Marks, a self-described “middle-aged white guy” wrote this ill-advised article in response to President Obama’s speech about middle-class struggle in Kansas. Nowhere in the President’s speech is race mentioned, but Marks took it upon himself to actually go there.

“Even a poor black kid in West Philadelphia” can succeed in “2011,” Marks writes, as if he’s a volunteer at the local Boys and Girls Club.

Marks writes:

If I was a poor black kid I would first and most importantly work to make sure I got the best grades possible. I would make it my #1 priority to be able to read sufficiently. I wouldn’t care if I was a student at the worst public middle school in the worst inner city. Even the worst have their best. And the very best students, even at the worst schools, have more opportunities. Getting good grades is the key to having more options. With good grades you can choose different, better paths. If you do poorly in school, particularly in a lousy school, you’re severely limiting the limited opportunities you have.

Those down-on-their-luck black kids of West Philadelphia must thank Marks for these chestnuts of wisdom.

It’s mind-boggling in the way that Marks completely ignores all external factors — that these kids won’t have to overcome any obstacles relating to their race, just buckling down.

But here’s the kicker in his piece — Marks then lectures them to know how to turn on their computers:

If I was a poor black kid I’d use the free technology available to help me study. I’d become expert at Google Scholar. I’d visit study sites like SparkNotes and CliffsNotes to help me understand books. I’d watch relevant teachings on Academic Earth, TED and the Khan Academy. (I say relevant because some of these lectures may not be related to my work or too advanced for my age. But there are plenty of videos on these sites that are suitable to my studies and would help me stand out.) I would also, when possible, get my books for free at Project Gutenberg and learn how to do research at the CIA World Factbook and Wikipedia to help me with my studies.

Marks ignores that many of these urban school districts suffer from serious economic shortfalls and red tape. Many lack the essential resources necessary to help kids of all races succeed. As a quick aside — SparkNotes? Really? Come on, when I was a high schooler, I used those as slacker tools, not because I genuinely wanted to learn the material.

Poor black kids aren’t blind to the realities that surround them. They have to deal with them every day. Many of their families are struggling to put food on the table. Marks should stick to bashing smartphone apps and leave those kids alone.

What happens when you get Brian Williams, Mario Batali, Anita Hill, Jesse Eisenberg, Grover Norquist, and Seth Meyers together in a room to discuss Time‘s Person of The Year? Hitler references, of course!

Jeff Bercovici of Forbes broke the story of Batali’s comments on Tuesday, setting off a firestorm of anger among bankers — a group that comprises a sizable chunk of Batali’s business. Many decided to let their feet do the talking, calling for boycotts and canceling reservations to his restaurants.

Batali’s comments were actually somewhat insightful and inane up until he brought the Fuhrer into the conversation. When asked about who he would choose as Person of The Year, he rambled:

I would have to say that who has had the largest effect on the whole planet without us really paying attention across the board and everywhere is the entire banking industry and their disregard for the people that they’re supposed to be working for…

So far, a pretty milquetoast response. But Batali then took an unexpected turn:

So the ways the bankers have kind of toppled the way money is distributed and taken most of it into their hands is as good as Stalin or Hitler and the evil guys…They’re not heroes, but they are people that had a really huge effect on the way the world is operating.

It’s amazing how many people still don’t realize that comparing things to Hitler is never a good idea. Predictably, bankers and traders were not happy with Batali’s remarks. According to Eater’s Amanda Kludt, once traders found out about his comments, they began forwarding this message to everyone they knew, worldwide:

Celebrity Chef Mario Batali Says Bankers As Bad As Hitler, Stalin … a list of his restaurants *B&B Ristorante *Osteria Mozza *Babbo *OTTO *Bar Jamon *Pizzeria Mozza *Carnevino Italian Steakhouse *Tarry Lodge *Casa Mono *Tarry Market *Del Posto *Mozza2Go *Esca *Manzo *Lupa Cancel all reservations…..pass the word.

An anonymous bank executive told the New York Times that, “The irony is that he has made millions of dollars building a restaurant empire off the backs of Wall Street wealth.” The executive said he would not go back to any restaurant that Mr. Batali was involved with.

Batali issued an apology yesterday through Twitter. “To remove any ambiguity about my appearance at yesterday’s Time Person of the Year panel, I want to apologize for my remarks,” he said. “It was never my intention to equate our banking industry with Hitler and Stalin, two of the most evil, brutal dictators in modern history.”

To Batali’s credit, Bercovici chatted with him briefly after the panel and Batali seemed to realize that maybe bringing Hitler in as an example wasn’t the best idea, stressing that he used Hitler (and Stalin) as metaphors and examples of autocrats.

There is also a fun epilogue to this story. Batali initially accused Bercovici of “deliberately misquoting” him for a “pr land grab.” Bercovici then pointed out that there were several recordings of the event, including one on Time‘s website. Bercovici is still waiting for an apology. In the meantime, however, he pointed out an interesting twist — Batali, for his anti-banker sentiment, isn’t exactly embracing the Occupy Wall Street movement, either:

You might think a person who equates corporate malfeasance with the greatest mass acts of mass murder in history would be a big supporter of the Occupy Wall Street protest. In fact, Batali’s down on OWS, too. “It’s kind of a part-time job,” he said. “Those guys in Zucotti Park, they’re kind of just sitting around. It’s a very 2011 rebellion.”

Watch the video of the panel discussion below, courtesy of Time:

In addition to big media influencers, the list also includes women from various other competitive fields, including tech (Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg comes in at #5), entertainment (Lady Gaga finds herself in the #11 spot), business (Walmart heiress Alice Walton comes in at #85) and politics (Michele Bachmann gets the #22 spot, while Sarah Palin comes in at #34.) Topping the list this year is German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

For a look at the full list — including bios of those who made the cut — visit Forbes‘ website.

