The Lord Could Not Be Reached For Comment

Wolf Blitzer Gets A Dose of Religion from an Atheist

Tug McGraw once said "Ya gotta believe."

Well, not everybody, as Wolf Blitzer found out on CNN yesterday while chatting with a Moore tornado survivor.

Blitzer asked her: "You gotta thank The Lord, right?"
The response, in the nicest way: "I'm actually an atheist."

And she was quick to add: "I don't blame anybody for thanking the Lord."

Blitzer can say amen to that.

Same-Sex Donations Come to the Web

amfAR Makes Sure All Couples Can Reveal Their Charitable Side

Like other charities, amfAR, the AIDS research group, lists titles in a dropdown menu on the form for people making an online donation. But theirs has a twist: For the first time I saw the options "Mr. and Mr." and "Ms. and Ms."

I guess it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise, given that 11 states allow same-sex marriage, with a 12th, Minnesota, joining the roster in August. And given that amfAR's work obviously resonates with the gay population, such an option would appear to be a no-brainer.

Not so fast. I checked some other gay nonprofits to see where they're at. Lambda Legal doesn't have a dropdown menu, but it does have  a space to fill in a partner's name. At Gay Men's Health Crisis, no "Mr. and Mr.," but you can identify with such titles as "Admiral," "Cantor," "Madam," or "Bishop" (good luck with those), while the Human Rights Campaign just wants first and last names. Maybe that's just HRC's way of trying to guilt spouses into donating too.

Oklahoma City Station Shows Why Numbers Matter Following Tornado

KFOR Falls Victim to Running With Faulty Tornado Death Toll

Not sure if it was a question of wanting to be first, but KFOR-TV, the NBC affiliate in Oklahoma City, was a little too jumpy today in wanting to revise the casualty count from the tornado that devastated Moore yesterday.

The station has actually been doing yeoman work over the last 24 hours, as evidenced by what I've seen on the live stream. But this morning, it's website said the death count had gone from 51 to 91, vaguely attributing that jump to the medical examiner's office.

Ordinarily, that should be enough to go on. However, others were not so quick. The Daily Oklahoman was sticking with 51, as did KOCO, the ABC affiliate. That turned out to be the right move, as the death toll was revised downward to 24.

How did that happen. As KFOR briefly explained on its website, officials were double-counting. Fair enough, if somewhat irresponsible on the part of authorities. But before the station reported that number, it should have dug a little deeper. Where did another 40 bodies emerge from? Reporters were continuously on the scene at Plaza Towers elementary school, the scene of the worst devastation. However, no one reported a steady stream of bodies being removed, even though it was apparent the effort there was one of recovery rather than rescue not long after the storm.

These are things that matter. It's of small comfort that not as many people perished in the storm. But it would be even more wrenching for people still looking for loved ones or trying to account for a relative's whereabouts to fear the worst when they hear the death toll take a big jump like that.

We saw this during Katrina and Sandy. It happened after the Boston Marathon bombings. Lots of information being bandied about, but not enough facts to back it up.

I've been there. I know how it is. It's the instinct of any reporter to want to be first. But it's so much more important to be right. It's troubling that in times of crisis, it's a lesson the media needs to keep learning over and over again.

Scott Turow: Shadow Chicago Bureau Chief for The New York Times

Best-Selling Legal Thriller Scribe Nails Down Two Stories in One Day for Gray Lady

Every newspaper relies more heavily on freelancers nowadays. Nature of the beast in the business nowadays, such as it is.

But not every newspaper is able to attract and pay best-selling authors to write for them. Thankfully, The New York Times is not every newspaper.

In today's edition, author-lawyer whirlwind Scott Turow appears not once, but twice. The first appearance is a book review of The Third Coast, which Turow describes as an "engrossing, wide-angled cultural history" of Chicago in the mid-20th century by Thomas Dyja.

Not to be outdone by himself, Turow then appears in the sports section, for an essay on why it was probably a good if not popular idea for Derrick Rose of the Chicago Bulls to not play during the playoffs and not risk coming back too soon from A.C.L. surgery. If that meant the Bulls would succumb to the Miami Heat in the playoffs--and they did--so be it for the longer-term payoff.

Turow, as you can surmise, is from Chicago. Sure, there are other qualified people who can write reviews and essays about all things Windy City. But they haven't written 10 books that have been translated into 20 languages and sold 25 million copies and spawned a few movies.

Nothing like a little star power to keep people from turning the pages so fast.

Benetton B.S.

25-Page Code of Ethics Goes for Naught After Bangladesh Factory Tragedy

The unfolding coverage of the Bangladesh clothing factory collapse that's left about 400 people dead naturally includes coverage of which Western companies were the customers of the manufacturers in this hellhole.

Some companies have owned up to their responsibility, like Primark, a European budget chain that will compensate injured workers, family members of the dead and children whose parents were killed.

The company said: "We have partnered with a local NGO to address the immediate needs of the victims, including the provision of emergency food aid to families. This initiative began in Bangladesh immediately the extent of the disaster became clear."

All well and good if too little, way too late.

Then there is Benetton, which on the day of the tragedy denied any connection to the factory. That is, until labor workers found Benetton-labeled clothes and related paperwork in the charred hulk of the factory.

Well, all of a sudden the united colors of Benetton all turned a version of beet red. Then came a new story. Yes, turns out the Italian retail behemoth had put in one order with a subcontractor, but cut off ties after it determined that "long-standing social, labor and environmental standards" were not being met.

Benetton Group strongly reiterates that none of the manufacturers housed in the collapsed building is a supplier to any of our Group’s brands. We have since established that one of our suppliers had occasionally subcontracted orders to one of these Dhaka-based manufacturers.  Prior to the accident, that manufacturer had already been permanently removed from the list of potential direct or indirect suppliers. In fact, it had come to light that it no longer met the stringent standards that would have made it eligible to even potentially work for us.

Oh.

So, while that's the kind of statement you put out following such a horrible event, what remains unanswered is why that statement emerged five days after the fire. How hard would it have been to determine if there were any links to the company, however attenuated they might be? After news of the collapse spread across the globe--and this is a rare example of a South Asian story that resonates with a U.S. audience--wouldn't it be incumbent upon the company to exercise due diligence not only to get its story straight but, more importantly, to protect the brand and its multi-culti street cred?

