We still love you, Nanny

Just in case you missed Larry King Live tonight; Fran Drescher did a nice job wiping the floor with Elizabeth Hasselbeck. While I wasn’t sure what the rehashing of Hasselbeck’s pathetic and teary performance (Emmy!!!) was going to bring to the show, the answer became clear when Drescher wondered out loud “whether this was how she fought with her husband.”

“Why were you crying?” she asked the blonde demon when that bad, bad woman phoned in to defend herself. Hasselbeck did not have an answer for that, but insisted we should all be nice and respectful. Yeah, okay; that’ll happen.

Then, sadly, Fran had to ruin it all by apologizing. Pity. Luckily she looked like she didn't mean it.

The problems McCain is facing this week are simply unending; he’s apparently thrown up his hands in despair in the face of so much media bias. I wonder if there’s anybody in that campaign who has his or her head screwed on right, because, people, if you complain about the media, what do you think that media’s response will be? That’s right; they’ll come at you twice as hard. Not that they have to try very hard, with a political candidate who can’t understand that the border between Iraq and Afghanistan is called “Iran”, and who thinks that the NY Times will publish just anything.

I guess McCain’s circle is getting smaller these days. Maybe he’ll finally stop saying My Friends when he delivers those boring speeches. Now that would make me happy.

And Anderson Cooper, next time you say silly things like “We’re not interested in the sniping between the candidates”, speak for yourself. The sniping is the only reason we’re still watching; how else will we make it until November? McCain’s speeches may be sleep inducing, but his whining is very, very entertaining.

1. Some more bad news for promoters of the idea that no one in their right minds isn't freaking out about climate change, David Evans announces that he's off the wagon in The Australian.

Who's David Evans? He describes himself thusly:  "I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector."

2. The Financial Times Deutschland recently ran an editorial in response to the large number of Obama fans in Europe. Here is a translation on the site Watching America. Included is this lovely quote,

"Obama is often praised for rekindling enthusiasm in democracy in people due to his drawing power. But mass obeisance to a charismatic leader really has little to do with democracy. On the contrary, the sociologist Max Weber describes charismatic domination as a condition that gains no legitimacy either through elections or tradition. The Obama-hype is similar to the month-long dance around the iPhone, except that the Apple cell phone will still have to submit to field trials."

3. Every wonder what the guys from Mystery Science Theatre 3000 are up to? Check out Cinematic Titanic, Riff Trax, and The Film Crew.

4. Surprise! The New York Times is biased against Israel.

"...most headlines concerning attacks are written in the active style when concerning Israel, but in the passive when concerning Arab terrorists, who usually are called 'militants.'"

5. Is your life dull and dreary? Perhaps you should take up a new hobby... like monkey torture!

What great news. There is someone out there who understands why we should not give the famous and wealthy "special privileges" when it comes to the justice system.

The following quotes are from a New York Times article:

“Our country has long turned a blind eye to the misdeeds of our heroes,” Doug Logan wrote in an open letter to President Bush. Logan was named chief executive of the sport’s national governing body last week. “If you have athletic talent or money or fame, the law is applied much differently than if you are slow or poor or an average American trying to get by. At the same time, all sports have for far too long given the benefit of the doubt to its heroes who seem too good to be true, even when common sense indicates they are not."

“To reduce Ms. Jones’s sentence or pardon her would send a horrible message to young people who idolized her, reinforcing the notion that you can cheat and be entitled to get away with it. A pardon would also send the wrong message to the international community. Few things are more globally respected than the Olympic Games, and to pardon one of the biggest frauds perpetuated on the Olympic movement would be nothing less than thumbing our collective noses at the world.”

Those words may be the greatest since the days of Martin Luther King. Well folks, I have a dream...

That Marion Jones will suck it up and serve her more than reasonable sixth month prison sentence and four hundred hours of community service like the rest of the loser criminals in this great nation. I think I may even put this BS up there with the prisoners in Arizona complaining about not having Cable TV. Really?

But wait, there's more. The best part of Logan's letter is when he starts slamming Jones for the liar and fake that she really is.

“With her cheating and lying, Marion Jones did everything she could to violate the principles of track and field and Olympic competition,” Logan wrote. “When she came under scrutiny for doping, she taunted any who doubted her purity, talent and worth ethic. Just as she had succeeded in duping us with her performances, she duped many people into giving her the benefit of the doubt.”\

In the past, we have only come to expect politically correct words of "wisdom" from sports leaders but Doug has just brought the stones to the table. With this letter Doug Logan his single handily proved to the American Public that he is not f#%king around.

Doug Logan, you are my hero.

Baa3 is investment grade, medium risk. It is exactly one notch over junk. For contrast purposes, it is worth noting that Enron was rated above this (Baaa2) unti it collapsed in November 2001.

