PC Magazine publisher Ziff Davis wants you to know that it's not the economy, stupid, that's behind the transition from paper to web-only for its computer title.

"Moving our flagship property to an all-digital format is the final step in an evolutionary process that has been playing out over the last seven years," said Ziff Davis Media CEO Jason Young.

Seven people were laid off as a result of the switch.

First of all, isn't it a little anachronistic for a computer magazine to exist in well, magazine form? This isn't exactly the Christian Science Monitor we are talking about.

Secondly, if this transition really has been in the works for so long, you would think that the PC people would have been able to find a way to spare the layoffs. Or maybe by "playing out over the last seven years," Jason Young is talking about the state of the world's financial market, as it relates to obsolete magazines about computers.

When we reported yesterday that Christian Science Monitor was going to all but halt print publication and focus on their website (Portfolio, are you guys listening??), there was no sense that this story had been hand fed to a couple of reporters a week ago before by the top brass at CSM, but with the extraction of a promise that they were to tell no one until Tuesday at 1:30 p.m.

And how weird…no one did. Even in the age of anonymous leaks and gossipy media blogs *achem*, not one of the reporters from Editor & Publisher, AP, New York Times, or Business Week spilled the beans on the big news even a minute before Christian Science dictated.

And it's one of the most brilliant non-zero-sum games that's ever been played in the publishing world.

CONTINUED »

With so many magazines and newspapers shuttering their windows for the final times these days, is there any polite way to tell the 600 people from Time Inc. that they're going to lose their jobs, right when they were in the middle of reporting how everyone else is losing their jobs. Shudder.

Not to be too superstitious, but there has to be a good-karma way to lay off the massive amounts of employees necessary in the upcoming days/months without being too big of a dick about it. And although HR lingo usually gets on our nerves, it's still better for the ego to hear "You're being transitioned" instead of "You're fired!" Just ask anyone on The Apprentice.

Here are some of the most recent line of bullshit favored by media organizations:

CONTINUED »

JOSSIP IN-DEPTH — We pay a lot of lip service here to the idea that magazines and newspapers are a dying breed these days. But how can you not? It's no longer just a conceptual exercise, like "Oh, when the Internet really takes off and everyone buys a Kindle there will be no more need for paper journalism."

Since the stock markets have tanked, and as the automotive industry began stalling thanks to rising fuel prices and less discretionary income, meaning fewer big ad deals from GM and Chrysler, which means fewer ads in mags, yada yada yada, it's become increasingly apparent the push toward the future of magazines and papers wasn't going to be a technological development, but a financial one.

And no, it's not been great so far. Ad sales are down, overall readership is down, layoffs are up, and in some cases, publications are straight up folding. So goodbye, New York Sun, Radar, CosmoGIRL!, and 02138! Meanwhile, online news aggregators are popping up (Daily Beast!) and flourishing (Huffington Post!).

Nowadays, you'll have better luck starting a blog about the magazine industry's implosion than you would have trying to start up a title in today's climate.

So what are the glossies that are currently in danger? Here's our own suicide watch, and what drove these mags to the brink of extinction (besides the obvious lack of tasty ad dollars):

CONTINUED »

Last week was, as always, another dizzying frenzy of gossip and media-related news. We gave you our up-to-the-minute take, but we're far more interested in your reactions. Please continue to send us your comments, and every Monday we'll recap the burning issues and a sampling of your "colorful" responses in "Hot Topics."

Issue: The unbiased Christian Science Monitor taught us that 9/11 is to blame for our obsession with celebrity culture.
You said: "Here I was, just thinking my obsession with celebs/reality tv was due to horrible taste when, in fact, it was really the all the terrorists' fault. I feel so validated!"

Issue: U.S. Fashion Designers outlined their argument in favor of malnourished human clothes-hangers and their prominent rib-cages.
You said: "After looking at the fat cows that pass for American women these days, these normal-sized models are a breath of freash air!"

Issue: There are plenty of reasons to hate Condoleezza Rice besides the fact that she has yet to squeeze a baby out of her uterus.
You said: "I, personally, would much rather hate on Condi for the gap in between her two front teeth than for the fact that she has yet to reproduce."

Issue: Lindsay Lohan offered relationship advice to newly single Charlie's Angels Cameron Diaz and Drew Barrymore.
You said: "Not sure a long string of one-night stands really constitutes 'relationship expertise.'"

CONTINUED »

Seems like every time we go to the drugstore these days, we're bombarded with glossy celebrity weeklies shouting unsubstantiated rumors about Hollywood's finest. Seriously, we're not there to check out pics of Britney's vagina or Nicole's DUI, we're just trying to fill our prescription and get something to finally relieve that awful itching, burning—well, you get the point.

What we're trying to say is, when exactly did all of this obsession with celebrity culture really begin? Well, we've been racking our brains (and brushing up on the latest issue of the Christian Science Monitor) and voila! We've finally figured it out.

People aren't reading about Paris Hilton's venereal diseases or the Justin/Cameron breakup because they're interested. It's just their crazy way of coping from all the residual post-traumatic stress left over from 9/11! As the CSM reports:

Focusing on all things celebrity is also a form of release for many people. Ken Baker, West Coast executive editor for "US Weekly" magazine, looks back to Sept. 11 as a pivotal point, the dawn of a supposed new age of sincerity.

"[Readers] didn't go away from escaping. They embraced escaping," says Mr. Baker. "I'm not a sociologist, I'm a celebrity journalist. I don't know its cause and effect. I don't know if you can tie it to 9/11, but that's when our business took off."

And, besides the self-confessed 'un-expert,' CSM offers us even more evidence of this iron-clad cause-and-effect theory: celebrity journalism is "one of the few sectors not being hammered by the Internet."

Ahh, we knew there was a reason that exploitive celebrity crap was so damn successful! Because really, as a society, we're not actually so stupid as to think American Idol actually passes for decent entertainment. We're just trying to escape from our preemptive fears about the next wave of terrorist attacks. And so, to recap, we've broken down a quick list to remind you exactly who (or what) is really behind some of your favorite celebrity mags/shows:

Us Weekly: The terrorists.
Dirt: Axis of Evil.
Star Magazine: Al-Qaeda
In Touch: 9/11.
PerezHilton: Osama bin Laden.

And there you have it.

After 82 days in captivity, American journalist Jill Carroll, was released by her abductor and dropped off at Sunni Arab political offices this morning. Her friends at the Washington Post were the first reporters to be contacted. (Soak it up folks — after today we will all forget about her survival and start fighting over who gets the first interview.)

"I was never hurt, ever hit," she told a Washington Post reporter. "I was kept in a safe place and treated very well." Carroll, 28, a freelance reporter working for the Christian Science Monitor, arrived safely at the party headquarters just after 1 p.m.

So far we know that she has spoken with her father and is being taken care of by Islamic political leaders. After her kidnapping in western Baghdad on January 7, members of her family along with the journalism community lobbied diligently for her release. Videos released from Iraq on January 17 and February 9, in which Carroll asked her supporters to do whatever was necessary to gain her release.

The story aired on Good Morning America this morning, where Charlie Gibson pointed out that this was a release, not a rescue, but as far as we know, none of her captors' demands for money or the release of female Iraqis were met.

Carroll knew little about who was holding her captive, but said she was allowed to watch TV once and was taken for a shower. No TV for 82 days? Torturous.

Journalist Jill Carroll Released in Iraq [Jonathan Finer and Ellen Knickmeyer, Washington Post]