After all, Benetton has a 25-page code of ethics on its website. On paper, it's committed to doing the right thing. But when they have to backpedal at such an important moment, the company's  credibility takes a glancing blow no matter how sincere it professes to be about its commitment to human rights and the protection of those who toil for them in rickety deathtraps like the one in Dhaka.

The truth may be ugly. But telling it need not be.

Mike Francesa All Wrong About Jason Collins

No, It's Not Just a "Dramatic Attempt to Sell a Magazine"

Now that the sports story--indeed, the lead story--of the day is the coming out of Jason Collins, it's time for a little backlash. Already.

Teeing it up is WFAN's Mike Francesa, who Deadspin reports is peeved that he even has to talk about it. Francesa, the top-rated radio sports talker in New York, dismissed the first active male player in a major sport in the U.S. revealing in Sports Illustrated that he's gay as little more than a "dramatic attempt to sell a magazine, I guess."

Bad guess, Mike.

Francesa professed to be "honest" to his listeners when he proclaimed that "I really don't care" about the Collins story. Really?

Now, does he not care because he'd rather talk about Tim Tebow getting mercifully 86ed by the Jets, the surprisingly resilient Yankees or the desultory Mets? Or, does he have such an enlightened attitude about gays that he views a player's sexuality as irrelevant to what he does in a game? Or, worse, that he's less than enlightened and gets a case of the skeevies even thinking about a new definition of mano a mano?

Let's, for a brief moment, give Francesa the benefit of the doubt. He doesn't care about someone's sexuality. Roger that. And maybe a lot of his listeners don't either. But they want to talk about it anyway. And they have, dragging Francesa along. As well they should.

Maybe Francesa really doesn't give a hoot about a player's sexuality. It's a safe bet that most people, eventually, will feel the same, if they don't already. Either way, this is huge.
It's a watershed moment in the sports world that has made international headlines. It's an inevitable source of deep pride in the gay community. It also starts a conversation that is both intriguing and needed. And isn't that the essence of sports talk, anyway?

If Francesa doesn't care, he'll need to find a way soon. This is all callers will want to focus on for the next few days. And the stirring, heartfelt story told by Jason Collins is a hell of a lot more interesting than anything the Mets have done lately.

If Brits Don't Hate Jews, New York Times Shows They're Not Too Crazy About Them Either

Two Stories Don't Mince Words Highlighting Views About Jews on Other Side of Pond

I'm not saying that Britain isn't crazy about the Jews. I don't have to. The New York Times has done it for me.

It was striking to read in the most-recent Saturday Profile of John Bercow (below), the speaker in the House of Commons, this passage from reporter Sarah Lyall:

Many members of Parliament hate being lectured or reined in, and Mr. Bercow is not universally popular. Some Conservatives actively loathe him. In describing him, his detractors tend to use words like “cocky,” “pompous” and “ambitious” — the last often code for “Jewish” in an establishment with an undercurrent of anti-Semitic snobbery.

For the uninitiated, that last sentence is striking, even if it is true. Because Lyall's piece is a feature, maybe she was given a little leeway to at least tilt her reporter's hat sideways so she can torch the Tories who view Bercow as a little too uppity for their refined tastes. Even in the Times, it's doubtful that line would've made the cut in a news story. Nonetheless, that kind of candor is refreshing.

Bercow, as Lyall mentions is the son of a used-car salesman turned gypsy-cab driver. That he is not to the manor born may also factor in the antipathy toward him. But by inserting that sentence, she makes clear that the Star of David looms at least as large as the lack of an Eton education.

Then there was an interesting feature in yesterday's sports section about an all-Jewish soccer team in the lower ranks of British football, the London Maccabi Lions. They are also the first club made up solely of Members of the Tribe to win an F.A. Cup match. But, as Sam Borden points out, not everybody is happy for them (surprise, surprise).

Though the Lions have had tremendous success in expanding — there are 26 junior teams and 7 adult teams playing under the club’s umbrella — the response from outsiders is not universally friendly. Intolerance remains a persistent problem in Europe, especially as it pertains to soccer, and Lions teams have not been immune to anti-Semitism.

Often, the worst of the incidents are in the youth games, according to Andy Landesberg, the club’s director of football. But even the first-team Lions have experienced abuse. Gold said there had been relatively few problems this season but smiled when asked how he has instructed his players to deal with overt bigotry.

“We tell them, do it on the field, don’t give in,” Gold said. “Then, afterward, when you’re shaking hands, you can say, ‘You’ve been beaten by a bunch of Jews — how do you feel now?’ ”

In your face, goyim!

Chef Un-Wanted

Anne Burrell Show That Finds New Executive Chefs Cooks Up Wrong Version of Reality

I'm not sure if I want to peel off the lid on some of the shows on Food Network and see what's really cooking. After all, the shows are generally well-produced. And that's the problem.

All those pithy comments you see from diners bitching about their dishes on shows like "Restaurant Stakeout?" Well, let's not forget those utterances are within close proximity of cameras and producers, who just might--and often do--coach those at table five to complain on cue once they get the shot straight. OK, so we've long known that the reality in reality TV is often an adjective and nothing more. Still.

On exhibit now is Chef Wanted, a Food Network show starring Anne Burrell, she of the honking voice and spiky blond hair that would get any kitchen flunked by the Health Department for going without a net. The premise is that a restaurant of some renown, for whatever reason, needs a new executive chef. Burrell brings in four cheftestants to cook their hearts out. One of them is weeded out in each of the first two rounds. Then the last two get a chance to run a dinner service for a night.

Invariably, what we see are gradations of chaos, flop sweat, Burrell alternating between unbearable screaming and tough love, and nervous owners watching their livelihoods go up in flames. Eventually, each episode ends with one of the finalists being crowned the winner, given a chef's coat and subject to effusive hugs from the restaurant staff. Happy ending, right, especially after all of the chefs have told us in the beginning that they "need this job," or that working at Fill in the Blank Bistro and Grill would be their dream. Not so.

