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 transcendent 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 dining experiences anywhere.

Many other famed Westchester eateries, among them Le Panetiere, and the Bedford Post Inn, are overpriced pretenders rather than contenders. 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 getting 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.

Sinful Stupidity at Reno TV Station

Promo at KOLO Implies Gay Marriage is a Sin, Then Says Sorry

The TV Spy blog has an item about a promo run amok at KOLO-TV in Reno, which intoned "Historically, Nevada has made a living off of sin — quickie divorces, prostitution, gambling. What’s one more sin added to the list if it will improve our economy?”

No surprise, the outrage flowed fast and furious. Later, the station apologized for the "poorly written play on words."

Fair enough, but how is it that no one at the station realized it was a dumb thing to say, unless they truly believed it was true? There was a producer of the spot, apparently clueless anchor Sarah Johns, not to mention a news director and other station management.

Really? The spot was a Re-no-no.

The Good and Not as Good in Buffett's Media General Purchase

At Least There's a Newspaper Still Standing in Richmond and Beyond

That Berkshire Hathaway bought Media General's newspaper division, with the exception of the Tampa Tribune, has to be viewed as nothing but a positive for the remaining employees, who have been blistered by layoffs, furloughs, benefit cuts and pay freezes over the years. In that regard, Media General is no different from every other newspaper company, battered, belaguered and waxing nostalgic for better days that will never return.

So, along comes Uncle Warren to the rescue. The Oracle already owns newspaper properties, including his hometown Omaha World-Herald and the Buffalo News. He also owns a significant minority stake in The Washington Post Co. Buffett likes to make a profit as much as the next billionaire, but his management approach is fairly hands off. Install the best managers who know how to hit their targets and watch the money grow.

That's a much taller order nowadays in the newspaper business, which is why the division went for a mere $142 million plus a $400 million term loan to pay down debt and a $25 million revolving credit line. That's for 63 daily and weekly newspapers. But Media General has fallen far and fast. Ten years ago, it would have cost you $54.50 to buy a share of the company stock. It closed today at $4.18, and that includes a $1.04 bump after the purchase was announced.

Buffett again professed his love for newspapers today, warming the cockles of this ink-stained wretch's heart.  Clearly, he's not doing this to lose money, but he's certainly not expecting to make a mint either. Been there, done that.

The Big World Beyond the Big Apple

Geography Lessons Needed at WNYC

There's many a story of born-and-bred Manhattanites who have little conception of the world around them. If it's a question of how to get to there from here and you can't get there on the 4 train, then why bother?
This became apparent yesterday while listening to Janet Babbin do the local news at 7 p.m. on public radio station WNYC. Babbin read an item about what was the apparent suicide of Mary Kennedy, RFK Jr.'s estranged wife. We were told that Kennedy's body was found at the family home upstate.
Turns out upstate was in the hamlet of Bedford in Westchester County, which is immediately north of the city after you leave the Bronx. Upstate? Well, yes, as it's up from WNYC's studios in West Soho.
But nobody who lives in Westcheser, including me, thinks they live in upstate, even those in the county's northern reaches, which includes comparatively bucolic Bedford. If you can get to midtown in an hour with no traffic than you're not upstate. You're merely in the suburbs, where many WNYC members reside.
If I truly lived upstate, then I wouldn't have been able to hear Babbin tell me where I don't live. But she should come visit, especially during the summer when everybody escapes the city, er, Manhattan.

Ian Eagle, Mike Fratello Will Be Picking Out China Patterns, After All

On-Air Pissing Match Goes Viral, But They Insist It's Part of Their Shtick

Well, it at least sounded controversial.

The sports blogs were a buzzin' yesterday over a bizarre exchange that New Jersey Nets' TV announcers Ian Eagle and Mike Fratello had at the end of a game on Sunday.

It sounded like Eagle was calling out the Tsar of the Telestrator for being "patronizing" in explaining a slip screen. Fratello sounded a bit taken aback, but tried to laugh it off as the broadcast went to a commercial.

Eagle was having none of it when he was asked by Fratello whether he had a bad day on the ride from a game in Philadelphia: "That was two hours with you, which is why I've had enough tonight."

Oooooooo.

Turns out it was much ado about nothing much. At least according to the players in this drama.
In a Daily News interview, Eagle insists it was all a put-on, and it's something they do every game.

"What happens sometimes is the local audience knows what we’re up to, but when someth"ing like this goes viral the unfortunate part is the familiarity goes out the window. There are people who just don’t get it, they’re not in on the joke..."

Exactly. That's the problem. Nobody knows about this, because the two are broadcasting Nets games, which for many years have not offered viewers a reason to stay glued to their chairs. So, if Eagle and Fratello do their usual act, it's easy to see how few might notice unless their gift of gab got overly generous.

As Bob Raissman in the Daily News notes, Eagle is a disciple of Marv Albert, the Sultan of Sardonic, who frequently had Fratello as a broadcast partner. The Tsar knows dry wit when he hears it as much as how to execute a pick-and-roll.

Of course, it should come as little surprise that Eagle can inject some levity into an otherwise-dreary broadcast. It's in his DNA. His father was Jack Eagle, who spent decades working the Catskills as a comedian, though you might remember him best as Brother Dominic from the 1980s Xerox commercials.