RELATED: Stephen Colbert Welcomes ‘Fresh Faced’ GOP Candidate Stephen Colbert, Teases ‘Major Announcement’

Stelter was in attendance at the Colbert Report taping earlier in the evening and made the announcement via Twitter, which many cable news stations broke live to report.





Stay tuned for the official announcement!
(h/t Brian Stelter)

When I saw the “Duke It Out” headline, I was surprised (and disappointed I’d missed it), because while Olbermann is famous for his Twitter-warring ways, Stelter is about as genial a guy as there is. As it turns out, on Thursday, Brian Stelter promoted his reporting on Twitter (and actually avoided conflict with Olbermann by not using his Twitter handle), while Keith Olbermann pushed back on it. Here’s the timeline:

brianstelter: Keith Olbermann is famous for estranging himself from his bosses. At Current, he’s done it in record time: nyti.ms/z3Zywj 5 Jan
KeithOlbermann : 4) Best laugh? Lead of @BrianStelter NYT story. 2 of the 3 networks he claims I “estranged” myself from later asked me to rejoin them 5 Jan

brianstelter A cold war between Keith Olbermann and his channel, Current TV — my Bizday story in today’s NYT: nyti.ms/z3Zywj 5 Jan

KeithOlbermann: See previous: not really, no RT @nytjim Is Current TV too low-rent for @KeithOlbermann? Good piece by @brianstelter.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/bus… 5 Jan

KeithOlbermann Not when he tries to threaten me into giving one RT @grahamdudegive writer interview next time, probably be a better story@BrianStelter 5 Jan

KeithOlbermann @msbellows And the reason you assume the article is not poorly-reported pap? 5 Jan

KeithOlbermann I’m sorry, but in denying he tried to threaten me into commenting on the record, @BrianStelter of NY Times is flat out lying. 5 Jan

brianstelter New Twitter followers: here’s my story about Keith Olbermann’s cold war with Current TV. It is in today’s Times: nyti.ms/xcBtMA 5 Jan

KeithOlbermann Advised there were factual errors in his story @BrianStelter said he’d correct them only if I went on record w/him, which I legally can’t 5 Jan

KeithOlbermann Thus @BrianStelter chose to use erroneous information he attributes to an anonymous source, rather than facts. It is shameful. 5 Jan

KeithOlbermann .@RBS07 It was explained to him. @BrianStelter demanded it be explained on the record while not demanding that of the source of falsehood 5 Jan

brianstelter Here’s my latest on Keith Olbermann vs. Current, as of 3pm, about the lawyerly handling of it all: nyti.ms/zHu7o2 5 Jan

brianstelter @GregMitch i’ve yet to convince anyone who works with olbermann to go on the record. they seem to fear for their jobs. i continue to try. 5 Jan

KeithOlbermann Actually they seem to believe in loyalty, to their company & maybe even to me RT @brianstelter i’ve yet to convince… tl.gd/f5n1vt 5 Jan

KeithOlbermann More over (sic), @BrianStelter, employees in nearly all companies do not have an unfettered right to speak to the media. I don’t, you don’t. 5 Jan

The “threat” that Olbermann refers to appears to be his claim that he advised Stelter that there were “factual errors” in his story, but that Stelter “said he’d correct them only if I went on record w/him,” and accused Stelter of a double-standard, saying he “demanded it be explained on the record, while not demanding that of the source of falsehood.”

Without knowing the exact details, but based solely on what Olbermann is saying, Stelter’s actions don’t constitute a threat, but rather, standard journalistic procedure. If Olbermann is the sole source of the “factual” correction, he has to be “on the record” in some fashion in order for Stelter to print it. Additionally, the fact that Stelter “attributed” something to an anonymous source means that source was on the record, just not named. Olbermann doesn’t say if Stelter offered him a background attribution; I asked him, and he hasn’t responded.

It’s a serious accusation, but as Olbermann lays it out, Stelter did nothing wrong. I’ve had sources push bad information to me off-the-record (it’s called “guidance”) to try to get me to kill or alter a story, but if off-the-record information can’t be independently verified, it may as well not exist.

The whole thing began when The New York Times‘ Brian Stelter reported on possible tensions between Olbermann and Current TV, as manifested by his scheduled (as in, ahead of time) absence from Current’s Iowa Caucus coverage. That made it all the more strange when, several days later, Olbermann tweeted his followers that he was “headed into the office now” for Countdown‘s return from holiday hiatus, followed by a more dramatic tweet that advised viewers “So as not to mislead: I am informed Countdown will not be on tonight. I must defer on all questions to @JoelHyatt @AlGore and@Current.”

But according to the network, Olbermann was more than “informed” about his absence from the schedule Tuesday night; he was responsible for it. A Current source confirmed to Mediaite that Olbermann was kept appraised of the Iowa Caucus plans at every turn, and acknowledged as much, in at least four or five emails dating back to mid-November. In those emails, Current executives tried to secure Olbermann’s participation in the program, as they have previously stated, but he refused.

Then, last night, The Hollywood Reporter broke news that the whole thing had gone to the lawyers, but a source at the network says that, while Olbermann’s representatives are frequently in contact with Current as a routine matter of course, they have not been contacted about this matter. The source also says that the network has invited Olbermann to anchor Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary coverage, but has not gotten a response.

Olbermann told THR that he “was not given a legitimate opportunity to host under acceptable conditions,” adding, “They know it and we know it. Telling half the story is wrong.”

The half of the story that Olbermann isn’t telling (at least not yet) is why he feigned ignorance of the schedule change, an apparent game of chicken to force his disgruntlement into the public eye.

There has been speculation that the rift might involve technical issues with the set that caused Olbermann to switch to a set-less black background, but according to the network, those issues were quickly resolved. The continued use of the non-set is Olbermann’s choice, perhaps stylistically, or perhaps as some kind of statement.

Current TV hasn’t said much about the dispute publicly, perhaps in a wise effort not to antagonize their franchise player, but even behind the scenes, the source of the agita seems to be an enigma. According to Olbermann’s manager, he’s not looking to leave the network, but “was unable to answer other questions because of confidentiality clauses in the anchorman’s contract, which is believed to last five years and be worth $50 million total.”

So, what’s the problem? According to Olbermann’s manager, he can’t say, and according to Current TV, they don’t know. Current obviously wants to keep Olbermann on board, as he is key to the aggressive programming strategy that they hope will result in a 24 hour slate of news and commentary this year. An unidentified Current exec told The Wrap “I hope Keith is part of our future, but it’s up to Keith,” adding, “Keith set us in the right direction and we’re on that path now … and as I’ve learned over the years, everybody is replaceable.”

That may be true, but anyone rooting for the success of a 24-hour news home for progressive programming, and anyone who values a diverse media landscape, ought to hope that it doesn’t come to that. One cause for optimism on that front could be the fact that, given his employment history, Keith Olbermann can jump, but he doesn’t seem to have anywhere to land.

We reached out to Mr. Olbermann for comment on this story, but as of this writing, have not received a response. We will, of course, update you if and when we do.

RELATED: Exclusive: Why Countdown With Keith Olbermann Has Been Broadcasting From A Dark Place

Stelter reports that Olbermann “is not scheduled to anchor Current’s coverage of the Iowa caucus or the New Hampshire primary in January;” the network has placed anchors Cenk Uygur and Jennifer Granholm in that position, along with the head of the network, Al Gore. And despite having been hired to be a part of special reports, as well, Olbermann has not been around. What’s more, Olbermann’s program will actually not run on Monday, January 2 and in its stead will be a two-hour Iowa caucus preview hosted by Uygur.

Stelter does not provide concrete answers, but did find some rumblings of discomfort with Olbermann among the staff:

In the television industry, Mr. Olbermann is well known for fights with his bosses; stories abound about his refusal to speak to managers and executives. At Current, this behavior has continued, according to four people with knowledge of the situation, one of whom described Mr. Olbermann as “disgruntled.”

Current’s chief executive, David Bohrman, did not respond to requests for comment on Thursday, on what is traditionally a holiday week. Mr. Olbermann did not respond to an e-mail.

Stelter also notes that Olbermann himself has not made any indication that the absences from other program are unusual, adding that his final live program of the way only made note that he would be back to anchor on Tuesday, January 3.

Are these the tiny squeals of discontent that preempt the involuntary opening of the proverbial floodgates? It’s too early to tell, but there is certainly something unusual about his absences from major programming, as well as the silence surrounding the story.