In the meantime, take a look at the gallery below and tell us — Do you agree with Forbes‘ media picks? Who would you have added or left off?

Jill Abramson, #8 (1 of 10)

Next ►

Executive Editor, The New York Times

That “smoking gun” that was supposed to link CNN’s Piers Morgan directly to phone hacking and other outrageous practices of the U.K. tabloid press? Well, not so much. As we reported Tuesday, a British blogger claimed to have a recording of Morgan that–he said–”contracts” Morgans flat denials that he ever “hacked a phone, told anybody to hack a phone or published any story based on the hacking of a phone.” As it turns out, that recording’s a 2009 interview Morgan gave to the BBC, appearing on a radio show, Desert Island Discs.The host, Kirsty Young asked Morgan about “all that nasty down-in-the-gutter stuff” that Morgan was exposed to by being a tabloid newspaper editor. He never says that he personally was involved in any of it.

Here’s his answer from 2009:

To be honest, let’s put that in perspective as well. Not a lot of that went on. A lot of it was done by third parties rather than the staff themselves. That’s not to defend it, because obviously you were running the results of their work. I’m quite happy to be parked in the corner of tabloid beast and to have to sit here defending all these things I used to get up to, and I make no pretence about the stuff we used to do. I simply say the net of people doing it was very wide, and certainly encompassed the high and the low end of the supposed newspaper market.

In a statement to Mediaite, Morgan says there’s nothing in that interview that contradicts what he’s said about hacking:

Millions of people heard these comments when I first made them in 2009 on one of the BBC’s longest -running radio shows, and none deduced that I was admitting to, or condoning illegal reporting activity. Kirsty asked me a fairly lengthy question about how I felt dealing with people operating at the sharp end of investigative journalism. My answer was not specific to any of the numerous examples she gave, but a general observation about tabloid newspaper reporters and private investigators. As I have said before, I have never hacked a phone, told anyone to hack a phone, nor to my knowledge published any story obtained from the hacking of a phone.

Here’s the original interview, from the BBC, via Newsweek/The Daily Beast:

A British blogger who has repeatedly claimed that CNN’s Piers Morgan can be linked to phone hacking during his days as a tabloid newspaper editor in the U.K. now says he’s got “smoking gun” proof to back up his charges. The blogger, Paul Staines, who writes under the name Guido Fawkes, has told Forbes‘ Jeff Bercovici that a recording exists “which contradicts (Morgan’s) recent claims” that he has never been involved in phone hacking in any way.

On his program Piers Morgan Tonight, Morgan opened a discussion of the News Corp phone hacking scandal with his own statement flatly denying he ever engaged in hacking. “For the record, in my time at The Mirror and the News of the World, I have never hacked a phone, told anybody to hack a phone or published any story based on the hacking of a phone.” It’s unclear why–if a recording that contradicts that claim exists–the blogger hasn’t published it, but Bercovici discussed the recording’s contents:

Via email, I told Staines what I had heard, that the recording captures Morgan admitting to paying a third party to hack. “You are on the right lines,” he replied. He has not yet posted the recording.

If it delivers as advertised, it will be the first major expansion of the hacking scandal outside the confines of News Corp.

CNN declined to comment on the blogger’s claims to Forbes or to Mediaite.

According to Forbes, Wikileaks’ lawyer, Sveinn Andri Sveinsson, the lawsuit will happen on Thursday in Europe should the companies not open up their accounts again. Calling it an “abuse,” Sveinnson said there was no “objective justification” for their actions, though the companies said that they froze the accounts due to a potential violation of terms of service, which do not allow for illegal activity. The attorney sent a complaint this week to the companies, which Forbes explains:

The complaint argues that the three payment firms have violated Articles 101 and 102 of the E.U. Treaty, which deal with competition among businesses and forbid the creation of anti-competitive cartels. Article 101 prevents firms from creating partnerships for the purposes of price fixing, and Article 102 forbids firms in a “dominant position” from abusing that position.

The companies did not respond to Forbes’ request for comment, but one imagines the story will become a headlining one if, as expected, the companies do not heed the complaint. The magazine published the complaint here.

Donald Trump made the list’s top 20, cementing his place as a cultural (if not, obviously, political) powerhouse. Charlie Sheen nabbed a spot, as did his nemesis. And a couple of very familiar conservative radio hosts – and one very liberal one – also made the list, as did Oprah Winfrey… but not at number one.

Click the gallery below to see who made this year’s list

[Show as slideshow]

h/t Forbes

Unlike, say, his private conversation with Charles Krauthammer, Trump called up In the Arena ready for battle– given Spitzer’s history in New York real estate, this is not the first time the pair engage. Trump did not take Spitzer’s orders to “fire away” lightly: “One or two people called me up and said it was a very unfair piece,” Trump noted of Spitzer’s initial investigative segment, immediately articulating his disappointment with Spitzer. “I was a fan of yours,” he lamented, “and I was a little bit surprised to see you do a negative piece.” Noting the disappointment, Spitzer replied that he was still “a fan” and that “I love the bravado,” and ceded that, since Trump’s is a private company, much of his work was speculative.

Trump chipped away from there. “You don’t know where I come from or what I own,” he noted, and corrected his initial claims that his net worth had been valued by several banks to be billions of dollars lower that what Trump had boasted. Rather than Deutsche and North Folk Banks claiming Trump had “only” $750 million in net worth, as Spitzer claimed, Trump argued that this was a threshhold worth he had to meet in order to arrive at loans, such that the valuations were made with no real intent to chronicle his full worth. “This is many years ago… you had to have a net worth of over a certain amount in order to do a loan,” he explained. “Once the loan amount was hit, it didn’t make any difference what it was.”

