condenast - Gawker

posts about #condenast more →
Condé Nast Is the Latest to Convert in Apple's Secret Tablet Faith
For Christmas, Condé Nast Will Party at a Restaurant Now-Defunct Gourmet Magazine Once Heralded
A Year Condé Nast Would Like to Forget
Hearst Is Amazingly Not Broke
The New Yorker, by the Numbers
Give Reporters the Most Luxurious Airline Seats or Give Them Death
Conde Nast Cancels Christmas Lunch, Hires Crisis Flack
Si Newhouse (Almost) Breaks Even
The Last Days of Gourmet
Si Newhouse Has Some Real Nice Art For Sale, Cheap!

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

TheWerewolf - Sotto voce
11/19/09

In reply to Condé Nast Is the Latest to Convert in Apple's Secret Tablet Faith
"The Apple Tablet has been something of a holy grail for gadget fiends."

Seriously though - there's lots of reasons to be suspicious of the Apple Tablet - not the least of which is that it's not going to be a tablet Mac... it's going to be a large iPhone.

Which means - you're getting an ebook reader for $700. :)
Reply

Edited by TheWerewolf - Sotto voce at 11/19/09 1:57 AM

Alfisted
11/18/09

In reply to Condé Nast Is the Latest to Convert in Apple's Secret Tablet Faith
If Apple says the Tabelt doesn't exist, who am I to doubt them?

Not sure why Conde Nast is staring with Wired, though.
Reply

Edited by Alfisted at 11/18/09 8:18 PM Alfisted was starred Alfisted was unstarred

TyTy27
11/19/09

@Alfisted: I'm pretty sure the tablet will exist. If Conde is going to make this move then Wired is the obvious choice. Of all Conde's titles, Wired readers are the most likely to buy the tablet as well as use new technologies in general. I'm not sure if it will work for Conde but starting with Wired makes the most sense. It's what I'd do.
Reply

TyTy27 was starred TyTy27 was unstarred

lostarchitect
11/18/09

In reply to Condé Nast Is the Latest to Convert in Apple's Secret Tablet Faith
This is a pet peeve of mine, so please forgive me.

It's TOE the line, not "tow". It does not refer to hauling a rope, it refers to a bunch of guys standing next to each other with their toes on a line. It's probably got a military origin.
Reply

lostarchitect was starred lostarchitect was unstarred

TipsyVonDrinklestein
11/18/09

@lostarchitect: Glad I'm not the only one. Also, it's "champing" at the bit, not "chomping".
Reply

lostarchitect promoted this comment

mark.hunter.ca
11/18/09

@lostarchitect: Before I even checked the comments I was going to write, "Cue long debate about 'tow' vs. 'toe' the line."

For what it's worth I think your pet peeve is entirely unfounded. Having spent a fair amount of time looking - including consulting with a linguist, there doesn't appear to be a consensus either on the proper form of "tow/toe" or, even, the appropriate metaphor given either form.

I take the fact that your reply didn't even attempt to forward any support for your position (nor, really, does this) as yet more evidence.
Reply

lostarchitect approved this comment mark.hunter.ca was starred mark.hunter.ca was unstarred

Lizard_King
11/18/09

@lostarchitect: Not a big deal, I could care less.
Reply

Lizard_King was starred Lizard_King was unstarred

seriously, saycarramrod
11/18/09

@Lizard_King: /sarcasm please?
Reply

Lizard_King promoted this comment

TipsyVonDrinklestein
11/18/09

@Lizard_King: I don't understand, can you flush out this idea for me?
Reply

lostarchitect promoted this comment

skierpage
11/18/09

@Lizard_King: Huh? You don't mind appearing stupid in public? You don't care that the web sites you visit are badly written? You're not offended that Ryan Tate, someone who is paid to write, can't use language correctly?

By the way, by the way you pair it with "Not a big deal", you should probably have used the outright "I couldn't care less" rather than the sarcastic "I could care less."
Reply

skierpage was starred skierpage was unstarred

justincandescence001
11/18/09

@skierpage: That is one of my pet peeves actually. "Couldn't care less" should be the correct use because if you could care less, it stands to reason that you really do care.

