To summarize: Greenwald goes over the New York Times' revelation of a Charlie Rose-officiated summit between News Corp and GE chiefs that ended the battle between their respective professional blowhards, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. The battle embarrassed their corporate parents, and that's why the beef was squashed. He notes that the Times' Brian Stelter, who penned the piece, missed the big picture in all of this: that we now shamelessly live in an age where corporations can control their news divisions simply by getting a few guys in a room, and ordering them to stop fighting. Which is absolutely true, but we already knew that. He's right, however, in its absolute shamelessness. Even Charlie Rose, who brought the corporate titans together, is dirty. Even better, Greenwald pulls from an old interview of Charlie Rose's. In conversation with reporter and columnist Amy Goodman, Rose noted:

I promise you, CBS News and ABC News and NBC News are not influenced by the corporations that may own those companies. Since I know one of them very well and worked for one of them.

Which is great, coming from the guy who just moderated a meeting of two corporate giants who need to reign in their news networks.

But when not pointing out the long-kvetched, now manifest complaints of anarchists everywhere, he gets to something even more insidious: former Newsweek reporter Richard Wolffe's guest stint on MSNBC, filling in for Keith Olbermann. Wolffe is noted as a "political analyst" when he appears on MSNBC. Which is funny, because his day job is for a corporate strategies firm run by the former Bush White House Comm Director Dan Bartlett:

Wolffe left Newsweek last March in order to join "Public Strategies, Inc.," the corporate communications firm run by (Bartlett), its President and CEO...

...Having Richard Wolffe host an MSNBC program — or serving as an almost daily "political analyst" — is exactly tantamount to MSNBC's just turning over an hour every night to a corporate lobbyist

Hot damn. He also goes on to note those who've previously written about MSNBC and Wolffe's lack of disclosure over this (Ana Marie Cox), and links to Public Strategies' website. Want to know what one of their divisions is? This is neat:

Media Intelligence™

The Situation

A leading media company faced negative public perception and sagging stock prices resulting from a personal legal situation involving its CEO. Senior Management engaged Public Strategies to reposition the company as a trusted, respected, and innovative leader in its industry, and to help mitigate the crisis and restore confidence in the brand.

Public Strategies' solution

In addition to providing strategic counsel, Public Strategies immediately responded by enacting its Media Intelligence™ service providing the client with a 360-degree perspective of public opinion around the globe

A "360-degree perspective," and a four-dimensional one, too, like A CALL THAT COMES FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE. Furthermore: he points out how Wolffe has gone on the record to a Newsweek reporter after announcing his departure from the weekly as not giving a shit about the line between corporate interests and news. And get ready to walk away from your computer, because you might want to break something:

"The idea that journalists are somehow not engaged in corporate activities is not really in touch with what's going on. Every conversation with journalists is about business models and advertisers," he said, recalling that, on the day after the 2008 election, Newsweek sent him to Detroit to deliver a speech to advertisers. "You tell me where the line is between business and journalism," he said.

Jesus.

At least former MSNBC correspondent, the (potentially) conflict-of-interest-happy Dan Abrams, tries to run interference on the inherent conflicts between owning a media strategies firm Abrams Research and owning a media reporting website Mediaite (or at least: has henchpeople furiously sending emails, telling everyone writing about them to get their facts right).

The kicker, however, is when Greenwald points out Wolffe's bio on the Public Strategies website, where they actually tout him as a news source: "In addition, Wolffe is an NBC political analyst. He provides political commentary on several MSNBC programs, Meet The Press, and TODAY."

As in, in addition to being our employee, we can send him into the field to say whatever you want him to say! For a price, of course. There's clearly a very small difference in being able to pay to put something in someone's mouth, and being able to pay to get something out of someone's mouth in front of a bunch of other people. Richard Wolffe is about as dirty and shameless a media whore as you can get, taking money from corporations, going on the news with his pockets lined by said interests, and being framed in a context as an objective, righteous news commentator. Richard Wolffe, and by extension, MSNBC, are completely - and I guess, at this point - unexpectedly dirty, and pretty much nothing they claim to be and everything they don't.

