When former MSNBC anchor and media pussyhound Dan "Slim Shady" Abrams opened up shop on both his consulting firm Abrams Research and his blog network (Mediaite and PR Cop), not gonna lie, I didn't think they'd be getting to know Glenn Beck's vagina or Lady Gaga's penis so intimately. I may have finally turned the corner on them!

OR WOULD HAVE had Dan Abrams henchwoman and Mediaite's executive editor Rachel Sklar not tried to ruin my life's work.

What kind of person would do this? A cruel one? Maybe. But the Dan "The Down Donger" Abrams has an entire site devoted to "debunking"—or printing publicist reactions to—celebrity rumors, the majority of which most people don't even give a shit whether or not their true! So this is perfectly in line with their culture of harshing everyone's mellow. And I do mean harshing.

But I have another theory: Rachel, who's basically working nine days a week on Mediaite for Dan, is starting to go insane. The media economy is competitive, goddamnit! But is it too competitive? Observe, her lede:

RA RA RA NA NA NA NA RA NA NA…okay I am maybe a little obsessed with Lady Gaga and her latest single, "Bad Romance," and its crazy, fantastic video filled with crazy, fantastic costumes.

A...little? Sklar's up to 63 screengrabs on this new Lady Gaga video. 63. And you know there's a reason for all of this, don't you? Only an insane person would spend that much time debunking another insane person like me and my insane (BUT TRUE) theory/research on The Facinating Subject that is Lady Gaga's Dick. Her commentary on one of the grabs:

I am amazed that this shot made it past the censors, unusually lingering as it was…it gives you more than enough time to notice the see-through fabric on her black lacy thong…all the way through. Okay, FEK, I think we have pretty conclusive evidence here.

OH, NO YOU DIUNT. SHOTS FIRED, Sklar. And what does she offer up for evidence? This:

But come on. How closely did she look? We used the Gawker PSI (Penis Scene Investigations) Zoom Lens to get a closer look.

You say potato, and I say penis. Unfortunately, I think we may have to close the book on all Lady Gaga Penis Conspiracy talk here, before we go too far down the Gaga Hole. This is just going to have to be one of those things like Area 51, where you don't really find out the truth of the matter until the world needs saving, and this is one of those secrets essential to doing so (see: Independence Day, 1996, Dir. Roland Emmerich). Or this is one of those things you don't find out about until the world is actually ending (see: 2012, 2009, Dir. Roland Emmerich). Either way, here's hoping for the safety of the world and the crumbling sanity of Rachel Sklar that Lady Gaga whips out the truth sooner rather than later.

Donald Trump Roasts Joan Rivers, and Her Vagina - August 25, 2009

What's That About A Powerful Vagina? - September 23, 2009
Glenn Beck's Powerful Vagina - September 25th, 2009
UPDATE: That Top Shop Thing Is TOTALLY A Dentata Shirt - September 24th, 2009

Tags:

Vagina Shirts Are The New Black
Powerful Vaginas
Megan Fox Powerful Vaginas
Cervix Journalism
Nick Dentata

Yes, Rachel Sklar is doing this to attract attention from (A) people searching "glenn beck + vagina" on Google (B) people like me and (C) anybody who's ever been shocked by reading about a vagina in relation to something it has no bearing on (like Glenn Beck, who, for all we know, has never seen one). But I did LOLZ at "Cervix Journalism" as well as her investigation into vaginas with teeth ("vagina dentata"). Also, the figuring in of the word "dentata" into both of our respective employers names, because I'm 12. Then again, it's funny to think about shady Dan Abrams having a vagina with teeth (which would make him shadier!).

But I've got another theory: Maybe Rachel's trying to tell us something? The professional media gormandizer's love life was partly chronicled in a New York Observer profile of microfame expert Rex Sorgatz. Observe:

The rest of the room was dominated by attractive single women, including blogger Rachel Sklar, who had been Mr. Sorgatz's girlfriend up until a few days before. I cornered Mr. Sorgatz and put it to him straight: As a straight man, how can you justify hosting a Gossip Girl viewing party?