Although from what I've heard, the two are becoming colloquially synonymous.
Reply

Lizard_King approved this comment

lostarchitect
11/18/09

@mark.hunter.ca: Hi Mark. Thanks for your comment. I don't really need support for my position because it is the correct one, and it is almost universally accepted as such. Your linguist is wrong if he says there is no consensus; there is. Google is your friend here, and since you need support:

[lmgtfy.com]

[en.wikipedia.org]

(note that if you search wikipedia for "tow the line" it redirects to "toe")
Reply

lostarchitect was starred lostarchitect was unstarred

lostarchitect
11/18/09

@Lizard_King: Don't start with that one!
Reply

lostarchitect was starred lostarchitect was unstarred

lostarchitect
11/18/09

@TipsyVonDrinklestein: Yes, and a point is "moot", not "mute".
Reply

lostarchitect was starred lostarchitect was unstarred

bfarver001
11/18/09

@Lizard_King: Ugh, it is a big deal. If your not good at english, especially when your reader's depend on your use of language to communicate ideas, you risk appearing to be an idiot in there eyes.
Reply

Lizard_King approved this comment bfarver001 was starred bfarver001 was unstarred

Lizard_King
11/18/09

@bfarver001: "your not good at English"....

Where do I even start?

It was sarcasm - it was another misquoted, mixed up cliche.

#tips
Reply

Lizard_King was starred Lizard_King was unstarred

Lizard_King
11/18/09

@lostarchitect: :)

#tips
Reply

Lizard_King was starred Lizard_King was unstarred

Lizard_King
11/18/09

@seriously, saycarramrod: c'mon, that is so overused. I'd rather bait the hook and sit back and watch.
Reply

Lizard_King was starred Lizard_King was unstarred

Lizard_King
11/18/09

@justincandescence001: kinda like regardless and irregardless (which isn't even a f'ing word!)
Reply

Edited by Lizard_King at 11/18/09 10:04 PM Lizard_King was starred Lizard_King was unstarred

SkonOfVulcan
11/18/09

@TipsyVonDrinklestein: As a horse owner I happen to know it's "Chomping" at the bit not "champing". Look in a dictionary.

Reply

lostarchitect promoted this comment SkonOfVulcan was starred SkonOfVulcan was unstarred

lostarchitect
11/18/09

@SkonOfVulcan: In terms of the original phrase you are technically incorrect, but functionally you are *sort of* correct. The original usage is "champing" (perhaps *you* should look in a dictionary?). "Chomp" is a modern variant on "champ", so it also makes sense, but the original is, in fact, "champing".
[www.word-detective.com]
Reply

Edited by lostarchitect at 11/18/09 10:54 PM lostarchitect was starred lostarchitect was unstarred

Baroness
11/18/09

In reply to Condé Nast Is the Latest to Convert in Apple's Secret Tablet Faith
Why should Jobs be flattered? The Apple tablet sounds perfect for the affluent audience Condè Nast cultivates. It's a good match for both of them.
Reply

Baroness was starred Baroness was unstarred

BookishLookish
11/18/09

In reply to For Christmas, Condé Nast Will Party at a Restaurant Now-Defunct Gourmet Magazine Once Heralded
I have never been able to get around the name of this place: "a radiant light around the head" has never made me feel the least bit peckish. Also makes me think of lady nips; ditto.
Reply

BookishLookish was starred BookishLookish was unstarred

manchops
11/18/09

In reply to For Christmas, Condé Nast Will Party at a Restaurant Now-Defunct Gourmet Magazine Once Heralded
are all the laid off folks invited too? If not I think they should all show up and press their faces against those "big windows looking out on 42nd street"
Reply

manchops was starred manchops was unstarred

If_I_Had_a_Poodle
11/18/09

In reply to For Christmas, Condé Nast Will Party at a Restaurant Now-Defunct Gourmet Magazine Once Heralded
They have to keep up appearances, impress their sources, and, you know, all the other reasons why it's more important to throw a big, expensive party than save that $100k and keep the positions of two editorial assistants.
Reply

