Sure, he saved a pair of truth-seeking reporters from the hellish nightmare that is a lifetime of hard labor in a dictatorial communist nation—but, c'mon.

Americans love happy endings, and they got a big one on Aug. 4, 2009 ... Witnessing it was a gift I'll always treasure. Soon they walked off the plane into the embrace of their families, their country, and good people all over the world-now that's a happy ending. We should make more of them.

Also, Bill is wrong, because The Miracle on the Hudson was clearly the happiest ending of the decade, not least because it had both kinds of happy endings.

Palin thinks Newsweek's use of a photo commissioned by Runner's World, for which she posed, is out-of-context on the cover of a newsmagazine and therefore "sexist." It's not clear what possible context the Newsweek cover could ever fit in. Yes, it was shot for Runner's World, but it's her showing off her legs, standing inside an office, holding two Blackberries, while leaning against an American flag. She says this was supposed to illustrate a story about "health and fitness—a subject to which I am devoted and which is critically important to this nation." But when the editors of Runner's World selected a photo (see below, via Mediaite), they picked an image of her actually — or at least plausibly — engaged in the "health and fitness" activity she was dressed for.

When this nonsensical image of the leggy lady who never wanders far from her Blackberries, flag or running shorts is used to illustrate a story about the creation of the image of Sarah Palin, on the other hand—a subject to which Sarah Palin devotes herself —its meaning is transformed into something...mean! Which, well, it was supposed to be. To Christopher Hitchens, whose story the cover illustrates, Palin is an ideologically empty phenomenon who, if she ever attained actual political power again, would quickly betray the people (white ragers) who are most devoted to her:

The Palin problem, then, might be that she cynically incites a crowd that she has no real intention of pleasing. If she were ever to get herself to the nation's capital, the teabaggers would be just as much on the outside as they are now, and would simply have been the instruments that helped get her elected.

And there's this:

The task and duty of a serious politician, as Edmund Burke emphasized so well, is to reason with such people and not to act as their megaphone or ventriloquist. Sarah Palin appears to have no testable core conviction except the belief (which none of her defenders denies that she holds, or at least has held and not yet repudiated) that the end of days and the Second Coming will occur in her lifetime. This completes the already strong case for allowing her to pass the rest of her natural life span as a private citizen.

No, Hitchens (and most likely Newsweek too) does not take her very seriously. And that must be enraging to her. So her corner replies: They were making fun of her, because she's a girl who has legs! One idiot on MSNBC just proclaimed that he went back through 60 Newsweek covers—that would take him back to October 2008—and couldn't find an identical photograph, which he held up as evidence of a sexist leftist media double standard.

Aside from the fact that, according to a Newsweek insider we talked to, it was two female staffers who found the Runner's World picture and presented it to editor Jon Meacham as a cover candidate, the problem here is that, yes, the photo was taken out of the context in which it was taken. It was taken in the context of a content-free lark over which Sarah Palin had control and was engineered to make her look good by showing off the fact that she looks good.

It was recontextualized by Newsweek into the real world, a world in which a staged photo of the woman who hijacked the 2008 presidential election beaming goofily into the camera and holding her two Blackberries and American flag like random iconography thrown in to justify the fact that she's modeling her legs is frightening and laughable. The reason Palin posed for the Runner's World photo is that she wanted people to see her legs and think of her as youthful, vibrant, fit, and in control, and she thought that a good way to do it was to just throw any old American flag around and let those gams loose. The reason Newsweek chose it for the cover was to communicate that this is how Sarah Palin sees herself. Sarah Palin likes the imagery, and her adherents like the imagery; the problem emerges when people who don't reflexively and unthinkingly love Sarah Palin encounter the imagery. Then it's sexist.

It was also sexist when Newsweek ran an unretouched photo of her in closeup where you could make out her facial hair. And it will be sexist next year when they run another photo that references the fact Palin is a human being with a body, and it will be sexist so long as Newsweek, or anyone else who dares gaze at Miss Sarah, isn't sufficiently deferential to her image of herself. She wants to be the hot mom, and she wants to be the emerging political power center. She wants those two identities to reinforce one another, but she doesn't want anyone to screw with the messaging.

