He did a remarkable job of not saying much. At 8:15 the party had barely begun at the downtown hotspot, known for its strict velvet rope and the racy performances on its main stage, the gregarious Tank Jones and his brother Marvin (in the role as Levi's trainer) were some of the first people to arrive. They installed the one-time human campaign prop at a table in the corner of the balcony so that several PR people could start the parade of press. The rest of the venue was practically empty, but everyone was clustered around Levi.

As the Observer's John Koblin interviewed Playgirl's spokesman Daniel Nardicio about the future of the magazine, the Levi interviews started. Everyone made way for a camera crew from Entertainment Tonight, which has exclusive access to Levi for all the behind-the-scenes action for the photo shoot that is taking place right now (if everything goes according to schedule). We didn't get close enough to hear what they asked during their ten minutes with Levi.

As they clear out, there were more print interviews to do. Michael Musto came by to say hi, but he interviewed Levi at his hotel earlier. I asked Musto if he was a good interview. He said yes, but agrees that it's hard to get him to say much. Jo Piazza from CNN came in and taped a few second with the Johnston crew. Before she started her interveiew, Tank said he's not answering questions about Sarah Palin or about suing for custody of Tripp, Levi's son with Palin's daughter Bristol. Then he flirted with her a little bit as she squeezed in next to Levi to ask her questions. Most of the questions were the same all night: How is this different from Alaska? What is he going to show? Is he ready for the shoot? Does he know that he's a gay icon? Will he do more porn? What does the future hold?

Levi always answers with the fewest words possible. This may make him appear a bit dim, but it seems a smart move for a guy who's standing around a bunch of people paid to turn any utterance he makes into "news." With the reporters gone, he quietly joked with Tank and Marvin.

When Piazza was done, he joked a bit with Nardicio, teaching him how to tuck a dollop of chew under his lip. "Don't you throw up on this table!" Tank chided. A PR person came by and said there were more interviews to be done. "I know. This isn't my first rodeo," Levi said. Another reporter sat down, this one from People. They knew to send a pretty girl.

When she left, the PR man told Tank that Page Six boss Richard Johnson wanted an introduction. Tank responded, "We're not talking to them. No pictures, nothing." The PR man conveyed the message to Johnson. "He just wants to say hi," Mr. PR pleaded with Tank. But Tank had made up his mind: No Levi for Johnson. "That's fine," said the Page Six editor before heading back downstairs. After he left, Tank complained about a Page Six item accusing Levi having a small dick and thus afraid to do any full-frontal shots: "That's not true!"

There was a break in the action and a PR girl brought by the trophy Levi will receive later in the evening: an 11-inch dildo made of silver. Everyone at the table laughed nervously and made jokes about how Levi isn't going to accept a dildo. Levi returned his trophy to the nice lady and said, "I can't believe I just won a giant silver dildo." He and Tank conferred and decide there can't be any pictures taken of him holding it, so they plan to have Nardicio take the stage with him and hold the award.

Then the photographers arrived. In groups of two, they came by the corner, their flashbulbs blinding in the dark club. Levi knew to look directly into the camera and then occasionally look away to blink. He didn't look like he was having any fun. When all that was over, he passed some time ogling the scantily-clad go-go dancers down below. Tank said, "Those are all real women right? I don't want to look if they're not real women." Another laugh. Nardicio tells them that they're all real women. I pointed out that there were definitely some drag queens in the mix. "That's OK, I didn't want those ones anyway," Levi responded. He told me that he hadn't had any time to go out and party while in New York City. "It's been all work. I'm all about business," he says. "But I like New York more each time I come here." What does he think about this event? "It's different," is all he'll say.

As the show starts, Gawker alum Joshua David Stein showed up asking questions for New York magazine. It was getting loud, the house was full. Tank informed him they'd do an interview later. Levi leaned over the balcony to watching the award ceremony on stage and performances by the likes of boy/boy/girl aerialist trio Mantryx. When the intermission came, the crew decided to go outside for some air.

Out on the sidewalk, it is a whole different scene. Dressed in identical tuxedos like they all went shopping at the same men's store earlier that evening, they moved as a unit. Flanked by two enormous black men, Levi wasn't easy to approach. That didn't stop the reporters. Kelefa Sanneh from the New Yorker came up received a stern lecture from Tank about not asking about Palin or custody. Sanneh started his round of questioning but was cut off by the arrival of two 20-something guys who made up TMZ's camera crew. They'd been tailing Levi and his crew ever since they arrived in New York and seemed almost like old friends. Sanneh backed off, to avoid getting captured by their camera. TMZ doesn't care about restrictions and they began asking about custody and Palin. Tank demurred. "Come on, you know better than that."

