Condensed and edited by Simon McCormack.

Can you talk about how you became involved in Mediaite?
Dan Abrams came up with the idea. Dan had always wanted to do a media website. I told him, Dan, I love you, but I can’t do it again. I had just been through the experience of being a web editor of a 24 hour news site at the Huffington Post. I just couldn’t do it because of the rat race of living your life by every breath of the internet. I was helping Dan find good people to start the site. We started having meetings with these talented people [Managing Editor Colby Hall and Senior Editor Glynnis MacNicol] and it started being really fun and I just started being a part of it. When they brought [TV Editor Steve Krakauer] on I was like, I want to be a part of this. It was a complete accident that I went back to the role that I swore I would never do again.

Why did you swear you’d never do it again?

It’s the kind of thing where you’re visiting your parents on vacation and then you’re like, sorry I’ve gotta blog. It is very demanding.

How would you describe Mediaite to someone who hasn’t seen it?
It’s basically the intersection of media with everything else. It’s the media framework for viewing news, politics, pop culture, technology and new media. We cover books and sports and films too. Whatever’s in the news or whatever’s interesting, especially if it has something to do with media. We have a lot of freedom with what we cover.

When did the site launch?
July 6 of last year

How many unique visitors do you get a month?

Last month we got almost one million. We are not kidding around.

Take me through a typical day for you?
Well, I am no longer doing Mediaite full-time. My last day was Jan. 31. I pushed it right to the limits because the Grammy awards were going on. Now I have a little bit more flexibility of not having to chase the latest news story. I often have columnist stuff, as well as my stuff. As soon as news breaks, I jump to it. I need a presence. I went to L.A. the weekend before last. I clicked onto the site and found that nobody had done anything on the Haiti telethon. If I’m around and something happens, I’ll get on it. I’ll watch Saturday Night Live and if something happens, you’re like well, gotta do it. Once you know what’s happening you feel like you have no choice but to be on it.

Can you give me another example?

The Conan deal. I took the night off. I got back to my apartment at 3:30 a.m. in the morning. I was in bed with my computer on my lap. I get an email at 4:15 a.m. in the morning saying Conan and NBC worked out a deal. I was like, you’ve gotta be kidding me. There was no option there. I was not going to go to sleep while that news was out there knowing that I was advantageous enough to get it at 4:15 a.m. We don’t have a graveyard shift. It just happens to be me when I’m up.

What drives you?
I don’t think you can do this unless it hurts you to know that there could be some news out there that you’re not reporting.

How many hours a week would you say you work?
I don’t want to think about that because it will probably depress me. I”m still very rested, but the only way for me to get some other stuff in my life done was to go part-time. I don’t want a job that doesn’t completely captivate me. This is a joy. I feel things. I get to write about fun things. Like the Conan thing. All of a sudden, I got to write about a really big story in late night TV and put my mark on it and contribute to it.

How many hours a day would you say you’re not thinking about Mediaite?
I’m always thinking about Mediaite. I’ll see some news and I’ll say hey, you should do a column about it. It’s something that’s in my life that’s always in the forefront. I work with people that I really adore. It’s a shared experience. We have a great group. It’s not like I’m leaving the office with my co-workers and going on to something new. It all blends.

What are some specific challenges that Mediaite faces?
We’re always trying to be quick, be funny, be good, but be right. It’s easy to post the bare minimum. We’re trying to add value. We’re trying to not just be an aggregator but pointedly add context and analysis.

Now the site is getting a lot of hits and things are a bit more settled, but when you started, were you a bit scared to start something from scratch?
To start something new is really exciting. That’s what drives me to wake up on a Saturday morning and spend five hours posting. I want to do well. I want to beat other people and figure out how to game the system. If it’s good content, I want to figure out how to get Google hits.

What advice do you have for a young entrepreneur looking to get into the field of new media?
Go into something that you really love and build something that you are really proud of. Create something you can stand behind. Be mindful of your relationships. People are valuable.

Provided by Rachel Sklar on Wikimedia Commons

Editor’s note: I realize that this is insanely detailed and disjointed, but it’s more for me than for you, sorry. I don’t get the chance to just crap out random thoughts very often (no wisecracks, please), so I’m indulging myself a little.

Last night, I had the honor of attending a celebration of my success with Mediaite, and I wanted to share some details with you all while they’re still fresh in my (now-sober) mind. True to my reputation as a notorious lightweight, I was buzzing after my second glass of wine. I picked up a third glass, just to use as a prop, but I ended up drinking that too. It didn’t help that I hadn’t eaten all day. I did snarf down several slices of baguette-n-brie.

I wasn’t off my ass or anything, just loose enough to talk to Dan Rather without being nervous. Shit, I’ve skipped to the best part already. More on that later.

The smokin’ hottie in that picture is standing next to Rachel Sklar, my boss and birthday girl of the evening. She was wearing a short, sequin-y little number that said “Look at me! You won’t be sorry!” The pic is actually from the afterparty. I didn’t take any pictures myself. I have a big enough deficit of cool without bugging luminaries for snapshots.

The event was very well-attended. I think Dan Rather was the first big name (besides me) to show up. The camera crew from “Extra!” bogarted him for, like, half an hour. Then, he was shooting the breeze with Dan Abrams and his parents (Abrams’ parents, not Rather’s). I did manage to meet Rather’s wife Jean, like, 6 times last night. I asked her what it’s like to be Mrs. Dan Rather, and she said “It’s not like anything else!”

I finally managed to catch Dan Rather away from the herd, and introduced myself. He was cordial, “nice to meet you” and all, but then Abrams’ mom came over to talk to him, so I kinda drifted away. About 15 minutes later, Rather actually came and found me to continue our conversation. We talked about foreign policy for awhile. I had to laugh when he asked me if I had ever been to Afghanistan. I’ve been to Sandals Montego Bay, and that’s about it.

It goes without saying that it was a great honor to meet a broadcasting legend like Dan Rather, and if I had any sense, I’d have been a nervous, stammering fool. This is true of a lot of what I do, I’ve realized. Over the course of the evening, a lot of people asked me about working at the White House, and I related the fact that barely 2 years ago, I was a health insurance consultant. Like last night’s gathering, I often wonder if I belong in that room, but I’m more consumed by gratitude that I am in that room.

Ann Curry and Meredith Vieira showed up next, and spent most of the time imprisoned by that Extra! crew. I wanted to say hello to Anne, whom I met at the White house not long ago, but she and Meredith did a Keyser Soze while I was grazing at the brie table.

Hoda Kotbe was there, but I didn’t meet her. She didn’t manage to escape the Extra! crew until Dan Abrams was giving his speech. He thanked me (and a bunch of other people), and talked about the launch of our new sites. In all seriousness, Dan has been a real source of encouragement to me, as have Rachel and the rest of the Mediaite editors. The amount of recognition/buzz the site has generated in such a short time is truly amazing. As much as I wish it had something to do with me, I think Dan and Rachel just knocked the launch out of the park, and had people talking about us from Jump Street.

I got to mingle with my co-workers, many of whom I had never met before. First, I spent the day working at the Mediaite office, which was great for me. I cranked out 4 stories yesterday, and I was only there from noon to 6. Then, we headed up to the Plaza Hotel on the “W” train. I know, it sounds made-up, but there’s really a “W” train. I rode the subway with Steve Krakauer and Keith, an Abrams Research staffer. We talked shop during the train ride, but they were both making me nervous by leaning against the doors. Those scary subway PSAs from the 70’s stuck with me.

The other thing about Mediaite is that it’s a very young office. Or maybe I just think that everyone who looks younger than me is automatically 19, I don’t know. It’s not an issue for me, it’s just kind of weird. Makes me question my own maturity.

My editor, Colby Hall, was my designated sherpa/goto guy when I had nobody else to talk to. When he introduced me to his wife, I thought he said her name was “Jolene,” so I composed a joke in my head (“Do people often ask that you not take their man just because you can?”), but I didn’t have an opening. I found out later that it was “Geraldine,” at which point I related my untold joke. I then made the observation that you just don’t hear Dolly Parton jokes anymore, which sort of made everyone uncomfortable. Geraldine suggested I go with a Flip Wilson reference, but the moment was gone.

Geraldine works for Glamour magazine, so I tried, incoherently, to explain my objection to their plus-size model experiment. I realized that it was more hostility on my part to social ideals about beauty than anything else. Fascinating, huh?

Rachel and Glynnis were constantly in motion, schmoozing the guests and laughing it up. Another Mediaite-er, Ruthie, was working the door. Yesterday was the first time I’d put a face to the name I send my invoices to. I always pictured her as a stern librarian type, but she’s actually super-young and perky enough to make Katie Couric seem dour. She just seemed really glad to see everyone, and it really put me at ease when I first got there. I was expecting some big dude with a clipboard to say “Who the fuck are you?”

Lindsey, an Abrams Research intern-turned staffer, was also there to work the party, and was another friendly face in the crowd. I remembered her from the last time I visited the office, when she was an intern. She’s really tall, and has a really nice, big smile. She reminds me of Donna Prepon a little.

I  met some other Mediaite contributors, like Jose Simian, Melissa Lafsky, and Pat Kiernan (to whom I apologized for being a disgrace of an Irishman), and Daniel, who was really nice, and whose name I’m embarrassed to have forgotten. In my defense, I had finished that third wine, and when Jenny (whose name I inwardly appended with the phrase “from the block”) introduced me to him, it sounded like she said “Danielle.” I think that quirk loomed so large in my mind, it pushed out his last name.

Here’s the thing. I often don’t know people I should know. For example, Andrew Tyndall of The Tyndall Report was there. Now, instead of acting like I knew all about him, I was just like, “Duhhhhh.” He was a great guy. We shot the breeze about Sherwood Forest and whatnot, and it was cool. I also met Danny Shea from HuffPo, and I mistakenly pegged a long phone call I’d had with Ryan Grim to him. I’m sure my Young Columbo act wears thin in these situations, but it’s all I have.

That’s why I didn’t introduce myself to Kat Kane until the end of the afterparty. She just looks like somebody who should be on TV, so I was convinced I was going to say “And you are…” and have her say “Duh, I’m Salma Hayek” or something. She actually introduced herself to me, and I found out that before she wrote “Winners and Losers” for Mediaite, she worked on Dan Abrams’ MSNBC show. We got to talking, and it occurred to me that I’d never told Dan how much I had enjoyed his show. It seems like such an obvious suck-uppy thing to say, I guess I never bothered. That show, though, had the best things about Mediaite going for it. It was a really smart, yet accessible, show that really dug into the news in a fresh, evenhanded way. Plus, I remember it being really funny, and not in that snarktastic bloggerish way.

Oh look, we got written up in Vanity Fair. Nice. Not one Tommy X mention.

I also got to meet Contessa Brewer, with whom I briefly commiserated about the singular experience that is the John Ziegler interview. The best part of Morning Joe, Willie Geist w,as there, too. He’s tall, like, Chuck Schumer tall.

Then, there was Rex Sorgatz, whose life story I was recently drawn into thanks to my Chief Editor. In a room full of people whom I wasn’t the most anything of, I didn’t even get to be the quirkiest guy in the room. I should’ve worn the Firefly jacket.

As I said before, I also got to meet Katie Couric for a second. I wanted to ask her about the Sarah Palin interview, but I think Dan Abrams’ Spidey sense started tingling, because he waved me off. Katie, if you’re reading this, nice job on that one. That interview will go down in history. (Sorry, Zig.)

Oh, cool, here’s some video of Dan’s speech. That’s the back of my head towards the end there.

Dammit, I just now realized I met Katie Baker last night and didn’t know it! I really enjoy her writing. She’s the one who offered me cheese at the afterparty! I accepted the cheese gratefully.

At the afterparty, I had a really long talk with the Panel Nerds, who didn’t seem all that nerdy to me. Guess that says something about my own NQ. That was cool, because they had lots of questions about my favorite subject, and his work in the White House press room. This is proof that I can talk, as I was able to occupy two guys who are used to listening to entire panels. I was a Panel of One.

I felt a real kinship with those guys. They seemed to really get how lucky we all are to get paid for doing something we love.

At the end of the night, I got a chance to talk to Rachel for awhile, which was nice. It was her birthday, as I mentioned. I had been kind of a pain in the ass at the office, as I often am to my editors, so I hope I was able to convey the gratitude I feel toward her for giving me this chance. It was Daily Dose’s own Lee Stranahan who introduced me to Rachel in June, an act that I am certain will be vindicated by history. She could have easily judged me a troublemaker and moved on, but she took a chance on me. (ABBA alert!) She looked really great last night. Everybody did.

I’ve been missing from these pages for awhile, and from teh Twitter, and I really have to thank Billie for holding it down here, and Alex and Lee for keeping it going, too.

So, there you have it. The  very definition of TMI. Thanks for reading.

“Journalism is an act of faith in the future.” ~Ann Curry

UPDATE 10/05/09: Anderson Cooper spoke to Broadcast & Cable: “There’s a huge disconnect with the American people paying attention in Afghanistan,” says CNN’s Anderson Cooper, who recently spent a week embedded with the military at Jaker, a remote forward operating base in Helmand province. “These are not stories people are watching. Frankly, when I was there, “60 Minutes” was all over the place. CNN has a full-time correspondent there. There are people telling the stories. But I know for a fact that not a lot of Americans, no matter what they say, are interested or are willing to spend a lot of time watching. I think polls reflect that, ratings reflect that.” [...] “Every time I’ve gone to Afghanistan and been embedded with troops, they have the same message, which is, folks back home have no idea what’s going on here,” says CNN’s Cooper. In 2006, Cooper spent several days with the 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan. “They all told me the same story,” he says. “They would be back home for two weeks of R&R, and they were on a plane or in a bar and somebody would ask them, ‘Where are you serving?’ And when they said Afghanistan, the response was always, ‘Well, at least you’re not in Iraq,’ as if Afghanistan was incredibly easy. Every time I’ve been over there, the [soldiers] I have been with could not have been happier to have someone [telling] their stories.”

The article also noted that: “An Associated Press reporter lost a foot in an IED attack in August, the same month that CBS News Radio correspondent Cami McCormick was seriously injured during an attack in Logar province that killed an American soldier.”

I’m a member of a discussion website on which the political tide tends to lean heavily to the right. I thought I’d pick out some commentary to post here. None of the links are actually present in the discussion except the link to CPJ and the final one (to a CNN article on the final decision regarding media coverage of flag-draped coffins).

One of the more intelligent conservative posters surprised me with the following inanity:

“Back when Prs. Bush was the Commander in Chief, the incompetent press and many others in the anti-war movement complained about the policy against publishing pictures of flag draped coffins. The charge was that Prs. Bush was trying to sanitize the horror of war by keeping the powerful image from the public view.

So, now that Prs. Obama has been the Commander in Chief for 9 months, where are the calls for a change of policy? Where is the incompetent press’s accusations of cover up and prohibition? Where are the complaints from anti war activists?

While Prs. Bush was in office, the issue was elevated to a Constitutional Crisis… but now that they can’t use the images as a weapon against the president, they have just let it drop.”

Bear in mind that I do consider this guy to be one of the more intelligent posters.

One of the less intelligent conservatives came up with this genius in response:

“Well, since they drool all over Obama and act like adoring little puppies when he’s around they’ve conveniently forgotten that our soldiers are still in two wars and still dying. They seem to be dying at an even greater rate in Afghanistan and we don’t really hear much about that. Remember how the left screamed about the accidental deaths of civilians, too? Well, they’re still dying under Obama’s watch but they’re all strangely quiet now. I’ve come to the conclusion that they only care about people when they can make use of them.”

This is my response:

“That’s because you’re all watching Fox instead of CNN.

Anderson Cooper spent the entire week following Labor Day in Helmand Province, Afghanistan to commemorate the anniversary of 9/11–going on patrol with marines, giving them a platform to send messages to their loved ones, reporting on the statistics, reporting on the fact that they need more troops and that the war is not going well, giving marines a chance to talk to the cameras and tell us what’s really going on there. They showed that while tons of Americans think they’re over there in fancy bases with all the comforts of home, they’re actually living in tents, covered in dust with H1N1 lurking (which Cooper and Dr. Sanjay Gupta both caught while they were there), with nothing but MREs for food and a few dumbbells for entertainment.

Dr. Gupta went inside the army hospital and showed our incredible military working on those civilians you mentioned and saving their lives every day.

Michael Ware, also of CNN, has been living in Iraq and Afghanistan for years reporting on these wars, and he didn’t change his technique just because Washington changes its colors. He’s still there. His vehicle was almost hit by an IED when he was shooting a piece for AC360.

The ratings were horrific. Nobody watched.

The “incompetent press” does what they have to do to get the advertising dollars to send these journalists over there, and real journalism doesn’t seem to making as much money as Glenn Beck’s Howard Beale-style rants.

Business wise, I tip my hat to Fox. They’re doing incredibly well. Bill O’Reilly’s demo ratings (ratings in the 25-54 age demographic, the target audience for advertisers) regularly beat CNN and MSNBC in total viewers. You can’t argue with their business model. It’s stellar. They’re raking it in. God bless ‘em.

But I suggest you take a look at the website for the Committee to Protect Journalists at www.cpj.org to see what the “incompetent press” has really been fighting against, with no help from Americans. We lost 120 journalists in Operation Iraqi Freedom. They’re out there, putting their lives on the line every day. Because of them, the information is out there, it just doesn’t seem to be very lucrative because, left or right, Democrat or Republican, Americans don’t seem to care.

Is it really the media’s fault? If reporting on the wars got killer ratings and raked in millions of advertising dollars, how fast do you think they’d have that business up and running and on the air? Yesterday, that’s when. And to their credit, people like Anderson Cooper use their star power to make sure it happens anyway, for the few hundred thousand of us who are watching.

So I don’t know if people drooling all over Obama are the problem, because while there are always blind followers and it’s never good, I doubt the four million people who watch “The O’Reilly Factor” every night (an absolutely unprecedented number for a cable audience) are the same people you’re referencing.

The cable news audience leans heavily to the right for whatever reason, and Cooper does an entire week that is all marines, all the time–and it was some of the best reporting his team has done these past few years, which is saying something because they’re good–and he can’t scrape together 500,000 viewers because apparently whatever Greta van Susteren had going on at 10:00 was more entertaining.

I don’t know why Americans don’t pay attention to international news. I don’t know how to fix it. But there are journalists in the field with their necks on the line to provide you with the information you claim “we don’t really hear much about,” so the only reason you’re not hearing about it is because you’re not paying attention, along with millions more just like you.

But the second Glenn Beck threatens to shoot himself on the 7:00 news, I’m sure you’ll be tuning in. Keep watching Fox and let me know when the flag draped coffins show up. I won’t be holding my breath.”

Later in the thread, a voice of reason:

“I might be completely wrong about this but I thought lifting the ban was under consideration a couple of (or more) months ago but there were conflicting opinions about whether the families of the fallen should have a say so about their loved one’s casket being photographed. I watched the arrival of our dead soldiers on the news every night during the war in Vietnam. Those images carried a lot of weight when it came to reminding the public of the true horrors of war.”

My response to this:

“You’re 100% correct.

I believe the first coverage that was allowed was at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, where my cousin was stationed during his last few years in the service (he’s now the fire captain down there).

President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates decided that the decision on this media coverage should be left up to the families, as it’s the same policy that was already in place for airing the services at Arlington.

The media coverage is allowed when the family permits it; it just gets terrible ratings, so we don’t see it. See above.

Here’s the article on Dover and the final decision.”

Feel free to discuss in the comments section. Who’s at fault for the misinformation here? The media or the American public?

UPDATE: The original poster then clarified: “Laurie, actually, that is why I separate the “incompetent press” from the members of the press who actually do their jobs. Yes, there are actually many examples of “competent” and even excellent journalism out there. Thanks for giving us these examples.”

The Grotto Blog by Lauren E. Moccio is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.lauriebethsgrotto.com.

Even though I completely missed it, I still insist on taking credit for yesterday’s pitched Twitter battle over Baratunde Thurston’s Mediaite story, “When Will This White House Learn You Cannot Negotiate With Terrorists?“  Even though I was sleeping off an Inglorious Basterds hangover, my autotweets were still awake making mischief.

As such, I feel it is my sworn duty to preserve said Twitstorm, along with re-creations of tweets that I would have sent, had I not been fast asleep and missing everything.  I’m also going to go ahead and ignore that 140-character limit.

Andy Levy: Disgraceful. RT @TommyXtopher: When Will This White House Learn You Cannot Negotiate With Terrorists?: http://bit.ly/AGla5 #tcot #tlot about 17 hours ago from UberTwitter

Tommy Christopher: Dude, that was an auto-tweet.  @baratunde wrote it. #seriesoftubes #readthebyline

Andy Levy: Dear @mediaite: U think it’s ok 2 publish a column that refers 2 “right wing terrorists?” Fine, I think it’s ok not 2 read u anymore. #tcotabout 16 hours ago from Tweetie

Tommy Christopher: Heh. Reminds me of the time Homer Simpson wrote a letter to “Die Hard.”

Dear Die Hard,
You rock. Especially the part where that dude is on the rooftop.
P.S. Do you know Mad Max?

Rachel Sklar:@andylevy Oy, Andy, considering the kind of stuff said on RedEye, you’re really pulling this? It refers SPECIFICALLY to the rhetoric.about 16 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to andylevy

Andy Levy: .@rachelsklar Sorry, I didnt realize @mediaite was a comedy website. And I shudn’t have 2 tell u that comparing ppl 2 terrorists isn’t cool.about 15 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to rachelsklar

Tommy Christopher: Really, Andy?  Not a comedy website?  C’mon,  “Fox-twa” was funny.

Rachel Sklar: @snarkandboobs @andylevy I pubbed @Baratunde’s column. It CLEARLY frames his issue (“fearful, hate-filled, ignorant rants”), defines thusly.about 15 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to snarkandboobs

Snark N. Boobs: @rachelsklar @andylevy What was CLEARLY FRAMED was the comparison to Terrorists.about 16 hours ago from Seesmic in reply to rachelsklar

Rachel Sklar: @snarkandboobs @andylevy Also – the quote “right wing terrorists” did NOT occur in @baratunde’s piece. It was CLEARLY FRAMED. You KNOW this.about 15 hours ago from TweetDeck

Dan Abrams: Interesting and passionate tweet war on right now between @andylevy and @rachelsklar about an @mediaite column.about 15 hours ago from web

Tommy Christopher: Way to include the link. #Barnumfail

Rachel Sklar: @snarkandboobs @andylevy Also – the quote “right wing terrorists” did NOT occur in @baratunde’s piece. It was CLEARLY FRAMED. You KNOW this.about 15 hours ago from TweetDeck

Rachel Sklar: @snarkandboobs @andylevy Don’t read Mediaite – fine. But represent – and quote! – accurately. That’s the larger root problem here, anyway.about 15 hours ago from TweetDeck

Tommy Christopher: For the record, I agree that ombudsmen should quote accurately #SklarpwnsLevy, but I disagree that it’s fine not to read Mediaite.

Also, @andylevy, up there on your high, misquoting horse – you forgot to include the link. http://bit.ly/mkyy1 Scared of context? #tcotabout 15 hours ago from TweetDeck

Tommy Christopher: Don’t feel bad, @Rachelsklar. @Andylevy never includes my links when we argue, either.  I am sure he is just being consistent in this regard.