UPDATE: Stelter reports that it appears Olbermann himself was not in on the plan to have him absent from the programming:

On Thursday afternoon Mr. Olbermann suggested that Current’s published plans might not be accurate. When a reporter asked him via email why he was not participating in the Iowa caucus coverage, he answered, “That’s not my understanding. We’ve already prepared a ‘Best Of Countdown’ for Monday, and are planning a live Countdown on Tuesday.”

REPORT: The Five Crew Exchange Their Secret Santa Gifts: Guess Who Donated To OWS?

The profile begins explaining how the stressful beginning of the post-Glenn Beck era at Fox News required something– anything– to fill in that spot: anything that wasn’t an imitation of the spot’s previous owner. “About a week and a half before Mr. Beck signed off, Mr. [Roger] Ailes wrote the words “The Five” on a piece of paper,” Stelter writes. “Looking to the ABC talk show “The View” and to the time of day as inspiration, he pictured five co-hosts who could argue about the day’s top stories without feeling antipathy for one another. When announced on June 30, Mr. Beck’s last day, “The Five” seemed to be a temporary fix — even to the co-hosts, who were initially told they were just trying out for a weekend show.”

The interviews with the cast show that the warmth on-screen exists in real life, as well. Greg Gutfeld corroborated Beckel’s claim that the political talk resembled Thanksgiving dinner, adding that the crew “feel bad about it afterwards” when they get too aggressive in a political conversation. Beckel attributes the success of the show to not having a single host, and giving the audience hosts to choose from, while Dana Perino gave an example of what it’s like to have fans walk up to her (they mostly ask if Beckel, the only liberal on the panel, believes what he says).

Stelter concludes that The Five, as well as “several lower-rated talk shows that started on MSNBC this year are representative of a continued shift on cable to talk about the news and away from actual news reports.” The observation that cable news viewers tune into shows like The Five (and what can be considered it’s more liberal counterpart, MSNBC’s Up with Chris Hayes) because they are drawn by the opinions of the personalities at the helm and not necessarily by the need to know the news may sound outrageously behind the curb, but Stelter seems to be getting at something more than the idea that opinion-driven shows are more popular than news-driven ones. Beyond having opinions, the new generation of cable news talk shows spearheaded by The Five have personalities, characters and character arcs that are worth tuning in for. Stelter is correct (albeit a little late) in pointing out that people tune in for talks about the news rather than “actual news reports,” but they’re not even tuning in for the chat part of the show as much as they are for the personalities anymore, the way a viewer would tune into Bill O’Reilly or Lawrence O’Donnell.

RELATED: The Five Devotes Segment To Occupy Wall Street’s Poop, Bob Beckel Can’t Stop Laughing

Sure, viewers tune in to find out what Andrea Tantaros thinks of the payroll tax holiday– and not just to find out information about the payroll tax holiday– but they also tune in to hear about the misadventures of alliterative larger-than-life figures like Bob Beckel or Greg Gutfeld, about the time Eric Bolling ran into Ed Schultz at a bar or to watch Dana Perino cringe, then partake, in a segment full of sexy double entendres. Unlike the previous, host-driven generation of opinion shows, The Five adds a refreshing new element to cable news– a plot.

It was the last anyone heard of it until about 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, when Brian Stelter of The New York Times tweeted:

RELATED: Christiane Amanpour Mocks Herman Cain In Hillary Clinton Interview From ‘Beki-beki-beki-bekistan’

A minute later, Stelter said that the Tweet was meant to be sent as a private direct message. He then explained that he was following up on the Post story, and eventually said that the Accidental Tweet actually worked — “And now more sources are popping up,” he wrote.

So we learned a few things from this:

1. Amanpour is likely on her way back to CNN.
2. Stelter should be applauded for checking with multiple sources on stories before floating out would-be rumors (NOTE: This should, in no way, imply that the Post simply floated a rumor, as they obviously broke the story days ago and had sourced it out, as well. It’s simply meant to point out that the tweet revealed Stelter‘s methods of reporting).
3. A new way to get sources to pop up for stories in the future might be to “accidentally” tweet out a DM and see what comes back to you.

With the overflow of tweets he received, Stelter had a story up about an hour later, citing two sources that confirmed the rumor:

Ms. Amanpour, a longtime international correspondent for CNN, joined ABC about a year and a half ago to anchor “This Week.” There, she replaced George Stephanopoulos, who had moved to the network’s weekday morning program “Good Morning America.”

An ABC spokesman had no comment on Stelter’s column. If any comments come from their camp, we will update the story.

Stern posted a goodbye message this evening, saying thanks to his crew and announcing Daulerio as the new head of the site:

It’s been a fantastic ride, but today is my last day as Gawker’s editor-in-chief. Taking over the reigns is A.J. Daulerio of Deadspin. Please make him feel welcome.

My deepest thanks to the insanely talented team I’ve had the pleasure of working with these past 18 months and to you, dear readers, for skimming the site during your lunch breaks and complaining endlessly in the comments. Keep in touch, y’all! It’s been a blast.

The news broke earlier, however, as Brian Stelter at the New York Times reported the changes, noting that Tommy Craggs, a senior editor for Deadspin, would now be in charge of that site. Stelter also posted an excerpt from an internal memo from Gawker head Nick Denton:

“It’s not as if Gawker is in crisis,” Mr. Denton wrote, citing traffic growth and a series of news scoops under Mr. Stern. But, he continued, “We need to release the full potential of the site’s excellent roster of writers — and fill out the team with new hires. A. J. has proven himself as both developer and recruiter of editorial talent. That’s what the site needs right now. Hence the switch.”

[Photo via]

The party was held at the Gramercy Park Hotel, which, while fancy, also possesses an undeniable schmanciness as well. When you walk in, there’s no sterile check-in counter, just one guy behind a low antiquey table with a guest book on it. I thought he was just waiting for someone to bring him a latte. I got there an hour-and-a-half early, not so I could secure on-street parking, but for some other good, strategic reason.

Luckily, the Gramercy Park Terrace (or The ‘Rrace, as I like to call it) was open to the unfashionably early, so I went up to get the lay of the land. There, I was met by an MSNBC PR staffer, who showed me around, and got me a copy of Chris Matthews‘ Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero to peruse while I waited. I also finally got to meet some of the MSNBC PR staff, whom I’d only ever spoken to via phone or email. In fact, it looked like MSNBC’s entire PR staff was there. If they were cops, I’d have been out robbing a bank.

The ‘Rrace is a lush, zen-like space with two open bars (!), lots of plants everywhere, and a muted, nature-themed decor. I took a few pictures, grabbed a Diet Coke (the bartender informed me that it takes more skill to pour one of those than any other drink), and sat down to read Matthews’ book until the partygoers arrived.

One of the first to arrive was MSNBC President Phil Griffin, followed closely by Mediaite Managing Editor Colby Hall (also a Project: In Vino operative), both of whom headed straight for the bar. That was my cue to grab a glass of champagne, just to blend in, you see. Michael Calderone was another early arrival, whom I hadn’t seen since the last media-elite book party I’d infiltrated, for Bill Press‘ Toxic Talk, so we spent some time catching up. Since then, Mike has gone from Yahoo! News over to The Huffington Post.

Also in attendance was the lovely and talented Ann Curry, who was also at the Mediaite launch party. In fact, there were quote a few Mediaite launch party alums, including Willie Geist (who claimed to read Mediaite every morning, and passed a quiz to prove it), and broadcasting giant Dan Rather and his wife, Jean (who really like the vibe of the ‘Rrace). In that way, these things are kind of like summer camp, but with better S’mores and booze.

Other luminaries in attendance included comedy legend Jerry Stiller, New York Times media wunderkind Brian Stelter, Game Change co-author John Heilemann, MSNBC anchor Tamron Hall (no relation to Colby), Andrew Ross Sorkin, PBS’ Charlie Rose, and a couple of my White House comrades, Renegade author Richard Wolffe and newly-minted MSNBC dayside star Alex Wagner.

Wolffe asked after my bum ticker, but I caught the subtext. He was obviously trying to enlist me in some sort of scheme to promote socialized medicine, so I played along. I congratulated Alex on her new show, and after my second glass of champagne with no food, corralled Phil Griffin to let him know that whoever decided to give Alex her own show ought to be promoted. Any idiot can see her megawatt TV appeal, but she was also one of the hardest-working reporters on the White House beat for Politics Daily.