If_I_Had_a_Poodle was starred

son of spam
11/18/09

In reply to For Christmas, Condé Nast Will Party at a Restaurant Now-Defunct Gourmet Magazine Once Heralded
Where they will scoop black sea beluga out of tiny designer gene fetal skulls. Wait...that was last year.
Reply

son of spam was starred son of spam was unstarred

TheBusinessGuy
11/18/09

In reply to For Christmas, Condé Nast Will Party at a Restaurant Now-Defunct Gourmet Magazine Once Heralded
The Fairchild, Golf Digest, bridal, and digital groups can party in splendor at the McDonald's at 42nd and Broadway. There will be balloons! #condenast
Reply

TheBusinessGuy was starred TheBusinessGuy was unstarred

thatsrealbutter
11/18/09

@TheBusinessGuy: oh to be a red-headed stepchild
Reply

TheBusinessGuy promoted this comment thatsrealbutter was starred thatsrealbutter was unstarred

LoveHandles
11/11/09

In reply to Hearst Is Amazingly Not Broke
With less staffers, perhaps Current TV will have less of a chance of getting it's staff embroiled in international nuclear affairs? #media
Reply

LoveHandles was starred LoveHandles was unstarred

TheBusinessGuy
11/11/09

In reply to Hearst Is Amazingly Not Broke
With Drew Schutte, Conde has a smart, web-savvy guy running digital--finally. Let's hope that he, like Hearst, has a war chest. Let's also note that Conde Digital is not at 4TS and that, as surely as the luncheon seating plan, is a measure of status. #media
Reply

TheBusinessGuy was starred TheBusinessGuy was unstarred

Magister
11/11/09

In reply to Hearst Is Amazingly Not Broke
The Ombudsman wrote a Sesame Street piece about a Sesame Street piece. Unfortunately, nobody who was offended will ever hear of it. #media
Reply

Magister was starred Magister was unstarred

LoveHandles
11/11/09

In reply to The New Yorker, by the Numbers
Honestly, these numbers seem rather pedestrian, given the content. #thenewyorker
Reply

LoveHandles was starred LoveHandles was unstarred

snugbug
11/11/09

@LoveHandles: True. It's interesting that regular readers seldom realize the enormous effort that goes into producing complex articles like those in the New Yorker that flow, both on a logical and literal level, like liquid butter. The flow of the printed word is very different from the flow of the spoken word. Wordsmithing is way more difficult an art that most of us are aware of--but that's the point that the New Yorker illustrates so beautifully. You just read, and you're never aware of how much work it went into making writing come across so effortless on the page. #thenewyorker
Reply

snugbug was starred snugbug was unstarred

Monte Wooley
11/11/09

In reply to The New Yorker, by the Numbers
Bloated staff, unreadable magazine. No wonder Si loves it. So Proustian. A remembrance of things past. Tiny mummies live! #thenewyorker
Reply

Monte Wooley was starred Monte Wooley was unstarred

lionel-mandrake
11/11/09

@Monte Wooley: Unreadable? You're not saying very much about yourself, are you? #thenewyorker
Reply

lionel-mandrake was starred lionel-mandrake was unstarred

Monte Wooley
11/13/09

@lionel-mandrake: what would you like to know? That I enjoy prose with blood in its veins? I like surprising story choices, not the utterly predictable kind? Yes, dear Mandrake, unreadable, to me, which obviously makes me a heathen to you. So be it. #thenewyorker
Reply

Monte Wooley was starred Monte Wooley was unstarred

FormerEnglishMajor
11/11/09

In reply to The New Yorker, by the Numbers
What is the ratio of writers to editors at other magazines? Is 2:1 a lot or the industry norm? (unless critics are considered writers as well, in which case it's 2.5 to 1).