You'd think that a former beauty pageant contestant would have long ago come to terms with her body issues. And she seemed awful comfortable with her body in this clip from yesterday's Oprah appearance, when a camera crew followed her on a workout in Alaska, when she was so keen on making sure the camera got a shot of those legs that she wore shorts, in November, in fucking Alaska.

SUBJECT: Thanks and Goodbye

I want to thank all of you for the wonderful time I have had here at Newsweek. The people in Mountain Lakes are one of a kind, you New York people are lucky to have them. For those of you who are also leaving I wish you nothing but the best and good luck in your job hunt.

I have to say, I have worked for some pretty big companies in the past and I thought Newsweek was definitely one of the best until I witnessed how poorly the layoffs and the transitioning was handled. It is a shame that people forget to treat people with common courtesy and compassion. I worked with some people who have worked here between 19 and 30 years and have yet to be told Thank you, you served us well and have done a good job. Why is that? I know it is easy to forget the worker bees, but without them the hive would fall apart. For what it is worth I admire your hard work and I am privileged to have had the opportunity to work amongst you and learn from you.

I tell my daughter to live by the golden rule – treat others the way you would like to be treated. It's amazing that at 7 she gets it, I can't say the same for the management of Newsweek.

Thank you,

Vicki Bosie
Vicki Bosie Coordinator, Ad Traffic Production

Meacham sent this memo to his staff around 6 p.m. on Wednesday announcing the elimination of "about a dozen" positions at the magazine due to "market conditions." Meacham admirably admits that he has "no spin to offer" about the magazine's dire condition, but then goes ahead and offers some spin anyhow: "The different direction we undertook earlier this year continues to appear promising in terms of building and retaining an engaged audience." Can't blame him, really. Tough times.

To the Staff
From Jon Meacham

This has been a tough day for the magazine. Because the economic climate in publishing has become ever more difficult, we have been compelled by business considerations to eliminate about a dozen positions. We are parting company with colleagues who have done much to serve the magazine and its readers. As much as we would like it to be otherwise, market conditions mean that we are going to have to do our work with fewer people.

I have no spin to offer. I will say this, though: our new magazine and website have been well received by readers. The different direction we undertook earlier this year continues to appear promising in terms of building and retaining an engaged audience that we hope will be attractive to advertisers while we, like so many other organizations, seek new sources of revenue in order to fulfill our mission. Our situation is not unique. But we will keep working as hard as we can to find solutions that are.

In the meantime, thanks to you all for the work you have done and will do. To those who are leaving, we will miss you, and we wish you the very best.

Alas! The BBC is cutting the pay of its top execs by 25%. How poor shall they now be? "The BBC currently spends about £79 million ($129.4 million) on pay for its 634 senior managers and nine most senior executives." Over $200K each, on average. Urchins.


Michael Wolff: "I picked up a recent column in the Spectator by the British writer Rod Liddle, who, next to me, is the best columnist in the English language." Ho hum, Michael Wolff. Ho hum.


A tipster tells us that Newsweek has shut down its L.A. and Dallas offices. Hmmm. We heard back in February the magazine was shutting down its LA and San Fran offices. So we're not sure how new this is. Or how it will affect the Historical Jesus. We've asked Newsweek to clarify for us, and we'll update when we know.
UPDATE: Newsweek tells us, "The Dallas office remains open. The LA office remains open. We combined the western region sales so it is run out of San Francisco instead of LA." Clarity on staffing levels, TK.
UPDATE 2: "The Dallas office was reduced by three and we still have a sales rep there," they say.


Keith Kelly says that the upcoming $100 million Time Inc. cuts will work out to about 540 layoffs. That's roughly the same as last year's monster Time Inc. layoff round, give or take 50 employees or so. Time Inc. will give, rather than take.

Kurt Soller and Mike Albo write for the New York Times and Newsweek, so one might think they'd pass on having corporate sponsors pay for their free vacation to Jamaica, complete with complimentary food, drink, lodging and personal butlers. But, as Jeff Bercovici at Daily Finance reports, they did attend the annual travel junket put on by the website Thrillist. Now their respective publications are having to address their freebie:

"We will be reimbursing Thrillist for the trip," a [Newsweek] spokesman says... after learning that one of [the magazine's] reporters... had gone on the junket."...A Times spokeswoman said Albo "is a freelancer and was not on assignment for The Times, which he made clear to the organizers of the trip. So we do not see any violation of our rules."

