The magazine industry is far more insulated from the economic pressures of blogs and news aggregators than newspapers are. But! High-end papers like the NYT and the WSJ, watching the internet eat away at their business model, are desperate to make up some of their revenue loss. So they start fancy weekend magazines—T and WSJ., respectively—to cater to luxury advertisers and bring in money to subsidize their real news operations, which are increasingly unprofitable.

Both T and WSJ. have thus far done a good job of drawing in upscale advertisers. But guess who that hurts? Every other magazine that would like to draw in upscale advertisers. Which means all your favorites! So while newspapers are sprawling enough to extend their brands in a different direction, standalone magazines are not always so privileged. (Unless they have no fear of ridicule, like Us).

In this way the internet screws newspapers, and newspapers screw magazines. And magazines screw... ?

TONY is light on content and heavy on listings. That's probably not going to change significantly. So consider what they're up against:

• Craigslist: The entire classified ad business has largely been destroyed by Craigslist. Especially in New York, where Craigslist is widely read. Because Craigslist is, you know, free.
• Yelp.com: A site with remarkably extensive listings and reviews of restaurant, bars, nightlife, bars, and shopping. And the reviews are customer-generated, rather than one magazine's opinion. Also free. (See also: Citysearch, Menupages, etc.)
• Blogs: Crazy micro-specialization means that there are probably a dozen good blogs covering any area of interest you might have in New York. Again, free.
• Other competitors: The Village Voice, NY Press, and L Magazine all do extensive reviews and event listings. All free. New York magazine could be considered a higher-end competitor, but its content is a million times better.

Suffice it to say that TONY can't depend on increasing sales of its print version to stay afloat. That leaves its website. Which they certainly understand—the mag tried to invest and make its website the leader in its category last year. Unfortunately that didn't pan out. And it's hard to see how they could surpass all the aforementioned online competitors now, even with a big infusion of money.

So if TONY's business model doesn't deliver them a solid profit right where they are today, the outlook is grim.

[Anybody out there with more info on TONY's financial situation (good or bad), email us please.]

"In the study, Obermeyer's group compared data on war deaths from eyewitnesses and the media from 13 countries over the past 50 years with peacetime data in the United Nations World Health Surveys, which was collected after the end of the wars. This method avoids problems collecting data during active combat, and also reduces counting deaths twice or exaggerating the number, Obermeyer said.

"The researchers estimate that 5.4 million people died from 1955 to 2002 as a result of wars in 13 countries. These deaths range from 7,000 in the Democratic Republic of Congo to 3.8 million in Vietnam.

"According to Obermeyer, the estimates are three times higher than those of previous reports. Data from this new study also suggests that 378,000 people worldwide died a violent death in war each year between 1985 and 1994, compared with 137,000 estimated at the time.

"The biggest differences were seen in Bangladesh, where 269,000 people died during that country's struggle for independence, compared with previous estimates of 58,000, the report shows. In Zimbabwe, the researchers estimate that 130,000 people have died in times of conflict, compared with earlier estimates of 28,000." [ABCnews via MetaFilter]

Look at what's working in cable's favor today:

Decline of the networks.

The networks plus cable equals the whole TV pie. And it's a huge pie. Any advertiser wanting to reach the most coveted demographic of all—relatively young men and women—has to spend big on TV. The internet hasn't destroyed television as it has print media. And the networks' roster of shows these days is weak, historically speaking—which was exacerbated by the writer's strike last year. The president of TBS says:

"There is very little consistency in what they are doing, and people don't know what to expect when they turn on the broadcast networks. They are still in the business of appointment television, but there are fewer and fewer appointments. There's a great big opportunity for cable networks."

Cable programming is getting better and better.

The days when the networks were automatically presumed to have the best shows are long gone. It's not just premium cable channels like HBO that changed the equation, either. Bravo, Nat Geo, Discovery, the Sci-Fi Channel—all are dominant players in their programming fields, in terms of quality. Cable channels have fewer content restrictions, and they've virtually eliminated the barriers to snagging good talent. Think of your favorite shows. How many of them are on cable? MOST OF THEM. Why? They're investing:

Annual spending on programming by basic networks has doubled in the last five years from $9.2 billion in 2002 to $18.8 billion in 2007, and the top 20 cable networks spent an average of $566 million per network during 2007 compared with $321 million in 2002.