Viewers can track what's happened since each episode was filmed on a Food Network blog, which features a recap and video with the winner. And with few exceptions, none of them wind up taking the job or leave soon afterwards. Some just had a change of heart. For others, their current employer showed them some love. Two, who competed for spots at New York eateries, turned thumbs-down--one for family reasons, the other determined that the salary would be eaten up by the cost-of-living. Better to stay an executive sous chef in Philadelphia.

Put aside, for the moment, that this is a horrible way for a restaurant to pick the leader of the kitchen. And, that some of the cheftestants have appeared on other cooking shows, like FN's Chopped and Fox's Hell's Kitchen, whose season 3 winner Rock Harper, won on Chef Wanted, but walked away from a chance to run upscale eatery in Cincinnati to stay at a D.C. nonprofit that trains disadvantaged kids in the culinary arts. Given his less-than-satisfactory, though lucrative experience in the kitchen post-Hell's Kitchen, maybe Harper knew better.

Unsurprisingly, blog readers have been whining about this discrepancy. Many feel the restaurants aren't serious about the premise and just want free publicity. Others rant about how there's no communication about salary, benefits, etc. until afterwards. That leaves many a chef with a way to say thanks, but no thanks.

And while all of this tumult has been occurring on a network-hosted blog, Food Network and Burrell have been quiet about these kerfuffles. Ditto for these racy accusations from a chef who claimed to be a contestant from the first season. As I said, peeling off the lid may not be pretty. Or, just leave the lid on and watch what happens, regardless if it really happened. Even the anonymous chef waxed philosophical about his purported experience:

It was a total cluster fuck and shit show to say the least. The editing blew and the show still pretty much blows as far as I am concerned. However, I had a blast doing it. I won, so I can't bitch about that, and now I have a little "appeared on Food Network cooking show" blurb for my resume.

Bitten By The Hand That Feeds You

Brian Stelter Gets Cover of NYT Magazine, Then Gets Trashed in Daily Paper

There's been a lot of buzz surrounding the supposedly juicy revelations in Top of the Morning, the new book about morning show wars from New York Times TV news whiz kid Brian Stelter.

The book was excerpted in the Times Magazine on Sunday, and I found that piece to be a compelling read. A lot of dirt without too much smarm--at least from Stelter. His numerous unnamed sources are another deal. I have not read the whole book yet, and some reviewers are telling me not to bother. One of them comes from a particularly interesting place--the Times itself.

In today's Times, former Dallas Morning News TV critic Ed Bark reviews the book--the Times, for obvious reasons, goes outside its fold to review books written by its staffers--and finds Stelter and his prose very much lacking.

"Mr. Stelter seems to throw out verbiage mainly for his own amusement. His run-on riffs reach the point where he himself ends one big gulp by mentioning a list “longer even than this sentence.”

As sentences go, it’s a veritable life imprisonment, lasting for 109 words. That’s three words more than the mood-setting second sentence of this book, in which Mr. Bell is said to experience “a growing warmth that spread through his broad bosom like the aftereffect of a double jigger of single-malt scotch,” etc."

 

Ouch. So give the Times credit for allowing for an opposing view about one of its wunderkinds on its own pages. Bark is not alone in his sentiments.

 

Henry Goldblatt in Entertainment Weekly graded Top of the Morning with a "C," who accuses Stelter of having a vendetta against Matt Lauer--who wouldn't talk to Stelter--over how he treated Ann Curry during the "Today" mess that led to her ouster (Curry also clammed up). But:

 

"Just as disturbing are Stelter’s Hemingwayesque sentences (in length, not substance), hackneyed analogies (Today is Coke! Good Morning America is Pepsi!), and antipathy for the medium he covers (“Wisely — not a word you will see all that often in a book about television…”).

 

Then there's Andy Lewis in The Hollywood Reporter , who dings Stelter for his "purple prose" and "love of gossip."

Maybe the book isn't all it's cracked up to be. Or, maybe there are a lot of people in the biz who are jealous of Stelter, who founded a well-read blog--TV Newser--at an impossibly young age, and at just 27, files more stories to the Times than just about any other reporter. That could be the topic for another book, though not one Stelter should think about writing.

 

 

USA Today Makes Strange Advertising Bedfellow

Daily News Takes the Money Anyway For Its Work-In-Progress Mobile Site

As I was scanning the mobile version of the (N.Y.) Daily News, what should be viewed as an unusual banner ad kept popping up at the bottom, even in these desperation-driven times in the troubled realm of newspaper advertising.

It was there that readers were offered an opportunity to click to get a discounted subscription for USA Today for $10 a month. In other words, a newspaper selling ads for another newspaper.

Granted, the degree of overlap between a typical Daily News reader and one who might regularly scroll USA Today is likely limited. And if someone is reading the News on an Android, chances are better than even they're not plunking down a George for the real thing. But even if it's not Macy's reluctantly taking ads for Gimbel's (as he seriously dates himself), that the News or whichever digital ad behemoth it uses to sell banners would cough up real estate on its home page to a putative rival is a bit unseemly and certainly sad.

What the News should be working on more is the user-unfriendliness of its mobile incarnation. Exactly what is the real difference between the "Metro View" and "America" sections, anyway? Not much, unless you scroll to the borough tabs in the former. Ah, the tabs. For the city, that means Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and, uh, "Uptown." Apparently, the News has no readers in Manhattan below 125th Street. Who knew?

Only thing: if you're going to have sections, you have to do a better job of restocking the shelves and removing the journalistic equivalent of moldy bread. On April 10, we should not still be seeing a March 31 story about a dead Columbia co-ed prominently featured.

While you're at it Newsies, make those tabs a little easier to the touch. I felt like all thumbs pressing on the "Mets" tab in the sports section and stories about the Knicks kept coming up. And why not also include the sports columnists--some of the best in the biz--in the sports section, rather than just lumping them in with the paper's other colmunists in yet another section. The sports columnists are destination reading, but you shouldn't have to go on a maddening journey to find them.

If making people work for their free content is a way for the News to gently encourage people to buy the paper, it won't work. At least not as long as the New York Post site is free. And I haven't seen any USA Today ads there.

Yet.

A Delta Doozy?

