The short version of the story: the Washington Post planned to have dinners between reporters and lobbyists that the lobbyists would pay to attend, so they could talk to reporters. That's a little shady, but still more or less allowed. What's not cool is if those dinners were off-the-record, meaning that the public couldn't have knowledge of what lobbyists did or did not say to reporters who wrote about their jobs. The idea of the press and the people who push money around Washington to promote legislative causes getting together for expensive, secret pow-wows that would line the pocket of the Post is such a massive conflict-of-interest and ethics violation, it makes Fox News' "Fair and Balanced" tagline seem completely legit in comparison. The Post eventually woke up and canned the idea.

In July, Politico broke the story, and it resulted in the resignation of the Washington Post's marketing director, Charles Pelton, in September. What's great about being a sales and marketing exec at a newspaper is that they don't give a shit about ethics until somebody tells them "stop." In this case, that person should've been Washington Post executive editor Marcus Brauchli, whose reporters would be at these dinners. But Brauchli was cool with it. When the Times talked to Brauchli about the story in July, he claimed he thought the dinners would be on the record. When Pelton The Shady Marketing Director resigned over this in September, a bunch of lobbyists were like THAT SUCKS and Marcus Brauchli was like, I HAD NO IDEA HE WAS SHADY and issued a flat-out denial to the Times of any knowledge that the dinners were planned to be off the record.

Today, via The NYTpicker, the New York Times buried a note today in their corrections column:

...In a subsequent letter to (Charles) Pelton - which was sent to The Times by Mr. Pelton's lawyer - Mr. Brauchli now says that he did indeed know that the dinners were being promoted as "off the record," and that he and Mr. Pelton had discussed that issue.

Politico got the full letter between Pelton and Brauchli in which Brauchli claimed that he knew the records would be off the record, but not that kind of off the record. You know, the kind where we don't know who said what but we can still know who said it, which is a very specific kind of off the record called the "Chatham House Rule," which you've never heard of because you don't know bullshit journalism technicality lingo. You just know that "off the record" sure as shit sounds like "off the record," and that Brauchli claimed not to know the dinners were any kind of "off the record." Even Politico's Michael Caldrone, when he talked to Brauchli about it, got the same impression.

So, that happened. Brauchli-the executive editor of one of the largest newspapers in America-lied to the New York Times about how much he indeed knew about the ethical violations he and the Washington Post were in pursuit of before they killed the idea. But why'd the Times bury it in the corrections section? The NYTpicker contacted the Times for comment:

In an email to The NYTPicker, a NYT spokeswoman stands by the postscript. "The note speaks for itself," wrote Diane McNulty, the spokeswoman. "Information came to our attention after the Sept. 12 article and we decided that this note was warranted." McNulty did not elaborate.

Either the Times is embarassed they didn't dig deeper or needed to set the lines running for a larger report on how Brauchli's completely full of shit. Sadly, this is the kind of ethics violation Clark Hoyt would go to town on if he was allowed to write about anything else besides the New York Times. Also, sadly, this is how your newspaper sausage is made.

We do feel for the beleaguered actual reporters in the WSJ newsroom, who have to see their own reputations suffer by association while their paper's leadership caves in to a celebrity pseudo-columnist's right to disregard basic conflict-of-interest rules. One Journal employee told us, "While the Mark Penn incident is as egregious as it is embarrassing, at this point, I think most of the newsroom is so emotionally numb that nothing surprises us anymore. Truly."

The New York Times coaxed a statement out of Penn last night. It is pathetic:

In a statement, Mr. Penn, who declined to be interviewed, said that he had not seen the message until after it was sent, and that "nothing was done nor likely to be done as a result of it." He said that none of the companies mentioned in his column were Burson-Marsteller clients.

"I had no business motive in writing it whatsoever," he said. But, he added, "We will continue to distribute the columns to friends and clients alike, and assured The Journal they will not be tied to any specific marketing efforts."

More pathetic: the fact that this—which is not only not contrite, but actually dares you to believe that Burson-Marsteller will "continue to distribute" the column to clients and potential clients, but that that will not constitute a "marketing effort"—was enough to convince the standards-setters at the nation's premier business paper to give this man a pass. Not only that, but the WSJ's spokesman still refuses to comment on whether the paper is "comfortable with" Burson's actions.

