Base:
She: Daily Beast
He: Esquire

Duration:
She: 3 Weeks
He: 2 Weeks

Stated Reason for Stunt: ("Poor Writer Does Oblvious Movie Star Stuff as Easy Formula" is implicit)
She: Seeks"an effort to understand this complex star."
He: Seeks to "break down the sanity of the Goop life, from common sense to madness."

Make:
She: 3 kinds of chocolate chip cookies, sugar-free banana nut muffins, turkey ragu, a grand, multi-Holiday feast.
He: Smoothies, soups, "Chicken with Onions, Lemon and Saffron",

Go:
She: A Mario Batali restaurant Gwynnie likes
He: Acupuncture

Get:
She: Leggings
He: Tinted under-eye moisturizer

Do:
She: ReadsCrime and Punishment, gives herself a sugar-and-coffee scrub, drinks 2 tablespoons of EVOO nightly, does a Seven-Day Detox, gives up "white foods (bread, pasta), preserved foods (chips, cookies), toxic foods (candy, ice cream), and foods containing heavy metals", negativity.

He: Reads The Sheltering Sky , gives to charity, does same Detox, acupuncture, dance cardio workouts, attempts organic-only eating, gives up "dairy, gluten, meat, shellfish, condiments, sugar, alcohol, caffeine, and an entire class of food (tomatoes, eggplant, potatoes, and peppers) called nightshades."

Be:
She: Practices the African philosophy of ubuntu
He: Listens to Deepak Chopra

Breakthrough:
She: "And then, like magic, at some point in the middle of week two, I stopped noticing what an unbelievable hassle it was to follow this ridiculous plan. My ear adjusted to Gwyneth's affect, and rather than guffawing at some of her more outlandish suggestions, I found myself intrigued by the $249 Voltaic Solar Backpack and her recommendation to "take your drinking water to the next level" with a $900 alkaline filtration system. What vegan shoe designer does Cameron Diaz recommend? I suddenly wanted to know."

He: "Yet... after four or five days, I noticed a change. I stopped craving coffee. I felt a steady stream of energy all day long. There was, in fact, a spring in my step. My mind wasn't quite as sharp as it used to be, and I had trouble concentrating during meetings, but physically speaking, I felt recharged."

Amusing Failures:
She: gives up the detox after a couple of days; doesn't have time for all the recipes, and can't afford anything.
He: Embarrasses himself dancing and is seen and mocked by neighborhood children; takes an unmanly interest in various effete things.

Conclusions:
She:

There's a lot to scoff at here, but the three weeks I spent following GOOP were pure joy. Expensive, inconvenient and totally unsustainable-yes, but also full of unexpected pleasures...She may be tone-deaf and full of wacky ideas about food and religion, but she really just wants everyone to feel as good as she does. On a few occasions, I think I got close. My GOOP plan began with cynicism and failure, and by the end, I was cooking a giant pan-holiday dinner party with recipes from Thanksgiving, Christmas, Hanukkah and Valentine's Day for my boyfriend, three girlfriends, and Rue McClanahan of The Golden Girls.

He:

At the end of this two-week experiment, I can report, without qualification or caveat, that I felt very, very good. I was sleeping better. I had more energy. I'd lost nine pounds. Revolutionary or not, Gwyneth's way worked, and if it worked for this sinner, it could work for anybody. Case closed..And yet. I wasn't having much fun. (I like to eat red meat and drink too much at parties. It makes me happy.) I wasn't doing well at work - maybe it's because I was drinking less caffeine, but I was more reserved in meetings and a little slower on the uptake. I was also quite a bit poorer than when I started out.

Conclusions: It was interesting to see the contrast in the approaches. Although both tried to be open-minded, the dude was clearly more skeptical about the whole endeavor, and found the lifestyle more of a departure. Perhaps most important, he found the whole thing kind of embarrassing. She, on the other hand, even as she bemoaned the unachievable nature of many of Gwyneth's recommendations, got into the spirit of it. In a way this makes sense: Gwynnie's a woman, and Goop's base is, presumably, female. (And if we're more prone to suggestions, tips, advice, self-help, this also implies an open-mindedness, and an ability to take the good.) What they both took away from the stunt was common sense: eat better, drink water, think positive. Do you need self-congratulatory trappings and oblivious stars to tell you this? No. But, hey, if people are taking something good away from it, fine. Both these pieces kind of read like a fable: they have to make a long, absurd journey only to find what was always there in front of them. And while that makes me think that Goop is a waste of time, Gwyneth would probably have a quote about paths and roads and moisturizer that some people would rather hear - and that the rest of us can mock. What did these pieces teach us? Nothing. Or, as Goop would have it, everything.