In conversations with the denizens of this media ivory tower, there were a few consistent themes. Herman Cain’s recent troubles came up a lot, with the general consensus being that he could probably survive the scandal absent a flesh-and-blood accuser coming forward, but that his campaign needed to learn how to handle it better. James O’Keefe‘s recent activity was also the subject of some buzz, with requisite outrage over his treatment of Sam Stein, but also disappointment that his expose´s weren’t more interesting.

A few people even expressed some positive feelings about the burgeoning prime-time slate at Current TV, the feeling being that there’s room enough in the sky for two forward-leaning lineups to succeed.

Chris Matthews was there, of course, and though I missed his remarks due to an ill-timed smoke break, I did manage to hear his shout-out to Willie Geist as “the most influential man in America at 5:30 AM.”

Matthews worked the party tirelessly for several hours, rarely sitting, and as the crowd began to thin out, I approached him to see if he’d sit for a brief interview, “whenever you’re ready.”

“Sure,” he said, “let me just say good-bye to a few people.”

I set up my camcorder (which cleverly decided to ignore the fact that I had plugged a microphone into it), and antsily waited for Matthews to return. With a three hour drive ahead of me, I guess impatience got the better of me, and after a few minutes, I started angrily composing tweets in my head about how Chris Matthews had ditched me at his book party. Fortunately for me, he showed up shortly thereafter, and even though it was probably the last thing he felt like doing, answered all of my questions at length.

All in all, it was a very good night. True, nobody got hammered (although I did feel a little lightheaded after my 2nd champagne on an empty stomach, and had to snarf down 3 emergency Wagyu beef skewers), and I didn’t get the smoking gun footage on these elites that I’d hoped for, but as I boarded the elevator to head back to Jersey, I felt pretty good about the whole thing. As the doors closed, a tall, strikingly beautiful woman hopped into the elevator. As we descended, she eyed my tripod, smiled, and asked, “Were you the photographer at the Victoria’s Secret party?”

No. No, I was not.

Take a look at are some photos from the event, via my crummy camcorder and MSNBC:

NEXT>>>> Photos from Chris Matthews’ Book Party

Morgan began with Stelter, who had been out in the hurricane to cover the event for the NYT, who argued off the bat that, from his vantage point, “the idea that it was hyped just seems ludicrous to me.” Curl countered that “three days straight of wall-to-wall coverage” seemed excessive, and likely had to do with the fact that New York City was on the hurricane’s path. Morgan then replied that “the devastation to life, limb… would have been horrendous” had it done the damage predicted in New York because of the dense population, adding dramatically, “how many have to be killed for you to assess this as serious enough?”

Curl responded that that was “not what I’m saying” and respected the damage, but noted that some of the worst damage was in Vermont, not New York City, but “I never heard Vermont mentioned once.” While Stelter agreed that “the media was late to find out about the flooding” because it was “too focused on the coast,” he attributed the problem to a lack of trained scientists on television, for which he tipped his hat to Chad Meyers. Meyers, on his part, listed every recent hurricane with the same amount of pressure to prove how rare they were and why he was worried. As to the claim that meterologists were “telling us it was going to be devastating along the coast” and not inland, as Curl argued, Meyers angrily interjected “that’s not true!” and reminded Curl that 72 hours before landfall, “I said ‘this is going to be remembered as a floodmaker.”

The segment via CNN below:

Stelter is currently in North Carolina, reporting on both his personal experience with the hurricane in vivid detail (winds were so high, for instance, that it ripped his poncho into several pieces) and on the damage the hurricane has caused so far (i.e. flickering power, sliding peeling away from buildings near the beach, and shingles being torn from rooftops by high winds.)

Other recommendations to follow for up to the minute hurricane coverage:

Also advised: Unfollow all comedians.

Any other recommendations for newsy, hurricane-focused coverage?

Host Jon Scott put the topic on the table, suggesting that the relationship between Sharpton and the White House could have something to do with the deal. Panelist Monica Crowley noted that she was “not at all surprised,” as “his ideology fits in perfectly with MSNBC” and he could be trusted not to attack President Obama. The other main potential reason the panel discussed was the involvement of Sharpton in the Comcast-NBC deal. Panelist Jim Pinkerton suggested that the “skepticism that there is some kind of quid pro quo is worth following up on,” though that discussion was cut short by Scott asking why anyone listened to Sharpton at all. “I don’t think anyone does,” chimed in Kirsten Powers, adding her skepticism that quid pro quo was involved to the pot.

The segment via Fox News below:

The New York Times media reporter Brian Stelter will write a book, tentatively titled The Top of the Morning, “about TODAY, Good Morning America and the other morning shows that collectively set the nation’s breakfast table every day,” Stelter writes this morning on his personal website.

Stelter reports the book’s publisher, Grand Central, sees the book as “a candid look at the surreal lives of the surrogate families that we invite into our homes each morning — and why the shows matter so much to the fragmenting television business.” Publishers Weekly reports the book will hit shelves in North America in 2013.

Some are calling David Carr the “breakout star” of Page One, the documentary that takes you inside The New York Times‘ newsroom. But for us who have seen Carr participate in two panels before, his performance in the movie didn’t come as a surprise.

During both the screening of the film and the panel that followed, Carr was the main attraction. We’ve pointed out before how Carr’s tone and delivery come with a certain calmness that sets the audience at ease and, in turn, calls for a certain trust from his onlookers. Those skills probably help him in his reporting, and have thrust him into the spotlight when he and others discuss Page One. No wonder he’s such a frequent panelist at media events.

At the top of this panel, Keller admitted that on his first viewing several months ago, he believed that the movie was far too long at 90 minutes. Rossi said that he wanted to include more than just The Times‘ media department, he wanted to showcase the  “moment of great crisis across the board” for the entire journalism field. This is what Carr called a “Death Valley moment” where no one – even Times reporters – really knew what was in store for the nation’s top newspaper, and whether it could survive tough economic times and uncertainty.

For all the changes that journalism is enduring now, Gay Talese said he believes that to do it right you have to be out in the field. Technological advances have definitely changed things, Talese said, but he recalled being advised when he was a budding reporter to shy away from the telephone. The panelists all have a great sense of honor for the legacy of the newspaper, Talese even rebuffing a suggestion that he was a pioneer for The New Journalism. He said that even he learned it from his predecessors. Talese said that he still reads The Times every day, which takes him two hours.

So will The Times live on? Rossi isn’t sure if journalism will remain the same on a new platform. Carr, however, thinks The Times will survive, even if only as a status symbol. When you’re on your iPad, he said, it’s impossible to tell if you’re reading The New York Times or not. Echoing this sentiment were two people sitting in front of us at the event who made it difficult to tell if they were tweeting about the panel on their iPhones or just checking their email.

What They Said
“One thing we have in this family is the belief in freedom of the press even if it’s all about the press. And that’s a great tradition.”
- Gay Talese praises the Sulzbergers for their commitment to the paper

“I got sent down to Katrina but it was after the gossip columnists but before the architecture critics.”
- David Carr says that while he enjoys his media beat, it’s not exactly the most pressing one at the paper

“He would never have let The Daily Show in.”
– Bill Keller jokes about David Carr’s news judgment being better than his.

“I didn’t aspire to be a foreign correspondent because the story really was New York. The story was America.”
– Gay Talese kept his interests local

“[Brian Stelter] is really like an avatar for the new media, even establishing his own brand within the paper.”
– Andrew Rossi was impressed by the work ethic of the media reporters he shadowed

What We Thought

• Keller did a great job in a short amount of time asking the right questions. He focused on Carr and Talese for their reactions to the film and thoughts on the future of journalism, while turning to Rossi for the outsider perspective. It was a panel that could have gone the other way, being that Rossi was out of his element on a panel with three journalism veterans, but Keller managed to incorporate Rossi in when he could shed some light, too.
• In the Thank Yous at the closing of the film, we couldn’t help but notice that alphabetically, “The White House” came just before “WikiLeaks.org.” If that doesn’t speak to the current media landscape, we don’t know what does.
• Carr said that Jayson Blair was one of his close friends at The Times when he first arrived there. It seems to still shake him how someone could get away with that at The Times.

PANEL RULES!

This panel didn’t feature any audience questions, possibly an effort to get the audience out at a decent hour. After two hours of sitting, we were somewhat relieved to be sent on our way.

Carr is the nucleus around which the film gathers, and his musings form much of the narration. While a 25-year veteran, much of Carr’s career has been with alternative publications, and his backstory reads more like a pulp novel than the resume of a media reporter for the world’s most prestigious newspaper. His emergence from drug addiction and crime give him a hard, weathered edge.