The Times might not see any problem with a junket for Albo, who pens the paper's Critical Shopper column, but the writer himself seems to. As as Bercovici points out, he tweeted, "I would feel gross about all this if I wasn't so poor."

It does seem like times are affecting standards. Last year, before a similar scandal erupted, it was the tabloidy likes of the New York Post, New York Daily News, Fox News — and Gawker, via video wizard Richard Blakeley — in attendance. And there was was major blowback: Fox joined CNN in saying the trip violated standards and that they would pay for the travel costs.

It just goes to show: Reporters will take anything free. Now more than ever.

UPDATE: Six people went to the hospital after a 20-foot-lighting tower fell on Thrillist's dance party at the Sandals resport. Obama Girl, who apparently was in the hizz-ouse, ended up with a "nasty gash" on her forehead, according to Daily Intel. It just goes to show, there's no such thing as a free lunch. (Except maybe in the Jamaican hospital; they have free health care down there! (Communists.))

Bahari was released on $300,000 bail by Iranian authorities yesterday. It was initially unclear whether he would be allowed to leave the country, but Newsweek just announced via press release that he has arrived in London. We trust he won't return to Tehran for his next court date. Bahari's wife Paola Gourley is due to give birth in six days.

Evin Prison is a very, very bad place. Another Canadian-Iranian journalist, Zahra Kazemi, died there in 2003 after reportedly being tortured and raped. The Iranians said she suffered a stroke. Bahari was dragged before cameras not long after his arrest and "confessed" that the western media were deliberately trying to undermine Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. We are glad he is out, and hope that one day he can safely return to his homeland.

The disclosure last week was unambiguous: Iran has for years been building a secret nuclear facility near the holy city of Qom. The facility, according to anonymous intelligence sources who briefed the press on Friday, is suitable for producing enough uranium for a weapon, but not enough uranium for commercial applications. In other words, the Iranians are trying to develop a nuclear weapon.

But today, the Times publishes hemming and hawing from anonymous U.S. intelligence sources, who "have stood firm in their conclusion that while Iran may ultimately want a bomb, the country halted work on weapons design in 2003 and probably has not restarted that effort - a judgment first made public in a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate." Germany and Israel, the paper says, are quite confident that Iran is actively working on a weapon, but the U.S. is—perhaps suffering from a well-earned crisis of confidence after the Iraq debacle—claiming that building a secret site that can apparently only refine enough uranium for a nuclear bomb is somehow qualitatively different from re-starting a nuclear weapons program.

Today's Times piece is essentially identical to a Newsweek story that ran earlier this month—before the Qom disclosures—headlined "Intelligence Agencies Say No New Nukes in Iran" and claiming that the U.S. didn't believe Iran was seeking a bomb, but that many of our allies disagree. We pointed out last week how unfortunate it must have been for Mark Hosenball, the Newsweek reporter who wrote it, to have had his scoop superseded so quickly by news of the Qom facility, which to most rational minds would seem to indicate both that Iran is seeking a bomb, and that the U.S. has known that it is for years. But today's Times piece indicates that there is some deliberate kabuki going on, with the U.S. apparently wanting to take a stern stand against Iran and at the same time insisting that there is no "official" nuclear program. An admission of the latter would tend to back the U.S. into a corner—if there is an actual, active program to build a nuclear bomb, it would make it harder to justify not taking military action, no? And such a statement from the U.S. would certainly give cover to Israel if they decided to bomb Iran's facilities.

The trouble is, the hairsplitting is defining nuclear deviancy down. The original 2007 National Intelligence Estimate [pdf] that both Newsweek and the Times say we're sticking by said that "Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program." Today's Times, however, moves the goalposts slightly by reporting that our spooks think Iran "halted work on weapons design in 2003 and probably has not restarted that effort." Well, there are programs, and then there are designs. The 2007 estimate said there was no program—which would include, we imagine, an effort to enrich uranium for the purposes of building a weapon, which it seems like Iran is in fact doing. If the fact that there is, allegedly, no active design component to that program makes it not really a program, then what are we worried about them secretly enriching uranium for, anyway?

And who needs to work on a nuclear weapon design when you already have a nuclear weapons design? According to the Guardian, Iran has been sitting on a warhead blueprint since at least 2005, courtesy Pakistan's nuclear pied piper A.Q. Khan:

International suspicion of Iran's nuclear programme heightened yesterday when it was revealed that Tehran had obtained a blueprint showing how to build the core of a nuclear warhead.