While Tank was distracted by dealing with the TMZ mess, Jacob Bernstein from The Daily Beast snuck up and peppered Levi with questions and scribbled furiously in his notebook. A male-female duo from Hollywood Life sidled up and began asking their own questions and with a Flip camera. After the questions, the Hollywood Life crew each took their picture with Levi. With Levi alone again, Sanneh came back for a second attempt at an interview. This time, though, he talked more to Tank that Levi. It's easy to go that direction, since Tank is a gregarious quote machine while Levi answers everything with about three words.

Levi was scheduled to accept his award as soon as the ceremony restarted after the intermission. The PR girl shadowing him told him and Nardicio to go hang out at Nick Denton's table so they'd be right next to the stage. but there isn't any room at the Gawker Media overlord's table. Levi headed instead for socialite Tinsley Mortimer's table where photographers eagerly snapped the unlikely pairing. Joshua David Stein returned for his promised interview, but Levi said he needs clear it with Tank. Stein rebutted that Tank had already cleared it, but Levi — who either didn't remember, didn't care, or simply wanted to protect himself — turned him down again, this time a little more firmly. Marvin stepped in and said they'd talk to Tank and do the interview later.

Levi asked who he needs to thank in his speech which he obviously hasn't thought about until then. Nardicio told him to thank Fleshbot and The Box. Levi added that he should also say something about the upcoming issue of Playgirl and to tell people to buy it. He is all business.

When his award was announced he and Nardicio went on stage where Levi successfully avoided being photographed with a big silver dildo. His speech was exactly what he planned: He thanked Fleshbot and The Box and then told everyone to buy his issue of Playgirl.

After leaving the stage, he meets up with Tank and Marvin and they head out the door. He has to get up early to work out before his big shoot. Our colleague Irin over at Jezebel got her questions answered about the type of ladies Levi likes and JDS eventually got his interview, making poor Richard Johnson the only person denied the chance to exchange banalities with the man of the hour. Levi, like he said, was all about business, and last night his business was spectacle.

Top three photos by Hee Jin Kang, bottom by GuestofaGuest

"Will you ever run for president again? Yes or no," Curry asked.

"No," replied Clinton.

Ok. Done. Good. Right? That is enough of a straight-up denial to satisfy anyone! Unless, like, you run a website of some sort, and are also trying to drum up interest in an upcoming book about Hillary Clinton's relentless ambition. Then you would make this interview, with its question about Hillary being "marginalized" that comes entirely from your own writing highlighted, your top story. And you would also say that Hillary is lying about not wanting to run for president, any more. Because you are basically shameless, and you are Tina Brown.

Good news: your book, The Clinton Chronicles, is due to be published next year. Just make sure to keep planting stories about how dissatisfied and unhappy Hillary is, in the meantime!

Base:
She: Daily Beast
He: Esquire

Duration:
She: 3 Weeks
He: 2 Weeks

Stated Reason for Stunt: ("Poor Writer Does Oblvious Movie Star Stuff as Easy Formula" is implicit)
She: Seeks"an effort to understand this complex star."
He: Seeks to "break down the sanity of the Goop life, from common sense to madness."

Make:
She: 3 kinds of chocolate chip cookies, sugar-free banana nut muffins, turkey ragu, a grand, multi-Holiday feast.
He: Smoothies, soups, "Chicken with Onions, Lemon and Saffron",

Go:
She: A Mario Batali restaurant Gwynnie likes
He: Acupuncture

Get:
She: Leggings
He: Tinted under-eye moisturizer

Do:
She: ReadsCrime and Punishment, gives herself a sugar-and-coffee scrub, drinks 2 tablespoons of EVOO nightly, does a Seven-Day Detox, gives up "white foods (bread, pasta), preserved foods (chips, cookies), toxic foods (candy, ice cream), and foods containing heavy metals", negativity.

He: Reads The Sheltering Sky , gives to charity, does same Detox, acupuncture, dance cardio workouts, attempts organic-only eating, gives up "dairy, gluten, meat, shellfish, condiments, sugar, alcohol, caffeine, and an entire class of food (tomatoes, eggplant, potatoes, and peppers) called nightshades."

Be:
She: Practices the African philosophy of ubuntu
He: Listens to Deepak Chopra

Breakthrough:
She: "And then, like magic, at some point in the middle of week two, I stopped noticing what an unbelievable hassle it was to follow this ridiculous plan. My ear adjusted to Gwyneth's affect, and rather than guffawing at some of her more outlandish suggestions, I found myself intrigued by the $249 Voltaic Solar Backpack and her recommendation to "take your drinking water to the next level" with a $900 alkaline filtration system. What vegan shoe designer does Cameron Diaz recommend? I suddenly wanted to know."

He: "Yet... after four or five days, I noticed a change. I stopped craving coffee. I felt a steady stream of energy all day long. There was, in fact, a spring in my step. My mind wasn't quite as sharp as it used to be, and I had trouble concentrating during meetings, but physically speaking, I felt recharged."

