"In his first interviews since the disclosure of the tribe's existence, Meirelles described how he found the group, detailed how they lived and how he planned the publicity to protect them and other tribes in similar danger of losing the habitat in which they have flourished for hundreds of years.

"Meirelles admitted that the tribe was first known about almost a century ago and that the apparently chance encounter that produced the now famous images was no accident. 'When we think we might have found an isolated tribe,' he told al-Jazeera, 'a sertanista like me walks in the forest for two or three years to gather evidence and we mark it in our [global positioning system]. We then map the territory the Indians occupy and we draw that protected territory without making contact with them. And finally we set up a small outpost where we can monitor their protection.' [...]

"What he was looking for was not only proof of life, but firm evidence that the tribes in this area were flourishing—proof in his view that the policy of no contact and protection was working. On the last day, with only a couple hours of flight time remaining, Meirelles spotted a large community.

"'When I saw them painted red, I was satisfied, I was happy,' he said. 'Because painted red means they are ready for war, which to me says they are happy and healthy defending their territory.'" [Guardian via Dana]

Meanwhile, undiscovered or not, they're still humans, and Rush Limbaugh still called them savages.

Some PR people like to stick with very formal public statements; others prefer to pass around tips in whisper campaigns, as if they were your friend. But Strzalkowski's M.O. is to write his press releases in the format of a letter from this little-known celebrity's hugest fan, as if he was just so overcome with his admiration for their brilliance he couldn't help but to send out email blasts telling every last detail of their miserable careers. Clients be damned—Jim Strzalkowski just wants to see these talented artists succeed.

He first came to our attention with his ebullient letter about the fact that Paris Hilton impersonator Natalie Reid got a bit part in a Wayans Bros. movie. She had a trailer and fans and everything! He even sent us some pictures "for public display." Thanks, Jim!

Now, he's keeping gossip sites like us on the cutting edge of Brian Anthony's doomed attempt to work his way onto Madonna's tour, somehow. "As Reported at GENO'S WORLD." Let us at it! Hey Jim, don't get so excited about it that you go and put your own job in jeopardy—we need you!:

If you are a Madonna fan or a fan of dance music in general, you MUST visit Brian Anthony's MySpace page to check out his "Worked Up! Brian Anthony Vs. Madonna" megamix! What a treat! It's great to hear one of our favorite early Madge songs, "Everybody," sampled throughout. I made the mistake of bouncing to it at work and made a big scene dancing with my co-workers!

...

With this Latin lover's "mucho caliente" looks and his steamy lyrics you know the girls across the pond are salivating for him. Wait until Madonna gets her hands on this one!

We'll wait.

The man just naturally says whatever the hell his audiences want to hear. This is why, in small, intimate settings, everyone comes off impressed with John McCain's honesty and no-bullshit approach. This is why the media loves him. He's chatty, he's charming, and he will immediately key in on exactly how to convince you that he's on your side. And he'll crack a few off-color jokes!

The greatest trick the bullshit artist ever played was convincing his audience that he's innately honest. And John McCain is old and senile enough that he probably does believe his own hype now, which is how he can so comfortably categorically deny things that he's on record as saying.

And it's why people like Arianna and Jon Stewart feel so confused and betrayed! Because he told them, face-to-face, no-bullshit, whatever the hell they wanted to hear, back in the day. And then, because he has to run for president, he went and said and did the opposite things. McCain hasn't been on the Daily Show once since he clinched the GOP nomination. But tomorrow, he'll appear on the show for his record 13th time. It'll probably be an awkward interview.

"The surge in online content is at the center of the most dramatic changes affecting the Internet today," he said. "In three years' time, 20 typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet today."

"Cicconi, who was speaking at the event as part of a wider series of meetings with U.K. government officials, said that at least $55 billion worth of investment was needed in new infrastructure in the next three years in the U.S. alone, with the figure rising to $130 billion to improve the network worldwide. 'We are going to be butting up against the physical capacity of the Internet by 2010,' he said."

He also took a moment to kick all you Matrix geeks in the ass. "There is nothing magic or ethereal about the Internet—it is no more ethereal than the highway system. It is not created by an act of God, but upgraded and maintained by private investors." [CNET News]

Telemarketer: Are you familiar with the New York Sun?
Person: No, is that a real newspaper?
Telemarketer: Yes, sir. It's similar to the New York Times. It's smaller paper. It's similar to the New York Times, it's only 24 pages. ...
Person: Is it the same as the New York Times?
Telemarketer: It's a snapshot of the New York Times. It's very, very, very, very similar. Very similar. ...
Person: If it's the same exact stuff as the New York Times?
Telemarketer: It's a smaller version. It's only 24 pages. It's an excellent paper. A lot of our customers say it's very similar to the New York Times

—rebecca

Let's examine three fitness programs profiled in the last two days:

1. Crossfit, via the NYT—CrossFit is an internet-based cult of fitness for psychos, itinerant preachers, ex-killers, and crazy people of all stripes. I have met some people who do CrossFit, and they are scarily in shape and also not at all fun to be around. All you have to do is complete the psycho workout routine posted online every day. Sample, from Friday:

For time:
15 Handstand push-ups
1 L Pull-up
13 Handstand push-ups
3 L Pull-ups
11 Handstand push-ups
5 L Pull-ups
9 Handstand push-ups
7 L Pull-ups
7 Handstand push-ups
9 L Pull-ups
5 Handstand push-ups
11 L Pull-ups
3 Handstand push-ups
13 L Pull-ups
1 Handstand push-up
15 L Pull-ups

Post time to comments.