I asked Rossi how hard it was to resist making world-weary Carr the star of the film. “Initially that was my intention, it was to focus on David,” Rossi says. Carr resisted that idea, he says,  ”but ultimately, you know, I think he rises to the level of sort of being the star of the film. He is the Virgil, sort of guiding us through all of these stories in a broader sense like, you know, the audience’s potential feeling of alienation or dislocation in a digitizing world.”

Carr is such a colorful character, and his manner so abrasive at times, that it’s tough to imagine him succeeding for a less-prestigious paper. That’s probably why outsiders like Carr don’t often work their way up the line, from the mailroom to the newsroom, and why Carr is such a one-of-a-kind. He braces sources in a way that lets them know they need him more than he needs them.

Stelter, on the other hand, came to The Times fresh from college, after founding TV Newser . Such a rapid rise lends Stelter an outsider’s perspective of a different sort, the young, new media Turk to Carr’s deeply-etched cynic.

One of the film’s great pleasures is watching Carr’s complete ownership of new media types. He smacks down a conference room full of online entrepreneurs who try to feed him some PR pap, and deals Newser’s Michael Wolff a coup de grace during a debate on the merits of mainstream journalism with nothing more than a printout of Newser’s front page, and a pair of scissors.

In between Carr and Stelter, though, are scores of lifelong Times employees who are being laid off, evidence that they’re waging a losing battle against a media culture increasingly obsessed with profitable, popular fluff, and barely concerned with the future of journalism, the villains of the film. In one particularly evocative clip, Arianna Huffington compares those concerned with the cost-cutting and de-professionalization of journalism to prehistoric stone-tablet etchers, declaring that journalism “has always been a technology business.”

Rossi takes exception with that attitude. “I think it’s utterly insulting,” he says. “She almost says that people who are bemoaning the erosion of financial stability of newspapers, it’s like, who cares. There’s a lot of smart people saying that this is a digital evolution, the road to some utopian future are going to have a lot of dead bodies on the side of the road.”

“That sounds very hardcore and forward reaching,” he continues, “but that doesn’t take into account a lot of original data and information that those ostensible, potential dead bodies are producing. So, what are all these aggregators going to do in the future when there’s nothing to aggregate?”

Commerce above journalism is a running theme in Page One, such as when they show the Gawker “Big Board,” the new media equivalent of The Times’ front page, which runs on giving the people what they want, or Tribune Company CEO Sam Zell‘s contemptuous attitude toward traditional journalism.

“Anybody who can say, you know, that people who are talking about impacts of newspapers going out of business are a bunch of pussies, to me, sounds like a freak.” Rossi says.

The future is uncertain, but Rossi sees some hope in the results, so far, from the paper’s implementation of a paywall. “I know that about 150,000 people thus far have opted in,” Rossi says, “but I also know that the users for the website is typically about 40 million a month, and I think that that has gone down to about 36 million. And that statistic is pretty heartening, an attrition rate of just 10% for the paywall, when there were predictions that traffic would be cut in half or more.”

Rossi’s filmmaking style is intimate, yet cool, allowing the settings and characters to speak for themselves, and eschewing some of the more manipulative techniques of documentarians like Michael Moore.

“I love his films,” Rossi says of Moore. “Fahrenheit 911 was amazing and incredibly entertaining and really important. I agree, it’s really different from the way that I try to make films that are more observational and less with an agenda. It seems like when Michael Moore sets out to make a film, we almost have a problem set that he wants to find the proofs for. The whole movie is on a trajectory towards proving a point. I think that this film, I think there are a lot of imperatives or messages, but I don’t think that it’s out to prove a point. I think it does prove certain things, but it’s not crafted to do so.”

Perhaps indicative of the future that his film tries to lay out, Rossi gets his news from a hybrid of the old and the new. “I subscribe to the daily, print newspaper versions of the NY Times and the NY Post, I get them delivered to my door. And I check twitter multiple times a day. Twitter has become, I think, the real fountain of news stories. More often that not I’m finding stories you know, at the Times, The Journal, the Washington Post, all kinds of blogs, all over the place.”

The New York Times is far from perfect (as the film illustrates by detailing some of its darker hours like the Jayson Blair scandal and Judith Miller‘s pre-Iraq War reporting), but it’s a bellwether for the health of newspaper journalism, and journalism as a whole. Page One offers some hope for its survival, but not much for a suitable replacement if it doesn’t.

Here’s a taste:

I’m aware that what I’m going to say next will probably sound petty, given the scope of the tragedy I was witnessing. But the lack of cell service was an all-consuming problem. Rescue workers and survivors struggled with it just as I did.

What I learned: It’s easy to scoff at the suggestion that satisfactory cell service is a matter of national security and necessity. But I won’t scoff anymore. If I were planning a newsroom’s response to emergencies, I would buy those backpacks that have six or eight wireless cards in them, all connected to different cell tower operators, thereby upping the chances of finding a signal at any given time.

This is my first time coming upon a natural disaster as a reporter. I suppose my instinct should be “first, do no harm.”

Stelter’s humble, somewhat awestruck look at the people and places impacted by the deadly tornado offers a bookend, of sorts, to the sort of coverage done by the class of celebrity journalists that perform the news for us regularly.

Our managing editor, Colby Hall, recently took an in-depth look at CNN’s Anderson Cooper Joplin coverage. In Cooper’s case, the news is shown through the lens of his own experience rather than framed by the circumstances facing those who turned around to find their homes demolished, their street unrecognizable, and their friends lost. Stelter’s account is, yes, done in the first person, but it’s presented as an account of how one reporter’s difficulties and challenges are representative of a larger reality, both for his fellow journalists and for those who live and work in Joplin.

Personal accounts work, both in reporting and casual blogging, because they help ground vast, intangible concepts like terror or hopelessness in something based in reality, and help to give an experience a name and a face. They’re helpful, if not vital, in helping those outside a news story understand it more fully and more completely. Stelter’s reporting shows that it is still possible to present information and personal experience in a way that remains completely newsworthy.

Do check out his Tumblr if you get the chance.

h/t …The Deadline

According to the Times‘ Brian Stelter, the hiring of Licht is intended to be a boost to a news division that trails its competition:

Mr. Licht’s hiring will be announced by CBS News on Thursday. At CBS, he will try to inject new energy into the network’s long-troubled morning show, “The Early Show,” and develop other programs and projects. Though the morning show will be his “first focus,” Mr. Licht said in an interview, “I will be doing whatever I can to help.”

Mr. Licht is part of a reboot by CBS News — the third-place network news division — at a time when Katie Couric is leaving and Scott Pelley, a “60 Minutes” correspondent, is replacing her on the “CBS Evening News.” Along with a new anchor, the news division has a new chairman, a new president and a hard news mandate.

Stelter quotes Licht saying the decision to leave MSNBC is “unequivocally the hardest decision I’ve ever made.” But he has harbored an interest for years in having a broader executive role at a network, and NBC, the leading network news division, did not need the help the way CBS does. “That’s whats exciting about this job,” he said. “It’s not ‘Hey, come protect the status quo.’ It’s ‘Hey, come here and let’s try new things.’ And you have the freedom to do that.”

The New York Times is reporting that Christina Norman, head of the four-month old Oprah Winfrey Network, has been dismissed. As Brian Stelter reports, “Peter Liguori, the chief operating officer for Discovery Communications, will take over the channel on an interim basis. Mr. Ligouri’s appointment is effective immediately and will likely last into the fall, if not longer.”

Stelter reports the decision to dismiss Norman was made over the last few weeks by the board that oversees OWN, citing “a person with direct knowledge of the situation.”

At the time of her hiring, Norman was described in a Forbes profile as the person tasked with ensuring Oprah’s risky next venture was a success:

Norman previously spent 17 years at MTV, climbing from a freelance production manager to president of the network. The hard work and spotless record took its toll, however, causing an exhausted Norman to initially take herself out of the running for the OWN job. But after a few months of rest, she realized it was an opportunity she couldn’t walk away from.

First, some background. Last Thursday, Keller remarked to an audience at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism when asked about Fox News. Keller called viewers of Fox News “among the most cynical people on planet Earth,” before adding “I cannot think of a more cynical slogan than ‘Fair and Balanced.’” The next day, NY Magazine writer Gabriel Sherman asked via Twitter “Wonder if Keller’s comments trashing Fox News will hurt his reporters’ ability to cover Fox and Ailes.”