The 35-year-old, spikey-haired online consultant didn't flinch. "It's an awesome opportunity to invite girls over," he said.

If Rex Sorgatz can't make your vagina grow teeth, I don't know what can. This is what your vagina looks like with teeth:

Yesterday Mediaite linked to a post by Steve Outing pointing out that O'Reilly's pay site is actually a good potential model for how to make money from news. Outing prefaced the post with this: "Disclaimer: I think Fox News personality Bill O'Reilly is a big-mouth wingnut who spouts dangerous ideas."

Mediaite linked to it, but without any of the stuff about how O'Reilly is an idiot, and O'Reilly responded in kind: "We like this web site, Mediaite, because they seem to like us. They posted an article on why BillOreilly.com membership is a great deal.... Check it out."

And they did! Here's a comment the Mediaite post got after the plug:

Except they're not real Americans! They're Canadians.

Reader's Digest announced today that it's planning to file for bankruptcy and give its lenders control of the company. Being America's best magazine is worthless these days.


Ted Nugent has been fired as a columnist for the Waco Tribune-Herald after refusing to bow the the demands of The Man and refusing to "only write nice things about people." After standing up for his First Amendment rights, Ted will stand up for his Second Amendment rights, by taking his well-regulated militia to the offices of the Waco Tribune-Herald and killing everyone, with gunfire.


CBS execs make the point: Dan Rather is kind of making himself look obsessive and nuts with his relentless legal hounding of CBS. But, counterpoint: At least he is keeping busy!


So anyhow enough with that, how is Mediaite.com doing? "1.2 million page views and about 300,000 unique visits during its first month," according to managing editor Colby Hall.

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]

So what magazine would be so desperate for any sort of good news that they'd blitz out a press statement bragging about their lead editor being ranked at the top of his class by a two day old website? Newsweek!

Yesterday we received an email from one of Newsweek's flacks with a subject line that read, "Newsweek's Meacham, most powerful Magazine Editor." Copied into the body of the email was the post by Mediaite's Colby Hall announcing Meacham as the most powerful magazine editor.

Yeah.

After receiving this yesterday afternoon I walked around scratching my head a bit, alternately saddened and angered by the email, but mostly angered. I was angered that a magazine I've enjoyed for a number of years had stooped to such a ridiculous level to try and bring attention to itself. I was angered over the fact that there are people out there who actually give a damn about their ranking on some retarded "Power Grid." So I walked around a bit and thought all of this over and decided that I was going to post something about it on Gawker tonight, only to come home and discover that New York's Will Leitch had beaten me to the punch and written something on the subject at Deadspin that pretty much perfectly captured exactly what I was thinking. Calling Mediaite a "handy reminder of just why everyone hates the media," Leitch wrote:

From my experience, 27 percent of the people who work in media (and I'm using the Mediaite definition of media, which is pretty much "anyone who gets paid for typing, talking or figuring out how to fire people who type or talk") are journalists in the truest sense, out to enlighten the public for common good, altruistic believers in the fourth estate and its power to invoke change. The other 73 percent are pretending to be that 27 percent and really just trying to promote their own personal brand. In the past, this has always been an inside joke, something for media folk to snicker about in private. Mediaite breaks with the pretense and just states what everyone already knew: This is really what it's all about. It's not about informing the public. It's not about being good at your job. It's about being known, and being recognized. Mediaite doesn't damn this, not at all, not nearly as much as they should: They just point it out ... and then they prove it. They're excellent at that.

By far, the most entertaining and popular section of Mediaite is their Power Grid, which ranks reporters, columnists, editors, anchors, executives and talk show hosts by their "buzz" ranking, or some such meaningless word tossed out in a dead conference room somewhere.

But wait, you ask: Isn't the media dying? Yes! It totally is! This is the last gasp. It would make more sense to have a Plumberite, or a Morticianite, or a Forecloserite, you know, professions that are actually growing and have a concrete future. (They make more money than most media people too, and are generally more attractive.) But plumbers and morticians aren't self-indulgent assholes! They don't assume that just because they care about what they're doing, everyone else does. They'd never start a site like that. That's our job.