It's also worth noting that while Penn's main excuse to the paper was that he didn't know in advance about this effort to leverage the column into clients, it's ridiculous to spin this into some sort of rookie mistake or uncharacteristic action. The email in question came from Josh Gottheimer, one of Burson's top global executives and head of the firm's Public Affairs practice. That means he's the head political communications guy. He was a speechwriter for President Bill Clinton, and for John Kerry and Wesley Clark's presidential campaigns. He was also the head PR guy for Ford. He knows what the fuck he's doing.

Finally, pathetic and amusing: The paper is keeping on Mark Penn, presumably, because they don't think they can afford to lose his unparalleled insight into the latest MICROTRENDS like—in this case—"glamping." Strange. An insider tells us that a WSJ travel reporter pitched a "glamping" story to the paper four years ago. The reporter was told that the story was too old.
[Pic: Larry Roibal]

Scumbag spotted!

Mark Penn's latest (old, and none too insightful) 'Microtrend' column is about "glamping"—glamorous camping. It ran last weekend. By Monday, according to an internal email obtained by Gawker, Burson was already trying to recruit companies from the industry featured in the column as clients. Burson Executive Vice President (and former Bill Clinton speechwriter) Josh Gottheimer urged Burson's senior staff—including Founding Chairman Harold Burson, US President & CEO Patrick Ford, and others, to use Penn's column as a tool to approach clients in the camping industry about business. Not only that—he recommends that Mark Penn "send a note" to the CEO of these potential clients requesting a meeting.

You may recall that Mark Penn was canned as Hillary Clinton's campaign strategist after it emerged that his firm was trying to get a contract to do PR work for the nation of Colombia—work that went against Clinton's own political position (a story that the WSJ broke). We pointed out at the time that it was idiotic to expect a full-time PR exec to be anything but a PR exec—Penn's job is to bring in business to Burson (one of America's biggest, and shadiest PR firms), and anyone expecting Burson to pass up business opportunities because they somehow clash with Mark Penn's various other hobbies will be sorely disappointed.

Moonlighting from his PR career has already screwed a politician. Now he's screwing a newspaper the same way. Here we have a Wall Street Journal columnist whose firm is taking his newspaper columns fresh off the press and running to any company connected to the column's subject of the week, trying to get them to sign up with said firm—led by the columnist himself!—for PR work. At best, Penn has a conflict of interest here that can only be resolved by resigning one job or the other. The least generous interpretation would be that Burson-Marsteller is purposefully using the editorial space of the Wall Street Journal as a business recruitment tool—fooling one of the nation's most prestigious papers into giving it ad space it can use to promote its own clients, for free.

Either way, whatever sort of credibility Penn had as an expert who spots trends based on data rather than on his own firm's business considerations is clearly shot. WSJ parent company Dow Jones' own Code of Conduct states that "The Company will suffer, for example, if our customers cannot assume" these principles are followed:

• Our analyses represent our best independent judgments rather than our preferences, or those of our sources, advertisers or information providers;
• Our opinions represent only our own editorial philosophies; or
• There are no hidden agendas in any of our journalistic undertakings.

We're contacting the WSJ and Burson-Marsteller and we'll bring you their responses when we get them. In the meantime: Don't go trusting any Microtrends. Unless you're Mark Penn's client.

Update: The WSJ referred us to Alan Murray, Deputy Managing Editor of The Wall Street Journal and Executive Editor for the Journal Online. He tells us he is "Looking into it. We have a clear conflict of interest agreement with Mr. Penn and all our outside columnists."
[Pic: Getty]

The New York Times successfully got the entire news media establishment to agree not to report that NYT reporter David Rohde had been kidnapped by the Taliban for seven months. But now the paper is reporting on Taliban kidnapping of US army private Bowe Bergdahl, by traveling to his hometown, despite his family's request for privacy [see detailed discussion at NYTpicker]. Which would be perfectly normal, except for the Rohde precedent. The paper will probably come to realize the way it handled Rohde was philosophically inconsistent, then do the same thing when it happens again, because, safe/ sorry.


Wealthy New York mag owner Bruce Wasserstein is reportedly looking into buying BusinessWeek, though it's not clear how interested he really is. We think he should. Jon Fine says BW's losing around $40 mil per year, and Bruce Wasserstein is rich. So he would be a better buyer than a poor man would be, in terms of how quickly each would go broke were they losing $40 mil per year. Business is all about logic, okay.