The Goop Matrix [Esquire]

My Life As Gwyneth [Daily Beast]

Last night, media mogul Steven Brill sent us—unsolicited—his thoughts on the possibility of the New York Times charging for its website, which we wrote about yesterday. We will reproduce his thoughts in full, because how often do you get free, unsolicited musings from a media mogul on the area of his expertise (his new gig, Journalism Online, is all about this), even after you have derided him as usually wrong? Brill writes:

1. We have found in creating models like this for our newspaper and magazine affiliates that one of the other key advantages for them is that charging for online will actually enhance their PRINT revenues and circulation. There are two reasons: First, it allows the paper to "bundle" a discount offer for both, so that a would-be print subscriber or renewer can be offered a discount on his online subscription if he or she takes the print edition. (As in "Save 50% off the online subscription if you renew your print subscription.") You can't do that if you're not putting any value on, and not charging for, the online version. Second, if you keep giving one version (online) away for free, then you increasingly undercut sales of the other (print) version, not to mention your ability to raise the price on the newsstand, something most newspapers and magazines are trying to do. The long and short of it is that where papers have charged online in Europe and the U.S. they have enhanced their PRINT revenues. Indeed, the list of newspapers in the U.S. that have not suffered losses in print circulation lately looks like a list of those that are charging for their online versions.

2. In the models we are developing with affiliates, we show that you really needn't give up much if any online ad revenues when you charge online, because you really don't reduce your traffic much. That's because you can use a variety of methods to maintain most of your current (free) page views, such as: only charging readers who visit online more than, say, five time a month; only charging readers who visit frequently and who are outside your geographic base (locally-based online advertisers aren't paying to reach them anyway; or allowing readers to sample the first two paragraphs of a story before asking them to pay. We have created about 15 such varieties of free visits/sampling/charging methods. All of them contradict the notion of some kind of magic "pay wall" suddenly coming down and charging everyone for everything.

Rebecca Dana, reporter for the WSJ's Speakeasy blog and subject of the august paper's sultriest headcut ever, is leaving to take a job with the Daily Beast—her "dream job," she says. "I'm going to write about culture for them, with a focus on fashion. Will also do some editing and some general entertainment/media stuff," Dana tells us. She adds, "You won't have this stipple-portrait to kick around any more!" Oh?

The Claremont, NH Eagle Times folds, leaving the town without a newspaper. The Washington City Paper brushed off criticisms from witless Marion Barry fans who could not recognize the unadulterated brilliance of their latest cover. And other papers continue to try to fashion some sort of overarching editorial philosophy for the Huffington Post. Hint: It doesn't exist.

Do not expect Bill Keller to laugh and chuckle the next time a satirical cable news show comes calling! He says about his Daily Show experience: "Well, that's the last time I try to be a good sport. Even my wife told me that I looked faintly ridiculous, and she was trying to make me feel better. Among the people who would miss us most would be the wise-guy pundits and scriptwriters for satirical TV shows, because they riff on the news we produce." Bill Keller will punch Jason Jones right in the snoot, on sight.

You'll recall Dana as the report who parted ways with a plum new job at the New York Times in 2007 after joking she was going to "kick [future colleague] Bill Carter's ass." She later did kick Carter's ass, at the Wall Street Journal, except with a scoop about Katie Couric that never came true. Whoops! (In fairness, it could be argued that Couric was going to leave the Evening News after the election, as Dana reported, but was aided by her devastating interviews with VP nominee Sarah Palin, interviews that may have shaped the course of the election.)

Media reporter Dana has perhaps grown more sophisticated with time, at least judging by changes in her facade. Compare the chic woman in the headcut up top to the t-shirted girl in the picture at left, disseminated in 2006 (via). (UPDATE: Dana "hates" the headcut, see bottom of post.)

The new headcut at least represents a clueful bit of marketing for Speakeasy, which the Journal doesn't seem to know what to do with. WSJ.com's managing editor can't even decide whether to call it a "blog," preferring the term "real-time column," terminology as charmingly anachronistic as "horseless carriage," as Steve Yelvington pointed out.

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.And the blog's — er, column's — content hasn't yet lived up to the breezy, indiscreet tone implied by its logo, which features a Martini olive; or to the mission as it's apparently been described to Journal reporters: they are to pass on tidbits overheard at parties, we hear, a tricky proposition for writers trying to impress sources with their journalistic diligence.

A sizzling headcut, in comparison, provides a less complicated sort of entrée.

UPDATE: Dana, writes, "Aaahhh, I hate it!!!!!!" So it would appear the stipple-portrait paparazzi are out of control. Either that or her editors insisted on the sultry/spy headcut. For the record, here's how Dana actually looked as of last year.

Can Ailes Outfox CNBC? [WSJ]

Rebecca was overheard saying something like, "I'm going to kick [Times TV reporter]Bill Carter's ass." She was just joking around with her friends, but somehow word got back to the NYT. They called her this weekend and essentially said, "We had concerns, because of your age, about your maturity, and this kind of behavior unfortunately confirms our suspicions." And then they RESCINDED THE OFFER. Rebecca argued her case and they relented, but offered her basic trial status. Kind of like: "We don't want you on staff or here at all, but fine, we'll let you come in and try to climb the ladder like everyone else." Rebecca, who had originally been issued the golden staff status ticket, was less than thrilled; supposedly she's negotiating with [Observer editor Peter] Kaplan, even though she already quit.