Yes. Absolutely perfect. The only thing I'd add to this is that the obsession of some over Mediaite's "Power Grid" pretty much confirms something I've long suspected—That of all the narcissism-laden social circles existing in New York City, and I've dipped my toe in most of them, there is none more densely populated with self-important a-holes than the New York media circle. Period. It's actually not even a close race, as the New York media social circle far outdistances all others in terms of pure, unadulterated love of self.

Finally, I feel compelled to add, lest someone accuse me of feeling bitter over my Mediaite ranking or something, that I have no idea if I appear anywhere on any Mediaite "Power Grid" list, though I'm sure someone would have pointed it out to me by now if I did. With that said, is it possible for me to just opt out of any future rankings? I know and like some of the people working at Mediaite, but I don't want any part of this. The whole thing just gives me indigestion when I think about it.

The Real Reason You Should Hate the Media [Deadspin]
pic via

Gawker hasn't exactly been shy about taking its shots at Mediaite in the time leading up to the launch, so we spoke to Editor-At-Large Rachel Sklar via email to give her an opportunity to talk about the site and counter some of the criticism we and others have had about Mediaite and Abrams Research.

Gawker: Okay, first off, you've been working on this launch for months. Now that the site is finally up and running, how do you feel?

Sklar: Months - actually it's been quite a quick turnaround. Someone did the math here and it's more like ten weeks. So how do I feel? Hm, tired. I still have a bunch of stuff to do tonight. But, happy! I love the site and had a blast with the team putting it together. If you don't give me an opportunity to kvell about our interns later on in this Q&A, permit me to do so now. They are off-the-charts fantastic.

Next!

Gawker: Well, it probably just seems as though you've been talking about it for months, so forgive me.

Now, there's been plenty of criticism launched in the direction of your boss, Dan Abrams, for what many, Gawker included, see as a conflict of interest in having a media advisory firm attached to a media website. Obviously, you feel differently. How have Gawker and other critics of Abrams Research/Mediaite been wrong about this?

Sklar: It seems like YOU'VE been talking about it for months, you mean! We didn't even launch a Twitter until May: http://myfirsttweet.com/1st/mediaite

It's not attached. They are separate businesses. Check out Dan's blog post.

(Ed. note—Here is what Abram's said in his inaugural blog post addressing these concerns:

While I have certainly helped create the tone and direction of Mediaite, now that the site is live, I will take on the role of Publisher. I will continue to help guide and manage the business side of the site, but the editorial decisions will be left entirely to the editorial staff.

Why would I give up the opportunity to edit my own site? There are a number of reasons. Most important, however, I want this site to be viewed as objective – tough and opinionated – but not the Dan Abrams Post. I have strong feelings about many in media and will write opinion columns for the site but the editorial team will determine the editorial content. When you think about the team we have assembled, it's easy to understand why I feel so comfortable - Managing Editor Colby Hall, Editor-at-Large Rachel Sklar (former Huffington Post media editor) , Senior Editor Glynnis MacNicol (former FishbowlNY editor), and TV Editor Steve Krakauer (former TV Newser editor) (among others) - are top of class.)

Gawker: So Abrams essentially says in his blog post that he won't use Mediaite to protect and promote the interests of his clients at Abrams Research. But wouldn't you guys at Mediate cry foul if someone like Nick Denton did the same thing? Do you not understand the skepticism that the "just trust me" line of defense inspires?

Sklar: Someone could make the same argument about advertisers (insert Bloodcopy joke here!).
But hey! We've got this great new site! Check it out!

It was at this point that I got an email from Sklar saying that she was on her way home and that we'd resume the interview, but I never heard back from her. Oh well. In her defense it was four in the morning at this point and she may have walked through the door of her apartment and just collapsed into the fetal position. I can't say that I'd blame her if that was the case.

But just because we've had trouble viewing the site doesn't mean that others haven't seen it! Here's what the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz said:

With separate pages for TV, print and online, the site aggregates plenty of content, like other media-focused portals, while also offering opinionated takes on scandal coverage, journalistic feuds, ethical questions and sundry embarrassments. There is a "Confront the Critics" feature — an artist gets to talk back to a negative reviewer — and a "Sex Watch," as in, who's exploiting titillating images for page views?