The New York Times Co. says it will sell its stake in the Boston Red Sox by January, but CEO Janet Robinson refused to comment on, ha, "speculation" that the company wants to sell the Boston Globe. Ha. Can they afford not to sell it? It would be like not selling a pickpocket, that lives in your pocket. In other Boston-related media news, "Boston Herald to stop distributing gun catalog."


Hibbity hoo, Brits are crying into their handkerchiefs over the death of Fleet Street: "Agence France-Presse, the last major news organization operating in the legendary media thoroughfare, packed up its office and relocated to less romantic, if somewhat cheaper, premises elsewhere in the city." Actually, we're kidding. Nobody's taking any notice whatsoever.

Health care reform. Deficits. Astronomy. All subjects that our nation's few remaining reporters had to stop working on, as they turned their attention, reluctantly, to this tawdry spectacle of a much fantasized-about blond lady finally caught on tape by a despicable peeping tom. As is customary in matters of media ethics, the New York Post leads the charge. They fully support Andrews' right to put this "PEEP PERV" behind bars. Here's how you can help: peruse their extensive gallery of Erin Andrews glamor shots, and think about whether you might know who taped her, naked.

Respectable media outlets are not so low as to write about Erin Andrews' naked Peephole Perv video; they're simply covering the reaction to the video, by less upstanding media outlets, as well as by slobbering sex-crazed animals such as yourself. "The media were happy to feed the frenzy," reports the Washington Post. "Some in the mainstream TV and print media shamefully disseminated it yesterday," clucks Newsday.

[Check out their photo gallery, too!]

We won't engorge the media's suffering by going on. Suffice it to say that most reporters forced to swallow this prurient story have erected hard barriers to protect their own emotions. The bright side: Yes, "Erin Andrews video peep" was the #1 Google trend this morning, disgustingly, but "Aaron Andrews peephole" was #11. There's something here for all persuasions!
[Pic: Getty]

Reports the Anchorage Daily News:

An investigator for the state Personnel Board says in his July 14 report that there is probable cause to believe Palin used or attempted to use her official position for personal gain because she authorized the creation of the trust as the "official" legal defense fund.

In his report, (Thomas) Daniel said his interpretation of the ethics act is consistent with common sense.

An ordinary citizen facing legal charges is not likely to be able to generate donations to a legal defense fund, he wrote. "In contrast, Governor Palin is able to generate donations because of the fact that she is a public official and a public figure. Were it not for the fact that she is governor and a national political figure, it is unlikely that many citizens would donate money to her legal defense fund."

Palin's crackpot mouthpiece Meg Stapleton issued the following statement in regards to the matter, claiming that the whole thing still isn't resolved:

There is no final report. The Investigator is still confidentially reviewing this matter. It appears suspect that in the final days of the Governor's term, someone would again violate the law and announce a supposed conclusion before it is reached.

And, naturally, Palin took to her Twitter page to say basically the same thing:





However, Thomas Daniel claims that his report is final and that the case is closed and that Palin is guilty of violating Alaskan ethics laws, so somebody's full of shit and we'll give you one guess as to who we think that person is.

Ethics Investigator Rules Against Palin [Anchorage Daily News]

There's no denying the fact that the initial pitch the paper sent out was despicable. (How despicable?) So despicable that a lobbyist went complaining about its ethics, to Politico! Sample:

The flier says: "Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No. The relaxed setting in the home of [WP Publisher] Katharine Weymouth assures it. What is guaranteed is a collegial evening, with Obama administration officials, Congress members, business leaders, advocacy leaders and other select minds typically on the guest list of 20 or less. …

"Offered at $25,000 per sponsor, per Salon. Maximum of two sponsors per Salon. Underwriters' CEO or Executive Director participates in the discussion. Underwriters appreciatively acknowledged in printed invitations and at the dinner. Annual series sponsorship of 11 Salons offered at $250,000 …

In other words, "Send your CEO or whoever to our publisher's house to schmooze with our reporters and editors and they have to be nice and listen to you, because you paid for it!" Of course they are now scrambling to take it all back. The paper's flack told Peter Kafka that the flier "went out before it was properly vetted, and this draft does not represent what the company's vision for these dinners are, which is meant to be an independent, policy-oriented event for newsmakers." And WP editor Marcus Brauchli sent out a strongly worded staff email saying that the newsroom "will not participate in events where promises are made that in exchange for money The Post will offer access to newsroom personnel or will refrain from confrontational questioning."