Amusing Failures:
She: gives up the detox after a couple of days; doesn't have time for all the recipes, and can't afford anything.
He: Embarrasses himself dancing and is seen and mocked by neighborhood children; takes an unmanly interest in various effete things.

Conclusions:
She:

There's a lot to scoff at here, but the three weeks I spent following GOOP were pure joy. Expensive, inconvenient and totally unsustainable-yes, but also full of unexpected pleasures...She may be tone-deaf and full of wacky ideas about food and religion, but she really just wants everyone to feel as good as she does. On a few occasions, I think I got close. My GOOP plan began with cynicism and failure, and by the end, I was cooking a giant pan-holiday dinner party with recipes from Thanksgiving, Christmas, Hanukkah and Valentine's Day for my boyfriend, three girlfriends, and Rue McClanahan of The Golden Girls.

He:

At the end of this two-week experiment, I can report, without qualification or caveat, that I felt very, very good. I was sleeping better. I had more energy. I'd lost nine pounds. Revolutionary or not, Gwyneth's way worked, and if it worked for this sinner, it could work for anybody. Case closed..And yet. I wasn't having much fun. (I like to eat red meat and drink too much at parties. It makes me happy.) I wasn't doing well at work - maybe it's because I was drinking less caffeine, but I was more reserved in meetings and a little slower on the uptake. I was also quite a bit poorer than when I started out.

Conclusions: It was interesting to see the contrast in the approaches. Although both tried to be open-minded, the dude was clearly more skeptical about the whole endeavor, and found the lifestyle more of a departure. Perhaps most important, he found the whole thing kind of embarrassing. She, on the other hand, even as she bemoaned the unachievable nature of many of Gwyneth's recommendations, got into the spirit of it. In a way this makes sense: Gwynnie's a woman, and Goop's base is, presumably, female. (And if we're more prone to suggestions, tips, advice, self-help, this also implies an open-mindedness, and an ability to take the good.) What they both took away from the stunt was common sense: eat better, drink water, think positive. Do you need self-congratulatory trappings and oblivious stars to tell you this? No. But, hey, if people are taking something good away from it, fine. Both these pieces kind of read like a fable: they have to make a long, absurd journey only to find what was always there in front of them. And while that makes me think that Goop is a waste of time, Gwyneth would probably have a quote about paths and roads and moisturizer that some people would rather hear - and that the rest of us can mock. What did these pieces teach us? Nothing. Or, as Goop would have it, everything.

The Goop Matrix [Esquire]

My Life As Gwyneth [Daily Beast]

Just a few months ago, Vogue editor Anna Wintour was fighting negative press and rumors of a replacement. Then she came up with a plan...She allowed the documentary director R.J. Cutler's movie cameras behind the closed doors of Vogue's offices in Times Square...Now [The September Issue] movie is a hit. Anna is bigger than ever.

So, if she came up with a plan three months ago, she must have then gone back into the past to September of 2007, told past Anna to make the documentary happen so that future Anna could save her job. Did she have a flux capacitor installed in her town car? Yes, we agree that Anna has orchestrated this whole thing—movie release, Letterman appearance, Fashion's Night Out—but this strike has been years in the making. Anna is nothing if not shrewd.

Tina's theory is that this isn't a Make-People-Like-Me Tour at all, but that she's trying to play up her caricatured bitchiness.

After so much reality TV and confessional celebrity interviews, the public is tired of accessible stars. Who needs them to be Just Like Us? Just Like Us means just as boring as we are. It's mystique today that everybody craves. What's she really like behind the dark glasses? Anna's appeal is that she has no interest in pretending to be human.

Ouch. And this is a very public swipe, considering the long simmering rivalry between the two that goes back a generation, when Wintour's father, the editor of London's Daily Standard would run bad reviews of the movie's produced by Brown's father. Now Brown is using her digital instrument to serve Wintour backhanded compliments.

But as one ex-high-powered magazine editor to a current high-powered magazine editor, Brown does have some sympathy.

But maybe Anna isn't a bitch, just a smart, hard-headed businesswoman doing her job...I guess you get called a bitch when you get things done.

Sounds like something Tina might know from experience.

Oh, Azrouël is very attractive, we're not disputing that, but we just aren't so sure that he's straight. Sure, it's reinforcing negative stereotypes that all male fashion designers are gay, but if he's so hot to trot, then where are all the ladies who are sleeping with him? Neither the write-up on The Daily Beast nor the profile in Page Six Magazine reveal a single lady who'll cop to dating him.

Azrouël is most famously linked to Katie Lee Joel, the former pianowoman of Billy Joel. However, she only says "Yigal Azrouël is a great friend of mine." There is a name for that, and it's called a beard. Of all the socialites Page Six says he's bagged, only one — Zani Gugelmann — would go on record and says, "Yigal is a dear friend, however I have not dated him." The Beast has several ladies saying he's straight, but none who ever claimed to have gotten undressed for him other than to try on one of his creations.

