve was showing no desire to read them either. So, while she was captive in bed, I read Eve the first book out loud. Not only was it fun for me--I had forgotten how funny and interesting the story was--but Eve was hooked, too. By the time she went back to school, she had read the whole series. Recently, on a long car trip, I read aloud some of the diary of Alexander von Humboldt's journey to South America in the early 1800s. It was utterly remarkable how modern his voice sounded, and how fascinating his insights were. I knew no one else would ever read it on their own, but by reading it aloud to a captive audience, I got to share a little bit of my pleasure with them.

5. Make them come alive. We have been to Louisa May Alcott's house in Concord, Massachusetts, twice, and have swum in Walden Pond. Next summer we are visiting the Laura Ingalls Wilder homestead museum in Iowa. I've dragged my whole family to Lady Murasaki's 1,000-year-old home on a backstreet in Kyoto, Japan, to see the Tale of Genji world she created in the first novel ever written. Maya and I and a dear friend of mine went on a trip to England and visited some of our favorite sites from Regency romance novels. If there is a movie or documentary about a writer, or a favorite book, we watch it, and probably much to the annoyance of my family, I talk about it. (I tried to force my kids to watch the Botany of Desire documentary on PBS, but only Lucia stayed awake for the whole thing). We visit historical sites that we have read about (for Lou, that involves sports stadiums--thankfully, he has other friends he takes with him). Reading makes the world come alive in your head in a whole new way. Anytime that can be reinforced with real-life experience, it's a great thing.

6. Have reading parties in bed. Speaking of great things--I love to read in bed. I get cranky when my kids want to stay up and all I want to do is go to bed and read. So I came up with the idea of having reading parties in bed. They love it. We all get in our pajamas and brush our teeth and then meet in my big bed to read until we can't keep our eyes open anymore. Then, it's a much easier process to get them from my bed into theirs without a fuss. We don't do it every night, so it keeps it special, but we do it at least once a week, and I have never, ever, heard either of them say they didn't want to come to a reading party in my bed -- but sorry, only my girls are invited!

For more from Maria Rodale, go to www.mariasfarmcountrykitchen.com.

The Inside Source: eBay Launches Fashion Magazine

2009-11-05T08:58:33Z

When the beautiful people list their favorite shops, eBay might not be on the tip of their tongues, but eBay hopes to change that.

On Wednesday, eBay is unveiling The Inside Source, an online magazine about fashion trends, written and edited by glossy magazine writers and pitching the trendiest items for sale on eBay.

Reader's Digest Closes Rick Warren Magazine

2009-11-04T16:06:00Z

Reader's Digest has ended its partnership with Rick Warren, the New York Post's Keith Kelly reported Wednesday.

The multimedia partnership — which included a quarterly magazine, The Purpose Driven Connection — launched in February, but "will cease publication after the Christmas issue due out in mid-November, Kelly writes. The title will be turned over to Warren's company, he added.

Folio's Jason Fell reports that the title will go online-only.

The New York Times' Richard Perez-Pena reports that "The partners said the Purpose Driven Connection drew plenty of fans to its Web site - they declined to provide any numbers - but too few who were willing to pay."

Reader's Digest filed for bankruptcy over the summer.

In June, the New York Times reported that Reader's Digest was moving in "a decidedly conservative direction," a point the magazine denied.

Judy Wieder: The Not-So-Sudden Death of The Advocate

2009-11-04T14:48:07Z

A very early, very different, rough first-draft (unintended for anyone's eyes) was accidentally posted by the HuffingtonPost. This happened for a few minutes on Nov. 2. The official posting of Ms. Wieder's article has always been dated 11/04/2009.

In case you haven't read the "official stories" or the gossip, Regent Media, the latest owner of The Advocate--once the national LGBT newsmagazine of record for America (41-years-old exactly!)--is reducing the publication to a 32-page mini-mag, taking it off the newsstands, and packaging it up with its "sister" publication, Out magazine. Subscribers will get a magazine they never wanted (Out) and, of course, the still-free website.