But! You will note that the idea of media outlets having conferences or events which corporations pay to sponsor and which are attended by the editorial staff of said media outlet, at which they schmooze nicely with said corporate sponsors while not explicitly being ordered not to be "confrontational" are an accepted practice! Brauchli says in that same strongly worded email that "There is a long tradition of news organizations hosting conferences and events, and we believe The Post, including the newsroom, can do these things in ways that are consistent with our values." And the paper's PR person certainly did not rule out the idea of the paper holding this "independent, policy-oriented event for newsmakers," and, presumably, corporate sponsors—she just said the flier was not written well.

Politics is a trade, and trade publications love events like these—some trade magazines make more by selling sponsorships to awards shows and, uh, "policy-oriented events" than they do from selling ads in their publications. And why, dear reader, would any company shell out thousands of dollars to "sponsor" such a craptastic, not-fun evening of stiff cocktail chatter and catered food? Because it offers "access," and engenders good media relations. In practice, most editorial staffers don't have to be ordered to be friendly and chat up the various sources at these things; normal social pressures ensure that that happens.

So you can be sure that these "Salons" will probably still happen in a slightly modified form. Everybody does these things. Even the shocked, shocked Politico has events! [The White House Correspondents Dinner is the fucking epitome of breathless schmoozing, and all these guys love that thing!]

Hey, it's a revenue stream. It's all in what you leave unsaid. The Washington Post just needs to get a better salesman.
[Which is not to say these things are good. Know any more particularly outrageous media events? Email us.]

A note from Bill Keller and Andy Rosenthal

To the staffs of the News and Editorial departments

We have been reviewing the newspaper's policy on outside speaking engagements. We believe that you are all adhering to the spirit of the guidelines, both for speaking on behalf of the Times and to promote books.

But we have all become lax in complying with the parts of the ethics guidelines that require annual accounting of income from speaking engagements.

Briefly, you are required to file by Jan. 31 of each year an itemized accounting of all income over $5,000 that you earned in the previous year from speaking engagements.

So, we're asking anyone who earned more than $5,000 from speaking engagements in 2008 to file an itemized accounting with the appropriate person by June 15. Your accounts for 2009 are due on Jan. 31, 2010, and so on.

If you are offered a single speaking fee over $5,000 for an appearance based on your work as a Times staffer, you must consult before accepting. (In the newsroom, that's with Craig Whitney or Bill Schmidt; in the editorial department, that's with Carla Robbins for board members and Andy Rosenthal for columnists).

We will make sure that an annual reminder is sent around to the entire staff.

In the Newsroom, the annual accounts go to Bill Schmidt. In the Editorial department, they go to Carla Robbins.

Also, please remember that if you are promoting a book, you are required to submit in advance a list of proposed promotional events to your immediate supervisor.

Please review these and all the other guidelines relating to outside speaking engagements in Ethical Journalism.

One of the most important is: if you have any doubts, just ask.

Thanks very much,

Bill and Andy Andy

The Flat One gave a speech to the "Bay Area Air Quality Management District" last week, and charged his normal fee, $75,000, which also includes a chance for some of the attendees to ask him questions (regarding ice cream preferences only). So then a motherfucking poor media critic at the LA Times gets all pissy and starts asking questions about whether this is "good" or "fair" or whatever and then they discover hey, the NYT doesn't even let you give paid speeches to lobbying groups like that, and now Tommy has to give back the money!

Do you think Thomas Friedman likes to fly to the West Coast on an airplane and ride in a taxi and stay in a hotel, for free? That's three columns worth of material for him, but no, he does not like to do it for fucking free. Sprawling suburban mega-mansions aren't fucking free.

[LAT]

Ah, I know. It's because Liberty Mutual was 'Responsible' (ha) for trying to pimp its own (same!) ad campaign last year on the dead body of Paul Tilley, the ad exec who committed suicide. Back then, Liberty Mutual bought up Google Keywords so anybody looking for info on Paul Tilley's death would see a nice ad directing them to the company's 'Responsibility Project' website, where they could learn about responsibility, and also maybe see some of the benefits of buying some insurance from Liberty Mutual.