Why You Need to Check Your Quotes Before Hitting the Send Button

I caught up to a nice story on the USA Today "Today in the Sky" blog about the retirement of Delta's senior pilot who, among his many accomplishments, never missed a day of work in 45 years at the airline. The blog post was actually an AP dispatch, which had rewritten a story from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

But this human-interest slice of life about how Cal Flanigan got to live his dreamis is muddied by a quote that is questionable at best. Questionable in that it's hard to believe that the speaker actually meant to say what he said if he said it that way at all. Questionable in that the reporter did not challenge him about what he said. And questionable that the AP and, by extension USA Today, repurposed it verbatim.

Flanigan is “very humble — he epitomizes the principles of servant leadership,” the AJC quotes Delta senior VP of flight operations Steve Dickson as saying.

Servant? The implications of that word are especially troubling, given that Flanigan happens to be black and worked for an airline based in a city with a troubled civil-rights history. Yet, it was an airline that also gave him a shot in the cockpit in 1976, after he came through the ranks as a mechanic.

A guy like Flanigan, who's logged more than 12.5 million miles and flown to six continents would never be mistaken for a servant. Delta CEO Richard Anderson called Flanigan a "hero of mine." In other words, not a servant.

Because of that, I find it hard to believe Dickson said what he is quoted as saying. Let's swap out servant for "service," and you have a quote that's not only better, but probably more accurate. Either way, dicey words should prompt red flags, which at least one reporter and several editors somehow ignored.

Don't Forget About Me, NYT Paywall

How Not To Be Annoying While Monetizing Your Website

It's one thing to have a paywall on your website. It's another to be obnoxious about that.

So it has become with The New York Times. When I have logged on for the first time over the last three days, it kindly but firmly tells me I have reached my free article limit. Only thing: I haven't.

I have been a Times print subscriber going on a bajillion years now, so I have unlimited access to every friggin' thing the paper has published. So, periodically it forgets about my vaunted status and has me sign in again. No big whoop, except now it's having a senior moment on a regular basis. I log in and check the "remember me" box. Except it doesn't.

Look, I know the Times needs all the money it can lay its mitts on nowadays, especially when that fire sale of the Boston Globe has failed to ignite much interest from the deep-pocketed set. In the meantime, give props to your most-loyal peeps and don't hassle them on the home page.

Sports Illustrated Slams Sports Illustrated (Sort Of)

Alyssa Miller Swimsuit Issue Kerfuffle Makes It to SI.com

 Admittedly, I'm no expert about how external links populate websites. But you have to think that someone on a host site is at least minding the store to see what winds up on the home page.

That crossed my mind this morning while scrolling through the baseball news in the Truth & Rumors section on SportsIllustrated.com. As is the norm on innumerable sites, in addition to SI content, there is also an "Around the Web" section at the bottom of blog posts. Attached to one was a link from TheGloss.com, a cheeky blog that purports to prove that "wit and sophistication go together like oysters and champagne. You’ll never find a “10 Ways to Please Your Man” article on TheGloss; we would rather debate everything from Lagerfeld to 'cute' jealousy."

Whatever.

The item in question was about how swimsuit issue Alyssa Miller threw up and was forced to wax it all (literally) because she was covered in body paint for a shoot that lasted 15 hours.

So, not a big biggie, although Miller might have disagreed after the wax job and having her body painted oh so delicately. Still, it's one of those incidents that don't reflect well on the SI brand. amd the type of post that never should have made it onto SI.com, however inconspicuous it might have been.

N.Y. Times Changes Rating System (Again) for Suburban Restaurants

When "Don't Miss" Was Anything But

For those of you scoring at home, The New York Times has tweaked how it rates suburban restaurants in its Sunday Metropolitan section.
Gone are the four categories of Don't Bother (never saw one of those in Westchester), O.K. (every now and then), Worth It (more often than not) and Don't Miss (if only).
Instead, we now have five possibilities to digest, the more prosaic "Poor, Fair, Good, Very Good and Excellent." In other words, back to where we were. Which is actually a good thing.
At least dining in Westchester, where most of my meals outside of the city are taken, there needs to be more of a distinction between "Worth It" restaurants and "Don't Miss," which should be akin to transcendant and memorable for all the right reasons. If "Don't Miss," was not quite the equivalent of a four-star rating in the Dining Section on Wednesday, it should come pretty damn close.
Unfortunately, there are virtually no restaurants in Westchester that can even aspire to fitting that category, with the exception of Blue Hill at Stone Barns, consistently one of my favorite restaurant experiences anywhere.
Many other name Westchester eateries, among them Le Panetiere, and the Bedford Post Inn, are overpriced contenders rather than pretenders. That doesn't mean to say you can't get a great meal in the county. But most of the better restaurants fall into the "very good" category, sometimes verging on excellent without quite arriving there.
Hence, my thumbs-up for the new ratings, which will also allow reviewers to avoid severely overpraising restaurants, as Emily DeNitto shamefully did when she reviewed Hudson at Haymount House in July. The restaurant no doubt filled more tables than it deserved to because of the breathless review. We took the bait in large part because of the write-up Instead, we encountered shoddy service, small portions and high prices. You can read my Trip Advisor review of Haymount House here.
Suffice to say, the words "Don't Miss" are absent.

"60 Minutes Sports" A Missed Opportunity?

A Little Too Much Deja Vu on View

Having been a big fan of the "60 Minutes" franchise for decades, the idea of lending that moniker to a sports program is intriguing, to say the least.
And "60 Minutes Sports," at least on paper, looks to be an attempt by Showtime to keep close to HBO and its excellent "Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel."
But Gumbel has nothing to worry about, at least judging by the first edition of "60 Sports."
Maybe I'm just a "60 Minutes" dweeb, but if you watch the flagship show and "Sports," there's an instant familiarity. That's because large chunks of two of the stories on "Sports," also appeared on Sunday nights on sister network CBS.

"Sports" had a piece that was largely a profile of Travis Tygart, head of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency and his years-long crusade to prove Lance Armstrong was a cheat. The package, fronted by Scott Pelley, was fine for what it was. But most of it was recycled last week on Sunday for a piece that was ostensibly about how Tygart didn't believe Armstrong told Oprah Winfrey the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth for his two-part interview on OWN.
However, all the piece contained was a couple of new bytes with Tygart. The rest was in the can from "Sports."