After all, being straight seems to be doing wonders for business. What does the world need with another queer dress draper? Here is his gimmick and the press has come calling. In his store he flirts with the ladies and gets them to buy his dresses in the hopes that he will take them to bed. Well, good luck with that. You have about as much chance of going for a piggyback ride on the Loch Ness monster.

So, when was the last time that "Fashion's Hottest Playboy" actually scored a piece? So, short of a sex tape or a nice woman who will attest to his prowess on the record, we're not going to believe it. Pictures or it never happened.

The party, or "The Party" as it has come to be known by some, remains famous for it's over-the-top flamboyance, and since Talk was partially funded by Miramax money, Harvey and Bob Weinstein served as co-hosts for the event, leading the New York Observer to headline their coverage of the night's festivities, "Weinstein Brothers Revel in Vulgarity, Glory of Manhattan."

In her Daily Beast post eulogizing Isabell dated July 12th, Tina Brown reminisced about the illuminated-by-Japanese-lanterns soiree on the electricity-less Liberty Island to bring in the now-defunct magazine. She spoke wistfully about the plethora of stars she shipped in on an ark to genuflect at her altar, The Statue of Liberty, for the evening. Here's the money quote:

Guests, who included Madonna, George Plimpton, Demi Moore, Tom Brokaw, Kate Moss, Christopher Buckley, Helen Mirren, and Jerry Seinfeld, disgorged one after another from the Liberty Island ferry that Buckley immediately re-christened the "Star Barge." Like an A-list Noah's Ark, it motored slowly toward the tiny island where the Talk staff waited to greet the 800 guests in a warm August dusk.

Brown's piece must have triggered the memory of the New York Times' David Carr, as he dedicates his Monday "Media Equation" column to the Talk launch party, only his take on the event isn't so much a fond remembrance as it is a look back at what he now views as an event marking of the beginning of the end of an era of excess. Noting that the ten years that have passed since "The Party" have seen the death of many established titles as well as a dramatic drop in ad pages, Carr, who says he's "still ashamed to admit that I wasn't one of the lucky 1,000 people invited to the party," writes:

Too bad nobody saw the sharks circling in the harbor. Rather than the culmination of a century of press power, the Talk party was the end of an era, a literal fin de siècle. Flush with cash from the go-go '90s and engorged by spending from the dot-com era, mainstream media companies seemed poised on the brink of something extraordinary. But that brink ended up being a cliff. partied

Ten years ago, journalists, long the salarymen of the publishing economy, began gorging on big contracts and options from digital start-ups like shrimp at a free buffet. With coveted writers commanding $5 for every typed word into magazines that were stuffed to the brim with advertising, there was a fizziness, some would say recklessness, in the air. The industry was drunk on its own prerogatives, working a party that seemed as if it would never end.

Carr goes on to note that Tina Brown's Daily Beast launch party in 2008 was held at Pop Burger in the Meatpacking District, where assembled guests munched on miniature burgers and hot dogs until about 8:15 or so, when the food sadly ran out. Indeed, that's quite a remarkable contrast. But hey, there was an open bar, so it couldn't have been that bad, right?

Finally, all of this brings to mind the words of a certain eccentric American prophet who, speaking about partying in the year 1999, once said, "Life is just a party and parties weren't meant to last." And really, all things considered, is that such a terrible thing?

10 Years Ago, An Omen No One Saw [New York Times]
Farewell to the King of Parties [Daily Beast]

Last night, media mogul Steven Brill sent us—unsolicited—his thoughts on the possibility of the New York Times charging for its website, which we wrote about yesterday. We will reproduce his thoughts in full, because how often do you get free, unsolicited musings from a media mogul on the area of his expertise (his new gig, Journalism Online, is all about this), even after you have derided him as usually wrong? Brill writes:

1. We have found in creating models like this for our newspaper and magazine affiliates that one of the other key advantages for them is that charging for online will actually enhance their PRINT revenues and circulation. There are two reasons: First, it allows the paper to "bundle" a discount offer for both, so that a would-be print subscriber or renewer can be offered a discount on his online subscription if he or she takes the print edition. (As in "Save 50% off the online subscription if you renew your print subscription.") You can't do that if you're not putting any value on, and not charging for, the online version. Second, if you keep giving one version (online) away for free, then you increasingly undercut sales of the other (print) version, not to mention your ability to raise the price on the newsstand, something most newspapers and magazines are trying to do. The long and short of it is that where papers have charged online in Europe and the U.S. they have enhanced their PRINT revenues. Indeed, the list of newspapers in the U.S. that have not suffered losses in print circulation lately looks like a list of those that are charging for their online versions.

