Today Chaunce sent out a big email blast that "New York Post, Page Six scribe, Marianne Garvey, has been fired!" Chaunce wrote that Garvey used to write for him at Steppin Out (which she describes as two pieces when she was in college for $40 each), and that she had recently turned down a cover at the mag that instead went to Shallon Lester at the Daily News, so maybe Richard Johnson was so mad about it that he fired her? But definitely, she was fired. According to Chaunce.

Actually Garvey left to take a job at In Touch—which she announced more than two weeks ago. By all accounts she left on her own terms, and wasn't fired.

When this was pointed out to Chaunce, he sent out a "statement":

We received a tip that Marieanne Garvey had been let go by the Post. When we called the Post for comment we were told by the paper that Marieanne no longer worked for the Post and would not comment further.
Marianne has just informed us that she quit and that Richard Johnson was the best boss she ever had.
We wish Marieanne the best at her new job at In Touch magazine.

This has caused Garvey to freak out a bit. So Chaunce emailed her an apology:

Calm down..... You're insane. We get dozens of tips a day and we follow up on all of them.
Good luck at In Touch.. haha

Wrong, late, and mean: the three attributes of a great gossip hound.

Who is Rob Shuter? Once upon a time, he was one of the most powerful celebrity flacks in America, repping clients like Paris Hilton and Jessica Simpson. Eventually he got fired from his agency, Dan Klores Communications, lost his big clients, and ended up at OK!, which is really where he belongs. What went wrong?

• Shuter planted a fabricated item in Page Six about his client Paris Hilton being attacked at a club by a supposedly "jealous" Zeta Graff. Graff subsequently sued for $10 million, which compelled Shuter to give legal depositions demonstrating his sleazy method of doing business (plant fake shit on Page Six, specifically). It was all very entertaining. Paris Hilton ended up paying $2 million for this transgression.
• He treated his work on behalf of vapid singer Jessica Simpson like he was a Cold War CIA operative behind enemy lines. He planted nasty items about Simpson ex Nick Lachey. Then he decided to help Simpson get some press by fabricating a big romance between her and singer John Mayer. He convinced People and Us Weekly to put the story on their covers, and then made them all look like fools when the celebs themselves admitted there was no big romance at all. In one masterstroke, Shuter had shattered his own credibility (ha), made his own client look like a desperate liar, pissed off fellow celebrity flacks, and, perhaps worst of all, made enemies of some powerful celebrity magazines. He was then fired by Joe Simpson, for all of the above reasons.
• Having established himself as an untouchable dirtbag that no legitimate PR agency would hire and no smart news outlet would trust, Shuter was scooped up by OK!, first in a consulting role and then as entertainment editor. And now as the top guy. Just perfect.

In unrelated rumormongering, there was gossip earlier this year that Shuter may have been somehow involved in a purported FBI investigation of In Touch magazine for "payments to at least one editor in exchange for prominent placement of certain B-list celebrities." Supposedly some shady British cabal of celebrity flacks and gossip reporters was under scrutiny. We hoped Shuter was wrapped up in it! Alas, no evidence ever confirmed the rumors. And to be fair, he even has some admirers among the gossip press, who say he's friendly and witty.

So what will Shuter be doing for OK!? A good guess: helping them continue to spend big with no apparent monetary return. We hear that OK! is the leading bidder in the war for Angelina Jolie's upcoming baby pictures, with a sum rumored to be around $15 million for worldwide rights. That's in line with the magazine's history of profligacy; we also hear that they've yet to turn a profit, despite an investment in the nine-figure range.

And Shuter, the fabricating flack, will fit right in. One of the best quotes I ever heard while working at PRWeek was from an editor at OK! who gushed on and on about how nice the mag was to its friends in PR, summing it all up by explaining, "We work directly with publicists and celebrities themselves to get the real story." Sure. All together now in the race to the bottom.

And here, Cohen vents righteously about the righteous venting of the PR industry in response to Cohen's original righteous venting.

Spitzer, New York's Love Guv, and Clemens both had reputations as brawlers, who made tons of enemies on their way to the top. The people on their side loved them, but outside of their own teams they were widely despised. Clemens wisely spent his career in the American League, where designated hitters could take his turn at bat so he wouldn't have to risk getting beaned in retaliation for his frequent knockdowns of opposing batters.

Furthermore, both men suffered from huge bouts of hypocrisy. Spitzer prosecuted prostitution rings while patronizing them at the same time. Clemens was always boasting of his hard work, diet, and exercise program, while (IN ALL LIKELIHOOD) being shot up with steroids by his trainer. When his trainer finally told the story, Clemens continued to deny everything, which he does to this day, even as most of the other players named have implicitly or explicitly admitted when the steroid allegations against them were true. And, he filed a defamation suit against the trainer, which brought Clemens' entire reputation under legal review. The Post reports today that the pitcher had at least two other women on the side in addition to McCready, so take your sanctimonious family man act and inject it into your buttocks along with lots of testosterone, Roger Clemens.