Some headlines, from an exclusive peek at last week's trial run: "Where Will Sanford Sell His 'Love Story' on TV?" "CBS and CNN and Michael Jackson Coverage — Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough." "Which MSNBC Colleagues Did Joe Scarborough Call Out This Morning?" "Vibe Folds: Death Knell for All Music Mags?"

ASSME's Drew Grant also got a look at it before it went down and naturally went straight to the "Jobs" section.

Plus there's a Job section, which as of yet doesn't seem to rival (Laurel) Touby's in quantity or quality…in fact, searching in their "Jobs for Media Professionals" section results in 0 items. Probably just a bug that will get fixed in time, but I prefer to think of it as gallows humor.

So what are you waiting for? As of right now (4:19am Eastern) the site is back up again. Go check out Mediaite now while it's still up.

UPDATE: At about 5am, I noticed an email had come in from Sklar while I was out for coffee answering an earlier question I'd posed about her role in the day to day operations of Mediaite. Here's what she said:

A bit of everything - write, obviously; do some video stuff that we're working on; help develop the features we've planned for the site. We're small so we all do a lot of everything. I've also been recruiting contributors, which I did a great deal of at HuffPo - that's been fun. I love the people we've got so far. I might need to kvell a bit here, too: Jim Impoco has a great column about Portfolio's emerging legacy; my old pal Jeffrey Feldman has the definitive take on the Pitney-Milbank dustup; and then there's Rob Spence, who's, oh, a CYBORG. Wooo, the singularity is coming! (I sort of know what that means.)

But I have to say the column I'm most excited by is by Bill Rappleye. Bill is 85, has been working in journalism for over sixty years. He's writing a column for us called "Old Guard" all about what's happening in media, from the perspective of someone who has seen it evolve through decades of technological advancement. He's like a walking institutional memory bank. We're lucky to have him.

So there you go.

Just the Messenger [Howard Kurtz/Washington Post]
The Mediaite is the Message: We Overloaded the Power Grids! [ASSME]
Screengrab via Mediaite

Hruska, the smart, city-savvy Omaha import who quietly stormed the NYC media and socialite scene after quitting her hedge fund gig and starting a successful blog covering New York nightlife got a much-ballyhooed* profile in the New York Times today. Most of it's just fluff, and fun fluff, at that: it's nice to see a young upstart - even if they are funded by a Winklevoss Twin, ahem - come wide-eyed from Middle America and get her Blog Empire on. Hruska's unflappably charming, has few detractors and lots of friends in this town, who she gets to flit around with and make part of her story. But there was one part of the profile that might've tugged on some pretty sensitive nerves: the fact that the piece touted her "energetic, well educated and impressionable" staff that is "largely unpaid."

Gawker emerita Sheila McClear rips into Hruska over at ASSME:

As long as you're grateful to work for free in exchange for cocktails, hors d'oeuvres, and social cache, your "career" is going nowhere. Try crashing parties for your schmoozing opportunities, and you can freeblog for fun but don't spend too much time on it–real adults get paid. Jesus, I sound like a Dad, but seriously–do you want to be popular, or do you want to make money?

Yes, I've checked: ASSME pays. Which raises the question: if ASSME can pay, why can't Hruska? Or why won't she? Even the potential conflict-of-interest-ridden minefield that is media expert Dan Abrams' site Mediaite will be paying their contributors. What gives?

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.It's my guess that Hruska doesn't give a shit about the future of journalism, and if she does, it doesn't have much to do with her blog, which is a social scene site. The girls writing for Hruska - not to pigeonhole them - probably aren't looking for a full-time gig in what she does so much as (A) a mentoring from her (B) a good time, which is a kinda fair barter or (C) enough perks to supplement their full-time gigs. If anybody's trying to get gainful employment directly from working for Hruska, that's their fault, not hers, no matter how impressionable they are. But then comes the philosophical imperative: is it bad for society to not pay writers?

Well, that depends on how important you think Guest of a Guest is to society.