And could someone, ANYONE, please explain to a non-journo what the difference is between a "copy staff" and an "editorial assistant"? #thenewyorker
Reply

FormerEnglishMajor was starred

Guggenheimlich
11/11/09

@FormerEnglishMajor: Editorial assistants are half-grunt work editors, half-personal assistants. Copy staff does way more fact-checking and style-proofing. Editorial assistants get the Plexiglass-reflected glory of their overlord; the copy staff gets to not live in terror of serving cold coffee. And if they have seven years of experience and a master's, slightly more than minimum wage. #thenewyorker
Reply

snugbug promoted this comment Guggenheimlich was starred Guggenheimlich was unstarred

snugbug
11/11/09

@FormerEnglishMajor: "Editorial assistant" is the entry-level staff position at magazines. You often start as an intern, and if hired, join in as editorial assistant. You occasionally get to do some fluffy, blurby-type writing that runs in print, but your job is to assist more senior writers with research, fact-checking, etc. No smart person ever spends more than a year as an editorial assistant--it's a threshold position by definition. You either get promoted out of it or drop out.

Copy staff means copy editors. Their main responsibility is to ensure that the flow of the printed word is both grammatically correct and in accordance with the conventions of journalism.

They review copy for grammatical accuracy, spelling, flag things such as "widows," faulty word breaks, etc. etc. Occasionally they have some last-minute input in fact-checking, but in Magazineland, the bulk of fact-checking is usually done by the time copy gets to a copy editor. It's a pretty technical job, complex yet not creative, but very essential. It's a career-type job as opposed to a mere station to something else.

Does this help? #thenewyorker
Reply

snugbug was starred snugbug was unstarred

snugbug
11/11/09

@Guggenheimlich: I disagree, based on my experience. Editorial assistants don't ever do any sort of editing work, ever--be it line-editing of copy-editing. They seldom write, for that matter. And I think you're confusing editorial assistants with personal assistants to the editor in chief. The latter are glorified secretaries.
Reply

Edited by snugbug at 11/11/09 1:10 PM snugbug was starred snugbug was unstarred

FormerEnglishMajor
11/11/09

@snugbug: Hugely. So that would mean the E.A.'s don't get paid much (one step above intern?) while the copy editors would - could they try to replace the latter with the former to cut costs or is that above an EA's pay grade...?

Big help. If I could heart you again, I would.

When you are not in publishing, the titles/duties are a complete mystery as to hierarchy, job content, etc. #thenewyorker
Reply

FormerEnglishMajor was starred

pssshwhatever
11/11/09

@FormerEnglishMajor: The EAs get paid next to nothing, copy staff gets paid...next to next to nothing. A lot of publications have drastically reduced copy staff in order to cut costs already, but I don't think the two jobs will be melded together - most EAs wouldn't be effective at it, it's not an easy task and it takes some real experience to be a good copy editor. Like a previous poster pointed out, EAs are transient by definition and they either move up or move on.

I have some friends that work at small publications that now have no copy staff and that farm out their editing to a separate service, but I'm not sure how common that is at bigger publications. I work for a website, and they expect me to copy edit my own stuff. Which, honestly, is next to impossible to do in any effective way. Having fresh eyes on a piece of writing is a big help. But as HamNo would say, this is how we live now: with tired eyes and grammatical errors. #thenewyorker
Reply

pssshwhatever was starred pssshwhatever was unstarred

Guggenheimlich
11/11/09

@snugbug: I bow to your wisdom. I should have disclaimed that these were wild guesses from someone barely with a foot in Bookland. So, then, what DO editorial assistants at magazines do? Just go to meetings and read submissions? #thenewyorker
Reply

Guggenheimlich was starred Guggenheimlich was unstarred

snugbug
11/12/09

@Guggenheimlich: In the classic pyramid scheme of a magazine masthead, EAs are pretty much gophers. The magazine world's equivalent of PAs (production assistants) in film and advertising. You do whatever needs to get done--from rounding up items for a photo shoot to harassing PR for shopping credits to fact-checking, etc. They do NOT go on coffee runs, though, and in that sense, differ from interns. I suppose you can say EAs are little balls of coiled promise, whose latent potential is recognized on the condition that they put in some unglamorous grunt work before they are afforded the privilege to write or edit things of any consequence. #thenewyorker
Reply

snugbug was starred snugbug was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

SUBSCRIBE TO Gawker

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment