Among the five questions asked by World's Most Respected Media Critic Jon Friedman about NBC's 3,600-hour Olympics coverage bonanza, he does not ask whether 30 Rock execs are worried about what Bob Costas looks like in HD.
It "blows" Jon Friedman's mind that The Nation, "one of America's most asexual magazines," launched a sex column. And circulated a press release about it. [Marketwatch]
Jon Friedman highlights some of ESPN's biggest recent faux pas, which include the website headline "Rooting for the Celtics is like saying Hitler was a victim" and reporter Bonnie Bernstein talking about Palestine's suicide bombers on a morning sports radio show. Friedman blames the missteps on the network trying to be too controversial. Indeed. That current ESPN The Magazine story on the last days of Yankees Stadium. Tres risqué!
But when it comes to sports media controversy, isn't the Golf Channel the one that's really got the crossing-the-line problem? Huh. Where was Friedman on that?
"I don't really care what [name] said or what he intended. What I find interesting is that not many people seem to get excited about [name] anymore. Talk about a fall from grace. [name]'s tumble from his pedestal underscores, among other factors, the tremendous speed with which the media move and how quickly a star's luster can dim. When one celebrity slips, someone else will be standing by to grab the spotlight." [Marketwatch]
Nonsensical media "critic" Jon Friedman weighs in with his latest bit of not-though-out piece of advice, this time for NBC News: Do not hire Tom Brokaw to fill in for Tim Russert. Doing so would signal a vote of "no-confidence" in Meet The Press and his future, goes Friedman's flawed thinking. "As terrible as [Russert's] passing is, it affords NBC the chance to put a new stamp on Meet the Press, the most popular of the many Sunday-morning news shows examining politics, and the opportunity to showcase one of its stars. [...] There will no doubt be a clamor for NBC to bring Brokaw out of retirement. His presence can comfort viewers in mourning and provide continuity during a difficult period. That's one way of looking at the decision. But these factors are outweighed by the need to blaze a dynamic, post-Russert path."
Then there's one other way of looking at the decision: CONTINUED »
Better than Jon Friedman's (recycled) argument that Bob Scheiffer should replace Katie Couric, who herself replaced Bob Sheiffer? Watching Friedman deliver the argument in this "Media Web Minute." [Marketwatch]
Are Americans dumber than Britons? Probably! Or, at least according to Jon Friedman's "Are You Smart Enough to Enjoy the Economist?" column today, it's true.
Jon says "the Economist's content may be too meaty for a country that once celebrated a show called Beavis and Butthead." Always edgy, that Friedman. Maybe next he'll tell us about that newfangled Jackass.
But he may have a point – *shudder* – when he says an American population accustomed to reading Time magazine might find The Economist more challenging: "Time's recent cover featuring actor George Clooney, titled 'The Last Movie Star,' probably suits the U.S. palate better than much of the Economist's standard fare."
Time just can't compete with The Economist's political coverage, even when it comes to American politics, which, and we're just riffing here, a British rag might face a steeper hill covering.
Take the Feb. 26th Democratic debate. The Economist has a fairly thorough, well-thought out piece that mentions the candidates' specific positions on Iraq, NAFTA, and health care, and discusses how many delegates each needs to win. And that's a web-only piece! Time had, well, this front-of-the-book report card blurb.
We're not letting Friedman totally off the hook, though. Comparing The Economist to Time is akin to comparing The Guardian to the New York Post. A fairer comparison would have been between The Economist and Harper's, which has found an American audience even in our our charticle-addicted, Clooney-loving nation.
Some people lob softball questions. Jon Friedman lobs softball arguments. Like this one, where he claims the British press' blackout of all "Prince Harry is in Afghanistan" news damaged the public's eroding trust of media.
The argument goes that it was in Britain's national interest to keep Prince Harry's whereabouts hidden. What bollocks! Sorry, but this doesn't seem like a case of national security. I don't believe the enemy would have tried harder to kill Harry and the soldiers near him if they knew where he was positioned.
And, in a twist of logic straight out of "Catch-22," are they tacitly saying that Harry's life is more important than that of any other courageous soldier in combat around the world?
Wrong. And yes. (Does Friedman not realize the much more severe the political impact – and potential rallying point of insurgents – a royal's death would have?)
Had the situation been an American one – if Jenna Bush were fighting overseas, for example – Friedman wonders how domestic media would've handled things.