What the hell happened? What colossal cluster of f-ups managed to devastate a magazine that was so important even ten years ago that every serious news media in the world turned to it for back up sourcing when covering gay issues? A magazine that was such a desirable icon in the community, it gave its then owners, LPI Media, the resources to buy/rescue its nearly bankrupt rival, Out. A magazine that not only reported on, analyzed, and clarified the nonstop information that sites like its own advocate.com coughed up relentlessly, but actually made news. Breaking news that appeared in the magazine became news that other media chased.

In its glory days, The Advocate, was the only gay media to score the first in-depth interviews with politicians, gay and straight: Barney Frank, Al Gore, Steve Gunderson, John Kerry, Gerry Studds, Barry Goldwater, Rudolph Guilianni, Hillary and Bill Clinton, David Duke, Howard Dean, Jim McGreevey, etc.; as well as once-closeted celebrities of all kinds: George Michael, k.d. Lang, Bishop Gene Robinson, Rosie O'Donnell, Billy Bean, Martina Navratilova, Chad Allen, Liz Smith, Gore Vidal, Melissa Etheridge, Richard Chamberlain, David Geffen, Jason Gould, Ellen DeGeneres, Esera Tuolo, RuPaul, Greg Louganis, etc. Robust and irresolvable subjects such as: Should We Out?, The Mind of A Gay Basher, Monogamy (for Gays), The Gay Heroes of the Terrorist Tragedy, Why Are We Gay?, Addicted To Sex, Beyond Bi, Battered Lovers, Inside The NFL Closet, Up Against The Mormon Church, Wake Up And Smell The Hate were written by seasoned journalists from a gay perspective that simply couldn't be duplicated--even when, in the late 90s, some of these subjects and celebrities became big-ticket sellers for mainstream media.

When Arizona Congressman Jim Kolbe called a press conference to say he was gay, claiming, "The Advocate is going to out me!" (not entirely true, by the way. I was the Executive Editor at the time, and the far more exciting story is the one that went on behind the scenes--a feverish brouhaha starring editors, writers, the publisher, and an advertiser. But I'm saving that one for my book), the world was riveted to The Advocate. What would the magazine tackle next?

OK, that was then. I get it. The media and world has changed. So what are we saying? Issues of the day are so uncomplicated LGBTs can digest them through short videos and skim-the-surface articles? We've advanced to the point where we now have everything straights have and are wildly welcomed round the world so let's move on? Have you been on walkabout? The rock is nowhere near the top of the mountain. Younger people may not embrace in-your-face activism as much as older generations had to--although the thousands and thousands of young faces in the streets last year protesting Proposition 8 certainly suggest a far more dynamic generation than most surveys indicate. No, I refuse to believe it's all about hook-ups, videos, sound bites, and downloading for them.

A year ago the CEO of Regent cavalierly told me that he backed the current Editor in Chief and Editorial Director of The Advocate when they made the decision to revamp the magazine into more of a community based publication (online and print), more about the readers and their interests, definitely not a newsmagazine, and with no celebrities. Help! The Advocate , once the keeper of the flame, the vessel for the entire history of the gay movement since 1967, with each new agonized-over news story becoming another link in the chain of that awesome legacy, now a community help line occasionally interrupted by ads from other Regent products?

And, please, indulge me a minute about celebrities, since I (along with former Advocate EICs Richard Rouilard , Jeff Yarbrough, Bruce Steele, and Anne Stockwell), worked my ass off to convince terrified gay and straight celebrities of all fields to venture into a scary gay publication like The Advocate. I did it because celebrities drew reader/browsers into the bigger issues you're trying to explore in the publication. Nine out of ten times, if we did it well, we'd have a much bigger audience for difficult subjects people otherwise resisted.

In the early 90s, the use of straight pro-gay celebrities (Madonna, Roseanne) gave great comfort to a readership choking on the self-hate most straight institutions were spewing at them about AIDS. In the mid-90s closeted celebrities suddenly began to come out. To everything a season: you can never underestimate the good Chastity Bono and Cher did at that time for young kids struggling with their mothers. At the turn of the century (2000), using even news celebrities such as Sharon Smith--whose lover was mauled to death in San Francisco by a neighbor's dogs--to discuss the rights we don't have as domestic partners, became a regular practice at the magazine. We were hardly alone. Who can forget Time magazine's cover with Brad Pitt from Seven Years In Tibet and the cover line, "Buddhism in America?"