Glenn Greenwald, on the other hand? You deserve something. I don't know. A steak dinner. A stiff drink. But mostly, lots of people to read your column. It's nice to see someone who's not answering to the interest of brass somewhere, which, apparently, is becoming more and more rare as we move forward in this great new era of news, or whatever we're eventually going to call it.

GE's silencing of Olbermann and MSNBC's sleazy use of Richard Wolffe [Salon]

The New Yorker's Susan Orlean wasn't about to let social pressure keep her from blogging about suicide

Salon's Glenn Greenwald pulled his punches with regard to the White House Press Corps, as usual.

The Daily Show's Tim Carvell was not impressed with the Times' sales pitch.

David Carr found himself easily distracted from his work for the Times.

But his colleague Patrick LaForge seemed to relish his new job: Assuring New Yorkers of various things that will not, in fact, kill them.

• Joe was like, the Demon-crats want American courts to approve investigations of foreign terrorists!
• Then Glenn and everyone was just like "It just does not."
• Then Joe made it worse! And Glenn was all "what country do you live in?"
• And then Glenn was like "Time Magazine has done a superb service for the country by illustrating everything that is rancid and corrupt with our political media." MEOW.
• And Time put up a pretty iffy correction.
• And Joe was like shrug, I don't really know anything and can't figure this out.
• And the pitchfork-hoisting mob was like CRUCIFY HIM CRUCIFY HIM. Which is sort of a good point!
• Now poor Joe can't blog at all without his comments sections being taken over by calls for his big mistaken head!
• Except one commenter was like:

  It's already a win-win for Time. The controversy drives extra traffic to Swampland. But all the extra eyeballs here are people who already know Joe is wrong and why. In the meantime, the print edition will "cover the controversy" and in exactly the same way that Genesis gets promoted to a reasonable scientific theory in classrooms, The RW misrepresentations will get elevated to a plausable alternative to the actual text of the bill. And Joe doesn't get laughed off the playground by his DLC buddies.

• Which is definitely a good point.

According to the site's most recent annual report, filed at the end of June, Salon is planning an initiative called "OpenSalon," which will be "a new service for its users allowing them to post user profiles; contribute blogs and other content; and collecting all their contributions to Salon, including Letters to the Editor, in one place." We're envisioning something like Facebook plus that failed Assignment Zero site, plus the LA Times' recent attempt to get people to contribute for free. So basically, Salon is looking for a way to monetize its most self-absorbed readers' contributions to the site. (Wait, isn't that why they hired Brazil-loving liberal scold Glenn Greenwald?)

Except, Salon already has a virtual community—or at least, they did. And they were never able to monetize or popularize it. So what makes them think they'll be able to do it now?

In April of 1999, Salon bought a property called The Well, one of the original online communities (started in 1985). By the time Salon bought it, it had been built into a healthy amalgam of e-mail services, personal web pages, message boards, and the like. In 1995, it had 10,000 members, and endless online-wonk cred. But what happened? It has become almost an afterthought on Salon's website, and according to its SEC filing, The Well currently only has 2,700 paying members.

Salon generally doesn't have a great track record when it comes to meshing with online trends—some of that is no fault of their own, except for bad tea leaf reading. The magazine got caught up in the IPO fever of the late 1990s and went public near the height of the hysteria, in June 1999. But even then, investors were cool to Salon's IPO, and the stock's price never really went anywhere. Then, in one of the most colossally misguided decisions the magazine would make, it decided to launch Salon Premium in April 2001—just as the stock market was going into freefall. But even at its height (the 2004 elections), Salon Premium had fewer than 90,000 subscribers. Today, the magazine acknowledges that it needs to emphasize getting ads over getting Salon Premium memberships; obviously, if more people visit the site, or at least the right sort of people, they can charge more for ads. (Update: A good point has been made to us—that Salon wouldn't have weathered that crash without the infusion of cash from subscribers, which they recruited with ardor. That does make sense as well.)

After years of turmoil, Salon might be getting its act together. The magazine is actually starting to turn a profit, and its stock today was trading at $1.35—up from a low of $.05 in the dark, dark days of 2003. But is social networking the right choice for their financial future?