The company never took responsibility for that one.

Anyhow their new ad campaign promises to "look at responsibility from a more micro level," which presumably means "a level not pertaining to Liberty Mutual." [NYT]

The Observer reports that Abrams has been talking to some of the best media writers in NYC about coming over to start his "on-line Web property that will include some level of blogging of and about the media," as he puts it, all lawyerly-like:

But the Observer has learned the list of writers and editors who've spoken to Mr. Abrams includes Gawker's politics editor Alex Pareene, Advertising Age 'Media Guy' columnist Simon Dumenco, former New York Magazine senior editor Jesse Oxfeld, Portfolio's Mixed Media blogger Jeff Bercovici, and The Observer's own John Koblin.
So far none of the conversations have resulted in a hiring.

Ha, well the bright side is that all the good writers are now conflicted out of writing about it, so I can write about it! The description of exactly what Abrams wants here is a bit vague, but evidently he'd like a respectable media blog, run by respectable people, to confer a level of legitimacy upon his PR firm, which is decidedly not legitimate, because it pays active journalists to be consultants for things they might cover, or are already covering, which is the very DEFINITION of a conflict of interest.

Here's Abrams' own defense of his business model, which, we'll just note, assumes that you, the readers, are none too insightful.

But hey, sounds like he's trying to get some good talent ($50-80K salaries!), and assuming that he left them alone, this blog could be good! The downside is that it will be fronting a sellout factory. You can take that for what it's worth. Which, in this job market, is nothing. [NYO]

Sure, he saved more than 100 lives on board his plummeting airplane. But one thing was eating at his soul: a library book he'd checked out.

Sullenberger contacted librarians and asked for an extension on the loan and a waiver on the overdue fine. The reason? The book is in the cargo hold of the US Airways plane that made an emergency landing last month in New York’s Hudson River

Ha, uh, just what we all would have done! And in a sickeningly heartwarming addendum, the book was about "professional ethics." Good lord in Heaven. Just let us touch the hem of your robes, Sully. [PublicRadio.org]

The AP's "analysis" piece about how this will be very damaging for Obama is short on evidence that supports the headline, but it does point out that Emil Jones is still a connector between Blago and Obama, with both still considering the Senate President an ally. But there's this little nugget too:

Court documents say they don't include all calls dealing with the governor's efforts regarding the Senate appointment. And many people in the documents are referred to by aliases; there's little doubt their identities will eventually surface.

If it's true that Rahm Emanuel, or someone else close to Obama, helped ensure that this particular arrest happened at this particular time, that person's cooperatoin with the investigation certainly might lead prosecutors to remove Obama's friends from the criminal complaint, right? If, say, there wasn't really anything illegal or relevant involved anyway. Just something to think about!

From: Gollust, Allison (NBC Universal)

Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 11:35 AM
To: [David Barstow]
Cc: Capus, Steve (NBC Universal); McCormick, David (NBC Universal)
Subject: From NBC News

Dear Mr. Barstow:

Here is our on the record response to your request.

Before we address the issues you have raised with your current article, it bears repeating that we remain very concerned about your first article. We believe it left your readers with an inaccurate and incomplete picture of the NBC News military analysts. It ignored the criticism expressed by our analysts of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon strategy in Iraq. Further, it suggested that every military analyst listed or pictured in the NY Times article became a conduit for unfiltered propaganda.

This is a gross distortion of the truth as it relates to the NBC News analysts.

With regard to General Barry McCaffrey, it was evident you were aware of his critical remarks because you acknowledged them in your emails to the General even before the article was published. Yet, you left this important contextual information out of your article. Our lingering concerns have only been reinforced by your most recent email to us with questions regarding General McCaffrey, some of which are based on false assumptions.

The basic premise that General McCaffrey profited from his on-air appearances defies logic given the critical tone of the General’s repeated comments regarding Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon.

We've yet to see concrete proof of a correlation between any of his outside business interests and his statements made on our air. Truly, the opposite appears to be the case. General McCaffrey put himself at odds with the Pentagon decision makers time and time again — not only on NBC's air, but in his public appearances and many writings. In fact, he has lost potential outside opportunities precisely because he had made an ethical decision to be objective and make critical comments when warranted.