Similarly, last month "60 Minutes" did a piece on the Barcelona soccer team and its extreme dominance of the sport. A big reason is Lionel Messi, far and away the best player on the planet. We saw the press-shy Messi chat for a bit, then Bob Simon told us that a bigger profile of Messi would appear on "Sports." Swell. Yet, both pieces share at least five minutes of footage. You're left waiting for something new to be said. It is, but it takes too long to emerge.

Sure, not everyone who watches one program watches the other. Why reinvent the wheel, etc. I get it. Nonetheless, I suspect there is a significant overlap of audiences, and by broadcasting the companion pieces so close together, you're inevitably left wondering why you're sitting through what is essentially a repeat. Which is a shame, as it's still quality TV.

"Sports" also whiffed in its debut by having Lara Logan tell us "from time to time" the show will air "classics," in other words, repeats of favorite stories. Fine, there are some great pieces that deserve new audiences. But why do that for the program's debut? It's almost as if the producers couldn't come up with enough pieces in time for air, so they pulled one out of the closet at the last minute.

That's not what happened, of course, but the 2011 piece on free solo climber Alex Honnold could have waited. This is a new program, which should have content to match. Given that it's only on once a month that's not too much to ask.

You can see whether "60 Minutes" shakes off its shaky debut when it airs a new episode on Wednesday. Expect a heavy emphasis on football, three days after CBS airs the Super Bowl.

Experience Counts for WCBS, After Word of Ed Koch Death

All-News Station Has Some Really Veteran Reporters Talk About Hizzoner

When news broke during morning drive that former New York mayor/icon Ed Koch died overnight, the Big Apple media understandably went into hyper-drive. The papers hit send on the obits that were already in the can, including this winner from Bob McFadden at the Times.

But WCBS radio was in a rare position among media outlets, in that it has two reporters still on staff who covered Koch. Irene Cornell, left, now north of 80, has been at the station since 1970. Rich Lamb, who knows every nook and cranny at City Hall, has been with the station since 1978. Their first-person accounts about Koch helped elevate WCBS' coverage beyond reporting the news of his passing and the requisite statements from Mayor Bloomberg and the like. It also enabled WCBS to go all Koch, all the time, even to the point where it busted the hourly network newscast. And they were still at it in the 10 o'clock hour.

Not that WCBS has a monopoly on old-timers at the mic. The other all-news station, WINS, has Stan Brooks who has been with the station since 1962--when it was still a Top 40 station. Officially, he's been a City Hall reporter, though he's long been a multi-trick pony. The stories he can tell about Koch--and has. Brooks is a spry 85 and just as irrepressible as Koch was, until recently.

We've often heard how reporting is a young person's game. That's often true in the modern news world. But New York radio benefits immeasurably from these three blissful exceptions, esepcially on a day like this.

Good Night and Good Luck, Newsweek. You'll Need It

Shift to Digital Only Could Presage Fade to Black a Lot Sooner Than Later

Thanks to premiums from public radio pledge drives, my Newsweek subscription runs for another two years. Whether the magazine has another two years in it is another question.

The final print edition of the venerable magazine has arrived. The website does a nice job of saying goodbye to its print self. It was quite a run.

And now we all need to read it online. But do we really? And will we? Scuttling the print edition made financial sense, given the tsunami of red ink that regularly flowed past Tina Brown's office. But to more of us, the magazine had long since ceased its reason for being, sad as that is to contemplate.

I'm actually not a hater. A lot of media pundits took pride in dumping on Newsweek, as unfair as it was, at times, maddeningly easy to do so.

A look at the Dec. 17 issue, with the "Who Was Jesus?" cover showed a magazine trying to find its way. There were some striking two-page photos (Les Miserables stars, combing through wreckage of Filipino typhoon, First Family at the tree lighting). There were two, decent quick-read columns from Paul Begala and David Frum.

There were also some nice-to-read-if-you-have-time features on foods that are vulnerable because of climate change ("The Pasta Crisis") and the possible bubble in the runaway prices for fine art ("The Art World's Spending Spree").

In other words, all right for what it was, but nothing that you absolutely had to have or couldn't get anywhere else, more or less. And there wasn't much of it. The magazine topped out at 56 pages. Yikes.

So, will things be any better for Newsweek online? Doubtful at best. If you thought the competition was brutal at the newsstand, just wait, Tina. You can hope, but certainly can't assume, that people will park themselves and their iPad to read the "magazine."  There's simply not enough time or bandwidth. What truly ails Newsweek is not that fewer people were buying the print edition. What ails Newsweek is Newsweek. If it's not a must read, it won't be read.

Brown and what's left of the staff need to give us a reason to keep coming back every week. She needs even more reasons to get people to sign up for the first time. Double ditto for advertisers. So far, we've heard little about how that'll be accomplished. I'm not sure Brown has it in her to pull it off, but I doubt anyone does.

Journal-News Takes Unwarranted Flak over Gun Map

Wheezing Gannett Paper Shows Signs of Life Fulfilling Its Journalistic Mission

You know it's a slow week when a newspaper becomes news. And you know it's a really slow week when that newspaper is The Journal-News, the underachieving (to put it charitably) Gannett property serving New York's northern suburbs (and a former employer of mine from way back when).
The J-N fell into the media's crosshairs this week following publication of an intriguing map that showed readers the names and addresses of registered gun owners in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties.
All in all, a pretty cool idea for a paper that's usually devoid of inspiration. Not surprisingly, lots of folks are in a tizzy over this information, and not just the nattering nabobs of negativism at the NRA.
While waiting for my car to be fixed this morning, the TV in the waiting room was turned to Fox & Friends, where substitute co-host Clayton Moore, who will never be mistaken for a rocket scientist, just shook his head and said it's "wrong" what the paper did. His compadres on the couch, Kelly Wright and Juliet Huddy were also doing their "tsks, tsks" and expressing as much outrage as they could muster without a second cup of coffee.
That's been typical of much of the coverage I've seen, which includes useless person-on-the-street interviews that make no mention of the First Amendment or public record laws.
The value of this information is certainly arguable. At best, the map is an interesting sidebar to Newtown. But the fact that some of your friends and neighbors are legally exercising their Second Amendment rights as currently interpreted by the courts is not terribly newsworthy in an of itself.
And the Journal-News could have handled the contretemps a little better. I'm not sure what was the point of the note attached to the article accompanying the map, which mentioned that reporter Dwight Worley, who wrote the piece, "owns a Smith & Wesson 686 .357 Magnum and has had a residence permit in New York City for that weapon since February 2011."
Bully for Dwight. But so what? Does that make him any more qualified to report the story? Nah. Go back into the J-N archives and take a look at the gun control stories I wrote. In 1988. And the last gun I fired was at the riflery range in summer camp.
Also, why is the paper not being more forceful in responding to the reaction to the pece? It has, alternately, either not commented or issued mealy-mouthed canned statements, like this one from publisher Janet Hasson:
“We knew publication of the database (as well as the accompanying article providing context) would be controversial. But we felt sharing information about gun permits in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown shootings.”

