Representing the "Mainstream media" were SF Chronicle editor Phil Bronstein, NYT media columnist David Carr, and Nation editor Katrina Vanden Heuvel. Representing the "New media" were public radio's John Hockenberry, Politico founder Jim Vandehei, and Vanity Fair columnist and author and Newser yakker Michael Wolff.

Notice anything? That's right, all of these people work in the "mainstream media." Politico, which was cast as some new media vanguard, is a print newspaper with a website. So is the New York Times. And the SF Chronicle! Which led to the main problem of the evening: the entire "debate" was semantic. Panelists spent much time declaring what they weren't arguing against: great journalism, democracy, freedom, media jobs, economic success, etc. That's because they were all on the same side, in reality. They are media people who would like to remain employed somehow, like everyone else. If the proposition had been "Good riddance to print as a medium," or "Good riddance to newspapers," it would have at least been intelligible and debatable; as it was, you had the "New media" people declaring that the way they did things was faster and smarter and more democratic, and then the "Mainstream media" people saying they also did things the same way, so what the hey were they even arguing about? I don't know.

Which is not to say it was not an entertaining evening! Mostly because of the sniping between Michael Wolff and David Carr, who have a history of mutual dislike. Carr gently pointed out that Michael Wolff was arguing for the abolition of the NYT while simultaneously running a website full of NYT excerpts; Wolff said all of Carr's stories are too long, anyhow.

Michael Wolff does not have a winning personality. He whines, he gesticulates annoyingly, he takes obviously ridiculous positions for the purpose of drawing attention to himself. He is a hypocrite, and sometimes embraces his own hypocrisy to, yes, draw attention to himself. That said, Michael Wolff is not afraid to be brutally honest. Which is something media reporting needs! He demonstrated that last night when—after a question from a Hearst lawyer in the audience, and while sitting on a stage with Phil Bronstein, editor of a Hearst paper—Wolff said (we're paraphrasing) "People don't like to say this in polite company, but Hearst's newspapers are really bad. So who cares if you go out of business?"

It's true! Props to you for that, Michael Wolff, you generally grating man.

But he got got, in the end. In Carr's closing statement, he whipped out a printout of Newser's front page. It's a cool site, check it out, yada yada yada, he said. Then Carr pulled out his show-and-tell version of Newser after the "Mainstream media" had been abolished. It was the same printout, full of holes, with every story painstakingly cut out.

Mainstream media is just new media that figured out how not to go out of business. Let's spend our time arguing about important things: Where to get a job.

The new line from the Gov's office is, hey, he never would have picked her, because she was disrespectful, unqualified, and talked all wrong:

Friends said Paterson was adamant that she was never going to be appointed, even though she was considered the front-runner.

Paterson was turned off when Kennedy first called him and asked if she "could" be considered for the seat.

By asking if she could, rather than saying she wanted to be considered, Paterson immediately felt she wasn't really interested, the source said.

He also though she had "no political depth," according to the whisper campaign. Maybe he should have made that clear, you know, weeks and weeks ago? No matter! Now that Kennedy's career lies in ruin, it's a good time to mock her in the tabloids:

Paterson said that Kennedy had called him to say she was having second thoughts and "he asked her to wait a day and he thought she had agreed," another attendee recalled.

Then, he said, he couldn't get her on the phone for hours.

"He was absolutely frustrated that he couldn't reach her," the guest said of how Paterson described the scene. "He thought maybe she was sick. He felt she was being nasty to him, that she showed great disrespect."

Paterson then pointedly invited all of Caroline's close friends to his birthday party at Chuck E. Cheese, but not her.

[NYDN, NYP]

Is Greater Than has an interview with Anne Elizabeth Moore, who was involved in the paper's production but bailed out prior to distribution day due to ideological differences. It's interesting! It also includes the following complaints:

‘Cause the project turned out to be, ‘a couple guys in New York pulled some crazy prank,’ — that’s sort of inconsequential in my mind. At least as activism, although also as art. How does that shift any power structures or misconform to any notions of how the world operates?

A ton of stuff was cut — much of it the most engaged critical stuff. Maybe stuff that took on the Times too closely, out of fear, I don’t know. Perhaps coincidentally, most content by female contributors was cut.

I’d been really cautious from the beginning that my efforts — and the efforts of the many many people I brought on board this project — not be ultimately co-opted to further forward the brand of the Yes Men. I’ve personally had enough of my efforts going toward brand names I don’t actually believe in[.]

And so what happened, right, is that The Yes Men here first became the symbol that simply replaced the New York Times as the people in power. For a moment, the positions were reversed. Ho ho! It’s not the New York Times that has all the power, it’s these guys that look and act like the guys at the New York Times and live in the same city and have similar economic and racial and backgrounds. Which is a very disempowering way of thinking about power

Other than that (and more), it was great. [Is Greater Than]

How did Charlie Rose manage to book all the Emanuels on one show? So many have tried, but this is the only time we've ever seen it. The secret, we're told, is start with the doctor. Once Zeke, the eldest, is on board, Ari and Rahm are obligated to follow suit.