Spitzer was unconvinced, but by the second and third times he tried to get Trump to admit the banks had valued him at significantly less than he boasted, the answers out of Trump were new boasts, like “I have built a great company” and “you’re wasting a lot of time on your show” with something that “you’ll find out, very likely soon.” Exasperated, Spitzer got straight to the point: “what is your net worth?” Trump wouldn’t say, but claimed it was “substantially in excess” of Forbes‘ estimate: $2.7 billion.

Spitzer’s confrontation with Trump via CNN below:

Black’s family paid $2,000 to record two songs and the video for Friday, and that investment seems to have been–artistic merit notwithstanding–a good one:

Since hitting the online music store last Monday, “Friday” has amassed a staggering number of downloads, reportedly topping 2 million; the song currently sits at #45 on the iTunes Top Singles chart. According to 101 Distribution, an independent music distributor, iTunes pays out $.70 per single download in the United States. That’s a much juicier check for Black and Ark Music Factory; even if the numbers are exaggerated, the intake from “Friday” could easily top $1 million. What’s more, Black is planning to release an acoustic version of the song to disprove speculation that her voice is reliant on AutoTune. Cha-ching!

Feeling lousy now? Here. This song’s kinda fun and it might cheer you up, from YouTube:

First, Beck went after the author of the post, Robert Lenzner, by pointing out that he’d written multiple pro-George Soros posts before, including one on the Huffington Post entitled “In Defense of George Soros.” He then continued:

“And the most egregious statement, from Forbes Magazine, is one that I would either like proof of or an apology from Forbes. In fact, I think I may demand one. Yes, I’m going to. That I ‘falsely vilified’ Soros. Forbes Magazine, show it or apologize. I’d like to know exactly what I lied about. ‘Falsely vilified?’ Really? What did I lie about here? Because I have no idea because there’s not one piece of evidence presented to back up your claim. Forbes, really? Are you down to this now? Times getting tough? I used to think you had credibility.”

Ouch. We’ll see if this causes any internal strife over at Fox. Will it be like The Simpsons vs. Fox News, where everyone just takes their shots and collects their money, or will this be Fox’s version of Keith Olbermann vs. Donny Deutsch? Only time will tell.

Check out the clip from Fox News below:

The post, funny enough, is an analysis of a recent Wall Street Journal article that charges Facebook with transmitting its users’ personal information to advertisers and Internet tracking companies. (Side note: this is news, still?) Hill examines the Twitter streams of several tech experts and media types, noting how they reacted to the WSJ piece via Twitter. Here’s a typical paragraph:

“WSJ continues its war against the internet,” tweeted media commentator and journalism professor Jeff Jarvis. He cheekily noted that the Wall Street Journal does not mention that MySpace, owned like the WSJ by Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp, has the same issue. “WSJ Facebook slam makes no mention of its competitor, MySpace.”

This, of course, isn’t the first time that a reputable news source has turned to Twitter for quotes. Still, it’s strange to see an article that uses tweets exclusively; the post looks a lot more like aggregation than journalism.

Some of the sources Hill quoted have also expressed reservations about her reporting style—using their Twitter pages, of course. NYU journalism professor Adam Penenberg (and author of Viral Loop) for example, tweeted that using Twitter posts rather than quotes “could lead to minor ethical conundrums,” since a reporter can do so without contacting her sources directly.

Naturally, Hill tweeted her own response to Penenberg four minutes later: “I see someone’s Twitter page as a little series of public releases/statements, if they’re not tweeting from a private account.”

When we contacted Penenberg for comment, though, he sounded a lot more positive about Hill’s Twitter-centric methods. “Twitter is a public venue, so using tweets in lieu of quotes worked, especially since she wove them into the story so effectively,” he said.

“The danger would be missing the context of a tweet or tweets, or mischaracterizing the spirit in which they were intended. But she didn’t do that. At any rate, I am all for pushing the boundaries of the art, and this an interesting way to express the views of sources while on a tight deadline. That means it’s inevitable, and I expect Mediaite will be doing some of this real soon.”

Point taken, Professor.

The shifting list confirms the evolving new media landscape in which relative new comers like Google cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin (both tied for 11th) and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos (18th) have suddenly become more valuable than Condé Nast’s Si Newhouse (tied with Murdoch for 38th) — whose company publishes The New Yorker and Vogue, and whose name graces Syracuse University’s journalism school — and Viacom’s Sumner Redstone (124th).

Zuckerberg, whose worth is estimated to be $6.9 billion, is one of only eight people under the age of 40 to be listed on the latest Forbes 400 list. Dustin Moskovitz (290th), one of his Facebook cofounders, was born eight days after Zuckerberg, making him the youngest member on the rich list.

Business Insider points out that the move fits in with the style of the magazine’s new editorial director, True/Slant Lewis Dvorkin, much more so than former Forbes.com CEO Jim Spanfeller. We’d also add that, as silly as it might sound to force someone to blog, it’s a pretty smart move. The feeling of connection that between readers and journalists that social media tools creates is revolutionizing the way media is presented. For good or bad, being able to follow a writer’s personal writing outside of their main posts has seemingly made every journalist like a tiny Bill O’Reilly or Glenn Beck. This then fuels loyalty amongst the audience no matter what the size.

It probably won’t be that far off before journalists starting a new job get assigned a Twitter user name as fast as they get an ID card.

(via Media Bistro)

Friedersdorf, a former Sullivan intern, has made a name for himself over the last two years as one of the most promising conservative writers and thinkers.  He writes at the American Scene, Forbes, Daily Beast, and the late True/Slant and was involved in the well-thought of, but failed, Culture 11.His take-downs of Mark Levin and Andrew Breitbart, as well as concern over conservatism’s “narrative” problem have given him a major following and reputation.

In explaining Friedersdorf’s new role, Sullivan said:

Conor Friedersdorf, no stranger to Dish readers, will be under-blogging with his usual range of interests and keen eye, but also focusing on both the degeneracy of the conservative movement, and the green shoots we are beginning to see of a saner, more imaginative, more traditionally conservative policy revival.