Senior Unsecured Commercial Paper was downgraded to P-3 from P-2.
Senior Unsecured Regular Bond/Debenture, downgraded to Baa3 from Baa1.
Senior Unsecured Medium-Term Note Program, downgraded to Baa3 from Baa1.
Senior Unsecured Shelf, Downgraded to (P)Baa3 from (P)Baa1.

Were I in a cynical frame of mind, I might ask: Is New York Times Overpriced? Is this perhaps a shorting opportunity?

1. “Stet”

“I am stumped by how to excerpt the language on message boards and blogs.”

2. “Needing a Star, CNBC Made One”

As with any anchor role, looks play their part and Ms. Burnett’s striking features have complemented her hard work, smoothing her ascent. “There is an element of TV that is visual. You can’t deny that,” she says. “But you’re not going to be able to move to the next level without the passion, the contacts, the journalistic drive.”

3. “Conservative Thinkers Think Again”

“Across the spectrum of the right, writers and thinkers have turned their relentless analysis inward, a kind of political EST seminar aimed at self-transformation.”

4. “Los Angeles: Hotel Palomar”

“Picture a W hotel, with lower prices and a sense of humor.”

5. “Pfffffffffft! There Goes the Vacation”

“This summer, the vacation has become a no-win situation: unattainable for those who can’t afford it, dispiriting and unsatisfying for many who can.”

6. “Here’s Looking at Me, Kid”

“But while it has acquired a silly elasticity, it has also acquired rich layers of meaning. For though the word has a derogatory stamp, the very people we label narcissistic often are those who attract as well as repel us.”

7. “Advice Squad”

“If you’re ready to submit to the genre, you must first risk being seen with shiny new titles, since the genre styles itself as a science, complete with routine Copernican breakthroughs. Active listening, for example — ‘I experience you as being angry’ — was once mandatory for couples in trouble; now it’s considered the royal road to divorce. We also used to believe that you shouldn’t wait for a man to sweep you off your feet, when it turns out you should. Bedrock beliefs are debunked as dangerous delusions, only to be rebunked and then revealed as myths yet again. That’s the metacycle of self-help, as efficient as a Ben Franklin day.”

8. “Me and My Girls”

“If I said I was a fat thug who beat up women and sold bad coke, would you like my story? What if instead I wrote that I was a recovered addict who obtained sole custody of my twin girls, got us off welfare and raised them by myself, even though I had a little touch of cancer? Now we’re talking. Both are equally true, but as a member of a self-interpreting species, one that fights to keep disharmony at a remove, I’m inclined to mention my tenderhearted attentions as a single parent before I get around to the fact that I hit their mother when we were together. We tell ourselves that we lie to protect others, but the self usually comes out looking damn good in the process.”

BEREA, Ky. — Berea College, founded 150 years ago to educate freed slaves and “poor white mountaineers,” accepts only applicants from low-income families, and it charges no tuition.

“You can literally come to Berea with nothing but what you can carry, and graduate debt free,” said Joseph P. Bagnoli Jr., the associate provost for enrollment management. “We call it the best education money can’t buy.”

Actually, what buys that education is Berea’s $1.1 billion endowment, which puts the college among the nation’s wealthiest. But unlike most well-endowed colleges, Berea has no football team, coed dorms, hot tubs or climbing walls. Instead, it has a no-frills budget, with food from the college farm, handmade furniture from the college crafts workshops, and 10-hour-a-week campus jobs for every student.

Berea’s approach provides an unusual perspective on the growing debate over whether the wealthiest universities are doing enough for the public good to warrant their tax exemption, or simply hoarding money to serve an elite few. As many elite universities scramble to recruit more low-income students, Berea’s no-tuition model has attracted increasing attention.

With No Frills or Tuition, a College Draws Notice - NYTimes.com.

Lo agradable de almorzar con Paul Auster es que él, después de habernos contado un cuento sencillo, engrandece nuestra existencia y, para colmo, se ofrece a pagarnos la cuenta. Lo tenemos al frente y decimos de dónde viene este señor, quién es, en qué cree, por qué, por qué nos creemos todo lo que nos narra. No hay caso: él está ahí al frente, muy caballero, con sus ojos arabescos y maliciosos, sonriendo. Y nosotros que creíamos (re)conocer a las personas con malas intenciones ahora estamos entre maravillados y horrorizados. El escritor es un hombre normal: en algunos casos, tiene la edad de nuestros padres, se viste casualmente, tiene una afección en su rodilla y anda con un bastón. A ratos, nos causa compasión. El día de mañana nosotros también podríamos tener su vida. Hasta su acento inglés es más comprensible, pulido y simple, más perfecto, que el de la mayoría de los norteamericanos.