Cable is confident.

The dominant theme of reporting on the television upfronts this year was the surging confidence of cable channels. They're consciously positioning themselves as direct competitors to the networks. They've grown their audiences to the point that they can't be disregarded by the same advertisers who support the networks. Money is pouring in. Discovery—that home of fine executive pay—isn't just generous with its CEO; its stock price grew more than 50% last year. The Sci-Fi Channel makes profits in the range of 40%. It's driven by good programming, which is only becoming a stronger and stronger pull for audience growth; that's one lesson of the internet, where content trumps big money. In the past decade, the overall cable audience has more than doubled.

Networks must, by design, try for mass appeal. Cable channels can target their audiences much more effectively. The scary thing for networks is that even specialized cable channels no longer represent just a niche audience any more; they are almost as plugged into the mainstream as the networks themselves. Virtually all American households at least have the option of cable, and the majority are cable subscribers. The industry is sitting in a sweet spot: it's already big enough to have reached critical mass, and it still has plenty of room to grow.

If this keeps up, I may even get cable myself.

[NYT, WSJ, NCTA]

"Anyone who calls it a hoax is misguided," says the diminutive, hyper 28-year-old. "They don't understand — there are many layers to this."

Oh really? Such as?

"My mission as an artist is to raise dialogue and conversation about substantive things," he says, staring through arty glasses that did not have any lenses. "There's so much media time spent on superficial things — like celebrities. My point is to bring substance back."

[Expert job of killing his subject with quotes, by the WP's David Segal]

Any photograph used in a magazine, a billboard, an album cover, whatever - can only be presumed to be a photo-based illustration. The issue, which Dove's well-intentioned campaign addressed, is the effect these illustrations have on the psyche, self-esteem, and well-being of women (in particular) not to mention the unrealistic view men might have of women. It brings to mind the shock the eminent Victorian art critic John Ruskin experienced upon discovering his wife's pubic hair, after which he was unable to consummate the marriage. Divorce followed shortly.

The hypocrisy that Dove is now being accused of is understandable but perhaps not of a Spitzerian magnitude. However, it is compounded by the fact that the product their ads were pushing were skin firming, cellulite reducing creams. Oh the double standards! So perhaps we should agree that we are living in both the digital age and the age of hypocrisy.

[via Kottke]

What Blodget means is, who at this meeting handed the story to the Journal. He thinks it had to be one of the attendees—"CBS CEO Les Moonves, CBS News president Sean McManus, Katie's agent, Alan Berger of the Creative Artists Agency, and Katie herself"—but it really could've been anyone who heard about the meeting second- or third-hand. Regardless, the 'WSJ' story made it seem like CBS was dumping Katie to save money and "cap a difficult episode for CBS." The Times sounds a bit more like Katie just hates the job.

Of course, having Katie leave on her own volition would be embarrassing for CBS, but in the long run quite a bit less damaging than forcing her out and having her sue for a couple million, like one of their last anchors did.

Anyway she won't go host Larry King Live now because a) Larry King will never retire and b) that job is Seacrest's, dammit.

[Silicon Alley Insider]

It's awfully sweet that publisher Mort Zuckerman is committed (or deluded) enough to the future of his News to make "this significant investment in its future," as he puts it. Are the costs all that much different though? To be sure, purchasing brand-new press machines can cost a pretty penny. The German Koenig & Bauer presses that the News will use cost millions. But an industry insider we spoke to said the material costs to run the press (additional inking, etc.) aren't likely to be much different.

What is likely to change, however, are the number of people required to operate the thing. The main selling point of the Commander CT is that it requires far fewer pressmen than conventional machines. Good news for Zuckerman, not so much for the paper's press operators—we can actually hear the Pressmen's Union organizing from here.