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.Which brings us to The Huffington Post, who, on the other hand, some people definitely think is important to the future of journalism. Among those people: Lorraine Branham, dean of the S.I. Newhouse School of Journalism at Syracuse, who awarded Arianna Huffington with a lifetime achievement award on June 9th. Now, mind you: the Huffington Post doesn't pay for the majority of the content that appears on their site. Journalism School students pay lots of money to (hopefully) one day be paid for the content Arianna Huffington is putting on her site for free-nintey-nine. AdAge media writer Simon Dumenco took on the award a while back. And today, Dumenco absolutely lays into Huffington for grievances held against her nearly universally.

First, Arianna Huffington's dismissive views regarding journalism itself:

...Huffington's own defensive explanation, at the Mirror Awards, for why her bloggers earn nothing...she declared, "Our bloggers come and go. They write when the spirit moves them, and they do it because they want to be part of the conversation." Yikes. So after all these years of Huffington giving lip service to the idea that her legions of bloggers are the heart and soul of her supposedly revolutionary über-blog, it turns out she thinks they're marginal, fly-by-night, "come and go" wannabes.

Dumenco could be on to something: if writers are writing for free to gain exposure, this could eventually become so circular - the job I'm writing from right now could be a job done "for exposure" - that the foundation that journalism jobs are built on could become an (ironically) inverted pyramid, one where free content sits at the top, with only those who survive through an income-less period of life scoring paid gigs.

How 'bout those writers who aren't paid, though? How do you ensure quality or liability? Every time the Huffington Post puts shoddy journalism on their site, they risk their reputation as a place to get news. And maybe that - the reputation - is the currency Arianna Huffington has to barter with her "writers." And quality control is important to the press!

And that would be the case with HuffPo. If it weren't turning into a content-repurposing tabloid. Dumenco did the math about the actual content on her site. The stuff that wasn't one of her celebrity-friend-penned columns, or written by one of her five paid reporters:

By HuffPo's own tally, more than a quarter million readers viewed the Heather Graham post, which quoted 13 sentences, totaling 142 words, from Britain's Daily Mail — a paper that (stupidly, naively, I suppose) pays its entertainment reporters. HuffPo's contribution to the, uh, discourse? Just 58 words of its own — which simply set up the Daily Mail's interview with Graham and further summarized the article. And that, folks, is HuffPo's true business model...

The Oncoming Apocalypse Of Journalism - of which Huffington might be one of the Four Horsepeople - could just be a Noah's Ark-esque flood, one in which the only thing holding you above water is a paycheck for quality. Or people could just stop giving a shit about quality, and that could go, too. Either way, Huffington and Hruska make two things about making a buck writing very, very evident: (1) there will now always be someone behind you to do your job for less, at the same rate you're doing it at, and (2) in the economy of writing - shit, in any economy - owning the shop always has and always will have perks. It may be lonely at the top, but at least you're gettin' paid. And if you're Huffington and Hruska, you get to bring your friends along for the ride, too.

Cocktails and Backslaps Don't Pay My Rent–Do They Yours? [ASSME]
Trashy Parasitism as a Get-Rich-Quick Scheme? Hi, HuffPo [AdAge]

To recap: Sklar sent New York's media set abuzz after going wide with an email soliciting writers for a new "Drudge Meets Huffington Post" media blog she's running called Mediaite, which will be funded by former MSNBC journalist Dan Abrams. Abrams also owns a much kvetched-over corporate consulting company, Abrams Research, that aims to employ journalists and bloggers in advising Abrams clients how the media will react to issues clients are involved in. In case you didn't notice, that premise could be perceived as more than a little conflict-of-interest-y and scandalous.