An added bonus: like the lawyers who roped their careers to Spitzer's only to see them crumble along with him, Clemens' lawyer, Rusty Hardin, is going to come out of this looking like a bald-faced liar, like his client. Just yesterday he said there was no sex between Clemens and McCready; today, she's admitting it all over the place.

Spitzer was at least fighting on the side of righteousness. For Clemens, that was only true if he was pitching for your team. Among those enjoying Clemens' downfall the most: this young man:

"The blogosphere was in high gear, as readers and commenters began speculating and gossiping. Anonymous posts on Gawker.com since the story broke suggest the level of hysteria the case has whipped up on all sides since it broke Tuesday," reports the Yale Daily News. "One commenter accused Maharaj of stealing friends’ Social Security numbers and of having a wife. Another shot back that Maharaj’s ex-boyfriend—who still attends Yale—stole his belongings and took advantage of him."

So, despite the shitstorm of coverage this got in pretty much every paper everywhere, not to mention all the play the networks are getting out of it, precious, precious Yale could have kept it all nice and hush-hush if not for you bloggety-blogging bastards. Are you happy now?

On the front page of last Sunday's St. Louis Post-Dispatch, we published the story of a woman identified as Virginia Gillis. She was featured in an Easter story in which she described in detail a past of victimization, homelessness and despair followed by recovery and repair.

We have since learned that a number of the details in that story were inaccurate. Further, our verification procedures were not followed during the reporting and editing process. In short, this story did not meet our standards for publication.

We apologize for this journalistic breakdown. We value the trust you place in us every time you pick up the Post-Dispatch or log onto STLtoday.com, and we understand that incidents such as this put that trust at risk.

Last Monday morning, we were contacted by someone who told us that information provided by the woman in the story was inaccurate. We immediately began a review of our reporting. We conducted extensive records searches and interviewed sources to check the details provided by the woman. We have learned:

* The woman's name is Pamala Brown, according to police, her mother and other people who know her. She also has used the spelling Pamela.

* Law enforcement officials in Crawford, Gasconade and Franklin counties have active warrants for Brown for violating probation on felony bad check and forgery charges. Crystal City has a warrant for Brown for failure to appear on DWI and other traffic charges.

* The Missouri Department of Revenue has no record of the drivers license number that appears on the license the woman provided us during this review.

* Law enforcement and fire officials in Jefferson County have no records of the violence the woman described in the story. She said her husband burned down her house in 2005 and a few weeks later slashed her throat. She said the attack left the long scar across her neck.

"I think we would have recognized the offense even under a different name," said Jefferson County Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins, who was the county prosecutor at the time. Wilkins said authorities checked the name the woman provided the newspaper for her ex-husband, as well as variations.

* Pamala Brown is 51 years old, not 42, according to public documents.

* Pamala Brown attended Parkway West High School but did not graduate, according to school officials.

* Other information in the story about the woman's marriage and children conflicts with information we have since obtained from public documents and family members.

We have spoken with the woman twice since the article ran, and she insists that everything she told us was accurate and that she is not Pamala Brown. Pastors at Centenary United Methodist Church, who had obtained identification documents from her shortly after they hired her in March 2007 to work in the church's homeless program, said they had had no reason to question her identity. They said she has been a model employee.

Our review showed that Pamala Brown was mentioned and pictured in a May 2000 story. We have been unable to verify some of the details about the woman that were included in that story, which was about the Mark Twain Hotel.

The Post-Dispatch has strict standards for gathering and verifying information. As a story is reported and prepared for publication, a number of journalists scrutinize it. As part of our internal review of how this story was handled, we have learned that during that process some questions were raised about the woman's account that should have been pursued more aggressively. We take this lapse very seriously, and we are taking steps to reinforce the standards to which we normally adhere. In our profession there is nothing more important than our credibility, and that is why we have tried to address this situation with you as fully and directly as possible. We hope you will accept our apology.

Arnie Robbins, Editor
Pam Maples, Managing Editor

[pic via STLToday.com; "Gillis" on the right]

We came close once. Richard was on vacation and Wilson typed up what we thought was surely a family-friendly way of explaining the Santorum gag to unplugged newspaper readers. At about 7:00 p.m., we were all set to leave, when Post executive editor Steve Cuozzo—the Old Timiest of the Old Timey newsmen—came tearing out of his office, yowling, "Frothy discharge? Frothy discharge!?" Long story short: item killed.