That's the best you can do, Janet? Given that she's never worked as a reporter., maybe it is.

I Was Rooked by Nook

You Took That Book, Says Nook. No, Take a Look. Don't Treat Me Like a Crook

I'm not an early adopter. I held on to my LPs for dear life (I actually still have most of them) even after record stores (remember them?) made CDs the medium of choice. I took people at their word when they told me how much they loved that first-generation iPod (you know the one that cost about a C-note for each of its 4 gigs).
However, when the Nook Color hit stores a couple of years ago, I was smitten and took advantage of a special discount to bestow upon myself an early Channukah present. Since then, it's been a worthy compact companion whenever I hit the road. Having some books, magazines, apps and Wi-Fi in one attractive package was a treat. The iPad could wait. This worked for me, and for a lot less money.
Until....
A couple of weeks ago, I decided to go shopping from the comfort of my bedroom in search of a new read. After subjecting my wife to some harrumphing over the price of new e-books, I came upon a $2.99 deal for "Love Me, Hate Me," a book by Jeff Pearlman about Barry Bonds. I confirmed the download with the press of a button and when I went to check my bookshelf, there it was, as usual. Except, it had been joined by another book I had never heard of, had never seen and never ordered called "Dancers Among Us: A Celebration of Every Day."
And, as it turns out, a book for which I was charged $10.19.
Now I'm sure it's a swell book. But I don't want it. Barnes & Noble is free to take it back. If only.
The next morning, I go to www.Nook.com to find out how to no longer have dancers among my Nook. I thought I hit paydirt under the FAQs:

Is there a refund for books, periodicals or apps? If I accidentally purchased the wrong book, can I return it?

Please contact customer service at 1-800-THE-BOOK (1-800-843-2665).

 

I did as I was told. Nobody could give me an answer. My misfortune. Turns out, it was Pass the Buck Day at what B&N labels customer service.

Instead, I turned to another tactic I've had success with: Nook Customer Service has its own Twitter feed, where I blithely assume empowered reps toil away to prove their mettle when Nook spews out the wrong book. In under 140 characters, I explain my plight, and was told to email "Dan" and relay him my tale of woe.

Turns out "Dan" was too busy, so I hear from "James." After he gets some additional info, he writes back to inform me that per the T&Cs, I am not entitled to a refund and attempts to prove he's right by sending me link to the UK Nook page, which doesn't open. Nor did James, despite me providing my address, realize that I was writing from the U.S. Nonetheless, he "apologised for any inconvenience." As for where that language is on the U.S. version of the home page, I'm still looking.

Blimey!

So, I write back to James, whose tea time I apparently disturbed, that I deserved more than a generic response, not to mention a link that works. He wrote back:
 

We have answered your email regarding your individual account and as previously stated we are unable to issue a refund. We will pass along your feedback to the proper department regarding.

 

That's exactly what he wrote. James couldn't be bothered to finish the sentence.

I have only so much fight in me over $10.19, though a challenge to American Express might be in order. You'd think, though, the Nookies would give me the benefit of the doubt, or at least equivalent of a get-out-of-jail free card for a loyal customer. But no.

To put a sour cherry on top of all this nonsense, I get an email last night that the Nook customer service Twitter lunkheads had favorited my initial message: "Instead of passing the buck on fone, how about resolving refund for downloaded book never ordered?"

And that's one of your favorite tweets, why, old chaps?

Dan and James and Co. must have been having a real bad day. Judging by my experience, one of many.
 

UPDATE: The morning after I posted the blog, I received an email from Nook that I would be receiving a refund. That was followed by another email bestowing upon me a $10 gift card. That was followed by another email from a Nook rep apologizing (with a z) and insisting that this was not representative of the customer service they strive for. I'll take him at his word. It's nice the company did what they did, but it shouldn't have taken a rant on a blog for it to happen.

News Flash: Reporters Are Human

The Aftermath of Sandy Begins to Take Its Toll

I remember watching the coverage after Katrina and seeing reporters and anchors getting royally pissed off at officials they interviewed as they watched the chaos unfold in New Orleans.

So far, none of that in the aftermath of Sandy, though it helps that "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie" isn't on call at FEMA, along with governors in three states and Mayor Mike in NYC giving regular briefings and giving the impression of staying on top of the devastation to the extent possible.

It was interesting, then, to see an exchange a little while ago on WNBC-TV, where anchors Tom Llamas and Erica Tarantal were doing a Q-and-A with crusty veteran New Jersey reporter Brian Thompson (aobve). They asked him to reflect on what he's seen after working 18 hours straight.

Thompson had spent the morning reporting from Seaside Heights (the home of "Jersey Shore," BTW), which took more than a glancing blow from Sandy. Thompson (literally) took off his reporter's hat to reflect on the preceding hours and began to get emotional, but not because of the devastation he had bore witness to, but because it was his idea to head down there, and he and his crew were trapped there duirng some anxious moments. Not only that, he had encouraged another reporter, Brynn Gingras and her crew to come down there. They were forced to retreat to a hotel, after their live truck was nearly consumed by flood waters.

Thompson got emotional, saying he felt guilty about putting those folks in harm's way. Everyone's OK, but Thompson knows it could have gone in a different direction. And while TV crews are devoted in these situations to going out so we don't have to, it's not worth dying for. Just because you're driving around in an SUV with a satellite dish and microwave connection doesn't make you invincible. It's a lesson worth remembering, though I have an impression that when the next major natural disaster strikes, news directors and those whom they dispatch probably will.