Rachel Sklar: @andylevy That response gets another OY. It’s news + commentary – we do the same thing. And the modifier “psychological” was CLEAR. #tcot.about 15 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to andylevy

Rachel Sklar: @andylevy @Baratunde’s column isn’t cool but “death panel” and “socialist” and “Dear Leader” rhetoric is? What-EVA.about 15 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to andylevy

Andy Levy: @rachelsklar Flip it around if you want: “death panel” and “socialist” and “Dear Leader” rhetoric isn’t cool, but “terrorists” is? What-EVA.about 15 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to rachelsklar

Tommy Christopher: I am SO not taking either of you to the Jonas Brothers concert. What-EVS!!1!

Andy Levy: .@rachelsklar “When Will This White House Learn You Cannot Negotiate With Terrorists?” Is that “represented” correctly?about 15 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to rachelsklar

Rachel Sklar: Abso-fucking-lutely. RT @andylevy: “When Will This White House Learn You Cannot Negotiate With Terrorists?” Is that “represented” correctly?about 15 hours ago from TweetDeck

Rachel Sklar: @andylevy IT IS CLEARLY FRAMED AS AN ISSUE OF EXTREMITY AND RHETORIC. You, pal, are safe from the label unless you are similarly batshit.about 15 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to andylevy

Andy Levy: @rachelsklar Fine. WE ARE ON A BREAK!about 15 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to rachelsklar

Rachel Sklar: FINE! BUT I WANT MY FAVORITE TSHIRT BACK. about 15 hours ago from TweetDeck

Andy Levy: @rachelsklar Like I’d ever wear a shirt that says “MY POLITICAL OPPONENTS ARE JUST LIKE TERRORISTS”about 15 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to rachelsklar

Tommy Christopher: You guys are making Chandler cry!  Crap, I just copped to getting a “Friends” reference. #manlinessfail

Rachel Sklar: Did you READ the piece? Or is it just easier to parrot? RT @snarkandboobs: What was CLEARLY FRAMED was the comparison to Terrorists.about 15 hours ago from TweetDeck

Snark N. Boobs: @rachelsklar Yes, a dum-dum Conservative girl does know how to read. And whom am I supposedly parroting? I have my own mind, thank you.about 16 hours ago from Seesmic in reply to rachelsklar

Rachel Sklar: @snarkandboobs I’m sorry, did I say “dum dum Conservative?” Sheesh, hella chip on that shoulder. Well, you missed the FRAMING. Kinda key.about 15 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to snarkandboobs

Snark N. Boobs: @rachelsklar OK, dum dum part was wise-ass of me.You’re right there.But, I don’t believe I misinterpreted framing.Maybe I will lay out whyabout 16 hours ago from Seesmic in reply to rachelsklar

Tommy Christopher: #jellowrestling

Rachel Sklar: @andylevy @snarkandboobs Either of you want to write a rebuttal – have at it. I will publish it and promote it. Correct facts is all I ask.about 15 hours ago from TweetDeck

Rachel Sklar: @snarkandboobs If you wanna do it, I will pub it. Now the Sound of Music is on and I am retreating into the pursuit of Von-Trappiness. tcotabout 15 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to snarkandboobs

Snark N. Boobs: @rachelsklar Maybe I will. Thank you. Enjoy Maria and the passel of singing kiddies – Auf Wiedersehenabout 16 hours ago from Seesmic in reply to rachelsklar

I don’t feel so bad about missing the party.  Baratunde arrived just in time to mop up:

Baratunde Thurston: @rachelsklar thanks for the defense, but you should stop. this is not a winnable rhetorical battle via twitterabout 15 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to rachelsklar

Baratunde Thurston: @snarkandboobs pls do re-read. i am not opposed to dissent. i am opposed to hate-inspired, ignorance and idiocy. i.e. birthers, deathers etcabout 14 hours ago from TweetDeck

Snark N. Boobs: @baratunde I will.I’d *love* to be wrong in this case.Just don’t see how use of that term wasn’t purposefully inflammatory/way to intimidateabout 15 hours ago from Seesmic in reply to baratunde

Baratunde Thurston: @snarkandboobs because the people i’m talking about are un-intimidatable (NEW WORD). was def inflammatory. intentionallyabout 14 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to snarkandboobs

Snark N. Boobs: @baratunde Hey! *I* make up new words. OK, mostly by sticking a “y” at the end of existing words, but still. That’s my shtick!about 15 hours ago from Seesmic in reply to baratunde

Baratunde Thurston: @snarkandboobs actually *I* invented the additional y on words. i’m very word extender-y. nice to make your twitter acquaintanceabout 14 hours ago from TweetDeck in reply to snarkandboobs

Ugh. Get a room.

For the record, I agree with Rachel, and not just because she’s my Editor-in-Chief.  Before any of you even start, I insist that you first read my defense of Ann Coulter along similar lines.

Also for the record, Rachel doesn’t just wade in against conservatives.  She also had my back when the left attacked me for criticizing Keith Olbermann.

My apologies to my loyal readers and friends who were caught by surprise by the news that I’m now a columnist for Mediaite, which launched yesterday.  I never got the go-ahead to announce, as my new chief Rachel Sklar was super-busy, so I had to wait until I was published there.

Speaking of the Mediaite launch, Gawker did a nice little write-up on it:

Gawker: Well, it probably just seems as though you’ve been talking about it for months, so forgive me.

Now, there’s been plenty of criticism launched in the direction of your boss, Dan Abrams, for what many, Gawker included, see as a conflict of interest in having a media advisory firm attached to a media website. Obviously, you feel differently. How have Gawker and other critics of Abrams Research/Mediaite been wrong about this?

The implication, of course, is that Mediaite’s journalists would sit by and let Abrams kill stories he didn’t like because he runs a consulting firm.  I couldn’t get ahold of Abrams (here’s what he said about it at Mediaite), but I was lucky enough to get ahold of one of Mediaite’s columnists.

In an exclusive interview, I sat down with Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher and asked him about the criticism that Gawker, among others, has leveled at the new site.  To be clear, Tommy is not a spokesman for Mediaite, so the opinions expressed are his own, and do not represent those of Mediaite.com.

Daily Dose’s Tommy Christopher: You must be pretty stoked about the new site.

Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher: Definitely, and I also love reading DailyDose.us.

Daily Dose’s Tommy Christopher: Thanks, Tommy, and we all really loved your first column.

Asylum’s Tommy Christopher: What the frick?  Am I chopped liver?  What about my latest on the 5 best movie shootouts?

Daily Dose’s Tommy Christopher: Hey, dickbag, I’m working here!

Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher: What a relentless attention-whore.  Anyway, on the whole Gawker thing, I gotta say, I can’t speak for Dan Abrams, but this pissed me off a little.  What they’re basically saying is that I’m a capitulating toady with no integrity.  Now, it’s hard enough to take that from Howard Kurtz, but from Gawker?  Eff that!

Daily Dose’s Tommy Christopher: But how are they supposed to know different?
Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher: Exactly.  As my Editor-at-Large put it, “Someone could make the same argument about advertisers (insert Bloodcopy joke here!).”  Short of randomly trashing Dan Abrams, how am I supposed to disprove that?

Daily Dose’s Tommy Christopher: Well, do you have anything to say about Abrams?  Here’s your chance.

Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher: I’ve never met him.  I really liked his MSNBC show, though.

Daily Dose’s Tommy Christopher: Make something up.

Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher: You want me to prove my integrity by making something up?

Daily Dose’s Tommy Christopher: Did I say that?

Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher: Yes! Just 2 seconds ago!  This interview is over.

Asylum’s Tommy Christopher: Wanna see my list of the 10 best side-boob shots evah?

Coverage of Twitter in the mainstream press has been divided, much as it is in general, between those who love it, and those who hate it. Two examples of these scenarios reared their heads in my RSS feed just now.

In the form of two journalists, penning their columns for the Sunday papers, the evangelist and the sceptic are displayed prominently. However, this time the sceptic might just be coming round to everyone’s favourite new service.

Bobbie Johnson, the Guardian’s San Fransisco based tech reporter is an advocate of the service, and he is in no doubt of Twitter’s importance in Iran today:

The site undoubtedly played a vital role in spreading the story from inside Iran to the outside world, as thousands of web users and mobile phone addicts passed on messages and pictures documenting events on the ground.

It is easy to overestimate Twitter’s value inside Iran, where word of mouth, phone calls and text messages were almost certainly more important in helping to organise rallies. But its influence in making the story global was very real.

All of this attention marked the latest high point in Twitter’s dizzying ascent, a rapid rise that has seen its crew of geeks find themselves at the heart of geopolitics more by accident than design.

As for the sceptic turend believer? Andrew Sullivan says:

IT was not, to put it mildly, a new technology I found impressive. Twitter, the social networking website, allows for only a tiny number of characters to be broadcast in each “tweet”, or message, and much of the early tweeting was being done by bored teens or Hollywood celebrities: the illiterate speaking to the impatient.

Well, the last laugh is on me. As I have spent the past week hunched over a laptop, channelling and broadcasting as much information, video and debate about the momentous events in Iran, nothing quite captured the mood and pace of events like the tweets coming from the people of Iran.

So if those who were unsure about Twitter’s worth are now being turned, where does the service go next?

The Huffington Post, the poster-child of web 2.0/3.0 published this piece by Rachel Sklar, who says it’s time for Twitter to grow up:

Seeing how easy it has been to use Twitter for good has exposed the double-edged sword of how easy it could be to co-opt. (The dummy Iranian protest feeds are one example of this.) Twitter is an astounding platform for information, but it’s a total blank slate — which means it’s an astounding platform for disinformation, too. They need to make money so they can hire more people to monitor all of this — never mind all the problems they haven’t even thought of yet.

Twitter is an amazing public tool with an incredible capacity for public good. We don’t need the State Department to tell us that — and neither should Twitter. Welcome to adulthood, kiddo.

And, like any youth hitting adulthood, there are sure to be growing pains anytime soon.

There’s a convergence happening. When I read about the state of the art market, the economy, social change, politics, the financial sector or just how to survive personally in this brave new world of 2009, the solutions are starting to have a common theme. What used to be compartmentalized and fragmented (bankers caring only about banking, political activists focused only on their particular cause) is now showing up as increasingly more inclusive and whole system-oriented.

For example, Rachel Sklar on The Daily Beast has written about a phrase first coined in 2004 but particularly well suited for today’s state of things. Smart Power–”a subtle combination of brains and the wisdom to use them to get things done”–is a concept that has more meaning than just political clout.

From her article:

Smart Power applies across the board to the new realities of 2009. To put it bluntly, the old way of doing things doesn’t work anymore—for anything. Every reality from a year ago seems hopelessly out of date—a thriving auto industry, actually owning a home, wanting to date an investment banker. Thriving and surviving in this brave and weird new world takes more than just the raw brute power of, say, money—Lehman Brothers learned how quickly that can go—or feeling smug over a print byline (especially if the article can’t be found online). How can Smart Power apply to those of us who don’t have to negotiate trade treaties or appease mad dictators? The Daily Beast asked Suzanne Nossel, the former Clinton-era deputy to UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, who coined the phrase in a 2004 article in Foreign Affairs. Nossel, now the chief operating officer at Human Rights Watch, could see how the concept might apply beyond the foreign-policy world, recognizing that applying Smart Power required that special game-changing extra spark. “It’s not just about putting smart people in place—the Bush administration had many smart people, which didn’t always make for smart policies,” she said (cough, Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, cough). “We should exercise our power in ways that are sustainable instead of draining.” So how does that apply to, say, media companies, or a junior senator? Simple—by being practical instead of ideological; by looking ahead and planning accordingly; by convincing others to support you. All of these things make for Smart Power, says Nossel: “Who uses tools hard and soft, who combines them in a supple way, who does it in a way that proves sustainable, who mobilizes others behind their ideas, who has a longer view.”

On the same site, Judith H. Dobrzynski addresses the change in tenor of the current art market. In writing about the 21st Annual Art Show in New York:

This year, things are different…“We need to get away from the notion of art as solely a commodity, and back to the language of art,” says Roland Augustine, of Luhring Augustine Gallery, “and the way to do that is to have a carefully curated and qualitative approach.”

In other words, dealers want to make art precious again—not just pricey. Galleries that look like museums help do that and, when Wall Street woes have scared off buyers anyway, why not? “They are taking this approach now because they understand that this long-term approach is the sure-fire way to go,” Augustine says. Instead of encouraging people who speculate in art, treating it like a stock, these shows aim to develop true collectors, who buy and hold for years.

Whether viewed from the macro level or from our small personal outposts, retrenching and “making do” sound passive and strangely old school. Is there a catchy phrase for the Obama era mindset yet? As inferred by the now infamous statement by economist Paul Romer, “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste”, these are watershed times.

I just read Paul Krugman’s blog post on Sanjay Gupta as a possible Surgeon General. It was such sweet relief to realize that I was not alone in holding the man in low esteem ever since that spat with Michael Moore over the facts in the documentary Sicko.

Don’t get me wrong. I do have my issues with Michael Moore as well as with his film. But overall, on the facts, he was right about what ails the US healthcare system. Gupta as a Medical correspondent for CNN was supposed to critique the film and as in most critiques, highlight factual errors, exaggerations, looseness with the truth and overall provide as objective an opinion as is expected of a journalist about the film. He did none of that. His review was such a hatchet job that Moore had to provide point by point rebuttals on his website and even in the ”debate” between the two that took place on Larry King Live, Gupta kept on repeating his falsehoods aided by the talking corpse himself who forgot that his job was to moderate. 

After watching that, I wondered what justified Gupta’s review of the movie. Was it personal? It couldn’t be. He was (and is) a university professor, a neurosurgeon, a former special adviser to then First Lady Hillary Clinton. Why would he pick on Michael Moore? Was it ideological? Was he one of those free-market conservatives who just hate “socialized medicine”? Gupta did not seem to have an ideological bend. Then maybe it was a professional issue; Gupta as a Doctor in the US Healthcare system that was being attacked, also felt attacked and wanted to strike back.  Well, not quite either. After all, many other American doctors who work dutifully in the US system recognize its shortcomings and do not get any flack for speaking up about it.

So why was Gupta so opposed to Sicko to the point of fudging facts and journalistically botching a review? I could only draw the same conclusion Krugman has drawn. Gupta was perfectly happy with getting “things  wrong in a socially acceptable way.” In other words, he was aware of the public mood on the issue and he chose to align his critique to that socially acceptable opinion irrespective of the facts. This is the kind of behavior pathological social-ladder climbers learn to perfect early. This is typical of  what the Canadian thinker John Ralston Saul calls a “courtier” or a “Voltaire bastard”; a man who either has no opinions of his own or is perfectly happy to substitute them with anything that can advance his career, create new friends that can advance his carreer or open doors to new careers or new revenues. That is unfortunately also a character flaw in my book.

 Now, Sanjay Gupta may be very qualified to be Surgeon General. I do not know. I am not qualified to make that judgement. What are the required qualifications for that job, anyway? But one thing is certain. A Surgeon General of United States should have a closer relationship with facts than Sanjay Gupta does. He or she should certainly hold opinions backed by empirical evidence and be willing to stand by those opinions regardless of the public mood. That after all is one of the indicators of a good scientist.

Rachel Sklar called Sanjay Gupta  a dick. I will not do such a thing. But if pushed, I will happily quote Sklar.

Pack your knives and go . . . straight to the bookstore. Top Chef presents the official companion cookbook to the No. 1 rated food show on cable television! Featuring 100 fabulous recipes from the first three seasons of the show, including dishes from the Elimination Rounds and the Quick-Fire Challenges, The Top Chef Cookbook invites fans into the hottest kitchen on prime time. In-depth discussions with contestants, judges, and crew reveal the inner workings of the show, and lavish photographs take readers behind-the-scenes into the Top Chef pantry and the competition sites. Handsomely packaged with a canvas cover inspired by the chef’s jacket worn by each of the Top Chef contestants, this cookbook will have aspiring culinary contenders reliving classic show moments and relishing new recipes just in time to obsess over Padma’s outfits in Season 4.

Top Chef The Cookbook is available at Amazon for $19.77. To Order click here
Amazon Product Pages contain a lot of other details on this product as Customer Reviews, Sales Ranking, Special Offers, Alternate products that customers are going for and much more.Want to read these details? click here

Want to get some other Format / Binding / Version? You can search for them from here

Other Products of Interest

• Think Like a Chef
• Gordon Ramsay’s Fast Food
• The Food You Want to Eat: 100 Smart, Simple Recipes
• Tangy Tart Hot and Sweet: A World of Recipes for Every Day
• Rocco’s Real-Life Recipes

This morning I settled into my usual table at my usual Starbucks café, with my usual venti Américano with way-too-many sugars, fired up my laptop as usual, and attended to my usual morning routine of attending to email correspondence, oversharing on Twitter, and perusing my RSS feeds. It was not long after I had started this last ritual that I realized that something was different; sadly, drastically different.

Radar Online was gone.

Well, not “gone”. It is still online, and I suppose one could argue that it is still publishing new content (although certainly not as “fresh” nor as “intelligent” as it was only five days ago), but for all intents and purposes, to a fan like me, it is gone. Of course, as news of Radar magazine’s print version finally folding entirely, and its online version’s subsequent acquisition by AMI broke on Friday, I was not surprised when I realized that the content, the writing, the voices I had become used to reading, were no longer there. I was just…sad.