And, man, family dinners with the Emanuels are clearly terrible. You never get a word in edgewise and they'll all be brawling by the end of it. Still, you ladies seem to like this Rahm, so here he is, enjoy.

The term Fisking, or to Fisk, is blogosphere slang describing detailed point-by-point criticism that highlights perceived errors, disputes the analysis of presented facts, or highlights other problems in a statement, article, or essay.[1] Eric S. Raymond, in the Jargon File, defined the term as:

A point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story. A really stylish fisking is witty, logical, sarcastic and ruthlessly factual; flaming or handwaving is considered poor form.[2]

The term is named after Robert Fisk, a British journalist.

Ha, it's like what we do! Here we posit that Fisk has become bitter to the point of irrationality due to his mass of online detractors. Then we support it with a quote from him:

At one point, Mr Fisk retorted: “To hell with the web, it’s got no responsibility.”

Fisked.

[OJB]

Wemple's column, which I am now whining about, is him whining about the whining of the New York Times. Specifically, about the Times being disappointed at the fact that their pretty fucking awesome Sarah Palin blowout story last weekend didn't have the same resonance that it would have had in times past, because the media is overcrowded these days.

***WHICH IS TRUE.***

Okay then. Go, Wemple:

Here’s a quote from NYT boss Bill Keller:

"But we do want our work to be noticed, and I’ve been repeatedly surprised at the rich, important stories that fail to resonate the way they deserve."

What has Keller so upset? Well, apparently, that three-bylined investigation of Sarah Palin that ran in this past Sunday’s paper didn’t bounce high enough for the big guy. “But this kind of work doesn’t dominate the discussion the way it might have in elections past,” said Keller.

Poor thing.

Dude, who pissed in your corn flakes? Wemple is doing the knee-jerk "Whores, all of you!" thing that Andrea Peyser does. Let's translate:

BILL KELLER: "Innocuous factual statement."
ERIK WEMPLE: "Stop whining, bitch."

Then Wemple notes that one of the reporters on the NYT story said that even though it got 1000 comments on the Times website, that still doesn't mean it had the national impact it would have had in times past.

***WHICH IS TRUE.***

That pisses Erik Wemple off. Doesn't the reporter know that his story was commented upon by none other than the Washington City Paper???

Can someone explain to me what he’s talking about?

Clearly those titans at the Times need to scroll back a bit on this blog, which earlier this week credited the Palin story as a masterful mix of narrative and investigative styles, though the blog item was silent on the slight impact the story had made.

Yes. Because any time a national reporter gives a quote in a news story, we may assume that his references to the media are intended to convey, exclusively, the work of the Washington City Paper's blog. Its impact is equal to that of all forms of national media combined in decades past.

What good journalist cares about impact anyhow?

Erik Wemple I like many things you write but this is ridiculous so please shut up.

Whining about our whining about his whining about their whining goes in the comments.

[Washington CP]

[via WSJ]

Prosecution: The movie ruined Manhattan, especially the Meatpacking District. When the sex-crazed Samantha moved there, and when Carrie and co. started trotting over to Magnolia in the nearby (kind of the same fucking neighborhood) West Village, all club-going, cupcake-scarfing hell broke loose. Thanks, Jonesy.
Defense: Meh. It would have happened anyway. The reason the neighborhood was on the show was because it was becoming trendy, not the other way around. The show was on premium cable for God's sake. It wasn't that influential. Sure, maybe the exposure expedited the Disneyfication, but it was inevitable. News flash: it's happening (or has already happened) to all of Manhattan. Just look at the Lower East Side. That once-hidden neighborhood was never really featured on the show and nowadays you can't swing a keffiyeh down there without hitting someone you want to punch. Come out to Brooklyn, where it's reasonably safe (for now).
The Verdict: We're gonna go with the "it was inevitable anyway" argument on this one. It's fun to make grand social theories out of a television show, but there were bigger reasons for the muppets taking Manhattan.

Prosecution: The ladies on the show promote some weird brand of feminism where men are both disposable (their word) and completely necessary to one's happiness. So what is it, are they objects or idols? Whatever the answer, both are damaging ideals for modern women.
Defense: Whoa, back the Subaru up there, Gloria. It's a television show/movie. The women and girls who are taking clues on how to navigate relationships from fake women who refuse to take subways and say things like "the subtext of that text" have bigger problems to deal with than Sex and the City. The show is a pleasant diversion, and was never meant to be anything else. It's not SJP and company's fault that other people are idiots.
The Verdict: Gotta go with the Prosecution here. Yes, women who heed the show's precarious "advice" about men and women need a wake up call, but the trouble is, the show never offered any caveats that it was, you know, fake. We're pretty sure you were supposed to treat the show as gospel.