A Switcheroo by Yahoo

Another Homepage Extreme Makeover

Even though I had already downed two large cups of strong Zabar's Royale Blend this morning, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the new design of the Yahoo homepage. This is a big deal, as it's always been what's opened up first, at least on my home PCs ever since I started dabbling with this Interweb thing.

I actually do like having the weather on the top right with a three-day forecast, rather than having to click on a link in a column to the left. However, I have no need nor a desire to have astrology info right below.

More importantly, right down the middle of the page, where categories of stories had been beyond the multimedia stories at the top, there is now just a giant mishmash of everything grouped under "top stories."

You can click a link to the left to see stories in four categories (World News, Entertainment, Sports and Business), but gone is a link to local news, among other categories. True, you can recreate some of that in an RSS feed, but no matter how hard I try, I too often forget to go to My Yahoo for that, though when I do it can be useful (there I said it, RSS feeds are swell, but have often do you really peruse them? Be honest now).

My hope is there's a way to rearrange things so that you can make the page more user-friendly for each of us. But it does not appear Yahoo is offering a road map on how to do that. Or maybe I just need another mug of coffee.

A Presumptuous Name for WSJ Real Estate Section

Or Maybe I'm Just the Wrong Demographic

The Wall Street Journal debuted its semi-vaunted real estate section on Friday. So you won't miss it, the paper went for broke and named it Mansion, ostensibly in tribute to the Journal's ultra-monied readers. Or, at least, a critical mass of the readers the paper wants to have.

No doubt, the section was created with advertisers in mind--and ads do take up the majority of the section's 16 pages. Many of them do tout pricey residences of one sort or another, including the aforementioned mansions. Looking for items on mortgage trends or the trials and tribulations of finding the right space, like The New York Times does weekly with The Hunt column in its real estate section (because we really do need to know how those coeds snared that bargain sixth-floor walkup in Alphabet City). Look elsewhere. The Journal assumes its readers don't need to bother themselves with such twaddle. Hell, they pay cash. Mortgages are for pussies.

Still, even for the Journal, Mansions sounds more than a tad presumptuous. Then again, Split-Level Colonial or One-Bedroom Co-Op doesn't quite have the same cache.

Spinster School Marm Running for Senate?

Hideous Photo of Elizabeth Warren Doesn't Help Her Cause

Out of all of the photos The New York Times could have showed of Elizabeth Warren from last night's DNC festivities, surely they could have found a better one than the clunker by Todd Heisler the desk slapped on page A-16.

Warren, the Massachusetts Senate candidate and a good-looking woman to boot, comes off looking she's off to prep for her 42nd year teaching in a one-room schoolhouse in northern Maine circa 1966 before she goes home to take care of her four cats.

Which isn't to say Heisler took a bad photograph. It's just one that makes Warren look bad. Better was one found on the website of Warren speaking, taken by Doug Mills.

Now that's what I call a candidate.

Man In the News Profile Weird Excuse for an Obama Elegy

Peter Baker Does in New York Times Exactly What Beat Reporters Aren't Supposed to Do

There are the accepted rules of journalism. Then there are The New York Times rules.

The Times rules allow its beat reporters to go off the reservation. They will find occasion to offer analysis, teeter on offering a viewpoint or just plain turn into a scold on a topic they are not happy about.

Such is the case with this morning's A-1 profile by Peter Baker headlined "4 Years Later, a President is Scarred but Still Confident." Baker gets a jump from the front page to a full open page to climb into Obama's brain and let us know thoughts are lurking inside. It's a strange, even dangerous place for a White House beat reporter to be. But Baker is undeterred, to mixed results.

The article reads like a magazine takeout. There are the assorted talking heads, named and unnamed, to provide Baker with the requisite reinforcement for his talking points, which center on how Obama was forced to change his game plan, even if he was not able to change himself.

This is a president who has yet to realize the lofty expectations that propelled him from obscurity to the Oval Office, whose idealism or naïveté or hubris has been tempered by four years in the fires. Long after the messiah jokes vanished, the oh-so-mortal Barack Hussein Obama is left to make the case that while progress is slow, he is taking America to a better place — and that he will be a better president over the next four years.


If Denver was all about promise, Charlotte is all about patience. Whether Americans grant the 44th president a four-year extension will depend in part on his ability to reconcile the heady aspirations of 2008 with the messy results of the four years that followed.

If this doesn't sound like something a news reporter would write, that's because it's not. But that's the point, And it's not necessarily a good thing. By authoring such a piece, Baker has essentially played his hand with the White House. The portrait of Obama is at times unflattering, severe and fleetingly sympathetic. But the thin skins in the West Wing are unlikely to take kindly to this portrait. Which could compromise Baker's ability to be as effective in his cubicle as he now is.

If Mr. Obama has changed over his presidency, in part it suggests Americans never really knew him to begin with. Where conservatives see an unremitting liberal, supporters on the left wish he were. To mystified admirers, it is unrequited love. When they read in David Maraniss’s biography of how a girlfriend told him, “I love you,” only to have him reply, “Thank you,” some joked they knew how she felt.


On the hustings, Mr. Obama is more careful to reply in kind. When someone shouts out, “We love you,” he calls out, “I love you back.” But sometimes it does not feel that way. His has become a bloodless presidency, built on cold calculations, not quixotic crusades.

An article with the above passages can certainly have a place in the Times, or any other worthy newspaper. However, the enterprise becomes more dubious when it's authored by a reporter whose tendencies should not be betrayed by his dispatches. Here, Baker has opened a door and let us have a look at something we weren't supposed to see.

You Mean Everything In Star Magazine Isn't Accurate?

JusJen Engagement Has Gossip Rag Ducking for Cover

Like you, I am over the moon that Jennifer Aniston has once again found true love, this time in the arms of actor/writer Justin Theroux. The couple's reps breathlessly announced their engagement yesterday. So now, Theroux has officially consigned himself to a life where he can do little more than pee in private without fear of a paparazzi sticking a telephoto lens in his mug.