Our relationship with General McCaffrey is based on trust, a basic tenant of journalism. He has provided us with periodic, detailed reports on his outside activities and meetings. He has assured us that he is not directly incentivized in any of his outside business relationships. We have agreed that he would either recuse himself from any discussion where a conflict might exist or disclose a relationship should that be necessary.

General McCaffrey is a retired Four Star General, a two-time recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross, the nation’s second highest award for valor. He is one of the foremost experts on defense matters and has earned a reputation for his independent thinking.

We are proud to have General Barry McCaffrey as a member of the NBC News organization, where he provides objective and non-partisan analysis. He is a true American hero who is not afraid to speak his mind even if it sometimes ruffles some feathers in Washington. We believe our viewers have been, and will continue to be, well served by his incisive and thoughtful comments.
__________________________________
—-— Original Message —-—

From: BARRY MCCAFFREY
To: McCormick, David (NBC Universal)
Cc: Brian NBC-Williams ; Elena NBC-Nachmanoff ; Steve NBC-Capus
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 12:01 AM
Subject: Re: From NBC News

David,

Very balanced, objective response.

Underscores my view of NBC as an enterprise based on journalistics ethics—- and courage.

Proud to be associated with this team of professionals.

Barry

To start: as the Times piece did actually point out, each time McCaffrey criticized Rumsfeld and the Pentagon, they threatened to cut him off and he walked those criticisms all the way back. Because he was repeating Pentagon talking points and couldn't jeopardize his good favor with the Pentagon by being critical, because that would jeopardize his consulting firm's ability to get their clients access to the Pentagon, which is the gist of the massive ethical clusterfuck that NBC refuses to acknowledge. Further: McCaffrey provided NBC with "periodic, detailed reports on his outside activities and meetings," which revealed relationships and conflicts that they didn't feel the need to inform the viewers about, because McCaffrey promised he was totally independent and his word was good enough for them.

Is it crazy that a major media company with a legendary news division just doesn't understand the concept of a conflict of interest? Television news is more "consultant" heavy and flack-driven and non-transparent than just about any other medium besides maybe mp3 blogging. The idea that a man being introduced on television as an independent voice of expertise is actually specifically shilling for a client that has paid him to appear on television as an expert and advance their commercial goals is to be expected. Let's not forget NBC-employed Dan Abrams' inability to understand why some people might think his "I'll connect you with a working journalist to help you get the best coverage you can afford" firm is a crazy ethical mess.

But what makes McCaffrey even worse, even more gross, is that he combines the usual slimy PR bullshit of all television news, from the health reports to the entertainment news, with, you know, war profiteering. And, as a product of both the military-industrial complex and the beltway media, he simply doesn't understand how anyone could think him anything less than a paragon of virtue. As Spencer Ackerman puts it, "the scope of McCaffrey's hustle is really breathtaking." And Barry's defense of his actions rests on this: "Thirty-seven years of public service. Four combat tours. Wounded three times." FIVE-AND-A-HALF YEARS, ALAN. Christ.

Abrams: "First and foremost there are thousands and thousands of folks in 'media' around the world who are not involved in the news business."

Fair enough. You can hire people who make no claim to journalism. Though that would seem to disqualify them as experts. You can also hire ex-journalists; PR firms are full of them. But you can't hire anybody who is in some way a practicing journalist, because then they're being paid money to consult for somebody, which is a conflict of interest. This is really simple.

Then Abrams asks people to look at his website. Fine. It has some examples of what the firm might do:

A Fortune 500 business believes the financial media has focused unfairly on a small change in accounting practices rather than significant increases in revenues.

Abrams Research can bring together top financial journalists to advise that business on how to best convey its message.

No. That is a job for a PR firm, not "top financial journalists." That is a conflict of interest.

A video game distributor is seeking an assessment of how blogs in a particular market will react to its new product.

Abrams Research can reach out to the most influential industry bloggers and present an overview of their opinions on a particular marketing message.

No. Do you think that the writers of (for example) Kotaku, our video game blog, can sell their opinion on marketing messages to video game companies? No. That is ludicrous. These are blatant conflicts of interest.