La que escribe se excusa para hablar desde su experiencia personal. Permiso: la sencillez en Paul Auster es algo que no he podido descifrar desde hace años. Por eso mismo trataré de hacer una acercamiento básico a esa temática pues el escritor norteamericano ha sido mi obsesión desde años adolescentes, cuando llegó a mis manos El palacio de la Luna. De ahí en adelante me pasó lo que a muchos fanáticos psicóticos: me devoré todos los libros de su pluma que iban apareciendo en el mercado y lo perseguí por el mundo para conocerlo. Lo logré, poco dignamente, pero ése es otro cuento que no viene al caso. Obviamente pretendía hacer mi tesis de licenciatura en él, pero terminé transando por la tragedia griega. ¿Por qué? Porque había empezado a dudar de mi maestro. Ya me había dado cuenta que los personajes de todos sus libros eran iguales y ciertas voces amigas me decían que se parecía mucho a un bestseller. Algunos, de hecho, lo afirmaban sin escrúpulos. A pesar de esto yo era capaz de quemarme a lo bonzo por defender su obra, pero la suspicacia no dejaba de invadirme. Fue en una de esas divagaciones cuando vi la película Smoke. Me fijé en el cuento del final, me compré el libro ilustrado por Isol y pensé.

Me atrevería a decir que la clave de la sencillez en el Cuento de Navidad de Auggie Wren es la verosimilitud, el hecho de que nosotros dejemos entrar al autor en nuestros espacio de credibilidad y le demos tregua para escuchar su historia y hacerla nuestra. El que se digan mentiras con palabras verdaderas, pero que nosotros, a pesar de esto, estemos espectantes y maravillados, es el fuerte de una narración sencilla. Los elementos cotidianos nos hacen sentirnos en casa. Que se hable de un tal Auggie Wren, un hombre cualquiera (“...El extraño hombrecito que usaba un abrigo azul con capucha que me vendía cigarros y revistas; el personaje pícaro y ocurrente que siempre tenía algún comentario gracioso sobre el tiempo o los Mets o los políticos de Washington...” ) quien, pese a no llevar una vida lujosa, “se las arregla”, goza con su proyecto fotográfico y tiene una autoestima que califica para decir que él y no otro conoce la mejor historia de Navidad, es un ejemplo dentro de los muchos para enterarnos que estamos dentro de una historia cotidiana. Eso nos hace querer entender a Auggie, a Paul, al ladrón y a la abuela. Esto porque todos esos personajes se presentan como criatura solas, necesitadas, que pasan el día de Navidad sientiendo compasión de sí mismos. Es el primer paso para que queramos conocer el universo de estos seres humanos y nos unamos a su viaje de enfrentarse a ellos mismos y tomar partido por alguna explicación del sentido de su existencia.
Se nos describe el espacio en donde tiene su tienda Auggie, una Tabaquería en el centro de Brooklyn. Esto es también un índice que denota la atmósfera marginal, de seres y hechos poco o demasiado convencionales. Por otro lado, hay un uso de conceptos similares e incluso repetición de palabras. Conceptos tales como “extraño”, “raro”, “desconcertante” hacen de este relato uno lleno de índices que denotan una atmósfera inusual. Por ejemplo, el narrador expresa su asombro ante las fotografías que eran todas aparentemente idénticas y dice: “... se trataba de lo más extraño y desconcertante que había visto...” Este simple hecho atrae la atención del lector, porque si bien se nos instala en una vida similar a la que nosotros tenemos, hay agentes extraños que nos dicen que hay algo que no funciona del todo bien. Y queremos descubrir qué es eso.

Se nos da a entender simbólicamente que además de narrar la historia principal se está haciendo uso de una historia con carácter personal, desde una perspectiva determinada (como podría ser la lectura de New York o Brooklyn). “Auggie”, dice el narrador, “estaba fotografiando el tiempo, el tiempo natural y el tiempo humano, y lo hacía planteándose una minúscula esquina del mundo y deseando que fuera suya, montando guardia en un espacio que había elegido para él mismo.” El dueño de la tienda de tabaco quiere entender su entorno y cómo el tiempo cobra su parte. A nosotros nos pasa lo mismo con las creaciones del autor norteamericano.