This was the subject of Kurtz’s piece in The Daily Beast, the heart of which is excerpted below:

I emailed Keller to ask whether those strong words could suggest a biased approach to Fox, which has had more than its share of complaints about the Times’ coverage (and that of other news organizations as well).

“First of all,” he responded, “the question of whether Times reporters can write fairly about Fox is answered by the fact they do it, over and over. Tim Arango, Dave Carr, and Brian Stelter have set the standard for fair, tough, incisive coverage of Fox, its business, and its on-air personalities.

“As far as I can tell, they are professionally indifferent to that fact that Fox maintains a stable of commentators who make a good living bashing the Times.”

Kurtz gives Keller somewhat of a pass, pointing out that the beat reporters at The NY Times most likely don’t want their work to be seen as having a similar viewpoint as that of the NYT‘s editorial page, just as the reporters on the news side of Fox News probably wouldn’t want to be viewed as sharing the same opinion as Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity for example.

But it’s more that that. Keller oversees all of the editorial output at the NY Times. So it is not unreasonable for those at Fox News to wonder whether one of Keller’s writers could now write anything positive about Fox without thinking about how it might affect his or her standing with the guy at the top of the masthead. Further, if Michael Clemente, Fox News’ SVP of News were to claim that readers of the NY Times were among the “most cynical people on earth,” or came out and attack the very subjects that his reporters are covering, there would likely be criticism.

It is also not unfair to say that Keller’s comments puts his media reporters in somewhat of a precarious and compromising position by speaking so candidly about as controversial a subject as Fox News. At the very least, it will lead people to scrutinize their stories more closely. Last year David Carr and Tim Arango wrote a lengthy profile of Fox News chief Roger Ailes for the NY Times that was seen by most as fair and accurate. NY Times other media writer Brian Stelter seems willing to share his own nuanced opinions about Fox News via his Twitter feed.

The crux of the issue may be that Fox News now seems more comfortable in it’s own political skin, defending its news side coverage as objective, while admitting that most of their prime time hosts lean right. Has the NY Times come to grips with the political bent of its editorial team? Regardless, Keller’s comments are certain to fuel public perception that the NY Times is at odds with Fox News. This isn’t an issue of a cable news outlet taking a shot at a competitor for being “fair and balanced”. The NY Times news reporters cover Fox News, which puts Keller’s comments in a different light. Nor is this an opinion issue; Fox News’ prime time lineup sell a lot of soap ripping the NY Times on a nightly basis, but they are the equivalent of the NY Times op-ed team of Gail Collins, Frank Rich, and Nicholas Kristof ripping Fox News. It seems fair game for the participants of the opiniotainment racket to take shots at one another. But this seems more like a “news on news” battle, one that appears to ratchet up with each passing week.

When reached by Mediaite, NY Times‘ Media editor Bruce Headlam had no comment on Keller’s statements or Kurtz’s piece. Keller’s critique of Fox as a news organization is well within his field of expertise, and many Fox News detractors will see his comments as not just substantive, but accurate. Slate’s Media reporter Jack Shafer doesn’t have a problem with Keller’s comment and its affect on objective reporting, telling Mediaite “I care about accuracy and fairness, both of which are more easily measured than objectivity.”

But Keller can’t have it both ways: he can’t criticize one news organization for a predisposition without coming clean about his own paper’s political leanings. And while Headlam refrained from commenting on any repercussions, it will likely make his job harder. Thanks boss!

The article holds Stewart’s work alongside Murrow’s anti-McCarthy broadcasts and Walter Cronkite’s famous Vietnam commentary as apparently the only three examples of a journalist directly affecting public policy through the power of their own attention. It then uses quotes from Michael Bloomberg, Brian Williams, and even Robert Gibbs to cement Stewart’s influence over the proceedings.

Of course, most interesting is the fact, readily admitted by the writers, that, while some have criticized all the recent praise of Stewart, probably the first to do so would be the man himself. Apparently, he has directed his entire staff not to even comment on the now-famous, relatively joke-free episode dedicated to the bill. Perhaps he’s just humble. More likely, he realizes that all the attention will kill the Daily Show’s joke. Heroic social crusaders are just less funny. I mean, how many times did you laugh at Good Night and Good Luck?

Of course, with quotes from Kenny Specht, one of the impassioned guests who helped make the First Responders episode so riveting and heartbreaking, saying that he’ll “forever be indebted to Jon because of what he did,” it might be hard for the “fake newsman” to avoid the praise. How is one supposed to just be funny when genuine heroes are saying things like that? Or Syracuse professors of television like Robert J. Thompson are lending these quotes to the end of a New York Times article:

“’I have to think about how many kids are watching Jon Stewart right now and dreaming of growing up and doing what Jon Stewart does,’ Mr. Thompson said. ‘Just like kids two generations ago watched Murrow or Cronkite and dreamed of doing that. Some of these ambitious appetites and callings that have brought people into journalism in the past may now manifest themselves in these other arenas, like comedy.’”

It’s interesting that, in most of the articles that have been written about Stewart’s involvement, Shepard Smith and his actions are rarely (if ever) mentioned. Not that Stewart doesn’t deserve the praise. He might just be happy to have someone else to share it.

Of course, both men probably care little about articles like this. They’re just happy the bill is passed.

In interviews with Stelter, Parker and co-host Eliot Spitzer say they’re committed to the show and believe it will succeed, despite trailing both MSNBC’s Countdown and Fox’s O’Reilly Factor by wide–and wider–margins. Parker specifically denied any intention of leaving the show, saying she had just signed a two-year lease on an apartment in New York.

About that rumored dustup that supposedly sent Parker storming off the set? Parker gave the Times an elegant non-denial denial:

Asked about that claim, Ms. Parker said, “I don’t storm. I saunter.”

She acknowledged that there was some “editorial and political tension,” but cast it as a normal part of television production. “That’s how human beings are made,” she added.

Mr. Spitzer put it this way: “I’ve seen tension in my life — conflict, tension, acrimony — and I haven’t seen anything here that comes close to what I’ve seen.”

The co-hosts, while dismissing accusations of off-camera conflict, say they will be bringing more energy to their on-camera debates:

In the future, Ms. Parker said she expected to have more airtime to talk about the social and cultural issues that she covers in her columns. “We’re definitely going to be mixing it up more,” she said.

In a separate interview, Mr. Spitzer said, “We’ll talk about movies sometimes, sports, we’ll have everything under the sun, but we are clearly a political show.”

To hear him tell it, “Parker Spitzer” is like a courtroom, a place where “smart people can discuss tough issues; go back and forth and challenge each other; probe each other for weaknesses in the argument; and force resolution if possible.”

“A growing number of viewers tell me they time-shift the news,” Mr. Williams wrote. “Loyal viewers used to say ‘we watch you every night.’ These days, an increasing number make a point of saying ‘We RECORD you every night.’ ”

Williams concedes he does a lot of time-shifting at home, catching his favorites (Friday Night Lights, The Office, 30 Rock and–yes kids, he has access to non-NBC content–ABC’s Modern Family) via DVR.

First a bit of background. Brian Stelter wrote on the NY Times MediaDecoder blog yesterday:

Cablevision customers in the New York metropolitan area may lose access to Fox programming this weekend if the cable company cannot come to new terms with News Corporation, the owner of Fox.

The two media giants are locked in contentious negotiations over something called retransmission consent, which gives Cablevision the right to carry local Fox stations like WNYW in New York City.

Cablevision’s current contract expires at the end of the day on Friday, so the programming will stop then unless the parties agree to new terms or agree to extend negotiations.

The two companies are also battling over the carriage of three of the News Corporation’s smaller cable channels, the Fox Business Network, Fox Deportes, and Nat Geo Wild. Bigger channels like Fox News Channel are not directly affected by the negotiations.

As Time Warner Cable noted in a blog post yesterday, simply switching between TV providers during these fights is no solution because your cable or satellite company could be the next to lose your favorite channel. Some Fox cable channels are currently off DISH’s satellites, as are the high-definition signals for a bunch of Disney’s cable channels. The Fuse music network and MSG sports networks are also off DISH as companies fight over fees. Fox could be off Cablevision by tomorrow night, and later this month could be off DISH.

While profit-making companies have the right to fight for the best deals they can get, TV viewers are unfairly caught in the middle. Binding arbitration seems to be the fairest way to make sure people don’t lose their favorite shows. Perhaps it’s finally time for the FCC to do something.