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.Sklar's email was a request for submissions with a 12-point list of somewhat patronizing and legalese-heavy guidelines. One of the email's more interesting points was that payment and "compensation issues are still being hammered out." She sent out the email at about 4PM on Thursday. By 6:06 PM, Jarvis had a full-scale retort to Sklar's email posted to his blog. Some of the juicer parts:

This is the same Dan Abrams - lawyer, thus the legalese, and failed MSNBC host and executive - who is starting a PR company - oh, excuse me, media strategy firm - to advise companies on media while promising access to media people - the same media people, one imagines, he is getting to write about media for his media site. Gawd, it's positive hermaphroditic: A bunch of worms who can't figure out who's fucking whom how. I think I'll stay away. Don't want any of that on me...I don't need any lawyers-turned-flacks-turned-media-commentators-turned-publishers. I can publish on my own...If [Dan Abrams] had just started a blog or a group blog about media, cool. But announcing that he's also starting a PR company offering access to media people makes it stink. And then trying to throw on the cloak of legalese does nothing to relieve the stench.

Burn. The rest of it's mostly crunchy media arguing. But Sklar - an notoriously cheeky, ubiquitous New York media character - had been laid into on a very public forum by someone she counted as a friend. So she emailed Jarvis her retort, and then posted the email to her blog after Jarvis provoked her again. And now, folks, we've got a ballgame.

First, Sklar asks why her friend Jarvis didn't just email her with his issues before going live with them:

You know exactly who sent you that email - me, not Dan - and you know how easy it is to get it touch with me.

Then she goes on her toes to defend her credentials:

...don't call me a "fellow lawyer turned media person" like it's a pejorative (I'm going to ignore the imprecise "lawyers-turned-flacks-turned-media-commentators-turned-publishers"). I graduated in the top 5% of the top law school in Canada, was Valedictorian, and got the top public service award. When I bring my legal training to bear on my work it is to be precise and nuanced and detailed and meticulously fair.

After which she gets in the shotgun formation to attack Jarvis as a writer, noting that she wouldn't pay nothin' for his work:

I wouldn't recommend paying you for your contributions to HuffPo over the past year - for example, this one was over 1700 words - I definitely would have sent it back to you with a deep edit. This one was a repurpose from your blog, which is fine, but I [sic] there are a few holes...In this one, I would have pointed out that "Craigslist" needs to be capitalized...The one berating newspaper-people for losing their jobs was maybe a tad unkind; at the very least, I would have asked you to move your semi-mea-culpa up a bit...

She makes a spirited - if somewhat insubstantial - defense of her employer...

I couldn't help but notice that you totally don't seem to get the difference between Abrams Research and Mediate, and you didn't really care to check, either. "But announcing that he's also starting a PR company offering access to media people…" - um, Abrams Research launched in November. Mediaite is a separate site, and Dan won't have any editorial role. They are two separate concerns.

And closes it out with a solid kicker, like any good journalist blogger media consultant would:

You can write what you want - you're Jeff Jarvis! Who cares if it's not your best work - or even if it's not the best work it could be? That's fine for those sites, it's part of the process. Mediaite has a different process: we want to address the stuff above before we publish. (And also it shouldn't be racist of sexist or homophobic! I know, how inconvenient!) But anyway, all of the above - all of it! - is beside the point: That blog post was easily one of the biggest dick moves I've ever seen.

Best,
Rachel

As crunchy, old, and kvetchy as Jarvis comes off, we're going to have to award this round to him. Sklar stooped to his level, took this thing personally (which, maybe she should have, but still!), and also, made a weak, roundabout argument regarding Abrams' conflict-of-interest issues without actually addressing them, though if Sklar does count old media fogey Jarvis as a friend, she's right: he was being kind of a dick. But hopefully, like two other friends-turned-foes, neither party in this "violent" "battle" of "epic" proportions won't turn to violence.

Meanwhile, while Mediaite clearly still has yet to launch, their Twitter is up and running, and one of the crew decided to launch a little fire Jarvis's way:

Except they forgot to disclose within that 140-character limit that they're as "independent" in so much as Mediaite and Abrams Research ("AR") are owned by the same guy. They're gonna have this problem a lot, aren't they?

No Thanks [Buzz Machine]
Bloggers Do It In Public [Chartini]

*Full Abrams Research-esque disclosure: I know Sklar socially/personally - like everyone in New York media - and have emailed with her over her responsibilities at Abrams Research. "Dan Abrams' Henchwoman" is not her official title.