El posterior engaño a la anciana deja abierta la posibilidad que Auggie también esté engañando al escritor, pero el pacto de verosimilitud no se muestra como algo negativo, sino como una forma de complacer, en ambos casos, al interlocutor. Incluso nosotros, lectores, caemos en el mismo juego porque el narrador se llama igual que Auster y posee varias cualidad propias de él (es escritor, fuma puros holandeses, vive en las cercanías de Brooklyn, fue llamado efectivamente por el New York Times para publicar este cuento en Navidad y tuvo las mismas amonestaciones que el narrador para escribirlo.) El creador norteamericano suele usar estos recursos de cercanía a la realidad para enfrascarnos en sus narraciones. Pareciera que goza en instalar personajes como aquel que en la Ciudad de Cristal contesta una llamada telefónica equivocada que pide hablar urgentemente con Paul Auster. Esto nos hace quedarnos estupefactos y decir cómo ¿no nos iban a narrar una historia?, cómo ¿no leímos el otro día que el autor no tenía tanta importancia dentro de una obra de arte? Pues bien, Auster se toma de la mano del receptor y le dice mira, esta es mi historia, escrita desde mi experiencia personal, quizá encuentres algo de mi propia vida entre líneas. Y el amarillismo se asoma con timidez. La diversión, la sencillez en una narración así, también puede estar en la curiosidad, en querer mirar atrás de la puerta cerrada.

Otro hecho es que el ladrón se llama Robert Goodwin. Quizá el apellido (“buen ganar” “buen ganador”, “buena ganancia” quizás) quiera denotar una “buena estrella” una salida de escape pese a las andanzas del ladrón, un corte en el círculo vicioso de la mala racha en la vida del ladrón. Por aquí también va el asunto de la sencillez: pareciera ser que el creador norteamericano nos quiere hablar del sentido de la existencia de un ladronzuelo, pretende simplificar sus andanzas. Buscando esta misma respuesta, Auggie, sin nada que hacer el dia de Navidad, decide ir a devolver la billetera: “Qué diablos, me digo, por qué no hacer algo bueno una vez en la vida.” De este modo nos enteramos que el fotógrafo aficionado tiene dudas respecto a su bondad, o al menos quiere reivindicarse. Auggie se encuentra con la abuela del ladrón y hace una observación: “Tendrá unos ochenta años, quizá noventa, y lo primero que noto es que es ciega.” Esto también es indicio de que la ceguera es sinónimo de engaño, por lo tanto en ese momento se abre –inconscientemente tal vez- la posibilidad de que la historia que está relatando Auggie sea falsa. En el encuentro con la anciana se produce una incomunicación y ella dice: “Sabía que vendrías, Robert. Sabía que no te ibas a olvidar de tu abuelita Ethel en Navidad.” A partir de esta frase el protagonista decide actuar, dando la apertura a lo que vendrá luego cuando responde: “Así es, abuelita Ethel. Vine a verte en Navidad.” Luego sabemos que Auggie se roba una de las cámaras que ha usurpado Goodwin y que, al poco tiempo, regresa con cargo de conciencia a devolvérsela a la abuelita. No la encuentra, hecho que justifica Paul diciendo que de seguro estaba muerta y que no había remordimiento pues le había hecho un bien acompañándola en Navidad. Además le dijo que no hay culpa si es que uno le saca ilegalmente algo a alguien que ya ha robado primero. Es decir, estamos ante una narración sencilla de personajes que no son ni buenos ni malos, una obra anti épica que nos regala la limpieza de gente que no anhela ser héroes ni mártires.

Por último, como conlusión, quería mencionar que el mismo Auster en su obra Brooklyn follies nos recuerda cómo Kafka se apesumbró por una niña que lloraba por su muñeca perdida e intentó arreglar esto por medio de cartas que le enviaba en nombre de su juguete: le contaba que estaba lejos pues quería conocer otros lugares y, finalmente, para cortar la correspondencia, le anunció que se iba a casar, que estaba muy feliz. Así se despidió para siempre y la niña quedó satisfecha con esa explicación. De ahí la necesidad de las narraciones tan simples como una justificación de una muñeca que no aparece. De modo análogo nosotros mismos necesitamos crear un cosmos personal en este aparente caos. Paul Auster ya es formador de formadores, es maestro de narradores y nos enseña cómo estar al filo de un relato barato, cómo exprimir lo universal en lo cotidiano y cómo saber vender una buena historia disfrazada de liviandad. No por nada Wayne Wang, el director de Smoke, sin siquiera saber quién era ese tal Auster, se interesó al leer el cuento en el New York Times.

You may have heard of something called “The Fairness Doctrine” which is a favourite talking point of right-wing radio. Simply put, this was a U.S. FCC regulation requiring broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner deemed by the FCC to be “honest, equitable, and balanced.” Although it didn’t require equal time for opposing views, it did mandate that “contrasting viewpoints” be presented.

While never ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, it did state in a 1969 decision that the doctrine “inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.” With this in mind, various provisions of the Fairness Doctrine were essentially dropped from practice over the years, a process that was accelerated during the Reagan administration, which strongly opposed regulation of all kinds. The doctrine was dealt its most significant blow in 1984 when the SCOTUS decided that the “scarcity rationale” underlying its inception didn’t apply to expanding communications technologies.

In 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine altogether by a 4-0 vote stating that, “the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of it restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.” The FCC further suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional.

Congress attempted to pre-empt the FCC decision by codifying the doctrine, but this legislation was vetoed by President Reagan. Another attempt to revive the doctrine in 1991 was blocked by a threatened veto from President George H.W. Bush. Final repeal of all provisions of the doctrine was accomplished in 2000. Although a handful of legislators have expressed some interest in reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine since that time, none have introduced any bills to do so.

Even though the Fairness Doctrine is now clearly a thing of the past, it lives on! Well, at least in the febrile minds of right-wing pundits and talk radio blowhards who endlessly brandish the potential threat of its resumption under a Democratic administration. There’s really very little foundation for this hysteria given its not seriously considered part of the liberal Democratic agenda, but that seems beside the point. As an ever-present bogeyman that threatens to regulate, mandate or stifle certain types of speech on the airwaves, it’s an invaluable tool for whipping up the deeply ingrained paranoia of the dittoheads.

The reason I mention all this is simply to point out the monumental hypocrisy of the shrieking wingnuts who were so furiously outraged that the New York Times didn’t simply give carte blanche “equal time” to Sen. McCain’s campaign to present his Iraq war policy on the grounds that it wasn’t fair. Some right-wing pundits that I watched on TV last night even intimated that the NYT had a public obligation to air McCain’s views, presumably in the interest of being “fair and balanced” (you know, like Fox News). What specious nonsense.

Amazingly, these same people otherwise ardently believe that broadcasters have the right to complete journalistic freedom and rail against the notion of regulations forcing them to be “equitable” and “balanced” in their discourse. So why then shouldn’t the same laissez-faire spirit apply to a newspaper such as the New York Times when it comes to determining what appears on its editorial pages? If the paper is as hopelessly “liberal” as is claimed by some, well fine then, so be it. Go read the Washington Times or some other dreadful paper instead if you don’t like it.

Moreover, it’s important to note that the NYT didn’t even reject McCain’s submission, let alone “muzzle” him as some would have it, but just said they couldn’t accept the piece as written. In an e-mail to the McCain campaign, Opinion Page Editor David Shipley said he would be “pleased, though, to look at another draft.” He then went on to set out the kind of piece he had in mind:

“Let me suggest an approach. The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans. It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece.”

As Steve Bennen correctly observed, “That’s not a rejection; it’s an invitation.”

Have the people that are so vocal about this alleged affront to all that’s decent and fair, actually read McCain’s piece? If they did, perhaps they failed to note that it’s awful. Here’s Bennen’s take on it:

It has 12 paragraphs — 11 of which attack Obama directly. Obama’s piece focused on Obama’s vision for a sensible U.S. policy towards Iraq. McCain’s submission was a hit-job, focused exclusively on attacking Obama. While Obama’s op-ed mentioned McCain three times, McCain’s op-ed mentioned Obama 10 times by name, and 17 times through pronouns.

The sticking point seems to be over the Times’ request that McCain not only talk about “victory” in Iraq, but actually take a moment to explain what that means. The campaign doesn’t want to do that — and by every indication, it can’t do that. Even being asked to define “success” is, apparently, considered a personal affront.

Obama’s op-ed talked about his Iraq policy. And McCain’s op-ed talked about Obama’s Iraq policy. That may pass for “balance” on Fox News, but some outlets are looking for a little more.
The Times wanted to run a thoughtful, substantive piece from McCain on the war. In fact, by all indications, the Times still wants to run a thoughtful, substantive piece from McCain on the war.

That the McCain campaign can’t bring itself to write one, and is whining about even being asked, speaks volumes about John McCain’s clarity and judgment.

Ah, but that’s the wingers for you. They’re all about “fairness” as long as they get their way on their terms. If not, then like spoiled, willful brats who can’t deal with their selfish desires being frustrated, it’s time to launch into a hellacious emotional tantrum, keening and wailing about how they’re being repressed by the big bad “liberal” media. Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo! How utterly pathetic.

You know what I realized while scanning the news today? In the world of media and marketing, we are all a bunch of haters.

It began while reading this -- Joe Nocera's new NY Times business blog. In his July 14 entry, he spends 586 words berating a PR professional for sending him a not-so-newsworthy pitch.

This pisses me off for a few reasons. The first is obvious. PR is what I do, and understandably I don't like when someone from a well-respected national newspaper trash talks my vocation. Secondly, I'm sort of over the obligatory antagonistic relationship that journalists feel compelled to have with public realtions practitioners. It's boring. They treat us like a "butter face" morning-after girl, when in reality, they wouldn't be able to keep up with the demands of a 24/7 news cycle without our help.

This is not to say that I'm sticking up for the woman who wrote this ill-targeted, kind-of crappy pitch just because I'm in PR. In fact, that's not the case at all. I take my job very seriously and have worked in both journalism and PR, so I can see both sides of the coin. If she wants to be taken seriously by a journalist at a renowned publication, she should probably save the stroller stories for the features editor. Or she could at least proofread.

At any rate, to all other journalists with similar chips on their shoulders about public realtions: Get over it. We have a mutually symbiotic relationship.

Perhaps Nocera's haughty and condescending tone is the part that irks me the most. He says:

"Like most journalists, I have an in-box inundated with p.r. pitches, most of which go directly to the recycle bin, where they belong."

Listen, Joebaby, calling us "flacks" and arguing the the utility of PR pitches just. isn't. helpful. I think one commenter had the right idea with his advice on how Nocera should handle future pitches.

"Hit delete, block or give them feedback. Let’s all pay it forward and think before sending!"

— Posted by Paul Armstrong

That's right, Joe Nocera. One love. One freaking love.

---

Update from PR Blog News: 'Nocera to PR: Screw You.'

New York Times

A friend at the New York Times invited us both on a tour of their Manhattan building and the printing/production facility in Queens.  Familiar with large companies an their clandestine operations was thrown out the window as both buildings are clearly emblazoned with the company name across the side.  I'm an avid NYTimes reader and have so many fond memories reading the Sunday edition with Amber at Herb's (no longer there) in Noe Valley.  It sounds so hipster, but memories I strongly enjoy.

The Manhattan office of the New York Times is the first entirely 'green' building in the city.  The building itself is entirely customizable.  There are window shades that automatically open and close as the sun moves to keep the building cool.  The lighting system will adjust to the specific needs of each department or office.  There are ventilation ducts throughout the building to enable a seamless flow of air.  The artistic nature of the building is reflected in the art pieces that decorate the hallways.  From the flat screen monitors projecting daily images from the paper itself to the Italian leather furniture the interior is something to behold.  Each floor matches the ethos of that department.  For example, the fashion floor is covered in fashion photos from the Times Magazine; the book review department has desks stacked high with submissions and copies of the OED; the science section has even more books including copies of every field of scientific research.  It's a culture that enables the employees to live and work in their famous building.

From there we went to the printing facility in Queens.  The innocuous exterior does not reflect the almost surgical precision happening inside.  Upon entering we walked through (literally) the printing presses from start to finish and marveled at the miles of special track they have for moving thousands of newspapers efficiently.  When warming up the presses they may print a few thousand papers just to make sure the alignment of the colors and printing is correct.  They showed us special codes on the paper that show what press it originated from and how many times that page was updated.  There are even special dots on the front page that depict what edition of that day's paper it is.  The de Vinci code of the NYTimes!

The paper starts in a 9 story warehouse that looks more like the door storage facility from Monster's Inc. than anything else.  Robotic arms move 1.5 ton rolls of paper onto a conveyor belt that unmanned robots lift and load onto the presses.  We were able to walk among these robots as they moved and maneuvered around us as if secretly guided by invisible beings.  The paper is then run through the presses, different sizes depending on what pages of the paper are being printed.  It's not until fully printed that the paper is cut and folded.  At top speed these machines can print 85,000 papers per hour - that is not pages, but entire papers!  Some papers are printed on the evening before distribution, but thicker ones such as the beloved Sunday edition are too big for one run.  Instead part of the paper (i.e. book review section) is printed early and held in reserve on massive wheels.  These reserve sections will be inserted into the rest of the paper when it is finally printed.  All of this is done by massive machines and miles-upon-miles of track that move the papers throughout the factory floor.

Bruce Lee - Enter the Dragon

The following day we stayed with friends in Brooklyn.  They are extreme kung-fu fans and got us seats to an open air showing of Bruce Lee's movie Enter the Dragon.  This was one of the many open air movies showing in Prospect Park.  It was nice having friends who could hook us up with VIP passes meaning we had access to the beer tent and, most importantly, had a seat for the screening.  As the movie began, even in the opening credits, the audience cheered over and over.  I could tell there was something different about this screening but didn't catch on quite as quick as most.  The music was new, updated and could not have possibly have been part of the original score.  It was not.

At this special screening Karsh Kale was mixing a new and updated live score.  In addition Soh Daiko was on stage drumming.  It has to be the most amazing version of any kung-fu movie I have ever seen.  The music matched each scene and reflected the intonation and intent of the original soundtrack.  I left there with a new appreciation for this movie.

From the Phlog:

Today, the front page of the New York Times declares boldly:

“Across the country, women in their prime earning years, struggling with an unfriendly economy, are retreating from the work force, either permanently or for long stretches.