Seriously, just forget CrossFit. It will make you insane.

2. Gyrotonics, via the NY Sun—Gyrotonics is based on a huge, complicated machine that is specially designed to extract money from the wallets of idly rich women. It looks like this:

The hustle is that you have to go to some particular specialist on this particular machine to help you unlock its magical potential, while you pay them handsomely for their secret knowledge. Here's another idea: grab a towel, pull it till your shoulders feel stretched out, then go run stairs until you're in shape. Fuck gyrotonics.

3. "Hollywood's Dirty Diet Secrets," via the NYDN—finally, something real. Also, sick. Did you know Hollywood starlets go on crazy crash diets which consist mostly of smoking, drinking coffee, and doing coke, supplemented only by lettuce or boiled eggs or lemonade or something equally ridiculous? Yes, you probably did know that. Combining laxative tea with fasting and five-hour daily workouts reportedly produces some real results. The downside is that you will be totally dead pretty quick. But yes, you will leave a pretty corpse.

What does it really take to get fit? Nothing more than an iron will, the Eye of the Tiger, buckets of sweat, hours of pain, days of hope, years of conquest, and THIS:

I'm writing this to a group of bloggers. Some of you are Hillary supporters, some not, some neutral.

I want to address a pervasive misconception, namely, that Senator Obama hasn't run a negative campaign against Hillary. I think it's time to put that misconception to rest.

The truth is that for months, the Obama campaign has been attacking Hillary, impugning her character and calling into question her lifetime of public service. And now the Chicago Tribune reports that Senator Obama is preparing a "full assault" on her "over ethics and transparency." To those who contend that Senator Obama is the clear frontrunner, I ask, to what end this "full assault" on Hillary?

On CNN last Tuesday, Senator Obama said, "Well, look, Wolf, I think if you watch how we have conducted our campaign, we've been very measured in terms of how we talk about Senator Clinton. ... I have been careful to say, that I think that Senator Clinton is a capable person and that should she win the nomination, obviously, I would support her. You know, I'm not sure that we have been getting that same approach from the Clinton campaign."

The facts of this election stand in stark contrast to that statement. Senator Obama and his senior campaign officials have engaged in a systematic effort to question Hillary's integrity, credibility, and character. They have portrayed her as someone who would put her personal gain ahead of the lives of our troops, someone who would say or do anything to win an election, someone who is dishonest, divisive and disingenuous. They have adopted shop-worn anti-Clinton talking points, dusted them off and unleashed a torrent of unfounded character attacks against her. Among other things, they have described Hillary - and her campaign - as:

"Disingenuous"

"Too polarizing to win"

'Divisive'

"Untruthful"

"Dishonest"

'Calculating'

"Saying and doing whatever it takes to win"

"Attempting to deceive the American people"

"One of the most secretive politicians in America"

Literally willing to do anything to win"

"Playing politics with war"

To top it off, they have blanketed big states with false radio ads and negative mailers — ads and mailers that experts have debunked time and time again. They have distributed health care brochures using Republican framing. They have tried to draw a nexus between Hillary's votes and the death of her friend Benazir Bhutto. And one of Senator Obama's top advisers (who has since left the campaign) recently called Hillary "a monster."

This "full assault" on Hillary comes from the very top of the Obama campaign, not surrogates and supporters.

This "full assault" is being directed at someone I personally know to be a thoughtful, brilliant, principled, compassionate person, someone the world knows as a good Democrat, a trailblazer, a lifelong champion for children and families, a respected former first lady, a senator, a presidential candidate.

This "full assault" is targeting a staff of hundreds of hard-working, dedicated Democrats, who I've had the privilege of working with for the past 14 months.

This is a hard-fought campaign - as it should be. Like any candidate for elected office, Hillary has made clear why she thinks she would do a better job than her opponent. She has laid out comprehensive policy proposals, put forth her 35-year record of accomplishment, and spent countless days introducing herself to voters across the country. She has said that she is far better prepared to take on John McCain on national security. She has contended that she is the candidate with the experience to confront the GOP attack machine. She has argued that she is more electable. She has said that Senator Obama's words are not matched by actions. And she has challenged him to live up to core Democratic values and goals such as universal health care.

I recall indignation online at the suggestion that Senator Obama has not made the case that he is ready to be Commander in Chief — the concern being that this would be terribly detrimental to him in a general election. As I blogged recently, and as many of you know, I spent 2004 in the Kerry-Edwards war room, and I understand full well that national security will be front and center in the general election. It's not a matter of choice. And the reality is that the public views Hillary as better prepared to take on Senator McCain when it comes to national security. Democrats must factor that in as they nominate a candidate to win in November.