2. In the models we are developing with affiliates, we show that you really needn't give up much if any online ad revenues when you charge online, because you really don't reduce your traffic much. That's because you can use a variety of methods to maintain most of your current (free) page views, such as: only charging readers who visit online more than, say, five time a month; only charging readers who visit frequently and who are outside your geographic base (locally-based online advertisers aren't paying to reach them anyway; or allowing readers to sample the first two paragraphs of a story before asking them to pay. We have created about 15 such varieties of free visits/sampling/charging methods. All of them contradict the notion of some kind of magic "pay wall" suddenly coming down and charging everyone for everything.

Rebecca Dana, reporter for the WSJ's Speakeasy blog and subject of the august paper's sultriest headcut ever, is leaving to take a job with the Daily Beast—her "dream job," she says. "I'm going to write about culture for them, with a focus on fashion. Will also do some editing and some general entertainment/media stuff," Dana tells us. She adds, "You won't have this stipple-portrait to kick around any more!" Oh?

The Claremont, NH Eagle Times folds, leaving the town without a newspaper. The Washington City Paper brushed off criticisms from witless Marion Barry fans who could not recognize the unadulterated brilliance of their latest cover. And other papers continue to try to fashion some sort of overarching editorial philosophy for the Huffington Post. Hint: It doesn't exist.

Do not expect Bill Keller to laugh and chuckle the next time a satirical cable news show comes calling! He says about his Daily Show experience: "Well, that's the last time I try to be a good sport. Even my wife told me that I looked faintly ridiculous, and she was trying to make me feel better. Among the people who would miss us most would be the wise-guy pundits and scriptwriters for satirical TV shows, because they riff on the news we produce." Bill Keller will punch Jason Jones right in the snoot, on sight.

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.It sucks to be a writer these days, yet another writer confirmed today. Best-selling author Joe McGinniss, author of The Selling of the President, is soliciting book ideas on Facebook, because he can't come up with anything people actually want to buy. Furthermore, freelancing sucks:

"Some of you may have seen my cover story on Sarah Palin and the Alaska gas pipeline for Portfolio . . . At least they paid well, which not many places do any more. Among those that don't is The Daily Beast. I recently wrote a short piece for them . . . They said they'd pay $250. But then they said they'd only pay if I signed an agreement that is the nuttiest, most onerous, restrictive contract I've seen in 40 years . . . I said I couldn't sign it . . . and, of course, never got paid."

A successful, celebrated writer, kids.

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.The canny private equity firm that recently bought the San Diego newspaper, in exchange for actual American currency, has put two of the buildings it got in the deal up for sale at prices "significantly higher" (by millions) than the prices they paid for them, two months ago. As you know, real estate prices have skyrocketed in the past two months. As have newspaper valuations. Carry on.
[Though there is an outside chance that financial professionals know what they're doing.]

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.Haha yesterday the New York Post was all, hey, Media stocks look like a "good bet." But then yesterday, that same day, media stocks "took a dive." This is why everybody writing about stocks, in a newspaper, is just guessing, hey, 50/50 CHANCE.

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.CBS and ABC both had all-time lows in nightly news viewership last week, which they're probably going to attribute to the digital TV switch, because the confused olds who still watch the nightly news regularly can't figure out how to get these new teevees working, and this is probably the actual reason.

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.W magazine's L.A. bureau chief Gabé Doppelt—who worked with Tina Brown at Talk magazine—is moving to the Daily Beast as its West Coast editor.

The email publication appears to have been bulking up dramatically. When last we checked it had 20,000 subscribers, too few to get much attention from advertisers. A year ago, VSL contributor Kurt Andersen told Charlie Rose it was up to 100,000 subscribers.

We checked in today with VSM general manager Gary Foodim, who says the list is up to 200,000 subscribers.

Tenfold growth is a commendable achievement for a list that targets a "smart set" of well-to-do would-be sophisticates. The question is whether VSL still has any claim on that set or whether, as we hear, the list has been diluted with users from other IAC brands, resulting in an open ad rate surprisingly low for a database of upscale consumers. One anecdote making the rounds even says that Diller's friends have abandoned the service; of 25 buddies he used to seed the VSL list, all but one is said to have unsubscribed.

Apparently retaining at least some highbrow airs, VSL hasn't responded to our request for comment on that scuttlebutt.

But it's easy to imagine that Diller, who once said he would be "much diminished" without VSL, has moved on. Rumors that he wants to offload the site have been rife this year. Now VSL is said to be in talks with Jared Kushner's ailing New York Observer. And Diller would appear to have a new favorite toy, judging by the $18 million he's feeding into the bonfire that is Tina Brown's Daily Beast.

