Category: Uncategorized

My first thought about the New York Post gossip-column scandal is that Gayle Fee, Laura Raposa, Carol Beggy and Mark Shanahan must be eating their hearts out — or faxing their résumés to New York. Why shouldn’t they lust after some boodle of their own?

My second is that Jared Paul Stern, the gossip columnist charged with attempting to shake down billionare Ronald Burkle for $220,000, must feel like someone who’s been thrown into the volcano in a desperate attempt to appease the gods. It’s not that what Stern is accused of isn’t reprehensible — it is. It’s just that he doesn’t look a whole lot worse, qualitatively or quantitatively, than his fellow Page Six gossips. Especially his editor.

The Post’s archrival, the New York Daily News, broke the story last week (technically, the Post itself broke it on its own Web site), reporting that Stern and Burkle had met over Burkle’s complaints that Page Six was writing unflattering fiction about him. According to the Daily News, Stern responded that a $100,000 down payment and $10,000 in 12 monthly installments could ensure him all the good coverage he wanted.

But the thing is, no one is coming out of this looking good. On Sunday, for instance, the Daily News reported that Page Six editor Richard Johnson and his staff are regularly lavished with high-value gifts. The story continues:

Johnson was feted at a bachelor party last month that cost in excess of $50,000 hosted by soft-core porn king Joe Francis at his palatial estate in Punta Mita, on Mexico’s glorious Pacific coast. More than 2,000 miles from New York, the resort area boasts 343 days of 80-degree sunshine.

Francis, 32, producer of the topless “Girls Gone Wild” spring-break video series, flew the party from New York on his private jet. Francis appears regularly in the column, almost always in a positive way.

Johnson also got a free trip to the Academy Awards last month, paid for by ABC and Mercedes-Benz. The trip included first-class airfare, a three-night stay at the Four Seasons Hotel and a car and driver.

Johnson may not have taken money, but it sounds like virtually nothing else is out of bounds.

You might expect that the New York Times would react to all this with bemused attachment. Well, bemused, yes; detached, not at all. The Times has been riding this story since the moment it broke, and its editors appear to be enjoying themselves at least as much as Daily News editor Martin Dunn, who, by the way, was the Boston Herald’s editor for about 15 minutes during the early 1990s.

In this Times account of Stern’s being caught on tape, Stern told Burkle that a business executive (reported elsewhere as Ronald Perelman) bought himself good coverage by hiring Johnson’s fiancée (now wife) — and that media mogul Harvey Weinstein had helped himself by publishing books written by Page Six gossips and had put Johnson to work on a screenplay.

OK, Stern’s not the greatest source. But the bit about Burke’s fiancée is true. And it ought to be easy enough to verify the Weinstein stuff — as I hope the Times did before publishing it. Otherwise, the Times would be no better than a blog.

Seen in this light, Stern’s claim that he was not soliciting cash but, rather, an investment by Burkle in his clothing line strikes me not as sleazy behavior that makes him different from Johnson but, rather, sleazy behavior that makes him very much like Johnson.

If Stern is telling the truth, then I see no particular reason why he ought to be singled out. I say the gods at the bottom of the volcano ought to demand the whole lot of them.

Journalists and math: Not a good mix. An earlier error has now been fixed. Thank you, Mike.

Please pardon the lack of recent entries — there have been too many other things on my plate. As Mark Twain would have said, it’s better not to blog and be thought stupid than to blog and remove all doubt.

So nothing too heavy this morning, except to note that Apple announced yesterday that its new, Intel-based Macs will semi-support Windows, letting users boot up either OS X or WinXP.

Such a machine would obviously solve the multimedia problem I was whining about a couple of weeks ago. But I wonder. Even though Apple claims it’s not going to give Microsoft its unconditional love, doesn’t the mere existence of a Windows option reduce the incentive for software companies to write Mac versions of their products?

“You don’t need a Mac version — just run Windows” is not the sort of advice I want to hear.

So much so that he’s canceling his New York Times subscription and going all-digital.

Does anyone know of a reasonably well-done one-hour (or less) documentary dedicated to the proposition that the media are hopelessly suffused with liberal bias? I’d like to show it to my History of Journalism students before the semester ends. Thank you in advance.