Ever since Aniston first hooked up with Brad Pitt, the gossip mongers at American Media, which publishes the Star, the National Enquirer, the Globe, etc., have chronicled her every move. If a good-looking guy so much as got within three feet of her, he was already being romantically linked to Aniston, who, by the way, should have also given birth to twins by now to fulfill the wishful thinking of Star copy editors.

Full disclosure: we get the Star at home (cheap subscription, great for reading on the can, yada yada). The latest issue has a headline blaring: "It's Over," in a reference to JusJen. Apparently, Theroux was pining just a little too hard for an old flame.

Apparently not.

Don't bother looking for this faux pas on line. Star has integrated its web offerings on RadarOnline, which provides ample cover to hide the "exclusives" that come up a crapper. Radar has its own engagement quickie just to get on the board.

I know, my naivete shocks even me. In this day and age, I would have thought these magazines would try to do at least a little fact-checking to avoid the wrath of vengeful lawyers. And, no doubt, Star and its ilk get it right sometimes. Still, so much of what is in these mags amount to little more than trial balloons. Stories attributed to "close friends" and "insiders" may be little more than a manicurist assistant who may have overheard one end of a phone conversation and then calls Star looking for a quick payday.

Actually, if you're looking for some more solid journalism I place more faith in the dogged reporting Radar has been doing on Jerry Sandusky. That coverage has been quarterbacked by David Perel, Radar's managing editor and the former executive editor of the Enquirer (and a former colleague of mine at the University of Maryland newspaper The Diamondback). The latest allegation is that Sandusky and a Penn State booster may have abused a boy on a private plane. At the very least, I have faith that Perel knows how to report a story, not merely write one.

Brian Ross: When Sorry Is Enough

But Ben Sherwood Takes Him Out to the Woodshed Nonetheless

"When we make a mistake, we own it..."

Such are the words from ABC News prexy Ben Sherwood, when talking about the egg laid by Brian Ross last week, when he said that Aurora gunman James Holmes was a member of the Tea Party.

Of course, it was a Jim Holmes of Aurora on the Tea Party site, just not that Holmes. Because, Holmes is such an uncommon name so how could Ross not have assumed it was the same guy. Oopsie.

Sherwood characterized the unintended character assassination at the Television Critics Association summer tour as an "unfortunate mistake," to put it extremely mildly.

As The Wrap reported Sherwood saying:

"I challenge the assumption that 'more mistakes are getting mad. We do live in a totally different news cycle, and that's one of the reasons why we want to learn from an episode like that Brian Ross episode and make sure that our procedurals and protocols are as absolutely strong as they can be, and that everybody understands that the reputation of ABC News is on the line."

Darn tootin'.

Still, this says a lot about the star system at ABC. Ross is a celebrated investigative correspondent. To do his job right, he needs to check, verify and check again before his stories hit air. Usually, there's likely an ABC lawyer reviewing his longer pieces. But on breaking news? Nobody questioned Ross because he was, well, Ross. Fair enough, but why did Ross make this association without checking its validity? Simple. He got caught in the moment. He wanted to be first and hoped he was right. Double oopsie.

And if this means that the stars shine a little less bright at the networks because of debacles like this, then that can be one of the few good things that will emerge from this tragedy.

Ann Curry Deserved Better, but Getting Booted Off "Today" Could be a Win-Win

Now She Gets to be a Journalist Again Full-Time

Now that NBC can stop blaming Ann Curry for the bid case of Nielsen hiccups at "Today," it's time to look at the half-full part of her ouster from the couch in Studio 1A.
Curry's always been a solid reporter and has gone pretty much everywhere for NBC over the last 20 years. Everywhere includes Antarctica, Iran, the tsunami zone and dozens of port of calls in between. She'll now lead a hand-picked team that will go spanning the world covering big stories and reporting on multiple NBC shows and platforms.
It's the kind of job that any reporter in the substance-starved world of TV news would kill for. Curry told USA Today she's certainly grateful, but as she told viewers this morning during a tear-stained farewell, this wasn't the way she wanted to exit.
Understandable. Her ego now has a big-time contusion that'll take a long time to heal. But when she's immersed in this dream gig doing what she does best and not having to wake up at four in the morning, that's a win-win.

In case you didn't see her classy farewell:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

A Big-Time Oops: Why You Should Wait for the News Before You Hit Send

CNN Jumps the Gun with Wrong Headline on Affordable Care Act Decision

Look at the banner headline in black at the top. It was still up 10 minutes after the decision was handed down. Hello, Atlanta. Go for the venti instead of the grande, folks.

Not Such a Big Shocker in the Big Easy

As Times-Picayune, Alabama Papers Go to Three Times a Week, Could Open the Floodgates for Others to Follow Suit

Somebody had to do it. But what's now an exception could become a trend.

The Times-Picayune in New Orleans, along with three Alabama dailies, will only print three times a week--Wednesday, Friday and Sunday--starting in the fall. The papers, all of which are owned by Newhouse's Advance Publications, will allegedly beef up their digital presence.

The news is sad, especially for those of us who still desperately want to turn the pages of a newspaper rather than click to the next story. But it's no longer news that circulation has fallen off a cliff, along with ad dough-re-mi. The Birmingham News, for instance, has seen circulation crater by 29 percent in just five years. With numbers like that you rethink your business model pronto.

As the T-P's noted in its story about the reduction: "the changes coming in the fall were necessitated by revolutionary upheaval in the newspaper industry. These changes made it essential for the news-gathering operation to evolve and become digitally focused..."

Ah, digitally focused. Makes all the sense in the world, right? So, why aren't advertisers convinced? At many newspapers, online ads account for only 10 to 20 percent of revenue. The rest comes from print ads, subscriptions and newsstand sales. It really is an open question of whether you don't print it, they will follow you to the web.

Nonetheless, it's a safe bet that more newspapers will head down this sorry path. They've cut page widths, head counts, news holes while increasing newsstand prices. And yet they still wonder why they're losing readers. If your audience only wants a paper three days a week and your advertisers feel the same, who are you to say no? It does save a lot of trees. Trims payroll too.

Still, it'll be weird for Saints fans not to be able to read about Sunday's game the next day in the paper. Then again, if you're to believe Advance, they've pretty much stopped doing that anyway.