For a while now we've been mildly fascinated by Meghan McCain. When she first popped up in the public consciousness through her "work" on her father's failed presidential campaign, there was something sort of endearing about her. We wanted to like her. But as we've become more and more exposed to her with the passage of time we've come to find her, well, pretty fucking grating, intolerably insufferable, the complete and total embodiment of everything wrong with a whiny-ass generation of privilege that wants, no expects, everything to just fall right into their precious little laps without having to do shit to earn whatever it is they desire.

So Meghan's out there calling bitches out in her Daily Beast column, painfully attempting to enter into the punditry, signing "high six figure" book deals, dropping F-bombs on Twitter, and acting like a cunt-y diva at gala events, all on the back of her father's name. So what's the deal with Meghan McCain? What is it that she's angling for here. Does she truly hope to become a "voice" for a new generation of progressive Republicans, a genuine agent of change, or is she just another fame-whore high on life in the public eye.

Tonight she was on the Colbert Report droning on and on and on about how much the Republican party needs to change its stance on just about everything, from gay marriage to sex education (Meghan is very, VERY "pro-sex") to how it markets itself to younger voters, but then she turned around and talked about how totally AWESOME the Republican party is, except for, you know, all of the batshit crazy wingnuts who're provided political shelter within it (Speaking of batshit crazy wingnuts, McCain declined to offer any comments on Sarah Palin). All in all McCain was, well, sort of likeable in that "oh you poor, confused little girl" sort of way, definitely stricken by a deeply-rooted identity crisis, and, oh yeah, did we mention that she loves to fuck?! And that's pretty much it.

The interview closed with Colbert landing the line of night, delivered just after McCain had launched into another one of her many "pro-sex" diatribes: "When you say 'pro-sex woman' I think the Republican's numbers go north."

Zing.





Meghan McCain on The Colbert Report [Colbert Nation]

The kids, the Daily Beast editor explained, will post mean comments underneath online articles critical of her.

What does Brown make of this anonymous bloodsport? Well, consider that when she was atop Vanity Fair and feuding with Vogue's Anna Wintour, Brown published a take-down on Wintour's womanizing then-boyfriend — and pillaged for quotes a private lunch Wintour invited her to with Princess Diana. So, yes, Brown approves. And probably would still approve if the perpetrators weren't her own flesh and blood.

See, Meghan is John McCain's daughter, and outside of that fact there is precisely nothing about her worth paying attention to and she has nothing interesting to say, as she proves each week on Tina Brown's Fancy Blog For Fancy People Illustrated.

She was on TV, and she was inarticulate and boring. But then Laura called her fat! And now Meghan gets to take the high ground in a "I tried to have a serious debate about the issues and look what happened" piece. Of course if she wants us to pay attention to her "ideas" instead of her appearance, well, it will end up even more hurtful because her "ideas," thus far, have been "why don't boys like me" and "what's up with Ann Coulter?"

Here are some more of her ideas:

I also thought the media outlets that reported on Laura's comments about me were out of line. I don't listen to Laura's show, so if journalists hadn't picked up on it and reported on it, I never would have known what she said. I wonder how Laura would feel if at some point someone were to criticize her daughter's weight and broadcast it nationally on the radio.

What a good point. She wouldn't like it if someone were to be as mean to her as she is to other people.

So, Meghan, let it be said that no matter what you looked like, we here at Gawker would still be completely baffled at the fact that you have such a prominent platform from which to say it.

Daily Beast West Coast editor Tom Tapp did his laundry at 11 a.m.

Reporter-pimping rapscallion Dan Abrams felt vaguely annoyed at Rachel Sklar. (We've all been there, Dan. She's everywhere!)

Tech blogger Harry McCracken overthought Twitter.

Snacky tech superflack Brooke Hammerling let the weather get her down.

Farm and Dairy editor Susan Crowell had a cow over milking online users. Ba-dum-bum!

Anyone else's tweets we should keep an eye on? Send us more Twitter usernames, please — or email us your favorite tweets.

Our tipster writes, by way of preface:

So I recently got this from a freelancer who now works at the Daily Beast. Believe it or not it is actually the most insidious and annoying email ever. Though it may not seem so prima facie, it in fact contains everything that is wrong with journalism and a particular type of freelance journalist. Where the source of the shittiness is unclear, I've annotated. Feel free to post but do not, per favore, use my name.

Bile, with footnotes! We love it. Syme is 25 and has a Tumblr, if that helps paint the picture. Syme's offending email:

From: Rachel Syme

Date: Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:11 PM

Subject: Know anyone who has moved away?

Hi all,

Doing some canvassing for a story I am working on for a magazine [1] (if you want to know which one, I'll tell you when you e-mail me).[2] In any case, it's a very respectable one. [3] Working on a piece about New Yorkers who, despite being tried and true, have left the city due to downsizing of their jobs or hopes...but intend to come back. People who are taking advantage of the recession and down mood around these parts to pursue a longtime passion elsewhere, and then bring it all back home at some point. [4] Do you know anyone?