I wouldn’t bother to quote this stuff, except that Aaron Margolis has a really good-looking blog design and even manages to attract comments. So I guess he’s fair game. Anyway, I briefly alluded to his attack on Jill Carroll yesterday, and now feel compelled to follow up. To wit:

The real story that is being avoided is that Jill Carroll read a script at the terrorists’ gun point that could just as easily been written by Sen. Harry Reid, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Ted Kennedy, DNC Chairman Howard Dean, George Soros, Sen. Russ Feingold, or Michael Moore. You may also to that list: Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, Saddam Hussein, and all the cowardly masked terrorists you see in videos released by al Jazeera. The real story here is that the terrorists used Jill Carroll to spread their propaganda, the same propaganda that is commonly professed by the anti-war left wing of the United States, including prominent Democratic members of Congress.

Yes, that’s right. The “real story.” Absolutely amazing.

The New York Times today unveils a complete redesign of its Web site. It looks great. The best part is that it has a new feature called “Today’s Paper,” which gives you the digital equivalent of what you might otherwise have delivered to your doorstep in the morning.

Before, the Times site only gave you the front page. When you’d go to the other sections, it was hard to tell whether you were looking at something from that day’s paper, an article that wouldn’t appear until the next day or just a wire-service update that would never find its way into print. For someone old-fashioned enough to want to read that day’s paper, even if I didn’t get to it until evening, I like the new arrangement much better.

Two suggestions:

• It looks as though there are no story descriptions for “Today’s Paper” except for material appearing on the front page. Bring them back.
• Offer a week’s worth of “Today’s Paper.” That’s what the Wall Street Journal does for paying subscribers. It would be a great feature to offer TimesSelect customers who, say, missed the previous day’s edition and want to page through it quickly.

Overall, though, this looks like a big step forward for a newspaper Web site that was already among the best.

Update: I missed it at first, but there is indeed a feature called “The Times in Print from the Past 7 Days.” Thanks to Geoff for pointing it out.

This looks like the best news from Bruce Springsteen in years. I’m not a Pete Seeger fan, but I like bluegrass, and I’ve always loved Springsteen’s treatment of old-time material such as the classic Woody Guthrie songs he performed on “Folkways: A Vision Shared.”

So “We Shall Overcome” strikes me as a good bet to be his best album in ages — including the tolerable-but-overrated “Devils & Dust” and his hideous 9/11 album, “The Rising.” It’s about time.

A blogger named Aaron Margolis, who actually wrote that Jill Carroll “set herself up to be a new hero for the liberal left with her criticism of the Bush Administration” in one of her death-threat-coerced interviews, hasn’t apologized either. But, after all, he was just asking questions. Right?

Charles Johnson is “happy to report” that Jill Carroll isn’t actually ready to run off and join the Sunni insurgency. And he links approvingly to a blog that blames Carroll’s ordeal on the media (the “MSM,” natch) for its exploitation of freelancers.

Chuck: You viciously smeared a woman who’d been terrorized for 82 days because you thought she kinda sorta looked like she meant it when she criticized the U.S. mission in Iraq and said nice things about her captors.

I’m glad you’re happy. Now how about an apology?

The Christian Science Monitor now reports:

The night before journalist Jill Carroll’s release, her captors said they had one final demand as the price of her freedom: She would have to make a video praising her captors and attacking the United States, according to Jim Carroll.

In a long phone conversation with his daughter on Friday, Mr. Carroll says that Jill was “under her captor’s control.”

Ms. Carroll had been their captive for three months and even the smallest details of her life — what she ate and when, what she wore, when she could speak — were at her captors’ whim. They had murdered her friend and colleague Allan Enwiya, “she had been taught to fear them,” he says. And before making one last video the day before her release, she was told that they had already killed another American hostage.

So what does Charles Johnson say from the risk-free comfort of Little Green Football Land? Check it out: “Note that all of these statements seem to come from the family, not from Carroll herself.” Good grief.

This AP snippet doesn’t quite jibe with the Monitor’s report, but it’s worth pondering as well:

Dr. David Wellish, a psychologist at the UCLA School of Medicine, said he had the impression Carroll was suffering from a psychological trauma known as “Stockholm syndrome,” a survival mechanism in which a hostage begins to empathize with his or her captors.

“Jill Carroll clearly went down the Stockholm syndrome spectrum part of the way,” he said, adding he thought it would take her “a few weeks to get over it and regain perspective.”

Look, folks. Jill Carroll was a hostage for 82 days. She knew her life was in danger every minute she was held captive. Let’s give her a couple of weeks to decompress and see what she’s got to say. All right, Chuck?