Sullivan described himself as “a kind of composer/disk-jockey for the music that we play” in attempting to explain the new set-up at The Atlantic’s most popular blog. There has always been questions about how Sullivan operates his blog, especially in terms of the role of other staffers.  In December, there was a minor kerfuffle when one of Sullivan’s staffers appeared to pull the curtain off the blog’s workings

At that time, Sullivan was emphatic that The Dish worked better without attributing posts to a specific person since he was in control of the content and to the blog worked better if it “retain[ed] its identity as one single narrative conversation.”

So why would Friedersdorf  join Sullivan as an “underblogger” while his star is on the rise and some have argued he should have his own blog at The Atlantic?  Friedersdorf answered some questions for Mediaite:

Mediaite: Are you going to have your own byline?

When Andrew Sullivan goes on vacation, I’ll be guest blogging under my own byline. But usually, I won’t be publishing things on the blog myself, or submitting anything in my own voice. I’ll be directing his attention to items that fit the sensibility of The Daily Dish. He’ll review those items, publish when he agrees with my curatorial judgment, and either add his own commentary when he has a take on the subject, or else just post what amounts to a link and an excerpt sans reaction.

Andrew Sullivan is one of the bloggers who introduced me to the medium about a decade ago. The others are Mickey Kaus, Megan McArdle, and Glenn Reynolds. All are extraordinary talents, and I’ve learned a lot from their writing and watching the evolution of their Web sites. It’s The Daily Dish that has changed the most. Nowadays it has daily features like A View From Your Window, it operates at a relentless pace like a broadcast, it features Andrew Sullivan’s extended takes on numerous issues, and it acts as a curatorial resource for a readership that is as thoughtful as any I’ve ever experienced. Past stints guest blogging at The Daily Dish afforded a close look at its reader e-mails, and it’s truly a pleasure to interact with a large online community of intelligent, delightfully diverse readers who are open to persuasion, rather than looking to consume only material that regurgitates what they already believe or else advances their ideological team.

In this new gig, I’ll mostly be working on the curatorial aspect of The Daily Dish. In other words, I’ll be getting paid to find exceptionally good writing and arguments on the Internet, so that an eager audience of thoughtful people can be exposed to them. That prospect is enormously appealing. Public discourse should function as a crucible, where ideas are tested, the best emerge strengthened, and the worst are destroyed. I also miss finding talented writers whose work deserves a wider audience. That was the biggest pleasure of being features editor at Culture11. In coming months, I hope I can alert Andrew and his readership to new voices.

Despite our differences on various specific matters, Andrew Sullivan and I share a commitment to an ongoing public conversation characterized by forceful disagreements, the airing of dissent, and a vision of readers as rational, mature, intelligent interlocutors. It’s why The Daily Dish is a good fit at The Atlantic, and why I revere that institution. Is there any other venue where the folks in charge are as likely to link and excerpt the most forceful arguments contrary to their own? And we’re all writing in the spirit “of no party or clique.” As The Daily Dish continues to evolve, I trust that core aspect will remain a constant. As a result, I can contribute to a site whose ongoing success and constant improvement I very much desire, even as I pursue outside writing dictated entirely by what I think is right. When that happens to be in disagreement with Mr. Sullivan, who is never one to shy away from an argument, that probably just increases the chances that it’ll get linked.

Mediaite: Are you going to continue your gigs at The American Scene, Forbes and The Daily Beast?

Emphatically yes.

The American Scene is a site for which I have great affection, and as long as they’ll have me, I’ll continue doing my best to live up to the exceptional groundwork laid by Reihan Salam and Ross Douthat, even if it means I’m always falling short of their examples and the posts published by my wonderful co-authors. I’m thrilled that my colleagues Lewis Dvorkin and Coates Bateman from True/Slant are bringing their insights to Forbes. And I love working with Tina Brown, Tom Watson and Bryan Curtis at The Daily Beast. Especially at a time when ever fewer publications are adding value in the editing process, no sane writer would turn down the chance for their feedback.

I’ve got other projects in the works too. Anyone interested can follow them all via the Twitter feed @conor64

Forbes‘ Lacey Rose talked to King about Piers Morgan, Ryan Seacrest and more.

King tells Rose he’s heard the reports Morgan is set to take over the 9pmET CNN show, and although Morgan has been on his show before, King ‘doesn’t know him.’ But:

I’d assume I’d like him. I’ll tell you this: I’ll have him on my show before he starts. I would do an interview and promote him – I’m still with CNN. I don’t want him to do badly. There are some people who would … but I want him to do well.

Rose also asked about King’s top choice to take over his show hour, another reality TV star, Ryan Seacrest. King thinks Seacrest would be “immediately accepted” if he took over, despite potentially not having an interest in politics. King also throws out a couple other options – move Anderson Cooper to 9pmET or bring CBS’ Katie Couric to the cable news network.

King’s comments about Morgan signal it will be a smooth transition once the deal is secure. It will be important for CNN to honor King’s legacy as he makes his exit, and his willingness to play ball with both his longtime network and the incoming anchor helps that happen easily.

Forbes also conducted an “exit interview” with King. Here’s how he sees his future role:

Periodically come back much the way Tom Brokaw has done in recent years at NBC?

Yes. In fact, this deal and Brokaw’s deal are almost identical. Brokaw does specials for NBC. He doesn’t want to do commercials but he could. And he’s free to make speeches and anything he wants — and occasionally make other appearances on NBC. I’m sure Tom doesn’t like days when a big news story breaks and he’s not on at 6:30 p.m. And for me, it’s going to take some getting used to I’d imagine — and some understanding from friends, family, people around me. It’s going to affect me.