Let me know asap. [5] Feel free to pass this along to someone who might know someone as well. Looking especially for people who have left the finance sector to do this.[6]

And hello. [7]

Rach

And the promised footnotes!

1. Elision of the first person singular. Though Ms. Syme has taken the time to write this email and send it to hundreds of her contacts, she hasn't the time to start sentences with I. This stems either from the baseline assumption that of course she means I because everything is about her anyway or from insisting on a false sense of urgency and drama, because writing I is simply too time consuming. Related: False Amity.

2. Unnecessary Secrecy. Including this as a parenthetical aside, Ms. Syme infuriatingly presupposes the following: The reader of said email, who is being asked for a favor by Ms. Syme, wants to know badly exactly who she is writing for (as opposed to not caring). That though Ms. Syme won't share this information with hoi polloi, you will care deeply enough to email her to find out. Related: Universal Secrecy, the annoying habit of telling every friend, colleagues or acquaintance information of a personal nature and swearing each in turn to secrecy, often preceded by "Totally OTR."

3. Insecure Vainglory. But even though she can't tell you exactly which magazine it is, rest assured, it's better than the one you are writing for.

4. Offensively Clichéd Story. All this is a preface to a request for sources for perhaps the most clichéd and already written recession story ever. There's only one thing worse that receiving these sorts of emails for good stories you wish you had thought of. That's receiving these emails about bad stories, you've already thought of, realized have been written elsewhere and that, out of pride and professionalism, you've spiked.

5. Urgency Shift. Ms. Syme, no doubt late in beginning her research [OMG, Fashion Week!] would like you, dear reader, to drop what you're doing and respond as soon as possible. We're on deadline here people!

6. See point 4.

7. False Amity. Ms. Syme, with 841 Facebook friends, is not just a professional contact, she'd like you to know. She's also your friend. Even if the only moments of contact come in a request for sources or of personal crisis. Also presupposes, you'd be deeply hurt if she didn't say hello.

(Photo by Nikola Tamindzic)

Barack Obama's press secretary was supposed to introduce a new era of inclusiveness and feminism maybe because Barack Obama is a liberal and he would end the "old boy's club" atmosphere of Washington. So in order to explain how sexist and anti-woman all of Robert Gibbs' baseball talk is BBC correspondent Katty Kay explains in The Daily Beast that even though she's managed to wrap her silly little female head around complicated things like "politics" she can't handle the occasional off-hand reference to "innings."

I can talk politics with the best of them. I can even make reasonable sense of toxic mortgage assets. Give me Paris, Moscow, or Tokyo and I can usually muster an intelligent observation. But when the talk turns to innings, dunks and touchdowns, sorry, I've nothing remotely sensible to add.

To be fair, sports metaphors in politics are really stupid, Robert Gibbs is clearly kind of a dick, and there is a pervasive chauvinism in the beltway press (it goes hand-in-hand with the blinkered elitism and self-importance). But come on, Katty, you really don't have any clue what Gibbs is saying here?

"Bottom of the fifth [inning], the sausage race is [at] the beginning of the next inning, so stay tuned, and the starting pitcher is in there, still throwing nice curveballs and [he's] still got a lot of heat on the fastball," was how the new White House press secretary described the progress of the economic stimulus bill at a recent briefing....

Slow down, Robert! There are girls here! In order to demonstrate how not-sexist this administration is you'd better reframe the issue in terms of shopping for shoes! (Or, as Katty says, "It's as if Dana Perino had compared getting out of Iraq to extracting yourself from pigeon pose, or tracking Osama to finding vintage Pucci on eBay." Because Dana Perino is a girl, see, and those are things girls know about. Also for fuckssake we'd still be able to follow those metaphors, even though we're boys. Because they're stupidly easy to comprehend even if you have a penis.)

The real problem is that author Katty Kay is British. If Robert Gibbs used cricket metaphors she'd be fine! Or maybe he should just have the lady members of the press corps chase him around the briefing room at high speed while a zany sax theme plays? That's the sort of stuff you Brits get, right?

"We've been pretty cautious so far," said Beast general manager Caroline Marks. "We're just in the stage of evolving...There are a spectrum of ways you can execute (an ad model) and we're looking at all of them. It is a dialogue that will evolve over the course of this year."

Oh, take your time. No rush.

Marks added that while many digital publishers, particularly blogs, have grayed the distinction between advertising and editorial, The Daily Beast was likely to employ a more strict boundary between church and state-particularly given Brown's magazine background (the celebrated Brown founded the short-lived Talk magazine and previously edited The New Yorker). That should mean less clutter and more traditional sponsorship elements.