Prosecution: The shopping. Oh God, the shopping. $400 shoes! $3,000 handbags! $bamillion dresses! Sex and the City functions as material porn on overload, by not just pimping the products, but enforcing high-end fashion as every woman's right and need. You're just not urban, you're not chic, you're not anything unless you traipse around in $20,000 worth of designer shit, just so... what? A man will look at you? Poor nannies and housekeepers will be jealous? It's not just snobby and over the top. In these credit-crunchy times, when impressionable young people are amassing mountains of debt, it's downright irresponsible.
Defense: Oh, get over it. Nearly every show and every movie geared toward women features fancy clothes and shoes and accessories. It's partly how these movies get made. Product-placement is a necessary evil. And hey, Sarah Jessica Parker understands. Her Bitten line of clothing retails for like three cents a pant. Sex and the City celebrates style, which can cost $10 or $10,000.
The Verdict: The excess on the show is awful and damaging. The next time you see a fourteen year old galoompfing down the street wearing the monetary equivalent of a Tercel, you can definitely blame Sex and the City.

Prosecution: Errrbody's a sex and dating columnist now. You know who we can blame on Sex and the City? Fuckin' Julia Allison. And the myriad other oversharers and "got to wondering"ers. Candace Bushnell was a revolutionary in her own way, and now that's just being co-opted by lesser writers. Sex and dating are fun to read about, yeah, but it should be more rarefied.
Defense: Don't blame SATC, blame the internet. Blame increasingly frequent and public discourse about sex. Bushnell represented something a bit new, yes, and SATC capitalized on it, but it was inevitable that someone would. If you don't like them, don't read them.
The Verdict: Kind of a draw. Yeah, SATC encouraged the trend, but who really cares. It's kind of on its way out anyway.

Prosecution: Frankly, Sex and the City ruined fucking. What could possibly be less sexy than a bunch of grown women sitting around at a restaurant, punning about cocks? All the dirty talking (and talking and talking and talking) and graphic sex scenes just overexposed and distorted sex. SATC makes sex seem like a theme park ride, rather than the loving and intimate (or dirty and hot) act that it should be.
Defense: Like the dopes who take feminist cues from the show, anyone who learns carnal lessons from SATC has bigger problems to solve. What on TV doesn't trivialize and sugarcoat sex? If we wanted to watch realistic, sweaty, sorta shameful sex we'd watch Tell Me You Love Me. And God knows no one did that. Sex and the City sex is fun and easy and honest enough. It probably helped some women overcome some sexual fears, and that should be commended.
The Verdict: Nah, sex is still fun.

The thing about Sex and the City phenomenon is this: it can be really fun if you just don't take it all that seriously. Yes the whole affair is ridiculous, but that's why it's entertainment. The trouble comes when people do take it at face value and, sadly, try to shape their lives in a similar way. We feel bad for them, yes, but they're also really fucking annoying when they clomp by us on sidewalks or push past us in bars. So, go. Have fun. But if we see you at Houlihan's, throwing back SATC-themed drinks or making up annoying nicknames for the dudes you've boned, then we have a problem.

For the most part, it is not my purpose in this space to urge positions, or come down on one side or the other of a controversial question. Of course, I do those things occasionally and sometimes inadvertently, but more often than not I am analyzing arguments rather than making them; or, to be more precise, I am making arguments about arguments, especially ones I find incoherent or insufficiently examined.

That is exactly what we need in this crazy world.

But, in fact, a reader of a typical "Think Again" column will have no idea at all where I stand on the issues that catch my attention, because at least for the length of the column (as opposed to real life, which is much longer), I am agnostic on those issues and interested only in the way they are playing out in our present cultural moment. When, for example, I wrote three columns criticizing the atheist tracts written by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, I was motivated not by a belief in God — which I may or may not have, you'll never know — but by what I took to be sloppy, schoolboy reasoning that was passing itself off as wisdom. I could have been an atheist myself, and I still would have found the so-called logic of these books weak and risible.

Risible!

Is it the best thing to do? Is it good for the country? These are real questions, but they are not questions I take up, although a number of readers take me to task for the answers they presume me to have given. Cdn Expat writes that "Whether identity politics is 'rational' is hardly the question. The question is whether it is culturally and socially helpful." No, it isn't. That is Expat's question and I have no obligation either to ask or answer it. I'm just asserting the rationality of identity politics, not giving my blessing to it. Whether its exercise is culturally helpful is not something I consider. I just don't go there.

Is stuff good or bad? Stanley Fish just doesn't go there, y'all.