I wonder how the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, CNN, and MSNBC would have handled this kind of challenge.
True, the American media have been known to protect the privacy of famous offspring, too. Amy Carter, Chelsea Clinton, and the Bush twins were largely kept out of the media because they rarely did anything newsworthy.
Well, ABC has a history of ignoring press embargoes, like it did by reporting the results of a cancer study a day before it was requested; CBS has a history of condemning ABC for doing so ("completely inappropriate" a CBS spokesperson said at the time). And, at least when it comes to trivial matters like book publishing embargoes, the New York Times could give a crap. (For what it's worth, Matt Drudge, who is falsely credited with breaking the Prince Harry news, ridicules embargoes.)
But of matters of import? As the Times itself reports, when President Bush visited Iraq on Thanksgiving Day in 2003, reporters were asked not to publish reports until after he returned to the U.S. The NYT, and nearly all media outlets we could find, went along with it.
So that about answers your question, Friedman.
THANKS FOR THE GO A-HEAD Hey, journalists. If you didn't vote yesterday because you felt it breached some ethical code, you're a fool. Because a day after the advice would have been useful, Jon Friedman says voting is allowed. "Of course, you should feel free to vote. You're American citizens (I presume) and this is one of our rights." We voted yesterday, and after reading Jon Friedman's column, we've never felt more validated. [MarketWatch]
• There's a video going around that's completely gross, totally NSFW and offensive to animal rights activists. One aficionado called it "the most horrible thing I've ever seen." That said, it has the potential to be the next 2 Girls 1 Cup, so here it is.
• Eddie Murphy had a lot more faith in the power of love as Prince Akheem than he does in real life.
• Jessica Alba cares for the environment, but that doesn't mean we have to care for her. CONTINUED »
• If you see more pantless people on the subway than usual on Sunday, the joke is on you. Improv Everywhere takes over public transit this weekend.
• Justice by example: Marion Jones was given a six-month sentence for using steroids. Your parents weren't kidding when they said life isn't fair. CONTINUED »
Although we can’t always shake the nasty habit of writing in the royal we, occasionally one of our editors decides to shake off the cloak of anonymity to write a short, pithy statement long, rambling diatribe about a topic of their choice. Today, Debbie Newman is that editor.
This just in: The Yankees' adulterous third baseman (and this year's league MVP) Alex Rodriguez is arrogant, greedy and not particularly well liked by the New York fans or working media.
Worse still, he recently opted out of his contract with the Yanks AND disingenuously said things like "I love New York" while simultaneously fielding offers from all over the country. Plus, this one time? Prior to joining the Yanks? He said something way harsh about Derek Jeter "never [having] had to lead" before. Which, according to columnist-turned-baseball aficionado Jon Friedman, just may have helped spur on their rivalry.
CONTINUED »
In today's Marketwatch, our favorite slow-to-catch-on media columnist Jon Friedman puts his (cough) credibility on the line to vouch for Howard Kurtz, who's taken a beating in the press (and on unimportant media blogs) over that plagiarism kerfuffle and subsequent cover-up attempt. To prove his point—by making a flimsy unrelated one—Friedman commends Gawker's recent addition Maggie Shnayerson on her top notch, behind-the-scenes reporting.
Writes Friedman:
The biggest flap occurred when Gawker's Maggie Shnayerson did some terrific fact-checking and revealed that Kurtz's work contained a passage that had originally appeared in David Blum's 2004 book on "60 Minutes."
We're sure the fact that the enterprising Maggie used to WORK FOR BLUM at The Village Voice (a possibly-related factoid she readily discloses in her coup!) had absolutely nothing to do w/ that "terrific fact-checking."*
According to Jon Friedman, TimesSelect wasn't nearly as huge of a money hemorraging disaster as everyone seems to think it was!
[A]fter news of its demise made the rounds, bloggers proclaimed that TimesSelect had bombed and that the mighty Times miscalculated from the start, ultimately swallowing its pride by putting TimesSelect out of its misery. To be fair, I suspect that a lot of them have simply always hated the Times and were trying to make the paper look bad.
Another theory: A lot of them always really liked the Times but, having ample experience in the field of online advertising, immediately understood that the meager profits they were earning from TimesSelect memberships would have been exponentially offset by the money they could have brought in online advertising by boosting their page-views and overall web readership.
Another theory: A lot of them have simply always hated Jon Friedman.
Editorial Director