He also talks about the competition (“fiercely soap-boxed and biased”), what he’ll miss (“big news and interesting personalities”) and what he won’t (“I’m not going to miss the girl missing in Aruba”).

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

To praise his ABC colleague, Jimmy Kimmel and his audience performed the “Oprah Song” – a dictatorial-themed tune that begins “All Hail Oprah.”

“I’m ashamed of Forbes for doubting her last year,” said Kimmel. “You should never doubt Oprah.”

So to “celebrate,” it was time for the “Oprah Song.” Kimmel and his audience raised their arms, a giant picture of the legendary talk show host is revealed and everyone sings in unison: “All hail Oprah, she keeps us safe and sound, and if we ever doubt her, she’ll unleash her evil hounds”

And the dramatic conclusion: “All hail Oprah, or die while Oprah laughs.”

Enjoy:

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

Oprah WinfreyForbes rank: #1

PG rank: #1 among TV anchors/hosts, #3 among media moguls

Ms. Winfrey might be leaving her talk show after 25 years – no more Oprah’s Favorite Things?! – but that didn’t stop her from snatching the top spot on the Forbes list from last year’s most powerful celeb Angelina Jolie, now #18. She’s adding frequent Oprah guest Nate Berkus to her star-making Harpo production company soon, and following that up with the launch of her very own network. In summary, Oprah owns you, and the Forbes list.

Rush LimbaughForbes rank: #19

PG rank: #2 among radio hosts

Limbaugh, Forbes‘ highest-ranked radio personality, is second only to Glenn Beck in the Power Grid. His $58.5 million income over the course of the past year, paired with amped-up media coverage surrounding his health and recent wedding, thrust him to the front of the rankings.

Dr. Phil McGrawForbes rank: #21

PG rank: #8 among TV anchors/hosts

Nate Berkus should probably keep his eye on the career of Dr. Phil, Oprah’s original spin-off guinea pig. He raked in $80 million last year from his show and side projects, making him the most successful person (besides the Queen herself) to profit from that cash-colored Oprah mojo.

Ellen DegeneresForbes rank: #23

PG rank: #9 among TV anchors/hosts

Ellen is still lagging behind a good portion of her peers in the Power Grid ranking of TV hosts, but as the face of CoverGirl, American Express, Vitamin Water, American Idol, AND her own record label, the funny lady is dancing her way all the way to the bank.

David LettermanForbes rank: #24

PG rank: #10 among TV anchors/hosts

Media attention surrounding a scandal (read: an exposed affair and a related extortion case) bumped Letterman to such a prominent position on the Forbes list this year. But things seem to be smoothing out for the late night host, and he has his $45 million revenue from the past year to comfort him.

Jay LenoForbes rank: #34

PG rank: #3 among TV anchors/hosts

Letterman’s longtime rival saw his fair share of scandal last year too, putting Conan O’brien out of a job after he failed to garner ratings for his new show. Back in his old time slot, Leno regained his viewership, and his pockets are plenty full to make him one of the more powerful celebrities out there.

Howard SternForbes rank: #39

PG rank: #12 among radio hosts

The shock jock isn’t the highest ranked radio host in the Power Grid (not even beating out Dr. Laura), but his deal with Sirius Radio is still feeding his bank account to the tune of $100 million annually. With his contract running out at the end of this year, only time will tell where he’ll place in 2011.

Glenn BeckForbes rank: #43

PG rank: #1 among radio hosts, #6 among TV anchors/hosts

Like Oprah and Ellen, Beck has his eyes on an empire: his radio and Fox News shows, books, magazine, and subscription-based website are just the beginning. Everyone is wondering who will be the next Oprah – is it Glenn Beck?

Ryan SeacrestForbes rank: #44

PG rank: #2 among TV anchors/hosts

Seacrest has his fingers in a lot of pies, but there’s only one thing you need to know to explain why he is such a powerful man: he produces Keeping Up With The Kardashians. Thank you, Ryan.

Conan O’brienForbes rank: #51

PG rank: #4 among TV anchors/hosts

Conan was ousted from prime late night real estate, but that didn’t stop him from making the Forbes list. He just barely misses the halfway mark, but not to worry – he’s still ranked fourth in the Power Grid thanks to recent media coverage (all press is good press, right?) and his fan-favorite Twitter. With a new show scheduled to premiere this fall on TBS, that fiery pompadour will be standing tall again in no time

]]> http://www.mediaite.com/online/which-media-personalities-made-the-forbes-100-most-powerful-celebrities-list/feed/ 2 http://www.mediaite.com/online/glenn-beck-forbes-cover-boy-made-32-million-last-year/ http://www.mediaite.com/online/glenn-beck-forbes-cover-boy-made-32-million-last-year/#comments Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:23:19 +0000 Steve Krakauer http://www.mediaite.com/?p=108471 Glenn Beck is a huge radio and TV star, but do you know how big? A Forbes profile and cover story by Lacey Rose breaks down the $32 million the Beck brand brought in last year.]]> We know Glenn Beck is a huge radio and TV star, but do you know how big?

A Forbes profile and cover story by Lacey Rose breaks down the $32 million the Beck brand brought in last year.

Here’s part of the profile:

With a deadpan, Beck insists that he is not political: “I could give a flying crap about the political process.” Making money, on the other hand, is to be taken very seriously, and controversy is its own coinage. “We’re an entertainment company,” Beck says. He has managed to monetize virtually everything that comes out of his mouth. He gets $13 million a year from print (books plus the ten-issue-a-year magazine Fusion). Radio brings in $10 million. Digital (including a newsletter, the ad-supported Glennbeck.com and merchandise) pulls in $4 million. Speaking and events are good for $3 million and television for $2 million. Over several days in mid-March Beck allowed a reporter to follow him through his multimedia incarnations, with one exception, his 5 p.m. daily show on Fox News, which attracts just under 3 million viewers.