What else do I miss about the Post? This lady right here. ::Sigh::

To the newsroom staff:

Single-source profiles of people who are not already well known quantities are traps we have fallen into twice in the past year or two, and that's too often. Until publishers start fact-checking their own nonfiction books, and that'll be the day, we should remember that profiles of unknown authors should always include reporting from other sources — not just surrogates of the profilee like agents, publishers, lawyers, etc. — to verifiy the most important facts. But even when there's no book involved, the same rule applies. If we can't find ways to check key facts, names, graduation claims, etc., we should hold the story until we can verify them, and if we can't, we should be suspicious. Live and learn....

Craig

In McCain's huge rebuttal to the Times, McCain claimed no one from Iseman's firm, Alcade & Fay, or her client Paxson Communications asked McCain to send a letter to the FCC. It's not a particularly believable claim, but it's handy that its refutation comes from a sworn deposition delivered by the Maverick Arizona Senator in 2002.

"I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue," McCain said in the Sept. 25, 2002, deposition obtained by NEWSWEEK. "He wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint."

While McCain said "I don't recall" if he ever directly spoke to the firm's lobbyist about the issue—an apparent reference to Iseman, though she is not named—"I'm sure I spoke to [Paxson]." McCain agreed that his letters on behalf of Paxson, a campaign contributor, could "possibly be an appearance of corruption"—even though McCain denied doing anything improper.

McCain's campaign insists there is some niggling way in which their former blanket denial could still be true, but it's a hopeless cause as in the deposition transcript McCain basically says variations on "Paxson called me up and I spoke to him" a good half-dozen times.

It's hard to tell this early whether this will move the "McCain is a hypocrite" story or whether "the Times should be ashamed of itself" will continue to dominate.

(Sadly, no news on the lobbyist-fucking angle of the story.)

A Hole in McCain's Defense? [Newsweek]

The paper found that Irvine lied about being a knight in England; lied about the nature of his college degree; was not really a full-fledged "White House chef;" has bragged about a "Five Star Diamond Award" that is basically available to any asshole with a credit card; and owes thousands of dollars to people who worked with him on his unopened restaurants. He also may have acted like a jerk while out in St. Petersburg restaurants, possibly the biggest sin of all for a food industry guy. They do acknowledge that he's a good cook, though.

This video repeats a lot of the assertions about his experience; might not get to hear those again. If the cooking thing doesn't work out for him, he'd make a good contestant on "American Gladiators."

He is also a member of the groups "British Airways Surfboard Ban, BookCourt, and James Frey In My Bed."

"Hey, i know you don't need to hear another fan tell you about how amazing your book was, but i got so into that book, i could never put it down. I never get that way about books, but yours was so detailed and extraordinary. The only thing that made me mad was when i finished reading the book and i was picturing Lilly and you getting married because you went through so much together, but Lilly killed herself the day before you came out of jail. I know life is not a fairytale and the best things don't always happen, but it just seemed so amazing when you two were together. That part was so upsetting, but still.. great job. I can't wait to read 'My Friend Leonard', i asked for it for christmas. :) I really respect you and your way of writing :)," Angie Davy of the Westlane Secondary School network has written on his Wall.

Dry your tears, little Angie Davy! Maybe you'll feel less upset when you realize that "Lily" DID NOT EXIST.

"Any books in the works, Mr. Frey? :)" writes Lara Marsman of Hunter College. Yes, Lara, he does! James got a ton of money to write a forthcoming novel, because the world is fucked. Put it on your Amazon Wish List!

"This is my wall. I think I love my wall," James has written on his own Wall.

He has infected 1 chump, for a total of 25 Vampire Points.

Rudy was diagnosed with prostate cancer seven-and-a-half years ago. Not really sure if he just didn't remember that? We're kinda surprised he didn't say "I had cancer nine, eleven years ago."

The statistics, obviously, are both totally made-up, but you probably guessed that. And if you are even halfway paying attention to anything you might've noticed or remembered that his seven-and-a-half-year-old diagnosis happened when he was still Mayor of New York.

The Mayor is, like all city employees, part of the New York City Health Benefits Program. So his fancy cancer treatment was underwritten by hard-working joes like you and me! Here we are, struggling to make a buck, and the government wants to steal our paycheck so Mr. Fancy-pants Communist over there can keep riding around on his tiny pony purposefully getting more cancer all the time so Uncle Sam cuts him another check. Disgusting!

Rudy's Bogus Healthcare Stats [Salon]

Maybe it seems like we're taking this too seriously. On the one hand, oh ha ha this is some harmless pagefiller in a teen magazine. On the other hand, what a total pig.

Like, here's the most egregious lie in the article: reason number five Why Guys Lie. "Because We Like You! When a guy's getting to know you, he may think that he needs to lie a little to get you to like him ... Now that we know you like us, we feel safe being 100% real."

Hey, thanks, no. Next up: Why Guys Date Rape: Because We Like You!