So, to recap: Iran is building a secret nuclear facility to enrich enough uranium only for a bomb but not for anything else but we stand by our 2007 assessment that they have not re-started their nuclear weapons program which we are now retroactively amending to say they have not re-started a nuclear warhead design program even though they probably already have a nuclear warhead design. So you see, there's no nuclear weapons program.

This is all seen through a glass darkly, and much or all of it is probably not true, and there's nuance and detail that only sophisticated followers of the issue would understand. But the Times' job, and Newsweek's, is to report what's going on as clearly as possible and without submitting to the spin and info-ops wordplay that the spooks are clearly throwing up right now. We dumped on Hosenball's story last week because we read it at face value in light of news of the Qom facility, but it turns out to have been substantially correct inasmuch as it reported that the U.S. intelligence community claims to believe something that it clearly does not believe, because to publicly claim to believe it would reduce the administration's available options. So our apologies to Hosenball—we just wish that he, and the Times, had mentioned the how ludicrous it is for their sources to claim that whatever Iran is doing doesn't count as a nuclear weapons program simply because we've decided a priori that for Iran to have an active nuclear weapons program would make things very hard for us.

Today we learned that a) Iran has for years been building a secret nuclear facility suitable only for bomb-making purposes near the holy city of Qom, b) that, according to the Washington Post, "earlier this year they began installing the infrastructure required for 3,000 centrifuges that could produce highly-enriched uranium" at the facility, and c) that the United States intelligence community has known about it for years.

Which, in retrospect, makes Newsweek reporter Mark Hosenball's "online exclusive" of September 16 look rather suspect: "The U.S. intelligence community is reporting to the White House that Iran has not restarted its nuclear-weapons development program, two counterproliferation officials tell NEWSWEEK."

Hosenball's story reported that the intelligence community continued as recently as nine days ago to stand behind it's 2007 assessment [pdf] that "in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program" and "had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007." If it's true that earlier this year Iran began installing centrifuges in a facility designed only to produce uranium for nuclear weapons, then it looks like Hosenball got hosed.

Of course, reporting on counterproliferation efforts is notoriously murky, and there's got to be some margin for error. Especially confusing is the fact that the intelligence community released—during the Bush Administration, mind you—the aforementioned 2007 report absolving Iran of any suspicions of an active nuclear weapons program when they almost certainly knew of the secret Qom facility. According to the Post, White House officials claim to have known about the site for "several years"; the Iran report was released in November 2007, less than two years ago.

Maybe there's some arcane distinction between officially "re-starting" a nuclear program and actively building a secret site for the purposes of building nuclear bombs, but it sure looks like they've re-started something, doesn't it?

Oh, you know, nothing that isn't going to (A) make the rest of the world think Americans' we-won't-but-we-will play of turn-a-cheek policy regarding torture wasn't historically despicable, (B) cause much quasi-self-effacing hand wringing by all sides, and (C) piss the Bad Guys off even more. Like:

According to two sources-one who has read a draft of the paper and one who was briefed on it-the report describes how one detainee, suspected USS Cole bomber Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, was threatened with a gun and a power drill during the course of CIA interrogation. According to the sources, who like others quoted in this article asked not to be named while discussing sensitive information, Nashiri's interrogators brandished the gun in an effort to convince him that he was going to be shot. Interrogators also turned on a power drill and held it near him.

Yeah, so basically, we threatened guys with trepanation. Don't tell us the information you've already told us you don't have after we've knowingly permanently traumatized you, and we'll put this drill in your skull. There's a Beavis & Butthead element to this, somewhere: it's some absurd - a power drill? - but sadly, not, because it actually happened. They even put on a little dog and pony for the detainees by harnessing the power of the theatah!

The report also says, according to the sources, that a mock execution was staged in a room next to a detainee, during which a gunshot was fired in an effort to make the suspect believe that another prisoner had been killed. The inspector general's report alludes to more than one mock execution.

Will Eno would be proud! Or something. Talk about breaking the fourth wall. Or the law. Or human dignity. Or protocol. Apparently, Mock Executions "weren't authorized" by the Justice Department, so don't even think of blaming them for it. At least you know what the party line's already going to be. Like all the other terrible things happening in the U.S. military these days: don't ask, don't tell. Or in this case: don't even think about it.