That’s right, the famous TV show is just revenue stream #5 for Beck. The whole profile is well worth the read (Rose gets access not normally seen from the notoriously closed-off Beck), but this is a bigger breakdown of where that $32 million comes from:

Publishing: $13 million
Includes profit participation with Simon & Schuster, which sold 3.5 million copies of his books, and Fusion Magazine.

Radio: $10 million
Includes five-year, $50 million participation deal with Premiere Radio Networks.

Digital: $4 million
Includes an ad-supported Web site and newsletter, plus Insider and Insider Extreme services and merchandise.

Events: $3 million
Includes tours, performances and various speaking engagements.

Television: $2 million
A three-year contract with Fox News.

Also, what a great cover shot – Beck, using his now-famous chalk, to draw dollar symbols all over his suit. He’s clearly enjoying himself.

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

With a net worth of $53.5 billion, Slim just managed to squeak by Bill Gates, the previous front-runner, who was estimated at $53 billion. (That .5 billion dollars makes a difference, apparently!) The Guardian sees Slim’s ranking as a changing of the guard:

Traditionally dominated by Americans and Europeans, the top ranks of the world’s richest people have been infiltrated by scores of ultra-rich entrepreneurs from the developing world – capped by the Mexican telecoms tycoon Carlos Slim…
Economists say that a rapid rise in super-wealthy individuals from the developing world reflects the pace of globalisation, with cross-border stockmarkets allowing international investors to pump funds at the touch of a button into major corporations in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East.

What’s more interesting to us is that even though Slim made his fortune in telecommunications, he’s most known in American media for his ties with The Times. So by beating out Bill Gates, maybe what we’re seeing here is actually a backward trend of billionaires becoming richer by investing in old, not new, media.

One reporter’s notes about the developing news of Roman Polanski‘s arrest were sent out on the wire instead of the text of his article and published online by the New York Times and Forbes, where the notes are still up for now:

Swiss arrest Polanski on US request in sex case
Associated Press, 09.27.09, 10:41 AM EDT

OK, can you do some more probing? New York will want to know
frank’s out today.
i checked already, and so did zurich. they say the question is irrelevant. he answered me with the quote i used, about we knew when he was coming this time. he’s been here many times in the past, we think.
thx brad. aptn is aware, but unfortunately won’t make it in time, but is hoping to catch tail end.
i’m pushing out another writethru with some more background details before press conference.
no surprise, new york is really hot on this.
they particularly want to know why now. (has he never set foot in switzerland before?) sheila, theorizes that’s because they’re under intense pressure over ubs and want to throw the U.S. a bone, but can yo ucheck with justice department sources there?
is frank around too, or are you alone?
u can tell aptn press conf 1700 (15 gmt) in bern at the parliament
i’ll watch it live on internet

All things considered — if the part about throwing “the U.S. a bone” is as bad as it gets — this could have been a lot more embarrassing for the AP.

(h/t Business Insider)

Mary Louise Parker — the maintstream, not to mention sterile, face of rampant marijuana use, after her five-season success on Showtime’s Weeds. With her help, and some magic leaf, this cover could actually grab a few non-Fortune-reading stoners. And “Wall Street: One Year Later” up top is a nifty hard-news peg.

Mediaite Grade (B+): Hey, an issue of Fortune about pot — that’s pretty cool. Oh wait, Sage, the color, what are you doing here? You’re not very cool. If this cover was trying to make marijuana seem staid (which it probably is), then it’s a wild success. We wonder how their pot story stacks up to New York mag’s.

Before we snub The Economist, we want to get one thing straight: We know the cover isn’t what sells the magazine (it’s the incisive content, dummy). That said, we have to ask if these Economist covers are a nose-in-the-air smirk at the rest of the magazine industry, or just the product of uninspired designers who hate sharing an office with neurotic econ-types?

Mediaite Grade (D): We don’t need to beat a dead horse, or a series of plastic horses revolving in a circle, but this cover is bush league. Tucking the dollar sign ornament at the top of the carousel into the deck? It’s not cute. It’s not imaginative. We worry that a bunch of professionals actually sat down together and brainstormed this cover, or spent any time thinking about it at all. We’ve seen you do your best work before, Economist design team, now keep it up. If for no other reason, to set a good example for Newsweek (their cover this week — yikes).

Magazines are at their best when they jump on the next hot thing, rather than just distilling a week or month’s worth of news. The latest edition of Forbes does both, highlighting the story of high-speed computer trading, which has been percolating all summer —  a smart and timely take on the one-year anniversary of the financial collapse.

Mediaite Grade (A-): Visually, the cover’s play with font and depth is sharp; the psuedo-pyramid of faces at the bottom, illuminated by the chilling glow of computer screens, is electric. Pick up Forbes for a smart, forward-looking take on the financial world, one year after the collapse.

It’s a scary time for BusinessWeek. People are talking about buying the magazine for $1 . We wanted this cover to be a ray of light for the floundering title. Though cheap, spray-painting a gun gold and pasting it on the cover, wasn’t exactly the sizzle or pop we were hoping for.

Mediaite Grade (C+): We wonder, is there a BusinessWeek intern walking around somewhere with gold spray paint on his hands? We like the idea of putting a gun on the cover, but this one looks too fake, too gold. And the yellow at the top of the cover doesn’t exactly complement the gold below (not even yellow could make the “America’s Manufacturing Crisis” banner exciting). Add BusinessWeek‘s big, red, blocky masthead to the mix and watch the colors clash. Let’s see some hustle, BusinessWeek.

COVER WARS WINNER: Forbes nailed the one-year anniversary with a cover that subtly acknowledged the bench mark, but took the story in a new direction — the future of finance. And they had fun with the cover — not too conservative, not too boring, not too tacky. Take notes, BW, before you’re liquidated.