Yesterday an email was sent out by former Huffington Post media blogger Rachel Sklar, who is helping the former MSNBC executive/host launch the site, explaining what they're looking for:

We want Mediaite to be a platform for great, smart takes on media, and are establishing a community of columnists and contributors to that end. We're looking to to develop a number of great, regular paid columns and intend to have a number of paid contributors on the masthead as we grow. We are still in start-up mode so compensation issues are still being hammered out, but our goal is to develop smart column/feature ideas with our contributors. We believe in strong, smart ideas executed well — and we plan to pitch those ideas to advertisers accordingly.

What does this mean for you? Well, our goal is to develop these ideas, and eventually to pay certain top contributors a revenue share and/or stipend. This will probably be at least a few months down the road, but we want to make our intentions clear from the outset. We think this will be a win-win on both sides: we provide the platform, editorial support and ad sales efforts; you provide the smart and innovative content. We are still in the very early stages, but we are fairly confident that some great, highly clickable features will come from this, and we think this is a terrific way to provide incentive beyond visibility, working with great editors and being part of an awesome new start-up site.

Yeehaw! Sounds great, right? Well, all except the part about the "compensation issues" to be hammered out, you know, whenever. You'll get a "stipend" a few months down the road. Maybe. For now you'll work for free and like it because Mediaite is so awesome y'all! After all, who needs money these days anyway?

Sklar then goes on to lay out the somewhat patronizing and legalese-heavy "columnist contributor guidelines." Here are some of the highlights:

3. Feel free to express any opinion, however unpopular; however, you must be able to support your arguments with linkable facts and/or original, verifiable reporting. We need to give the reader enough information to intelligently disagree with you; you need to be able to demonstrate to your critics why you are totally right and they are idiots.

6. Please send us the post WITH HTML already in place. If you don't know what HTML is - that's the code allowing for hyperlinks and style elements like italicizing etc. We recommend opening up an account at Blogger.com or Tumblr.com to figure it out. (It's no harder than Microsoft Word. The first post will get you up the learning curve in no time.)

7. It goes without saying that the work should be your own. Still, we're saying it because it's easy to accidentally copy and paste. For video submissions, please refresh yourselves on fair-use guidelines if using copyrighted images. Upshot: Be extra-sure to attribute all the words and/or images that are not yours. ("Hat-tips" to where you heard of something are good form, too. Links are the currency of the Internet.)

9. NB: #3 effectively precludes racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic or otherwise unsupportable/repugnant views. Provable arguments mean rational, sane thought. Since you are all sane, rational people we're not that worried, but it must be said.

13. You retain all the rights to your work. In the event that we enter into a revenue-share or some other financial deal, we reserve the right to negotiate the terms on a case-by-case basis.

So yeah, support your argument with, you know, logic and facts and stuff, put your own Goddamn links in there lazy-ass, don't pull a Maureen Dowd, don't piss anybody off (especially the Abrams Research clients we'll have you shill for occasionally), your work belongs to you, unless we decide that it doesn't, and we'll decide how little we're going to pay you when we feel like getting around to it.

Sounds awesome!

First, here's more than you could possibly want to know about how qualified Zuckerberg is for this gig, courtesy of Abrams cohort/ Mediaite editor-at-large Rachel Sklar:

Her sister forwarded a listing from someone at Yale, presumably from the Yale Journalism List (we sent it to several university lists). Randi knew me and suggested Arielle apply. She did, and knocked Andrew's socks off in their phone interview (Andrew Cedotal coordinated the intern recruitment, and did a fantastic job because our interns RULE. I remember he was psyched because he made a "Dune" joke and she got it.) But more importantly, she's a genius - computer science major, knows Java and is an SEO whiz - interned at the NYTimes social media dept. last summer. She knows blogs inside and out and is just incredibly savvy, smart and is fantastic to work with. She's super smart and we value her immensely. I do want to emphasis that our interns with non-Valleywag-featured surnames are also amazing - we seriously can't believe how lucky we got.

Thanks, Rachel. And now, the big reveal of what you can expect when Mediatie Mediadate Mediaite launches soon. Thanks, The Google.