They had piled into jobs in growing numbers since the 1960s. But that stopped happening this decade, and as the nearly seven-year-old recovery gives way to hard times, the retreat is likely to accelerate.”

Initially depressing? Yes. But not quite cause for despair - it doesn’t sound like we’re entering some sort of strange 1950’s timewarp, wherein we’ll need to consult our guide to being a good housewife and learn how to set a dinner table properly, just yet. In fact, it’s the opposite: women are realizing that they deserve better jobs and better pay.

The interesting thing about this article is that, while some women are giving up working to spend time with their kids, for many that’s not the reason (though it makes for a good cover). The current state of the economy has lead to stagnant wages, so many women are quitting to go to school, so they can find a better job, or quitting because they think they deserve a higher-paying job, and they refuse to settle. Even more interesting, the Times says, “the pattern is roughly similar among the well-educated and the less educated, among the married and never married, among mothers with teenage children and those with children under 6, and among white women and black.”

“Joyce Call, 39, of Howell, Mich., near Detroit... took an accounting job in January 2006 at Forming Technologies, which supplies plastic to auto companies.
The pay, $14 an hour — more than $25,000 a year — was acceptable, she said, but not the raises, which came to only 28 cents an hour over two years, or the Christmas bonus: $150 the first year and nothing the second.
‘I was treated poorly,’ she said, explaining her departure.”

So, it’s sort of an unintentional, unorganized strike, and it’s also sort of awesome - women are willing to pull out of the workforce if jobs can’t live up to their standards. But will it work? We’re not experts on the economy, but the prospect of better jobs turning up for women (or men, for that matter) anytime soon seems bleak. But what do we know?

Read: Women Are Now Equal as Victims of Poor Economy

Taken from the New York Times, July 25th 1948!

Taken from the New York Times, November 25th 1977.

It's a quick roundup of five recent blog or Web posts about digital and social media. And it will happen to come on a Tuesday. Hence, the name. (And, some sarcasm).

So, in no particular order, here's the inaugural edition:

1. WordPress on iPhone - Digital Inspiration has the details. I don't have an iPhone. Yet. But since I blog on WordPress.com this is good to know.

2. Dipping the toes in - Valeria Maltoni has an extensive, informative post on Conversation Agent about how and when a company should dip its toes into the world of social media. Read this great post about learning the factors your company should consider before even thinking about a blog or entry into social networking. I particularly like the chart used from eMarketer.com, showing people ages 13-24 spend 51% of their time online on user-generated sites over company-generated sites, versus 35% for ages 25-41. I would bet the 25-41 is actually higher. With nowhere to go but up.

3. Small biz and social media - Spotted in the womma word blog (Word of Mouth Marketing), a link to a story of the implications of social media for small business in Crain's Detroit Business. I found the popularity and support of Twitter at a company referenced in the article to be encouraging.

4. NYT and LinkedIn - I'm a big believer in LinkedIn so this TechCrunch post about its partnership with the New York Times makes sense to help personalize the news to the NYT's readers.

5. Have passion - Saw this in my RSS reader this morning from Phil Gerbyshak's Make It Great!. Great quotes. Good message no matter what line of work you're in: "There's no quitting in the person who wants it bad enough" - Carly Patterson

Yes, The New York Times.

Things are changing.

Taken from the New York Times, January 20th 1908.

Dan Gillerman, scheidender israelischer Botschafter bei der UNO, ist immer für einen Spruch gut. Hier ein paar Highlights aus einem Interview mit der New York Times:

Sie nannten kürzlich Jimmy Carter einen Fanatiker, nachdem er sich mit Khaled Meschal traf, dem Kopf der Hamas. Stimmt es, dass Sie von US-Außenministerium deswegen eine Rüge erhielten?
Es gab weder eine Beschwerde noch eine Rüge. Die einzige Reaktion, die ich erhielt, war positiv.

Die Bush-Administraion, so scheint es, hat nichts getan, um den Friedensprozess im Nahen Osten voranzutreiben. Stimmen Sie dem zu?
Ich denke, der Schlüssel ist die arabische Welt. Die wahre Tragödie der Palästinenser ist, dass sie nicht in der Lage gewesen sind einen Nelson Mandela hervorzubringen. Tagtäglich werden Muslime von Muslimen getötet. Man sieht keinen einzigen muslimischen Führer aufstehen und sagen: „Es reicht.“ Es ist fast so, als lebten wir in einer Welt, in der, wenn Christen Muslime töten, das ein Kreuzzug ist. Wenn Juden Muslime töten, dann ist das ein Massaker. Und wenn Muslime Muslime töten, dann ist das etwas für den Wetterbericht. Niemanden kümmert es.