The Forbes list was compiled by comparing a variety of metrics each meant to measure popularity in different spheres, including web traffic, Google prominence and media mentions, as well as advertising revenue for 2009 and year-over-year circulation numbers. While weighed heavily, that of course is all added to the all-powerful Forbes editorial vision in determining their omnipresent “most powerful” lists. The Mediaite power grid measures similar metrics objectively, functioning entirely by algorithm. This year in Forbes, the highest slots went to fashion editors who have diversified their marketability and defined a personal brand outside of the ivory tower of magazine publishing.

For instance, Glamour‘s Cindi Leive, #2 on the Forbes list, beefed up her magazine’s online presence, up 54% in unique users since last year. She also boasts the second highest amount of media mentions, a number that has only gone up thanks to the positive press Glamour received for using a normal-sized model in a September nude shot. As a result of the recent attention, Leive shot up 13 spots in our power rankings, landing at #4 among all magazine editors.

Television has also provided a demonstrable boon for fashion editors, as evidenced by Marie Claire‘s Joanna Coles (#9 according to Forbes), who has welcomed The Style Network into the magazine’s offices to shoot the reality show Running in Heels, and is sponsoring the sixth season of the popular Lifetime show Project Runway. Meanwhile, Harper’s Bazaar’s Glenda Bailey (#6 on the Forbes list) is a judge on Bravo’s The Fashion Show, while #7 Ariel Foxman of In Style has deployed his fashion director Hal Rubenstein to judge on Lifetime’s Blush: The Search for the Next Great Make-up Artist. Coles comes in at #45 among all magazine editors according to our own power metrics, while Bailey ranks #33 and Foxman breaks the top twenty.

The lesson is clear and media variety is key, especially for those editors seeking a younger audience who are increasingly turning to the internet. Ann Shoket of Seventeen is hanging on at #24 according to the Power Grid, but slipped one spot from last year’s Forbes list, with ad pages and web hits down 15.2% and 10.1% respectively. You know what that means: someone get Bravo on the phone.

In a report released Monday, advertising broker and technology firm Pontiflex says that marketers will pay publishers an average price of $2.27 for each reader they can convince to fill out a form with their real name and e-mail address, along with a few bits of personal data such as their Twitter handle, phone number or answers to questions about their shopping habits.

That hefty price suggests publishers should consider abandoning cheap ads sold for guaranteed prices and should instead try to use space on their Web pages to convince readers to turn over their personal information.

Sound frightening? Maybe the next step is asking everyone to send in a strand of hair for DNA testing when they subscribe! Truly, at the rate we’re going it’s just a matter of time before our lives as consumers turn into that scene from Minority Report where the subway ads change depending who is walking by them (video below). The truth of the matter, of course, is that people volunteer an enormous personal information about themselves online every day without ever being asked — I know more about the personal lives of some people I follow on Twitter but haven’t met, than I do about some of my close friends. It’s the asking that usually turns them off. So really it may just be a matter of connecting Twitter Search with IP addresses, or something like that. In the meantime…

Jeff Bercovici of Daily Finance saw it differently:

Spanfeller did not respond to messages, but his departure is thought by insiders to be a result of pressure by Elevation Partners, the private equity group that bought a large minority stake in Forbes three years ago. In May of this year, Elevation co-founder Roger McNamee resigned from the Forbes board and was replaced by Bret Pearlman, another Elevation Partners executive whose arrival was seen to herald a round of cost-cutting. Since then, rumors have circulated that Spanfeller’s days were numbered, even though he is said to be favored by president/COO Tim Forbes.

Folio’s Jason Fell was able reach the exiting CEO, who set the story straight:

I spoke with Spanfeller this afternoon and he denied reports that his leaving was pressured by Forbes investor Elevation Partners. “That’s just crappy reporting,” he said during a phone conversation. “Unless Elevation has the ability to stick thoughts and actions in my head, they had nothing to do with my decision to move on.”

Crappy reporting,” eh? Luckily for Bercovici, that alleged crappy reporting does not factor in his rankings on the Power Grid. (And yes, we know he checked.)

This morning an Steve Forbes released the following:

Jim Spanfeller, President and CEO of Forbes.com, has decided to step down from leading our website after nine years. In the entrepreneurial spirit that Forbes has always championed, Jim will be setting up his own media management company.

One can only wonder who can weather the ad recession climate? Combined with the costs associated with the bloated editorial and production staffs of old-model publishing concerns, we now have the perfect storm that is wreaking havoc in this space.

The Magazine Editors category on the Power Grid has engendered some good debate here at Mediaite’s global headquarters. Summing up: should a Magazine Editor be rewarded more for the public profile of the title they oversee, or more for how they promote their own name. Well judging by the most recent rankings it appears that the side that argued on behalf of magazine title awareness won the debate.
Oh sure, the quantifiable fame of a top editor (via Google Buzz) IS a good indication of their sphere of influence (see Anna Wintour – #3.) But isn’t a top editor’s job description more about getting people to read their magazine’s and visit their websites? If you agree with that, then you should be pleased to see the Managing Editor of Sports Illustrated Terry McDonell check in at #2 as the most powerful magazine editor in all the land (Huzzah!)

Some other highlights of updating Magazine Editor rankings:

• The Newsweek fueled Jon Meacham juggernaut continues to steam roll over the other the competition in this category. The online buzz that comes with his name is keeping him in the top spot – maybe he’ll be top dog for a long time to come?

• The an increase in online buzz has pushed David Remnick into the top ten

• Rolling Stone’s Will Dana has moved up into the fourteenth spot – up five spots from the previous week.

• Prevention’s Liz Vaccariello fell from 12 to 21 (which in our eyes seems a lot more realistic.)

• A dearth of online buzz has felled Elle’s Robbie Myers from #15 to #25 (which doesn’t seem to make sense to us.)

Who are the biggest metric leaders?

• Circulation goes to recently added EIC of AARP Hugh Delehanty.