Did it always work? No. Would it have been great if readers/browsers had flocked to the issues without celebrities? Sure, it was a hideous, time-consuming dance with publicist to make anything happen. But it was what had to be done so we did it. At any time we could have said, "Oh forget it, no more celebrities. Who needs to hear from Sean Penn about Milk? He's not talking to any press. Oh, really? That's what Tom Hanks' publicist told us when Philadelphia was about to come out. So we explained that it was fine for Tom to skip all the other press, but for him to go out there playing a hugely important gay character with AIDS at such a crucial time in history, without speaking to the magazine that connected directly to the audience he would be representing, well, bad idea. So Tom gave the interview. And Sean Penn? A macho bad boy with God knows what kind of past attitudes about and actions towards gays, rising out of the ashes of his loner life to literally embody every molecule of Harvey Milk--this wouldn't be an interesting journey for Advocate devotes to have followed?

Maybe, people just don't care about that stuff anymore? That must be it. Award winning think pieces? Getting interesting LGBTs to tell their stories, how they deal with shame, self-hate, stunted growth, and derailed creativity? How they finally find a way out? All the way out? Maybe everybody is already out. I'm just living in another era. We're beyond gay...again. Is that why The Advocate quit this incredibly difficult work? Am I to assume that younger LGBTs today simply had no interest in reading about the significance of openly gay Adam Lambert soaring his way through American Idol ? Or later learning from the once must-read publication what it was like for him in an exclusive interview? They'd rather pick up Details and watch him making out and posing with women? Pleeeeeease! Just shoot me! I don't believe it. Or worse, how could this publication ever let candidate Obama become President Obama without first addressing this constituency about why he thinks marriage is between a man and woman only? Where were the hard questions? Where was The Advocate?

I'll tell you where: "Straight Guys Tell"...all about what they think of gay men. That's their latest cover story. Honestly, in what universe is this a timely story? Oh, and note how seductive this subject is for gay women--a demographic Regent Media has killed off completely. Not that they' did that all alone. Women are a pain in the butt, a near-impossible sell, period. I would know. I am one. As EIC of The Advocate for 7 years, we managed to move their percentage numbers up from 3% to nearly 30% at one point, but it was a nonstop, disheartening battle. And yet, so what? The right owner (not Regent and, God help us, not PlanetOut) would be interested enough to understand that The Advocate was once the only read gay women over 30 indulged. Figure it out! After all, a cogender Advocate sold the best of all.

Instead, Regent Media, following the "wisdom" of PlanetOut's CEO, put The Advocate under the editorial direction of Out's Editor in Chief. Yes, Out's EIC has been the boss of The Advocate's EIC. (Full disclosure: for a period of months I remained EIC of The Advocate when LPI Media bought Out and I was named Editorial Director. I hired an EIC for Out and assisted the Out team in working its way clear of the mess left by its previous owner. During the whole time I trained my Executive Editor to take over the EIC job of The Advocate, which he did. In time I was no longer an EIC of one magazine while overseeing another. Additionally, before I had to leave my Editorial Director job in 2006, I enthusiastically hired the current EIC of Out. It was a good move. He's a perfect match for the magazine--clearly not The Advocate or I wouldn't be writing this article.)

In truth, from the moment we bought Out, the magazine made money. That's why it was purchased. It was to be the company's money cow. Gay men, sexy fashion, pretty pictures of sexy men in sexy fashion, cool stories; it wasn't brain surgery. Gay men aren't like gay women. They don't take the wait and see attitude: are you worthy of my money today? They're easier to please. And, yes, they love Out.

