mark bowden - Gawker

posts about #markbowden more →
Most Humiliating Moments in Vanity Fair's Arthur Sulzberger Profile

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

ifstone
03/30/09

In reply to Most Humiliating Moments in Vanity Fair's Arthur Sulzberger Profile
Ken Auletta wrote a long piece about Sulzberger a few years ago that was not too flattering.

[www.newyorker.com]
Reply

ifstone was starred ifstone was unstarred

MisterHippity
03/30/09

In reply to Most Humiliating Moments in Vanity Fair's Arthur Sulzberger Profile
I hear he wears stripes with plaid.
Reply

MisterHippity was starred MisterHippity was unstarred

Peter Feld
03/30/09

In reply to Most Humiliating Moments in Vanity Fair's Arthur Sulzberger Profile
I think Pinch may have been confused by the lyrics to the Shriekback song Malaria:

Will you lie for me, cry for me

Die for me, will you please?

Oh, never never never never never never never say no
Reply

Peter Feld was starred Peter Feld was unstarred

Tweezergal
03/30/09

In reply to Most Humiliating Moments in Vanity Fair's Arthur Sulzberger Profile
I haven't read the piece yet, but if this is ALL there is to the embarrassing tidbits, who cares? Are you kidding, thinking this is damning in any way! It's sounds like a badly put together hodgepodge of pure nothing, all intended to denigrate the publisher, but its intentions apparently fall short. Who cares about a quote from Winston Churchill that may or may not be literal? Who cares if Sulzberger passed on ads with Amazon? Who cares if he talks about his reporter days? REALLY, WHO CARES? Let the Vanity Fair writer take a look at his own publisher, Graydon Carter, who does all kinds of stupid if not illegal things. Sulzberger is actually a very bright guy, who made a few mistakes -- like we all do -- but who runs The Times better than any of his naysayers would do, if given the chance. And that wasn't a damning quote by Rattner; that was just more malevolent spin aimed at Sulzberger, who as publisher of the most influential paper in the world is, of course, an easy target, and would be, whether his name was Sulzberger or not.
Reply

Tweezergal was starred Tweezergal was unstarred

DaveCrabtree
03/30/09

@Tweezergal: You know, I was with you half-way through your comment and then you lost me. Yes, a lot of this stuff is pointless, and nobody should really care. But Sulzberger has run into the ground a company that is one of the most respected in the world and that has by far the most recognizable brand in its industry. He's done that through both a willing obliviousness to changes in the marketplace and a sneering superiority that prevents him from seeing or fixing the flaws in his business. He is squandering his patrimony out of arrogance, and the only question is whether the rest of the family will sell it out from under him before it's bankrupt.
Reply

DaveCrabtree was starred DaveCrabtree was unstarred

Tweezergal
03/30/09

@DaveCrabtree:
And how do you know this? How do you know about Sulzberger's "willing obliviousness" or "sneering superiority"? Those two assaults seem to be mantras of a media mob that has chosen Sulzberger as a punching bag, to sell their own rags and to exculpate their own sins. All papers, worldwide, are having financial problems, and many have gone under. But The Times is still putting out a great product.
Reply

Tweezergal was starred Tweezergal was unstarred

DaveCrabtree
03/30/09

@Tweezergal: Well, we can debate about whether it's still a great product, but my knowledge comes from working with him, not as a Times employee but as an outside advisor. And I think he's been chosen as a punching bag by the rest of the media because he had the most to work with and has done the least. The Washington Post doesn't get the same venom, neither does anyone else other than Sam Zell, who's not a newspaper guy.

Besides, this is Gawker. We trash people regardless of whether they're deserving of it. Why are you defending him?
Reply

DaveCrabtree was starred DaveCrabtree was unstarred

MrInBetween
03/30/09

In reply to Most Humiliating Moments in Vanity Fair's Arthur Sulzberger Profile
Just read the article. Sure, it's a write-around, but it's also a thinly reported regurgitation of Arthur's past interviews (Charlie Rose, think tanks) and past profiles. Few people go on the record, which is to be expected, but there's very little that's new here. Arthur "has no rays?" Okay, how's his Kung-Fu grip? And how many times are we going to hear about Arthur's ridiculous stuffed moose? The piece also carries an annoying hectoring tone, as if Bowden is lecturing a pet who just soiled the rug.

This is Bowden's first piece for Vanity Fair, but it falls short of his usual rigorous reporting standards.
Reply

MrInBetween was starred MrInBetween was unstarred

westie1984
03/30/09

In reply to Most Humiliating Moments in Vanity Fair's Arthur Sulzberger Profile
First thing I though of:
Reply

westie1984 was starred westie1984 was unstarred

PandoraSpocks
03/30/09

@westie1984: Pretty good for a Monday.
Reply

PandoraSpocks was starred PandoraSpocks was unstarred

Robert Synnott
03/30/09

In reply to Most Humiliating Moments in Vanity Fair's Arthur Sulzberger Profile
Er, in a newspaper, SHOULDN'T he care about his journalists more than the business side?
Reply

Robert Synnott was starred Robert Synnott was unstarred

Kid Twist
03/30/09

@Robert Synnott: It depends. Do the journalists want to get PAID?
Reply

Kid Twist was starred Kid Twist was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

#markbowden

Gawker

SUBSCRIBE TO Gawker

Most Humiliating Moments in Vanity Fair's Arthur Sulzberger Profile

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment