Here’s the original email:

“ND:

I hope you’re well. Happy New Year. A big congratulations to the new freelance weekend guy, Taylor Bernam. He’s done some good posts right out of the box. I do wish the main page featured more TV coverage (Brooklyn hippster [sic] Lana Del Rey had one of the worst outings in SNL history last night — booked on the strength of her TWO SONG web EP, the least-experienced musical guest in the show’s history, for starters). In my humble opinion as a loyal customer (you know I love you but the Blog View button will be the eventual cause of my death) and while I know you’re in the midst of an editor change, weekends have been allowed to go awfully fallow — and it was a fallow holiday period for those of us who check your shit 10 times a day by iphone. I know you’ve been watching NBC Nightly News religiously each evening and I’ll no doubt be getting a withering, detailed critique from you straight away.

BW”

What?! Self-proclaimed Brooklyn expert Brian Williams can’t spell “hipster?!” I am stunned. Williams’ reputation has been irreparably sullied!

Oh, also that whole dissing a performer on an NBC show and cheekily talking up your love of a divisive gossip blog isn’t a great thing either. Yeah, network PR people don’t love that. So, one from NBC sent Gawker an email to remove the letter. The site decided to just promptly publish that letter too.

“Kevin — can you please have the post of Brian Williams’ email to Nick Denton taken down immediately? That was sent in confidence as friends and absolutely never intended to be public. A speedy removal would go a long way in maintaining the trust and respect we have for your site.”

I’m going to take a wild guess that the “trust and respect” levels may have dropped a bit today.

Anyway, there’s one big problem with this story and I’m just gonna come out and say it;

Come on, Brian. If you hated Lana Del Rey so much, you could have just checked out our site, duh.

Not that I’m jealous or anything. I get emails from famous TV people telling me how often they check my shit all the time. Like daily. In fact, I probably got like four in the past hour. And from bigger people than Brian Williams too! I totally do! No fooling! So, no, I’m not jealous because that happens to me all the time. I just…don’t post about it because…I have better ethics than Gawker.

Yeah, ethics…that’s the ticket.

Too often, the SOP on internet comment threads is simply to try and make them as non-vile as possible, but the beauty of Keli Goff’s rant is that it moves those goalposts, and asks critics to actually add value to the conversation.

Goff began by saying that criticism doesn’t bother her, as it’s a sign that people are reading, and thinking about, what she’s written. “If you’re a writer and no one’s criticizing your work, that means very few people are actually reading it,” she said.

“One thing that does get under my skin when it comes to my critics,” Goff continued, “is poorly crafted criticism.”

She then offered some helpful tips to making criticisms that actually have some value.

“First and foremost,” Goff said, “actually read what you’re talking about. I’ve lost count of how many times someone has sent me a letter or left a comment, taking me to task for not saying something in a column. Only, I did say it, in the second paragraph, which the person apparently didn’t bother reading.”

She points out that sites like Gawker have taken to banning commenters who display such laziness. While many sites have a “more is more” attitude toward comments, I’m all for this kind of quality control.

I would add a similarly irksome brand of comment to this point, the “Well, where were you when x did y and z?” Challenging the consistency of a writer’s argument, without actually checking to see if the writer has been consistent, is lazy, and is rarely accompanied by a substantive disagreement.

Goff also instructs critics to explain why they disagree with the writer. “If you say, I disagree with your piece because you neglected to mention x, which contradicts y, you’ve just taught somebody something new, and probably made his work product better in the process.”

She concludes by advising would-be critics to “be funny” if at all possible, but not before cautioning against name-calling, which is a particular bug at many websites. Comments of a personally insulting nature are not just off-putting, they can ruin a site for all the good readers. This is especially true at a site like Mediaite, where readers have a unique opportunity to communicate, not just with our writers, but with the media figures we cover. Mainstream news personalities and producers are avid readers of Mediaite, and if the comments section is inviting and constructive, they’ll be avid readers of it, as well.

However, when they’ve got to pick through 20 or 30 pieces of nonsense (or worse) to find anyone who’s truly interested in offering substantive criticism, it trains them to ignore the comments, and it trains good readers not to waste their time.

Keli Goff says “Bravo” to Gawker for its comments policy, but I say “Brava!” to Goff for challenging (usually anonymous) critics to contribute something of value to the discussion, rather than simply push the limits of what will get them banned.

Here’s Keli Goff’s rant, from The Dylan Ratigan Show:

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 Gawker post, entitled simply “Is Radiohead Going to Play for Wall Street Protesters Today?”, only went online a brief time ago and, despite having no proof other than a “reliable source,” it’s already set Twitter absolutely on fire. It only makes sense. There are tons of people in New York still smarting over being unable to get tickets to the instantly sold-out shows the band did in the city this week.

Of course, the whole thing is still just a rumor (albeit a fairly believable one). However, what is the worst case scenario here? Even if the band doesn’t show up, the very idea that they might will certainly mean that there will be an absolute crap-load of protesters there today.

Plan your commute accordingly.

UPDATE: Good news: It would seem that Gawker’s reliable source was someone in the Occupy Wall Street organization itself. Bad news…

Either way, the President sure looks like he’s having fun these days.

Here’s how Cook lays it out:

We’re told by a source inside the Times that the paper is preparing a story arguing that Obama no longer finds joy in the political back-and-forth, has seemed increasingly listless to associates, and is generally exhibiting the litany of signs that late-night cable commercials will tell you add up to depression. Or maybe Low T.

Either way, the investigation was described to us as taking seriously the notion that Obama may be suffering from a depressive episode. Of course, absent a telltale Wellbutrin prescription or testimony from the man himself, it’s really impossible to achieve a reliable diagnosis. And a story like “Obama Appears to Suffer From Depression” can be easily downgraded to “Political Travails Begin to Take Personal Toll on Obama.”

It’s possible that Cook’s source is floating a trial balloon to see just how derisively such a “thought piece” would be met, since he’s absolutely right that, unless someone violates federal privacy laws, there’s little they could produce to support such a story. This smacks of the same kind of pop psychology that people used to try on George W. Bush on a slow news day.

I’ve seen this kind of reporting-on-reporting before (which makes me the M.C. Escher of reporting-on-reporting, I know), specifically about the Times, and often, the anticipated story never appears, quite possibly due to the sinking of a trial balloon like this. Show me some My Chemical Romance doodles on the President’s daily briefing book, and you might have something. Unnamed groundskeeper who thinks he looks mopey? Not so much.

Having covered both Barack Obamas, Campaign Obama and Governing Obama, for going on four years now, there have been times when such a story might have made some sense, but from my armchair, the President looks like he’s getting pretty revved up right about now. That’s not to say that the office hasn’t taken a toll on him, or that he’s not under a lot of stress. He’s the President of the United States, not a cashier at Starbuck’s. But whether he’s campaigning for jobs and growth, or campaigning for reelection (or a little of both), President Obama sure as hell looks like he’s got a spring in his step these days.

Some background: In the past few weeks there seems to have been some sort of coordinated effort by various Fox News’ outlets to sully the journalistic standing and impact of Gawker. Most recently, Fox and Friends aired a segment that claimed that many liberal websites were down in traffic, then asserted that Gawker was down 75%. Denton, the founder of Gawker Media, revealed via twitter that they had a story planned that explained why Fox News was so wrathful to his site, which Fox News has denied.

Cook’s story is an anonymously sourced report that strongly suggests that O’Reilly pressured a local police department to investigate the man with whom his wife was allegedly having an affair. The man also happened to be a detective within the police department. Cook makes a reasonably decent case that O’Reilly may have, in fact, complained to the cops. Despite mostly anonymous sources, Cook provides many key details, and names many of the key figures.

However, he also suggests that O’Reilly may have induced an investigation with donations to a local police training facility. Cook doesn’t get near proving the more damning suggestion that O’Reilly may have paid off the cops, or tried to, with the donation. It is in proving this link that Cook’s reporting is at its weakest.

When reached, a Fox News spokesperson told Mediaite “Gawker has been lying about Fox News for several years and we are not going to dignify this with any further comment.”

There is no question that Fox News is a polarizing media outlet that spawns fierce loyalty amongst many of its viewers, and intense loathing from its detractors. While Gawker is likely thrilled to be engaging in a so-called media feud with the media giant Fox News, one could objectively criticize the level of journalism in Cook’s piece. While this post raises some interesting questions, the story is centered on Bill O’Reilly’s failing marriage, which is a remarkably personal attack for an – at-best – inconsistently sourced report, that feels to this media critic as a a dressed-up excuse to personally attack O’Reilly, and to escalate a feud with a news organization that has demonstrated its willingness to punch down.

Doocy introduced the spot more generally, talking about “trendy liberal and gossip sites” like Digg (trendy? Maybe to MySpace), but as he introduced BreitbartTV’s Larry O’Connor, the focus narrowed to Gawker, whose John Cook has (coincidentally?)  been something of a thorn in the side of Fox News executives.

Breitbart’s Larry O’Connor makes a few good points, noting correctly that websites like Digg have had their roles largely usurped by Facebook and Twitter. He also assured viewers that, while Gawker is in trouble, Andrew Breitbart‘s “Big” sites are “fine.”

While dancing on Gawker’s alleged grave, O’Connor noted criticism of things like the Gawker Stalker Map, and the site’s alienation of New York Magazine‘s Vanessa Grigoriadis, which are apparently coming home to roost four years later. He also manages the neat trick of slamming Gawker’s non-stop snark, while noting that it’s “as predictable as the end of a Scooby-Doo cartoon,” which is kind of like decrying junk food through a mouthful of Cheez Waffies™.

O’Connor also gets in a few shots at secondary target Salon.com, but the real prize here is unmistakably Gawker: (from Fox News)

If ever there was a perfect application for Benjamin Disraeli‘s famous quote about statistics, it would have to be to the measurement of internet traffic. There are more ways to measure it, and more services to do so, than you can shake a stick of indeterminate length at. Gawker founder Nick Denton immediately pushed back against the story, calling Fox “doofuses” (although I believe the correct plural form is “doofi”), and pointing his Twitter followers at a much rosier assessment from Quantcast, which shows Gawker’s monthly unique visitors basically flat from a year ago, but page views way up.

Fox’s report cited analytics from Compete.com, which, amusingly enough, shows Gawker in much better shape than the “Big” sites that Larry O’Connor says are “fine.” While Gawker’s traffic dipped significantly from January to April, it’s unclear where Fox got their 75% figure.

Denton, for his part, isn’t taking this lying down. He told Mediaite that Fox’s attack was “amusing, adding, “Don’t they realize that we thrive on a good media fight?”

Denton also said that, while he’s “a huge admirer of the guy,” Fox is “playing by a playbook as old as Ailes.”

We obviously haven’t heard the last of this feud.

Daulerio extended Silverman an “olive branch” (or an invitation to send a traffic-juicing kissoff) by inviting her to participate in this year’s Comedy Week, with predictable results. Silverman’s (extremely NSFW) response:

I was super happy to do that thing last year and had so much fun doing it I went long (having no idea it wasn’t going through) and to wake up to that cunty blog was such a shitty fuck you. People say brutal stuff about me all the time, of course, but not people that I thought were peers and friends.
So, ya, I pretty much have no interest in illuminating anything that happened or happens on your site or bringing a single new pair of eyes to it.
Eat a dick,

Sarah Silverman
Grantland.com

Silverman is probably making the right choice. We hear this year’s climactic live chat will be conducted via semaphore flags.

Author’s Note: Unrelated, but interesting, is the fact that “Sarah Silverman Feet” is the number one Google image search suggestion for Sarah Silverman. The more you know…

Seemingly incensed that Andrea Tantaros had labeled the site as “left-wing,” Bob Beckel was the most vocal in his attacks. After Greg Gutfeld claimed that everyone he knew who worked there was “miserable,” Beckel said he wasn’t surprised, asking how they could “sleep at night.”

He wasn’t just defending his network, but his co-host as well. Beckel pointed out that the website had once posted information about Kimberly Guilfoyle’s residence. For her part, Guilfoyle wasn’t thrilled he even brought it up, prompting Beckel to quickly add that she had since moved.

Watch the clip from Fox News below:

Now, however, it seems that the organization is having a change of heart. The AP (via a local CBS affiliate) reports that the ACLU of New Jersey is “likely to drop” the lawsuit filed against Christie.

After the suit was filed yesterday, Christie’s office released a page from his calendar confirming that the governor and his wife attended a private dinner on Sept. 11, 2010, in New York City.

The ACLU then released a statement noting that while the “response from the Governor’s office will likely resolve the lawsuit, it raises new questions.”

Frank Corrado, a lawyer representing Cook on behalf of the ACLU in New Jersey said he’s “happy so the matter resolved quickly,” but still has his concerns:

We’re happy to see the matter resolved quickly but remain concerned that the governor’s office initially issued a blanket executive privilege claim in response to Gawker’s request for records. Is the governor’s office actually reviewing records requests from the public, or is it simply using executive privilege as a carte blanche to deny access to all correspondence with his office?

h/t CBS3 Springfield

Gawker’s investigation was inspired by New York magazine’s recent, much-publicized profile on Ailes, which noted that the chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group called Christie and encouraged him to campaign in 2012 (an option, it should be noted, that Christie has repeatedly stated he won’t pursue). Cook had recently looked into publicly available documents dating back from Ailes’ time working with the Nixon administration.

Cook had previously called Christie’s office directly in an effort to obtain evidence of telephone, mail or email correspondence between Christie and Ailes, only to be told that, were such records to exist, they would be exempt from New Jersey’s open public records act due to “executive privilege and well-settled case law.” A spokesperson for Ailes told the gossip site that “Whatever the governor wants to do is his business.” Christie had claimed executive privilege before, when legislators requested records about an error in his “Race to the Top” application, although he eventually provided these when legislators threatened to issue a subpoena to obtain the requested information.

In June, Christie attended a dinner with Ailes as well as prominent conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, later refusing to discuss the meal with the press.

The American Civil Liberties Union has since taken up Gawker’s case.

Cook shared his plans moving forward with The New York Times:

The next thing that I would like to be publicly acknowledged is not just that they’re ideological — they’re not just the TV equivalent of The Weekly Standard or something — they are actually a power base within the Republican Party.

Cook is by no means alone in his assessment. Ailes’ possible role in politics has been discussed by many, including Tim Dickinson, who wrote an in-depth piece on Ailes for Rolling Stone.

h/t New York Times

If you like watching real estate shows–and love (or hate) Glenn Beck, then this is for you: a “video tour” of Beck’s new digs in Dallas. Yes, yay! From the looks of the video uncovered by Gawker, the place seems nice enough, though hardly over-the-top. It’s got a wine fridge and stainless steel appliances, a bunch of windows and some nice outdoor space. Lots of room to plot the future of GBTV. We’re told Beck will be leasing the property, but–naturally–he has an option to buy should he absolutely, positively fall in love with the place.

Here’s the description of what Beck’s getting for his money (estimated at about $20,000 a month:

7904 square feet, four car garage, almost two acres of land (1.7ish), a Hill Country styled house, La Cornue stove, master retreat with a relaxation room, study, steam shower, limestone, hardwoods, travertine, 7 bedrooms, 7.5 baths, both sun and exercise rooms, a guest house with living, bedroom, bath, and of course a pool.

Since you’re probably squirming with anticipation by now, let’s get right to the video. Maybe, if you’re lucky enough, you’ll get invited to a dinner party here very, very soon:

The photo was discovered by the group Cryptome, who used a hint in the AP article to find the man. According to the article, the CIA analyst was “hidden from view, standing just outside the frame of that now-infamous photograph” of the President and his Cabinet watching the raid unfold. Looking through other photos in that album, they found an individual present in several places the article claims he was, and conclude that this must be the man. As the AP explains, they gained access of his story only with the caveat that his identity would be protected:

The CIA will not permit him to speak with reporters. But interviews with former and current U.S. intelligence officials reveal a story of quiet persistence and continuity that led to the greatest counterterrorism success in the history of the CIA. Nearly all the officials insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to reporters or because they did not want their names linked to the bin Laden operation.

The photos were then reproduced by Gawker (they are on the official White House Flickr account, but Gawker made sure to point out the man in question) with further speculation on whether Cryptome found the right man. Cryptome is a competitor to Wikileaks that has, on occasion, directly challenged the protection that organization didn’t give Bradley Manning for leaking secret military files to Julian Assange and company. Any organization that lives on the premise that there is no such thing as necessarily secret information will have no problem trying to out this man, and their intent to put the person’s identity in the public sphere is rather clear. When a group blindly vows to disclose information, there is no possible moral opposition to disclosing information.

But Gawker is not a website that traffics in such philosophies the way Cryptome does– or, for that matter, Wikileaks. It is difficult to come up with a legitimate reason to out someone who, as far as anyone knows, has done nothing wrong, and may have been the mastermind that caught this century’s most hated mass murderer. Other than pure human curiosity, no benefit arises from knowing who this man is, if it even is him. If the person in the photo isn’t “John the CIA agent,” then an entire new set of complications arise. Not to mention the title of the post: “Is This The Guy Who Killed Bin Laden?” The assumption from the headline is that this man was responsible for physically taking the Bin Laden’s life, though the text of the article clearly states that is not the case. Nevertheless, a web-surfing extremist with a minimal grasp of English could easily get confused and rally allies around the falsehood that the man from the AP article deserves to die for tracking down the martyred hero of many extremists.

Putting a face to the man who was instrumental in bringing down the idol of hundreds of potentially suicidal psychopaths bent on killing as many Americans as possible only serves to give Al-Qaeda members a target to shoot at. It provides a graphic for their cave-made YouTube videos that their colleagues can print out and burn in effigy, or try to hunt down. Revealing the identity of this man– whether the man in the photo is him or not– does nothing but endanger a potential hero (or even some “random staffer” as Cook points out) and stir the embers of hatred in an organization stripped to the bone by people like him.

Or, as one Gawker commenter so succinctly put it: “If this is the guy who tracked down Bin Laden, I can think of no better way to thank him for his outstanding civil service than by outing him on a highly trafficked web site and putting his career, his life, the lives of his loved ones in danger.”

The content in the Ailes memos range from the mundane to the prescient, and was presented by Gawker as breathless evidence to support the notion that Fox News is not only a political operation, but was actually conceived by Ailes in the late 60′s while serving in the Nixon White House. Given the tenor of the original post, it would not seem unreasonable for Fox News to insist that they have their say.

In preparation for the segment, CNN’s Brian Todd contacted Fox News earlier today for a response to the item. Mediaite has learned that Fox News offered to provided the statement, and simply asked for their two-line response to be used in full — a pretty standard request when it comes to dealing with the media, since anything can be edited. CNN refused to use the statement in its entirety, stating that it is against their policy.

Brought to you now, by Mediaite, the 42 words from a Fox News spokesperson that CNN refused to air:

“We are not going to respond to memos that were allegedly written more than forty years ago. However, if Mr. Ailes did have the idea for Fox News nearly half a century ago, he would have beaten CNN and MSNBC even sooner.”

Given that CNN was reporting on a report that seemed to go out of its way to make the Fox News chief look bad, it doesn’t seem terribly unfair for Fox News to ask for the full statement to run. One might think that CNN could have easily just run the statement and had a little self-deprecating fun with it on a slow summer Friday. Instead, by choosing not to run the entire statement, they come off looking, to some, as pedantic. Could this be the start of a new chapter in the cable news wars? Stay tuned.

Update: CNN tells Mediaite ““CNN simply doesn’t make deals with individuals or organizations about how much of a statement the network will air, especially sight unseen. And we can’t imagine that Fox News would do that either. But then again, maybe they would…”

Watch the clip below, courtesy of CNN:

What Cook found in the documents, which are available to the public through the Richard Nixon Presidential Library, show Ailes to have been an ambitious, meticulous, involved force in media – even before he hit his 30th birthday. How meticulous? In one memo (found here on page 222), Ailes advises then-Chief of Staff H. R. Haldeman that close-up shots of President Nixon should be reserved for the beginning of his speeches, before he begins to perspire. “I assume,” he adds, “it was the President’s own decision not to use a handkerchief.” He was also instrumental in organizing the lighting for the White House Christmas tree.

Cook’s post on the documents pays particular attention to a memo from 1970 titled “A Plan For Putting the GOP on TV News,” which Cook deems a “nakedly partisan 1970 plot by Ailes and other Nixon aides to circumvent the ‘prejudices of network news’ and deliver ‘pro-administration’ stories to heartland television viewers.” The documents show that Ailes, through his REA Productions and Ailes Communications, Inc. firms, aided both the Nixon and George H.W. Bush administrations as a paid media consultant.

The undated, unsigned “Plan,” which features handwritten notes, corrections and expanded thoughts by Ailes, highlights the importance of television over newspapers in shaping the public’s relationship to the nation’s news…. because, he notes, “people are lazy” and TV essentially “does the thinking for you.” The purpose of the proposed television project is to “provide pro-Administration, videotape, hard news actualities to the major cities of the United States” with an emphasis on providing coverage of interest to local stations.

The documents are well worth the read as they provide a revealing and fascinating look at how one of the most influential individuals working in media today presented and refined his ideas for the symbiotic relationship between television and public perception of any given political figure.

h/t Gawker

Photo via Esquire

Comedian Harry Shearer, who has a fetish of some kind for watching news anchors and reporters as they prepare to go on camera, has posted a clip of ABC World News anchor Diane Sawyer as she prepped to anchor World News from tornado-devastated Joplin, MO. The eight-minute video shows Sawyer standing amid the ruins of a neighborhood–it’s cold, with rain and lightning, Sawyer and her crew sheltered by a small tent as soaked and exhausted ABC News folk set shots, lights, and try to communicate with producers in New York as the network prepares to tell the country a massive, emotional story.

Shearer headlines the video “I have nothing,” which refers to a comment Sawyer makes about having no scripts, no teleprompter, and at one point, not even IFB–the earpiece-fed link that allows Sawyer to have direct contact with her show producers in the control room in New York, as well as to hear the voices of reporters around the globe as she speaks with them. In TV, telling producers you have nothing is very important information. Sawyer displays no hints of diva-dom. Instead, she asks for clarification on facts of the storm, and says she has no clear idea how the critical top of the newscast is going to flow. All this, of course, in the minutes before that newscast goes live. To a reporter like myself, who’s done a lot of television liveshots in all kinds of conditions, Sawyer seems positively Zen in her calm. But what’s funny about that? Nothing.

Have a look and then we’ll discuss. Video from My Damn Channel:

To Shearer, “I have nothing” becomes a snarky way of suggesting Sawyer’s got a lot of nerve saying she has nothing when all around her, people have lost everything. TVNewser quotes Shearer saying his outrageously boring video “is a portrait of a fly-in anchor covering a disaster. Diane may be Diane, but this is pretty much what you get when you send high-priced anchor talent into a place where everything has fallen apart and nothing works. The quote, ‘I have nothing,’ of course, should more appropriately be coming from a tornado victim.’”

This is what you get? You mean somebody doing their job? What does Sawyer’s salary have to do with anything? Sawyer doesn’t act entitled in the least. She’s hardly focused on herself, telling the crew that if it’s dangerous to stay in their location, they should all leave. She never talks down to anyone, and even as time runs out and she’s not seen a key script involving a camera move and a live interview, she suggests it might be wiser to do the multi-element segment on tape–or at least practice it–rather than have it crash on live TV. Yes, Diane is Diane, and she never loses her cool. She’s not just high-priced talent in this case, she’s highly experienced talent. She’s the kind of person who can calmly work amid the frenzy of photographers, field producers and others all talking to her at once–while producers back in New York are talking into her ear (when the IFB connection is functioning, of course). She’s calm, clear, and authoritative to each and every one of them.

“A fly-in anchor covering a disaster” suggests a Ron Burgundy being Gulfstreamed and limo’d to the scene, asking for a makeup trailer, a cocktail, and reservations for dinner. Sawyer, as we’ve reported, is a real reporter, who doesn’t “fly-in” but rather digs in, arriving at a story and getting to work. In this case, Sawyer had arrived in Joplin early that morning and spent the entire day reporting. Again, nothing funny about that. But when she gets to the network’s live location, with its frenetic energy, it’s far easier to poke fun. After all, look! She’s putting on makeup! She’s brushing her hair!

To the gotcha gang at Gawker, Sawyer seems “confused and frightened” Are you kidding me? She doesn’t even flinch when lightning bolts crash. Oh, but wait. She does put a shawl around her shoulders at one point, and I guess to Gawker’s John Cook, shawl=frail=frightened. Of course. Cook sees “an anxious, tentative, and confounded Sawyer huddling in a shawl against oncoming storms with the destroyed suburbs at her back as her crew frantically attempts put together a broadcast. It’s a short Beckett play, about America, called ‘I Have Nothing.’”

Oh, FFS, really? I’ve done local news liveshots where I wasn’t really clear what we were about to do and my pulse was pounding in my ears to the point I couldn’t see straight. I can’t imagine being in Joplin with lousy communications, no scripts to pre-read, no idea what was happening first, and knowing hey, it’s a huge story and this isn’t a show you can mess up. Oh. And millions will be watching. I don’t see an “anxious” or “confounded” person when I watch the video. I see steel.

What Shearer doesn’t show you is the final product. When Sawyer finally went live, she still didn’t have scripts or a teleprompter. She ad-libbed the entire newscast. And she made it look effortless. And to me, that’s not really funny. It’s just impressive as hell.

But what do I know? I’m not Harry Shearer, sitting at home on the couch watching satellite feeds of journalists actually out there working in lousy conditions–just hoping they’ll laugh at a victim or shout at a member of the crew or ask for more powder on their face.

Want to see the glamorous day Diane Sawyer had “flying in” to Joplin? Here’s some perspective, from ABC News:

That witness, Lindsey Piscitell, claims that the Beck family was not met with open arms but was not attacked, either, instead putting the blame on Beck’s security for “contributing to a considerably less relaxed atmosphere than is typically experienced during BPMN.” Beck, on his part, added more to his story on his radio show today in response to Piscitell, calling her claims entirely false and accusing her, in turn, of being belligerent towards his family. Below, for the uninitiated, a quick recap of both Beck’s and Piscitell’s claims, and the potential gaps in each of their stories.

What witness Lindsey Piscitell says happened

Piscitell told New York that she was “seated immediately behind” the Beck family and saw no violence against Beck. The only tension she noted in the crowd was caused, she claimed, by Beck’s bodyguards, “that seemed to be unnecessarily prickly with the crowd.” As for the spilled wine, she tells the story as follows:

It was my friend that spilled the glass of wine on Tanya -and I can assure you that it was a complete accident. A happy one, to be sure, but nonetheless a complete and utter accident. As soon as the wine spilled (and I question how Tanya became soaked from a half glass of wine) apologies were made and my friends pretty much scrambled to give Tanya & co napkins -no doubt aware that it would look terrible and that their actions could be perceived as purposeful. No words were exchanged after that, as I think that it became pretty clear to Beck & co that my friends and I were doing everything in our capacity to help clean the “mess”.

Independently, our Jon Bershad contacted a Twitter user who claimed to have been present during the wine-spilling who recounted that people were being friendly and shaking hands with Beck, and that she saw no such hostility, which seems to corroborate Piscitell’s claims. Working against her, however, besides Beck’s words, are earlier words she herself wrote.

As The Blaze reports, Piscitell tweeted earlier that day against “fucking asshole Glenn Beck” telling him to “get out of my city.” What’s more, Gawker adds that one of her Twitter friends told her to “accidentally” spill something on Beck (Gawker puts no weight on this evidence because, apparently, tweets are never to be taken seriously. Ah, if only someone had told Anthony Weiner about that rule). What’s more, her letter to New York transparently demonstrates animosity towards Beck. Though not repeating the profanity on her Twitter (that tweet since deleted), her letter goes on to attack Beck for “spewing hate” on the radio and to boast about New York’s intolerance of intolerance– including the passage of last week’s same sex marriage law (not necessarily something Beck opposes– he is of the mind that the government should not have a role in marriage).

The final bit of information directly from Piscitell comes also from Gawker– her claim that Beck fans are sending her tons of hate mail and “have set up fake profiles for her on Ashley Madison and Adult FriendFinder.”

NEXT PAGE: What Glenn Beck says happened to him at Bryant Park, and analysis

“I swear to you I think, if I had suggested, and I almost did, “Wow, does anybody have a rope? Because there’s tree here. You could just lynch me.’ And I think there would have been a couple in the crowd that would have.”

Beck took particular exception with Gawker (he didn’t name the website although he clearly described this post) for posting pictures of his family.

Watch the segment via GlennBeck.com below:

Update: Glenn Beck also retells the story on his Fox News program:

The so-called “Weinergate” scandal has been the gift that keeps on giving, as far as many media outlets have been concerned, and it’s interesting to see how each has managed to put its own spin on the story.

Let’s take a look at how they (and, yes, we) managed it, shall we?

New York Post

This kind story was, basically, tailor-made for New York’s most notorious rag. If The New York Times is the (wonkily left-leaning) crown jewel in this city’s media crown, then the New York Post is its jester’s hat. Entertaining, shocking, unabashedly vulgar and, despite it all, begrudgingly beloved. I mean, come on! The puns, people! His name is Weiner:

“Disgusted Democrats letting Weiner shrivel”

“Weiner likely to endure a rough sex probe”

“NYers: You’ll never be Mayor ‘Crotch’”

New York Times

The NYT has approached the Weiner scandal with its typical mix of straightforward reporting and op-ed pieces, all with the sort of florid prose we’ve come to expect from the Lady Most Gray:

Those elders must be hoping to heaven that Mr. Weiner departs before the machinery of investigation is gassed up and rumbles toward the Internet Protocol addresses where he composed his epistles.

They even had a characteristically classy take on the fact that the man’s name is, you know. “Penis:”

We Weiners, though, are eminently adaptable. It’s a survival thing. At some point, my father, Seymour, changed the pronunciation of our family name from WEEN-er to WHINE-er because, really, who wants to be known as Seymour WEEN-er? It was a Faustian bargain, to be sure, but a wise one. At least that’s what I thought until “Saturday Night Live” aired a popular skit about a couple named Doug and Wendy WHINE-er. They would speak, of course, in grating, whining voices that my classmates parroted whenever they pronounced my last name, which was often. Those were difficult years.

It’s hard, sometimes, being a Weiner.

>>> NEXT PAGE: Is Mediaite obsessed with all things cockamamy?

O’Connor responded:

“Is this relevant to Anthony Weiner’s career as a politician? Maybe. . . . This is what we do. We cover human interest stories. We cover the strange case of a person, a powerful person, ending up falling to the exact same ridiculously stupid follies that everyone does. Taking a picture of his dick and getting caught doing it.”

Kurtz heard the use of the slang term and quickly responded “Gawker does have a different way of talking about these things, not a word that I would use on the air.” In this day and age whether the word itself is that outrageous is up to viewers to decide, however, a serious news program might be one of the few places remaining where the word is still jarring to hear, and thus it might seem best to reserve such language for the privacy of one’s own home.

(UPDATE): We reached out to Maureen O’Connor for comment and she provided the following:

An honest mistake — given how many good euphemisms there are for the word “penis,” I am greatly disappointed that I chose one unfit for television. If I could do it again, I would say “wee wee,” “love muscle,” “tumescent tubesteak,” or “baby arm.”

Watch the clip from CNN below:

Gawker‘s Jeff Neumann took a shot at Mediaite Thursday morning over the length and girt of our coverage of “Weinergate,” noting that “other stuff is happening that might be considered so newsworthy,” and laying the blame at the feet of Mediaite founder and publisher Dan Abrams. While we’re glad we could get Neumann to stand up and take notice, we think he’s being too hard on us.

First of all, Neumann wrongly affixes responsibility for our overstuffed coverage to “sensitive sexy man Dan Abrams.”

Dan can argue the adjectives, but he’s already made it abundantly clear that he “do(es)n’t edit the site,” so suggestions that he is directing Mediaite’s coverage of Weinergate is “thoroughly insulting” to those of us with a hands-on role in the coverage.

The argument seems to be that this story lacks heft (although Jon Stewart and Lawrence O’Donnell might disagree), and to some extent, that’s a fair observation. On the other hand, Mediaite’s primary focus is media criticism and analysis, so if we are showing a lot of Weiner, it’s because there’s a lot of Weiner out there. You might as well criticize the ground for being wet because it’s raining. As long as the media outlets we cover continue to flog Weiner, we will continue to cover them covering it. As it stands, this story shows little indication that it will peter out anytime soon.

Neumann bolsters his case with a screen shot of the top third or so of the site, which, by a quirk of the site’s layout, shows wall-to-wall Weiner, but our entire front page features about a 50/50 ratio of signal-to-Peen.

Still, maybe Gawker has a point, maybe we could learn a lesson from them, and lead with a story that really, really matters:

Pulitzer, here we come!

There’s probably a metaphor about a splinter in the eye here, but I think we’ve all seen enough wood for one week, haven’t we?

All kidding aside, our coverage of Weinergate hasn’t just been of the point-and-laugh variety (some of it has), but has also sought to place the uniquely new media aspects of this story into a larger context, and illustrate the pitfalls of instant communication without instant access to all of the facts. Oh, and puns. God, yes, there have been puns.

In the final analysis, though, there probably are better things for reporters to do than chase around an impressive rig. But enough about Palin’s bus tour.

Wrote Robinson:

Here is the comScore page view trend for Yahoo! blogs in 2011:

Jan = 353 MM PV

Feb = 369 MM PV

Mar = 472 MM PV

Apr = 506 MM PV

Here, I think, is the cool story for our blogs:

— 57 million people in the US read a Yahoo! blog in April 2011, more than visited any blogging network, including Blogger, WordPress, Gawker, and Huffington Post.

— Yahoo! Blogs delivered 506 million PV in April, more than Huffington Post and twice as many as Gawker Media.

(Source: comScore Media Metrix, April 2011, US)

The news comes at the heels of many, and, in some cases, conflicting, reports on Gawker’s numbers following the blog network’s redesign, although The Mottram Program Tumblr blog describes Yahoo’s numbers as double that of Gawker’s. Back in January, Gawker founder Nick Denton told paidContent that, for him, unique visitors hold more water than pageviews.

And the Huffington Post, of course, has folded in and taken control of Aol’s blog content following Aol’s multi-million dollar purchase of Arianna Huffington‘s blog empire.

h/t The Mottram Program via Anthony De Rosa

Gawker’s Adrian Chen, who covers this kind of thing all the time leading me to believe he has to change his passwords around 18 times a day, has this report:

“The group Lulz Security has taken credit for the hack. Last night, Lulz Security took over and defaced the LinkedIn accounts of 16 Fox Broadcasting employees and the Twitter accounts of two Fox affiliates, apparently to prove the leak’s validity. ‘Fox News 15 has decided to rape its own face. A sad day for our 25 viewers,’ read one tweet. They then tweeted a list of emails and passwords, which are mainly employees of Fox Broadcasting and local affiliates of Fox and other networks.

‘We invite the Internet to ravage the following list of emails and passwords (from a database within Fox.com) – Facebook, MySpace, PayPal, whatever you can get your hands on,’ the group wrote. ‘Take from them everything.’”

The tweet Chen mentions is still up 13 hours after being posted.

Face raping and all, that tweet is fairly family friendly compared to this one:

On the official Lulz Security Twitter feed, linked to in that tweet, the hackers brag about the leak, mock news organizations linking them to the group Anonymous, and egg on anyone using the information for nefarious deeds.

Gosh, with the Gawker hack, the Sony hack, and all the other hacks of the past few months, is there anyone out there whose personal information hasn’t been stolen yet?

So, what is the proof that they found? From Gawker:

“Fox News chief Roger Ailes and his wife Elizabeth must get spooked a lot in their weekend home in rural Putnam Valley, N.Y., because they call 911 a lot. During one 30-day period last summer, police cars were dispatched to their address six times.

All told, according to police records we obtained from the Putnam County Sheriff’s Department via New York’s Freedom of Information Law, cops have been called to the Ailes’ home 10 times since 2009. In eight of those calls, units were actually sent to the house. None of the calls resulted in an investigation, arrest, or determination that any criminal activity had taken place.”

Uh huh.

Look, I’m not saying that Ailes isn’t paranoid. There’s been plenty of information that’s come straight from the man’s mouth to show that he is, at the very least, idiosyncratic. And, the day Gawker stops breaking stories about the dirt underneath the finger nails of the rich and powerful is the day Gawker stops being Gawker, something that we certainly don’t want. That being said, isn’t there a very thin line between exposing someone’s paranoia and helping rationalize it?

More importantly though, is the information here really that exciting? So, the police are sent to check the security of Ailes house a lot. I guess that’s kind of interesting. It would be more interesting if the article didn’t also have to point out that many of the calls “seem to have been automated calls generated by their alarm system.”

So in summation, by all means, Gawker should do everything they can to check up on public figures. That’s just good journalism. However, if they don’t find anything significant, as the same writer John Cook did earlier this month about Ailes, perhaps they should turn down the hyberbolic headlines. Unless, of course, this is their plan; to make Roger Ailes so paranoid that he freaks out and does something huge and newsworthy.

Hmmm…making the news by reporting the news. It’s kind of brilliant.

First off: Yes, fine. The interview is not exactly what anyone would call “hard hitting.” In fact, it’s really something of a lovefest, with McCain and Trump continuously complimenting one another throughout the course of the article.

Wonkette (yes, that Wonkette) blogger Jack Stuef (yes, that Jack Stuef) takes the “fame-starved” angle in a post titled “Meghan McCain Finally Gets a Job, With Donald Trump:”

“So are we doing a radio show?” Trump asks. “No, this is an interview for The Daily Beast,” Meghan responds. “Oh, OK, good,” Trump says. (He’s never been to the Internet and has no idea what she’s talking about.) “I like you. I see you a lot on television.” These two are perfect for each other! There are no two individuals who have less to do with Republican policy than them. There are bloated half-dead starving kids in third-world countries who have more to do with policy, and Republicans don’t even like bloated half-dead starving kids in third-world countries. Anyway, Meghan McCain grovels for a job and Donald Trump gives her the first job offer of her life, because these people truly love each other, for they have been on television.

For the record, yes, I did laugh at “he’s never been on the internet.” As did Gawker in its own take on the interview, “Journalism’s Finest Hour: Meghan McCain Interviews Donald Trump.”

Slate’s David Weigel comments on the interview in a post of his own – “Meghan McCain Commits An Act of Journalism.” (Which is quickly followed up with “Sorry, that headline’s a lie.”) His focus, as you probably could have guessed, paints the interview as amateurish and, I’m assuming, biased. He highlights several of the direct questions posed during the interview, for example: “If you run for president, will you hire me for your campaign?” and “Why do you think this birther thing still has such legs?” and, well, “Have you ever stayed at a Holiday Inn?”

And here’s the real meat of Weigel’s post, which echos the basic premise of Stuef’s:

At least some of Trump’s success so far can be traced to the way the media engages him — as a celebrity, not a politician who needs to be held accountable for his actions.

And here’s where I get to find out who actually read this post and who merely glanced at the title: I don’t completely disagree with this assessment. I suspect people (not “media people,” mind you) who haven’t found themselves already completely fed up with Trump coverage to the point where they tune out whenever his face pops up on their television sets or computer screens, keep watching him because they’re genuinely entertained by his performance and his bravado, even if they’re masochistically entertained by how angry he makes them. And it’s the job of some forms of media to give the people what they want even if, by God, they don’t want to want it.

But it is also coverage like these articles that feeds into the frustration on which Donald Trump is building his platform. I mean, come on. I live in New York, I work in media: I know exactly for whom these posts were written, and of course they’re going to provide the laughs they were designed to provide. And that’s fine. But repeatedly referring to Trump as this sort of lunatic imbecile, grasping hold to the top of the Empire State Building (which features a giant gold “TRUMP” logo across its top floors, as least in my imagination) as he brandishes a wadded up piece of paper from Hawai’i, or painting McCain as clueless or ruthlessly opportunistic (and, believe me, it’s kind of hard to be both of these at once) only gives their supporters what they want. It basically tells them, “You are completely justified in your frustration over the lamestream media. It is simultaneously ignoring and mocking you and the beliefs you hold most dear.” Because, you know. That’s really not an unfair assessment of what’s going on, at least in what I’m refusing to refer to as the blogosphere.

And, after the number of pageviews are recorded and discussed and bloggers slink back to the giant dank basement (in Brooklyn) where we all collectively reside, no one really ends up winning. Except, possibly, the McCains and the Trumps of the world, smiling back at us from our TV sets, silently mouthing “it feels so good to be gangsta” as we feud, drunk on PBR, amongst ourselves.

Over the weekend, Gawker featured a post about former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum‘s announcement that he plans to form a presidential exploratory committee and made mention of the fact that Santorum and his family cuddled with the body of their deceased newborn son, Gabriel Michael, in the hours following his death.

Apparently, a number of commenters expressed their distaste for the story, prompting a response from the post’s author, Max Read:

It seems many of you feel very strongly about Rick Santorum’s right to take the 20-week-old fetus (which is not the same thing as a “dead child”!) home, and then tell The Washington Post about it, and then not get made fun of at all. Which is fine! We are all delicate flowers who mourn loss in various delicate ways, etc. My mistake was perhaps that I didn’t explain what was additionally loathsome about Santorum’s fetus playdate—that is, its deployment as anti-choice propaganda.

Read then quoted a Washington Post article that described the Santorums’ displeasure at seeing their child described as a “a 20-week-old fetus” on a hospital form rather than a “20-week-old baby” as well as Karen Santorum‘s “Letter to Gabriel” – a series of letter to her son which included an indictment of partial-birth abortion.

The Gawker story – while nowhere near as mocking or distasteful as Wonkette’s post about Trig – struggles with the same dilemma: How does one artfully comment on a politician ostensibly using a child as a tool (or “prop”) to garner votes or support without being equally guilty of thrusting a child who has no voice in the matter into the spotlight? How do you report on a personal matter without making seem personal?

Gawker’s article walks a much finer line than does Wonkette’s: The picture used in the post includes an intentionally (we’re assuming) unflattering image of Santorum’s daughter in tears (although, notably, no animated .gifs of gyrating pole dancers) and seems to ridicule Santorum’s entire family – not just the former Senator himself – for their collective decision to take photos of and sing lullabies to the dead child. This is a really weird thing to do, the article seems to say, and the Santorums are not only weird to do it, but they’re manipulative as well.

—

Update: Max (very kindly!) reached out to me via Twitter to explain why he chose to use that particular photo.

hi alex–i chose that img for my post b/c its “internet-famous.” not trying to draw a connection, though i see why one might!

—

But could one attempt to discredit or ridicule Santorum’s position as a “family values” candidate – which is the goal here – without mentioning this story? If a candidate holds his family members by the hand and gently nudges them straight into the middle of the arena, placing their personal choices and formerly private family moments on display, do they have no right to call foul when the lions are eventually released? (Metaphors, people!)

It’s not black and white. The Santorums’ decision to highlight their final moments with their dead child makes this anecdote fair game for analysis, debate and criticism. It can and should be called out as being a calculated (and possibly even callous) political move if people view it as such. But mocking the tearful expression of one of his daughters by choosing to feature an unflattering photo, or mocking those who would be offended by the idea of adding family to the mix doesn’t work to prove a point, and it turns what could be a nuanced, intelligent look at the role family plays in politicians’ plays for power into little more than senseless bullying. Think Sarah Palin is a massive tool for parading Trig around at political events and book signings? That’s fine. It has nothing to do with Trig, and everything to do with Palin. Think Sarah Palin is a devoted mother who is doing her part to highlight the struggles of raising a child with Down Syndrome? That’s great, and it also has nothing to do with Trig. His name does not even need to be mentioned in order to make a point either way. The same goes with Santorum: Highlight his actions, by all means, and let those actions speak for themselves without shining a particularly bright and unflattering light on his family members. To do anything else would be to cloud and detract from the issue. After all, sordid details aren’t needed when a story is so sordid that it can offend or damn on its own merits.

h/t Gawker

Ailes owns the papers personally; they have nothing to do with News Corporation. It’s unclear why News Corporation shareholders were paying for security guards to tail former staffers for Ailes’ unrelated vanity projects.

The writers suggest Ailes is obsessed with the papers and their staff–leading at least three employees to quit:

(Ailes) has run the papers with the singularly paranoid and abusive management style he brings to all his projects, resulting in the defection of his hand-picked editor and two top reporters earlier this month after Ailes told them he’d had them followed, and their private conversations surveilled, to catch them saying mean things about him.

A Fox News spokesperson said the company had nothing to do with the upstate papers, and would forward a request for comment from Gawker directly to Ailes. After the report was published, Gawker says it received an email from Elizabeth Ailes calling the tales of tails and spying “rambling allegations (that) are untrue and in fact not even reality based.”

The original report naming Isham claimed as a journalist at ABC News he had cooperated with the FBI. Isham concedes he may have been the person being discussed, but he was no “informant.” Isham worked as an investigative journalist at ABC, and he says he would contact the FBI in the course of stories to attempt to confirm facts. “At no time did I compromise a confidential source with the FBI or anyone else…The suggestion that I was an informant for the FBI is outrageous and untrue. Like every investigative reporter, my job for 25 years has been to check out information and tips from sources.”

In a statement, CBS says it is reviewing the matter internally. “CBS News has strict standards regarding the handling of source material and we are discussing the facts of the allegations with Chris. The events in question are a matter between the FBI and ABC News.”

According to the network, Isham has had a long and distinguished career in network news:

Isham had been the Chief of Investigative Projects for ABC News in New York, where he built an investigative unit recognized as one of the most successful of its kind in television news. Under his leadership, the ABC News Investigative Unit broke hundreds of exclusive reports on a wide range of topics from terrorism to political corruption. The unit built an investigative site called the “Blotter” on ABCNews.com. The “Blotter” broke the Mark Foley story, among many others.

Isham has been recognized with all of the major awards in the broadcast industry including numerous news Emmys, two Columbia DuPont Awards, a Peabody Award, four National Headliners Awards, two Overseas Press Club Awards, the ABA Gavel Award, the Joan Shorenstein Barone Award and three Edward R. Murrow Awards from the Radio Television News Directors Association (RTNDA) and an Investigative Editors and Reporters Award for online journalism.

Isham’s full statement, released by CBS News:

“The suggestion that I was an informant for the FBI is outrageous and untrue. Like every investigative reporter, my job for 25 years has been to check out information and tips from sources. In the heat of the Oklahoma City bombing, it would not be unusual for me or any journalist to run information by a source within the FBI for confirmation or to notify authorities about a pending terrorist attack. This is consistent with the policies at every news organization. But at no time did I compromise a confidential source with the FBI or anyone else. Mr. Cannistraro was not a confidential source, but rather a colleague – a paid consultant to ABC News who had already spoken to the FBI about information he had received.”

Chris Isham

Gawker’s Adrian Chen was first with the news, and has some speculation on what may have been behind the departure:

It seems like boobs may have sparked Franco’s Twitter downfall. Thursday night, Franco tweeted a picture of himself getting rubbed up on by a bunch of naked women for a new short film by Kids writer Harmony Korine. But the next day, he told Politico that “Social media is over.” Why?

“My thought was ‘this is my Twitter. I can do whatever I want.’ But certain companies I work with contacted me about what I was saying.” Today: Franco’s vanished from Twitter.

So many questions, the censorship actually being the least intriguing of them all. Why was James Franco talking to Politico? Sure, he was in Washington to promote a non-profit and as an Ivy League-educated future professor, he actually– unlike most Hollywood types– may have something of merit to say on serious issues. And he did discuss his career with Politico, though a hefty chunk of their coverage seems to be exclusively on his Twitter account, and how he felt that he was being pressured to measure his words on the social networking site, though no word from whom. Given that he was talking to Politico, wrapping up his academic career, and now cleaning up is public image by erasing a sizable amount of it, could it be Franco may be considering a 2012 bid? You may laugh, but remember the initial reactions to the idea of Donald Trump landing on that ballot (or, for that matter, Franco appearing on General Hospital).