The hard sell is, was, and always would have been The Advocate. With its harsh features and photos that no advertiser wanted to be anywhere near, the magazine depended on dedicated readers that renewed their costly ($40+) subscriptions year after year. For them to do this, the content had to be astonishing. It was unimaginably difficult for a small staff to keep it up every two weeks, but somehow it happened. You canNOT do a magazine like The Advocate for advertisers. They're not thrilled about newsmagazines. They're not fun. Go count the ad pages in Time or Newsweek. If those magazine depended on ads to survive, they wouldn't. It's their large circulation, their readership combined with their website visitors that carry the brands forward. We do it for the users, the readers. They will pay for it (online or print) if you make it absolutely essential and as exclusive as possible. And I refuse to get into another deadening debate about print media vs. online. It's distracting and sends us flying wildly past the point. The point is content: Information and really great stories! If that's NOT there, no one else will be either. What's the compelling new story?

Although I would be the first to say that the times have changed since the high dramas of the early AIDS epidemic or the stormy outing debates or the meth and unsafe sex collisions, I do not believe the fundamental reason for The Advocate is fini. There are shit loads of rights we don't have. But lecturing about it is a bore. Someone once said teaching people about good and evil won't get you much of a congregation, but telling them a good story like "Noah's Ark" will.

But, Buddy, that's hard work. And if your media is gay, there's even more resistance. You need to uncover your own facts, truths others would rather you not know; you need a team of editors, art directors, photo editors, writers and photographers who are insanely devoted to the magazine and to upholding its tradition of great journalism that other teams of editors before them have fought just as hard to sustain; and then you need the vision and creativity it takes to draw in what's essential for the story (an interview, a lost clue, a new piece of research) and you need the courage to deliver it! Sometimes that courage means spending the money it takes to send someone to where the story is, or hiring the right writer or editor for the job, or firing the wrong ones, or not changing the mission statement of a legend just because you can't figure out how to make it pay.

After LPI Media was sold for $31.1 million in 2005 to PlanetOut--who threw its wrecking ball at The Advocate, devaluing its content by putting it on Gay.com, spending no money on it's website, and ruining the importance of its subs to advertisers by offering them cheap with Gay.com memberships--it took them less than two years to diminish the worth of the company to the 4.7 million Here! Media (Regent) paid for it. Only Out pulled through in decent financial shape. That credit belongs to its EIC.

The original owners, publishers, and editors of Advocate ran it because they cherished it. In recent years, I fear the owners have purchased it because they wanted to say they "had it," like a feather in their caps or a notch on their belts, they owned The Advocate. Some even bragged that their mission was to "save it," that is until they understood what that really entailed. You can't save it if you don't know what it is. Save it from what, from whom?

Most of all, it saddens me to think that when I worked for The Advocate the one thing I always had going for any story we did was the power and reputation of the magazine. Often that convinced someone to talk to us, tell us something they'd told no one else. I fear that's no longer true. For many reasons, some I've mentioned, some I won't talk about here, some I know nothing about, our friend and warrior, The Advocate, has been badly bashed.

Time Inc Layoffs Begin At Sports Illustrated

2009-11-04T07:42:36Z

Layoffs have begun at Time Inc. Approximately 15 to 20 sales and marketing employees were dismissed from Time Inc.'s news group tonight, largely from Sports Illustrated, according to a Time Inc. executive who asked not to be named as the company had not given authorization to discuss the matter.

BusinessWeek: What Might Have Happened Without Bloomberg

2009-10-30T18:29:14Z

BusinessWeek employees are waiting to hear if they'll have jobs once Bloomberg takes over the publication, and I'm told that staffers expect to hear their fate shortly after Thanksgiving. "Either you'll get an offer or you won't," is the conventional wisdom among the 400 staffers, an employee tells me.

That has to be unnerving, but I can at least offer a little bit of comfort: The worst-case scenario the employees would be facing had they been purchased by private equity firm ZelnickMedia, which was also bidding for the publication.

The short version: Almost everybody gets fired.

Forbes Magazine Plans More Layoffs

2009-10-27T08:40:45Z

Forbes magazine said on Monday that it planned to lay off several staff members from the editorial and business sides, a cost-cutting move in response to decreasing advertising revenue.

The announcement was made in an internal memorandum sent Monday afternoon by Steve Forbes, the company's chief executive and editor in chief of the magazine.