• The Google Buzz title somewhat suprisingly goes to Steve Forbes, who also boasts the most online unique visitors.

• Blog Buzz – Anna Wintour brings that title home (providing some conventional wisdom to the rankings.)

—–
• Follow Mediaite on Twitter

That, of course, was before A.I.G. F.P., led by Joseph Cassano, became, as Lewis puts it, “the most receptive dumping ground for new risks created by big Wall Street firms.” It was also before practically everyone who worked there barely escaped a pogrom once A.I.G. turned into a $182.5 billion taxpayer liability.

Perhaps the biggest clue of what was to come was the unit’s DNA. A.I.G. F.P. was created in 1987 by alumni of the Beverly Hills junk bond giant Drexel Burnham Lambert, which was forced into bankruptcy amid scandal three years later and whose leader, Michael Milken, was indicted on 98 counts of racketeering and securities fraud. If Drexel were the first Friday the 13th movie, A.I.G. F.P. was one of those sequels in which Jason returns more powerful and hellish than ever.

Lewis does not provide an especially new answer to the question he poses at the outset: What exactly caused A.I.G.’s downfall? But he does present a nuanced look at the trading unit most people now realize was the culprit. (He also suggests, oddly but provocatively, that Eliot Spitzer, as New York’s hyper-kinetic attorney general, may have hastened the crisis by forcing the resignation of A.I.G. kingpin Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, who was arguably the only person who understood how the crazy-quilt financial company he put together really worked.)

What’s especially noteworthy about Lewis’s article is that F.P.’s money managers spoke to him; stunningly, they claimed no one else in the media had come knocking. And they all insist that there was no fraud at the unit – just a bad manager (Cassano) who made disastrous financial investments he may or may not have understood. For the record, as it were, Lewis granted most of them anonymity, but that doesn’t seem to be a problem; the whole crackdown on anonymous sources – “anonymice,” as Slate’s Jack Shafer calls them – seems increasingly like debating how many angels can fit on a pinhead, given the parlous state of the newspaper industry.

Considering the mess newspapers find themselves in, the remarkable thing about Lewis’s take is that it ran at all. It’s no small relief to find important financial stories like this in one of the glossiest of glossies. And for that we might thank the late Condé Nast Portfolio, strange as that might seem. (Disclosure: I was, depending on how you counted, Employee No. 2 or 4 at Portfolio, where I lasted 18 months.)

Today, Vanity Fair has perhaps the best magazine stable of financial writers around – besides Lewis, its roster includes Bethany McLean, Bryan Burrough (who, with John Helyar, wrote Barbarians at the Gate), and Michael Wolff, who understands business more deeply than most media writers. That agglomeration of talent is no accident.

Even though Portfolio was shuttered recently, Si Newhouse and other higher-ups at Condé Nast had at one point thought there was a big enough hole in existing coverage that it wagered – and lost – at least $100 million. That conviction got people’s attention inside as well as outside of 4 Times Square.

Graydon Carter, VF’s editor in chief, was never one to wonk out when it came to financial stories. Yes, Vanity Fair has over the years provided a steady stream of often very knowing business articles, but, clearly, Carter didn’t see that as a big part of his mandate; some of the business writers on his payroll told me that he was an especially hard sell. (Similar complaints were leveled at the New Yorker’s David Remnick, who was described to me as bored by business stories back when Portfolio was being hatched.)

Then along came Portfolio, which billed itself early on as “the Vanity Fair of Business.” Ferociously competitive, Carter set about shoring up VF’s business coverage. He also stocked up on prominent financial writers, grabbing McLean from Fortune and Lewis from Portfolio.

Now, with economic news front and center, VF has a formidable lineup churning out some of the best long-form business journalism around. McLean had a similarly sophisticated piece on Fannie Mae a few months earlier.

That may not be Portfolio’s only legacy, but even if it were, it’s a pretty good one.

Jim Impoco is a New York-based writer and a former editor of the Sunday Business section of the New York Times and deputy editor of Portfolio. This is the first of occasional posts on Mediaite about the financial press. Please send tips or comments to jimpoco@mediaite.com.

For the first time in its 24-year American history, women’s lifestyle magazine Elle banked more advertising pages than elite competitor Vogue in the first half of the year. The most recent six issues of the Robbie Myers-led publication held 970 advertising pages, a 22% decline year-to-year, compared to Vogue‘s 956 pages, a 32% decline. Time Warner’s InStyle remains the leader in pages in the group, posting 1,151 year-to-date. The entire category is off by an average of 25%.

And while is true that Robbie Meyers has overseen a remarkable turnaround in the last couple of years –  some insider’s give credit to the work of Creative Director Joe Zee (who replaced top fashion photographer and reality show staple Gille Bensimon).  Also, genius product placement on broadcast television hasn’t exactly hurt the Elle brand: Meyers and Zee had cameo’s on ABC’s Ugly Betty; former fashion editor Nina Garcia is a star of Project Runway; and the lesser-watched Stylista is a competitive reality show ostensibly set in the Elle’s NY offices (or studio’s made to look like what a hot International Fashion mag’s office should be). All of which, plus “smarter-than-it-needs-to-be” edit helped claim Elle’s new found place in the women’s fashion category.

But what’s most remarkable about the Forbes piece was the stunning lack of mention of overall revenue. It is true that Elle sold more ad pages, but the far more important figure is the amount of revenue actually received for each page. Further, Streib cites an increase of subscriptions for Elle, without also mentioning that they’ve slashed their subscription price in half over the past few years.

Not to rain on the Elle parade — they deserve much praise for a dramatic increase in ad sales in a douer market decline. However, the article as reported in Forbes seems to have come straight from corporate communications department at 1633 Broadway (corporate HQ for Hachette-Filipacchi). Forbes should do better. Maybe they should follow Elle’s lead.