The Times‘ Brian Stelter writes:

The two parents have determined that the brand of MSNBC.com, a strictly objective news Web site, is widely confused with MSNBC, the cable channel that has taken a strongly liberal bent in recent years, according to internal memorandums obtained by The New York Times this week.

One memo by MSNBC.com president Charlie Tillinghast described giving both the site and the network the same name as “brand insanity,” and it’s easy to see what he’s talking about. MSNBC.com is a prominent news site – Stelter’s post said ComScore pegs MSNBC.com’s network of sites at 50 million users a month. Giving such a site the exact same name as a prominent, but separate, news network owned by the same parent companies is a perfect recipe for confusion.

But the very fact that MSNBC.com is as popular as it is makes the name tough to change; Stelter calls it “akin to a business closing a bustling storefront and posting a sign that asks customers to visit its new location.” But this is a special case: the dueling MSNBCs constitute a terribly confusing setup. According to Stelter, the memos said if the name change is enacted, MSNBC.com would be used only for the MSNBC TV channel, while what is currently MSNBC.com would switch to NBCNews.com (which already redirects to MSNBC.com anyway) or something similar.

While such an abrupt shift in site names would likely lead to some confusion, it couldn’t be any more confusing than the already-existing “MSNBC network vs. MSNBC.com” problem. Tillinghast might think it’s insanity to keep both names the same, but the real insanity was that anyone thought giving two separate operations the same name was a good idea in the first place.

Photo via

Klein took over as president of CNN six years ago, a period that coincided with a steady and significant decline in ratings at the cable news network. In March of this year, this reporter suggested that CNN’s ratings tailspin made Klein vulnerable, though at the time, Walton voiced his support.

Walton’s memo to the CNN staff reads below:

To: CNN Staff

From: Jim Walton

=======================================================

I have some news to share with you about our executive leadership and
how our programming teams are going to work together to ensure we’re
prominently featuring CNN’s quality journalism across our multiple
platforms. Two accomplished CNN executives whom most of you know and
have worked with are stepping up to new roles, effective immediately.
A third senior leader will be brought on in the role of managing
editor to help leverage our newsgathering resources across multiple
platforms in a more collaborative way.

Ken Jautz is moving from HLN to CNN/U.S. to run the network as its
executive vice president. Ken is a rarity-a working journalist who is
an even better news executive. The reinvention of HLN is the latest
in a string of successes he has led at CNN. Ken has launched, made
profitable and turned around businesses for our news organization,
Turner Broadcasting and Time Warner literally around the world. To
his new assignment he brings deep experience as a reporter, both
overseas and in the US; a CNN-wide perspective; and relationships from
multiple positions within Turner. Most importantly, he has a
demonstrated ability to collaborate and lead strong teams, and a
track-record of programming successes.

Scot Safon assumes the executive vice president role at HLN and will
run the network. Scot and HLN are in my view an inspired combination.
He is an innovator; HLN is an ideal news and information laboratory.
He is an expert in audience targeting and development; HLN’s audience
is young, engaged and growing. And he is a charismatic leader who is
passionate about journalism, storytelling and our brand. As Chief
Marketing Officer of CNN Worldwide, Scot has led a dynamic team that
has done award-winning marketing, advertising and promotion for CNN,
HLN, CNN International and CNN.com.

Additionally, to put our multi-platform advantages more fully to work,
we will be naming an executive vice president and managing editor of
CNN Worldwide to lead collaboration across all platforms and elevate
CNN’s unique journalism and analysis. A managing editor, with full
access to our journalism resources and my mandate to shape and connect
our newsgathering across networks, shows, and websites, is a new role
for the organization. Ultimately, the goal is that the kind of
front-page reporting and analysis that captures a news event,
translates its meaning and shapes the dialogue about the story will
continue to emerge in even more prominent and more accessible ways to
CNN’s audiences. The search for this person is currently underway.

Our colleague Jon Klein is leaving CNN. Jon’s six years as head of
CNN/U.S. are reflected in the quality of our coverage of signal news
events during his tenure: the tsunami in South Asia, Hurricane
Katrina, the 2008 election cycle and the Haiti earthquake, as well as
shows like Anderson Cooper 360, The Situation Room and Fareed Zakaria
GPS, all of which bear his imprint. Jon has made important
contributions to the CNN story, and he leaves with our respect and
friendship, and with my sincere thanks.

We are going into a busy fall and winter with November elections and
two new prime time shows on CNN. Ken, Scot and the new managing
editor will impact these and all of the other events ahead, as will
you. My expectation is that our leaders and our new operating
discipline will put CNN’s advantages to work where they matter most:
for our audience. Our coverage will be relevant and resonant; will
have meaning for millions of people around the world; and it will
reflect the qualities that CNN is rightfully famous for: commitment to
truth, respect for facts, service to no political agenda and passion for
journalism and analysis done right and well.

f

Despite having been employed by Newsweek for thirty years, news of his departure is less surprising than news of where he is going: Huffington Post. Fineman said in his press release that the “digital world is where the action is in my line of work, and The Huffington Post is at the center of the new paradigm.” Fineman confirmed he will remain a contributor at MSNBC and cover national politics for HuffPo.

It will be interesting to see how he fares. The hire is a smart one for HuffPo to be sure, but HuffPo is not lacking for content, particularly on their politics page, and almost anyone who goes there runs the risk of being lost in the quick content turnover. Meanwhile, as Howie Kurtz points out, Newsweek is going to have to hire some stars to make up for all these departures.

The former Playgirl cover model, 20, is running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska — and documenting it in his reality show, Loving Levi: The Road to the Mayor’s Office, the executive producer, Canaan Rubin, tells UsMagazine.com in a statement. “The docu-soap will follow the ever controversial, headline making, matinee idol, handsome father of one as he embarks on a run for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska… [the] series will chronicle a ‘no-holds-barred’ period in Levi’s tumultuous life; co-raising his son Tripp, looking for love, and taking care of business for his fellow Wasillians. He will give us a real inside look into who he is as a father, a skilled hunter, an avid dirt biker, and of course his journey down the road of small town politics — right after he gets his high school diploma.”

Also, he is promising to serve out his full term, and you just know that will be in the tag line if it gets picked up. Admittedly, as far as reality TV is concerned, is it a bit of a stroke of genius; most politics feels like some sort of skewed reality show these day, none more than Sarah Palin.

While US Weekly makes the show sound like a done deal, Brian Stelter at the New York Times clarifies that it’s still in the pitch stage.

Proposals for television shows are generally not announced until they have a backing of a distributor. Asked why Mr. Johnston’s show was publicized ahead of time, Canaan Rubin, an executive producer, said in an e-mail, “That’s common to do.”

“A pilot is in preproduction and several networks are interested (we knew a few of them would be before the announcement),” Mr. Rubin wrote.

The interested networks have not been identified.

To further gin up interest in the potential show, Mr. Johnston and the producers talked to the Hollywood publication Variety about it this week. In an interview published on Monday, Mr. Johnston “admitted that he wasn’t thrilled at first about the mayoral campaign concept,” according to the publication.

But he’s on board now, and he promises to serve a full term if elected.

– A quote from the New York Times story on CNN’s declining prime time ratings, especially for Larry King

Brian Stelter of the New York Times takes a devastating look at Larry King, the host of the 9pmET CNN show that is in deep decline; the personality whose contract is up next year with the murky future; the 76-year-old who hosts an “old” program.

But what jumped out the most was a quote from Tom Dougherty that only loosely referred to King personally, and more broadly about CNN as a whole. It essentially asks: Who are you, CNN?

It’s fair to believe that we’re weeks away from getting the first peek at what that is. As Jon Klein and other execs are tasked with replacing Campbell Brown, who was granted release from her contract last week, the decision about what to put at 8pmET will be a good first indicator of who CNN ‘is for’ and who ‘they are not for.’

We laid out the options, but that’s just for 8pmET. If King is really heading toward, at the least, a changed, non-prime time role with CNN, that’s now two hours the network has to transform. Whatever they pick, it has to be a firm pick. As “some employees” told the NYT, “there is a tone-deafness at 9 p.m., evinced last week when an interview with Mick Jagger was shown on a busy primary election night. This week Mr. King covered Lindsay Lohan’s court case one night and the gulf oil spill the next, so viewers do not know what to expect.”

CNN may still be making money, but its brand is at a crossroads.