If that suggestion is potentially harmful to Senator Obama in a general election, how exactly do the personal attacks against Hillary (which echo and reinforce rightwing talking points) help her in the event she wins the nomination? I recall no similar outrage at those harsh attacks on her character, many of which were directed at her when she was the clear frontrunner and seen as the likely nominee.

Both candidates are running a vigorous campaign. Both have had surrogates or supporters who have crossed the line and made offensive statements that they rejected. And these offensive statements are an unfortunate part of a long and close campaign. Those who make a habit of automatically assuming and ascribing to only one candidate the worst motives, ignoring more reasonable and benign explanations, who substitute conjecture for fact and then use those assumed `facts' as a foundation on which to pile more conjecture about only one candidate's intentions, who express anger at negative campaigning and perceived dirty tricks but focus on only one candidate's words and actions, risk losing credibility. And those who conclude from that one-sided reasoning that Hillary ought to stop seeking victory, should ask themselves if quitting in the middle of a hard-fought - and winnable - contest is a desirable attribute in a future president.

Hillary has rightfully stated that as Democrats we should be proud of our field of candidates. And it is truly inspiring to see the level of enthusiasm among voters this cycle. We should encourage as many people as possible to become part of this process and to forcefully advocate for their candidate of choice. But there is a sharp line between supporting a candidate (and excusing their faults, which all supporters do to some degree) and conducting a "full assault" on an opponent's integrity and character. The Obama campaign's unabashed attacks on Hillary's honesty and trustworthiness should give every Democrat pause.

We are all entitled to support and oppose whomever we choose, but I challenge my online friends to call this "full assault" on Hillary's character for what it is.

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]

I'm a high-level advertising and marketing executive who's hired - and used- some of the top PR firms in the nation.

As part of their "media training" they commonly tell you lying is fine.

From a direct quote within an Edelman (the nation's largest independent PR firm) session, training our entire senior management team:

"Sometimes, you just have to stand up there and lie. Make the audience or the reporter believe that everything is ok. How many times have you heard a CEO stand up and say "No, I'm not leaving the company" and then - days later - he's gone. Reporters understand that you "had" to do it and they won't hold it against you in your next job when you deal with them again."

"He's in a meeting."

"That's a great question."

"So good to see you."

"I really don't know."

Anything preceded by the word "candidly."

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]

According to a statement from the family's attorneys, Burroughs' new acknowledgments note will say that the Turcottes "are each fine, decent, and hardworking people," and that the book was not intended to hurt them.

Family Settles With Running With Scissors Author [AP]

Courtney Thorne-Smith: Novel Is Not Based On Me [AP]

Mom Dina's Missing Career [NYP]
Related: Lindsay's Mom Hogs Spotlight [NYP]

Oprah's Father Says Memoir Is "On Hold" [TV Guide]

For starters, all the "fake" stories that Us is refuting are stories that it has reported, with perhaps a slightly more conservative spin, in recent issues. Sure, Life&Style maybe went out on a limb by implying that Brad and Angelina were "living separate lives." But in this same issue of Us, Angelina is reported as having given Olivier Martinez a "lap dance." Just as hollow is Us's refutation of last week's Star Tom and Katie "Divorce!" cover: "Troubles? Yes. But divorce? Not in discussion... Pal Jenna Elfman told Us... 'they're together.'" Oh, okay, as long as Jenna Elfman says so!

Calling out OK! for predicting the demise of J. Lo's marriage prematurely was, of course, a safe bet. But the critique of In Touch's "Surprise Boob Jobs" cover is the story's most toothless, since the article in question didn't actually allege that anyone besides Heidi Montag had one, and that is just sort of like "duh!" Also, Us's rebuttal ("The Truth") begins,"A rep for Simpson, 26, denied that the D-cup singer got a lift or implants." Well, as everyone knows, publicists never lie. And neither does Us Weekly. —Emily

Taking Shots [WWD]

"Fabian, who once was named one of Gotham's most eligible bachelors, is now happily married and focused on his charity work and television career while still contributing as a celebrity features editor to Glamour and Gotham magazine."

Fabian's a bit of an exaggerator? Gee, it makes us wonder what else he's fudging the details about in that bio. Hmm. Still thinking . . .

The Imagin(heir)y Editor [WWD]

"Businessman talking on mobile phone in taxi cab" would have been a perfectly acceptable caption. You know, Post, lying when you don't even have to lie is one of the signs of being a compulsive liar.

Ticker Shock at Real Taxi Hike [NYP]

A tipster writes:

Jackson Pollis is a senior at Eleanor Roosevelt High School, and is 17 years old. He did badly on his SATs. His older brother, James, attended Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School as an instrumental major, and is gay. He used to skateboard in Union Square with his BFFs Turner and Cosmo everyday. That is all.

Earlier: Meet Jackson Pollis: Cousin Oliver to the MisShapes' Brady Bunch

Earlier: Bagging Douche: This Time, Your Vote Actually Matters (boy, are we a liar!)

The truth is that lies sustain human life. You have air, you have water, you have lies. They all work together, and if you doubt that, try to find one major news story whose superstructure doesn't include at least one lie, and more likely a whole spider web of them.

Why lying is tried & true [NYDN]