Sie werden jetzt bei der UNO von Gabriela Shalev abgelöst, einer Jura-Professorin vom Ono Academic College, die keine Erfahrungen in der Diplomatie hat. Kann ein Normalbürger Diplomat sein?
Ich bin sicher, das Gaby das großartig machen wird. Diplomatie ist nichts, das man in der Schule oder im Dienst für das Außenministerium lernen kann. Ein Diplomat ist jemand, der dir sagen kannst du sollst zur Hölle fahren, das aber so tut, dass du dich auf die Reise freust.

Ich werden diesen Typen vermissen!

But, like, what the fuck is this? Dateline? Headline? Byline? Like, since when does the New York Times allow it's blogging contributors to publish stuff that looks just like much of the rest of the real (online) paper? Maybe since LexisNexis started including blogs in its news search?

Okay. Fine: Bloggers are WAY better at breaking news than their analog counterparts. And--fine--maybe it is about time that all of nerddom starts treating these fine folks with the same amount of respect afforded their print-ier counterparts. But couldn't such acceptance only be signaled by some kind of act on the part of some of the more major publications to stop designating the work of some of it's correspondents as different than that of their colleagues. Like, shouldn't they just get rid of that whole blogger-as-a-description-of-some-of-their-employees thingy?

Oh right: Motherfuckers gotta pretend like their still relevant. Well, if any of you fancy newspaper publishers wanna throw some dough my way (you know, like before you're totally out of the stuff), I'd be happy to sign-up for a stint of slightly-less-than-professional reporting.

Now the NYT is being criticized for its handling of the Op-Ed section of the paper. On July 14 the Times published a piece by Sen. Barack Obama outlining his plans for Iraq if he was to become president. McCain then sent in his own piece in response to Obama's - it was not used, siting problems with it's format and way it was written.

Obama's piece discusses Iraqi officials recent support of removing American troops from the country, and his specific plan for how to accomplish that. He includes detailed information, how he differs from McCain, and why he feels ending our presence in Iraq is so important.

McCain's response - submitted to the Drudge Report after it's rejection from the Times - while it lacks the updated details Obama's does, is a genuine response to Obama's piece in that it does offer an opposing view.

The paper sent McCain the following response to his submission:

Dear Mr. Goldfarb,

Thank you for sending me Senator McCain’s essay.

I’d be very eager to publish the senator on the Op-Ed page.

However, I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written. I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft. Let me suggest an approach.

The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.

It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out
how it meshes with his Iraq plan.

I am going to be out of the office next week. If you decide to re-work the draft, please be in touch with Mary Duenwald, the Op-Ed deputy. …

Again, thank you for taking the time to send me the Senator’s draft. I really hope we can find a way to bring this to a happy resolution.

Sincerely,

David Shipley

A writer at the Times also discloses that:

In full disclosure, I worked as the deputy Op-Ed editor under Mr. Shipley during the mid-to-latter part of 2004, and it was policy then not to publish direct responses to Op-Ed columns already in print. Very rarely would a direct counterpoint to an Op-Ed be published; more often the response would be directed to Letters to the Editor. But dueling candidate Op-Eds sometimes rise to a different level, when they go beyond back-and-forth or standard talking points that everyone is familiar with.

That said, I should also say there is an enormous firewall between the editorial/Op-Ed side and the news operation. We on the news side had no input, nor intelligence, per se of Mr. McCain’s article, nor did we know that Mr. Shipley requested revisions. That holds true for all submissions to Op-Ed.

Earlier this year the paper was criticized for it's publication of a story about Sen. John McCain's involvement with a female lobbyist. In addition to hinting at an inappropriate relationship with the woman, the story focused on McCain's involvement with lobbyists and pushing their own agendas. The story was ripped apart by many, one of the reasons being because the majority of the sources for the story were left anonymous.

Thoughts?

Regardless of whether or not <John McCain's essay> had what The New York Times was looking for, the fact that McCain's essay was rejected by the paper's Op-Ed section is quite surprising considering the vulnerability of news sources in the face of ever-present criticisms of media bias. Why would any news source reject an essay from one of the nation's most important and relevant figures on its most polarizing topic?

The fact that Times Editor David Shipley served on the Clinton Administration from 1995-1997 as special assistant and senior speechwriter certainly doesn't help the paper, who has given the Republican Party the benefit of the doubt in an argument that never should have been. 

As someone who will vote for Barack Obama in the upcoming election, I still have sympathy for the plight of our presidential candidates who  (regardless of political affiliation) deserve equal treatment in the press. Of course there are political biases in American media outlets -- to act like there aren't would be ignorant, so I suppose the question that needs to be answered is when will it end?

All these questions have been parading my mind. So when I read this article by Nancy Gibbs of the New York Times, I felt a bit better:

The message, they say, is about integrity, being whole people, heart and soul and body.

You can find the whole article here.