Then comes Rachel Sklar with her defense:

"Journalists are on panels all the time — they are quoted in articles all the time — they sit down for coffee with friends, or friends of friends, to give advice all the time. I give advice to people all the time privately — and I seek it. I also did it publicly for over two years on Eat the Press, in the format of, 'This is why I think you're doing it wrong'...What doesn't make sense about trying to educate yourself about an area of media before pitching that area of media? No one is talking about passing a cash-stuffed envelope under the table.

Right. You're passing the cash-stuffed envelope over the table. Rachel Sklar is smart enough to understand the difference between giving "advice" as a journalist, while being paid by a media company, and giving advice to a corporate client for a fee, as a PR consultant. You can do PR or you can do journalism, but you can't do both at the same time. Abrams should just hire former media people like every other PR firm.

Look, this is the New York media and everybody knows everybody and everybody thinks everybody is nice and everything, but come on. This is a ridiculous thing. [Daily Intel]

“I won’t do stolen documents, I won’t do medical records if someone hands it.” He tossed someone out of his office for trying to shop Michael Jackson documents because he was sure they were stolen from a law firm...

Even Levin can still be shocked: “When Britney Spears was in the hospital, it was shocking to me but we were contacted by medical personnel. ... You really have to draw the line.” They don’t skip medical stories—TMZ broke the Dennis Quaid story about his newborn twins being overdosed and might report on how Spears is doing anecdotally during a hospital stay. The hardest decision Levin’s had to make: publishing Alec Baldwin’s voice-mail tirade aimed at his daughter.

He lost some sleep over that one.

[Paid Content. Watch a clip of the interview here]

Alexis gets her quarterly does of Botox from Dr. Wexler:

Lasik on a purported celebrity, yuck:

[NYT]

[UPDATE: And don't forget Mary Rambin already did a video for Restylane!]

As Jack Shafer points out, Purdum's reliance on unnamed sources is annoying and troubling. BUT! Besides a paragraph or two insinuating without proof that Clinton has been sexing a number of ladies across the world, most of the damning material in the story is from the public record and disputed by no one.

Like Clinton's habit of hanging out with Steve Bing and Ron Burkle! Bing's paternity problems are matters of undisputed fact, even if the details (who sued whom?) remain sketchy. Burkle's love of 19-year-olds seems to be undeniable.

And then there's the weird business dealings. The billions of dollars he's made from Burkle for doing god-knows-what. The scummy donors to his foundation and library. Jeffrey Epstein. Misuse of his pension. This stuff is, once again, beyond the realm of smears and allegation. It's all fact.

Basically the "allegations" that annoy Clinton so much are the ones attributed to Clinton aides and former staffers—that he's angry all the time, that he doesn't control his language anymore, that since his heart surgery he hasn't been the same. And Clinton's bizarre rant against Purdum demonstrates that all those points have merit.

Also the "intervention" thing, which Purdum defends by saying that the aforementioned anonymous Clinton staffers are the ones worried about Bill's maybe-cheating. Which, you know, is at least plausible, even if it is the most "tawdry" part of the story. A man is judged by the company he keeps. And also by the well-documented extra-marital affairs he's been forced to admit to under oath in the past.

The four surgeries were done between 2000 and 2004 at a time of pronounced organ scarcity. In each of those years, more than 100 patients died awaiting liver transplants in the Greater Los Angeles region...

The most prominent transplant recipient, Tadamasa Goto, had been barred from entering the U.S. because of his criminal history, several current and former law enforcement officials said. Goto leads a gang called the Goto-gumi, which experts describe as vindictive and at times brutal.

The FBI helped Goto obtain a visa to enter the United States in 2001 in exchange for leads on potentially illegal activity in this country by Japanese criminal gangs, said Jim Stern, retired chief of the FBI's Asian criminal enterprise unit in Washington.

Goto got his liver, Stern said, but provided the bureau with little useful information on Japanese gangs.

In other words, Goto scammed his way into the US, promising information; got his precious liver, while dozens of others died waiting; then gave no good information! Coincidentally, the gangster's trip here for the transplant is the exact story that Adelstein had that got him targeted in the first place.

It's a thorny ethical issue: on one hand, there's the UCLA transplant surgeon, who said "it's not my role to pass moral judgment on the patients who seek my care." On the other hand, there's a very persuasive argument to be made that patients like Goto should be shot with a gun so that bullets pass through them. Jake Adelstein must be so morally conflicted!

[LAT]