LOLOLOLOL! Yes, the Beast will only consider projects that respect a very strict and clear wall between advertising and editorial. Like, for example, this two-page Taraji P. Henson interview sponsored by 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button', which is virtually indistinguishable from regular content, except for being somewhat more vapid.

See here, the job of the Daily Beast is to take millions from Barry Diller and redistribute that money to deserving writers, until such time when Barry Diller gets tired of losing money and closes the operation down. We hope not to hear of this "advertising" foolishness again. [Brandweek]

"No one I know has a job anymore," Tina says. Oddly she is not talking about the idle rich. She has discovered that this recession thing has hurt people with formerly cushy media jobs! She has coined a kicky new term for this terrible new situation of "working harder for less" that everyone else in the nation has been dealing with for a generation: The Gig Economy. It's also called "freelancing," if you don't like kicky new terms.

Of course she knows that poor people have been dealing with this since before she invented color photos of celebrites in high-brow magazines—Mrs. Sir Harold Evans is not out of touch with the little people!

"To people I know in the bottom income brackets [ha ha ha! -ed], living paycheck to paycheck, the Gig Economy has been old news for years."

AND

As noted above, the folks at the bottom of the greasy pole have been living with the anxieties, uncertainties, and indignities of Gigwork (it used to be called piecework) for a long time. Now that people nearer the top are learning firsthand about the wonders of “individual initiative” and “self-reliance,” a little more sympathy—maybe even solidarity—with those the meritocracy dismissed as losers may be in order. Maybe having to trade that first-class cabin for a smaller one without a porthole will alert some of the erstwhile winners to the fact that everyone's in the same boat.

Yes, and she commissioned a poll to study the dimensions of this boat. She commissioned the poll from Mark Penn! So she probably paid a trillion dollars for it, and now we'll all get emails from Michelle Obama asking us to please donate to poor Tina Brown. The poll shows a hot new demographic group of people with educations who weren't handed cushy jobs along with their diplomas.

In short, this recession is different from all the others because it is truly hurting the well-off the hardest, which is also the subtext of the fucking Bernie Madoff story. People making and saving enough to have million-dollar retirement funds bilked out of their imaginary profits! Tina Brown freelancing! Soon we'll all have to move out of our brownstones and penthouses and into the Thunderdome.

Sixteen years after Tina Brown first pushed the notion of mixing "high-low culture" at The New Yorker, then at Talk, she's still blathering on like it's a stunning discovery—and lazy media reporters keep buying it. Now that Barry Diller is her new Daddy Warbucks and Brown is running The Daily Beast, she let the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz drop by the offices to watch the obligatory editorial meeting and bring back a report on Brown's intriguing experiment. What did he find?

"I've always liked the high-low mixture, and it seemed to me that was missing from a lot of the sites," Brown says in her small, unadorned office, looking very New York in a leather jacket, black shirt, gray pants and black boots. "We like a hit of Britney but not much. I want to know far more about Mumbai and Larry Summers and what's happening at the Federal Reserve."

This is, of course, nearly identical to the way Brown described her Miramax and Hearst-backed Talk. From the Los Angeles Times, Aug. 8, 1999:

"There is a sense now that the people who watch Regis and Kathie Lee aren't interested in books, but there's no reason why those two worlds can't be brought together," she said. "And that's what we aim to do with Talk—to admit that we all like to picnic, that we can take the time to read a serious article on one page, then turn the page and escape with a photo essay about a movie star. We want to convey this high-low culture."

But she started out using the trope when she took over The New Yorker in 1992 and everyone thought she was ruining (but, in fairness, turned out to be saving) the staid, boring magazine of yesteryear. From the Boston Globe, Feb. 28, 1994 :

"Look, there are two strands going on in the magazine," explains Brown. "One, the relevant and contemporary piece, and two, the timeless piece that could have run anywhere within the year. I think it's important to have both in any given issue, because we are a weekly, and we have to get people to pick us up and read us that week."

The problem with Brown's recycled schtick is the new medium to which she's taken it. The high-low dichotomy she has long struggled with is this: high expenses, low revenues. Barry Diller, the billionaire IAC CEO who's bankrolling Brown's latest venture, says he doesn't expect to make any money from the site for the next two or three years:

If you say, 'Can today's online economics support a venture like this,' the answer is no. But if you say we're at the beginning of developing new advertising methods online, then the answer is profoundly yes."

Not that that's Brown's concern! She's never worried about money (though she occasionally worries about appearances). Under Brown, the New Yorker ran famous deficits. Talk folded in 2002 after losing an estimated $50 million.

With only 12 employees, the Daily Beast won't lose anywhere near that much money. But it's paying writers $250 a post, at a time when rival blog muse Arianna Huffington gets name-brand contributors for free. And the Beast isn't even bothering to carry ads yet. Unless a new business model springs forth from Brown's ever-inventive brain, her latest venture will end up as just another example of her ability to cadge bucks from media barons who should know better.