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

The most recent example is the cover story of The Atlantic‘s May issue. In the article about obesity in America, politics writer Marc Ambinder details the country’s fight against fat with snippets from his personal journey to slim down. “I’m intimately acquainted with the struggle against fat. I may have been skinny as a child—my family used to joke about putting meat on my bones—and I played sports in school, but by the time I was bar mitzvahed, I was overweight,” Ambinder writes. Later in the article he talks about his decision to undergo bariatric surgery to reduce the size of his stomach after Tim Russert’s sudden death.

Last month, New York Times media reporter Brian Stelter starteda new Twitter account about eating healthily and weight loss. In his bio, Stelter also plainly states that his goal is to lose 25 pounds by his 25^th birthday on September 3.  “I knew I needed to be held accountable, I knew I wouldn’t unless every person around me knew about it,” Stelter told me. Stelter says he got the idea from some Tumblr blogs on weight loss. “We do everything publicly now,” he says, noting that one of the benefits of putting his efforts out there is that there’s an instant community for guidance and advice. “Why not live better and live more healthfully in public?” ( It’s working: So far, Stelter has lost 18 pounds in 6 weeks.)

Drew Magary is yet another writer who has been tweeting about his weight loss, albeit with more sarcasm and profanity than Stelter. Magary is clearly a pro at this; he created a Twitter hashtag,  #twitterpublichumiliationdiet, to document his progress. Evidently it has been working well for Magary, who writes for Deadpsin and other outlets. He wasn’t pulling anyone’s leg on April 1 when he tweeted his “after” pic, which shows him 50 pounds lighter than when he started. “Holy shit, that is one SEXY asshole,” he wrote of his new frame. Even though Magary has reached his goal, he continues to tweet about his weight. “To maintain weight, I will keep posting my weigh daily under the #tweetyourweight hashtag. Together, we shall all stay young & sexy,” he wrote.

Magary thinks he’s started a bit of a craze. “I think this is a larger trend of other journalists totally copying my shit, BECAUSE I TOTALLY DID IT FIRST AND NOW I AM SEXY,” he wrote in an e-mail.

Caitlin Boyle‘s approach is a little different. The 25-year-old writer and soon-to-be published author started blogging about her healthy living efforts in the lead-up to her wedding in 2008. She’s lost and kept off a total of 10 pounds, but focus is much less about weight loss and more about living healthily. In her debut post, Boyle wrote, “although i’ve been an avid exerciser for about three years, i’ve really stepped up my game now that i’m a mere 6 months from the wedding! i think i bought my dress comfortably snug to motivate me not to give up!”

In a similar vein to the men, Theodora Blanchfield wrote about her quest to drop weight on her Tumblr blog. For Blanchfield, a former Politics magazine associate editor, weight loss was just one of several reasons she started “Losing Weight in the City.” She says she decided to document her weight loss online because she was feeling unhappy at work after moving to New York City.

“I had been wanting to start a blog for awhile (and started and abandoned a few before starting mine). … I wasn’t sure what I wanted to do next professionally, but I knew I had to learn more about new media, and I thought that health blogging was a great way to see if that was something I wanted to explore professionally,” she wrote in an e-mail.

Mission accomplished on both accounts. She’s down 50 pounds and working as a social media specialist at media company Hachette Filipacchi.

But perhaps the award for the most high profile diet-and-tell journalist goes to New York Times restaurant critic Frank Bruni. Bruni’s best-selling book, Born Round, is about his battle to find a healthy relationship with food.

In an interview, Bruni said he initially didn’t think he had an interesting story to tell. After he was offered the restaurant critic job and did some self-examination, he said, “I realized the narrative of my struggle with food, and eventual truce with food, not only made for a good story, but it would have a lot of resonance with people. I think more people struggle than don’t struggle to manage food properly. My story is an extreme mirror of what a lot of people go through.”

CNN’s Candy Crowley is another well-known journalist to noticeably drop her weight, and has perhaps been the subject of the most speculation about it (and its  connection to her new job as anchor for CNN’s State of the Union). But unlike Ambinder and company, Crowley didn’t publicly document the process and has often stayed silent about her obvious weight loss.

Last November, she went on the record about her smaller frame. “It’s stunning to me that something I consider so separate and apart from what I do for a living has taken up so much space in some people’s thoughts. I am a hard-news journalist. That is what I do,” Crowley told the LA Times’ James Rainey in November. But Crowly, who dropped five dress sizes, acknowledged that she appreciated the positive comments. “I really appreciate what those people have been saying to me, some really heartfelt things.”

Jaclyn Schiff is a writer, reporter and media consultant based in Washington, D.C. Her work — which often covers media, global health and women — has appeared in several publications, such as CBSNews.com, The Huffington Post, NPR, PBS MediaShift and Women’s eNews. Find her on Twitter or Tumblr.

We’re especially proud because despite having a separate digital category, this year’s Mirror Awards are quite dominated by the big names and big companies of traditional media, most with traditional budgets. Time, Vanity Fair, New York, the New Yorker, the New York Times, the Financial Times - not exactly scrappy newcomers. Politico is certainly new (and scrappy, as we well know) but little? Not exactly, especially with yesterday’s laundry list of new hires! The New York Observer, while as beleaguered as any still-standing newspaper that I can think of, is hardly an upstart. As for CJR and NiemanLab, thinking about this stuff is their raison d’etre. So for a small staff at a new site, we’re pretty psyched to be in there, especially for a piece like Philip’s “Best Article – Digital” finalist, “Revisiting the New York Times‘ 2001 ‘Year in Ideas,’” which married meticulous attention to detail with big-picture analysis and is precisely the kind of above and beyond work that so deserves to be recognized with awards like this.

The work of the finalists is excellent. One of our writers was nominated. So why do you sense that there’s a “but” coming?

Sigh. There is. Actually, two. They are both about what is absent from this list. The first, actual digital work in the digital categories. The second – oh, come on, you know it’s coming! – is women.

Digital Work for a Digital Category

It’s clear that there should be two separate categories here. The most obvious case in point for that is, in my estimation, Evan Osnos‘ “The Forbidden Zone” for the New Yorker. The kind of budget necessary to support a piece like this – filed from China – represents the very traditional media model of the Big Magazine Piece. Things are done very differently in work generated online. The style is different – links form a whole new language of punctuation, and punchlines – and the nature of the more daily/hourly/reactive online work leads to commentary on and analysis of specifics as they represent the whole, rather than the bigger-picture work that comes with longer lead time. So I have to say I was a little disappointed to see five finalists nominated for Best Commentary – Traditional and only three nominated for Best Commentary – Digital. You won’t catch me dissing any of the five esteemed honorees on the traditional side – Michaels Kinsley and Wolff! Jameses Wolcott and Poniewozik! And David Carr! – but especially with so much more work migrating to the online side, the judges could really only muster three people for the digital category?

It is disclaimer time here, for in addition to nominating Philip Bump, one of my original columnists at Mediaite, I submitted on behalf of myself as well. So feel free to write this off as the sour grapes of the passed over. But my own work aside, I raise an eyebrow to the notion that no other online work thus submitted was worthy of the Mirror standard. I read media coverage all the time, and there is some killer stuff being done online, hammering away at the cracks that often underlie the big picture stuff (in this last year of Twitter suddenly exploding into the MSM consciousness, for example, a lot of great thinking was done about the implications, possibilities and effects, far ahead of the mainstream, no disrespect to Steven Johnson’s nominated Time cover story). I don’t know what else was or was not submitted, of course, but I’m going to apply the logic I used for the NYmag article on the New York tech scene: If your results-ratio seems wildly out of whack with what you know to actually exist, then maybe the wrong criteria is being applied. I’m not saying that every Tom, Dick and Harry online is a Michael Kinsley or a David Carr. But maybe to expect that kind of work from those kinds of columnists cuts out a whole swath of people doing high-quality, path-clearing work under an entirely different model. I asked Wendy Loughlin, Director of Communications & Media Relations for the Newhouse School, about the numbers, and she said there were 23 entries in traditional, 15 in digital. Maybe the leftover 12 who submitted in digital really didn’t meet the standard of excellence established by Eric Alterman, Matthew Pressman and Craig Silverman – all terrific writers and thinkers. But maybe they did, just for a standard that wasn’t being applied.

Where are the Women? And Why Must I Keep Writing That Sentence?