Every year, Veronis Suhlers Stevenson issues a big report which basically tells you everything that will happen in the media industry in the near future. This year's is coming out soon! VSS says overall ad spending will fall almost 8% this year, and won't tick back up until 2011. Also interesting: "[In 2008] for the first time, consumers spent more time with media they paid for, like books or cable television, than with primarily ad-supported media, like newspapers and magazines." What are you people made out of money?!?


Iran has been "detaining" a journalist by the name of Maziar Bahari since the protests there in June. Now Newsweek is going all out in calling for his release, which is probably the most useful thing Newsweek's done this week. Cause there's really no "news" to be found, trust us.


Jon Fine reports that Joe Mansueto, owner of Inc. and Fast Company, "has expressed interest in pursuing a deal for BusinessWeek." Others interested include Bruce Wasserstein and several PE firms. You can afford this magazine, people! Let's get some competition here.


Dan Rather's hobby, in retirement, is tending to his little $70 million lawsuit against CBS, like lesser retirees tend to gardens. Now he's filed a new lawsuit trying to get CBS execs Les Moonves and Andrew Heyward personally attached to the suit, so he can legally claim their testicles as part of the settlement. Old age is treating Dan Rather well.

Sure, most people associate the Great Depression with really depressing things like the 20% jump in the suicide rate, the soldiers killing homeless veterans while rousting them from encampments, the breadlines, the hunger, and the Federal Transient Service. Jeez.

But doesn't anyone remember all the great things?

...alongside fear, hunger, and desperation, there was also "fun" in soup lines, "hope" and "excitement" in job queues, and light-hearted resilience in the face of "hard times."

To remind us, Newsweek offers interviews with people who have happy memories of the worst economic calamity to face America, ever: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Cynthia Ozick, Helen Vendler, Gay Talese, Arnold Palmer, and Bob Barker. All of whom had some happy memories, and all of whom are distinguished by the fact that they survived the Great Depression and went on to make—in relative terms at the very least—a lot of fucking money.

So: If at some point in your lifespan you reach a plateau of financial comfort and stability, you can look back at the Hard Times as not all bad — even morally instructive. We wonder how the people who stayed poor remember it.

A tipster forwarded us this email from Newsweek CEO Tom Ascheim announcing the firing of six top managers. It begins:

To note the obvious, we find ourselves in transformational times. This need for renewal is in every article we read about this nation, the global economy and most certainly in the world of journalism. I am extremely proud of the work we have all done to transform the brand, the website, the magazine and even the very space in which we work.

The evolution of all things Newsweek has fundamentally changed the way we express ourselves to the public. It is time now to remake the inside of our organization so that our internal operations are as modern and appropriate for the moment as our public face has become. With this spirit in mind, I announce with mixed emotion a fundamental reorganization of our Finance, Operations, M&D and IT organizations. The mixed part is that in welcoming the new we have to say good-bye to folks that have served Newsweek devotedly. A word now about each.

Ascheim then goes on to sing the praises of Tracia Luh, Jennie Tse Wang and Joe Galarneau, the new people, droning on and on about their work histories and educational backgrounds, and then he gets to the dirty work:

Bringing in new people requires that we say good-bye to some of our most capable veterans: Paul Dworkis, Karen Stark, Len Carella, John Rusak, Valerie Gordon-Wiggan and Colleen Moran, whose last day will be Friday, July 17th. In all cases, these people have served us capably, giving us their sweat, smarts and loyalty. I, along with all of you, owe them our thanks many times over. John and Valerie, our newest additions have done much to bring discipline to our financial processes. Len and Colleen, among many accomplishments, have built us this glorious space that makes me smile every time I walk through the door. Karen, a twenty-five year Newsweek veteran has done some of her best work over the last year as we transitioned to our new beautiful paper stock that makes the magazine literally shimmer. Paul, the hardest working man in the news business has been both a great teacher to me and a stalwart steward of so much of what makes Newsweek run. In order to assure an orderly transition, Paul has graciously agreed to remain available to me to help on the transition for the remainder of the year.

Change is never easy. But without evolution we cannot progress. Please join me in welcoming Tracia, Jennie and Joe. And please also join me in thanking and wishing bon chance to Paul, Karen, Len, John, Valerie and Colleen.