Well, that's his opinion, and I don't have a contrary one. I don't have one at all because I'm not doing moral parsing and find it spectacularly uninteresting. Calling someone a bigot and claiming the high ground for yourself may be momentarily satisfying, but it does little except provoke a response in the same mode. (It's bigoted of you to say that I'm a bigot.)

Stanley Fish is a dork! Wow, I feel myself momentarily satisfied, now that I have claimed the high ground. Can't wait to read the next column!

First, let's not waste too much time establishing the fact that Alessandra Stanley was such a bad choice to write this rebuttal piece that it makes you wonder if it was Hitchens that selected her. Hey style is ponderous; she is overlong in her explanations of obvious matters; and she approaches the issue as a topic for serious socio-cultural investigation, rather than an opportunity to crack jokes and talk shit. Which is what was called for. Stanley seems to believe that Hitchens can be refuted through logic, rather than by waiting until he's drunk, then videotaping a woman slapping him around and grabbing his balls until he screams, then putting that video on YouTube.

That's where you're wrong, Alessandra Stanley.

It's not clear whether Stanley is just a boring writer herself, or if she embodies some inherent un-funny quality in all women. But it doesn't matter what the truth is, because anyone looking for evidence to support their bias will hold up her article as a shining example of why women can't hack it.

There is obviously a difference between witty writers (Mme. de Staël, Nora Ephron, Fran Lebowitz) and stand-up comics. Stand-up comedy was always harder for women, because it is aggressive—comedians have to dominate their audiences and "kill," by common metaphor. Male listeners might make allowances for sparkling repartee—which is, after all, instinctive and responsive and manslaughter at the very worst. But a premeditated joke or routine can be murderous in the first degree.

Women either had to compete—head-on, in the aggressive style of Paula Poundstone or Lisa Lampanelli—or subvert the form and make themselves offbeat and likable, the way that Whoopi Goldberg and Ellen DeGeneres do. As Elaine May used to say regarding improv, "When in doubt, seduce." By and large, however, stand-up comedy is tougher and meaner, and the women who do it play by men's rules.

Yo, what? I was bored after the first sentence. See, that's how men are: bored, by Alessandra Stanley. Also maybe some other women humorists. The problem they have is they often talk about things that women can relate to—relationships with men, babies, periods, shopping, love. As a man, I can't relate to all that. That puts women comics at a distinct disadvantage when trying to win over me and my fellow men. This is obvious day, right here.

"But wait!" you protest, femininely. "Hitchens said women just aren't funny, not that men just couldn't relate to our humor." Dude, what? While you were making that argument, I was thinking about how cool it is that Hitchens supposedly smokes in the shower. Chris Hitchens is a brilliant, repugnant slob of a man, and any argument he makes should be taken as one from a male point of view. For him to say that women aren't funny is for him to say that they're not funny to him, a man. Everything else is just purposeful goading, which is a key element of male humor. Arguments to the contrary will probably get ignored, because that's what men do: ignore arguments to the contrary. That's why we have civilization, and wars.

So ladies, it would behoove you to just keep on concentrating on establishing your rightful share of power in the world, rather than trying to convince men that your comedians and whatnot are funny. Once you run as much of the media as we do, it'll be a moot point.

Happy:

Julie 11:33 pm on March 2, 2008 | #

I'm happy because I'm working with people who care about what they do and are still brimming with ideas 10, 15, 20 years after they started in the business.

Angry Journalist #1279:

Just in case you thought the past was really any different — or any less angry:
A newspaper is a collection of half-injustices
Which, bawled by boys from mile to mile,
Spreads its curious opinion
To a million merciful and sneering men,
While families cuddle the joys of the fireside
When spurred by tale of dire lone agony.
A newspaper is a court
Where every one is kindly and unfairly tried
By a squalor of honest men.
A newspaper is a market
Where wisdom sells its freedom
And melons are crowned by the crowd.
A newspaper is a game
Where his error scores the player victory
While another's skill wins death.
A newspaper is a symbol;
It is feckless life's chronicle,
A collection of loud tales
Concentrating eternal stupidities,
That in remote ages lived unhaltered,
Roaming through a fenceless world.
Stephen Crane - 1899

Happy:

Christina 2:17 am on March 3, 2008 | #

I love that I can read an obit and feel sad about a man's death but also know that, when he was alive, I wrote about him and his amazing character and that more people now know there are probably hundreds others who benefited from his existence.
I guess it's kind of a sad-happy instance

Angry:

Angry Journalist #1284:

Journalist #1258 - If you got a journalism degree, you probably don't even know how to spell obituary never mind write one. When you get that barista job, remember to pour the foam not scoop it for a latte; you'll get a better tip.

Happy:

Mark E. Johnson 5:05 am on March 3, 2008 | #

I'm happy because I get to help the next generation of journalists help their (future) communities.

Angry:

Angry Journalist #1301:

I'm angry at optimists.