It’s depressing to me that only 2 out of 24 Mirror finalists were women. It’s more depressing that one of them was Nancy Jo Sales, who wrote about Jon & Kate Gosselin for Vanity Fair which automatically indicates the kind of ridiculous budget and access and time frame that is, let’s just say, not the norm for most writers, and, to be fair, for most women writers (I draw your attention to the now-defunct but still-relevant “Women TK,” which tracked the male:female ratio of bylines across 6 top magazines through June 2008, when the ratio was 3:1. Site founder Ruth Davis Konigsberg‘s commentary on the process, and noting what types of stories women were typically assigned, is worth reading). So absolutely nothing against Ms. Sales, who captured one hell of a media phenom, but surely you can see how a web-woman would find that wearying. Especially when she’s written about this stuff so much already – about women in comedy, women in film, women in tech, women in politics, women in blogging, women at conferences, women in the anchor chair, women as depicted by the New York Observer. If you’re tired of reading about this stuff from me, lemme tell you, I’m way ahead of you.

There is more too this, though: Women applied for this award in much lower numbers. Loughlin told me that of 177 entrants, only 38 were women. So how can I rail against low ratios of women without pointing a finger at all the amazing women in the industry who didn’t apply? But how much of that is because low numbers are endemic to the industry in the first place? (Though according to Loughlin, over half the Mirror judges were female. And I was happy to see all the women on Politico’s list of new hires, including superstars Maggie Haberman and Hillary Frey.) (Though I was less happy to see The Week’s Opinion Award’s all-male honorees.) (Though I was happy to see Kathleen Parker win a Pulitzer.) Has this been a confusing week? To quote one recent shining light of feminism: You betcha!

The two areas I highlighted above are not simple issues (nor does it address the issue of minorities in the industry – also a recurring issue). They are ongoing, reflecting evolution in the industry, and in thinking about the industry – and in who is doing that thinking, and how prominently. Me, I’ve been doing this for all of 5 years – on the one hand, it’s sort of ludicrous for me to ever place myself next to someone like Michael Kinsley. On the other hand, my head spins from how much has changed over the past 5 years…and I bet I’ve written a lot more about it than Michael Kinsley. That’s just me saying by way of self-example – wow, there sure are a lot of apples and oranges out there. How you juggle them is one thing; where they go in the fruit bowl is another. And, well, what can I say about this fruit bowl – it sure seems to have a lot of bananas.

These are just things to think about going forward – two more aspects of this changing, roiling industry to consider as we examine, assess and analyze it over the course of our monthly, weekly, daily and hourly columns. I’m sure there’s plenty in here to debate and chew over, but one thing that is clear is that, whatever the criteria, whomever the entrants, and whatever the timing, the list of honorees for the 2010 Mirror Awards is impressive and all the work nothing short of stellar. They will be honored on June 10th at a luncheon hosted by Katie Couric (! Oh, hello, irony, lovely to see you!) and though I am many things – online writer, woman, person who won’t shut up about this stuff – I am also an editor, and a friend, so no offense to the rest of you folks, but I am rooting for Mediaite columnist Philip Bump.

The list of finalists, and their nominated work, is below. Congratulations to all.

Best Single Article–Traditional Media

 

• Steven Johnson, “How Twitter Will Change the Way We Live” (TIME)
• Maximillian Potter, “All The News that’s Fit to be Killed” (5280 Magazine)
• Chuck Salter, “Can Hulu Save Traditional TV?” (Fast Company)

 

 

Best Single Article–Digital Media

 

• Philip Bump, “Revisiting the New York Times’ 2001 ‘Year in Ideas’” (Mediaite)
• Michael Calderone, “Fox teas up a tempest” (Politico.com)
• Megan Garber, “Common Knowledge” (Columbia Journalism Review)

 

 

Best Profile–Traditional Media

 

• Michael Callahan, “And Starring Michael Smerconish, As Himself” (Philadelphia)
• Andrew Goldman, “How Could This Happen to Annie Leibovitz?” (New York Magazine)
• John Koblin, “Mr. Meacham’s Magazine” (The New York Observer)
• Evan Osnos, “The Forbidden Zone” (The New Yorker)
• Brian Stelter, “From Guantánamo to Desk at Al Jazeera” (The New York Times)

 

 

Best Profile–Digital Media

 

• Nancy Jo Sales, “The Unreal Rise of Jon and Kate Gosselin” (Vanity Fair)
• Justin Peters, “Man About Town” (Columbia Journalism Review)
• Justin Peters, “Burger Meister” (Columbia Journalism Review)

 

 

Best Commentary–Traditional Media

 

• David Carr (The New York Times)
  • “Let’s Invent an iTunes for News“
  • “A Triumph of Avoiding the Traps“
  • “Under Murdoch, Tilting Rightward at The Journal“
  • “After a Year of Ruin, Some Hope“
• Michael Kinsley (The Washington Post, The New York Times)
  • “Pick Your Poison, er, Publisher“
  • “The Shaky War on Errorism“
  • “Life After Newspapers“
  • “You Can’t Sell News by the Slice“
• James Poniewozik (TIME)
  • “CNBC Under Fire: Sticking Up for the Big Guy?“
  • “Glenn Beck: The Fears of a Clown“
  • “Balloon Boy’s Lesson: The New American Dream“
  • “Polarized News: The Media’s Moderate Bias“
• James Wolcott (Vanity Fair)
  • “Final-Exit Strategies“
  • “What’s Wrong with Washington?“
  • “Mourning with Larry“
  • “I’m a Culture Critic…Get Me Out of Here!“
• Michael Wolff (Vanity Fair)
  • “The Power and the Story“
  • “Politico’s Washington Coup“
  • “Post Modern“
  • “Rupert to Internet: It’s War!“

 

 

Best Commentary–Digital Media

 

• Eric Alterman (Center for American Progress)
  • “Think Again: Remember Real Journalism“
  • “Think Again: Mice, Playing: The Decline of Skeptical Journalism“
  • “Think Again: The End of Local Reporting?“
  • “Think Again: Conflicts of Interest by the Wealthy and for the Wealthy“
• Matthew Pressman (Vanity Fair)
  • “Why Time and Newsweek Will Never Be The Economist“
  • “Media Darwinism: Which Sites Will Survive?“
  • “A Media Guy Asks: Why Do They Hate Us?“
  • “Is Fox Business Network a Lost Cause?“
• Craig Silverman (Columbia Journalism Review)
  • “Violating the ‘Contract of Correction’“
  • “Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong“
  • “The New Great American Pastime“
  • “Speed Demons“

 

 

Best In-depth Piece–Traditional Media

 

• Matthew Garrahan, “The rise and fall of MySpace” (The Financial Times)
• Adam L. Penenberg, “Amazon Taps Its Inner Apple” (Fast Company)
• Zachary M. Seward, “AP’s online strategy” (Nieman Journalism Lab)
• Dean Starkman, “Power Problem” (Columbia Journalism Review)

 

 

The way the site works is simple. Users are given an interface with two boxes where they can type in any celebrity’s Twitter name. The site then looks up the last 100 tweets that have been sent responding to each celebrity and compares the message looking for specific “stupid indicators”. And what are these indicators? Well, Stupid Fight makes no claims of any complex scientific equations.

“Stupid Fight can’t go out and administer an intelligence test to each person that’s sending messages to a celebrity. So instead, it estimates based on several stupid indicators. Are they using twenty exclamation marks in a row? Do they endlessly use the abbreviation ‘OMG’? Do they seem incapable of working out where their Shift key is? These indicators have a strong correlation with the message, and its sender, being stupid.”

Stupid Fight helpfully gives new users some celebrity suggestions to get them started. The first one is Glenn Beck vs. Rachel Maddow which has Maddow’s fans coming up just a bit stupider (although both sets were pretty high on the site’s overall intelligence scale). A more decisive victory was had in the competition between the fans of British comedian Stephen Fry and those of famous-for-some-reason Kim Kardashian. We’ll leave you to guess whose fans were described by Stupid Fight as being “dumb as a bag of hammers”.

After the suggested battles were done, we struck out on our own and discovered the following:

Jay Leno’s fans are dumber than Conan O’Brien’s,

Keith Olbermann’s are smarter than Sean Hannity’s

Brian Stelter’s aren’t as swift as David Carr’s

President Obama’s fans are stupider than Sarah Palin’s.

Wait…what? Of course, these results are constantly changing so these match ups could give the opposite result at any time. Also, just because a person responded to a celebrity on Twitter, doesn’t mean they’re necessarily a fan.

Stupid Fight is certainly a fun (although far from infallible) way to compare public figures and their fans. Of course, we don’t need a fancy app to tell us which celebrities are stupid themselves. We just need to read their own accounts. By letting us read the inner-most thoughts of celebrities, Twitter has taught us that even famous people, when connected to the internet, become angry and depressed 15 year old girls.