Even if Zuckerman saves some cash with personnel, he may lose a little when it comes to ad revenue, surprisingly. Advertisers pay serious premiums for full-color ads. An extra $31,500 is tacked on to the bill for a full-color full-page ad in the New York Times. (Or you could send your kid to a damn nice college for a year, but it's not our money, sadly.) But they're willing to fork over the extra cash because ad departments remind them up and down that each edition has only a limited number of color positions available. Act now! Time is running out! You get the drift. It's harder to convince an advertiser to pay more for an ad when the others are just as colorful.

Click to enlarge!

This chart reveals the thrust of more than 100 of the most recent headlines for stories on "Jamie Lynn Spears." Even though a hearty 12 percent of headlines were generic announcements of her being impregnated, 15 percent were comments about her getting knocked up as Brit's sister.

Some highlights:

TMZ interviewed Uncle Odus:

He tells us the family was "shocked' and yet "we aren't." As a pastor, Uncle Odus says he's seen "this type of thing" more often than he'd like.

Papa Bear O'Lielly added her to the pinhead club:
On the pinhead front, 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant. The sister of Britney says she is shocked. I bet. Now most teens are pinheads in some ways. But here the blame falls primarily on the parents of the girl, who obviously have little control over her or even over Britney Spears. Look at the way she behaves.

But Mary J. Blige was there to offer support:
"Stay strong, baby girl. If that's her choice (to keep the baby) then congratulations. Hope she's responsible and I hope she understands what that brings.

So what's older brother Bryan Spears up to these days?

The basics of freelancing: Contractors complete a piece of work in exchange for a fee, not a salary. They can't be bound by specific hours or be required to attend meetings or work at the office. Employers aren't actually required to provide health or retirement benefits to anyone. If they're big enough, most companies provide those benefits at some level in order to get and keep happy employees. But if they provide benefits to some employees, they have to provide them for all. And that's where it gets sticky, because many freelancers, whether they know it or not, fit the (maddeningly loose) definition of employee.

There is no legal definition for an independent contractor, but courts uphold the common law definitions of "master" and "slave." That's less fun than it sounds. Whether someone is an employee or a contractor is based on the amount of control their boss has over them. The implied relationship determines if you're a contractor or an employee, entitled to the benefits every other employee gets. Vague enough? Sound like you're in a relationship with a high-strung high-schooler?

You're Basically An Employee If:

Not every employer is out to exploit cheap labor. In the media industry in particular, a company is hard-pressed not to use freelance workers. Many of the most ambitious contractors are young and happy to do the work for a byline or are established enough to want independence—both are attractive. Giving those people steady work or a few perks seems only natural. Unfortunately for employers, it also qualifies them for more.

In September, Governor Spitzer issued an executive order [PDF] establishing the Joint Enforcement Task Force On Employee Misclassification. Spitzer's order rattled the cages of a few media companies—the governor wants to look under rocks most of them would prefer remain undisturbed.

Viacom may have faced a choice common to media companies: eliminate benefits to independent contractors, or hire them on as employees. Take away paid vacation, company-provided healthcare and a retirement plan, and it becomes a lot easier to make the case that a freelancer is just a freelancer. Many newspapers spent the summer cleaning house in anticipation—those who haven't may find themselves in a bind.

At the end of the piece, the bulk of which details the growing skepticism TNR editors felt only after publishing Beauchamp's pieces, Foer admits as much: "In retrospect, we never should have put Beauchamp in this situation." Perhaps, but deflecting attention from the fact that the magazine should not have put itself or its other reporters in "this situation" makes TNR appear unwilling to accept full responsibility for getting overexcited about unfettered access to a soldier on the ground in Iraq. "We cannot stand by these stories," concludes Foer.

Foer ought to have taken a page from the Chuck Lane School of Apologia. In 1998, when addressing TNR readers in the wake of the Stephen Glass scandal, the magazine's 500-word piece concluded simply: "We offer no excuses for any of this. Only our deepest apologies to all concerned."

Earlier: Drudge Shatters 'New Republic' On Dickhead 'Baghdad Diarist" With Internal Memos, Then Yanks Docs