Manager, Social Networking Site at Salon.com [Gawker Jobs]
Salon Annual Report [SEC]

"Salon has been relying on cash infusions from related parties to fund operations. The related parties are primarily John Warnock, a Director of Salon, and William Hambrecht. William Hambrecht [who is worth $500 million] is the father of Salon's President and Chief Executive Officer" Elizabeth Hambrecht. Good hire! Warnock and Hambrecht also own a ton of Salon stock.

"Salon has historically lacked significant revenues and has a history of losses." Well, sure. Also, some fancy accounting firm did an audit that reports "substantial doubt about Salon's ability to continue as a going concern, citing issues such as the history of losses and absence of current profitability."

Also, everyone hates that darn Site Pass, except some geniuses over there who think it's going to save them: "As a result of analyzing the traffic patterns to Salon's Website, Salon believes that its Site Pass advertising model, which Salon credits as instrumental in increasing advertising revenues, and driving memberships to Salon Premium, inhibits growth in traffic to its Website." So: fewer visitors, but better bang per buck per visitor. (How Times Select!) Things looked up a bit in the last quarter, with advertising revenues at a "record" $2.8 million and a profit (!) of—drumroll, please—$200,000.

But possibly the best part of last year's Annual Report is: "Salon is under budgetary constraints to control expenditures. These constraints affect editorial staffing levels and the purchase of content from freelance writers." And: "Due to Salon's history of losses, Salon may experience difficulty in hiring and retaining highly skilled employees with appropriate qualifications. Salon may be unable to retain its current key employees or attract, integrate or retain other qualified employees in the future. If Salon does not succeed in attracting new personnel or retaining and motivating its current personnel, its business could be harmed."

We'll be looking forward to the 2006 report, which should be out by early summer. Anyway, it's no wonder they had to hire Joy Press to do two jobs instead of one. And maybe they're paying Glenn Greenwald in reais? —Doree

Salon 10-K [SEC]
Salon Third Quarter Results [SEC]

According to Glenn, there is a war on overseas! This is no time for "The Gawker cool guy" [Ed Note: Hasten Doree's gender transformation] to be shallow and petty about how The Politico is destroying everything the First Amendment holds dear. Cynicism is the end of us!

Has he been to New York City lately? If he had, he would know just how seriously we in Manhattan take the permanent war of on terror. Hedge-funders are donating significant portions of their bonuses for the war effort, he should know! And also Graydon Carter's Waverly Inn has a little canister by the front door where Bono and Marc Jacobs may slip in their change for our boys overseas.

Conde Nast magazines are putting models in fatigues this season! Lower East Side victory gardens everywhere!

He's right though that things are so very serious down in D.C. among the press folk. Just ask all the serious newspaper men yucking it up with George Bush and dancing with Dick Cheney. Mission accomplished! Fuck yeah!

Also according to Glenn, Wonkette invented the internet. Okay, welcome!

Anyway, how dare The Politico talk to Matt Drudge? Glenn has found proof in Matt's "developing!" whatnots about forthcoming Politico stories of "active communication between Politico and Drudge." Umm, yes. They IM or email links and teasers to Matt. Tons of newspapers do it. AP writers do it. It's easy! Salon should try it sometime—maybe Salon CEO Joan Walsh would stop harassing her staff about traffic.

And as for Politico's couple of bed-shitting stories, what happened when Ben Smith faceplanted on the Edwards-is-out story? He wrote an apology. Twice. And as for their "pernicious" dissemination of talking points against Obama—well, the campaign has made rookie mistakes. (He could ask some of the donors they tried to recruit early from Edwards and Team Clinton and then immediately scared off.)

Errors happen. Like, in Salon:

The March 6 story "The Private War of Women Soldiers" originally included the following statement from National Guard soldier Demond Mullins: "Rapes were happening every night ... Married men were doing it, everyone." Mullins says that he misspoke and was also misunderstood by the reporter. The statement has been deleted.

The Feb. 15 column "Libby's Cynical Defense" mistakenly stated that NBC's Tim Russert testified that Libby had given him information about Valerie Plame. In fact, he testified that he and Libby had not discussed Plame at all. The column has been corrected. [Correction made 2/15/07]