Tom

Our tipster informed us that of the six outgoing employees, five were fired outright while one, Paul Dworkis, was given the opportunity to retire. Good luck out there guys.

Yes, Bill was all hot under the collar on his show last night because Newsweek allowed Rick Perlstein to say mean things in a "vicious piece" about Sarah Palin and, of course, Fox News, without clearly identifying him as a "far-left zealot" rather than merely an "author." Never mind the fact that O'Reilly regularly invites mouth-breathers like John Zeigler and Ann Coulter to be guests on his show regularly on the "fair and balanced" network without ever identifying them as "far-right zealots." Of course not, because to O'Reilly, these people are normal.

Now excuse me while I go stick my head out the window for an hour or so.

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

Yes, while most Americans spent the 4th of July dressed in red, white and blue, grilling various forms of animal flesh with their friends and neighbors, going to the beach, perhaps watching other Americans compete in a contest to see who could consume the most processed meats in a ten-minute time frame, Sarah Palin was cranking out an insane letter with some ridiculous Alaskan lawyer which basically threatens to sue anyone who dares to speak ill of Saint Sarah.

What provoked the threat was rampant speculation online that Palin's bizarre resignation on Friday was fueled by a possible embezzlement scandal involving the Palins receiving kickbacks on the construction of their home in Wasilla from the construction company that was awarded the contract to build the Wasilla Sports Complex while she mayor of that town. According to the four page letter from Thomas Van Flein, Palin's attorney, mere speculation on the matter by the media could result in a lawsuit.

This is to provide notice to (blogger Shannyn) Moore, and those who republish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law...Just as power abhors a vacuum, modern journalism apparently abhors any type of due diligence and fact checking before scurrilous allegations are repeated as fact.

But that's not all—Earlier in the day Palin whined about the media's treatment of her on her Facebook page.

The response in the main stream media has been most predictable, ironic, and as always, detached from the lives of ordinary Americans who are sick of the "politics of personal destruction". How sad that Washington and the media will never understand; it's about country. And though it's honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make. But every American understands what it takes to make a decision because it's right for all, including your family.

Of course, as with all things concerning Sarah Palin, none of this would be complete if it weren't laced with delicious irony. To that end, Jezebel dug up a video of Palin talking to Newsweek's Karen Breslau in March of 2008, where she addressed Hillary Clinton's complaints about the media during her campaign against Obama for the Democratic nomination. Palin said that Hillary was doing women a "disservice" by whining incessantly about media criticism.

You gotta plow through that. You have to know what you're getting into...When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate, with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or you know maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think 'that doesn't do us any good.'

Oh yes. The next few weeks should be a whole lotta fun.

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.

Video via Jezebel
Illustration via the amazing Zina Saunders True Believer

Sure, the tech writer has a forthcoming Newsweek blog to promote, named after his column at the weekly magazine. But his decision to lay off on Jobs wasn't a business decision so much as heartfelt concern about the Apple chief's health.

Now, as Fake Steve, Lyon's again cracking wise about favor-currying New York Times columnists begging to donate their livers, CNBC reporters bringing him lattes and, our personal favorite, having a gaunt Jobs brag that "I'm bench-pressing twice my body weight."

We're surprised his bosses at Newsweek are playing along; Lyons killed his personal blog after they demanded he remove a post calling Yahoo flacks "lying sacks of shit." Perhaps the subsequent problems at the magazine's print edition have opened Newsweek's eyes to the promotional power of the Web.

Sure enough, Lyons is already linkbaiting Gawker. Yes, Mr. Jobs, we'd be happy to show up at your house with a camera; just send along an access code to the front gate in case we need to use the restroom.

(Pic by Mark Coggins)

Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham released this statement tonight regarding Bahari's arrest:

We are deeply concerned about Mr. Bahari's detention. As a longtime NEWSWEEK reporter he has worked hard to be balanced in his coverage of Iran. We see no reason why he should be held by the authorities. We respectfully ask that they release him as soon as possible.

Newsweek notes that there have been at least 20 journalists and bloggers arrested by the Iranian government in their recent crackdown on the reporting of strife within that country. Tehran Bureau lists many of them, as well as a number of politicians and academics who've been captured, in this post on their website.