The evening went up in smoke for party girl Mischa Barton and a male friend at Hollywood’s Bardot on Oct. 23. After Mischa’s friend hand rolled a cigarette, the pair lit up right in the club, passing the butt between them. It sure didn’t SMELL like a Winston! —By Staff

This was the first item I read during my perusal of the new Radar Online’s first morning of news offerings. I do not think it should be surprising that I ceased my exploration rather soon after, considering the content to which I had become accustomed.

This. Is. Hilarious. And also sad. The ads for Proposition 8, the voter initiative in California that’ll undo the state’s gay marriages, are out of control. Take the poor blonde in this ad: “You know as well as anyone I love Richard! He’s one of my best friends! But just because he’s gay doesn’t mean I have to support gay marriage!” Then she can’t even figure out how to convince her boyfriend and she’s all “Just look at the website and you’ll understand because everything on it is true!” —By Choire Sicha

The difference between reading the site’s content last Thursday and reading it today was marked, painful, and…well, again, just sad. Gone were the wit, the candor, the intelligence, with which the content was produced by its previous writers and editors. In their places were simply empty blurbs that one could easily read while waiting in the check-out aisle of a grocery store, i.e., nothing special.

Obviously, I abandoned my Radar Online feed rather quickly, in favor of other, yet still related, material, and stumbled across the reasons why Radar Online was so good, and why, over the past year, I had grown to love having it around in my RSS reader as a daily “must-read”. I stumbled across these reasons in Alex Balk’s (former Executive Editor of Radar Online) elegiac entry in his own Tumblr.

I am intensely proud of a lot of the material we brought to the site. It was an incredible honor to get to give chances to new writers, all of whom carried off vague assignments with tight deadlines as if they were seasoned pros. I’m not going to name names, because I’d for sure leave people out, so I’ll just say that every single one of you special, and it was a real honor to have some part in helping them establish your career. [...] So, finally, to the team at Radaronline.com. You should know that if you’ve enjoyed the site at all during my tenure, it was because of their efforts and the quick way in which they figured out how to manage around me. I was brought in to help make the site more popular and relevant, and, wow, did that ever happen. And it happened because of the incredible team that I was given. —Alex Balk

It was, as Balk wrote, an incredible team. Anyone who knows me well knows that I can be an unapologetic and shameless fan boy at times, particularly when it comes to those writers and journalists whose work I read frequently and wholly respect, so it is not unusual that I would be saddened by such an event in the online media world. But what made Radar Online so special, so enjoyable, was unusual: the collection of these truly intelligent voices, producing engaging, smart, unique content in an online world in which it is so difficult to stand out from the unwashed masses.

But they certainly did.

Not long after I finished reading Balk’s eulogy of Radar Online, I returned to my RSS feed reader, entered my “Manage Subscriptions” control panel, and deleted Radar Online. I was reminded, again, of the first news I read of Radar Online’s demise last Friday, by a writer far more esteemed than myself.

This is a sad day for people who love magazines, and for people who love sharp everyday writing, and for people who love risk-takers and dream-havers. It’s sad because Radar magazine — and its inestimable online arm, RadarOnline — have folded. —Rachel Sklar

Truer words were never written.

Thanks for the shout-out!

Entertainment Weekly vs New Yorker

Illustrator Barry Blitt created a controversial cartoon called “The Politics of Fear” for the July 21, 2008, cover of the New Yorker. According to the New Yorker press release, the cartoon “satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign.” Reactions from different sides were rather harsh —as I honestly understand and expected.

Huffington Post’s Rachel Sklar wrote in her Yikes! Controversial New Yorker Cover Shows Muslim, Flag-Burning, Osama-Loving, Fist-Bumping Obama, “Who knows if they’ll get this in Dubuque, but they sure aren’t going to like it in Chicago: This week’s New Yorker cover features an image of Michelle and Barack Obama that combines every smeary right-wing stereotype imaginable: An image of Obama in a turban and robes fist-bumping his be-afro’d wife, dressed in the military fatigues of a revolutionary and packing a machine gun and some serious ammo. Oh yes, this quaint little scene takes place in the Oval Office, under a picture of Osama bin Laden above a roaring fireplace, in which burns an American flag. All that’s missing is a token sprig of arugula.”

Kareem Shora, National Executive Director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Washington, D.C., responded to Barry Blitt’s cover on July 28, 2008, “Regardless of the artist’s intent to produce satirical commentary, it is possible that the imagery may reinforce the fears and prejudices that it was meant to critique.”

The following is from CNN’s Political Ticker blog: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. “But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.” John McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said he agreed with Burton’s sentiment. Obama himself refused to comment on the illustration that Sunday. 

A different perception was given by Cenk Uygur, from TheYoungTurks.com, who said, “I am not offended … I believe in the power of context. If this cartoon or illustration was in a conservative magazine, and they didn’t mean it as a joke, then I’d say, Yeah! That is very, very offensive. … Cartoon is a cartoon and people’s got to be smart and reasonable enough to get the joke.” Watch the video here.

A couple of months later, a satirical cover of the Obama New Yorker cover was recreated by Entertainment Weekly featuring Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Matt Tobey wrote on Comedy Central Insider, “Man, some things are just so great I can’t even muster the lazy wisecracks.”

Gary Susman states in his Popwatch blog, “We at Entertainment Weekly imagine our readers to be smart enough to recognize satire and parody when they see them, which is why, for this week’s cover story interview with Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, we had photographer Jake Chessum shoot this spoof of the New Yorker cover. Were we right? Will folks get the joke and recognize what we’re making fun of?”

I honestly think that we need to be more open towards this kind of jokes. The world can be a scary place sometimes—just think of the financial crisis and every other crisis occurring right now. If we stop joking about important topics, we might get too serious and lose our common sense.

As a smart person said a long time ago, “Your freedom ends where my nose begins.” Do you get the New Yorker joke?

Ana Marie Cox, Glynnis MacNicol, and Rachel Sklar report from bed.

This is what happens when you get too many media people together without any actual work to do.