Interestingly, Maziar Bahari was interviewed by Jason Jones in a Daily Show segment that aired on Thursday night. He is also the author of a book on Iran's social transformation being brought about by its burgeoning population of young intellectuals, something that probably didn't sit well with the country's hardline religious leadership.

Newsweek Reporter Arrested [Newsweek]

The Scarborough interview, by Johnnie L. Roberts was a "web exclusive." It was posted to Newsweek's web site on Friday afternoon with Roberts' introduction leading with the newsiest bit of the interview: Scarborough's first comments about serving as the defense attorney for Michael Griffin, the anti-abortion zealot who murdered Dr. David Gunn in 1993, and whether that had affected his coverage of the death of Dr. George Tiller. Here's the original introduction:

In the wake of the murder of Dr. George Tiller, the abortion doctor shot dead in front of his church on May 31, a Village Voice writer had set the blogosphere abuzz about Joe Scarborough. Why had Scarborough's morning news show, "Morning Joe," been silent on the sensational murder story? Was it because Scarborough, as a young lawyer in Pensacola, Florida, had helped defend one of the nation's first murderers of an abortion doctor 16 years ago?

"We covered it as a news story, Scarborough told NEWSWEEK during an interview about his new book, "The Last Best Hope: Restoring Conservatism and America's Promise." Scarborough says he condemns the Tiller murder, and has since talked about his involvement in the 1993 Florida case on his show. "I'm an attorney," he says. "I represented clients. I did it as a favor to the family. The goal was to stop this young man from trying to defend himself."

Purchasers of his book won't read about this time in Scarborough's past, though he does advise conservatives to stop demanding that Washington become entangled in "gay marriage debates and ob-gyn issues." The morning news anchor spoke to NEWSWEEK's Johnnie L. Roberts about his book, Rush Limbaugh and how conservatives lost their way.

That went up Friday afternoon; by Friday night it was gone, replaced with an anodyne introduction that didn't mention Griffin or Tiller. Roberts' exchange with Scarborough about Griffin was still in the interview, but moved down into the body of the Q-and-A. And it no longer contained a reference to the criticism that Morning Joe gave short shrift to the Tiller murder or that Scarborough's book—curiously, for a work that deals with the politics of abortion and extremism—omits his relationship with Griffin. And that troublesome link to the Village Voice's reporting on Scarborough's past was also gone. The time-stamp—"Updated: 3:02 p.m. ET Jun 5, 2009"—remained unchanged, giving readers no clue that the introduction had been completely rewritten.

Why? We asked Newsweek editor Meacham:

On Friday, a member of Scarborough's team (not Scarborough) reached out when the original story, which led with Griffin, was posted; when I read it, I thought it was better to include that material in the flow of the interview, where it is now on Newsweek.com.

Scarborough himself claims that he had no idea that a member of his "team" was putting pressure on Meacham, a frequent Morning Joe guest, to soften the magazine's coverage of him. "I've never talked to Jon about the article," he says via e-mail, "and never saw the version of the intro you're talking about." Did he ask someone to harass Meacham on his behalf? "No. Below my radar. Again, I didn't know it was even up for a few days. Had a big family get together and didn't spend my weekend inside online."

We don't believe you, Joe. Here's a screengrab of the original introduction:

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.That new Stephen Colbert Newsweek cover? Total ripoff of Spy Magazine. Jeff Bercovici points out that this is okay because every funny magazine is a total ripoff of Spy, even if none of the writers have ever read a single issue of Spy, because Spy invented humor, in magazine form.

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.New York Times media columnist David Carr went through an entire internet-person party a lot like this one, for his column today, and didn't even insult anyone there, which is kind of superhuman.

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.Mediaite.com, the media blog offshoot of Dan Abrams' PR firm, has hired Steve Krakauer of TV Newser as its new "TV editor." So there is at least one open job in the media now.

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.Just how wacky is wacky WaPo political wacky-pointer-outer Dana Milbank? "The Post's 'wiseguy,' as described in Yeas & Nays ran around the house with a pair of [editorial cartoonist Tom Toles]' very own tighty-whities over his jeans and even waved a pair over his head on the dance floor." Now that is wacky. Your move, Gene Weingarten.

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.Fleur Cowles, who in 1950 launched a magazine called Flair that "caused a sensation and is still admired for its coverage of fashion, décor, travel, art, literature and other enthusiasms of Ms. Cowles's," has died at the age of 101.